Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Presidential Politics & Antievolution started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 25 2008,04:17

This thread is for items and discussion about where antievolution issues pop up in the campaigns or media coverage in the race for the presidency.

< Fox News > ran an article by Bill Sammon casting several slurs at newly-revealed Democratic Vice President candidate Senator Joe Biden, including making an issue over comments of Biden's related to creationism and "intelligent design".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Biden also used unusually strong language to ridicule those who believe in creationism or intelligent design.

   “I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!” the senior senator from Delaware exclaimed.

   But less than six months earlier, CBS News conducted a poll that found a majority of Americans (51 percent) do believe that God created humans in their present form. Even larger majorities reject the theory of evolution, according to the poll.

   After the HBO show ended, a reporter asked Biden whether his dismissal of a belief held dear by most Americans might come back to haunt him if his White House bid gained traction.

   With characteristic bluntness, Biden shrugged and said yes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have a response on < my weblog >.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 25 2008,09:18

In the Republican debates, three wannabes raised their hands indicating they did not accept evolution. None of them will be on the ticket.

McCain appears to be a theistic evolutionist. He doesn't seem inclined to pick a yahoo for a running mate.

I'm more concerned about state legislatures and school boards.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 25 2008,10:00

We already have several threads devoted to antievolution efforts in specific states. I think having one for the executive branch takes nothing away from those.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 25 2008,10:14

I'm all for holding the candidate's feet to the fire on science. It would be odd to see candidates forced to deny being anti-evolution. That would be the day.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 25 2008,10:56

Well, I for one, have the audacity to hope that we can go forward, together, and dream of things that never were.

Here's my "Brush With Greatness" story.

Back in 2005 - 2006, when Santorum of PA was making a total ass of himself by making ID-sounding noises, I emailed my Jr. Senator from IL asking him to bitch-slap Santorem and tell him to shut up, we have a separation of church and state in the US.

So, Obama emailed back that while he would not slap Santorum, he would vote against his ID proposals and did believe in a strict separation of church and state.

Of course, this was before Obama's  dumb-ass meeting with the Mega-Church guy, and before he said he is okay with faith-based intiatives...

But he sure looks like a way better alternative to Johnny McSame.

My $.02 and worth every penny.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 25 2008,11:35

I think it should be obvious that politicians can't really have opinions on religion that aren't calculated. If anything matters, it is their voting record.

And even that isn't a sure thing, because laws are packaged in such a way that everyone winds up voting for something they don't like.
Posted by: bystander on Aug. 25 2008,18:07

I think that the vagueness on anti-evolution is a symptom of a bigger problem with western governments at the moment.
Everything is so carefully managed that it is difficult to find much difference between the candidates and it doesn't pay to have any vision or take any risks.
I think that the danger here is that the US is at the edge of what could be a long and deep recession, admitting to it would be to somehow be un-American*. The problem for the US is that unlike other recessions, the Asian internal markets are developed enough to probably keep on growing.
In five years time my prediction will be that, unless something is done, China will be the superpower and a lot of the best research and universities will be done in Asia.

* In Australia, the opposition party blames the government for the downturn because they were "talking down the economy"
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 25 2008,18:21

China will eventually be the superpower simply because it has the most people and possibly the smartest.  Or the most smart people. Could take ten years or  fifty, but it's on the way.

India could compete in this arena if they undergo a similar cultural revolution, but I doubt they will in my lifetime. Of course I would have said the same thing about China 20 years ago.
Posted by: Amadan on Aug. 26 2008,05:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Australia, the opposition party blames the government for the downturn because they were "talking down the economy"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Proof, of which we can never have too much, that the world is round and that antipodeans are therefore upside-down: here in Ireland, the Government blames the slump on the opposition because they talked the economy down.

And the government is always right, you know. It even says so on their web site.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 29 2008,10:52

This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


< McCain Picks FTK as VP >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 29 2008,11:04

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 29 2008,10:52)
This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


< McCain Picks FTK as VP >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frighteningly enough, yep, Dawg:

"FoxNews source releases information that Governor Sarah Palin is McCains VP pick. Fox News claims McCain Camp has verified by email. Gov Palin is a former Sportscaster, Mayor, and she is pro-life, NRA member, and originally from Idaho."

< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070582/posts >

From the Fox's Anus, so to speak: < http://elections.foxnews.com/2008....-friday >

Afarensis put a thread up:  

< http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala >  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 29 2008,11:18

Aw crap - another creotard. What a choice for Vice-MILF.

And if they think Obama doesn't have enough experience, this one - oh dear...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 29 2008,11:49

A slightly different take (though Afarensis and I are working from the same news sources): < McCain Picks Palin: Medium Threat to Science Education >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 29 2008,11:51

Until we get more data, I'm treating Palin as having fallen for "fairness argument" rhetoric rather than being a fully-invested antievolution advocate. Lots of people do...
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 29 2008,11:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 29 2008,11:18)
Aw crap - another creotard. What a choice for Vice-MILF.

And if they think Obama doesn't have enough experience, this one - oh dear...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do mean?  

She's got a solid 1 1/2 years in as the Gov of the state with the 47th smallest population...

and only a little "whiff of corruption" attached to her!

added in edit:  < Palin's Abuse Of Power >
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 29 2008,13:45

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,12:04)
Afarensis put a thread up:  

< http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala >  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just read the afarensis post and was going to come over here to say that about creationism, she doesn't seem opposed to it, but she doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic either. She's certainly no Pill I mean Bill Buckingham.
Posted by: PTET on Aug. 29 2008,14:18

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2008,13:45)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,12:04)
Afarensis put a thread up:  

< http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala >  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just read the afarensis post and was going to come over here to say that about creationism, she doesn't seem opposed to it, but she doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic either. She's certainly no Pill I mean Bill Buckingham.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not Americanian and I don't live in Americania... But I did watch all of "The Wire"*, so I feel qualified to comment on Americanian politics.

I don't see that Sarah Palin said any more in support of creationism than the bear minimum required to get elected Republican...






* I also loved "Bonanza" and "Batman" when I was v young.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 29 2008,14:55

I get the feeling its a flailing attempt to show republicans are not all irrelevant octogenarians who wear their pants up high by their nipples and are distrustful of them coloureds, wimmin and those who are too light on their feet, wink-wink.
Posted by: Quidam on Aug. 29 2008,15:38

Sarah Palin = Dan Quayle

- with tits

Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Aug. 29 2008,16:12

Supposedly Karl Rove was urging McSame in no uncertain terms NOT to pick Lieberman. I wonder if 'Quayle with Boobs' was his idea?

Swell. Another four years with Turdblossom.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Aug. 29 2008,20:54

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,11:04)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 29 2008,10:52)
This just in:

John McSame picks FTK-like  Home-Schooling Mom Creationist as his VP selection:

from Daily kos:


< McCain Picks FTK as VP >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frighteningly enough, yep, Dawg:

"FoxNews source releases information that Governor Sarah Palin is McCains VP pick. Fox News claims McCain Camp has verified by email. Gov Palin is a former Sportscaster, Mayor, and she is pro-life, NRA member, and originally from Idaho."

< http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070582/posts >

From the Fox's Anus, so to speak: < http://elections.foxnews.com/2008....-friday >

Afarensis put a thread up:  

< http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....the_ala >  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that is a post from 2006 that has suddenly become relevant - to my intense surprise.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 30 2008,00:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2008,11:51)
Until we get more data, I'm treating Palin as having fallen for "fairness argument" rhetoric rather than being a fully-invested antievolution advocate. Lots of people do...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll go along with that.

I hurriedly exaggerated her position on the matter of teaching creationism (I simply posted too fast without doing research, which is stupid on my part, and the kind of crap I dislike when others do it) -- anyways, I'll rachet that back a few notches. My apologies.

I'll wait to see what the fundy bloc presses her to say, and if she says it.    

I tried finding any more info out, but didn't get far. She doesn't appear to be an extremist, and is actually impressive in regards to her ethical stances on several matters -- corruption in various venues and upholding rulings on gay rights that she didn't personally endorse, but saw fit to take a stand on ( the last detailed here: < http://dwb.adn.com/news....8c.html > ).

Afarensis mentioned this article in the Anchorage Daily News from Oct. 27 2006:
< http://www.adn.com/news....4c.html >

But there's also this, from Oct. 24 2006, a two-part bio in the Anchorage Daily News
Part one:
< http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html >

Part two:
< http://dwb.adn.com/news....0c.html >

I don't want to be accused of taking part in any feeding frenzy against her because the truth is that I'm impressed with the backbone she's demonstrated --  this shouldn't be taken to mean I'd ever endorse her in *this* race,  particularly when I'm not convinced McCain is entirely sane.

n.b. I recall a mod or regular poster at IIDB (Internet Infidels) or Dawkins' joint being from Eagle River, so maybe I can look that person up and see if they can offer any insight from a local view. In the meantime, < Wikipedia has a good profile on her > that includes this cited statement:

" Concerning education, while running for Governor of Alaska and asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes, Palin answered that she thought it was healthy for both creationism and evolution to be taught together; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism. "
Posted by: stevestory on Aug. 30 2008,00:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,01:13)
I hurriedly exaggerated her position on the matter of teaching creationism (I simply posted too fast without doing research, which is stupid on my part, and the kind of crap I dislike when others do it)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think anybody here would hold against you a few crap posts out of 1766. I'm lucky if 10% of mine are worth a hoot :p
Posted by: deadman_932 on Aug. 30 2008,05:15

I think you got your numbers reversed there, chief;   hanging out here, I was bound to learn stuff eventually --I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it. Anyway, when I had problems with mods elsewhere, I always pointed to this place as being about as good as it gets. Adding Lou and Kristine just spiffed it up even more.

I blame Louis, Arden and the sinister richardthughes for anything bad here. Evil bastards.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2008,06:13

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,11:15)
I think you got your numbers reversed there, chief;   hanging out here, I was bound to learn stuff eventually --I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it. Anyway, when I had problems with mods elsewhere, I always pointed to this place as being about as good as it gets. Adding Lou and Kristine just spiffed it up even more.

I blame Louis, Arden and the sinister richardthughes for anything bad here. Evil bastards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You blame me?

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Louis

P.S. You only blame me for exposing you as the deviant squirrelist you really are. Mind you, you guys are about to get a Python as VP so it's all good. What? It's not Michael Palin? It's some creationist appeasing chick? That's changes things!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 30 2008,07:03

Louis (and other non-colonials tempted to insert their 2 cents)

< Look what can happen > :O
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 30 2008,08:24

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,05:15)
I think you got your numbers reversed there, chief;   hanging out here, I was bound to learn stuff eventually --I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it. Anyway, when I had problems with mods elsewhere, I always pointed to this place as being about as good as it gets. Adding Lou and Kristine just spiffed it up even more.

I blame Louis, Arden and the sinister richardthughes for anything bad here. Evil bastards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I LIKED your digging, and I think that I went off too fast, too far, and I hate that in others too... but she is NO Hillary Clinton.  

I also did a little MORE digging, and now I think she is an even worse choice.  According to a voter in her home town, she mis-managed a property buy for the town, and the town wound up paying @ 10 times what they should have for the project.  

That's not change - that's more of the same!

And I still don't trust her science / creation position.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2008,09:07

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2008,11:15)
[SNIP]

I should have listened to reason about chasing the great white Hawkins whale, come to think of it.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I forgot to ask, how goes your Hawkins hunting? Is Ericmurphy still on the case?

Louis
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 30 2008,09:10

I don't think I was advocating "trust", just a modicum of caution in classification. Palin might straighten up if she seriously got up to speed on the evolution v. creationism issue, but she has come out of the gate as having sided with the deceptionists. It is certainly cause for concern.
Posted by: Louis on Aug. 30 2008,09:17

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2008,15:10)
I don't think I was advocating "trust", just a modicum of caution in classification. Palin might straighten up if she seriously got up to speed on the evolution v. creationism issue, but she has come out of the gate as having sided with the deceptionists. It is certainly cause for concern.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In all seriousness I'll go along with that. I have to say I "like" the fact that when pressed on what seemed to be overtly antievolution comments she retreated to "teach both sides" rhetoric.

Why I said I "like" that is because:

a) Even though WE all know "teach both sides" is standard antievolutionist deception it doesn't me she does. She could be well meaning and ignorant about the methods of antievolutionists, "teach both sides/the controversy" is an easy and apparently reasonable position to occupy for someone unaware of the history and issues associated with antievolution. It's also simple political sense: appear to support everyone until you can afford not to

b) The chances that she is a dyed in the wool creationist loon are lessened by that retreat. It *could* be deception on her part, but I have no evidence to suspect that it is. So don't assume it until demonstrable.

It could have been Huckabee after all....

Louis
Posted by: ERV on Aug. 30 2008,17:52

Not evilution, precisely, but < ScienceDebate2008 answers > from Obama!

Also:

Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 30 2008,21:49

Quote (ERV @ Aug. 30 2008,17:52)
Not evilution, precisely, but < ScienceDebate2008 answers > from Obama!

Also:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PERFECT!  - NAILED it!  Well, figuratively, anyway.

In my reading I came accross something else scary..
Consider Palin vs. Putin - ouch!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 31 2008,03:09

The science debate looks like a good idea. I wish the networks would devote a major debate to science.

The image, however, strikes me as something that will backfire. The results of making fun of Reagan's age and senility come to mind.

The experience issue would make more sense if Biden were topping the Democrat ticket and Obama and Palin were opponents at the same level.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Aug. 31 2008,05:57

AiG has weighed in:

< http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....tionist >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 2006, then-candidate Palin indicated in a TV debate that creation should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public schools, declaring that schools should “teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”3 Now, in stating this, she may have been advocating the teaching of scientific creationism, as opposed to biblical creationism4 (the latter having been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 19875), but we don’t really know.

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”In an interview the next day, Palin (if the Anchorage Daily News report is correct) appeared to backpedal somewhat, saying that she meant to say that a discussion of alternative views should be allowed but not forced on students, adding: “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” In other words, Palin was not suggesting that the teaching of creation should be mandated (perhaps realizing that her statement the day before came across as arguing that creation must be in the science curriculum).

The Anchorage newspaper also reported her as saying she would not push the state’s board of education (governors in Alaska appoint board members, and the legislators confirm them) to add creationist alternatives to evolution to the state’s curriculum. The paper asked for her personal view on evolution, and she said, “I believe we have a creator.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She's clearly a YEC but just wont admit it.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Aug. 31 2008,09:29

There seems to be some dominionist connections possible.

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/be_afraid_1.php#comments >

These groups make Huckabee look mainstream.
Posted by: Peter Henderson on Aug. 31 2008,10:06

And there's more:

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213 >
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 01 2008,06:16

It seems to me that there's a bit of over-hyping going on here. What it seems to boil down to is that Palin avoids offending The Core in her statements on education and would probably go along with Teaching the Controversy™ more out of sympathy than conviction. She said "I believe we were created" or words to that effect. Big deal. So do all the theistic evos.

Is she a dominionist trojan horse? The evidence (?) is that her pastor is a bit of a nut-job who associates with the osculospumatory fringe.

Rev. Wright, anyone?
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 01 2008,09:30

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 31 2008,10:06)
And there's more:

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absurd. The only thing I knew about the dailyKos until the Palin announcement is that darkSyde wrote for them, and I like darkSyde. But in the last two days I see that dailyKos is a) “reporting” that Palin’s Down child is actually her grandchild, and now b) Palin is a hardcore dominionist. I dunno. Maybe being a sort of apolitical centrist helps me to see that many in either camp will accept crap uncritically, as long as it is crap from their side. I don’t see any difference at all between “Palin is a dominionist” and “Obama is a Moslem.” And the dailyKos, I must conclude, is a worthless World Net Daily sort of rag.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 01 2008,10:36

There is a disparity in sourcing of political crap, it seems to me. We've got bloggers at DailyKos being weird. I didn't like guilt-by-way-too-tenuous-association when dished up by John Stormer, and it doesn't seem to have improved. On the other side, we've seen < Karl Rove do his > < business > as part of the campaigning and administration. I doubt we'll see a negative campaign out of the Obama camp that comes anywhere near the Rovian "black love child" stunt used against McCain in 2000.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 01 2008,12:39

Even if Palin is covering up for her daughter's pregnancy, it would only matter if she were a Dem.  The fundies will howl and moan if it is true and Palin will apologize to god and they will all get along because the fundies need the Reps. and the Reps. need the fundies.

Isn't that why McCain went a courtin' at Bob Jones and Liberty Universities?  Didn't he also make overtures towards ID in schools?  He's willing to do or say anything to get elected (maverick my arse) and if supporting ID would get him there, he would do it.  If polls say that 51% of Americans want ID taught in schools, do you think he would speak against it?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 01 2008,12:55

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,12:39)
Even if Palin is covering up for her daughter's pregnancy, it would only matter if she were a Dem.  The fundies will howl and moan if it is true and Palin will apologize to god and they will all get along because the fundies need the Reps. and the Reps. need the fundies.

Isn't that why McCain went a courtin' at Bob Jones and Liberty Universities?  Didn't he also make overtures towards ID in schools?  He's willing to do or say anything to get elected (maverick my arse) and if supporting ID would get him there, he would do it.  If polls say that 51% of Americans want ID taught in schools, do you think he would speak against it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I predict that it will eventually be revealed that Rove et al. planted the story about Palin's daughter (remember that Rover learned his political ethics as a Nixon operative in the days of CREEP). This results in a  distraction for the left and mobilizes the troops on the right.

As long as the country falls for these "issues" about personalities and possible peccadilloes, the Republicans win. They won't win on the issues, and this allows the issues to be ignored.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 01 2008,13:40

< Heads up, people. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 01 2008,13:47

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,13:40)
< Heads up, people. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you whoring your blog here FTK? What's up, clicks down to single figures? Interest in ID waning? Desperate for a bit of attention.

Yeah, big whoop. < Real > blogs had the news hours ago in any case.

What do you think about the fact that Palen went on record as opposed to "explicit" sex education when abstinence education could be given instead?

Do you think their situation is somehow related to that?
Posted by: Quidam on Sep. 01 2008,17:04

Obama's response is appropriate and stands in stark contrast to McCain's attack on < Chelsea Clinton > in 1998



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JAM on Sep. 01 2008,17:30

Quote (Quidam @ Sep. 01 2008,17:04)
Obama's response is appropriate and stands in stark contrast to McCain's attack on < Chelsea Clinton > in 1998

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your guy McCondo$ is a class act, eh, FTK?

Do you share his "family values," like the one that says it's cool to dump your wife for a filthy-rich beer heiress because:

1) she was crippled in a car accident, and
2) you were a POW?
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 01 2008,17:47

Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?    I've toyed around with idea of not voting at all in the Presidential election.   I find Palin interesting, but as yet know next to nothing about her.  

I think McCain was an ass to leave his his first wife.  Period.  Leaving her to marry a millionaire several times over doesn't impress me much either, but then none of us are without fault which makes it difficult to throw stones.

I still don't know for sure where I stand in this campaign, but I do feel like this Palin chick has more in common with the average joe than some of these folks on capital hill.  

BTW, you'll probably remember Obama's words where he stated that if his girls "made a mistake" he wouldn't want them "punished" by having a child.  I prefer to believe that he didn't think that comment through, as a child should never be considered a "punishment" regardless of what the situation is.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 01 2008,17:59

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2008,09:30)
 
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 31 2008,10:06)
And there's more:

< http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is absurd. The only thing I knew about the dailyKos until the Palin announcement is that darkSyde wrote for them, and I like darkSyde. But in the last two days I see that dailyKos is a) “reporting” that Palin’s Down child is actually her grandchild, and now b) Palin is a hardcore dominionist. I dunno. Maybe being a sort of apolitical centrist helps me to see that many in either camp will accept crap uncritically, as long as it is crap from their side. I don’t see any difference at all between “Palin is a dominionist” and “Obama is a Moslem.” And the dailyKos, I must conclude, is a worthless World Net Daily sort of rag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Daily Kos is a self-moderated (read:  not moderated)blog.  As such, it attracts more than its share of nutters.  In fact, I would suspect that there are a great numbers of Repubs masquerading as "loyal liberals".

So, Heddle anad others, don't get your knickers in a twist.  It's the old "good bloggers at bad sites, and bad bloggers at good sites" meme.

Obama and Dems have reiterated "families are off limits", and I have seem more condemnations of scurilous attacks by kos bloggers than distatesful posts.

On a lighter note:

Here is a link to   FTK's   Sarah Palin's blog about being a candidate.



< FTK / Sarah Palin's Blog >

edited for extremely bad spelling
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2008,18:02

Of course, < the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms. >
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 01 2008,18:04

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, perhaps you can point out where I claimed that you did?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've toyed around with idea of not voting at all in the Presidential election.   I find Palin interesting, but as yet know next to nothing about her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find her to be a predictably, profoundly dishonest Christianist scumbag. Did you hear that she's already lawyered up for the Troopergate scandal?  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think McCain was an ass to leave his his first wife.  Period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why are so many of your fellow fundies cool with it?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Leaving her to marry a millionaire several times over doesn't impress me much either, but then none of us are without fault which makes it difficult to throw stones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus Christ spoke against hypocrisy, didn't He? I don't recall him saying anything about homosexuality or abortion or evolution, though.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I still don't know for sure where I stand in this campaign, but I do feel like this Palin chick has more in common with the average joe than some of these folks on capital hill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But not in a good way. I want my leaders to be exceptional people. Why don't you? 
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, you'll probably remember Obama's words where he stated that if his girls "made a mistake" he wouldn't want them "punished" by having a child.  I prefer to believe that he didn't think that comment through, as a child should never be considered a "punishment" regardless of what the situation is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, and I see how you are dishonestly twisting them, too. The child herself is not the punishment, bearing and caring for the child is the punishment. Of course, you're probably too blinded by racism to see how you used the straw man fallacy there.

How about that abstinence-based sex education BS Palin endorses?

How about the idea that a 44-year-old woman (high-risk on the basis of age alone) who travels in her third trimester, has contractions (not B-H) and amniotic fluid leakage, yet remains in Texas to give a speech, flies through Seattle, drives through Anchorage and its NICUs, to give birth ~12 hours later in a suburban hospital with NO facilities for high-risk mothers or babies?

Did you know that her physician is a family practicioner, not OB-GYN?

Did you know that her physician has privileges at at least one of the Anchorage hospitals with an NICU? Why didn't she just meet them there?

You can't explain a single one of these actions as those of someone who views her baby's life as precious, FTK. On top of that, her decision to accept McCondo$'s offer and put her pregnant daughter in the spotlight was incredibly selfish. Her daughter has been punished like no child deserves to be punished.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 01 2008,18:07

It occurs to me, Sarah Palin reminds me a lot of FTK, or at least, what I think FTK aspires to.

And again, I bet it'll be revealed that Sarah Palin was Karl Rove's bright idea. It's far too fucked up and cynical a choice to have been thought up by anyone else.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 01 2008,18:44

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 01 2008,18:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, perhaps you can point out where I claimed that you did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you did say:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your guy McCondo$ is a class act, eh, FTK?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By referring to McCain as "her guy" you are implying that he has the FtK Seal of Approval.  I have no recall of FtK ever stamping McCain, or any of the other Republican contenders, with her imprimatur.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 01 2008,19:18

Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 01 2008,19:20

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:18)
Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If true, that is too precious. Link?
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 01 2008,19:30

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,20:20)
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:18)
Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If true, that is too precious. Link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, sorry.  < Here it is. >

It's question number 11.

ETA:  The other questions help to give an idea of some of her other positions.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 01 2008,19:58

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
I still don't know for sure where I stand in this campaign, but I do feel like this Palin chick has more in common with the average joe than some of these folks on capital hill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that, as we have learned, is surely an excellent reason to vote for the average joe to be president...

As you may not know, former Nebraska senator Roman Hruska is also in this camp. He was most famous for his defense of mediocrity, a la FtK. When Nixon nominated average-joe G. Harold Carrswell to the Supreme Court, Hruska defended him thusly.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
'Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A mediocracy is definitely my idea of good government (not).
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 01 2008,20:37

I wouldn't call Pallin Ftk. Although I disagree with most of her politics, it sounds like she is strong willed and stands by her convictions. Ftk, on the otherhand twists and turns when confronted by anything she *implies* she believes in.

You would think after all these years that Brown would be elevated from someone who's idea's are more than *interesting*.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 01 2008,20:48

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:30)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,20:20)
 
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 01 2008,19:18)
Apparently Palin is pretty well clueless about American history too.  She thinks the founding fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" part in it. :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If true, that is too precious. Link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah, sorry.  < Here it is. >

It's question number 11.

ETA:  The other questions help to give an idea of some of her other positions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not so good to start with a gaff..

