OT: Election Day Poll
Basketball is a great sport, it's true, but my favorite sport of all is politics. And tomorrow is the once-every-four-years, Olympic Gold Medal game.
Unlike other sports where people might be playing for a trophy or some rings, in this case the winning team gets to run the country and literally dominate the world. For several years. Big stakes make for big excitement. Sure, there's a lot of boring speeches and annoying advertisements, but that stuff's over now, and we can just watch the final contest and see who wins and by how many points.
And just in case you think this has no connection to baskeball, consider these choice nuggets:
- Sarah Palin and Barack Obama both played on their high school baskeball teams. It's been reported that Obama plays some hoops every time he has a major debate or election day, to calm his nerves and bring good luck. He could be dunking on someone's head as you read this.
- This is a great basketball blog, and there are a lot of great political blogs. The premier polling analyst got started crunching stats for baseball. And the godfather of liberal political blogs is also one of the founders of SB Nation, host of BlazersEdge.
- Obama's brother-in-law is the new basketball coach of our very own Oregon State Beavers (boo, go Ducks).
I'm sure there are lots of other interesting connections, but there's a few.
Anyway, the point of this post is that I thought it would be fun to see how the opinions of BEdgers compare to those of the general population, so take the poll. I'm pretty sure I have enough options to cover everybody.
Please keep any discussion civil and positive, unless it is directed toward me.
UPDATE: Poll Analysis
Wow, looks like Blazer fans love them some Obama. He's currently ahead 64-17. If you throw out the other choices, Obama is up 79-21. That compares to the national vote which will probably be something like 53-45, with 2% to third parties. I'll take a stab at some reasons why Obama would outperform here.
- Oregon, and especially Portland, trends liberal. Oregon will probably vote something like 57-41 Obama. But that's nothing like the 79% from BlazersEdge.
- Basketball fans are more likely to be black. I have no idea if that's true, but it's a thought. African Americans are voting Obama at something like 95%.
- Blog readers tend to be young. I don't know the demographics here, but I would guess they trend younger than the general population by a bit. Young people support Obama by a wide margin.
- "Get this politics junk out of my basketball site" voters trend Republican. Just a guess, but it makes sense. Since the people on this site trend liberal, the conservatives may be more hostile to political discussion here.
- Enthusiasm gap. McCain supporters are feeling demoralized right now, and thus are less likely to click on this FanPost or vote in the poll. Obama voters are excited, and want to vote everywhere they can.
8 recs |
363 comments
Comments
If Obama loses...
… I’m moving to Canada.
Not really. I will be very upset and disappointed though.
fivethirtyeight.com rocks my world- I’ve been on that website countless times the last month.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 3, 2008 6:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Same here thank god he won. Now we are America again.
by BRoyInThe4th on Nov 4, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
mexico's canada
I come here to meet chicks...
by BlazermaniacAndy on Nov 5, 2008 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This probably won't end well
but it will be more civilized than debates elsewhere.
How prone to voting fraud and miscounts are these SBN polls anyway?
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 3, 2008 6:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
well to vote again all you have to do is clear your cookies, so.... about as reliable as florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004
remember, remember the fifth of November
by Zaron5551 on Nov 3, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you tricky devil
what polls have you distorted with this unholy knowledge?
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 3, 2008 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
none, i'm way to lazy
remember, remember the fifth of November
by Zaron5551 on Nov 3, 2008 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does it really work? Will it show up twice on your profile page?
Maybe it just looks like it works.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's rigged.
The last option is guaranteed to win.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont trust republicans.
They will pull dirty tricks till the end. 2000 they did it to their own John mccain, 2004 john kerry got smeared so bad he couldnt even open his mouth for days and now waiting for some other drama.
"All our holes," says shooting guard Brandon Roy, a surprise All-Star last year in his second season, "are holes that Greg is going to plug."
by bowdown on Nov 3, 2008 6:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
yeah, its only the Republicans
as opposed to those bastions of honesty and clean play, the Dems.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my sarcasm detector exploded
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 3, 2008 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I reject the equivalence
There is overwhelming evidence that the 2000 election was stolen from Gore in Florida by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris.
The outrage about ACORN’s fraudulent voter registration fraud (very different from voter fraud) is NOTHING compared to the systemic efforts to suppress the minority vote that the GOP has engaged in for years.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 3, 2008 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I wasn't talking about ACORN
certainly not just about them.
Let’s be real here. BOTH parties, at the grassroots level, engage, and have LONG engaged in all kinds of dirty tricks, voter suppresssion, voter fraud, etc, etc, etc. Neither side has any moral high ground on this issue.
One can find “overwhelming evidence” to support all kinds of election shenanigans — on both sides — where one to want to dig deep enough and look at the issue with as little bias as possible.
The problem is the system. With NO safeguards in place to ensure any kind of systemic security, we are left with the sham of a system that we have, which is shamelessly simple to manipulate and exploit. it’s no wonder that all sides do it.
When a person can walk into a polling place on voting day, no ID or proof of citizenship or residency in hand at all, and register and cast a ballot, the system is just plain borked.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 8:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree our system is a joke
I still reject the equivalence. There is no democratic equivalent of Karl Rove.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 3, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
jksnake - how old are you? (If I may ask.)
The reason I ask is it sounds as if you could use a little perspective.
For example – election fraud is as old as elections and the US is steeped in election fraud history. What may or may not have happened in Florida barely rises to the level of fraud when viewed from a historical perspective.
Election fraud is certainly not restricted to one party. Fraud in southern elections was endemic for nearly a century. Except for a short period during Reconstruction, it was the Democratic Party that dominated southern politics. It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were preventing minorities from exercising their right to vote.
As for our system being a joke – as compared to what? Who has a better system? This is a day you should thank God or your lucky star that you live in this country, for nowhere else will you find both the freedom to express yourself as you like and the opportunity to improve your condition. Just because the system has warts and smelly parts doesn’t mean it’s a joke.
Sorry if it sounds like lecturing, but having friends and family members who are quite literally fighting as we speak, I couldn’t let the joke comment pass without speaking my own mind.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 7:19 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think his "this system is a joke"
comment was in reflection to how easy it is to tamper with. That is the major problem with democracy as there is not really any way to secure the polls 100. However there are many things we could do better than we currently do, mail in ballots can easily be “lost” without anyone really knowing, and polling stations can register and vote for the dead. Just 2 examples of voter registration fraud that can easy happen, and do happen at almost every election. The only way to get rid of 99 of these issues is to take out the human element in the counting of ballots. However by moving to a computer based, (online voting?) election system it opens up other ways to “rig” the vote.
I agree with Timg that even though it has flaws, it is still the best system anyone has thought of yet, and I am glad to be living in this country because of it.
by usmcr3049 on Nov 4, 2008 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant our voting system is a joke- not our political system
The UN would never certify our elections. In the wealthiest nation on earth, having elections affected by malfunctioning voting machines, 8 hour lines in battleground states, “hanging chads,” etc. is inexcusable. In Canada, they know who the result of their election within about an hour of poll closing.
I do thank god I live in the United States and have no plans to leave any time soon. I would just like to see our elections improved.
You are absolutely correct that the Democratic Party has an embarrassing history of election fraud in the South. However, in my previous post I was not talking about the Jim Crow era. I’m talking about now.
The GOP benefits when voter turnout is low. As a result, voter suppression in urban and minority areas is something that party engages in every election season. See Magnum’s link below for just one example.
There is no maybe about what happened in Florida in 2000. None. Show me any comparable example of the Democratic Party stealing an election in the last 20 years and I will back off my claims. Until then, I stand by my claim that the GOP currently engages in far dirtier politics than the Democratic Party.
Finally, Timg- I’m 24 years old.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
stealing?
can you substantiate that? Every reasoned recount of the actual ballots after the fact using a variety of methodologies all still led to a Bush win in Florida.
It was Gore who tried to steal it by singling out specific counties for targeted hand recounts.
Just like the GOP operatives on the ground attempt to suppress the vote every election, Dem operatives on the ground attempt to engage in voting multiple times, voter fraud, buying votes (see Cigarettes for votes), handing out cheat sheets IN the polling place, kicking observers ot of places they control, etc, etc. It’s naive to think this kind of stuff is so one-sided.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
58000 voters were purged
by Katherine Harris, the vast majority of which were eligible voters who just happened to be minorities. Bush won by 537 votes in Florida.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040517/palast
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
unbiased source please
I’m not going to use biased sources to backup any of my claims, nor am I going to attempt to refute claims made using biased sources.
Even if you accept the conclusions laid out in the opion piece you cite, we don’t know:
A) how many of these people truly were ineligible
B) how many of them voted anyway, due to newere registrations elsewhere
C) how they may have actually voted anyway.
It’s a great story to whip up the troops, but in the end it’s all conjecture.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Douglast
Are you Rush Limbaugh?
Just asking.
We cannot put up with this flagrant lack of accountability anymore.
by MT Suit on Nov 4, 2008 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh, and to answer your challenge
Washington Governor’s race in 2004. That was outright theft, pure and simple. See the King County ballot snafu where something like 1000 ballots that were supposed to be provisional (and later proven to be ineligible) were mixed into the general ballot pool on election day and could never be removed later. That was more than enough to tilit the election.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know much about this election- perhaps it was stolen
but Wiki presents a much more complex picture as to whether the votes with signature problems (doesn’t say anything about provisional) should have been counted or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
going from memory
so I was trying to avoid being too specific.
Still, the point is that the case that the WA Governor election was stolen is just as strong, if not stronger, than the case that Florida 2000 was stolen.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
Here’s the US Commission on Civil Rights report on Florida 2000
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm
I also linked to their conclusions chapter
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm
I’d be interested in seeing an unbiased source from you regarding Washington 2000— again, I know very little about that election.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some excerpts:
Estimates indicate that approximately 14.4 percent of Florida’s black voters cast ballots that were rejected. This compares with approximately 1.6 percent of nonblack Florida voters who did not have their presidential votes counted.