< http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=palin+founding+fathers >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 01 2008,20:59

Bonus:

< http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html >
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 01 2008,21:03

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,18:44)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 01 2008,18:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2008,17:47)
Um, perhaps you can point out where I suggested that McCain is a class act?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, perhaps you can point out where I claimed that you did?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you did say:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your guy McCondo$ is a class act, eh, FTK?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By referring to McCain as "her guy" you are implying that he has the FtK Seal of Approval.  I have no recall of FtK ever stamping McCain, or any of the other Republican contenders, with her imprimatur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, maybe you should have a look at her blog. She's gushing about McCondo$'s choice of Palin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, I'm officially getting back into the race.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 01 2008,21:13

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 01 2008,21:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,18:44)

By referring to McCain as "her guy" you are implying that he has the FtK Seal of Approval.  I have no recall of FtK ever stamping McCain, or any of the other Republican contenders, with her imprimatur.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, maybe you should have a look at her blog. She's gushing about McCondo$'s choice of Palin:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did and I see nothing to support your statement that McCain is "her guy."  It is typically FtK; as in noncommittal. There is nothing to indicate who she will vote for, only that the race is shaping up to be interesting to her.  The following statement of hers implies that she has yet to make up her mind yet.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the first time in history, we'll have either an African American or a Female in the Presidential or VP position. Seriously cool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, I do remember at least once in the past that FtK indicated that she might not vote GOP in this election. But, do carry on venting your spleen at her.  I am sure you are right about who FtK will vote for. It is just a shame the poor dear hasn't caught up with you yet.  ;)
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 01 2008,21:14

FtK is one of the four women in American Palin appeals to...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 01 2008,23:31

Advice to Sarah Palin: Whatever they offer, don't accept that offer of a special guest appearance on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?"


Posted by: JAM on Sep. 02 2008,00:06

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,21:13)

I did and I see nothing to support your statement that McCain is "her guy."  It is typically FtK; as in noncommittal. There is nothing to indicate who she will vote for, only that the race is shaping up to be interesting to her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? What do you make of this?
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've never been one to particularly support a women in those positions,but this gal impresses me a lot more than 'ol Hillary ever has.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 The following statement of hers implies that she has yet to make up her mind yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Statements don't imply, people do. What we're doing is called inference.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the first time in history, we'll have either an African American or a Female in the Presidential or VP position. Seriously cool.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see how you can infer that she hasn't made up her mind from that statement.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, I do remember at least once in the past that FtK indicated that she might not vote GOP in this election.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, I also remember her indicating many things, particularly about biology, that are clearly false, as well as a lot of us here calling her on them. Given her record, I infer that she probably was being deceptive. Given statements like this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All this liberal BS is nausiating...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt that she would vote for the most liberal Democrat to be nominated since McGovern.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am sure you are right about who FtK will vote for. It is just a shame the poor dear hasn't caught up with you yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given that we can predict her dishonest arguments before she advances them, it's not exactly an intellectual triumph.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 02 2008,00:09


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,00:53

Palin captures critical evangelical swing vote:

< http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html >

unlucky Obama, you Muslim.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 02 2008,01:15

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 02 2008,00:06)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2008,21:13)

I am sure you are right about who FtK will vote for. It is just a shame the poor dear hasn't caught up with you yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given that we can predict her dishonest arguments before she advances them, it's not exactly an intellectual triumph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, JAM, call me when you can find FtK saying "I will vote for McCain" or you can calculate CSI on her political posts. Until then I hope you've been able to vent your spleen enough to take the edge off.

Editted to reduce snarkiness by 2-3%
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,05:47

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2008,00:53)
Palin captures critical evangelical swing vote:

< http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I mentioned on Ed's blog, I can confirm that anecdotally, even more so after talking to more friends last night. The evangelicals, so far, absolutely love her. (As do I.) It has nothing to do with what the evangelical leaders are saying, indeed in many cases such as mine it would have to be in spite of what they are saying--it is a powerful, visceral response, fair or not, that "she is really us, not a groomed, plastic, blow-dried Ralph Reed type pandering for our vote."

This could all change, and at any rate having the evangelicals rally behind her, especially if the so-called leaders make a big fuss, could end up a net minus instead of a net plus--such analyses are above my pay grade. But the fact, I suspect now beyond refute, is that the choice has indeed energized the sleeping evangelical base. Whether it was a sleeping bear or sleeping paper tiger I don't know.

I would also add my guess that no current (plausible) stories, even should they prove true, would dampen the excitement in that community. And I would also add, again, that these observations are purely anecdotal, based on talking to my friends who have talked to their friends, etc.

The one criticism of her that might have some legs among evangelicals is that given all her personal family problems, which is a big part of her appeal, is being VP in the best interest of her family? My guess is that she cannot come up with a slam dunk answer to this, but she'll come up with some answer, and that will be enough.

Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 02 2008,08:19

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2008,13:02)
Of course, < the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.

*takes own advice and refrains from further comment*
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 02 2008,08:42

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,05:47)
Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dheddle, don't you feel just a tad USED by this choice of a VP candidate? McCain made a cynical calculation, and you fell for it. This woman has no substantive experience, and even those who should be her fans have little to say about her governing abilities. I couldn't care less about her personal life, but  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Harris, the (REPUBLICAN) speaker of the Alaska House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couple that with the investigation into abuse of power vis-a-vis her former brother in law, and the revelations that she wangled $27 million in federal pork for her village of less than 7000 people, and she looks like a typical venal politician, except with even less experience. She may not be Ralph Reed, but she might be Tom DeLay or Bob Ney or Newt Gingrich (without the resumes of any of those guys).

If evangelicals are over the moon about this pick, it really does highlight how they can overlook just about everything else and still support a co-religionist regardless of reality.

That's just sad.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 02 2008,09:21

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2008,14:19)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2008,13:02)
Of course, < the rest of the world is jealous of our freedoms. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.

*takes own advice and refrains from further comment*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow also.

{Follows Alan's advice}

Louis

P.S. Although I choose to follow Alan's advice, it is very good advice, I want it on record that any comment I would have made before I took Alan's advice would have further confirmed Godwin's law.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 02 2008,09:29

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2008,14:42)
[SNIP]

If evangelicals are over the moon about this pick, it really does highlight how they can overlook just about everything else and still support a co-religionist regardless of reality.

That's just sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the same is true even if the potential Rep. VP is an atheist.* Cheerleading because someone is on your team misses the point of democracy. Or at least it misses the point of democracy if you are one of the people and not one of the elected. The elected have a distinctly vested interest in distracting the people from the issues. It might be the least bad system we have, but that doesn't make it perfect!

Reading up about your potential POTUSes and VPOTUSes has scared the crap out of me. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, and maybe I am disturbed at the political trends here in the UK (current operating system = USA emulator version 1.2). I can't see that McCain/Palin is going to be a good choice for the USA based on the issues. And based on promises they might have to keep I'm not so sure about Obama/Biden. At least Obama seems science friendly and his stated desire (however honest) to keep the negative campaigning out of the process is pleasing.

Louis

*Not that atheism is a religion, yadda yadda yadda, blah, blah, blah etc.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,09:37

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,05:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2008,00:53)
Palin captures critical evangelical swing vote:

< http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I mentioned on Ed's blog, I can confirm that anecdotally, even more so after talking to more friends last night. The evangelicals, so far, absolutely love her. (As do I.) It has nothing to do with what the evangelical leaders are saying, indeed in many cases such as mine it would have to be in spite of what they are saying--it is a powerful, visceral response, fair or not, that "she is really us, not a groomed, plastic, blow-dried Ralph Reed type pandering for our vote."

This could all change, and at any rate having the evangelicals rally behind her, especially if the so-called leaders make a big fuss, could end up a net minus instead of a net plus--such analyses are above my pay grade. But the fact, I suspect now beyond refute, is that the choice has indeed energized the sleeping evangelical base. Whether it was a sleeping bear or sleeping paper tiger I don't know.

I would also add my guess that no current (plausible) stories, even should they prove true, would dampen the excitement in that community. And I would also add, again, that these observations are purely anecdotal, based on talking to my friends who have talked to their friends, etc.

The one criticism of her that might have some legs among evangelicals is that given all her personal family problems, which is a big part of her appeal, is being VP in the best interest of her family? My guess is that she cannot come up with a slam dunk answer to this, but she'll come up with some answer, and that will be enough.

Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Point taken, Dave.

I was trying to snarkily suggest that she's adding no new voters (evangelicals were only ever going republican anyway)..
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,09:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2008,08:42)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,05:47)
Bottom line: FTK is not the only one gushing, not by a long-shot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dheddle, don't you feel just a tad USED by this choice of a VP candidate? McCain made a cynical calculation, and you fell for it. This woman has no substantive experience, and even those who should be her fans have little to say about her governing abilities. I couldn't care less about her personal life, but        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Harris, the (REPUBLICAN) speaker of the Alaska House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Couple that with the investigation into abuse of power vis-a-vis her former brother in law, and the revelations that she wangled $27 million in federal pork for her village of less than 7000 people, and she looks like a typical venal politician, except with even less experience. She may not be Ralph Reed, but she might be Tom DeLay or Bob Ney or Newt Gingrich (without the resumes of any of those guys).

If evangelicals are over the moon about this pick, it really does highlight how they can overlook just about everything else and still support a co-religionist regardless of reality.

That's just sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't feel used. Every VP pick in the history of the Republic was made to shore up support. Every single VP pick in history is an example of pandering to somebody. Obama's choice was to comfort those who are inclined to vote for him but nervous about his lack of National Security creds. Should those people feel "used"? Did Texans feel "used" when JFK chose LBJ?

It may be that when more is revealed about Palin I'll change my mind back to Obama. But the quotes you provided sure won't do it--any more than quotes about Obama's lack of experience influenced me when I was ready to pull the lever for him. If experience was a huge factor, which for me it is not, then I would have been in the McCain camp long before he chose Palin.
Posted by: jupiter on Sep. 02 2008,09:52

dheddle, you're ignoring the corruption/abuse of power issues raised. Don't those give you pause? Or make you even slightly interested in looking into them on your own?
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,10:14

Quote (jupiter @ Sep. 02 2008,09:52)
dheddle, you're ignoring the corruption/abuse of power issues raised. Don't those give you pause? Or make you even slightly interested in looking into them on your own?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I am more than interested. Excuse me for not taking as gospel the first wave of stories that followed the announcement. I also didn't believe the "Obama is a closet Moslem" stories. If they have legs, if they turn out to point to serious corruption, then it would certainly have an effect on my vote. As for what is mentioned, would $27 million in pork bother me? Hell no, every politician should have a goal of getting back to their state a reasonable fraction of the federal dollars their citizens sent to DC. I don't expect my governor to say--"Oh, let's just let Robert Byrd have all those dollars for WVa." Having her sister-in-law's husband fired without cause? If that turns out to be true that would be disturbing. But a report that it is being investigated is just that--I'll wait until the investigation is completed.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 02 2008,10:29

Just as a side point, if Obama WAS a muslim, would it really matter to you Dave?

The question I suppose I am asking is "Is the single issue of a candidate's specific religious/non-religious stance sufficiently important to you to vote/not vote for them?". Which immediately springs the follow-on question of "Would you excuse a member of your own sect for unpleasantness X and not excuse a member of another sect/non-religious candidate for unpleasantness X?".

Louis
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,10:39

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,10:29)
Just as a side point, if Obama WAS a muslim, would it really matter to you Dave?

The question I suppose I am asking is "Is the single issue of a candidate's specific religious/non-religious stance sufficiently important to you to vote/not vote for them?". Which immediately springs the follow-on question of "Would you excuse a member of your own sect for unpleasantness X and not excuse a member of another sect/non-religious candidate for unpleasantness X?".

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It might, I don't know for sure, but it might. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I tend to vote for people in part because they are like me. Part of Obama's appeal to me includes that he is a Christian, part of the appeal is the history making aspect of an African-American president, and part of the appeal is that he is smart. I am so "not a Moslem" that I don't honestly know if I would vote for one. I think I could, but that is purely hypothetical.

So that answers the first question--somebody being "like me" in their biography is absolutely appealing. I have a lot in common with Palin: lower middle class upbringing, handicapped child, evangelical Christian. There is no doubt that I find that commonality appealing.

As for the second question, I would not excuse a member of my own "sect." If Palin is corrupt, I will not vote for her.  On the other hand, I don't expect her to be a saint, either.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 02 2008,10:45

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,10:14)
Quote (jupiter @ Sep. 02 2008,09:52)
dheddle, you're ignoring the corruption/abuse of power issues raised. Don't those give you pause? Or make you even slightly interested in looking into them on your own?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes I am more than interested. Excuse me for not taking as gospel the first wave of stories that followed the announcement. I also didn't believe the "Obama is a closet Moslem" stories. If they have legs, if they turn out to point to serious corruption, then it would certainly have an effect on my vote. As for what is mentioned, would $27 million in pork bother me? Hell no, every politician should have a goal of getting back to their state a reasonable fraction of the federal dollars their citizens sent to DC. I don't expect my governor to say--"Oh, let's just let Robert Byrd have all those dollars for WVa." Having her sister-in-law's husband fired without cause? If that turns out to be true that would be disturbing. But a report that it is being investigated is just that--I'll wait until the investigation is completed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re your previous post, yes, politicians have always picked VP candidates who complemented their strengths. Biden's foreign policy creds, as you mentioned, are a good example. But this choice was identity politics at its worst. She fills no gap in McCain's policy portfolio, she merely makes evangelicals feel better about him. To me, at least, that is a different thing than picking someone for their policy experience, or even if they can deliver a key swing state. The Repubs have been railing at the Dems for decades about the evils of identity politics. What happened here?

Re this post, the issue is NOT to determine who is the biggest porker. The issue is the hypocrisy of running as an anti-porker when you have bellied up to that trough for many millions of dollars. Does hypocrisy bother you?

As for the report on the investigation, you probably won't get it until after the election. It was originally slated to come out in late October or early November. Her recent hiring of a lawyer in this investigation means that there will almost certainly be delays.

So good luck making up your mind.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,10:58

Albatrossity2,

You see no possible gradations here? All porkers are equal, everyone is a Robert Byrd? I don't. I can easily see being an anti-porker and yet receiving some pork. Politics is messy. If everyone fed just a bit at the trough, the question of pork barrel politics would go away. It's those who are gluttons who worry me.

Your comment about the trooper-gate probe seems to be cynical--the results won't be out until after the election. If so, and if she wins, and if they results show illegal activity, then I'll have to hold that against her after the election. The world is not perfect, and the alternative is holding to an investigation as proof of a misdeed. I wouldn't take that approach with anyone.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 02 2008,11:05

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,10:58)
You see no possible gradations here? All porkers are equal, everyone is a Robert Byrd? I don't. I can easily see being an anti-porker and yet receiving some pork. Politics is messy. If everyone fed just a bit at the trough, the question of pork barrel politics would go away. It's those who are gluttons who worry me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure there are gradations. Don't put words in my mouth; read that I wrote instead. Gluttony and hypocrisy are both sins, as I recall. I notice you paid not a bit of attention to the main point of that argument.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comment about the trooper-gate probe seems to be cynical--the results won't be out until after the election. If so, and if she wins, and if they results show illegal activity, then I'll have to hold that against her after the election. The world is not perfect, and the alternative is holding to an investigation as proof of a misdeed. I wouldn't take that approach with anyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am cynical. Furthermore I think that McCain's choice for VP is evidence of profound cynicism on his side.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 02 2008,11:10

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:39)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,10:29)
Just as a side point, if Obama WAS a muslim, would it really matter to you Dave?

The question I suppose I am asking is "Is the single issue of a candidate's specific religious/non-religious stance sufficiently important to you to vote/not vote for them?". Which immediately springs the follow-on question of "Would you excuse a member of your own sect for unpleasantness X and not excuse a member of another sect/non-religious candidate for unpleasantness X?".

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It might, I don't know for sure, but it might. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I tend to vote for people in part because they are like me. Part of Obama's appeal to me includes that he is a Christian, part of the appeal is the history making aspect of an African-American president, and part of the appeal is that he is smart. I am so "not a Moslem" that I don't honestly know if I would vote for one. I think I could, but that is purely hypothetical.

So that answers the first question--somebody being "like me" in their biography is absolutely appealing. I have a lot in common with Palin: lower middle class upbringing, handicapped child, evangelical Christian. There is no doubt that I find that commonality appealing.

As for the second question, I would not excuse a member of my own "sect." If Palin is corrupt, I will not vote for her.  On the other hand, I don't expect her to be a saint, either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for being honest.

I have to say that for me, I practise what I preach (ha ha ha), I think religion is a private, personal matter, and that it shouldn't be involved in politics (as far as is practicable, I understand how individuals might be influenced etc), hence I don't care if the candidate is a christian, muslim, sikh, cargo cultist, whatever. And I think it's safe to say I am at least as "not a muslim" as you are! ;-) In fact I'd go further, I'm even more "not a muslim" than you, given how I am also "not a jew" and "not a christian"!

I tend to vote for people whose ideas I think are good (by which I mean based on the available evidence). It's all about the ideas/issues for me, and agreement doesn't always feature. I have voted for people I vehemently disagree with on (perhaps minor) issue A because I think they are going to do a good job on issue B (which I may or may not agree with them on). Oy, such a headfuck! I don't have to like them, in fact in many cases I can guarantee I DON'T like them, or that they have to be like me. I also really, really don't expect candidates to be saints.

So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?

Louis
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,11:23

Louis,

Could you rephrase this question:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think there is a word missing, and I don't want to assume that I know what it is.

Albatrossity2,

What main point did I miss? I thought I was pretty clear that I do not view her being anti-pork and her going after some pork as evidence of hypocrisy. I thought I was clear that it is every politician's fiduciary responsibility to go after some pork, to try to retrieve some of the tax dollars the state sends to DC.


Note: I have to get ready to teach my Astronomy class, so any reply will be delayed.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 02 2008,11:31

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,11:23)
Albatrossity2,

What main point did I miss? I thought I was pretty clear that I do not view her being anti-pork and her going after some pork as evidence of hypocrisy. I thought I was clear that it is every politician's fiduciary responsibility to go after some pork, to try to retrieve some of the tax dollars the state sends to DC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My definition - Hypocrisy = saying one thing (vehemently, in Palin's case) and doing another.

Dheddle's definition - "her being anti-pork and her going after some pork" = not evidence of hypocrisy

We seem to have different definitions of hypocrisy.

I'll stick with mine, thanks.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 02 2008,11:42

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,17:23)
Louis,

Could you rephrase this question:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think there is a word missing, and I don't want to assume that I know what it is.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a problem. TYPO the Gdo of clerical errors has smitten me once more 'twould seem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think you would tbh, but I am trying to assess the borders of this "vote for people like me" idea you have.

Louis
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 02 2008,12:45

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,10:14)
 Hell no, every politician should have a goal of getting back to their state a reasonable fraction of the federal dollars their citizens sent to DC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is 1.8 a reasonable fraction, Heddle? That's for the state as a whole, and I suspect that the "fraction" for Wasilla after the lobbying was done was closer to 5.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,13:04

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,11:23)
Note: I have to get ready to teach my Astrology class, so any reply will be delayed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


fixed that for you!  :p
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,15:20

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 02 2008,16:13

Has anyone asked the current Mrs. McCain what she thinks of the choice of Mrs. Palin to be traveling with Mr. McCain?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,16:19

uh-oh:

< http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Except for the national spotlight, Wasilla Bible Church resembles thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country. Its statement of faith says its members believe that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant word of God."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This past Sunday, worship at the Assembly of God fellowship in Wasilla was as euphoric as the Bible Church was staid. The congregation of about 100 was on its feet, shouting and clapping. Some members on another Sunday might murmur and keen in low voices, the sound of speaking in tongues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yay, church of gibberish. Perfect for Republicans!
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 02 2008,16:59

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,21:20)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this has what to do with NASCAR?

Sooooooo, tell me about your mother....

;-)

You're right it's a race question, and like I said, I didn't expect you to have any issue other than the one you mentioned ("lucky donkey" problem). Also like I said, I'm trying to map the extent of this "vote for the candidate like me" idea. It strikes me as an awfully daft way to vote, but then no doubt there is some subtlety I'm missing.

Same question with one gay candidate and one straight candidate.

Same question again with one male candidate and one female candidate.

I'm guessing neither of these would present you with anything other than a "lucky donkey" problem like you describe above. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Are religion, class and demeanour the only "personal" factors that matter to you?

Leaving aside issues of competency/corruption etc.

Louis
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 02 2008,17:27

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,17:57

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,17:27)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
   
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Democracy sucks. Maybe you could institute a "you must cogently explain the issues'' voting poll to weed out those unprofitable citizens like me who trust our gut (sometimes resulting in utter failure) more than those who trust the issues (because candidates always tell the truth about what policies they will pursue.)

Edit: typo
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 02 2008,18:00

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,15:27)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In defence of dheddle, I think almost everyone does this on some level.  Not everyone is honest enough to admit it.  It's why so much effort and money is put into cultivating a candidate's image.  

Presenting a Yale-educated scion of one of Connecticut's wealthiest families as a horny-handed Texas brush-clearer wasn't done on a whim, and it wasn't done just to lure the mouth-breathing rednecks - there aren't that many of them, and most of them don't vote.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,18:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2008,23:31)
Advice to Sarah Palin: Whatever they offer, don't accept that offer of a special guest appearance on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Advice to Joe Biden, if you are on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" it would be considered gauche to challenge one of the kids to an IQ face-off.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 02 2008,18:09

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,16:59)
You're right it's a race question, and like I said, I didn't expect you to have any issue other than the one you mentioned ("lucky donkey" problem). Also like I said, I'm trying to map the extent of this "vote for the candidate like me" idea. It strikes me as an awfully daft way to vote, but then no doubt there is some subtlety I'm missing.

Are religion, class and demeanour the only "personal" factors that matter to you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No subtlety. Maybe just an acknowledgement that the strategy has limitations. There are positions outrageous enough that no matter how much I identified with the candidate I wouldn't vote for him or her.

BTW, same answer for the other groups you mentioned.

No, I also like someone who looks like they can speak extemporaneously. Obama seems pretty good, McCain less so, and Biden most susceptible, at toxic concentrations, to foot-in-mouth. Palin seems quite good based on the few interviews I've seen--time will tell.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 02 2008,18:37

i'm with you as far as democracy sucks.  i would like a scale dependent caveat on that though.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 02 2008,19:14

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,18:57)
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,17:27)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
     
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Democracy sucks. Maybe you could institute a "you must cogently explain the issues'' voting poll to weed out those unprofitable citizens like me who trust our gut (sometimes resulting in utter failure) more than those who trust the issues (because candidates always tell the truth about what policies they will pursue.)

Edit: typo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least looking at their stances on the issues whether they are telling the absolute truth or not (and many times you can tell) is better than voting based on how they look or some other superficial trait.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 02 2008,19:17

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 02 2008,19:00)
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,15:27)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2008,16:20)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 02 2008,11:42)
So to follow-on the follow-on, would you have any trouble choosing between two otherwise identical (hypothetical) candidates one of whom is black (and thus presumably unlike you) and one of whom is white (and thus presumably like you)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the way it is worded I would have one problem, that of the hungry mule halfway between two equally delicious buckets, one of oats and one of corn. I'd starve from frozen indecision since there is no way to choose. But I think you are asking if I would take race into account, and the answer is no. There are more important factors beyond race that would permit me to identify with one over the other, such as demeanor--For example I am immediately drawn to down-to-earth types as opposed to scholarly-acting types.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I'm glad that we have people like you who will look at the issues and vote...oh wait...

Y'know, it's attitudes like this that put shrub in the office.  How many people said they voted for him because Gore was too smart or not likeable enough, or that they felt they could have a beer with shrub?

Sad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In defence of dheddle, I think almost everyone does this on some level.  Not everyone is honest enough to admit it.  It's why so much effort and money is put into cultivating a candidate's image.  

Presenting a Yale-educated scion of one of Connecticut's wealthiest families as a horny-handed Texas brush-clearer wasn't done on a whim, and it wasn't done just to lure the mouth-breathing rednecks - there aren't that many of them, and most of them don't vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they did, because image is everything in a world of too-lazy, sound-byte wanting public that would rather have an average joe in the most powerful office in the world than someone who is smart, level-headed, and all that.  I mean, c'mon.  If you are going to vote based on perception politics, at least go with the guy who you perceive is best for the office, not the one you think is the most mediocre.  People voted for shrub exactly because he was mediocre.  Now, people are going to vote for McCain because Palin goes to the right church?

ETA:  And, there's no reason to defend Heddle on this.  In fact, I hold him in lower regard than the uneducated, backwoods guy, simply because Heddle DOES have the education and should have the ability to make informed decisions.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 02 2008,19:54

GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 02 2008,21:17

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2008,20:54)
GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, we never have the best people running, but I hardly find that to be a legitimate excuse for voting for someone like shrub, especially when he was voted specifically because he wasn't as qualified for the job.

And, I fail to see what you mean by coerced people.  Heddle can look up the issues instead of voting for McCain simply because Palin goes to the right church.

And, yeah, the platforms are pretty well similar, but there are some differences, and some important ones.  Roe v. Wade?  War in Iran?  Continued presence in Iraq?  You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the decency to look up what's being debated.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 02 2008,23:16

no my friend it is not about decency or agreeing with you.  I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, but apparently the point where we disagree regards the importance of participating in the process.  I refuse to legitimize this miserable failure of a circus with my input, and I won't shoulder the blame (nor do i accept "can't complain if you don't vote" because that presupposes so much that is an affront to the senses and reason that I am astounded that it passes for argument, in some circles).

I don't know your politics but such a nonsensical dichotomous 'choice' (for what, even to the average fundie, only passes for leadership) is to me validation for the contention that one should expect the absolute worst form of self serving imperialist bipartisan hegemony when considering the possible constitution of the next electorate.  

the worst part is, the rest of the world is now trying to adopt this model.  at least the resource extraction industrial countries.  they turned the enlightenment around on it's head and ignored william blake.

Every harlot was a virgin once.