Approximately 11 percent of Florida voters were African American; however, African Americans cast about 54 percent of the 180,000 spoiled ballots in Florida during the November 2000 election based on estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual precinct data.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a spoiled ballot is a spoiled ballot
There could be all kinds of reasons that minorities tended to have more spoiled ballots. If there is any proof of people actually purposely spoiling or excluding those ballots, I’m all ears. Short of that, if the ballot isn’t filled out properly, that’s the fault of the voter, not the vote counters. It isn’t indicative of any attempt at theft.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
more
Findings
*
During Florida’s 2000 presidential election, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors, and inadequate resources in the Florida election process denied countless Floridians of their right to vote.
*
This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election.5
*
Poorer counties, particularly those with large minority populations, were more likely to use voting systems with higher spoilage rates than more affluent counties with significant white populations. For example, in Gadsden County, the only county in the state with an African American majority, approximately one in eight voters was disenfranchised. In Leon County, on the other hand, which is home to the prosperous state capital and two state universities, fewer than two votes in 1,000 were not counted. In Florida, of the 100 precincts with the highest numbers of disqualified ballots, 83 of them are majority-black precincts.
*
Even in counties where the same voting technology was used, blacks were far more likely to have their votes rejected than whites.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
see above
same response.
It is disgusting that spoiled ballots occur more in one demographic than others, but there are a variety of reasons for that, which we should strive to fix.
But at the end of the day, there wasn’t an intentioned action or set of actions to “throw out” these ballots. Machines are not biased, they count the valid ones and reject the invalid ones.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's just the "spoiled votes"
The Impact of the Purge List on Persons of Color
Findings
*
The state of Florida’s statutorily mandated purge list, compiled by a private firm, was provided to county supervisors of elections with names that were inexact matches. The data provided demonstrated that this list had at least a 14.1 percent error rate.
*
African Americans had a significantly greater chance of being listed on Florida’s mandated purge list. The probability of names of African Americans appearing on the list in error was significantly greater than the likelihood of the names of whites being erroneously included on the purge list.
*
The state of Florida’s use of this purge list, combined with the state law that places the burden on voters to remove themselves from the list, resulted in denying countless African Americans the right to vote.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is an inditement of the system...
… not of a particular party.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's an "inditement" of the GOP controlled elections in Florida
You are being willfully ignorant here, Timg.
by BlazerD on Nov 4, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Willfully ignorant...
… is not something I do.
There are more than enough things out there I am ignorant of for me to have to be willfully so on things I do know about.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
the system the way it’s constructed is EXTREMELY open to manipulation, fraud, intimidation, suppression, over-voting, and whatever other shenanigans people want to poll. BOTH parties do it in droves.
Trying to claim that one major party is any more guily of electioneering than the other is laughable and shows a “willful ignorance” of ALL the evidence, both anecdotal and factual, as well as a blind bias towards the party you particularly favor.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I lived in Florida
There is CLEAR discrimination between the haves and have nots there.
example: The electrical grid is set-up so that those who “have” have power faster than those who don’t. I never lost power for more than 30 minutes during the huricans. People 5 blocks away (ghetto is rather mixed there) and in other “ghetto” areas didn’t have power for days. I was there for four or five hurricanes, it wasn’t a coincidence and it was common knowledge with lifetime residents of the area.
Poling booths in those “ghetto” areas had 4 hour waits in lines. Other areas didn’t.
Information on the state was to sign up for services (DMV for example) are all online. if you don’t have access or don’t KNOW (see stupid out of towner) this, then you’re forced to wait in 5-8 hour lines.
Whether it’s racism or not, there’s definite classicism in Florida. It’s an interesting mix of EXTREME white trash/red neck/hillbilly (a person I worked with actually cooked road kill and didn’t get the jokes), and a large black/immigration community.
The facts of the election have already been posted. I can only add my own personal experience and observation as well as others I associated with while living in Florida.
We haven't done anything yet... but don't blink.
by ratbastird on Nov 5, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
we can do this all day
Perhaps we can agree on this:
The voting systems currently in place are ill-equipped to handle very close elections. Due to a variety of factors, our system just is not setup to ensure only elibilible voters vote (and only once), and to ensure that votes are counted accurately. This is generally not a problem, but in the case of Florida 2000 and Washington 2004, it clearly was. And it will be again in any very close race.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reading through the Executive Summary...
… I don’t see any mention of fraud or illegal activity.
What the report said is that they believe that there were several incidents or examples where Florida was in violation of the VRA. If you read the report, they had had problems with their system, the local officials often didn’t do a good job of dealing with them and tneither did top level officials, basically failing in their responsibilities. Government officials doing a poor job is a long way from fraud and illegal activity.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but this is florida
Ever work with someone who willfully doesn’t do their job, but does it in such a way that you can’t prove that they’re doing it with intent and not just sucking? Florida government is very much like that in areas.
We haven't done anything yet... but don't blink.
by ratbastird on Nov 5, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You won't be able to express . . .
your thoughts for much longer. Haven’t you
heard of the “Fairness Doctrine”. BO & Pelosi
have already said they will push for passage.
Free Speech will soon be under attack.
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 5, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've read about suppression of minority voting
the latest article I’ve seen is this one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 3, 2008 9:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I realize you noted Off Topic, but I've gotta go with Nike and say
More Basketball Less Politics
by tweener on Nov 3, 2008 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
is it wrong to vote for a guy because his brother in law gave us an interview :)
honor terry porter
by Ben. on Nov 3, 2008 6:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
not if you're a weak-on-defense-classic-spend-and-tax blogger...
jk, I voted for him too despite my hatred for the Beavs.
by Bust a Bucket on Nov 3, 2008 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McCain currently tied with "Junk" at 14% each
Hmmm……
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 8:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Politicians
You all have to understand, McCain and Obama are both politicians. Whoever is elected is likely to disappoint you in some way, as both are tied to special interests. Every President elected has broken promises, it’s part of their job apparently. I’m Independent, and generally distrust politicians..because in today’s world, it’s less about what’s best for the people..and more about pork barrel politics and special interests. It’s more about gaining and holding power.
It’s always a tough decision for me during the presidential election, because after researching each candidate, I’m reminded that it is more a choice of the lessor of two evils. I don’t buy hype, be it marketing hype for a product or ‘marketing’ hype for a candidate. I’m into facts, not feelings when it comes to politicians.
If you’re interested, check out opensecrets.org for info on where each candidate funding and support, and factcheck.org to sort the fact from fiction with each candidate.
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
-- Unknown
by SloppyJoe on Nov 3, 2008 8:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I definetely agree with this
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 3, 2008 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Broken promises
A lot of presidents run with integrity and good intentions, but quickly find the reality of the office (the whims of congress, cabinet members, the whole political game itself) precludes those intentions. Rather than voting on a platform of promises, I usually vote based on the candidates history of integrity combined with their intentions, and my own perceptions of those intentions (for example if someone goes all out in support of something like video game censorship, I find that disingenuous, or indicative of a candidate out of touch with the fact that adults of all stripe play video games just like adults go to movies).
by zaruga on Nov 3, 2008 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Obama in a landslide
For those of us on the west coast, an Obama victory in Virginia prefigures an Obama victory nationwide. An Obama victory in Virginia + an Obama victory in North Carolina prefigures an Obama landslide nationwide.
At around 5:00 pm PST, I will check the results from Virginia and North Carolina. I fully expect to see Virginia and North Carolina in the victory column for Obama. At that point I will celebrate because Obama will be winning in a landslide.
Our country is so much better than the last 8 years would suggest. Bu$h and the radical Republicans have nearly destroyed our country. NEARLY, but not quite. An Obama landslide is the beginning of the return to greatness of our beautiful country.
For those of you who voted or will vote for McSame-Failin’, I feel sorry for you. I really do. You are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 3, 2008 8:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I have a lot of very wealthy friends
…that are religiously pro-McCain. At least I can understand why someone in the upper-class would have interests there.
by zaruga on Nov 3, 2008 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually,
if you pay attention to the polls the wealthy are voting for Obama. Also he (Obama) has received more money from big business for his campaign then any candidate in history. I wonder why that is? Hope and Change huh, pass the Kool Aid please!
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Demonstrably false
Income Obama McCain 75k+ 48 46 50-75 50 43 30-45 55 36 30k- 64 26
The lower the income level, the better Obama does. I’d like to see numbers for even higher income levels, so if know where to find those, let me know.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh? Demonstrably false?
You just proved what I said, even with your skewed poll, the wealthy are voting for Obama. and to prove it further, check out the IBD poll, not hard to find just google IBD, the only one that had it right on in 04’ and you’ll see that just like your poll but even more pronounced the wealthy are voting for Obama, and the 50-75 income group is actually the only group voting for McCain, and it’s actually by a large margin 49-40 for McCain. Why is the midlle class voting for McCain if Obama is looking out for the middle class, or is the 30-45 group middle class in your book? Again, if McCain is getting more of the middle class vote, and he is, and Obama is getting more of the wealthy vote, and he is, why are the republicans the party of the rich? You do realize that 48 is more then 46 right? Don’t get me wrong if I was making less then 45k a year and not paying into the system I might be drawn to the candidate promising me free money, no matter how ridiculas that concept may be, but the question remains, why are the rich voting for Obama? You have a right to your opinion, but don’t try to blow smoke up my a@#.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know politics are touchy
but don’t curse, even masked cursing is not allowed.
by usmcr3049 on Nov 4, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we looking at the same numbers?