Now back on OT:  i know yosemite mcsame is paying lip service to intelligent design and i know he is a panderer just like all these other douchebags.  how organized is this new front of inserting creotard asshattery  state-by-state into school curriculum and textbooks?  How many other states are doing what LA is getting ready to do, if only the get the green light from a new Republican administration?  

to be honest i can't see democrats not doing the same thing if it would get them votes.  they are all unprincipled, after all.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 02 2008,23:21

To be fair, I don't think the system is conducive to idealists - and we may not want one to the extent that idealism is at odds with pragmatism.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 03 2008,04:13

Quote (GCT @ Sep. 02 2008,21:17)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2008,20:54)
GCT choosing between a runny turd and a lumpy turd ain't exactly free will.  How can you hold coerced people responsible for decisions that have no effect on any perceivable endpoint I find hard to understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, we never have the best people running, but I hardly find that to be a legitimate excuse for voting for someone like shrub, especially when he was voted specifically because he wasn't as qualified for the job.

And, I fail to see what you mean by coerced people.  Heddle can look up the issues instead of voting for McCain simply because Palin goes to the right church.

And, yeah, the platforms are pretty well similar, but there are some differences, and some important ones.  Roe v. Wade?  War in Iran?  Continued presence in Iraq?  You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the decency to look up what's being debated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have made a mistake. I don't need to look up the issues. I know about the issues. Why, I bet my issues IQ is higher than yours! I didn't say that I don't know the issues. No, the point is twofold: in a aggregate sense I don't see much difference--that is on some issues I tend to be Republican, some Democratic, and it more or less is a wash. (Other libertarian leaning voters will recognize the problem--we don't fit in either major party.) Then there is the fact that once elected candidates tend to give in to expediency anyway. How many Republicans have promised to reduce government, and how many have succeeded?

No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

[Aside: Palin goes to the right church? She has switched to a Reformed Baptist Church?]
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 03 2008,04:35

Note: I'm a dirty jurropean, so I won't even pretend to understand US electoral politics.

There are however other metrics than issues or personality that you can vote by.

Who are their backers, financially and politically. With only two major parties, from which faction within the respective parties do the candidates come?
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 03 2008,05:14

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,10:13)
[SNIP]

No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahhhh good. I knew I was being overly pessimistic about your voting strategy. Faith in Heddle restored, such as it was! ;-)

I don't agree with you as a matter of personal responsibility, issue voting might break my heart but it's my job to do it, but at least I understand where you are coming from. Personally, I think giving into the politics of despair is an abrogation of one's democratic duties. YMMV.

Oh and it ain't just libertarians, or USAians, who find the "two(ish) party" political model unsatisfactory on several levels. There is no party that represents me in pretty much any nation (and I've looked!). Hence why I advocate no small measure of political and social change.....

But that's another story.

Louis

ETA: Ok ok so I'm going to comment further dammit. I tried to avoid it, but meh, I'm a total bastard, might as well not break the habit of a lifetime.

This (perhaps limited) abandonment of your political and intellectual duties annoys me for its pathetic fatalism, Heddle.

Yes politicians make promises they don't keep. Yes politicians make claims about the issues they later on forget. Yes the systems of government we have are not perfect. So? Unless we as the electorate actually make the effort to change things (and let's be blunt, it ain't that big an effort) then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past forever. We are going to get fucked over, we are going to get lied to and we are going to elect politicians that go back on their campaign promises.

The only way to make this happen less is to ENGAGE in the political process to an extent that it causes personal cost. Claiming you "know the issues and don't need to investigate them further" is an abrogation of your duty as a capable citizen. I'd go as far as to say it is an abrogation of your civic duty as a scientist and an academic. I seriously doubt, no matter how high you claim you "issues IQ" to be, that you are conversant with all the details of all the relevant issues, or even anything approaching 50% of them. I seriously doubt anyone is. Reducing any part of your decision on who to vote for to the popularity contest style you advocate above is worse than merely shrugging your shoulders, it's active participation in the very causes of your own fatalism.

I speak as someone who used to do this as a younger bloke out of a combination of apathy and identical fatalism. Comedy slogans abound "Don't vote, the government might get in", "Don't vote, it only encourages them" etc. I even stood in a mock election as the Monster Raving Loony candidate (an election I won by a landslide I might add) to mock the futility of the political process. My views on futility and "satirisability" have not changed, my acknowledgement that I have a very hard won duty has. The more I read about politics and history the stronger that duty weighs.

So it's my job to protest at policies I disagree with. It's my job to investigate the issues as thoroughly as I can and vote with the best available evidence. It's my duty to reach out where possible and inform others (if needs be). It's especially my job to do so honestly on scientific matters (as a professional scientist) especially those closely linked to my own area of research. It's even more especially my job to chase down any semblance of uncriticised dogma or belief on my part and justify it on a rational basis if possible, or abandon it. That's as true of politics as it is of science.

To abandon any of that with a fatalistic shrug of the shoulders to any degree is an abandonment of my responsibilities as a citizen. Worse, to realise this AND THEN to abandon it, is as gross a dereliction of my democratic duties as is imaginable.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 03 2008,07:48

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13)
Issue voting will break your heart everytime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And values voting will break the country.

Good choice.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 03 2008,07:54

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2008,07:48)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13)
Issue voting will break your heart everytime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And values voting will break the country.

Good choice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I do tend to be Calvinistic about these things.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 03 2008,08:50

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,13:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2008,07:48)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,04:13)
Issue voting will break your heart everytime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And values voting will break the country.

Good choice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I do tend to be Calvinistic about these things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the sense of unconditional election or total depravity?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 03 2008,09:26

heat death.

i'd rather go fishing.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 03 2008,09:51

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 03 2008,15:26)
heat death.

i'd rather go fishing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meh, who wouldn't?*

The sad thing is: cunts abound, ergo we can't fish all the time.

That's the tragedy of reality.

Louis

*For those who don't fish, and I'm one of them, insert your favourite activity. I fished as a kid, dammit I AM from the coast after all. But nowadays.....not so much.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 03 2008,17:28

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 03 2008,00:16)
no my friend it is not about decency or agreeing with you.  I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, but apparently the point where we disagree regards the importance of participating in the process.  I refuse to legitimize this miserable failure of a circus with my input, and I won't shoulder the blame (nor do i accept "can't complain if you don't vote" because that presupposes so much that is an affront to the senses and reason that I am astounded that it passes for argument, in some circles).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why defend Heddle for "legitimiz[ing] this miserable failure of a circus with [his] input" especially when his input plays into the lowest of the lowest common denominator?  That's the point.  If you are taking a principled stand against voting because you refuse to vote just to vote against someone, then that's one thing.  I used to do that myself until I changed my mind and decided that having shrub in office was just too dangerous and that I could hold my nose long enough to vote for the other guy (based on the issues I might add).  Whatever.  But, that's certainly not what Heddle is doing.  He's doing his part to make this even more of a circus by doing exactly what they want him to do, and that is vote for their guy simply because he likes the cut of their guy's jib (or simply because their woman goes to the right church).  If you object to our electoral system because it has been made into a mockery, then you should surely object to Heddle's participation making it into even more of a mockery!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know your politics but such a nonsensical dichotomous 'choice' (for what, even to the average fundie, only passes for leadership) is to me validation for the contention that one should expect the absolute worst form of self serving imperialist bipartisan hegemony when considering the possible constitution of the next electorate.  

the worst part is, the rest of the world is now trying to adopt this model.  at least the resource extraction industrial countries.  they turned the enlightenment around on it's head and ignored william blake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not even going to try and argue with this, because I happen to agree with pretty much all of it.  The only thing I disagree with is that there are some differences (however small) between the parties and these are important differences.  It might not be filet mignon, but there's a difference between eating some edible and eating rocks (or sh*t).
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 03 2008,17:31

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 03 2008,05:13)
No my friend, it is not that I don't know the issues, it that I choose (to a limited extent) not to vote by them. Issue voting will break your heart everytime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this helps your argument how?
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 03 2008,17:35

Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 03 2008,05:35)
There are however other metrics than issues or personality that you can vote by.

Who are their backers, financially and politically. With only two major parties, from which faction within the respective parties do the candidates come?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tend to lump that sort of analysis in with the issues.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 03 2008,17:37


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 03 2008,20:40

i suppose my disagreements with those folks are on axes orthogonal to the 'issues'.  i am not defending heddle for voting for whoever whenever whatever, i am saying when voter participation is such a scam you might as well frikkin vote for whoever.  it doesn't matter what brand of lunatic is in there, i don't think.  they are all despicable and i wouldn't piss on their grandmothers if their feet were on fire.  any honest man or woman wouldn't want the job.  so i like the fact that it's all a nascar race to heddle, but i suppose there are less titties and no bocephus at his party.  i could be wrong and would be thrilled to be wrong about this as a matter of fact.
Posted by: GCT on Sep. 03 2008,21:23

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 03 2008,21:40)
it doesn't matter what brand of lunatic is in there, i don't think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really?  Do you think we'd be in Iraq right now had shrub not been elected?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 03 2008,21:43

I hope she leads better than she names kids.
Trig and trix and boff and spug or whatever...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 03 2008,22:27

if not iraq somewhere else.  it's good for business you know.  keep on yanking on that window, makes jobs.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 03 2008,22:57

I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 04 2008,04:32

Let's get this thread back around to the topic. I'd like to see the focus get back on antievolution in the presidential race specifically.

Thanks.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Marvel Toilet > by Dplanet::
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 04 2008,11:06

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,20:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume there will be a Palin-Biden debate, in which case I'd like to see him take on her support for the teaching of creationism in science classes.  If the usual pattern holds (the closer we get to the election, the more timid the Dems get), it won't happen, though.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,11:08

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 04 2008,11:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,20:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume there will be a Palin-Biden debate, in which case I'd like to see him take on her support for the teaching of creationism in science classes.  If the usual pattern holds (the closer we get to the election, the more timid the Dems get), it won't happen, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The issue is that her stance, whilst wrong, is a popular one. For every you shaking your head there may be two people nodding.

I think the way to adress it may be to ask how she came to her opinions - being better informed is a good start.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 04 2008,11:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,11:08)
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 04 2008,11:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,20:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume there will be a Palin-Biden debate, in which case I'd like to see him take on her support for the teaching of creationism in science classes.  If the usual pattern holds (the closer we get to the election, the more timid the Dems get), it won't happen, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The issue is that her stance, whilst wrong, is a popular one. For every you shaking your head there may be two people nodding.

I think the way to adress it may be to ask how she came to her opinions - being better informed is a good start.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard - I second your motion.  Now, if we can just get everyone else to go along with it...
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 04 2008,18:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.
Posted by: Lowell on Sep. 04 2008,18:44

DaveScot tells everybody what's what at Pharyngula. Sarah Palin is going to be < "teh American Margaret Thatcher." > Write that down!

Finally, someone is going to make you chance worshipers pay for your crimes.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,19:28

Full screed:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,19:36

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,18:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you know what "frame" means, FtK?
Posted by: csadams on Sep. 04 2008,19:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
???
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 04 2008,19:45

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,18:43)

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her speech? I guess she had so many wits that other people had to retool the "outstanding" speech they had already written for a male VP candidate, eh, FtK?

Jesus was kind of a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor. Yeah, I can understand why fake Christians like you lap that shit up.

What about the blatant lie about the bridge to nowhere? Do you agree that we're doing "God's work" in Iraq?
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 04 2008,21:21

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,18:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK - WTF???!!!

Are you watching the same Sarah Palin as I am??!!

She comes accross as just another self-serving lying bag of horse dung - and a dumb one at that!

However, I must admit she is a good fit for the McCain-Bush ticket.

And BTW FTK - STAY OFF OF HIS LAWNS!!&^%$#!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,22:14

I do love "the daily show"..
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 04 2008,22:35

My gut reaction to Palin during her speech: Quite mixed.

Speech cadences and tonality worse than fingernails on chalkboard. On radio she comes across as a giggling hag.

But quite beautiful, with abundant Q-factor and watchability. TV works for her. Very confident and naturally sunny and, in a way, charismatic. She'll be liked by the Republican base.

Also, objectively, she must be a smart and capable woman. You don't get where she has without some of that.

But I also found her snide, sarcastic, abrasive, smug, and obnoxious. Simultaneously spunky and smug. Smunky.

Smunky isn't so good.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 04 2008,22:53

She the republican's best chance not to occupy the "80 year old man with his belt up by his nipples" mental  space...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 05 2008,05:13

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,20:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is exactly what popped into my head, as soon as I read Davey's first sentence.

Meanwhile, I see that Ftk and reality are forging ahead with the divorce proceedings.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 05 2008,05:22

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 05 2008,11:13)
[SNIP]

Meanwhile, I see that Ftk and reality are forging ahead with the divorce proceedings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA!

FTK and reality knew each other? I wasn't aware they'd ever been in the same room.

That aside, the gloating drivel of FTK and Davey boy is the standard crapola. Pay it no mind. It's just yet another piece of data in the "team identity" psychosis they present.

Louis
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 05 2008,05:32

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 05 2008,06:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I heard bits of her speech and thought she was very well spoken but I knocked me over how many errors in fact she said in one speech. I also thought that people like FTK would lap it up liking spin over substance.

I thought it was quite scary and more like something you would hear on LGF rather than something that an informed future leader would say.

But I suppose there are a lot of people like Ftk who never let facts stand in the way of forming an opinion.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 05 2008,06:41

Ftk has weighed in on Palin at Risible Kansans:

"Inexperienced my ass."

The opposite of which is...
Posted by: ck1 on Sep. 06 2008,10:54

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,19:43)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is an important difference in these two predictions.  On the one hand, the outcome depends on the decision of a single highly-educated jurist, on the other, on the choices made by ordinary voting Americans:

"And in all of this we should not leave out the role of the much heralded ordinary American. One reason the Republicans find such fertile ground for their shamelessness is that this is fundamentally a right-wing country. My liberal friends find it difficult to accept this, but to me it seems obviously true. Why do you suppose that Republicans trumpet their pro-life credentials, but Democrats try to change the subject when it comes to abortion? Why do Republicans run around bashing homosexuals, while Democrats quake in terror at the thought of having to say what they really think? Why do you suppose upwards of eighty percent of the country want to have some sort of creationism taught in science classes?

The answer is simple. It is that in each case the Republicans are defending the popular position."

< http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....ion.php >

(sorry - don't remember how to add quote boxes here)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 06 2008,11:44

Dheddle, FtK and others.

Here's a < letter > from a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I'm sure you will find it interesting.

It's beginning to look more and more like she is just another venal small-town politician, now thrust onto a national stage. If she becomes VP, she will make Spiro T. Agnew proud...
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 06 2008,11:48

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,19:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about those speech writers, eh?

What, you didn't think she wrote any of that, did you?

According to McCain's campaign, Palin will not be allowed to speak outside of scripted speeches and campaign appearances.

Apparently they don't think she is very intelligent, well spoken, or likable without someone to tell her what to say.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 06 2008,11:54

This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 06 2008,11:57

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2008,23:35)
But I also found her snide, sarcastic, abrasive, smug, and obnoxious. Simultaneously spunky and smug. Smunky.

Smunky isn't so good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the bright side, in 60 days you'll never have to think about her again.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 06 2008,12:22

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,11:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard "the maverick and the milf", but that gives them both too much credit.

I'm partial to "the flyboy and the flake" meself.
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 06 2008,12:38

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,11:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see. Who do we know that likes to give other politicians nicknames?

I know! Let's get < Georgie >!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 06 2008,13:46

Evangelicals / Palin:

< http://www.time.com/time....cnn=yes >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 06 2008,13:50

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,16:43)
She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that Palin is "fiesty (sic)." It is a perfect description since the word literally means "like a feist." We all know that feist is "a small snappish dog." The word feist itself derived from the Norman French name for a small fart. Totally appropriate, Palin is the very definition of feisty.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 06 2008,16:35

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 06 2008,12:48)
Apparently they don't think she is very intelligent, well spoken, or likable without someone to tell her what to say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How 'bout that?

I never thought I'd agree with that bunch of psychos on anything ever again...
Posted by: Tom Ames on Sep. 06 2008,16:38

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,09:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen "Gidget and the Geezer".
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 06 2008,16:43

All this reminds me of the way Reagan was ridiculed. Politics doesn't seem to favor rational thinking.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 06 2008,16:50

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2008,17:43)
Politics doesn't seem to favor rational thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it did, Palin's name would have never come up.


...and there wouldn't even be a Republican party as we know it.

And we wouldn't be here on this board, and all across the blogosphere spending enormous numbers of man-hours working endlessly to beat back the repeal of the Enlightenment.

So no. I suppose politics doesn't seem to favor rational thinking at all.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 06 2008,16:55

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,17:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like Bitter Old Dave's blogging while drunk. You'd think past experience would have taught him the folly of that.

Well, if Dave "we own that now, too" Springer is convinced that Mama Mooseburger is going to be in the White House for 16 years, I feel much better now.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 06 2008,17:03

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 06 2008,12:22)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2008,11:54)
This seems like the right place to ask this question.

I'm trying to find a suitable moniker for the Republicans' Happy Couple. The need for this struck me as I was looking at PTET's excellent, sneering coverage of it all.

"Captain Geritol and Polar Barbie"?
"ditto and Igloo Barbie"?
"Fossil Man and Gospel Mama"?
"President POW and The Moose-Meat MILF"?

Your thoughts (FTK, it's in the dictionary)  and suggestions, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard "the maverick and the milf", but that gives them both too much credit.

I'm partial to "the flyboy and the flake" meself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like Flyboy and The Flake.

AND STAY OFF OF THEIR LAWNS !!!&^%$
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 06 2008,17:16

i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 06 2008,17:44

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 06 2008,17:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.  The 2000 spectacle of Democrats arguing for, and Republicans against, state's rights told me everything I needed to know about politics. Internal consistency is the first victim in the quest for power.
Posted by: Assassinator on Sep. 06 2008,19:19

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2008,17:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never got the American polarised politics anyway. That 2-party system (well technically speaking, it's not) only seems to evoke loads of bile and pure hate and not a fruitfull discussion on how to make your country a better place to live.
When I watch American politics, it looks like almost like an educated "yo momma" battle instead of "My plans are better then yours, and here's why." All the attention goes to the next grand speech from Obama, or the next add from McCain. But where are the discussions about the issues? Where are the economists discussing with eachother instead of the same old chatter about crap that in the end won't matter anyway. I'm still waiting for the facts, thát's usefull.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 06 2008,21:25

assassinator do you have a better plan?  say the world was your oyster, how ought we live?

i've often wondered what the axioms are that people work from that results in the conclusion that 'democracy is the best form of government' etc etc.  how do you get from 'I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired' to 'We need a stronger national defense system' or 'Everyone has equal rights' etc.  Methinks there is a scam afoot but I'm not sure where it originated.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2008,07:03

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 06 2008,18:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted this on the UD2 thread, but it's appropriate here:

Fatalistic cynicism and secession of our responsibility to participate knowledgeably in both the educational system and the electoral system is what brought this country to its knees.

We stand eyeball to eyeball with theocracy precisely because of attitudes just like that.

Now we each have a choice. We can either take up the mantle of that responsibility once again and expend great effort to drag this country and the world back toward the ideals of the Enlightenment, or we can capitulate to the rip tide of religious fundamentalism and drown in an ocean of ignorance.

It's true that voting for the current Democratic candidate is not swimming directly to shore, 'Ras. But like a swimmer caught in a rip current, it's just not possible to reach the shore that way. Just like that swimmer, we need to escape the rip current by swimming almost parallel to shore first, until we are in less dangerous waters. It's only then that we can turn fully toward safety.

Your choice, to not participate, is tantamount to surrender to the rip current.

I choose to swim.
Posted by: Assassinator on Sep. 07 2008,07:49

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2008,21:25)
assassinator do you have a better plan?  say the world was your oyster, how ought we live?

i've often wondered what the axioms are that people work from that results in the conclusion that 'democracy is the best form of government' etc etc.  how do you get from 'I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired' to 'We need a stronger national defense system' or 'Everyone has equal rights' etc.  Methinks there is a scam afoot but I'm not sure where it originated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't ;) But I assume presidential candidates have. Afterall, they're not running for president for nothing. The only thing I'm really asking for, is more focus on the product and less focus on the advertisements. I still find it odd why there is so much focus on advertisement in American politics.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 07 2008,08:20

Quote (Assassinator @ Sep. 07 2008,07:49)
I still find it odd why there is so much focus on advertisement in American politics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It may be "odd", but they do it because it works...

Sadly.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 07 2008,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fatalistic cynicism and secession of our responsibility to participate knowledgeably in both the educational system and the electoral system is what brought this country to its knees.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm trying to find the empirical content in this claim but it seems to me to just be empty rhetoric.  Exactly how does a country have knees?  How could 'fatalistic cynicism and secession of responsibility to participate knowledgeably' bring a country 'to its knees'?

It can't.  That is word salad.  What you mean to say, I think, some elements have used the system to get their way at the expense of other the desires of other elements.  Well, loddy frikking dah.  That's what makes it run.  Now do you see why I say its a pile of shit?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We stand eyeball to eyeball with theocracy precisely because of attitudes just like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



it's not because of attitudes like mine, pal, it's attitudes like YOURS.  In other words, those who say 'use the system to get what you want' are the same no matter who you are or what you want.  Of course the myopic take umbrage at this and are morally offended at this accusation instead of recognizing that it is a flaw with this system, you know the one that we are supposed to be participating in to keep Amurrika off her knees?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now we each have a choice. We can either take up the mantle of that responsibility once again and expend great effort to drag this country and the world back toward the ideals of the Enlightenment, or we can capitulate to the rip tide of religious fundamentalism and drown in an ocean of ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More histrionics.  I think the root question here is "How should we live" and I am pretty fucking sure that the answer is not in a global village, Enlightened or Not.  Your fundamental axioms here will greatly affect that realm of possible conclusions, but I am fairly sure that I can demonstrate that participation in the system involves some humongous internal contradictions that are unresolvable (and indeed as the hegel/marx thesis-antithesis-synthesis notion suggests, keep it working at all).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's true that voting for the current Democratic candidate is not swimming directly to shore, 'Ras. But like a swimmer caught in a rip current, it's just not possible to reach the shore that way. Just like that swimmer, we need to escape the rip current by swimming almost parallel to shore first, until we are in less dangerous waters. It's only then that we can turn fully toward safety.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



can't do that much with your analogy.  to clarify, what is the current and what makes it work?  how did we get in the water anyway?

my interests lie in an orthogonal plane to the false left-right dichotomy we see here.  when you disagree with both parties, at a fundamental level, there is no place for you in the discussion.  but heat death and the tragedy of the commons will eventually take care of this stubborn obstacle.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your choice, to not participate, is tantamount to surrender to the rip current.

I choose to swim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



swim swim swim swim swim.  I'll be somewhere out there fishing, maybe i'll pick you up if you swim to my boat.  bring beer.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2008,10:53

Ok real small words, 'Ras.

Religious nuts spreading ignorance in the country is bad, m'kay?

When people don't understand what this country was founded on, principles of liberty and reason, they give up that liberty to tyrants.

Are you with me so far?

Now the donkey dudes don't have it all right.

But the efalant boys are making it badder.

We need to get rid of the efalant boys, m'kay? They are the bad men who want to tell you that you can't think stuff.

Let me know when you want to help, instead of pouting in the corner because you don't like the donkey dudes.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 07 2008,12:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fatalistic cynicism and secession of our responsibility to participate knowledgeably in both the educational system and the electoral system is what brought this country to its knees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here in smugly superior Yurrp, we like to sneer at the Murkin system of popularity polls, but I sometimes wonder how things would work out for us if we had to organise continental-scale elections for a position that carried real power. It sure wouldn't be pretty.

It's worth remembering that the US system was designed so as to have the president elected by the Great and Good of the various states. The noisesome mob were to have their say in the bear-pit of the House of Reps, not in the olympian halls of the Senate, and certainly not in the matter of the President's election. To the minds of your revered founders, that gave sufficient balance between the popular and the propertied. Rational debate was, in their minds, assured among an elite whose position was not dependent on the popular will.

The emergence of coast-to-coast television companies as the main media of political persuasion has, unsurprisingly, reduced most political debate on TV to the lowest common denominator. Given the diversity of regions and interests, how could it be otherwise?

So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press. The American cult of ancestor worship ( "our Founding Fathers"! C'mon, get a grip, they weren't superhuman) makes it heretical to even suggest changing the rules. The need for intravenous television makes every elected official a whore for the purposes of fundraising.

The current incarnation of teh Intertoobs demands a bit more interaction than the almost perfectly passive consumption of TV. It will be interesting to see if the Net takes over from TV as the main medium of mass communication. If it does, and it continues to demand something more than drooling on a couch for your nightly news, you could see a revival of popular participation in political debate.

I wouldn't bet on it, but then I'm a sneering Yurrpean cynic.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 07 2008,13:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you know amadan, you sound like you hate freedom.

how's that lou?  am i getting it yet?

show me how voting helps and i'll consider your point.  

voting = praying.

period.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 07 2008,14:13

What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.

My point, which you clearly missed, is that the US constitution is the product of 18th century men who had assumptions and objectives that reflected their times and backgrounds. Did you think I agreed with their view that a propertied elite should have a permanent advantage in political life? Perhaps I should avoid complimacated litturary stuff like irony.

If you take the view that voting just encourages the bastards, you are stuck with the problem of how you are going to assure yourself the freedom that you clearly value. Opting out is fine until you run up against the system. When that happens - say, if a cop doesn't like the colour of your skin or the town council votes to remove the Koran from the library - what are you going to do?

Perhaps your point is that there is nothing that you can do, and that the system will inevitably crush individual freedom. Personally, I don't take that view. If the system of government itself is a subject of debate and potential change, the individual has a far stronger chance of fighting back.

In the USA, that doesn't seem to be an option. The 1789 constitutional framework is sacrosanct and its drafters are presented as uniquely endowed with wisdom and foresight. Bollocks. Contributing to this problem is the biased, homogenised and sound-bite level of most political discourse on US national TV networks.

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.

Does that make it clearer?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 07 2008,14:35

As a contrarian, I note that I am not subject to arrest or confiscation of my property for selling bananas by the pound.

And my country, warts and all, does not publicly humiliate Germans and Italians by noting, as a matter of law, that their condoms are, for some unspecified reason, undersized.
Posted by: Assassinator on Sep. 07 2008,14:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,13:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you know amadan, you sound like you hate freedom.

how's that lou?  am i getting it yet?

show me how voting helps and i'll consider your point.  

voting = praying.

period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's true that the individual vote in a country the size of the US or even Holland does not really count. You only stand strong as a group, you're (mostly) worthless as an individual. And that only gets worse when the size of a society gets bigger. Voting only has an impact when you do it as a group.
But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2008,14:43

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2008,14:45

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 07 2008,12:35)
And my country, warts and all, does not publicly humiliate Germans and Italians by noting, as a matter of law, that their condoms are, for some unspecified reason, undersized.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ones Louis buys are smaller still.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 07 2008,14:57

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,14:13)
My point, which you clearly missed, is that the US constitution is the product of 18th century men who had assumptions and objectives that reflected their times and backgrounds. Did you think I agreed with their view that a propertied elite should have a permanent advantage in political life?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In the USA, that doesn't seem to be an option. The 1789 constitutional framework is sacrosanct and its drafters are presented as uniquely endowed with wisdom and foresight. Bollocks. Contributing to this problem is the biased, homogenised and sound-bite level of most political discourse on US national TV networks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Both of these comments are gross overgeneralizations that come from, IMO, an incomplete understanding of American history, the rather unique nature of the American Founders, and the singular nature of what they were able to achieve.  That isn't intended as a personal criticism.  I suspect that your exposure to the American political history probably is (at least) on par to what is taught in American high schools. But, I don't consider that an adequate level of study for such a deep history with such complex personalities.  Such a study would include, at a bare minimum, study of "The Federalist" and wouldn't be hurt by biographies of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson.  That the Founders crafted such a constitution, under assault from the git-go (and very nearly stillborn) by the demagogues of the day speaks to it's unique nature.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.

Does that make it clearer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, for two reasons. First, the Constitution was constructed with dual goals: to establish the relationship of the government to the governed (with particular attention to the ennumeration, and preservation, of individual rights), as well as the construction of the government that was structured to provide interlocking balances of power intended to forestall excesses of any one particular branch (in particular, the House of Representatives).  As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.

Second, our constitutional system already provides means by which it can be amended.  It is an onerous process, to be sure, but that is deliberate.  As the checks and balances of our government's structure provide a buffer against excesses driven by popular passions, so does the amendment process.  The beauty of the Constitution is it's narrow focus to the construction, and limitations, of government, coupled with it's relative permanence. It isn't intended to specify the detailed nature of political life, but rather provide a framework within which to operate.

So, I see no need to redesign The Constitution, only to ensure it's faithful execution (which has been all to poor of late).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 07 2008,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm very opposed to a redesigning of the Constitution (except for abolishing the Electoral College). This isn't 1789. Extremist loonies and special interests would hijack the whole process. People as smart and secular as Adams and Jefferson wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the committees. Ironically, Jefferson would never be elected president now, since he'd be called 'too liberal', 'elitist' and 'not Christian'. Fox would do dozens of shows about his disdain for flag pins and how people wouldn't want to have a beer with him.

Plus he probably smells kind of bad by now.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Sep. 07 2008,15:32

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,15:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, you can assert and protect your freedom in the USA, but you could do it a heck of a lot more effectively if you redesigned your constitution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm very opposed to a redesigning of the Constitution (except for abolishing the Electoral College). This isn't 1789. Extremist loonies and special interests would hijack the whole process. People as smart and secular as Adams and Jefferson wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the committees. Ironically, Jefferson would never be elected president now, since he'd be called 'too liberal', 'elitist' and 'not Christian'. Fox would do dozens of shows about his disdain for flag pins and how people wouldn't want to have a beer with him.

Plus he probably smells kind of bad by now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometime in the '60s or 70's, a political announcement aired in the US, in which former Supreme Court Justice, later UN Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, and Phyllis Schalfly (it's hard not to spell it Shoo-fly as some of my parent's friends at the time did) campaigned against a Constitutional convention, citing as an argument that a Convention would have carte blanche to do anything, even doing away with the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and the reserve clause. I reasoned then as I do now that if a Convention scared both Goldberg (an American liberal, for those of you in Europe and elsewhere) and Schlafly (I shudder as I type that name), then it is a Bad Thing.

Edited 'cause I'm a furriner, can't spell, and my typing, especially in the dark, is atrocious.
Re-edited to add an 'f' somewhere.
R-e'd to ditto a 'd'. Damn.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2008,15:47

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,15:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In fairness to 'Ras, he wasn't really advancing a claim, he was building a strawman by deliberate mischaracterization of my words.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 07 2008,17:51

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 07 2008,14:35)

And my country, warts and all, does not publicly humiliate Germans and Italians by noting, as a matter of law, that their condoms are, for some unspecified reason, undersized.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm. Perhaps they export the undersized ones to the UK for a reason.

</800-year grudge>
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 07 2008,17:53

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,14:43)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops.

Scorn withdrorn.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 07 2008,18:48

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)
Second, our constitutional system already provides means by which it can be amended.  It is an onerous process, to be sure, but that is deliberate.  As the checks and balances of our government's structure provide a buffer against excesses driven by popular passions, so does the amendment process.  The beauty of the Constitution is it's narrow focus to the construction, and limitations, of government, coupled with it's relative permanence. It isn't intended to specify the detailed nature of political life, but rather provide a framework within which to operate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The amendment process is onerous, yes, but a reasonably complete civics course also tells students of the other way to change the US constitution: < constitutional convention >.

We did a simulated constitutional convention in high school. If you hear that our leaders decide to hold one, it wouldn't be a bad thing to get your passport in order. It might come in handy.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 07 2008,18:52

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)
That the Founders crafted such a constitution, under assault from the git-go (and very nearly stillborn) by the demagogues of the day speaks to it's unique nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Being unique doesn't make it perfect. Is it uniquely effective in the way it protects, say, the rights it proclaims? I'd say that it has, by and large, done a decent job, especially in establishing the power of judicial review. The USA and the the world are all the better for it. But consider also how Shrub has arrogated the right to ignore laws he doesn't like. (That such a power-grab is probably unconstitutional is not the point: the point is that he can get away with it because Realpolitik prevents anyone doing anything about it) Could he do that if the rights of the Commander-in-Chief were expressly limited in time or scope? Room for improvement there, I'd say.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If the system permits that type of execution, you have to ask if its construction is still appropriate. It's undeniable that it was designed (where have I seen that phrase before?) for social and technological conditions very different from today's. Perhaps Americans consider the abuses and corruption within it an acceptable cost of the freedom the system permits. Or perhaps they reason that the problems can be fixed without change to the constitution. But if I was an American, I'd take quite a bit of convincing.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The beauty of the Constitution is it's narrow focus to the construction, and limitations, of government, coupled with it's relative permanence. It isn't intended to specify the detailed nature of political life, but rather provide a framework within which to operate.

So, I see no need to redesign The Constitution, only to ensure it's faithful execution (which has been all to poor of late).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I agree, constitutions shouldn't be tinkered with on a whim. My point however is that many Americans seem to subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, that their Constitution is the definitive and unimpeachable wellspring of democracy. But remember that Eisenhower's first draft of his farewell speech referred to the concentration of power in "a military-industrial-congressional complex". Allegedly for fear of instigating a political crisis, he removed the reference to Congress, and toned down his remarks to the 'potential' for such a concentration, not to its actuality. But that it exists is a fact.That it does so within your constitutional system suggests that the ability to concentrate that much power in that way is a defect in the system that those who drafted the constitution did not and could not have forseen. But any political commentator, let alone politician, who dared to say so would at best be written off as a flake, or be denounced for treason for daring to suggest that the Founding Fathers (Forgive me, I have to laugh whenever I see that term) might have got even part of it wrong.
Posted by: csadams on Sep. 07 2008,19:09

Quote (ck1 @ Sep. 06 2008,10:54)
There is an important difference in these two predictions.  On the one hand, the outcome depends on the decision of a single highly-educated jurist, on the other, on the choices made by ordinary voting Americans:

"And in all of this we should not leave out the role of the much heralded ordinary American. One reason the Republicans find such fertile ground for their shamelessness is that this is fundamentally a right-wing country. My liberal friends find it difficult to accept this, but to me it seems obviously true. Why do you suppose that Republicans trumpet their pro-life credentials, but Democrats try to change the subject when it comes to abortion? Why do Republicans run around bashing homosexuals, while Democrats quake in terror at the thought of having to say what they really think? Why do you suppose upwards of eighty percent of the country want to have some sort of creationism taught in science classes?

The answer is simple. It is that in each case the Republicans are defending the popular position."

< http://scienceblogs.com/evoluti....ion.php >

(sorry - don't remember how to add quote boxes here)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


. . . but aren't the Republicans - the radical branch of them, anyway - the ones who rail against relative morality?  "If it's popular, therefore it's right" seems to be an idea they accuse liberals/atheists/bogeyman-du-jour of holding.  Maybe we need to make public a few popular ideas held by the American public:

50% of Americans < aren't aware that the earth orbits the sun and takes one year to do so >.  Teach the controversy!

30% of Americans believe that < alien spacecraft visit the earth on a regular basis >. Teach the controversy!

44% of Americans believe that < astrology is "very" or "somewhat" scientific >? Teach the controversy! (Oops, Michael Behe < already tried that one >.)

Half of our citizens believe that < magnet therapy is "sort of" or "very scientific." > Teach the controversy, and make sure to show that ridiculous opening warehouse sequence from the latest Indiana Jones movie!

73% of Americans believe in < at least one of the following: > Extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts, mental telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, witches, reincarnation, or channeling. Should our next administration endorse teaching these ideas as well?

Fifty years ago, a substantial portion of Americans believed that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. So it was okay to teach that in public schools, right?

Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is correct. Let's make sure we keep the focus on teaching < REAL science > in our classrooms.*

I understand your point about the predictions, ck1, that one involved an individual, and the other a group of people.  And no, I'm far from complacent about the upcoming elections whether at the local or national level.  On the other hand, I'm not going to waste my time combing through UD posts to find "Dave's" other predictions and outcomes.

*< blatantly cribbed >
Posted by: jeffox on Sep. 07 2008,20:43

A couple of minor points to bring up:

1)  This election will hinge on $4.00/gallon gasoline.  The people know which party is responsible for that and will vote accordingly.

2)  Shrub, et. al., have, for the last 8 years, been driving the (majority) moderates out of the Republican party.  They're NOT voting for Bush II.  Hence the idiotic "maverick" label of the right-wing press, a feeble attempt to bring them back.

3)  This election was decided over 3 years ago.  Any non-Republican in a landslide.

My 45c.  :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 07 2008,21:26

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,17:53)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2008,14:43)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,12:13)
What the Hell is going through your head, Erasmus? Criticising a system = hating freedom? That's on a par with the sort of comments we got from Fox at the time of the UN Security Council debates on the Iraq resolutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I *think* he was being facetious with that one line.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops.

Scorn withdrorn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry Amadan I was poking Lou's "knee jerk love it or leave it syndrome" there at your expense.  I thought after 9-11 the whole world knew about "you don't love freedom" sorta stuff and you would get it.

and he has absolutely failed to understand my point.  sigh.

anyway there is much good stuff in the rest of what amadan says.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you take the view that voting just encourages the bastards, you are stuck with the problem of how you are going to assure yourself the freedom that you clearly value. Opting out is fine until you run up against the system. When that happens - say, if a cop doesn't like the colour of your skin or the town council votes to remove the Koran from the library - what are you going to do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is true.  How does on assure oneself of freedom when voting clearly encourages the bastards?  If we question those assumptions you are saying are worth questioning, then perhaps we may understand the timeless truth held by most religious-philosophical systems:  freedom is a mental condition, a state of mind.

Easy answer, right?  Yet it is true in many respects.  The central issue becomes the definition of "freedom".

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps your point is that there is nothing that you can do, and that the system will inevitably crush individual freedom. Personally, I don't take that view. If the system of government itself is a subject of debate and potential change, the individual has a far stronger chance of fighting back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course this is true.  Any governmental system gleans its power by limiting the freedom of individuals.  Individuals have varying amounts of resources available to them, which results in varying treatment of those same individuals by any system.  I suggest, as assassinator has suggested, that the fundamental issue of interest is "What scale of government best maximizes the freedom of individuals?"  The answer to this question has complex interactions with the relations of those individuals to the ecology of their means of sustenance.  The form of government taken by both yurrpeens and amurrikkkans, indeed all of the 'civilized' world, is one that must grow or die, just like a cancer.  

A vote for anyone in a US election is a vote for continuing the system of natural resource exploitation that has dammed nearly every mile of the tennessee river, resulted in the obliteration over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia by mountaintop removal, extinction of north american indigenous cultures, etc etc etc etc.  A vote for anyone gives your sanction to this history, your consent.  The blood is on your hands.

Assassinator says

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We should not.  I believe this to be an empirical truth, even given the ethical claim embedded in the proposition.  To unpack a bit, if we value connection with our landscape, if we value growing or procuring our own food, if we value sustainable human communities, then this claim is true.  I suggest that most folks hold these values, but for other reasons they are led to compromise them in the hopes (as Lou has suggested above) that participation may allay the inevitable demise of the system for just a little bit longer.

anarchy?  not what i am advocating.  however i don't think this ship can run forever, and in the meantime it's important to remember the Old Ways.  the division of labor and mechanization of daily human tasks have caused a Great Forgetting, politics now is a dance of amnesiacs who are merely chanting magic words they do not understand in hopes of stirring primeval passions that are beyond the grasp of reason.

ETA and voting just encourages the bastards.  You might as well pray.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 07 2008,21:40

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 07 2008,18:52)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 07 2008,14:57)
As an American, I see plenty of problems in execution of our political system, but that is not due to any defect I see in it's particular construction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If the system permits that type of execution, you have to ask if its construction is still appropriate. It's undeniable that it was designed (where have I seen that phrase before?) for social and technological conditions very different from today's. Perhaps Americans consider the abuses and corruption within it an acceptable cost of the freedom the system permits. Or perhaps they reason that the problems can be fixed without change to the constitution. But if I was an American, I'd take quite a bit of convincing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think there are two faulty premises in what you are saying here.  First, I would suggest that you are engaging in a reverse Exceptionalism inasmuch as you seem to the think that abuses and corruption are particularly egregious in the American system.  Second, you are seem to be assuming that there is no means of addressing such problems except by changed constitutional construction.  I think both premises are wrong.

I think the first premise is prima facie false and requires little comment except to say that corruption and abuses of power are present in any system and I don't think the American system is any worse, and probably much better*, than most other systems. That said, I do understand power is a force multiplier and a minor abuse of power here may have a more significant impact that a major abuse elsewhere.  But I don't see that as a fault in construction, but as a problem in execution.

The second premise is false in that there are means of dealing with abuses of power and corruption. The American Constitution provides means for dealing with violations of a constitutional nature. Indeed, I would note that several times, when suits related to the constitutionality of the "enemy combatant" and military tribunal policy have rose above the district court level, the Bush administration has backed down in what I would describe as a strategic retreat to avoid constitutional reviews that are unlikely to break there way (I am thinking particularly of the Hamdan and Padilla cases). The unitary executive concept and the signing statements, along with the warrantless wiretapping, are still concerns and it should be interesting to see how that plays out.  

The second premise is also flawed in that I question that is necessary that a constitution deal with anything more than defining the role and structure of government and the nature of it's relationship to the governed.  Abuses and corruption that falls outside the (current) US constitution are not unaddressable. Rather, they are addressed through existing, and voluminous, criminal and civil codes.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I agree, constitutions shouldn't be tinkered with on a whim. My point however is that many Americans seem to subscribe to the notion of American Exceptionalism, that their Constitution is the definitive and unimpeachable wellspring of democracy. But remember that Eisenhower's first draft of his farewell speech referred to the concentration of power in "a military-industrial-congressional complex". Allegedly for fear of instigating a political crisis, he removed the reference to Congress, and toned down his remarks to the 'potential' for such a concentration, not to its actuality. But that it exists is a fact.That it does so within your constitutional system suggests that the ability to concentrate that much power in that way is a defect in the system that those who drafted the constitution did not and could not have forseen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Spare me.  In this regard, America is completely unexceptional.  Business and governmental interests are inexorably intertwined in all systems everywhere.  I will try not to engage in armchair psychology, but I would ask you to consider whether your unease with the American military-industrial complex** is less due to our constitutional construction and more that our (currently) pre-eminent position militarily in the world tends to exaggerate the impact of abuses that would be merely annoying elsewhere.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But any political commentator, let alone politician, who dared to say so would at best be written off as a flake, or be denounced for treason for daring to suggest that the Founding Fathers (Forgive me, I have to laugh whenever I see that term) might have got even part of it wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I make no bones about it, I think the American Constitution is an exceptional document, witnessed by the fact that other nations have modeled their constitution after ours, sometimes even lifting language wholesale. I think you are put-off by the extent of American power (a point I will not begrudge you) and are confusing the execution of a fundamentally flawed system with the execution of a fundamentally good system by flawed actors. But rather than dealing with this in the abstract, I think it would be easier (for me, at least) if you would elucidate what you would change about the American Constitution.

* I come to this perspective as a businessman, employed by a European company, who deals frequently with associates all across the world, and passing familiarity with anti-corruption laws. Business laws and practices around the world (including Europe) are far more laissez faire than those here in the States.

** Strangely enough, the last 8 years, and the verdict from the Hamdan tribunal last month, have lead me to the conclusion that we have far less to fear from our military than the civilians elected and appointed to direct them.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 08 2008,03:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...you seem to the think that abuses and corruption are particularly egregious in the American system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't say that the USA is rotten to the core. I'm referring to the multiplier effect you identify. Otherwise legitimate aspects of government like lobbying and fund-raising are, to use a nice phrase from the old Catechism, Occasions of Sin. The potential risk of (and rewards from, bless them!) their abuse increase (disproportionately, it seems to me) as accountability diminishes and power increases. And that is where I see a problem in the US system. Your Federal govt has accumulated quite astonishing powers at the expense of states that are allegedly sovereign. I understand and sympathise with many of the historical reasons for that, but it sure ain't what anyone was thinking of in 1789.

What would your constitution look like if those august gentlemen had been asked to draft it on the assumptions that
  • secession should be impossible
  • corporations should have the economic and political power that they currently have
  • the Federal military establishment should be funded to the extent it is, (regardless of their distaste for standing armies)
  • universal suffrage and corporate-controlled TV should be allowed


I'd hazard a guess that you would see much more power reserved to the states and more stringent control of Federal offices. That, or they'd send some nice flowers to London and ask if they could give it one more try. No more jokes about your mother's weight. Honest.

I've banged on about this too long, so I'll shut up soon. It's just that, as one of your fond relatives abroad, I find it disconcerting that the de facto emperor of the world should be selected by means of a process that looks like the bastard love-child of a beauty pageant and an arm-wrestling tournament.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 08 2008,05:45

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,22:26)
Sorry Amadan I was poking Lou's "knee jerk love it or leave it syndrome" there at your expense.  I thought after 9-11 the whole world knew about "you don't love freedom" sorta stuff and you would get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never said any such thing, and your characterization is dishonest.

What I said was your attitude is juvenile and irresponsible.

...as is your continuing to be deliberately obtuse in order to make your point seem valid.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 08 2008,06:42

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 08 2008,03:55)
Otherwise legitimate aspects of government like lobbying and fund-raising are, to use a nice phrase from the old Catechism, Occasions of Sin. The potential risk of (and rewards from, bless them!) their abuse increase (disproportionately, it seems to me) as accountability diminishes and power increases. And that is where I see a problem in the US system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, the problem is that lobbying is one particular means by which groups of citizens influence government policy and practice and, therefore, falls under the title "petitioning the government for the redress of grievances."  That there is abuse in the system is not denied, but I think that our system allowing for access to political leaders and policy makers is, overall, one of it's strengths.  I always find it curious when people (not necessarily you, as you have yet to made sufficient distinction in your objection to lobbying) decry access to governmental leaders by corporations, but have no problem with labor unions and other advocacy groups have such access.  In the end, I suppose, it all depends on who's ox is being gored.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your Federal govt has accumulated quite astonishing powers at the expense of states that are allegedly sovereign. I understand and sympathise with many of the historical reasons for that, but it sure ain't what anyone was thinking of in 1789.

What would your constitution look like if those august gentlemen had been asked to draft it on the assumptions that
  • secession should be impossible
  • corporations should have the economic and political power that they currently have
  • the Federal military establishment should be funded to the extent it is, (regardless of their distaste for standing armies)
  • universal suffrage and corporate-controlled TV should be allowed

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You list of assumptions betrays a particular point of view and, with the sole exception of universal suffrage, I can make the argument that the assumptions are unwarranted and that, to some extent, the underlying issues were known, in one form or another, to the Founders and were part of their deliberations.  Alexander Hamilton, for one, understood the coming industrialization at some level and it influenced his thinking greatly, particularly on the matter of a need for a central bank.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'd hazard a guess that you would see much more power reserved to the states and more stringent control of Federal offices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As answers go, that is non-responsive and, I think, historically inaccurate. There were great powers invested in the states (indeed , all powers not specifically ennumerated to the federal government). Many of the problems in our system are not, IMO, because insufficient powers were given to the states, but rather there was scope creep relative to the powers accumulated by the federal government in the subsequent years. But, in the absence of knowing what specific powers you think should have been given to the states, I can't really respond.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's just that, as one of your fond relatives abroad, I find it disconcerting that the de facto emperor of the world should be selected by means of a process that looks like the bastard love-child of a beauty pageant and an arm-wrestling tournament.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough, but I don't see that as a constitutional flaw so much as the result of an insular public with an unfortunately broad anti-intellectual streak down their backs.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 08 2008,08:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I said was your attitude is juvenile and irresponsible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah ok red dress.  please tell me sir what the alternative is.  

if it is all hogwarsh, as i say it is (as opposed to your position paraphrased here as "it's all hogwarsh, but you have to get in there with the hogs"), then why bother?

because you are reduced to slippery slope arguments predicated upon personal idiosyncratic likes and dislikes.  Just like they intended voting to work.

Those who see such drastic differences between sides are looking through a pinhole.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 08 2008,14:42

Well if you're not willing to do the smallest amount of homework about the red dress, then I shouldn't be surprised you wouldn't be bothered to plug "Republican Party Platform" and "Democratic Party Platform" into Google for purposes of comparison, let alone pay attention to who votes for which piece of legislation.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 08 2008,14:48

whooooosh

Lou of course i am pulling your chain re the red dress.  i read it and greatly enjoyed it many moons ago.

but you still continue to miss the point.  left/right, republican/democrat, liberal/conservative.  as far as i can see, all wrong.

i note that you do not contest my characterization of your position:  It's all hogwarsh, but you have to get in there with the hogs to complain.

voting for the lesser of two evils = voting for evil.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 08 2008,14:51

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 08 2008,15:48)
whooooosh

Lou of course i am pulling your chain re the red dress.  i read it and greatly enjoyed it many moons ago.

but you still continue to miss the point.  left/right, republican/democrat, liberal/conservative.  as far as i can see, all wrong.

i note that you do not contest my characterization of your position:  It's all hogwarsh, but you have to get in there with the hogs to complain.

voting for the lesser of two evils = voting for evil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No 'ras, I didn't miss your point, but you're right: I didn't contest it.

That had less to do with the validity of your assertions than my desire to lower the volume of this discussion.

Edited to hide a horrid grammar error.


Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 08 2008,18:39

i've enjoyed the "discussion".  please continue.  
screw the volume.
turn it UP.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 08 2008,18:53

Lou's was the red dress of grievances. That's constitutional depth.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 08 2008,19:16

Quote (rhmc @ Sep. 08 2008,18:39)
i've enjoyed the "discussion".  please continue.  
screw the volume.
turn it UP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 08 2008,19:18

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 08 2008,16:53)
Lou's was the red dress of grievances. That's constitutional depth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But what's this I've heard about some stain on the dress?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 09 2008,08:16

fine have it your way.

it's ok to play kick the believing christians but we can't play kick the believing voters.  i smell inconsistency here, perhaps it is that BR^OWN stain on your red dress.

belief in progress through politics = belief in orthogenesis

belief in justice through politics = belief in justice from bearded sky thunderer

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Sep. 09 2008,09:03

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:16)

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn' really necessary, Ras.

I think positions are neither being adequately explained nor understood, a sin I was guilty of some months back, in a back and forth I had with Wes.