The numbers I posted show McCain doing better with “rich” people than with any other group.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
your numbers above show,
Obama getting 48% and McCain getting 46% in the 75k and above group. and my apologies for getting testy. it’s gonna be a rough day for me.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah he's winning among pretty much everyone
And this may be a particularly optimistic poll for him, but you have to compare between the categories, not just look at the absolute numbers. I’d really like to see figures for incomes of 200k+, 1M+, etc. but I guess those would be pretty hard to poll. My guess is that people with incomes over a million would favor McCain about 75-25.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You would think so,
that’s sort of my point. if Obama is going to raise capital gains as he says, then why are the majority of 75k and above voting for Obama? Why is he the guy looking out for the middle class but according to the only poll that was right on last election the middle class is the only level that McCain is winning. Why is he for the little guy but took more from big business then any other candidate in history? These wealthy companies that gave to the Obama campaign didn’t do it because they think he is a swell guy. that’s my point. because that doesn’t sound like hope and change to me, that sounds like saying one thing and doing another. Meanwhile, McCain kept his promise in regards to public financing, unlike Obama, and McCain has never taken an ear mark. That’s sort of weird don’t you think. How is Obama the candidate of hope and change? this is the biggest snow job I have ever witnessed.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
People are not voting on economic issues, just like every election. And Snr. McCain has taken millions upon millions of dollars in earmark funding, just none since he and Feingold reformed earmark-ing.
And its not like ear-marks are inherently a bad thing, they just dictate that the money going to a state has to be spent on a specific project, and the money doesn’t just go to the state’s budget. But now it does just go to the general budget, like the so-called ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska.
And I would prefer that Snr. McCain use money that was given to his campaign like Snr. Obama is, instead of tax payer’s money. Yes, Snr. Obama went back on his promise, but I don’t mind that if it is better for tax-payers. Pres. George Bush (I) did that by going back on his no new taxes promise, and completely saved the Reagan-run economy.
Unless you think that the upper income people, have some secret information that the rest of us don’t have, your point is pretty weak. And they might be voting economically and honestly believe that Snr. Obama will be able to right the economy, and then they will be making more money regardless of a capital gains tax.
And that is kind of horrible that you think that only the high-income voters are knowledgeable, and completely are ignoring the low-income voters. They are also turning out for Snr. Obama at much higher levels than John McCain, why would this be happening unless Snr. Obama was going to do good things for the low-middle class? Neither point makes a whole lot of sense. Both classes believe that Snr. Obama is going to do good things for this country, whether economically, militarily, or socially depends on each person’s schema. These polls don’t tell us why they are voting for someone, just that they are voting for someone.
And the ‘only poll that was right’ claim is one that I don’t think you want to make…
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry that first line should have read
People are not voting solely on economic issues.
And this website has listed a couple of the earmarks that John McCain has sponsored or supported just since 2003: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is going to be a rough day?
Because of the election or something totally unrelated?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bold words for someone claiming to be a small Republican
(dwarf GOPer?)
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heck
Even small traditional Republicans are voting for the Democrat this year.
And I haven’t been small or Republican since my junior year in high school. In 8th grade civics class I gave a dorky speech about how great Reagan and the Republicans were. As I recall the main reason I liked the Republicans is my dad told me we could afford to go to Disneyland every summer because of the Reagan tax cuts. I really liked Disneyland in those days. Anyway, after I gave that dorky speech some of my classmates starting calling me a “dwarf GOP-er.”
I was a really small kid until my sophomore year in high school. I grew about 18 inches in three years, and then in my senior year I got kind of disgusted with all the Republican phoniness. For awhile I became a Marxist and then I slowly evolved into the moderate pragmatist that I am now.
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 3, 2008 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you vote for Obama . . .
you are still a Marxist.
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 4, 2008 2:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ...
is a center-left progressivist, dude.
The actual Marxist-Leninist in the 2008 United States presidential election is Gloria La Riva — who’s an extremist, radical revolutionary — of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
I doubt you knew that, though.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 4:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was being facetious.
At least I hope so.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
sadly, I don't think so
sigh
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 4, 2008 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Could you possibly
change your signature to something basketball-related. I find it quite elitist. This is a basketball blog, you know.
by jamon51 on Nov 4, 2008 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
whoa
I totally agree. Talk about blindly following rhetoric.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 5, 2008 12:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's kind of cool
I like dwarf’s sig line. And you guys are so funny, objecting to a commenter’s sig! Me thinks there are a few folks who need to stop taking themselves so seriously. Perhaps the the content of dwarf’s sig describes you. No?
And BTW, did you know that you can make your own sig and have it automatically added to all your posts?
We cannot put up with this flagrant lack of accountability anymore.
by MT Suit on Nov 5, 2008 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen MT
I too think dwarf’s sig is cool. Nothing wrong with dropping a few thoughtful comments in your sig line. Ther are lots of posters on this site who have non-b’ball related stuff in their sigs.
And let’s not forget most of the people who post here are progressive. Look at the results of the poll above. Troglodytes who can’t handle intelligent discourse are more than welcome here, of course. But don’t expect to be able to dictate the content.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
According to James Kunstler, who writes a well-respected if slightly profane financial blog whose title I cannot repeat here, "The Republicans must be clearly identified as the party that wrecked America... it's hard to imagine the American people giving the clean-up task to the very group that created the mess -- no matter how many cute little faces Sarah Palin can make on TV."
by vavoom on Nov 5, 2008 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think pigeon-holing an entire group of people is cool
and I am quite progressive. Actually, I think that makes me dislike it more. I have a feeling that people other than jamon and myself don’t like it either. It’s not unreasonable for us to ask that he not use something so inflammatory in his signature. I’m sure people will be a lot less sensitive now that the election is over, but that doesn’t mean signatures that blast the opposing side are something people want to see here.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 5, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which "group" exactly does the sig "pigeon-hole"?
Seems to me there are authoritarians in every political camp. There are authoritarian leftists and authoritarian rightists. And probably centrists too. I think the stuff in dwarf’s sig line is more about psychology than politics.
And I agree with MT Suit that Magnum and Jamon are being overly sensitive and overly serious. Time to lighten up a bit. And if you think dwarf’s sig is bad just look at vavoom’s, and maybe mine too. I can’t remember what my sig says but I suspect it might provoke similar calls for censorship.
The idea of supranational legality carries forward some of the best principles of Nuremberg – principles historically devalued by having been subordinated to Western-power interests. Nuremberg, after all, was supposed to be a triumph of higher morality over sheer military force, a great leap forward in the pursuit of global justice. Opening the tribunal, chief prosecutor Robert Jackson (an American) said "the privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated." To this Jackson prophetically added: "And let me make clear that while the law if first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nation, including those which sit here now in judgment."
by bilingual octopus on Nov 5, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mr. Blazers Rule is exactly why we should avoid sigs like that
Please don’t trot out censorship or free speech like this is an oppressive place. All I’m saying is that these quotes or personal phrases have a time and a place for their use. And please, I insist that you express yourself, but we’re trying to have a Blazers Blog. Since this is the election OT post, I’m totally on board with any political opinion of any kind, but when those sigs show up in a different thread, someone could easily hijack the thread if they don’t like the sig.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 5, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
I think you raise a good point. Hijacking is not cool unless we’re talking DB Cooper.
The idea of supranational legality carries forward some of the best principles of Nuremberg – principles historically devalued by having been subordinated to Western-power interests. Nuremberg, after all, was supposed to be a triumph of higher morality over sheer military force, a great leap forward in the pursuit of global justice. Opening the tribunal, chief prosecutor Robert Jackson (an American) said "the privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated." To this Jackson prophetically added: "And let me make clear that while the law if first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nation, including those which sit here now in judgment."
by bilingual octopus on Nov 5, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Marxism is quite different from socialism
which is also different from communism
which is also different from the democratic party
please, let’s keep this discussion as intelligent as possible
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the democratic socialist in this election is ...
Brian Moore of the Socialist Party USA. In Congress, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the only democratic socialist who’s currently elected to a seat in either house.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bernie Sanders is living proof that every time McCain or his cronies call Barry "the most liberal Senator in the US Senate," they are lying...
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Him and
Russ Feingold
Barbara Boxer
Sherrod Brown
Just some of my favorites. I’d rate Obama somewhere around 10th or 12th best.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), as he's a true left-leaning populist.
Brown’s staunch, steadfast stance against free trade agreements pleases me; nonetheless, I’m still very disappointed that in voted favor of the fiscally imprudent, highly unjust Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), however, is much too fiscally liberal in my book; also, her support of legislated gun control means that she’s against “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you do know...
…that the progressive income tax was started by Teddy Roosevelt, right? Ostensibly John McCain’s hero.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you do know....
there’s a difference between a progressive income tax and one that pushes jobs off shore, right.
When Teddy introduced proggressive income tax we were an isolationist nation, today there is very little effort needed to move a business overseas to say Ireland, where you would pay roughly 25% less in business tax then in Obama’s America.
If you don’t think that would happen then you haven’t been paying attention over the last 30 years, it is and has been happening, and will continue to a large degree unless business has an incentive to stay in the US. the misconception from the left is that the right doesn’t want to take care of the less fortunate, that couldn’t be further from the truth. the fact is that the right has done the math. lower business taxes equals greater tax revenue, period. As well as that little 3 letter word, as Biden would say, JOBS!!!
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a difference between
Headquarters being moved to other nations and jobs being outsourced.
You are alluding to the Laffer curve, but unless you can demonstrate what part of the curve we are on, it’s not possible to state that decreasing the tax rate will increase revenues. I’ve even heard from economist friends that we could increase the tax rate and still gain more revenue.
And don’t think that companies are moving overseas just for a lower tax rate. There are all sorts of legal reasons, that have nothing to do with taxes, for companies to move headquarters. And as long as there is cheap labor to be had in countries like India jobs will continue to move overseas. Lower taxes and cheap labor do make prices lower but they are only part of the picture.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Laffer curve...
is outdated, the world is much smaller and you have to take that into consideration. Also we have had 3 different periods of substantial tax rate cuts in the last 100 years in this country, each time, jobs increased and tax revenue increased. On the flip side I can’t find a time when substantial tax increases, especially to business resulted in a stronger economy. I’m trying my best to be open minded so if you can find an example of business tax increases helping the economy I would like to know, seriously.
And I agree, businesses are not moving just because of lower tax rates, but why would we give them more incentive?
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, the Laffer curve is no good
but I never referred to a better economy, just more tax revenues, not that there isn’t a relationship between the government overspending its revenues and economic downturn and vice versa, the government cutting spending (has that ever happened) and an improved economy.
From what I know, tax cuts don’t improve the economy as the definition of economic growth is increased productivity. I think the biggest issue that prevents tax cuts from providing long term economic benefit is that they are never accompanied by cuts in government spending. The government having to borrow to make up the loss in revenue hurts savings and investment which offsets the tax cuts and often overwhelms the effect of the tax cut.
Also, there is something to be said for low interest rates helping drive the economy. Although, considering the mess we’re in now do to predatory lending and over=borrowing we might do well to avoid that until we can regulate it in such a way as to prevent gross abuse.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
agreed completely. the Bush tax cuts were the right start. Unfortunately, instead of following them with spending cuts (or at least holding the line), the Republican congress went on a very Democratic-like spending spree. Which is why, IMHO, they got voted out of power in 2006.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very democratic spending spree?
Reagan and Bush have given America the highest deficits in world history!
Clinton gave America a surplus.
You’re using an archaic model.
by BlazerD on Nov 4, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Republican congress
gave America a surplus, which Clinton signed into law. As I recall, he had designs on spending much of it, but was unable to get it past the GOP congress of the time. the same congress who would abandon it’s core fiscal responsibilty principals just a few short years later.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
SCOREBOARD!!!
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
that’s an interesting point, and something I’m embarrassed to admit I hadn’t considered.
I believe a balance of the two ideals is extremely healthy. whenever we run in one extreme or another it’s NEVER a good thing.
We haven't done anything yet... but don't blink.
by ratbastird on Nov 5, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed on that!
When elected in ’92, Clinton and congress tried to enact some fairly left-extreme things. It got them routed in ’94. Bush and the Republican Congress of the early ’00s up until about 2005 tried to (and did in some cases) enact some fairly right-extreme things. That, combined with the very unpopular war of course, got them trounced in ’06 and ’08.
Obama is now on deck. If he runs with the far-left led congress to enact fairly left-leaning legislation, I think we are in for a lot more of the same old same old partisan polictics. Time will tell if he does that, or if he truly governs as a slightly left of center pragmatist and post-partisan that he claims he wants to be.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 5, 2008 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Economic growth from increased productivity,
is a result of growing business, we don’t grow business with higher taxes. I totally agree on the cuts in government spending, but then the Republicans have tried several times to make a balanced budget law, and were shot down in flames. On the flip side some of the biggest government spenders have been Republicans.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A balanced budget law is one of those things
that sounds good in principle but does more harm than good. The government should restrict spending, but it’s a bad idea to not allow for deficit spending. Deficit spending should be the exception though, not the standard.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
it’d be like telling the voters that they’re not allowed to use a credit card. Credit is healthy if used wisely and painful if abused.
We haven't done anything yet... but don't blink.
by ratbastird on Nov 5, 2008 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And ireland's economy
is going through hell right now. Combined with the fact that they have a small population, almost no natural resources, the fact that it is an island and so shipping costs to Ireland are sky high, they have a huge gov’t deficit compared to their GDP, and the Banks in Ireland are falling like a house of cards, I don’t think we have to worry about Ireland stealing our jobs.
Also, the fact that Obama would be the first president to try and introduce tax credits for job creation specific to this country, providing health insurance to workers, providing more money for education (the base of any economic growth) and putting funding into developing markets (green energy), I think we are going to be alright.
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Irelands economy is failing
because of ours, not because of their tax structure. Ours is failing because of the mortgage crisis – see Barney Frank, and Obama’s financial consultant.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See Phil Gramm
and the restructuring of the financial industry some highlights:
-Allows investors to act as insurers.
-Does not allow insurance credit checks.
Bush: In 2004 lowered the SEC requirements from allowing $1 to insure $30. to $1 to insure $60.
Yes, without this recent US problem, Ireland would continue being the economic powerhouse it has been for the last 400 years… c’mon… be somewhat serious…
Ireland’s economy is failing because it is built in a country that has little, has high shipping costs, and does not tax to a high enough level to avoid large budget deficits. Which has nothing to do with our recent economic troubles.
The reason why they have such low business taxes is because they need them to try and lure any business to Ireland.
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
The hatred and self-righteousness oozing from your post does not serve you well. Essentially calling the roughly half of the country who doesn’t agree with you “idiots” is not very conducive to civil debate or to changing minds. Do not forget, there are very few people that actually get to vote for a presidential candidate who agrees with all, or even most, of their own personal views. For most of us, we are left to weigh the proverbial “lesser of two evils”. I myself am unfortunate enough in that I share some views with both candidates, and even more views with neither of them. Yet choose I must, and often it will come down to weighing which issues I feel are most important to me, or which I feel are likely to even come into play in the administration.
Whether I agree with any of our past and current politician’s policies, I always try to approach my thinking of them on the basic premise of giving them the benefit of the doubt. I may not agree with whatever they are doing at the time, but I try to approach the situation by saying “Are they doing what they believe is the right thing, regardless of whether I agree or not?” Far more often than not, I think you can say they are. In short, I try not to attack their motivations. For the most part, whatever they have done to get to the office of President, once there, the holders of that office have handled major decisions with a serious approach and in the end have acted in what they believe is the best way possible. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any actions by any president on a major issues which were so aggregious that I would ascribe evil or greedy motives to then. Thankfully, up until now, we’ve been fortunate enough to have 43 men in that office who have always tried, above all, to do the right thing. They aren’t alway proven right by history, as none of us are, but their motives have mostly been the right ones.
At the end of the day, that’s about the best we can ask for. I believe that the best way to have honest debate, and promote intelligent rational conversation is to put aside the hatred, and the ascribing of evil or impure motives, and discuss the issues at hand. That’s what I always strive for when I discuss politics both with people with whom I agree, and those I don’t.
Try it some time, you might get a lot further than the aggressive, condescending approach taken above.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Hey!
You can’t vote for “get this politics junk out of my basketball site” and then make multiple comments about politics. It’s just not right.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 10:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hehe
well, I always say “get this political stuff out of here” when people are constantly trying to throw it into fanposts about basketball things. It annoys me to no end, as BE is my last remaining refuge of political-free discussion, so yeah I voted that way.
But this topic was all about this issue, was clearly labeled as such, and was posted on election eve, so I’ll cut some slack this time.
And I can never not respond to something that gets my attention, it’s one of my weaknesses.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And BTW
I didn’t write anything condescending in my initial post. I love America and I am sickened by what the Republicans and their Democrat enablers have done to my beautiful country.
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 4, 2008 1:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And that is?
Seriously, dwarf. Just the fact you can waste the time to post here says that things can’t be that bad.
Exactly what has been done to “your” country?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 7:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Republican Party is the party of big business. Period.
The only thing that the Republican leadership cares about is transfering wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy elite. Everything else is window dressing. Gays guns and God. Window dressing. They couldn’t care less about abortion or gay marriage. But that is the lipstick they put on their pigs to make gullible people vote for them.
Dig just a little bit into any Republican policy initiative — the Iraq debacle, No Child Left Behind, tax policies, the economic bailout for Wall Street, the obscene amount of $$ that is thrown into the Pentagon, etc etc etc — and you will discover little more than a socially and economically disastrous scheme to transfer wealth upward to the Republican donor base. That is what being a Republican has become reduced to: using government to enrich Republican campaign contributors, who then funnel a relatively tiny fraction of their ill-gotten loot back into the campaign coffers of Republican politicians. that was the whole point of the K Street project. That is the whole point of Republican rule.
The entire war/occupation in Iraq and the phony “war on terror” are essentially giant money-laundering schemes — sociopathically brilliant schemes to “legally” rob the public treasure and shovel trillions of $$ into the accounts of military and surveillance contractors.
This is what I meant to say in my earlier post, put another way: Regular people (non-millionaires) who vote for candidates that are consistently and aggressively opposed to the economic interests of regular people are IDIOTS. They are indeed analogous to chickens who vote for Colonel Sanders.
If you think the motives behind the Iraq debacle or the Wall Street bailout were laudable (and yes, I know Obama voted for the bailout), or the motives behind the decision to let New Orleans drown, were virtuous and pure, then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Sorry if I offended you or anyone else. But it’s gotta be said.
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 4, 2008 1:14 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
If you haven't noticed . . .
The Democrats have been in control of
Congress since 2006, and Congress has
a 11 % approval rating. That’s even lower
than President Bush.
Nancy Pelosi stated upon assuming the Speaker
of the House’s position, We have two goals:
1. Get the U.S. out of Iraq.
2. We (the Democrats) have a common sense approach
for keeping gas prices low.
I guess that didn’t work out too well. The next failure, if elected is
BO’s proposed energy plan. Cap & Trade will " make electric prices
skyrocket". That’s quite a plan to add onto our already struggling
economy, all based on psuedo science from Gore & his
academic elitists buddies. Thousands of scientists have stood up
to dispute and refute these GW claims.
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 4, 2008 2:23 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I recommend bookmarking this post
Because walkoff has it exactly right.