I think Clausewitz is more important than anyone else mentioned so far.  All life is a power struggle.  The struggle can be violent or rhetorical.  Politics is where the rhetorical struggle takes place.  Voting is how we settle the rhetorical struggle.  It is indeed a terrible evil setup (as the old saw goes, it is still better than the alternatives) but not playing is not an option.  Not playing = dying.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 09 2008,09:30

since dying happens anyway, paul, i don't see how that is an alternative.  

I'd suggest instead that politics is indeed a violent struggle, as evidenced by the consequences of political decisions.  all you decide with a vote is who should die.  pardon me if i don't play along, it's like a schoolyard game of selling out strangers to the bully.

'not necessary', perhaps..., but i disagree.  if we viewed the political arena with the same amount of skepticism we rightfully view the religious arena then this conversation would be moot.  I can't see the difference between humanists and other fundies.

regarding your insight that positions are not being explained, let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 09 2008,13:47

Disclaimer: Within my group of friends, one of us is a non-voter; with the reason that both parties are to blame.  On the rare occasions when the group talks politics, he trots out the old "neither is good so I don't vote but I'll criticize without providing a better option".  I've been thinking about what to say or how to...so if this seems directed at Erasmus, it's not, per se.  Some of the ideas apply, but it is more directed towards my group and, to be honest, is raw and unrefined.  Nonetheless, I think has some relevance to this discussion.


Both parties suck.  I won't argue that.  They both have corrupt, selfish members that care only for themselves and their family, and play up their supposed credentials to get elected.  They know what people want to hear and how to play the victim/crusader/outraged everyman as needed.  Both parties also have well-meaning, honest people that want to do well for the country and the people they represent.  They want to work with others and base their decisions on evidence and what will be best for the population, not what will be best for their next campaign.  The frustrating thing is that those people often seem to be powerless and/or outnumbered, if they can even get elected at all.  Without a doubt, our system polarizes just about any issue and throws balance of power to the winds.  It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.

So what now?  Two main options that lead to a cascade of others: participate in the current but flawed system or abstain.  If you abstain you can a) offer no suggestions and simply complain that all politicians are a waste or b) you can push for change.  Change such as more viable parties, removal or empowerment of the electoral college, even a new type of government or any number of other ideas about whatever it is that you think is wrong.  Let's say that we despise the system, refuse to participate in it, and want it changed.  Short of armed revolution, how else will you change the system?  Despite the poor phrasing, this is not rhetorical but an honest question.  The only thing I can think of is a 'change the culture' mentality, which I do support.  But a change in the culture does not mean that the system is changed by default.  To me, once the culture is changed you are still left with changing the system from within (by participating) or removing the offending system.

Now what about participating?  Is voting in the current system something of a tacit approval of the broken politics?  Unfortunately yes, but no less than not voting is tacit approval of the status quo.  Once you participate in the system, does that mean that you can't push for change?  Should we just give up trying and submit to a broken system?  Unequivocally, no.  You can work with a broken system by putting into power people that are willing to make changes to fix it.  A legitimate concern is that once any party is in power, nothing more would be done; no party would give up power willingly.  However such a fatalistic attitude assumes that you could not being to lay the groundwork that would make changing the system possible.  Without a doubt, it would be resisted every step of the way but such changes would need to be incremental, and some politicians would be more accommodating than others.  It would not be quick and it would frustrating and full of set-backs, but at least it would be movement towards a better system.  Sometimes, you do have to work within the system to get the system to improve.  I know it is trite and whatnot, but that alone doesn't make it untrue.  In my opinion, if you avoid the system because of disgust, what is important to you may be sacrificed because the system moves on, with or without you.  And the thing is, it drags you along whether you like it or not.

The teaching of evolution is a perfect example.  While no president will be able to settle the issue once and for all, their decisions affect the Department of Education and their veto power can decide laws and funding.  Obama has stated his support for evolution pretty clearly (although it would be nice to see if he could match comments by Clinton*).  Biden has called Intelligent Design 'malarkey', although I can't find specific support of evolution.  McCain seems to have hedged his bet, saying he believes in evolution and that creationism should not be taught in classrooms, but that '...Americans should be exposed to every point of view' and specifically delivered the 2007 keynote address for the Discovery Institute.  Palin also seems to skirt the line as much as she can and supports teaching both and the "don't be afraid of debate" type-scam.

So, here's the play: I think we can all agree, for better or worse, that one of the two major parties will win this election.  It's not a matter of should they, are they the best, etc. but that there is no practical chance that anyone other than a Republican or a Democrat will win this election.  So the option comes down to the pro-evolution/anti-intelligent design ticket and the teach the controversy/teach both ticket.  By not voting, you are letting someone else make the decision on this topic which may have significant impact on the status of teaching evolution.  Your vote is a chance to at least register your opinion, discussions of the electoral college not withstanding.

Voting doesn't mean you have to commit heart and soul to that least offensive party or that you can't ever move beyond them.  But if you do want to have meaningful change, IMO, start by getting the most helpful of two options in and slowly work to get other options in.  It won't be fast and it won't be easy, but small chance is better than no chance.




* < http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html >  Clinton's words were nice, but she is a politician and words mean little without action.  This alone wouldn't be enough to believe someone, but it at least lets me see what they are willing to say and what they are afraid of saying.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 09 2008,14:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think that could be said in any period of history.

It does, however, work as well or better than evolution. I'm not aware of many instances where complex systems worked exactly as planned, or were capable of adjusting for and compensating for unexpected contingencies.

People wring their hands because politics is not rational, but the fact is that life does not hand us problems with tidy, deterministic solutions.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 09 2008,14:15

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 09 2008,14:41

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2008,15:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think that could be said in any period of history.

It does, however, work as well or better than evolution. I'm not aware of many instances where complex systems worked exactly as planned, or were capable of adjusting for and compensating for unexpected contingencies.

People wring their hands because politics is not rational, but the fact is that life does not hand us problems with tidy, deterministic solutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Midwifetoad, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that if it isn't perfect, it's crap.  I don't expect a perfect system.  My rambling comments were more directed at those that complain about the system and avoid being a part of it.  They often don't see that they enforce the very status quo that they hate by not pushing the system one way or the other.

I think the US election system has some serious flaws (balance of the electoral college vs popular vote, redistricting, two-party pigeonholing, etc) that could be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work at all.  I'm just not sure our electoral system is optimal for the situation as it is today.  Perhaps it was when it was created, but I don't think it is now.  Yeah, it works but that doesn't mean it could be better.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 09 2008,17:31

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,09:16)
fine have it your way.

it's ok to play kick the believing christians but we can't play kick the believing voters.  i smell inconsistency here, perhaps it is that BR^OWN stain on your red dress.

belief in progress through politics = belief in orthogenesis

belief in justice through politics = belief in justice from bearded sky thunderer

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So sitting in the corner and sniveling about the unfairness of it all is the answer. Gotcha.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 09 2008,17:38

Two things:

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,10:30)
If the question is "How Ought We Live",...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. No, that's not the question.

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,10:30)
...I am saying that this ain't it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2. That's not even a useful answer to the question anyway.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 09 2008,17:44

Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 09 2008,20:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought that was the Pope.

Damn, wrong again!

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 09 2008,17:50

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,23:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:16)
fine have it your way.

it's ok to play kick the believing christians but we can't play kick the believing voters.  i smell inconsistency here, perhaps it is that BR^OWN stain on your red dress.

belief in progress through politics = belief in orthogenesis

belief in justice through politics = belief in justice from bearded sky thunderer

I'm not a nihilist, you're just full of shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So sitting in the corner and sniveling about the unfairness of it all is the answer. Gotcha.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Snivelling is ALWAYS the answer for many people.

Options:

1) Work with the system for change.

2) Smash the system.

3) Refuse to participate and disenfranchise yourself.

4) Remove yourself from the system and set your own one up.

I prefer a combination of 1, 2 and 4 as and when appropriate.

Since 'twas only mere months ago that dear 'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry (despite reasoned disagreement being at the core of said dislike), I'm guessing that this latest "voting = praying" is yet another false equivalence in a long line of wind ups.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 09 2008,17:55

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link?
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 09 2008,17:56

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 09 2008,23:55)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Find it yourself! I can't be bothered. My point is that (IMO) 'Ras is on the wind up*. This lark ain't serious.

I could be wrong of course.

Louis

*Does this translate into foreign?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 09 2008,18:06

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:56)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 09 2008,23:55)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Find it yourself! I can't be bothered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Louis on Sep. 09 2008,18:19

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 10 2008,00:06)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:56)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 09 2008,23:55)
   
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,15:50)
'Ras was telling me that my dislike of bigotry was equivalent to bigotry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Find it yourself! I can't be bothered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations on your first incredibly accurate LOLcat!

You can haz cheezburger.

Louis

ETA: I'm trying to remember what thread it was in, but alas to no avail. Senility at 33is a bitch.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 09 2008,20:22

Quote (Spottedwind @ Sep. 09 2008,13:47)
Voting doesn't mean you have to commit heart and soul to that least offensive party or that you can't ever move beyond them.  But if you do want to have meaningful change, IMO, start by getting the most helpful of two options in and slowly work to get other options in.  It won't be fast and it won't be easy, but small chance is better than no chance.




* < http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05clinton.html >  Clinton's words were nice, but she is a politician and words mean little without action.  This alone wouldn't be enough to believe someone, but it at least lets me see what they are willing to say and what they are afraid of saying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Spottedwind - well said, and welcome!

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. "
Winston Churchill

If we don't vote, the Lying Liers win all the time.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 10 2008,00:06

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,17:44)
Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 09 2008,20:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought that was the Pope.

Damn, wrong again!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed! In that particular case one ought to say, "Next you'll be suggesting that the oligarchically-elected dictator of the pre-Lutheran Christian establishment maintains his faith in that specific denomination!"
Posted by: jeffox on Sep. 10 2008,00:54

Voting isn't so bad.  I've come to the realization that, as a borderline anarchist, my other option is to vote with my 20 gauge.  Since I also recognize Machaevalianism (sp.) for what it is, I'll stick to voting the normal way, for now.  :)

I hope that doesn't boggle too many people's minds.

I AM tougher than I look, really.  ;)
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 10 2008,05:38

Quote (jeffox @ Sep. 10 2008,00:54)
Voting isn't so bad.  I've come to the realization that, as a borderline anarchist, my other option is to vote with my 20 gauge.  Since I also recognize Machaevalianism (sp.) for what it is, I'll stick to voting the normal way, for now.  :)

I hope that doesn't boggle too many people's minds.

I AM tougher than I look, really.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This puts me in mind of the sainted Dorothy Parker's views on deep questions like this:

Razors pain you, rivers are damp,
Acids stain you, drugs cause cramp,
Guns aren't lawful*, nooses give,
Gas smells awful, you might as well live.




* except in Alaska, where they seem to be obligatory
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2008,07:57

Howdy spottedwind



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he trots out the old "neither is good so I don't vote but I'll criticize without providing a better option".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what are 'options'?  What if the best answer is 'not an option'? Options may be contextually determined, the in principle best solution is not.  Unless there are several different solutions with the same r squared.  The option I suggest is not one on the table rigged by the heirs of powdered wigs and spice empires.  my critique is not based on a better way to run a nation the size of the united states within the confines of the system currently employed.  if that means it is 'not an option' then the point is far over your head.  who ever you are you know proverbial that you guy.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They both have corrupt, selfish members that care only for themselves and their family, and play up their supposed credentials to get elected.  They know what people want to hear and how to play the victim/crusader/outraged everyman as needed.  Both parties also have well-meaning, honest people that want to do well for the country and the people they represent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How do you separate these two groups?  My my it sounds like the Not A True Christian argument.  When I hear such arguments I know there is a fallacy at root.  I think I've found one of them.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It either does not work as intended or is not capable of handling the situation in the US as it exists today.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aye aye



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you abstain you can a) offer no suggestions and simply complain that all politicians are a waste or b) you can push for change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or you can do both.  Offering burnt offerings to the gods suggestions to the system is a lot like pouring piss down a rat hole.  The merit of an argument is irrelevant to the degree which it is implemented, unless by merit you mean how much $ do you make and who do you have to pay off.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's say that we despise the system, refuse to participate in it, and want it changed.  Short of armed revolution, how else will you change the system?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



change it to what?  you dont think any threat to existing power structures will go unchallenged by armed means, just because it makes more sense?  nope.  people die in conflict.  i've been trying to stress that people die as a result of your vote:  if you are going to argue that people would die if you didn't vote then I think we can use some algebra to get at the question of how valuable this vote is.

anyway i think it is common for folks to lose their personal ontology in a group identity.  the question, my friends, is not "What are we going to do" it is "How can I keep all these brain dead bastards out of my vegetable garden when the S.H.F."  I am a lot more concerned about repelling the starving zombie hordes than I am about making sure that everybody is as free as Jesus made them.  i'd rather eat squirrels than rats but right now there is not enough to go around for everybody.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is voting in the current system something of a tacit approval of the broken politics?  Unfortunately yes, but no less than not voting is tacit approval of the status quo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is more creationist logic.  All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.  What, you don't believe in God?  Why you are still a sinner.  Again be skeptical of such arguments.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can work with a broken system by putting into power people that are willing to make changes to fix it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



really?  name one.  substituting a soap opera personality passion play for whatever it is that the political system is supposed to represent has always been the name of the game.  If the whole thing is premised on incorrect assumptions it doesn't matter how much you monkey with the business nested within it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However such a fatalistic attitude assumes that you could not being to lay the groundwork that would make changing the system possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you can start by growing your own beans and taters.  food is the key to revolution.  

Your comments regarding the teaching of anti-evolution are spot on of  course.  I would suggest that you consider that a politician will do anything that gets him elected.  the democrat leaders wish they had the drooling fundie nutcase block, if they had a shot at it you would see this behavior supposedly celebrating the teaching of real science nipped in the bud immediately.  i support this by my own truism, "Anyone who deserved the job would never want it".  

clamboy


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



it's true, i've seen them do it.  of course that is not all i have suggested either.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So sitting in the corner and sniveling about the unfairness of it all is the answer. Gotcha.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course I never said that, but that and voting have exactly the same effect on anything real and tangible.  Other than you know have something to talk about at lunch.  You can vote in one hand and hold the other behind a bull, see which fills up first.  Voting = Praying.

Louis, you are bigoted against bigots.  That is as simple as that.  I was just saying you should be proud of that.  I am bigoted against stupid people.  Once they aren't stupid then I find I am more or less indifferent to them.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we don't vote, the Lying Liers win all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



well they do that either damn way.  if anyone wins, then this has happened.

jeff i think understands it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2008,07:58

this has all been said more betterer < here >.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 10 2008,09:06

'Ras, by any definition of the word bigotry, I am not bigoted. I don't claim to be perfect or free from bias, but as was said before, these false equivalences of yours don't work. None of the castigation of the ideas of bigots I am happy to sign my name to has the hallmarks of bigotry. I don't advocate segregation or discrimination against bigots for example, nor do I cry for restriction of their freedoms (speech or otherwise). In fact I demand the opposite, I would argue strongly against censoring bigots, their ideas must be allowed to be made public so they can be criticised. None of that has the hallmark of bigotry. I recommend you buy a dictionary and attempt  to understand the words you use.

The same goes for this latest wind up of yours regarding politics. It is, as you said: voting for the lesser of two evils still voting for evil, but that doesn't negate the fallacy at the heart of your claims. Only a deluded idealist expects or demands utopia, the collaborative effort that is any society demands compromise by definition. The one thing you can guarantee is that if you don't cooperate with others then you will be defeated by people who do. Simple scientific fact, easily observable in any social species.

The tragedy of the US system (and the UK system for that matter) is that the electorate is stuck with limited choice. So limited in fact that it constitutes disenfranchisement in my view. The only way to change that is to engage in some fashion (from "smash the system" to "vote with apathy"), if you don't engage you cannot change a thing, you simply open yourself to exploitation in all its glory.

You're right about another thing though: engagement doesn't have to be done blind or with some faith-like pandering to vested interests, but engagement is your only safe choice.

The rest of this happy horseshit is just the latest in a long line of false equivalences you like to make to annoy people. A bit transparent but otherwise harmless.

Louis
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 10 2008,09:18

But nothing will change until people arrive at politicians' doors singing

You can get anything you want
At Alice's Restaurant



(just wait until the song comes around again and we can all join in)











(Here it comes . . . )
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 10 2008,10:43

I'd be interested to see any evidence of how things would actually be different depending on who wins. I recognize a lot of rhetoric, but in the 40 years I've been voting, I've failed to see a lot of difference in actual outcomes between presidents of different parties.

Just for example, the most enduring outcome of the Clinton presidency may be welfare reform. Not something the democrats intended.

It's also possible that the Russians will use our intervention in Kosovo as cover for nibbling its way back to control of Eastern Europe.

Politics is a game, and intentions don't equal accomplishment. Changing the rules, as in reforming or restructuring voting and representation, will be followed by adaptations, just a surely as bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics.

The only useful test of a political system is whether -- in fact, not theory -- it produces alternations of control among the competing tribes.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2008,11:49

midwife, i too am waiting for such evidence.  

louis it's not a windup and not false equivalences.  you are intolerant of bigotry.  that's all.  you have an opinion and i agree that having an opinion is not the same as acting upon it (which you seem to have made the explanatory difference).  

i said nothing about whether or not it made you a bad person etc.  i think you are a fine person, even if you are sort of gay.  some of my wifes best friends are gay for example.  

back to anti-evolution and presidential politics, any of these douchebags who want to be president would be anti-evolution if they thought that could make them win.  the same with any other platform (hence the long digression into what is wrong with nation-states and representative government in general).  As others have noted, what you do about that is the critical piece of information.  Engaging and educating the public (those you have access to) about the best most recent science is by far the tact with the biggest payoff.

why?  not because an informed public will educate that philosopher kings that rule them, but because those douchebags want their power so they will pander to the loudest most influential base.  That is not the same as being led to rational conclusions, and so much of the 'get involved and make a difference' poofery best reserved for college freshman is predicated on the assumption that decisions are made in this manner.  The cynical machiavellian view best represents political reality.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 10 2008,12:30

Saying nation states are "wrong" is a bit like saying the design of living things is wrong. Things are what they are because of descent. That includes the U.S. constitution.

There are few decent governments in the world that are not descended from the British model, with some fiddling with details. I'm not convinced the details matter as much as some people think. Any system that involves elections and representation will be gamed by factions.

But I am not personally cynical about this. I vote for the same reason I return lost wallets. It doesn't benefit me directly, and the world will not change if I quit voting or keep found money, but for whatever reason, I am a social animal and engage in social behavior that has no immediate benefit to myself.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 10 2008,12:36

Erasmus, I don't mean this to be offensive, but at times I find your post to be...mere rhetoric.  You accused Lou of word salad a while back but I have trouble seeing how some of your responses wouldn't qualify for the same.  Perhaps I'm just not used to your way of speaking and perhaps it is just over my head, but IMO the best way to get ideas across is to make sure you are understood.  So, if in my response I miss your point, it's not out of purposeful avoidance, but an inability to understand; my ignorance and/or your writing the cause.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, what are 'options'?  What if the best answer is 'not an option'? Options may be contextually determined, the in principle best solution is not...my critique is not based on a better way to run a nation the size of the united states within the confines of the system currently employed.  if that means it is 'not an option' then the point is far over your head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice that you ask me what the options are.  My point is not that he has to pick from a list of approved options, it was that he criticizes and offers NOTHING.  Sure, you can criticize all you like, but if you have nothing to offer, even if it is what is considered an outlandish idea, then why not just go babble on the street corner?  If he gave the suggestion to dissolve the US, that's fine.  It might not be a realistic option at this point in time but at least he would be giving a suggestion of which way to go.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you separate these two groups?  My my it sounds like the Not A True Christian argument.  When I hear such arguments I know there is a fallacy at root.  I think I've found one of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What two groups would that be Erasmus?  Do you mean the difference between the lying group and the honest?  Well, mainly you look at it by actions.  Do their actions reflect their words and facts or not.  I don't mean this to come across as condescending, but I feel like you are purposefully crossing signals.  People throw the No True Scotsman fallacy around way too easily.  Definition is the problem obviously, but some definitions really can't be refined.  An apple is an apple and an orange isn't.  A person who has told an intentional false statement has lied.  They are a lair.  (I feel like such a 3rd grader saying it like that).

Here's the other thing, I didn't even say that people who go against what I believe are selfish and those that agree with me are honest.  I said that there are well intentioned people that are trying to do what they think is best.  Whether what they think actually is the best is another conversation.

What I was trying to say in that paragraph was that neither group is pure good or pure evil.  As bitter and jaded to the politics as I am, I at least have enough sense of reality to realize that not every single person in politics is out only to help themselves.  I can understand where that frustration comes from but, well I guess I have a bit more faith in humanity.  Which I think would break the irony meters of my friends.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you abstain you can a) offer no suggestions and simply complain that all politicians are a waste or b) you can push for change.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or you can do both.  Offering burnt offerings to the gods suggestions to the system is a lot like pouring piss down a rat hole.  The merit of an argument is irrelevant to the degree which it is implemented, unless by merit you mean how much $ do you make and who do you have to pay off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How can you do both?  Honestly, not rhetorical but a serious question.  You say that you can do both but give no example.  How is it possible to just complain and push for change?  If you are pushing for change, then you are not just complaining.  If you are not pushing for change (ANY CHANGE) then you are simply complaining.  I'm seriously confused by what you mean here.

And you are mixing things ups...I said you can abstain and push for change.  What does that have to do with offering suggestions to the system?  My point was that if you choose not to participate in the system because of your disgust with it (my words, not speaking for you), these were some of the options that I saw.  I didn't say that was the only thing, but a simple list.  And they weren't suggestions TO the system but ABOUT the system.  What is it that you want to see done about the problems that bother you?  I did list changes to the current system, but if you notice I also listed a new government or other ideas.  I didn't limit options to what is possible now.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's say that we despise the system, refuse to participate in it, and want it changed.  Short of armed revolution, how else will you change the system?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



change it to what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The question of what it changes to was not the question I asked.  I was trying to understand HOW to change a system that we wanted changed if we preclude physical violence and participating in the system.  I didn't say it was impossible either...I want to hear ideas, suggestions, anecdotes, examples, anything.  I mentioned changing the culture of the nation but that alone wouldn't change the system.

I hesitate to draw this connection, but part of the Civil Rights movement was a cultural change that pushed a change of the system.  And yes, the system was resistant and it wasn't easy but the cultural change helped to bring about a change of the system.  It didn't work in a vacuum though.  There was violence, there were people trying to change the culture, and there were people that worked in the system to try to fix it.  Now, I'm not saying we have totally conquered that hill...racial problems are still obvious.  My point is that if you removed the violence and the people participating in the system, how would the situation have changed?  Seriously, I don't meant to be dense, but I don't see how things would have changed in any appreciable time.  Sure, if you changed the culture, the mentality it would just happen…but how long would that take and what happens in the mean time?  And that assumes that everyone would have eventually agreed, and we can see even now, that isn’t the case.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
you dont think any threat to existing power structures will go unchallenged by armed means, just because it makes more sense?  nope.  people die in conflict.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When did I EVER say that a challenge to the existing power structure would go unchallenged?  In fact, I specifically stated that it would be resisted every step of the way.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
i've been trying to stress that people die as a result of your vote:  if you are going to argue that people would die if you didn't vote then I think we can use some algebra to get at the question of how valuable this vote is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



People die whether I vote or not, it's true but what does that mean?  If you are trying to say that our government has engaged in wars regardless of political leadership, I agree.  Never said otherwise.  However, I think it can be very persuasively argued that the number of people that die, how they die, and why they die can change depending upon how I vote.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
anyway i think it is common for folks to lose their personal ontology in a group identity.  the question, my friends, is not "What are we going to do" it is "How can I keep all these brain dead bastards out of my vegetable garden when the S.H.F."  I am a lot more concerned about repelling the starving zombie hordes than I am about making sure that everybody is as free as Jesus made them.  i'd rather eat squirrels than rats but right now there is not enough to go around for everybody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who said anything about group identity?  This whole section confuses me because it feels like a non sequitur.  Unless this is something about being a citizen of the US and the good of the nation.  If so, I somewhat agree.  Whenever someone says 'good of the nation' in a serious tone, I become wary.  What do they mean?

Now, I have seen that you have no interest in society (Arden's sig) and that's fine by me.  Honestly, I have no objection to people that wish to live without society.  But the problem is that others do wish to live that way and what they do with that society affects the world.  Because I can be a part of this society and can try to have some effect, I can try to give it the best direction I can and work to make it better.  It's not perfect and bad things will happen.  But without trying to tame it in some directions, even more bad things will probably happen.

Also the "I'm looking out for me, screw society" is a rather selfish mentality, IMO.  Which the only difference I see between that and the selfish politician above, is that the politician exploits society to get what he wants and doesn't care what happens to others.  The "I'm looking out for me" doesn't care about other people at all.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is voting in the current system something of a tacit approval of the broken politics?  Unfortunately yes, but no less than not voting is tacit approval of the status quo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is more creationist logic.  All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.  What, you don't believe in God?  Why you are still a sinner.  Again be skeptical of such arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Huh?  I know you keep trying to connect me with creationist stuff but I feel you are barking up an empty tree.  If you have the power to object to something but don't, this is often seen as tacit approval.  Think of racism.  If you are on a bus and a racist person starts yelling out about how horrible Race A is and no one says anything otherwise, anyone of Race A on that bus shouldn't be faulted for thinking the other passengers agree.  Maybe they are just too scared to speak up or maybe they agree.  Either way, the other passengers did not challenge what was going on.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can work with a broken system by putting into power people that are willing to make changes to fix it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



really?  name one.  substituting a soap opera personality passion play for whatever it is that the political system is supposed to represent has always been the name of the game.  If the whole thing is premised on incorrect assumptions it doesn't matter how much you monkey with the business nested within it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How about most politicians?  They are elected because people believe that they will be able to make the changes that they want for the government.  Now, I myself am not a supporter, however Ron Paul will work as a good example.  If part of what you saw as a broken system is federal income tax and you wished it were abolished, then it would behoove you to try to get Ron Paul elected.  He has consistently pushed for the elimination of federal income tax and would work to make it go away.  Would electing him simply make it disappear? No, and no one is saying that.  But, he would be able to start the ball rolling by, say, limiting who can be taxed.  When his term ends and more needs to be done, you elect another, like minded individual that can take that further.