If Congress passes Cap & Trade legislation on CO2 emissions, you won’t have a choice about “conserving”. You won’t be able to afford a good deal of what you take for granted now. But you can be assured that your elected officials (and most certainly those paragons of conservation in Hollywood) will not have to do without.
What is truly amazing is that all it takes is some 5th grade math to figure out what’s real and what is so much hot air (no pun intended). Nearly 75% of electrical generation in this country is provided by coal (52) and nuclear (21). Even the most optimistic projections for wind and solar power have them accounting for perhaps 20% of todays load demand. It doesn’t take into account the fact that demand is expected to increase by about 40% in the US over the next 10 – 12 years. So where does that extra energy come from?
And lets not forget transportation. If we are to reduce our “carbon footprint”, switching to alternate fuels / power supplies for our cars is a must. While there are multiple paths to lowering fuel consumption, one of the most likely will be electric and/or plug-in hybrids. Guess what they are going to do to electricity demand?
And let’s not forget, as Oregonians, our part. Another of the practical methods for utilizing new energy sources is increased usage of natural gas. In most of the world it gets burned off as a waste product from oil drilling. The technology exists to capture and transport that “waste product” and use it to produce electricy or even as an alternative fuel for transportation. Of course try proposing to build a LNG facility. Can’t have those in Oregon. No way.
In other words, before talking about alternative or green energy, make sure you understand basic math. Once you’ve done that, we can progress to some science courses, in order that you can talk about global climate change and not sound like an idiot.
walkoff – what do you think the odds are anyone will actually listen to this?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 8:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How many filibusters did the Republicans in the Senate have again? Eighty-something... How many vetoes?
You want to know why Congress is at 11%, it’s because DEMOCRATS are pissed they haven’t knocked heads and pushed through their program despite Republican obfuscation…
We’ll see how things roll starting in January, 57-43 in the Senate and in control of the White House.
THEN 11% would mean something…
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And in response to an earlier post...
BOTH parties are in the pockets of big business. The Republicans brazenly, the majority “centrist” wing of the Democratic Party discretely…
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
no doubt true buddy
That is the Nader argument.
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 4, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's why I never understood the adoration that may folks ...
have for Hillary Clinton and/or the Bill Clinton Administration during the ‘90s, as their brand of third way centrism led by the New Democrats within the Democratic Leadership Council was only a slight, brief shift from Ronald Reagan,George H. W. Bush, and ultimately George W. Bush’s implementation of neoconservatism.
For Clinton’s part, he was his era’s version of the ‘60s paleoliberal wing within the Democratic Party — which included Lyndon Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, et al. — on the other hand, Obama represents the change that George McGovern could’ve brought to America had he defeated Richard Nixon in the ’72 U.S. presidential election.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Clinton was a pro-choice Republican -- no more, no less.
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
W's a neocon ?
Try a “stealth” conservative. He’s definatly a Globalist !
Both are wrong.
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 5, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Filibusters
one more example of what is wrong with our polical system. Why on earth do we have a process for endless delay of voting?
by usmcr3049 on Nov 4, 2008 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good god
get off your high horse. Snobby people on both sides of this discussion are really unappealing.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
This is why political threads are no good. Everyone thinks they know better than everyone else. At least in basketball you can point to an 82 game season and the playoffs for your answer.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, its not the political discussion that I dislike
In fact, I enjoy reading the posts of educated, well-reasoned people who are certainly closer to being experts than I am.
It’s when people take on a condescending, lecturing tone (and this is directed toward both sides, although its less bad when people agree with me, haha) and talk down to readers and to the person on the other side of the argument.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Small groups usually do better on topics like these
The anonymity of the internet is also a big problem. It’s less of an issue here because a great community has developed and we are (usually) very dedicated to keeping the level of conversation very high. But does it seem like new people pop up on topics that get people riled up? Or am I just more likely to notice a new person making a bold statement?
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the fact that projections never take into account future use
ALWAYS drives me nuts.
We haven't done anything yet... but don't blink.
by ratbastird on Nov 5, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Zero !
As a History/Political Science/Education major, I can
tell you that indoctrination has been in place in our
schools for over 30 years. If you want to see where
“education” (re-education) is headed, just google
Bill Ayers – Venezuela. All education is revolution !
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 5, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If all you say is true - then buy stock in those companies
that Republican politicians are funneling the money to.
I’m curious as to how much has actually changed over the past 60 + years. Granted, up until the war in Iraq, defense spending as a percentage of GNP was at historic lows. But I don’t know that I’d call what has happened with regard to spending on Iraq as part of some master plan. Perhaps a master plan gone wrong, but certaintly not some fiendish way to enrich a few. I’m pretty much willing to bet my house that nowhere in the planning for Iraq did they envision spending this amount of money.
Here’s what I love about folks who criticize the administration on Iraq – most of them completely miss the point. Most argue the US has no business being there. That we never should have invaded. The simple fact is one can name several valid reasons for going into Iraq. Where the criticisim (in my opinion) should be directed is towards how poorly thought out and executed the plan was.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
oh
and I’ll agree with you on Iraq. Not sure whether we should have gone or not – valid arguments can be made on both sides. But the planning and handling of things since we went has been disastrous.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your are stating your opinion as if it is fact
Sorry, it’s just opinion. “Regular people” might prefer the (former) Republican tenets of economic self-sufficiency and personal responsibility to the Democratic tenets of wealth redistribution, by whatever name it’s being currently packaged under. That doesn’t mean they are voting against THEIR economic interests, it means they are voting against YOUR preferred economic interests.
Guess what? I got a tax cut in 2001. So did every other person who actually pays taxes. Yes, the ultra-rich got a bigger $ tax cut, but since they already pay the vast vast majority of taxes, it would be hard for them not too. The lower and middles classes got a bigger percentage cut, by the way, but you never hear that part.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
................... and how did those tax cuts affect the national debt?
………………………………………… or the distribution of wealth between rich and poor?
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, as I recall, overall tax receipts went up. The cuts didn’t affect the debt, the wave of spending after that did.
What do I care about distribution of wealth? There is not a finite supply of it. This country provides unlimited opportunity for anyone to improve their own financial standing through hard work, talent, and a bit of luck. It should not be the policy of a government to take from one person and give to another.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
hmmm
bq.If you think the motives behind the Iraq debacle or the Wall Street bailout were laudable (and yes, I know Obama voted for the bailout), or the motives behind the decision to let New Orleans drown, were virtuous and pure, then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
1) Iraq: I never said the motives were laudable. I said they were at least made in good faith, whether you agree with them or not. It was a reasonable decision to come to, given the facts and history. Whether it was ultimately the right decision is for history to decide
2) Bailout: I was as agaisnt this just as much as I was agaisnt big government bailouts for New Orleans and WTC widows. That said, again we are talking about the motives here. I believe that the politicians on both sides who pushed for the bailout bill truly believe it was the right thing to do to help avoid a deepened recession. (other than the pork they threw in of course).
3) “the decision to let New Orleans drown” Can you elaborate please? I am not aware of any such decision made by anyone. This is a gross oversimplification at best, and a downright falsehood at worst. There were all manners of logistical and decision making errors involved in the leadup and aftermath of Katrina, at local (Ray Nagin and the buses come to mind), state (Blanco), and federal (FEMA/Brown) levels. But in no case can I recall anyone “deciding to let New Orleans drown”. It’s not as if Bush had the power of God to part the seas.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't he just ask God to do it?
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just great
The only thing that the Republican leadership cares about is transfering wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy elite. Everything else is window dressing. Gays guns and God. Window dressing. They couldn’t care less about abortion or gay marriage. But that is the lipstick they put on their pigs to make gullible people vote for them.
Dig just a little bit into any Republican policy initiative — the Iraq debacle, No Child Left Behind, tax policies, the economic bailout for Wall Street, the obscene amount of $$ that is thrown into the Pentagon, etc etc etc — and you will discover little more than a socially and economically disastrous scheme to transfer wealth upward to the Republican donor base. That is what being a Republican has become reduced to: using government to enrich Republican campaign contributors, who then funnel a relatively tiny fraction of their ill-gotten loot back into the campaign coffers of Republican politicians. that was the whole point of the K Street project. That is the whole point of Republican rule.
The entire war/occupation in Iraq and the phony "war on terror" are essentially giant money-laundering schemes — sociopathically brilliant schemes to "legally" rob the public treasure and shovel trillions of $$ into the accounts of military and surveillance contractors.
This is what I meant to say in my earlier post, put another way: Regular people (non-millionaires) who vote for candidates that are consistently and aggressively opposed to the economic interests of regular people are IDIOTS. They are indeed analogous to chickens who vote for Colonel Sanders.
If you think the motives behind the Iraq debacle or the Wall Street bailout were laudable (and yes, I know Obama voted for the bailout), or the motives behind the decision to let New Orleans drown, were virtuous and pure, then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Sorry if I offended you or anyone else. But it’s gotta be said.
I blockquoted the entire thing, so people would know to which comment I’m replying.
Obviously, you aren’t sorry if you offended anyone, and it didn’t have to be said.
As a neutral in this battle, I will say again that political hate speech like this is unnecessary. The fact is, well over 40% of your fellow-citizens think that the Republican solution to your country’s problems is a better solution than the Democratic solution. Apparently you think they are all stupid or evil. But those 48% or whatever it is want the same things you want, and just have a difference of opinion as to what is the best way to get it.
It appears to me that the American left are sore losers when they lose and sore winners when they win.
But this kind of political hate speech, and the fact that people actually recommend it, and that a political hate rant like this is actually turned green, makes me question whether I even want to be part of this community. I can get my Blazers news elsewhere, I suppose. If this kind of rubbish keeps appearing on the basketball threads, even after the election, I’m going to be out of here. It’s one thing on a clearly marked OT thread like this, but quite another in the other threads. And it’s inappropriate on this thread or anywhere else, as well.
And spare me the “The right does it, too” comments. I know they do. But they don’t do it on Blazers Edge, they do it on their political blogs and political sites. It’s inappropriate when they do it, too, wherever they do it, but they at least seem to show some sense of propriety as to when and where they do their political hate rants.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.
by jscot on Nov 6, 2008 5:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen.
If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley
by Winchester on Nov 4, 2008 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious....
…. but how has your live been destroyed?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not MY life, dude. The COUNTRY has been run into a ditch.
Our economy has been badly damaged by radical Republican economic policies. Our military has been badly damaged by radical Republican foreign policies. Our standing and reputation has been badly damaged by the Iraq debacle, extraordinary rendition, torture, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and flagrant disregard for international law. Our Constitution has been undermined by executive “signing statements,” utter disregard for the balance of powers between our three branches of govt, illegal surveillance, and the use of taxpayer $$ to fund religious organizations, to name a few.
Their 'thinking' is based not on critical judgment, but on what authority figures have said to them.
Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary "for freedom."
Highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily.
As distasteful as these qualities appear, for authoritarians they can be (secretly or even openly) very attractive.
by dwarfgoper on Nov 4, 2008 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nice opinions
But they are just that. and spouting them out en masse without any substantive backup is not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreeance with you.
in regards to International Law, I give not a hoot about it. I look to the constitution and laws of our government first. If that conflicts with international law, then I go with our stuff every time. Now if you are talking about treaties we entered into legally with the consent of congress and the signature of the President, then I’m with you.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so,
How has our economy been damaged by radical republicans? I thought the mortgage crisis was caused by lax lending policies pushed by the democrats, am I wrong? prior to this we enjoyed 7 of the best economic times this country has ever seen.
Our reputation has been damaged from a war we fought based on information reviewed by both congress and the president in which all agreed on the decision. A war in which we freed millions from a dictator that was systematically killing 10’s of thousands of his own people? Have you forgotten the dancing in the streets when we liberated them?
International law, what country do you live in?
Dissregard to the balance of power, name one example please, and how did this not result in an impeachment?
Tax payer dollars to fund religious organizations? how about tax payer dollars funding left wing political organizations. ACORN.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you really defending the current administration as not being at fault for many of the serious problems we are facing today?
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's asking for some specifics.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if you watch CPAN rather than CNN...
… you might realize that the current administration tried to reign in the entities who were perhaps the biggest enablers of the financial turmoil coming out of bad loans.
If you want to widen the scope, you could point to the Federal Reserve (particularly Greenspan) who championed limited regulation of the securities markets. However Greenspan served through multiple Presidents, both Republican and Democrat. The policies he espoused were supported by members of both parties.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The policies he espoused were supported by members of both parties.
By conservative members of both parties.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, before believing everything you hear...
… it is usually a good reality check to see where you are at. If your life is going pretty good, it’s a good bet that the country is not in anywhere near as bad of shape as some would have you believe.
Skipping the economy, as government policy is one of the least of factors that impact it, the rest of your statements are either exagerations or just plain not true. Our military is not “badly damaged”. On the contrary, we currently have the best contingent of young men and women ever to serve this country, and they are being given equipment and technology that was almost unimaginable even a decade ago. Here is something that is not opinion – by any standard you want to choose, the men and women is the Unitied States military ARE the greatest generation ever. Never before has this nation seen such a high quality of volunteer during a period of war.
The standing and reputation of the US is solid in the places it counts. We are still the place most people (and governments) trust to invest their money. We are still the one nation counted on to lead by the rest of the world when it comes to solving problems. We are still the nation much of the world either wants to immigrate to or emulate. Public opinion polls are not what count. What counts are the actions of other governments and, to an extent, how the voters of many of those governments choose their officials. Try explaining why France, Germany and Italy all elected leaders that were considerably more pro-US than their predecessors.
Flagrant disregard for international law? How so? Disregard of the “balance of powers” – where? Exactly what changes to the Consitution occurred that changed this balance? Illegal Surveillance? Where are the convictions? I have a pretty big Libertarian bent and ended up having many long discussions with my youngest brother, who until recently was the US Attorney for SC. Try sitting down with a lawyer who is actually familiar with the details, rather than listening to talking media heads (who could be lawyers, but are still talking heads – i.e. they get paid to say stuff.) You will find that things were / are not so flagrant as you believe.
Dwarf, you are entitled to your opinions. I only caution that you do some in depth study and analysis of an issue before holding such dire opinions. Things are rarely as bad as you make them out to be. Those who would have you believe they are, most likely have a reason to want you thinking that way.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Wow.
If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley
by Winchester on Nov 4, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad...
if you vote, it shows up in your profile.
I guess if you want everyone to know your big secret, you should vote in this poll.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Nov 3, 2008 8:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's why there's an "it's a secret" option.
See, I cover all my bases. Everyone can vote.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
that’s why i voted, “it’s a secret”
;)
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Nov 3, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
National politicians are all evil.
Voting for president is like being forced to pick between who was worse, Hitler or Stalin? They are all money grubbing whores that only press the issues that their lobbyists who fund their campaign tell them to press. The only difference between republicrats and democrans is the speed at which they fall to their knees when the corporations come knocking. REAL change isn’t going to come to this country until it becomes profitable to do so by big oil, big insurance, big energy, and the pharmaceutical companies. They are who really run things. Money drives everything….that being said I still vote and am excited for this election.
by oden is GOD OF WAR on Nov 3, 2008 9:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Lobbyists
Aren’t you at least a little encouraged by Obama’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric, and his claims of not taking money from them? Now, maybe there’s some loopholes and it’s not 100% true, but at least it’s a good step.
And look at a quote like this
“The reason that we’re not getting things done is not because we don’t have good plans or good policy prescriptions,” Obama said. “The reason is because it’s not our agenda that’s being moved forward in Washington — it’s the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity.”
It might be partially political BS, but it still gives me a little hope.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 9:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nope
It’s just a different set of special interests.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious, which special interests do you think they are?
Maybe they’re all interests I share.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 10:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
its always great when the special interests behind the scenes are working on things that YOU (a generic you, not a pualo you) like and support, but it sucks when the shoes on the other foot, huh?
I hate ‘em all personally. I’m for a minimalist federal government, which is about 80 years passe now, and neither major party will ever support. it’s all about power, and more regulation and more bureauocracy equals more power.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you're part of the small government special interest.
Just kidding; I should leave you alone. I don’t think I agree with your politics too much, but I find you eminently reasonable, which is always nice. I’ll try not to talk to much about my ideas much, so you won’t have to say the opposite about me.
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
funny
other than being for small government, I don’t think ive said much about my politics – so not sure how you know you don’t agree with me. unless you like big, beheamoth, do everything for you big government that is. ;-)
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well that
plus your implication that both parties are equally dirty, plus the idea that bunches of people are voting fraudulently. There’s plenty or dirt to go around, but that doesn’t make close to equal. And I don’t think more than a thousandth of a percent of votes are ever cast illegally, outside a few specific cases in the past. Oh, and I do like big government. See, I know who I disagree with :)
by pualo on Nov 3, 2008 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
here's the problem with illegally-cast votes
we have no way of knowing how often it hapens. anyone can do it, and it’s difficult to catch before/when it happens, and nearly impossible after the fact. We simply don’t know.
Both parties ARE equally dirty. Anyone on either side who doesn’t believe that is drinking the Kool Aid (or seeing only what transgressions they choose to see), in my humble opinion.
I suppose it would surprise you then if I told you I voted for Obama?
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 3, 2008 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No it wouldn't surprise me.
There’s a broad range of people voting for him of course. I hope we both end up being reasonably happy with him.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 12:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BO's lobbyists . . .
Radical Environemntal groups (Earth 1st, Sierra Club, NWF, etc.),
Trial lawyers (BO is a civil rights attorney), Labor & Teachers Unions,
Wall Street Investment firms (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Overseas
interests like Hamas and other Palestinian groups. He’s been endorsed
by the Nation of Islam, the American Communist party and the Presidents of
Iran and Venezuela. What more do you need to know ?
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 4, 2008 2:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear President Bush endorsed McCain
Unless you’re part of the 24% of people who think he’s doing a good job that is certainly not a good thing. Of course Obama has lobbyists, it would be naive to think otherwise. However, you cloud your good counter point by insinuating he’s a communist or supports Iran. Just because they endorsed him, which I wasn’t aware of and would like to see evidence of, doesn’t mean Obama wants their support.
If I formed a group called Crazy Freedom Hating Nutjobs and endorsed McCain, would that mean anything?
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Obama with a "commanding" 15-6 lead in New Hampshire voting
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 12:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
God bless the Portland Trailblazers.
Rip City REVIVAL
by HonestPete on Nov 4, 2008 12:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will rue the day that he selected ...
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin® to be his running mate over Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty®.
Despite being a libertarian socialist in the mold of Noam Chomsky, I can objectively analyze political races from an unbiased standpoint. Pawlenty, unlike Palin, could’ve potentially swung a few Upper Midwest states (i.e., Minnesota, Wisconsin, & Iowa) in McCain’s favor — especially with regards to his progressive stance on renewable energy — however, the old man overplayed his hand in a failed attempt to swing centrist women.
While Palin does well with reactionary ultraconservatives in mossbacked areas of this country, she polls horrendously when it comes to moderates throughout the industrial parts of the Rust Belt, everywhere in Florida sans the panhandle, and in Northern Virginia. All things considered, the selection of Palin was a death sentence to the McCain campaign—and that’s that!
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 4:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Given that one of the biggest concerns the media has been trumping about McCain is his age and ability to live out his term, picking a backwater governor with about the same amount of governing experience as Obama as his running mate was not smart.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 8:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I live in NC and have 3 people tell me
they voted Obama BECAUSE of Palin
by LetsBlaze on Nov 4, 2008 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have some friends that said the same thing.