Now, I’m not saying this example is a good idea or a bad idea, but the point is that not every politician wants to keep things the same.  Some want to change things and are trying to get elected to do just that.  And yes, they are being denied because they are too far outside the ‘mainstream’, so you have to work to get them accepted and move from there.  Again, not easy, but that’s life.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but something that you seem to be saying is that government & society in general is a bad idea and doesn’t work.  Okay, works for me.  Then how do you go about getting rid of them?  You refusing to take part in it won’t make it go away.  Even if a majority doesn’t want to take part in them, they won’t just go away.  As long as there are enough people that want a government and want a society, then they will exist.  Yes, perhaps you can change the culture and it can be that people don’t want to live like that, but it’s not going to just happen and while you are working towards that, what do you do in the mean time?

You reference The Story of B in a later post, and perhaps you think this is a good option.  You never actually say, so I’m inferring and so my apologies if I’m wrong.  If what you prefer is a return to a hunter/gather life rather than agriculture; we all know that most people don’t want this.  Nothing exciting here.  Obviously, if anyone tried to force this one people and dissolve the country, there would be revolt.  People don’t want to give up what they have.  They are happy, they are content, they see no need to ‘go back’.  So, in order to bring about the change you want, you will have to change their worldview.  You’ll need to educate them and convince them; and you seem to doing that in your post, suggesting that I grow my own food.  Awesome, but this will obviously take time.  In the meantime, life continues much as it has: pollution increases, as does deforestation and extinction.  Land use degrades natural habitat beyond recovery within human lifetime.  Assuming you could convince people to change, by the time that change happens, irreparable harm has probably happened.

We have still been outside the system this entire time.  Now, let’s add to your efforts, a person that agrees with you but is willing to work within the system.  While you are trying to change minds and habits, this person helps to make stronger environmental laws that slow damage.  She works to restrict oil and natural resource exploration to save habitable lands.  She pushes energy conservation and recycling.  So, when you have finally changed enough minds there is more benefit to be had.

Yes, the above is a bit of a fairy tale but I’m trying to stress that things don’t happen in a vacuum.  One thing I am not saying is, ‘don’t try, just follow the rules’.  I’ve never said that and do not think that.  I am trying to get you to recognize that governments, society, culture are going to continue to exist and that perhaps the best thing to do is to make them responsible until they can be dismantled, assuming that might be desirable to you.  And my apologies if I read too much into your comments, but I hope you still understand what I was trying to get at.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However such a fatalistic attitude assumes that you could not being to lay the groundwork that would make changing the system possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you can start by growing your own beans and taters.  food is the key to revolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Awesome, a suggestion!  Seriously, I'm happy about this and sorry if that comes across badly.  (I hate the internet to mask/obscure emotions)  But it's only part of the step...great, I grow my own food.  Now what?  I'm all for hearing about a full revolution, but I do want to hear about it.  How is the revolution going to grow and what happens to those people who don't want to be a part of it?  This is at least more than I'm getting from my friend but it still doesn't answer how that supplants or changes anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comments regarding the teaching of anti-evolution are spot on of  course.  I would suggest that you consider that a politician will do anything that gets him elected.  the democrat leaders wish they had the drooling fundie nutcase block, if they had a shot at it you would see this behavior supposedly celebrating the teaching of real science nipped in the bud immediately.  i support this by my own truism, "Anyone who deserved the job would never want it".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, I think you are trying to connect the No True Scotsman with me.  But never, throughout my post, do I say that one group will always do one thing and the other would never do it.  Yes, there are pandering democrats just like there are pandering republicans...a fact which I mentioned right at the top of all this.  I spoke about people.  Individual people and what their positions were and if those positions were something worth supporting or not.  That is why people need to get informed about who they vote for and really dig into what the person has said and done.  It's not easy and it can be exhausting, but voting party line is not much better than voting for a person because "they're like me".

Here’s the thing about the truism…while I like it, it perhaps goes the wrong way.  Someone who deserves the job, should want it.  They should want to get in there and try to change what bothers them.  Society/culture/government might not be able to be controlled in a way you like, but they can be limited and guided to do the least damage.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 10 2008,13:01

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2008,11:43)
Politics is a game, and intentions don't equal accomplishment. Changing the rules, as in reforming or restructuring voting and representation, will be followed by adaptations, just a surely as bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course adapatations will happen and people in power will try to figure out how to stay in power.  But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the effort.

It is just like evolution; one species does not just give up because another is just going to change.  They both keep changing and one hopes to overcome the other.  (This make evolution sound aware and intentional, which I don't mean to do.)  And if species A does eventually dominate, it wasn't because species B gave up but because they got out competed (or other factors).

Whatever the case, saying 'don't try to improve things because they'll just change too' doesn't seem different than 'don't try to make new anitbiotics because they'll just adapt'.  Maybe the changes will help, and maybe they won't but the < Red Queen > shouldn't be a reason to avoid trying.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only useful test of a political system is whether -- in fact, not theory -- it produces alternations of control among the competing tribes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think I fully agree with this but I do generally agree that the juggling over power is good.  Keeping power from being too concentrated makes it harder to abuse.  Not impossible, but harder.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 10 2008,13:29

I don't oppose trying to improve politics. I do, however, doubt that sweeping changes are likely to happen, particularly at the federal level.

There are lots of places where new memes can be tested. The world provides a laboratory full of variations on the theme of democracy and representative government.

There are also lots of variations among state and local governments. I would personally oppose drastic changes at the national or international level that have not earned their place by gaining popularity at lower levels.

The problem race has come up. That's a different issue altogether. Questions about basic rights and basic justice do belong at the national or international level.

EDITED for spelling.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 10 2008,13:45

I think we are actually in the same chapter, if not the same page, midwifetoad.

I'm not someone who think that the next 4 years will bring about epic change, no matter who is elected.  And I do also agree that federal changes are slow and smaller areas may be a better way to test new ideas.  

That doesn't mean we can't start talking about the possible solution for problems that do exist and national politics aren't quite the same as state and below.  But still, ideas do need to prove themselves before they are implemented.  If only that concept applied to other areas.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 10 2008,14:18

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 10 2008,09:18)
But nothing will change until people arrive at politicians' doors singing

You can get anything you want
At Alice's Restaurant



(just wait until the song comes around again and we can all join in)











(Here it comes . . . )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I liked Officer Obie's run-in with blind justice...

Thanks for bringin' up one of my old-time favorite movies.

At least I think it was, but I don't remember it all that well.  

I think.  I think, therefore I am.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 10 2008,14:21

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 10 2008,09:06)
The tragedy of the US system (and the UK system for that matter) is that the electorate is stuck with limited choice. So limited in fact that it constitutes disenfranchisement in my view. The only way to change that is to engage in some fashion (from "smash the system" to "vote with apathy"), if you don't engage you cannot change a thing, you simply open yourself to exploitation in all its glory.

You're right about another thing though: engagement doesn't have to be done blind or with some faith-like pandering to vested interests, but engagement is your only safe choice.

The rest of this happy horseshit is just the latest in a long line of false equivalences you like to make to annoy people. A bit transparent but otherwise harmless.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis - Get your butt over here, and start votin'!

If they will let Richardthughes (moment of silence) in to the US, they'll obviously let in any old UKer in.  That would be You.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 10 2008,14:58

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 10 2008,20:21)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 10 2008,09:06)
The tragedy of the US system (and the UK system for that matter) is that the electorate is stuck with limited choice. So limited in fact that it constitutes disenfranchisement in my view. The only way to change that is to engage in some fashion (from "smash the system" to "vote with apathy"), if you don't engage you cannot change a thing, you simply open yourself to exploitation in all its glory.

You're right about another thing though: engagement doesn't have to be done blind or with some faith-like pandering to vested interests, but engagement is your only safe choice.

The rest of this happy horseshit is just the latest in a long line of false equivalences you like to make to annoy people. A bit transparent but otherwise harmless.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis - Get your butt over here, and start votin'!

If they will let Richardthughes (moment of silence) in to the US, they'll obviously let in any old UKer in.  That would be You.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, thanks I think!

Moving to the USA has one downside: more creationists.

There are some advantages, but I've been told by my wife to forget about those. ;-)

Louis
Posted by: jeffox on Sep. 10 2008,22:57

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler machine gun hand. . .

- N. Young
Posted by: rhmc on Sep. 11 2008,18:46

Quote (jeffox @ Sep. 10 2008,01:54)
Voting isn't so bad.  I've come to the realization that, as a borderline anarchist, my other option is to vote with my 20 gauge.  Since I also recognize Machaevalianism (sp.) for what it is, I'll stick to voting the normal way, for now.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if you get over your apparent squeamishness, you could join my political group.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2008,08:59

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 10 2008,12:49)
...and so much of the 'get involved and make a difference' poofery best reserved for college freshman is predicated on the assumption that decisions are made in this manner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and so much of the "I don't like the choices so I'll not vote" whining best reserved for youth is predicated on the assumption that sitting in the corner sucking one's thumb will produce positive results.

Instead of that, I think I'll work on becoming a teacher, where I can work toward making the system better by educating the next generations.

While I'm doing that, I'll also be voting for the candidates likely to do the least amount of damage to your constitutional right to bitch about the government, based on what they say and how they've acted in the past. I, for one, think that's an idea worth keeping. In fact, there's a whole list of ideas that I think are worth hanging on to.

Contrary to the cute little strawman you've built of me, I don't vote with idealist faith that the Democrats are the saviors of the country. In fact, going back to the original analogy I used of the swimmer, you'll note that I only felt that the current crop of the party's candidates were paralleling the shore, not making things worse, or at least not to the extant that the Republicans would. As someone mentioned earlier, one of those two sets of candidates will be elected, whether you or I like that or not. Given that choice, I will be voting for the set of candidates that intends to do the least amount of damage based on the evidence in hand. If you prefer to think of it this way (feel free because I sometimes do), I'm not supporting Democrats as much as I'm opposing Republicans.

At the same time, I'll be filling out my dance card by voicing my dissatisfaction and the reasons for it to anyone who'll listen, and pushing to get better candidates through the system. Assuming there is still a Republic by the next election, I will have worked to get slightly less damaging candidates on the party's ticket. Whether or not I and like-minded people are successful in that regard depends on how well we educate, and how much help we have. From what you've written thus far on the topic, I take it that we shouldn't be counting on you to assist in that effort?

So far, everything you've said boils down to "the system sucks". I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing against that, Erasmus. The fact that some of us choose to try and do something about that is what separates us.

Near as I can tell you've yet to offer a more productive course of action, but if you've got one, by all means, let's hear it. If there's a more efficient way of getting people in office to make the system better, I'm all for it.

If on the other hand, your contention is that the protections of the Constitution are not worth keeping, and that the Republic should just be scrapped and allowed to become a theocracy run by the most ignorant and autocratic people in the country, then you and I will simply have to part company on our premises.

Machiavellianism may be the political reality, but we can work long and hard to fix that, or we can allow it to continue unabated. In this time and place, in this context, where we stand today, those are the options. We can't even include armed rebellion as a last resort option, Erasmus. The reason it worked for the colonists a few centuries back is that they had both popular (not universal, but certainly popular) support and support from abroad, two very critical components to revolution which we are distinctly lacking.

So, if you've got a third viable option, I'm listening.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 13 2008,12:10

Yo, Lou...when you become a teacher are ya gonna keep running your girl on girl websites?  

Just curious.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 13 2008,12:20

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 13 2008,18:10)
Yo, Lou...when you become a teacher are ya gonna keep running your girl on girl websites?  

Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would that be bi-curious?

{shudders}

Louis

P.S. What's wrong with it if he does FTK. Remember to reply on your own thread btw, I've forgotten so smack my bottom and call me Cyril.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2008,20:35

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 13 2008,13:10)
Yo, Lou...when you become a teacher are ya gonna keep running your girl on girl websites?  

Just curious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That depends, Ftk. Are you and your lying IDiot buddies still going to be willfully as ignorant as a box of rocks and such an easy target for mockery? Are you still going to be lying your asses off in an effort to illegally sneak your Jesus in the back door of my science classroom? Are you still going to be trying to insert your bigoted superstitions into the laws of this country in an effort to deny equality to all Americans? Are you still going to be trying to force everyone else to believe in your silly fairy tale book so that you feel better about dying on the premise that if everyone denies reality then reality will change?

If so, then yes.

Also, I'm going to teach my students the joys of barbecuing Christian babies for Arbor Day cookouts, force them to have gay sex out of wedlock while the class watches and takes notes (that will be on the test, class), and for field trips we're going to go to the nearest church and pee in the baptismal. Also, I'm going to teach them all to drive solar powered cars and recycle.

Why do you ask?

ETA: P.S. I may also heartily encourage them to become Science Professors.


Posted by: olegt on Sep. 13 2008,20:49

Yesss!  Teach them < professor values >!

P.S.  I must admit I'm a relatively lame member of the guild: I'm only practicing atheism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, liberal beliefs, and anti-patriotism (not a US citizen, hehe) and am sorely lacking in censorship, socialism, liberal grading, liberal bias and promotion of sexual immorality.  But hey, we do what we can!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 13 2008,22:05

midwife my use of 'wrong' is of course predicated upon some version of Aldo Leopold's definition of what is ethical.  I would say, instead, There are Few Decent Governments In The World and just leave it at that.  For you, voting is like going to church is for so many people.  Very well.  Hell I went to church the other day.  Only because we were lined up to do the music, long boring story.

spottedwind I believe i hinted at options.  I would enjoy that conversation but I do think I have derailed this thread enough.  Mebbe I'll start that thread later.

Surely context can tell you which groups I mean.  After all, you described them.  Anyway, determining 'intent' behind falshood is a subjective matter.  but...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whether what they think actually is the best is another conversation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i think that is the important conversation.

regarding doing both, i meant that from my perspectives there are no suggestions, within this model, worth offering.  That is far different from saying that there are no suggested alternatives at all.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was trying to understand HOW to change a system that we wanted changed if we preclude physical violence and participating in the system.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



the 64000 dollar question.  I suggest that it can't happen without physical violence, but I am not advocating physical violence.  Just that, as you note, those with power will not relinquish that power easily.

you correctly understood the meaning of what i intended by 'group identity'.  i do suggest that you look up the original quote tarden lifted for his sig line.  i am not advocating living 'without society', just the global (or even continental) version that has been the result of the way things are now.

i'm not suggesting you are a creationist, just pointing out that the objection you make that 'not voting is tacit approval of the status quo'.  that is about the same thing as when the fundies say 'the atheist knows deep down there is a god' and other such muddlesome foolishness.  false  dichotomy and all that.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the point is that not every politician wants to keep things the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



they want to keep things the same in that none are advocating the abolition of the system by virtue of their election.  that is the 'same' that is the problem.

regarding B, I think this is the ecological imperative that is the bottom line for the future of human societies on earth.  it's the only option if we wish to maintain the sorts of social and ecological connections that have defined humanity for the majority of their existence on this planet.  will folks who love zipping around on jet planes and eating advocadoes while living in alaska resist?  of course.  i return to leopold's definition of what is good and right to settle this issue.  of course whether that definition is robust is another matter.

i am involved in resistance activities that participate within the system as it exists now.  science is the only tool i have at my disposal for that sort of resistance, and it is a particularly ineffective tool within the american system.  i'm just bringing this up to demonstrate that i'm not advocating hermits turning off tuning out and dropping out, or dreadlocked hippies beating drums at a protest.  

growing your own food is a start.  disavowing personal responsibility for your fellow man, in principle and not in practice, is another.  In other words, warm fuzzy platitudes about all men created equal, love it or leave it, vote or shut up, etc etc are invalid.  I'm not sure if this is clear enough, but I'm not advocating selfishness or screw everyone but me.  I don't live like that.  I'm saying I distrust solutions that work at the scale above the individual.

here is a fine example of my frustration.  both of these douchebag teams running for president are advocating clean coal technologies in the face of mountains of evidence (or the < destruction of over 700 mountains > as evidence) that coal energy is poisonous to the environment, poisonous to water, destroys ancient forests, hunting grounds and poisonous to social relations within human communities.  yet both parties are parroting the talking points given them by the coal industry who is heavily invested in both parties.  where do you go with that?  there aren't options.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 13 2008,22:07

Oleg, that link is hilarious.  I did learn something though.  A few weeks ago, I saw a clip on the news of some guy mooning an audience of people.  I didn't pay much attention to it because I was just walking through my living room as my husband was watching the news.

Now, it all makes sense...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, "is under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFLMAO!  That's who I saw in the clip...what a loon!!!!  Being a professor and all (a *science* professor at that!), I hope you're able to keep your pants pulled up while you're lecturing your students!

Don't you have duel citizenship?  Haven't you been in the states since the early 90's?
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 13 2008,22:22

Yeah, ftk, Shanahan is quite a loon.  Here's < some additional info > about him.  

I don't have a US citizenship, just a green card.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 13 2008,22:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Instead of that, I think I'll work on becoming a teacher, where I can work toward making the system better by educating the next generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



wow, lou, that's great.  i'm serious.  But note that it doesn't have anything to do with voting encouraging the bastards.  i think it is hilarious that you find some sort of value in holding your nose and trying to determine which is the least shitty diaper in the bin, as if that did anything but encourage the bastards.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrary to the cute little strawman you've built of me, I don't vote with idealist faith that the Democrats are the saviors of the country.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is not a strawman is that you have an idealist faith that one of the candidate is more of a savior than the other.  the swimming analogy is inadequate for many reasons, but you could salvage it by comparing our situation to prisoners voting for which inmate gets trustee.  i don't care who it is, it is all done without my consent.  the idea that your vote influences the behavior of the candidate is just silly.  voting = praying to a god.  how do you know you are voting in the right election?  better register to vote in every district.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far, everything you've said boils down to "the system sucks". I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing against that, Erasmus. The fact that some of us choose to try and do something about that is what separates us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok the system sucks.  what you fail to comprehend, Lou, is that voting is not 'doing something about it'.  Further, I am not failing to 'do something about it'.  I'm just not participating in a social exercise akin to "American Idol".  So it makes you feel like a good citizen, that's just peachy.  that's a pretty empty thing at the end of the day, huh?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If on the other hand, your contention is that the protections of the Constitution are not worth keeping, and that the Republic should just be scrapped and allowed to become a theocracy run by the most ignorant and autocratic people in the country, then you and I will simply have to part company on our premises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



speaking of men of straw...  i don't know if you noticed but all of these zeroes make strong testaments about their 'faith'.  sounds like you can't get a candidate that does share your premises.  that's gotta suck.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can't even include armed rebellion as a last resort option, Erasmus. The reason it worked for the colonists a few centuries back is that they had both popular (not universal, but certainly popular) support and support from abroad, two very critical components to revolution which we are distinctly lacking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't even consider those as the most important reasons why armed rebellion fails today.  yer squirrel guns were fine when you were fighting against other squirrel guns.  that's not the case any more.  dying for your ideals is a dumb thing to do, and that is surely the result of attempting that sort of resistance.  

the problem is not just american imperial hegemony but the imperial hegemony of every other nation.  fracture this republic and you will have another, seeded by a foreign power.

the third option is grow your own food, remember how to make white oak baskets, sing old songs, go see yer granmaw, plant on the signs, unplug whenever you can, shoot squirrels, raise chickens and teach these things to children.  throw sand in the cogs of the machine every chance you get, but do not sacrifice yourself for your principles.

there is a vast literature on the alternative path but none of it is represented in the mainstream discourse because it does not accept the foundational premise that you are failing to question, namely that we should live this way.  

if you do not question this premise then these will not seem to be alternatives but cop-outs.  I can lead you to the conclusion but I can't make you accept it.  Perhaps returning to the ethical prescription that is a foundation of my philosophy is a start.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 13 2008,22:44

ARE YOU PEOPLE WATCHING SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE???  FREAKING HILARIOUS OPENING SKETCH WITH PALIN AND HILLARY!!!
Posted by: bfish on Sep. 14 2008,02:18

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 13 2008,20:44)
ARE YOU PEOPLE WATCHING SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE???  FREAKING HILARIOUS OPENING SKETCH WITH PALIN AND HILLARY!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for the tip, FTK. SNL is on two hours later out here (or three? In the olden days it was on at 10:30 in the Midwest) so I was able to check it out after I read your post. Very funny, with not a little emotional truth, I suspect.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 14 2008,06:56

Speaking of comedy, check out recent < Sinfest >strips. Very funny parodies of current US political goings on.

Louis
Posted by: bfish on Sep. 14 2008,10:08

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 13 2008,20:44)
ARE YOU PEOPLE WATCHING SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE???  FREAKING HILARIOUS OPENING SKETCH WITH PALIN AND HILLARY!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< And here is the skit itself. >
Posted by: csadams on Sep. 14 2008,15:05

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 13 2008,22:07)
Oleg, that link is hilarious.  I did learn something though.  A few weeks ago, I saw a clip on the news of some guy mooning an audience of people.  I didn't pay much attention to it because I was just walking through my living room as my husband was watching the news.

Now, it all makes sense...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, "is under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFLMAO!  That's who I saw in the clip...what a loon!!!!  Being a professor and all (a *science* professor at that!), I hope you're able to keep your pants pulled up while you're lecturing your students!

Don't you have duel citizenship?  Haven't you been in the states since the early 90's?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shanahan wasn't a scientist or a science professor by any stretch of the imagination.  Naw, he specialized in communications . . . couldn't ya tell??

Shanahan has a strong aversion to science; also, to law enforcement personnel, shoes, public schools, haircuts, professors who make more $$$ than he does, his son's T-ball umpire, district court judges, those who question his pronouncements, mown lawns, interstate speed limits below 85 mph, optometrists, and teachers.  His arrests for aggravated assault were pled down to disorderly conduct.

FHSU is well rid of him.  Why the professor from UPittsburgh wasn't also fired is a mystery.

*************************
olegt, I hope you don't have "duel" citizenship; we'd hate to see you go the way of < Alexander Hamilton >.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 14 2008,15:40

duel/dual, piranha/pariah, whatev...

:p  :p  :p
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 14 2008,15:41

Oh, snap...

My friggin' emotican didn't work...

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

There we go!!!!
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 14 2008,16:36

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,21:40)
duel/dual, piranha/pariah, whatev...

:p  :p  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


6000/4600000000, handwaving crap pulled out of the rectums of religious apologists/mountains of actual scientific data whatev....

Louis

P.S. What's with this "oh snap" stuff? The only place I've heard it is on "My Name Is Earl", and it's the trashy trailer park ex wife who says it. That similarity I get, the one problem is she is quite hot....
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 14 2008,21:53

< Lipstick on a Wing Nut >

Katha Pollitt poses ten questions for Sarah Palin (after a brutal but clean body check into the boards). The ones of particular interest to this board quoted below.
   
Quote (Katha Pollitt @ The Nation, September 10, 2008)

  • You say you don't believe global warming is man-made. Could you tell us what scientists you've spoken with or read who have led you to that conclusion? What do you think the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are getting wrong?

  • If you didn't try to fire Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Baker over her refusal to consider censoring books, why did you try to fire her?

  • Approximately how old is the earth? Five thousand years? 10,000? 5 billion?

  • You're suing the federal government to have polar bears removed from the endangered species list, even as Alaska's northern coastal ice is melting and falling into the sea. Can you explain the science behind your decision?

  • You've suggested that God approves of the Iraq War and the Alaska pipeline. How do you know?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 14 2008,21:55

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 14 2008,17:36)
P.S. What's with this "oh snap" stuff?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's kiddie slang. My fourteen year old son uses it.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 14 2008,22:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's kiddie slang. My fourteen year old son uses it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So does < PZ >  :O  :O

I dare ya to say that to him.... :p

Actually, I'm working on replacing my crude words with more lady-like language.  So, while I'd usually say "shit", I tried substituting with "snap".   "Friggin'" = "fuckin"...you get the idea.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 14 2008,22:32

hey FtK why don't you work on correcting your abysmal misunderstandings of science instead of fretting about your sinful potty mouth.  

besides jesus said if you consider it in your heart you might as well have done it.  so.... friggin' aint getting you very far, hon.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 14 2008,22:32

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 14 2008,22:53)
< Lipstick on a Wing Nut >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I put my response on the FtK thread.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 15 2008,02:49

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 15 2008,03:55)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 14 2008,17:36)
P.S. What's with this "oh snap" stuff?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's kiddie slang. My fourteen year old son uses it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your 14 year old son is the hot ex wife lady from My Name Is Earl?

Whoa. You Americans, you have everything! USA USA USA!!!!!!

Wait....have I misunderstood something?