My favorite teams are the Blazers and any team that is playing the Lakers.
by OCBlazerFan1 on Nov 4, 2008 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder why that is?
Is it because she is a strong woman with Governing experiance? I would love to find out what it is about that woman that would turn anyone off, sure as heck isn’t her looks! But then I’m a backwoods redneck that pays his taxes and believes in God so I’m obviously out of touch.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ummm... Look.
This has got nothing to do with a woman running for president. I don’t think anyone feels in the least bit threatened by her. I don’t think the fact that you are a god-fearing, tax-paying, backwoods republican has anything to do with you being out of touch. But you clearly are if you are trying to say that Palin is only disliked by people because she is a woman, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike her.
If all you see in her is a “strong woman with Governing experience” than I would have to say that you have had a very limited view of her.
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm asking why? Give me the reasons.
I would really like to know your view, I ask this allot of folks that don’t like her and never get an answer. If you have a particular reason or 2 not to like her and what she stands for I would really like to know. considering her competition is apparently Obama, the experiance clearly goes to her.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yay!
Alright:
She is literally less knowledgeable about Foreign Politics then I am. Ex. not knowing the Bush Doctrine, believing that her proximity to a foreign country was basis for having expertise in it…
She has lied several times saying that she didn’t lobby for or accept the money for the ‘bridge to nowhere’. She did not lobby for the money, but she did not return it either.
She is fundamentally against abortion rights.
She is against providing Morning After Pills to rape victims.
In her short time in the governor’s office she has already been convicted of grievous mis-use of political power. (she was not however convicted on any criminal charges)
Her defense of her horrible interviews, and clear lack of knowledge during rudimentary political questioning, as the media doing “gotcha” politics?
Her belief that we can drill our way out of an energy shortage. Her approval of a LNG line through Wildlife refuges in Alaska.
Her belief that somehow tax breaks are somehow socialism, while handing out $3269 to Alaskans, and still requesting more pork-barrel funding per person than any other state.
The fact that she continues to claim that she is a Maverick (with absolutely nothing to back that claim up), which does no justice to McCain who actually did vote independently and for his state’s good until 2000.
I perceive her to be petty, manipulative, and a liar. Which is clearly subjective, but so is my vote. These are the reasons why I think that she shouldn’t be elected. You easily could say that all of these things are things you support, which is fine. But these are the reasons I do not like her.
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks,
I do happen to agree with her on many of your examples.
You may be very knowledgable about foreign policy, so I certainly can’t argue that. I would have no basis. My gut says no but like I said I have no basis.
She didn’t lobby for the bridge to nowhere. good enough.
I am fundamentaly against abortion. I never heard the one about morning after pills, but if I had the power to make that decision for someone else I would probably vote against it also, although it would be the hardest thing I would ever have to do, but I would also put the rapist to death as soon as convicted.
She hasn’t been convicted of anything.
Giving money to those that don’t pay taxes is socialism. tax breaks are when you lower taxes on those that pay into the sytem.
The money handed out to Alaskens is for the oil. your welcome to it if you want to move to Alaska.
She took down the old boys network, Republicans in Alaska, that were lining their pockets and the pockets of big oil. She is a maverick. No one else did it, she did it. that’s a maverick.
thanks for your response and congrats on the election…
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If John McCain wanted to pick a female running mate, then ...
competent options were on the table — such as center-right neoconservative U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) or, perhaps, one of Maine’s two high-profile centrists (i.e., U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) & U.S. Sen Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — however, he foolishly decided to roll the dice with a far-right religious wingnut in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose political career will hopefully be completely destroyed after this election cycle.
Palin, by the way, certainly isn’t the most qualified female politician from Alaska — especially since she’s a faux reformer with little experience who holds culturally illiberal values — for moderate U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is superior to her in every way, shape, and form.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
her religion and the policies that she embraces because of those beliefs
remember, remember the fifth of November
by Zaron5551 on Nov 4, 2008 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's fair,
you get what you vote for.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McCain didn't choose Palin
to swing centrist women.
He chose Palin to motivate the conservative base, because he was losing them, and to try to pick up blue collar workers in Ohio/Pennsylvania who are anti-elitist. By choosing a non-elite, he was making a play for those two key swing states.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.
by jscot on Nov 6, 2008 5:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a play that failed miserably
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 6, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Along with some of his other plays
but really, I don’t think there was anything he could have done. This was Obama’s to lose from day one. And while he made a few blunders along the way, none big enough to really impact the race.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.
by jscot on Nov 6, 2008 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On one final note, Barack Obama will defeat John McCain ...
by an electoral vote of 291 to 247. Y’all can take that to the bank.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 5:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Pretty "conservative" estimate there
Put me down for 378-160.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 8:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing that you've got Barack Obama winning Montana, too, ...
which’d be a decent upset—even though both Ron Paul (CP) and Bob Barr (L) are on the ballot there.
Pragmatically, however, I expect that Barack Obama won’t quite nab Ohio and Florida, while holding onto Pennsylvania and picking up Virginia. After winning Virginia, the Mountain West swing states (i.e., Colorado & Nevada) and New Mexico will fall for Obama.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I'm going for an optimistic estimate
I picked the Blazers to win 53 games, too. If I wanted to be safer, I should probably go for 353 (OH, FL, NC, NV, CO, VA, but not MO, IN, MT, ND, GA).
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my picks:
The worst I can see for Obama is a 273-264 victory (Obama takes the Kerry states + NM, Iowa and CO).
my most likely scenario is Obama 338-McCain 200 (Obama also takes Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada)
The best I can see for Obama is 375-163 (above states plus North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana)
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post, Mr. Snake.
I don’t think Barry runs FL, VA, OH, NV — he’ll take the last-mentioned and will squeak out one of the other 3. No way he loses NM, IA, CO.
PA will also be close, mind you.
Close final tally, in other words.
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I didn't expect a landslide victory.
I certainly won’t complain about it, though.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
trade pryzbilla
dude is voting for McClain. C’Mon Joel!!
just joking.
by 50backflips on Nov 4, 2008 6:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Spencer Hawes does
And I remember an discussion on Golden State of Mind, when in a thread about potentially trading for Stephon Marbury someone said “that’s like voting for McCain”, followed by over 300 angry back and forth comments.
by Norsktroll on Nov 4, 2008 7:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Obama was an Arab in an e-mail from my sister
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 7:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You must have the same type of sister
that my co-worker has. Marianne is always talking about the stuff her sister sends her (except she’s apparently on the opposite end of the spectrum from your sister).
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 8:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I believe all my e-mails
My sister is a redneck conservative.
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not voting?
Who are the 10 people (so far) who did not vote for anyone?!? You better be too young or foreign.
by clonigro on Nov 4, 2008 9:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't vote
Voting is for people who think their vote matters.
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks to Great Americans,
like JM, you have that right. God Bless America!
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 9:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Updated
Added some poll analysis to the fanpost, to explain Obama’s big lead here.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
your predictions are too high
No way Obama wins the national vote by 8 points. I think it will be closer to 51-47.
Obama will win Oregon handily, but not by 16 points. It will be more like 55-45 I think.
Over the last 3-4 elections cycles, polling organizations and especially exit polling have pretty consistently over-estimated the democratic vote. there has been a number of studies analyzing why this is the case, but it appears to be true. It should be even worse this year, given that Obama supporters are very enthusiastic and want to tell everyone about it, while many McCain voters will likely be holding their nose and voting for their personal “lesser of two evils”. Add in the racial angle, where some people will not admit they aren’t voting for Obama in fear of being branded a racist, and you have a prime setup for some serious over-polling.
Obama will win, getting about 310 electoral votes
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
true about exit polling
Exit polling has a notorious democratic lean, with 2004 being one of the more dramatic examples.
That’s not the case with regular polling. The final poll average had Bush by 1 in ’04 and he won by 3. In ’00, the final polling showed Bush with a significant lead, and Gore won the popular vote.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
guess we'll call it a split
you had the 16-point Oregon margin dead on (as of this writing), but I was closer on the national margin (52-47).
I was way off on my EV estimates. I didn’t have him getting Virgina and Indiana (26) and I thought McCain would barely hold Florida (27). Take out those 3, and Obama’s at 296 right now, with Missouri and NC outstanding. I had him getting MO, putting him at 307.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 5, 2008 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Obama
You know it’s interesting. In a historical sense, Obama is a pretty weak candidate. He has very little experience, his past indicates he is much further toward the fringe of his party than any recent president, and the traditional media have done almost nothing to vet him or challenge him.
Yet here he is, about to run away with a clear victory. Why?
1) McCain isn’t exactly a strong candidate in his own right, although he is considerably closer to the center of the spectrum than Obama is.
2) The general mood of the country is one clamoring for “change”. Bush and the Republicans are viewed as the status quo, and Obama is the wind of change blowing in from out of town — just like Bush was when he won in 2000.
3) This election is all about Bush, and McCain’s efforts to distance himself from the incumbent have not worked, not helped in the least by the “R” next to his name.
In a normal election cycle, Obama would be hard pressed to compete. But this is no normal election – the anti-Republican tailwind is so strong.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 11:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If I was going to vote
I would have voted on which wife I’d most like to bang and I would have voted McCain. Michelle is attractive, but she just doesn’t do it for me. Once Obama gets elected, she should be able to afford a nice set of double D’s.
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahahah
thanks for making me laugh TiH
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's funny
a close friend of mine said she’s voting Obama because she would go lesbian for Michelle. To each his/her own.
WWKPD?
Ambassador to the Miami Heat
by Magnum on Nov 4, 2008 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't like Michelle's mouth
It’s too big in a Julia Roberts and her brother sort of way. I still think she is pretty, but just not my thang. I’ll keep my women like Flo Jo or Serena.