Louis

P.S. FTK: Dare us to say what to PZ? You want us to take the piss out of him more than we already do? You have a strange idea of what people's relationships are. Just because you idolise priests and pastors doesn't mean a) everyone who is idolised is a priest or pastor, or b) that other people idolise anyone. Get your husband to give you some cash so you can run down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2008,17:23

Inevitably, his work brought him into conflict with Palin and other highly politicized Christian fundamentalists in the valley. "Things got very intense around here in the '90s -- the culture war was very hot here," Bess said. "The evangelicals were trying to take over the valley. They took over the school board, the community hospital board, even the local electric utility. And Sarah Palin was in the direct center of all these culture battles, along with the churches she belonged to."

< http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/ >
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2008,19:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Linky >
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 15 2008,20:21

The media (via the internet) certainly doesn't like Palin, although she has given them a lot to choose from. I had a quick look at Fox and they aren't criticising her but they aren't gushing over her either.

The creationism bit was interesting, like global warming she has gone vague on her beliefs since the nomination.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 15 2008,20:50

I'm not trying to be a jerk by posting this.  I know you guys are worried that Palin might stop science in it's tracks so you won't vote for the McCain ticket, but I wonder what if any of you guys worry about the stuff in this clip about Obama.  I've heard these issues mentioned in the past, and it seems a bit worrisome to me.  

Honestly, I don't have anything against Obama.  During the start of the campaigns I actually leaned his direction.  I even posted postive youtube stuff at my blog.  But, as time went on, I started hearing things that freaked me out just a bit.

I've no doubt that all the candidates have skeletons in there closet, but some of these things about Obama worry me a bit.

< What do you guys think >?

Yes, we need to get past the the stupid scare tactics in the clip (eerie music, etc.), but is there need to worry about this stuff?
Posted by: Art on Sep. 15 2008,21:04

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,20:50)
I'm not trying to be a jerk by posting this.  I know you guys are worried that Palin might stop science in it's tracks so you won't vote for the McCain ticket, but I wonder what if any of you guys worry about the stuff in this clip about Obama.  I've heard these issues mentioned in the past, and it seems a bit worrisome to me.  

Honestly, I don't have anything against Obama.  During the start of the campaigns I actually leaned his direction.  I even posted postive youtube stuff at my blog.  But, as time went on, I started hearing things that freaked me out just a bit.

I've no doubt that all the candidates have skeletons in there closet, but some of these things about Obama worry me a bit.

< What do you guys think >?

Yes, we need to get past the the stupid scare tactics in the clip (eerie music, etc.), but is there need to worry about this stuff?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In a word, no.

Ftk, you're so gullible.  You probably still think Harry Truman was a mob flunkie to the very end.

(Actually, odds are that you don't even get my allusion.)
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 15 2008,21:08

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,20:50)
I'm not trying to be a jerk by posting this.  I know you guys are worried that Palin might stop science in it's tracks so you won't vote for the McCain ticket, but I wonder what if any of you guys worry about the stuff in this clip about Obama.  I've heard these issues mentioned in the past, and it seems a bit worrisome to me.  

Honestly, I don't have anything against Obama.  During the start of the campaigns I actually leaned his direction.  I even posted postive youtube stuff at my blog.  But, as time went on, I started hearing things that freaked me out just a bit.

I've no doubt that all the candidates have skeletons in there closet, but some of these things about Obama worry me a bit.

< What do you guys think >?

Yes, we need to get past the the stupid scare tactics in the clip (eerie music, etc.), but is there need to worry about this stuff?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical Republican slime machine in action. Me personally, I'm more worried about < this >.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2008,21:09

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,21:50)
I know you guys are worried that Palin might stop science in it's tracks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anybody here remember saying this?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2008,21:14

According to FreeRepublic, the thing to really worry about is blacks rioting and burning everything down if Obama loses. They suggest buying a gun.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 15 2008,21:38

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2008,21:14)
According to FreeRepublic, the thing to really worry about is blacks rioting and burning everything down if Obama loses. They suggest buying a gun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends, doesn't it, on whether the loss would be perceived as due to racism. There's a lot of talk about otherwise solid Democrats not being willing to vote for a black candidate.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 15 2008,22:36

Yes, of course.  I'd forgotten that Republicans are constantly working those giant "slime machines" in order to sway the gullible masses to vote for them.  I'm sure  there's not a thing in that video that's even close to being accurate...silly me to have even considered that Obama is anything less than the Messiah himself.  

And, I'm sure you'd be very hard pressed to find a Democrat who has misrepresented Palin....no spin doctors on your side of the fence.  

*eyes rolling*

I wonder who's the more guillible...
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2008,22:41

Oh, I think racisim would definitely be a part of an Obama loss. While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 15 2008,22:49

FTK I can't use Youtube at the moment. If you have some important, meaningful accusation against Obama, could you just come right out and make it. I'm guessing it's one of those 'Obama knew someone years ago who did something bad years ago' pieces of junk. Hopefully it'll be something amusing instead, like that recent 'Obama dealt drugs from Pakistan' BS.

(The absolute highlight for me was the Clinton years, when my rural republican relatives tried to convince me that Clinton was a murdering rapist, who ran drugs through Mena airport, and was going to use Y2K as a bogus event to declare martial law and have the US occupied by hidden Chinese soldiers.)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 16 2008,06:08

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,22:36)
I wonder who's the more guillible...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny. I don't.

Do you need a clue?
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,06:37

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2008,22:41)
Oh, I think racisim would definitely be a part of an Obama loss. While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I know quite a few (~30) white racists, or at least those that display all the generally accepted outward signs of racism, and each and everyone, to the man, is a Democrat.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,07:19

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 16 2008,04:36)
[SNIP]

I wonder who's the more guillible...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I don't wonder about that, I imagine when all is averaged out whatever ever groupings you chose to select are all about equally gullible. The trick is to KNOW you're gullible, try very hard to prevent yourself being fooled by the same tricks (the old adage about "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" springs to mind), and generally start from a position of interested scepticism* when provided with any novel claim. This works for science as it does in politics.

What frustrates me about this whole debacle (from the notroversy about evolutionary biology to the current presidential race) is the pointless identity politics. "Vote for Palin because she's like you", "Don't let those athiestic science professors tell you about science believe me 'cos Jesus said so" etc. It's not only pointless crapola, it's a distraction from the REAL point: the evidence. In many cases (though by no means all) even in politics, the evidence points clearly to a solution for a variety of problems. Even when it doesn;t one can form one's choice of vote around the issues, how well they are formulated and how consistent they are with the available evidence etc. The tragedy for me is that because this involves some tiny bit of effort and research, even many intelligent, hard working people avoid doing it.

And it isn't restricted to the USA, I'd like to say that the UK is "getting like the USA" but in this "identity politics" respect it isn't. It already IS like the USA. The difference is quite an interesting one though. Just like those nice rabid fundamentalist christians glare across at those wicked rabid fundamentalist muslims and think "Gosh, isn't it OBVIOUS how dumb these ideas are? Don't they SEE it?" the nice rabid fundamentalist muslims are looking right back at the wicked rabid fundamentalist christians and thinking the same thing. This also works without the words "muslim", "christian", "rabid" or "fundamentalist". Insert your own term for kicks! The same applies "Don't those liberals realise how stupid they are?" "Don't those conservatives get it?" people are so tied up in labels and groups that the wood cannot be seen for the trees. I don't care if Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or John McCain or Gordon Brown or Charles Clarke or whoever is like me (and I guarantee you they aren't), I don't care if their black, white, gay, straight, male, female, religious, irreligious, the next messiah or satan in a fucking kaftan. It's all a tiresome irrelevance. Their policies DO matter, what they will DO matters. Whether they went on Saturday Night Live and fucked a chicken, or what Conan O'Brian, Bill Donohue, Johnathon Ross, Richard Littlejohn or anyone else thinks of them is irrelevant. Even if these candidates WERE you, a clone of you, they are in a very different environment from you. They grew up differently, they are in Westminster or Washington or wherever, a world apart from where YOU are.

Wanking on about who is more gullible or who is more like who or who will be ousted by racism is playing the very game these people want you to play.

The one thing guaranteed to maintain the status quo is to continue playing into their hands. You want to talk about who is more gullible FTK? Who cares? One thing I know is that you, me, everyone needs to look close to home FIRST. That's where this stuff always begins. Complain about other people's gullibility when yours is sorted out. And considering you think the world is either 10k years old or 4.6 billion but you can't yet make up your mind, and you think Walt's Whacky World of Weirdness bears any resemblance to observable reality, I'd say you have a LOT of work to do. Ignore the identity politics, focus on self improvement.

Rant over, you have annoyed me enough.

Louis

*NOT hostile cynicism, the two are different, despite the whining of various stripes of believer.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,07:23

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,12:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2008,22:41)
Oh, I think racisim would definitely be a part of an Obama loss. While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I know quite a few (~30) white racists, or at least those that display all the generally accepted outward signs of racism, and each and everyone, to the man, is a Democrat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, well I know 60 paedophile, nun killing, racist, homophobic, sexist, arms dealering anti-semites, all of whom vote Republican and Conservative AND BNP and Nazi, all of whom were responsible for the Holocaust all of whom believe in YOUR specific sect of religious drivel and all of whom attend YOUR church and were cloned from YOUR big toenail clippings.

And the useful productive discussion of the issues in that was where?

Heddle, for an intelligent and educated bloke, you sure do have some mightily fucked up mental blinkers.

Louis
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,07:38

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,07:23)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,12:37)
       
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2008,22:41)
Oh, I think racisim would definitely be a part of an Obama loss. While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I know quite a few (~30) white racists, or at least those that display all the generally accepted outward signs of racism, and each and everyone, to the man, is a Democrat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, well I know 60 paedophile, nun killing, racist, homophobic, sexist, arms dealering anti-semites, all of whom vote Republican and Conservative AND BNP and Nazi, all of whom were responsible for the Holocaust all of whom believe in YOUR specific sect of religious drivel and all of whom attend YOUR church and were cloned from YOUR big toenail clippings.

And the useful productive discussion of the issues in that was where?

Heddle, for an intelligent and educated bloke, you sure do have some mightily fucked up mental blinkers.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis,

No I'm quite serious. And I actually do not know, personally, any Republican racists. I'm not stupid enough to say there are none, I just do not know any, personally, while I personally know, as I stated, ~30 racists (or maybe not, you decide) who are Democrats.

The explanation is actually quite simple. I grew up in a lower middle class (perhaps poor is more accurate) inner-city neighborhood, in Pittsburgh’s Northside region, for those who know the city. (The stadiums are in this area.) My neighborhood and schools were racially divided, a little more that half were black. To first order, everyone in this environment grows up a racist. It’s an “us vs. them” world that if you grew up in the lilly-white suburbs (like my kids are) you’d never understand. If you had to get from point A to B, you performed a risk analysis/optimization that took into account variables like, time of day, time of year, how many people were with you, how fast you just had to get there, what streets you had to cross, and most importantly, the prevailing neighborhood atmosphere at the moment.  If there had been a recent black v. white incident, the chance of another was much greater.

Again, to first order, there are only two ways out of this that I know of: religion (virtually any common variety with ethical teachings will suffice) and/or education. Fortunately I got both.

The last reunion I went to was a couple summers ago. Of the thirty or forty close friends I grew up with, only five or six of us had “gotten out.” (Another oddity for suburbanites—as kids didn’t drive to a field and play soccer with strangers, we played with the same kids, every day, year in year out. You could be in a fistfight at noon and best friends again an hour later.)

What about the rest of my friends, who didn’t get out? The rest are Pittsburgh policemen, firemen, and other blue collar workers. Many (because of their fathers) are in the Boilermakers union (welders) or Sheet Metal Workers (duct workers) or are union glaziers.

Now, after a few Iron City beers, actually it doesn’t take that much, these guys will unleash a torrent of complaints with generous application of the N-word. I didn’t get promoted because they gave it to some F**king N***… If my daughter came home with a N***,… This sort of thing.

The only other group they lash out upon with comparable animosity are the “party of the rich” Republicans. Like their union daddies before them, they are staunch, die-hard, union Democrats.

Now to be sure I don’t know if these guys, or at least if all these guys, in spite of talking the talk, are really racists. Like many people with a tough life they look for a scapegoat. And unless you’ve walked in their shoes, unless you grew up in an “us vs. them” hostile environment, you really can’t judge their attitudes. It is more complex than it is made out to be. I think the most accurate portrayal I’ve ever seen is Matt Dillion in Crash. Was he a racist or not? It’s hard to say.

Now, do you actually have a plausible story about knowing, personally, " 60 paedophile, nun killing, racist, homophobic, sexist, arms dealering anti-semites, all of whom vote Republican" ? If so, let's have it.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,08:08

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,13:38)
[SNIP tiresomely irrelevant life history]

Now, do you actually have a plausible story about knowing, personally, " 60 paedophile, nun killing, racist, homophobic, sexist, arms dealering anti-semites, all of whom vote Republican" ? If so, let's have it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course I don't, it was deliberate hyperbole, which, if you cannot spot it (when telegraphed that seriously) is a worrying deficiency on your part.

I do know plenty of conservative (UK right wing-ish party) voting racists, labour (UK centre-right wing-ish party) voting racists, plenty of educated racists, plenty of American racists of both parties from when I lived there, plenty of uneducated racists, voting middle class racists, working class racists, even (based on my schooling) incredibly upper class racists, atheist racists, religious racists, handicapped racists, able bodied racists etc etc etc. I know an ironically diverse set of racists, some I'm related to, some I'm acquainted with, some I work with. And the question remains.....SO WHAT?

As usual, you've played into the identity politics and missed my point. You're sufficiently mathematically capable (vastly more than I am for example) to understand the error prone nature of small, biased sample sizes. You're sufficiently intelligent to realise that playing these silly identity games is utterly meaningless when it comes to producing useful results from politics. And you should be sufficiently aware enough to realise that your comment, whilst its utterly unverifiable plausibility or lack thereof is yet another irrelevance, was yet another in group/out group red herring in a sea over stocked with that species of fish.

The point is not that there are naughty people on the other side, there are naughty people everywhere. I voted Lib Dem at the last election and I guarantee you that somewhere a Lib Dem voter is a paedophile. Great! What have we learned from that? Something new? Something profound? Or is it merely what we already knew about humans i.e. their less desirable traits (as well as their more desirable traits) are distributed pretty evenly across most of the relatively arbitrary groups we care to make. Rocket science this is not.

So like I said to FTK, why keep playing into the hands of the corrupt elements of government by giving both tongue and credence to this cretinous identity politics? Instead of a) doing nothing, b) having some fun, c) contributing seriously) or d) actually bothering to make an examinable and useful contribution you have plumbed for e) irrelevant identity politics. Is that a productive use of your education and intellect regarding a serious issue? Nope. Is it yet another whiny datum in the ages old exchange of ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies between slightly differing groups? Yes.

YOU can do better, so do it.

Louis
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,08:27

Louis,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is not that there are naughty people on the other side, there are naughty people everywhere
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No that is not the point. At least not the point I'm concerned with. Who would argue that there are not bad guys everywhere? I was responding, specifically, to steve s's comment:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Am I parsing that wrong? Is it not true that the message it sends is that the majority, even the vast majority, of white racists are Republicans?

Well when I think of actual white racists, I think of where I grew up, and where I grew up is overwhelmingly Democrat.

So I don't see how I missed the point. I provided the life history, which you can believe or not I don't care, as an explanation after your, um, rebuttal about knowing Republican pedophiles. You seemed to imply, as I read it, that I could not possibly have an explanation for my claim, and then you dismiss that explanation as irrelevant.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 16 2008,08:39

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,08:27)
I was responding, specifically, to steve s's comment:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Am I parsing that wrong? Is it not true that the message it sends is that the majority, even the vast majority, of white racists are Republicans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, Google up "Nixon southern strategy" to see the point of what Steve was getting at. In short, Louis is right (and it pains me to no end to say that).  You seem to be assuming that your limited experience with racists is typical. It is not.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,08:53

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 16 2008,08:39)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,08:27)
I was responding, specifically, to steve s's comment:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Am I parsing that wrong? Is it not true that the message it sends is that the majority, even the vast majority, of white racists are Republicans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, Google up "Nixon southern strategy" to see the point of what Steve was getting at. In short, Louis is right (and it pains me to no end to say that).  You seem to be assuming that your limited experience with racists is typical. It is not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not assuming it is typical. I am saying that more or less equating racism with the Republican party is an over simplification. There is a lot more complexity out there.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,09:09

No Heddle, I didn't imply that. Learn to read. That is entirely orthogonal to the point I was making. Again you ignore the point(s) *I* am making and insert fantasies of your own confection.

If Steve's claims are false, which is a distinct possibility, then they won't be falsified by referral to your small, biased sample, which is basically no better than an anecdote. They will be falsified by referring to some productive evidence, which your 30 racist democrats isn't even close to being. Steve's claim has no support that he has provided either. BOTH of you are guilty of the same thing: i.e. in group/out group identity politics in absence of reliable evidence. Both of you are guilty of playing nonsense games and advancing support free ridiculous argumenta ad homines.

It is irrelevant who has more racists Reps or Dems, it is irrelevant whether you personally know more Dem racists than Steve or he more Rep racists than you. It is a woeful series of tiresome red herrings. Unless you and Steve have some statistically meaningful study to show that Rep voters or Dem voters are more racist than the other group on average, you have nothing. You're both just flapping your lips (or in this case fingers) and wasting everyone's time with meaningless identity politics.

So to establish the claim that the home of US white racism is the Rep party or the Dem party cannot be done or refuted by the means you two are engaged in. By virtue of the manner those means you are engaged in is expressed you are merely contributing to the noise and not the signal. Ignore these tiresome irrelevances unless you have some relevant, statistically meaningful evidence to bring to bear on the subject. You, as an intelligent, educated person are not only capable of bringing that sort of evidence to bear on a topic, it is your responsibility to do so.

What ISN'T irrelevant is the policies put forward for scrutiny by the various parties, their actual actions, their voting histories etc. Let's reduce this to one issue for the sake of simplicity: racial discrimination. Whether or not John McCain (or his supporters) uses the word "nigger" or Barack Obama (or his supporters) uses it are both gross irrelevances. What IS important are the policies John McCain or Barack Obama will enact which have an effect on racial discrimination.

The fact of whether or not I am more like John McCain or Barack Obama is yet another irrelevance. The point I've been making is "don't believe the hype". Don't buy into the to and fro of irrelevant crap from all sides. Is one side more guilty or irrelevant crap than the other? Quite possibly, but that itself is more often than not another exceedingly tiresome irrelevance. All that matters are the issues, the various policies formulated to deal with them, how and when those policies will be enacted.

The only time that the the racism of one party over the other becomes relevant is when you can demonstrate a link between formulation of policy and that groundswell of voter racism. If one party is continually promoting candidates for seats who unashamedly espouse demonstrably racist ideology, who campaign for policies that would enhance discrimination of the basis of race, more than the other party, then we can make these sorts of claims with some basis. Other than that, we can't.

That is precisely NOT what you or Steve are doing. That is precisely NOT what typifies the presidential political "debate" in the USA (and indeed elsewhere). My final point, repeated in several posts, has been that it is the responsibility of people with the intellect and education to appreciate this to try to ignore the irrelevances and focus on the issues. You are not doing that.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,09:10

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,14:53)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 16 2008,08:39)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,08:27)
I was responding, specifically, to steve s's comment:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While the GOP has primarily been the home of white racists since the 60's, it wasn't a 100% complete relocation, and there are some racist Democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Am I parsing that wrong? Is it not true that the message it sends is that the majority, even the vast majority, of white racists are Republicans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, Google up "Nixon southern strategy" to see the point of what Steve was getting at. In short, Louis is right (and it pains me to no end to say that).  You seem to be assuming that your limited experience with racists is typical. It is not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not assuming it is typical. I am saying that more or less equating racism with the Republican party is an over simplification. There is a lot more complexity out there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A fact no one here disagrees with.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,09:21

Shorter version:

Steve S: Most white racists vote Rep. Some white racists vote Dem.

Heddle: I know 30 white Dem voting racists 'cos I grew up on teh meen stweets of WhiteDemRacistVille. {Insert working class credentials here}.*

Louis: Small, biased sample sizes prove fuck all. Mere assertion proves fuck all. In the greater scheme of the presidential election, and also the greater scheme of policy formulation, the "who's got more X" (where X = some undesirable agreed upon by both parties) question is a tiresome irrelevance. It is an aspect of identity politics/in-group vs out-group conflict that distracts and detracts from a reasoned consideration of the issues. If there are some corrupt, power hungry elements to government (and I think it's undeniably the case that there are) then this sort of logically fallacious crap plays into their hands by distracting from the issues and the evidence supporting (or not) policies formulated to deal with those issues. People sufficiently smart to work their way through the Dirac equation (for example), bear a responsibility not to be as fucking stupid as the mouth breathing oxygen thieves who seem to find politics to be yet another reality television programme.

Louis

*Humble Beginnings, a tiny village with no facilities that it would seem many billions of people claim to have grown up in as if this lent their insufferably asinine opinions any weight. Argumentum ad cruenam? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 16 2008,09:44

pox on all thine houses
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,09:47

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 16 2008,15:44)
pox on all thine houses
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I figured you'd say that.

Still isn't it nice to be using a machine you couldn't make, eating food you couldn't farm, consuming goods and facilities you can't possibly hope to provide for yourself and sneering at collective effort. Isn't there a word for that sort of thing beginning with H?

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 16 2008,10:00

Louis- You are making way too much sense for any of this to be useful to USA politics, where the current trend is to only listen to what the talking-head pundits (or your local preacher) tell you what to believe.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,10:25

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 16 2008,16:00)
Louis- You are making way too much sense for any of this to be useful to USA politics, where the current trend is to only listen to what the talking-head pundits (or your local preacher) tell you what to believe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sadly it's the same here in the UK (and elsewhere). The only difference is the slight cultural variations of which talking puppet to listen to.

The utter tragedy of the failure of democracy is that we do it to ourselves. I mean WE as well, which includes ME. It is really, really hard to ignore identity politics, I fail at it sometimes, everyone does. It's really hard to ignore the chimp impulses (chimpulses?) rearing up and the hormones writhing in response to perceived out-group attack. The only trick we can manage is to realise that we are susceptible. We can't evade it, we can't be some perfect abstraction, we are history laden, culturally laden, evolved social organisms. However, we all hate being exploited, the only way we have of possibly combating exploitation is to either secede from collective effort altogether and descend to anarchy (which actually won't work for obvious reasons, cooperation has selective advantages) or shift the emphasis of our collective efforts in a more collaborative way. That shift necessarily involves a dispelling of myths about ourselves, and a reliance on the best evidence we can provide. We can't be 100% objective, but we can try to tend towards it.

That, by the way, should never detract from the wonderful diversity of humanity and our subjective desires and whims. The objectivity must apply at the level of the collective effort we make (i.e. government etc), not necessarily at the level of the individual. It is in essence the liberal and Enlightenment principles on which the USA was founded realised in their clearest form. Sadly such social and individual liberty requires certain restrictions on the markets and government, and they must be (to all intents and purposes) voluntary restrictions made in good conscience. Equally sadly, that is an utopian ideal unlikely ever to be realised, but like objectivity it can be striven towards if never totally achieved. Not only that it requires an altruistic education of and caring for the electorate, it requires that the one role of government is to remove the need for certain struggles (food, shelter, health, education, infrastructure etc). The people who elect the government must be as free as possible to do so. No system on earth has yet attempted that, let alone achieved it. We are however in progress towards it. To expect it to be done already is over optimistic to a decidedly delusional degree!

Reliance on authority and myth to achieve these utopian ideals has failed. We can't compel people to act as we might like them to, in fact the very attempt misses the point! Hence why I am an advocate of explicit social contracts and areas of the planet left to those who volunteer to be released from those contracts (crime can't do that before anyone asks, it has to be an act of capable consent, and every reasonable thing should be done to prevent an individual from desiring to give it. I don't mean i a totalitarian sense, I mean in an accommodating sense. It's also not a one way decision, it's not irrevocable. The Anabaptist/Amish idea of Rumspringa is a reasonable approximation). We are emerging from that part of our history in gradual steps. Hopefully we will fully emerge, but I have my doubts.

Oops digressed! This is why I get annoyed at the utter fatuousness of the standard approach to democratic politics. Unlike 'Ras who apparently wants to absent himself (his right, but it also forfeits his right to complain) I want better quality engagement. The status quo has not always been the status quo! It can be changed, by imperceptible degrees to be sure, but it CAN be changed. The politics of despair and apathy are not yet in a position to be comfortable. I want a world in which they are.

Louis
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 16 2008,10:53

I would have thought the last 8 years would have woken up the "Waaaaah! They're all the same! It doesn't matter who I vote for!" bunch. How bad does it need to get?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 16 2008,11:02

Nerull subtract your vote from the total to get a round idea of how worthless and irrelevant your input is.  That is true even assuming the manifestly false notion that there is a connection between the actions of a politician (especially at the presidential level, and I am open to the consideration that local politics could possibly operate under different dynamics).  The last 8 years have been replete with douchebaggery and fucktardation.  So were the previous 8.  The most concise summation of this phenomenon is "They are all a gang of shit-asses".

Louis says all have sinned and come short of the glory of god, whether you believe in sin or god or not.  Fundie logic false dichotomies.  Do folks less than 18 years old have the 'right' to complain?  Did blacks or women have the 'right' to complain before they were granted suffrage?  It's all bullshit.  