This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good god
I think TiH just disproved Newton.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reminds me of the butt-puffer underwear from yesterday's JD...
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a voting strategy I could get behind.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 4, 2008 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While I disagree...
that Obama is a fringe candidate, there is no question that his “outsider” status is helping him in this “change” election.
Indeed, Obama has led something of a charmed political life— his opponent in his US Senate campaign (Jack Ryan) dropped out of the race after a scandal, and the late game replacement, Alan Keyes, was not able to mount a serious challenge.
I also don’t know that McCain is closer to the center than Obama. The 2000 version of McCain would have had a real shot in this campaign, but I don’t know that voting with Bush 90% of the time can be considered in the center when Bush’s approval ratings are as low as they are.
In the end, McCain’s big blunder was the Palin pick— she was a pick that appealed to the base in a cycle where he needed to appeal to the center.
I fully agree with your last sentence. Obama has been greatly helped by the anti-republican tailwind this year.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Nov 4, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...
I didn’t say he was a fringe candidate, I said his history suggests he is a candidate more skewed to the outliers of his party on the political spectrum than anyone who’s been president of late.
I think by any reasonable assessment of their records, McCain is far more centrist than Obama. Citing 90% senate votes is misleading, due to the mechanics and procedures of senate voting in general.
Agreed on Palin, as stated above. Although I’m not sure if anything he did could have stemmed the anti-republican tide. It was probably worth a gamble to pick a woman and hope for some novelty votes and disaffected Hillary supporters.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly I believe this would have been
a close election, and was a close election until Snr. McCain picking Gov. Palin.
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mr. Snake nails another one...
In the end, McCain’s big blunder was the Palin pick— she was a pick that appealed to the base in a cycle where he needed to appeal to the center.
The only issue that McCain was getting traction on was that of “experience” — which he flushed.
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Obama (if he wins)
will be a much more conservative president than people expect. The definition of “Conservatism” has been heavily skewed by the last 8 years (which were headlined by actions of a so-called “conservative” regime which appeared to be anything but).
A conservative blogger (Andrew Sullivan) on the Colbert Report last night said it well, “I want to bring calm, prudence, and reason back to the American government.” Obama is, temperamentally, a very conservative person.
For example, in regard to the Russia-Georgia conflict, Republicans attacked Obama for not “picking a side” decisively. Obama was careful to reserve snap judgment of the situation. In retrospect, it appears that Georgia was also guilty of violating the Geneva convention by targeting areas housing Russian civilians with their tanks
Just sayin’, prudence and patience are virtues, but not to excess.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
conservative
conservative in method, but leading to liberal decisions does not make one conservative, at least not in the sense of the word as we think of it.
Now, if he uses conservative decision-making methods to arrive at moderate/centrist decisions, then I can live with that.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have faith,
that he will use conservative decision making methods when naming Supreme Court Justices.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's just thank God
that McCain isn’t choosing 2, potentially 3 supreme court justices. Whew.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah...the supreme ct justices always end up more liberal
than the conservatives want…beacuse the constitution is a fairly liberal document which isn’t designed to limit peoples freedoms the way the ultra conservatives would like it too
by LetsBlaze on Nov 4, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's funny
Conservatives would argue that the constitution provides MORE individual freedoms than the court and congress have historically chosen to grant us all, not less. They would further argue that it is liberal laws and rulings that have limited our freedoms, not conservative ones.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I notice you make no effort to argue those points though.
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what points?
he said conservatives want to limit people’s freedoms. I pointed out that conservatives will say exactly the opposite on this issue.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm ready for 5 young civil libertarians on the court...
FREE SERGIO -- Trade Him or Cut Him NOW!!!
by timbo on Nov 4, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Real Conservatives Would
That is why I am a registered R. But once Pres. Bush and the Rep. Congress blatantly stepped into that Terri Schiavo thing, I realized that my party had abandoned its principals. I am voting for Snr. Obama because I think that he is the better choice, and from what I have seen from the last 16 years, the Conservative party is Dead, it is all Republicans now.
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The paleoconservative wing of the Republican Party ...
began its steady decline after Barry Goldwater’s big loss in the ‘64 U.S. presidential election. At this moment in time, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is the last remaining member of that idealogy — although he’s technically more of a paleolibertarian — yet, that political philosophy may someday make a comeback.
Yet, one current problem with paleoconservatism is that Pat Buchanan — as well as the far-right Constitution Party, albeit to a lesser extent — has tarnished the movement with ultraconservative, reactionary stances on social issues. I’m pretty sure that the likes of Goldwater, Hugo Black, Robert A. Taft, and other men of that ilk would’ve detested Buchanan’s desire to fringe on people’s civil liberties via this asinine culture war.
by AK1984 on Nov 4, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed with both of you
I would love a party that focused on good old-fashioned fiscal conservatism combined with social libertarianism.
Sadly, it either doesn’t exist or isn’t viable.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
totally agreed
Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...
by TheOdenator on Nov 4, 2008 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
method maybe, but not results
Will get justices at the far left extreme, like Breyer and Ginsburg. And they’ll pass the senate with 85-90 votes because they will be qualified. You won’t see 60-40 votes and the wholesale attacks on good qualified nominees put forth by Obama that we saw in regards to Alito and Roberts.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McCain is the strongest Republican candidate since Regan
I think Obama would be beating anyone else (Romney, Huckabee, etc.) by simply enormous margins. Republicans gave Democrats their very best shot, but IMHO Obama is a once-in-a-generation kind of super candidate. That doesn’t mean I agree with all his policies, but I think as far as running a compaign and building a movement, he is the LBJ of politics. I initially supported Edwards this year, and I liked his fiery liberal rhetoric better than Obama’s message of hope and bipartisanship, but I am excited about Obama because I think he has the potential to really build the progessive movement for decades.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed sort of
McCain was the strongest general election candidate this time around, but I don’t think he’s historically a strong candidate. I personally like his anti-pork stance and adherence to principles, and his willingness and demonstrated history of crossing party lines.
I don’t agree Obama is a super candidate historically, at least not in the sense of issues and policy message and his record. He is certainly the first (at least of the modern era) “Celebrity” president, which is a big part of his appeal in my opinion. People love the guy even though they can’t name one thing he stands for. He’s a STAR! That, combined with the anti-republican, anti-Bush tidal wave, is what will get him into office, not any kind of impressive message or resume.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But why is he a celebrity?
Is it because the media made him one? Or is it because he is intelligent, well-spoken, driven, well-reasoned, and prudent?
These people who are voting for Obama because they “love the guy even though they can’t name one thing he stands for” are also voting against McCain because they hate the guy even though they can’t name one thing he stands for. But truly, in recent politics, hasn’t it mostly been about image and character?
"For the past two seasons it's been like, 'They're young, they're going to need some time,"' Roy said. "It doesn't feel like that this season."
by joelor on Nov 4, 2008 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
which is part of the problem.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
let me amend
Voting for someon’s perceived character is not a problem. If you think a candidate has the right character that he/she will use to drive their decision-making processs, I fully support that.
Voting for image is silly, but all too frequent.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really want to step into this fray
But I think another thing that is appealing about his is his uncanny ability to avoid pettiness and when he has too, he confront is head on. He had a great speech about racism in America and he refused to touch the Palin’s baby’s baby momma thing.
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
great point
I agree. The first 2/3 of his racism speech were pure brilliance and brought tears to my eyes. He had a homerun on his hands. Had he stopped there, it would have been one of the all-time greats, and would truly have been above the partisan fray. Unfortunately, he decided to spend the last 1/3 trotting out the same tired old liberal prescriptions, which turned a brilliant piece of oratoray that everyone could identify with and turned it into a stump speech.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
by douglast on Nov 4, 2008 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love racism
The first thing I had to do on my wedding day was call my sister and say she could not use the n-word during my wedding, because she used it at our rehearsal dinner. Racism is real, it made for some miraculous stories of of people overcoming and rising up over extreme adversity. I think it is time for people to accept racism and move on. Racism sucks butt, it is ignorant and intolerant, and it sometimes it is funny. It all depends on the messenger.
Without racism, we would not have Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Jesse Owens, or Jackie Robinson. It may be a tragic legacy, but it is still a legacy worthy of appreciation.
I’m pretty sure I dug a really deep hole here. I’m just trying to say, that we don’t need any more racism, but it’s time to forgive the racism from our past.
I’m positive I went way off topic here.
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think we all need to forgive Shavlik Randolph and just move on.
He won the election fair and square and there’s nothing we can do about it now.
If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley
by Winchester on Nov 4, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just cuz I think the black's got rights, don't mean I think the gay's got 'em.
Ha, how cool would it be if I really felt that way? I love my gay friends too.
Prejudiced hurts everyone.
This space for rent.
by tominhawaii on Nov 4, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is the Progressive Movement?
In what areas do you see our need for progress? I’m not coming with an angle, I’m really curious in the opinion of a Obama supporter what your expectations are for change.
by monkeybones on Nov 4, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK I'll take a shot
Here’s some things I’d like to see changed. Keep in mind I’m not necessarily a typical Obama supporter. I’m way further to the left than most of the party.
- Tax structure and business regulations changed to create greater balance of wealth. I’d rather have more balance than more total wealth.
- Decent health care, housing, and food guaranteed to all citizens without exception.
- Foreign policy that sees war as an extreme last option, doesn’t vilify other countries, and doesn’t try to take advantage of other countries for our gain.
- Environmentalism for the benefit of current and future people, because climate change and other things are really significant threats that can’t be ignored or marginalized.
- Greater respect for freedom of speech and privacy, less emphasis on giving up rights in the interest of security.
by pualo on Nov 4, 2008 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 