I tend to agree with Heddle here, I think, albeit, obliquely.  The best thing that could possibly come out of participating in the voting process is the social reinforcement of personal identity.  Perhaps that wasn't his point.  Anyway, it makes you feel good and warm and fuzzy like you are contributing and for some folks that is enough.  Clearly.  Don't worry about the rest of that stuff, just like "Love Jesus", "Cast Your Vote" is a matter of blind faith in a black box of secret machinations.  I remain bewildered at the level of blind child like faith that the social prometheans, such as Louis, put in political processes when so much hay is made of ridiculing that same apparatus in the minds of god-believers.

Louis, the word you are looking for starts with an "O", not an "H".  I think we would both agree that martyrdom is a rather stupid choice, don't you?  If, not, go crucify yourself for the Labour Party and see if anyone gives a flying rat's cunt.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,11:07

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 16 2008,16:53)
I would have thought the last 8 years would have woken up the "Waaaaah! They're all the same! It doesn't matter who I vote for!" bunch. How bad does it need to get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OOOH OOOH CAN I GODWINERISE THE THREAD? CAN I? CAN I?

Ready aaaaannnnnnnnnnddddddddddddd:

NAZI!*



Thank yew, thank yew.**

Louis

*Like Yahtzee only less fun for gays, Jews, gypsies, assorted European nations, and America when they finally got round to it.

**For the ineluctably dimwitted and tragic, no not all (if any) Republicans are Nazis, yes I'm sure where you grew up there were 30 Democrat Nazis and that for you Dem = Nazi. Yes, I know Darwin had sex with a goat and produced Hitler in a satanic ritual to take over the world and save us from the Jews who killed Jesus before demonstrating the superiority of the white race by being such a nasty bloke that he is trotted out as the epitome of evil at every turn. Wait is that not just a TAD inconsistent? Oh well. It's a fucking joke anyway, not that anyone will get it. I'm wasted on you people etc etc moan blah drone waffle.***

*** This, too, is also not serious. I was serious once back in 1832. Didn't like it.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,11:34

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 16 2008,17:02)
Nerull subtract your vote from the total to get a round idea of how worthless and irrelevant your input is.  That is true even assuming the manifestly false notion that there is a connection between the actions of a politician (especially at the presidential level, and I am open to the consideration that local politics could possibly operate under different dynamics).  The last 8 years have been replete with douchebaggery and fucktardation.  So were the previous 8.  The most concise summation of this phenomenon is "They are all a gang of shit-asses".

Louis says all have sinned and come short of the glory of god, whether you believe in sin or god or not.  Fundie logic false dichotomies.  Do folks less than 18 years old have the 'right' to complain?  Did blacks or women have the 'right' to complain before they were granted suffrage?  It's all bullshit.  

I tend to agree with Heddle here, I think, albeit, obliquely.  The best thing that could possibly come out of participating in the voting process is the social reinforcement of personal identity.  Perhaps that wasn't his point.  Anyway, it makes you feel good and warm and fuzzy like you are contributing and for some folks that is enough.  Clearly.  Don't worry about the rest of that stuff, just like "Love Jesus", "Cast Your Vote" is a matter of blind faith in a black box of secret machinations.  I remain bewildered at the level of blind child like faith that the social prometheans, such as Louis, put in political processes when so much hay is made of ridiculing that same apparatus in the minds of god-believers.

Louis, the word you are looking for starts with an "O", not an "H".  I think we would both agree that martyrdom is a rather stupid choice, don't you?  If, not, go crucify yourself for the Labour Party and see if anyone gives a flying rat's cunt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry but how does any of that address or resemble anything I said? Your straw men will avail you nothing, you should know I have no sympathy for them.

I explicitly DON'T think we have all sinned and fallen short of perfection and glory. Recognising that we are all flawed human beings capable of error is hardly the same as sin. One is a rational assessment of one's own limitations, the other is some religious idea which is basically a means of exercising political and psychological control. I think perfection and glory are unattainable nonsense. I think we can strive towards improvement, nothing more. Is a simple acknowledgement that you are fallible beyond your fragile ego?

Sadly, no, in the days of disenfranchisement, blacks and women did not have the right to complain. That is a travesty, something that has been pleasingly corrected to some degree. Let's hope it improves MORE. Sadly now, underage kids are deemed incapable of giving reasoned votes, they are explicitly disenfranchised by their (assumed) lack of reasoning ability. The rights and wrongs of that are a separate debate.

And as usual you misunderstand me, just as you misunderstood Lou. I place no faith in the mechanism of voting. I know that the value of my individual vote is infinitesimally small (if even non-zero). I am explicitly not saying "vote at all costs" or "act according to the status quo at all costs" I am saying "ENGAGE". Very different things, no faith required. Starting a revolution and tearing down the current society IS engagement. It's even engagement that I would probably support and engage in myself. (Bit of a fan of Che Guevara, not all his acts or ideas, but some of them certainly)

My points are very simple:

a) we have a political process in our society,
b) we have a system of government for that society,
c) neither the political process or system of government are (or possibly can be) perfect,
d) that government/process are corrupted in some fashion, or at least corruptible, by various vested interests (this is a natural consequence of our biology as much as anything else),
e) ignoring that government/process is a very difficult (if not impossible) option in today's world, the reach of states and corporations is enormous (whether or not I like that),
f) The only way to change this process or government is to engage (interact) with it in some fashion.

Please point out the faith based elements of the above. I have zero faith in our current political systems and governments, and by "our" I mean every different one across the globe, not merely UK/USA. What I do have some reasonable basis for thinking is that these things are mutable, i.e. they are not fixed entities, based on the evidence available to me. I'm exceptionally open to any evidence demonstrating that governments, political systems or what have you are immutable and unchanging, please provide some if this is your contention.The entire antithesis of faith you'll note.

The US (or any) government as it is now, and the political process that shapes it, have not existed since the dawn of time, carved in tablets of stone by some mythical deity. It is an evolved and evolving system. That means it can be interacted with and altered. That alteration might be as simple as voting (if one must reduce it to that) or as radical as destroying it. I make no claims about what is the best action, I simply don't know. My point is very simply that to affect the political process and government of any society one must engage with it in some fashion. That is such a trivially and obviously true point that I cannot believe the extremes of stupidity you are going to to avoid it.

The argument I had with Heddle and others is that if one is going to engage in the political process at all, doing so in an unreasoned manner opens one up to rampant exploitation. If you agree with Heddle you are defeating your own point about engagement being worthless. I agree they (politicians) ARE all shits, and that governments are pretty much all corrupt in some fashion and that the 8 years before the last 8 years before the last 8 years etc were all pretty shitty) but that situation can only be changed by rational, informed engagement. If your choice of rational, informed engagement is voting then do so on the issues, don't play identity politics and be exploited. If your choice of rational, informed engagement is to overthrow what you perceive as a tyrannical oligarchy then do so, but make sure you a) know where the enemy really is and b) have something to replace it with (even if it's only anarchy, which I can demonstrate to you will not work, sadly. Basic game theory alone demonstrates the advantages of limited cooperation, hence anarchy [like utopian perfection] isn't actually possible, varying degrees are.)

As for crucifying myself for Labour? Why on earth would I waste my time of that bunch of authoritarian hypocrites? Don't you get it yet 'Ras? I'm apolitical, I belong to no party and have no allegiance. I follow the evidence and take the time to find out about the things I care about. The problem I have is that absolutely no one represents me at all. I usually vote for whoever is going to increase science funding and move certain social things in certain directions, and I by no means always vote. Abstaining is a choice after all, although I think in the current climate it is a luxury we can ill afford. Look at the last line of my previous posts. I want a world in which voting is unnecessary, in which apathy can reign supreme, because that'll mean we got something right.

Last but not least 'Ras, if you persist in acting like Skeptic by chucking around straw men, not reading what people actually write and instead dreaming up little enemies of your own to fight with, I'll treat you like Skeptic. Got that? And further to that, if you're going to accuse me of logical fallacies etc be so good as to point them out and correct them, as opposed to doing what you are currently doing which is pulling things out of your arse.

Louis

EDITED FOR UNCLARITY AND NONCONTENT.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,12:04

*Yawn*

I know it's just me, but I think a brouhaha over whether R's or D's put out a snappier welcome wagon for white racists would have been a lot more fun. This is too high falutin' for my taste.

(Runs off to teach Astronomy, which is relatively safe.)
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,12:31

I'm going to expand on one theme for a second:

The current (mostly capitalist, mostly ostensibly democratic) governments we have worldwide are mechanisms of control. They exist primarily to maintain certain vested interests and privileges whilst presenting the illusion of involvement by voting to their respective electorates. This effective corruption has actually become worse by virtue of ever freer trade in the less regulated markets.

When I say "corruption" I don't necessarily mean in the sense of deliberate attempts to subvert or obtain control/wealth etc. It's far more insidious than that. Corruption is a spectrum, it can be as comparatively minor as compromising on one's vote (a regrettable necessity in most of our current systems) and selecting a candidate who represents a party that is only broadly in agreement with your views. It can be as blatant and major as dynastic succession or as subtle as the tyranny of the majority or marketing biases (another reason I favour explicit social contracts and opt out/opt in societies).

Almost by their very nature any collective effort involves some form of compromise, and is thus "corrupted" in the sense I mean above, i.e. it isn't possible to hold to all ideals equally, there is some inevitable horse trading. What I desire is to get to a state where we have the maximum possible collective effort for the minimum possible compromise.

That, at least initially, involves some elements of current capitalist ideas and current democracies, though by no means all. The liberal ideas of freedom of speech, thought, and action (within certain given, consented to, limits) for example. The idea of (at least relatively) free trade and competition for another. Like it or not, just as humans have evolved so have human societies, we ignore that fact at our peril. We have to adapt to our human foibles, not bemoan them. That, in essence, is at the core of liberal politics. Sadly it often gets forgotten. (Hence why 'Ras' straw man accusation of recognising potential for error = sin misses the point by a country mile).

If we are to have societies at all, and they are (again perhaps sadly) an unavoidable aspect of our biology, then we can act to make those societies at least a little more congenial to our needs. How we do that, the mechanisms we use to do that, is basically politics. How we operate them is basically government, be that kibbutz, communism, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Whether or not we like it, if one is born today (or indeed at any point in the last few hundred years) one is very very unlikely to have been born somewhere where there isn't a government, a society, a political process. It is like water to a fish, some fish evolved to walk on land and left the water behind, but many have not and if you are born a fish, chances are you are currently wet! (we can argue about the utterly inappropriate nature of that analogy later!) We are not yet at a position where we can leave the water. Whether we ever will be is an open question certainly not one I (or anyone) can yet answer.

So what choices do we have ahead of us, born as we are into a seething sea of politics and government? We can absent ourselves (something I personally favour quite strongly) or we can engage. If we absent ourselves then we have no possible way of influencing that sea of politics or that system of government.

I really do think this should be a viable option for people. I really do think that there should be a section of the planet/country/whatever devoted to people who wish to absent themselves from a global society, one that that society was prevented from interfering with in any way. I really do think that people should be able to leave a society and return based on a social contract. I.e. these are the rules, whilst here you follow them or else these are the consequences. There are, of course, various nuances to this. I really think that those rules should be mutable, changeable, influenced by the people who choose to follow them. And I really, really do think that the opportunity to influence them should be based on ability, not on age, sex, race, religion etc etc etc. Like a "voting licence" if you will.

All the while the collective effort of the society goes into maintaining certain aspects of it. Transport, health care, education. Etc. I don't need the government to tell me who to love or what to wear or what to think, I need the government to do the things I cannot do, like build roads, provide trains, make schools and hospitals. I really, really, really don't think that governing should be a job which gives prestige or privilege, and I really disagree with the party political model. Someone who governs should have no possible personal gain from governing, certainly nothing that could be gained after they leave office. Governors should be administrators and people who present ideas to the electorate, not anything else. There are various ways of selecting governors based on merit that can help work towards this. Voting for candidates alone is not necessarily the best way forward, nor, necessarily, is anonymous voting on every tiny issue. There are things to be worked out.

The changes required to implement this are AWESOME. It requires control of markets for starters (at least initially), something libertarians and free marketeers will howl at. It requires huge personal freedoms (something social conservatives will howl at), it requires an understanding of personal responsibility and autonomy (something certain liberal/left wing groups will howl at), it requires the minimum mount of government (something that certain other left wing groups with howl at), and above all it requires some work and sacrifice (something we will all howl at).

All of this really makes one (ok two, ok several) points:

1) Political/governmental perfection is an unattainable abstraction. We can all envisage ways to improve the status quo, but until we question all out assumptions about that status quo, we can't really expect it to change in the ways we/I/you might like.

2) Engagement with a political system in some fashion is the only possible way we can affect it. Not interacting with it by definition precludes us from affecting it (and I count setting up utopia on its borders as interaction!).

3) The nature and extent of that engagement is mostly debatable, but what isn't debatable is that if we wish to influence that political system the best way to do so is via some reasoned process. Simply appealing to prejudices or nodding along with a pundit does indeed affect the system but it perpetuates the type of tyranny and corruption I mentioned at the beginning. It is especially open to exploitation.

4) Every engagement is open to exploitation but not every engagement is equally open to exploitation. Experimenting with methods of engagement is our current state. We know several methods of engagement that do not work for the majority of societies on this planet, ergo they are not optimal solutions for achieving our stated goal of change.

Clearer?

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,12:33

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,18:04)
*Yawn*

I know it's just me, but I think a brouhaha over whether R's or D's put out a snappier welcome wagon for white racists would have been a lot more fun. This is too high falutin' for my taste.

(Runs off to teach Astronomy, which is relatively safe.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Heddlese:

"I was wrong but I lack the balls to admit it."

Such an intellectual you are!

Louis
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 16 2008,12:44

I think the distinction between Republicans who oppose Obama because of race and those who oppose him for political reasons is moot in this election.

What matters for the election is whether Democrats will withhold their vote for Obama, or whether they will decide to vote for a Republican who has long been a pariah to conservatives.

I personally think it's going to be another squeeker.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 16 2008,12:52

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,07:21)
Louis: Small, biased sample sizes prove fuck all. Mere assertion proves fuck all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The saying Louis wants here is "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

(Added in edit: something Heddle would have known automatically if it pertained to physics or astronomy.)
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,13:02

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 16 2008,18:52)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,07:21)
Louis: Small, biased sample sizes prove fuck all. Mere assertion proves fuck all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The saying Louis wants here is "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

(Added in edit: something Heddle would have known automatically if it pertained to physics or astronomy.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a saying I know well, I was being specific! ;-)

Louis
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 16 2008,13:03

If anyone wants to see more of Heddle acting like this, check out Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's weird.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,13:11

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 16 2008,19:03)
If anyone wants to see more of Heddle acting like this, check out Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's weird.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone who's been to Talk Origins will know Heddle well from those years.*

Louis

*At least I think it was TO. I mean that's where all this started right? Before TO atheists and believers, evolutionists and creationist danced in the streets and made love under the moonlight. After all, PT is an outgrowth of TO, AtBC is an outgrowth of PT and Heddle is an outgrowth of some muppet's left nut.

ETA: Heddle was, is, and will likely remain an enigma to me. Talk physics with him and he is eminently sensible, knowledgeable, educated and intelligent. Talk about politics and religion with him, or cosmo-ID and he is a fruitcake. Just goes to show what religion can do to an otherwise perfectly adequate mind.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 16 2008,13:18

I just walked back from lunch at our student union, and want to report on what I think is a promising development. The Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, a fairly evangelical bunch, has a booth on the plaza outside the union. They have a large white board entitled "How would Jesus vote?" You can put a sticker on the side labeled Obama, or the side labeled McCain.

The Obama side, even on this fairly conservative campus in a fairly conservative state, had about 3 times as many stickers as the McCain side.

Whaddya think, FtK?  Maybe I'll discuss religion with you for once. How would Jesus vote?
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,13:19

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 16 2008,19:18)
I just walked back from lunch at our student union, and want to report on what I think is a promising development. The Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, a fairly evangelical bunch, has a booth on the plaza outside the union. They have a large white board entitled "How would Jesus vote?" You can put a sticker on the side labeled Obama, or the side labeled McCain.

The Obama side, even on this fairly conservative campus in a fairly conservative state, had about 3 times as many stickers as the McCain side.

Whaddya think, FtK?  Maybe I'll discuss religion with you for once. How would Jesus vote?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You owe me a new arse. I just fell off my chair laughing.

Louis
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 16 2008,13:20

Yeah, but these last few days....

All I know is I'm staying out of it.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 16 2008,13:22

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 16 2008,14:18)
They have a large white board entitled "How would Jesus vote?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, see, I liked Jesus, but then I saw some disturbing YouTube videos. Apparently years ago he had some friends who were whores, theives, lepers, and murderers, so that's really got me scared about his character....
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,13:24

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,12:33)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,18:04)
*Yawn*

I know it's just me, but I think a brouhaha over whether R's or D's put out a snappier welcome wagon for white racists would have been a lot more fun. This is too high falutin' for my taste.

(Runs off to teach Astronomy, which is relatively safe.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Heddlese:

"I was wrong but I lack the balls to admit it."

Such an intellectual you are!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Louis-ese (Louise?):

I declare victory!

Such an intellectual you are!

Gosh Louis you can be a tight ass. Lighten up.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 16 2008,13:28

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 16 2008,08:53)
I would have thought the last 8 years would have woken up the "Waaaaah! They're all the same! It doesn't matter who I vote for!" bunch. How bad does it need to get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see it changing at all. I still hear it from Naderites. It seems to basically boil down to "none of the political parties are perfect or make me happy, so they're all the same". And this comes from people who can reason well when other subjects are under discussion.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 16 2008,13:29

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,11:19)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 16 2008,19:18)
I just walked back from lunch at our student union, and want to report on what I think is a promising development. The Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, a fairly evangelical bunch, has a booth on the plaza outside the union. They have a large white board entitled "How would Jesus vote?" You can put a sticker on the side labeled Obama, or the side labeled McCain.

The Obama side, even on this fairly conservative campus in a fairly conservative state, had about 3 times as many stickers as the McCain side.

Whaddya think, FtK?  Maybe I'll discuss religion with you for once. How would Jesus vote?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You owe me a new arse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He couldn't afford one of the size you're used to.

I mean. The hauling alone...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 16 2008,13:54

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 16 2008,13:28)
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 16 2008,08:53)
I would have thought the last 8 years would have woken up the "Waaaaah! They're all the same! It doesn't matter who I vote for!" bunch. How bad does it need to get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't see it changing at all. I still hear it from Naderites. It seems to basically boil down to "none of the political parties are perfect or make me happy, so they're all the same". And this comes from people who can reason well when other subjects are under discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That pretty much excludes politics and religion.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 16 2008,14:00

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,13:19)
You owe me a new arse. I just fell off my chair laughing.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry. Since the Lend-Lease Act expired, we are not allowed to send arses, even used ones like RTH, to the UK.

That's why we have such a buildup over here...
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 16 2008,14:10

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,19:24)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,12:33)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,18:04)
*Yawn*

I know it's just me, but I think a brouhaha over whether R's or D's put out a snappier welcome wagon for white racists would have been a lot more fun. This is too high falutin' for my taste.

(Runs off to teach Astronomy, which is relatively safe.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Heddlese:

"I was wrong but I lack the balls to admit it."

Such an intellectual you are!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Louis-ese (Louise?):

I declare victory!

Such an intellectual you are!

Gosh Louis you can be a tight ass. Lighten up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you familiar with the quaint English phrase: "taking the piss"?

I was.

Anyway, I made and make no mention of victory. You might have noticed before I've made a few comments about "victory" of any kind not being the point. I'd expect you to have missed them though.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 16 2008,14:19

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 16 2008,12:00)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,13:19)
You owe me a new arse. I just fell off my chair laughing.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry. Since the Lend-Lease Act expired, we are not allowed to send arses, even used ones like RTH, to the UK.

That's why we have such a buildup over here...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Besides, Louis has said he can't be arsed, so he'll just have to make do.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 16 2008,14:59

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,14:10)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,19:24)
   
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2008,12:33)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2008,18:04)
*Yawn*

I know it's just me, but I think a brouhaha over whether R's or D's put out a snappier welcome wagon for white racists would have been a lot more fun. This is too high falutin' for my taste.

(Runs off to teach Astronomy, which is relatively safe.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Heddlese:

"I was wrong but I lack the balls to admit it."

Such an intellectual you are!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation from Louis-ese (Louise?):

I declare victory!

Such an intellectual you are!

Gosh Louis you can be a tight ass. Lighten up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you familiar with the quaint English phrase: "taking the piss"?

I was.

Anyway, I made and make no mention of victory. You might have noticed before I've made a few comments about "victory" of any kind not being the point. I'd expect you to have missed them though.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I made no mention of anything like "I was wrong but lack the balls to admit it." I thought the whole point of the "translation" gimmick was to point out what we actually "said", even though we didn't say it.

But, what-ever floats your boat.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 16 2008,16:41

I've seen libertarians and Naderites claim that Gore would have invaded Iraq if he'd been elected, and that this therefore proves both the parties are the same.

Sorry, once you accept hypotheticals as 'proof', you're off in la la land.
Posted by: clamboy on Sep. 16 2008,22:51

To bring this slightly back to topic, erasmus is kinda reminding me of Ray Martinez, T Pagano, and others of their ilk over at talk.origins. Asked for, challenged on, and finally called on the carpet for not providing an actual *point* (other than "Everything said by persons other than myself is wrong."), or *suggestion* (other than "Give up."), they simply repeat the same show-stopper. For Ray Martinez it's something like "mockery = inability to refute"; for erasmus, it's out of context Shakespeare. It really is pointless to use any aspect of reality to argue with ones so happily walled-in, as they are utterly sure that the bricks they gaze upon represent true enlightenment.

erasmus compares those arguing with erasmus here to creationists, while using card after card from the creationist deck.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 17 2008,09:32

I think 50 years from now the intervention in Kosovo, done entirely without U.N. sanction, will have more consequences than the war in Iraq. We will see this as Russia continues to rebuild the Soviet empire.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 17 2008,10:17

I'm not sure Kosovo had much to do with that - it's more the character of the Russian Prime Minister/Puppeteer.

I actually saw Putin once a few years ago, when I was cycling home from work.  He was being driven through Munkkiniemi on the was from A to B.  It's odd - he was just a small guy in a big car.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 17 2008,10:30

Oh, I don't think Kosovo has anything to do with Russian ambitions, but it serves as an example of "protecting" people by separating them from a bullying soverign nation.

Lots of opportunities available.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 17 2008,10:40

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 17 2008,10:17)
I'm not sure Kosovo had much to do with that - it's more the character of the Russian Prime Minister/Puppeteer.

I actually saw Putin once a few years ago, when I was cycling home from work.  He was being driven through Munkkiniemi on the was from A to B.  It's odd - he was just a small guy in a big car.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Over-compensating perhaps?

Like Napoleon was too short?

George W Bush is too small and feeble?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2008,18:57

Uh Oh. Palin uses the dreaded Caps lock button. That's never a good sign:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gawker has posted a few screen shots of the messages found in Palin's account; they reveal nothing damaging about Palin, other than that she has a penchant for typing in ALL CAPS when exercised. ("Does he want someone OPPOSED to the life issue in Congress?" Palin wrote to Lieutenant Gov. Sean Parnell.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.slate.com/id/2200359/ >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2008,13:42

Given how many Ron Paul signs I *still* see out in rural California, < this is pretty impressive. >

Mmhmm. And McCain's a 'straight talking maverick'.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 19 2008,13:45

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 18 2008,00:57)
Uh Oh. Palin uses the dreaded Caps lock button. That's never a good sign:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gawker has posted a few screen shots of the messages found in Palin's account; they reveal nothing damaging about Palin, other than that she has a penchant for typing in ALL CAPS when exercised. ("Does he want someone OPPOSED to the life issue in Congress?" Palin wrote to Lieutenant Gov. Sean Parnell.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.slate.com/id/2200359/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And WHAT might I ASK is wrong with the JUDICIOUS use of the CAPS LOCK button?

Obviously this means that I am more like Palin than I though, therefore I should vote for her 'cos she's just a good ol' girl etc.

USA USA USA!!!!!!

Louis
Posted by: drew91 on Sep. 19 2008,14:22

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 19 2008,13:45)


Obviously this means that I am more like Palin than I though, therefore I should vote for her 'cos she's just a good ol' girl etc.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you've been buying red patent-leather shoes and glasses like crazy too. :p

< Sales Soar For Shoes, Glasses Like Sarah Palin's >
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 19 2008,14:28

Quote (drew91 @ Sep. 19 2008,20:22)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 19 2008,13:45)


Obviously this means that I am more like Palin than I though, therefore I should vote for her 'cos she's just a good ol' girl etc.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet you've been buying red patent-leather shoes and glasses like crazy too. :p

< Sales Soar For Shoes, Glasses Like Sarah Palin's >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DAMN!!!! Busted!

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2008,17:44

Our Heddle is getting < testy > chez Brayton:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mark duran (and others),
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also I have read that many christian fundamentalists believe that the sooner we detroy this planet the sooner Jesus will come back...God bless us everyone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is representative of a tiresome canard. While you can always find an isolated nut that holds any lunatic fringe position imaginable, fundamentalists do not, in general, have an attitude of "let's destroy the planet so that Jesus comes soon" or "who cares about pollution, Jesus will clean up the planet" or "I want to be VP so I can start a war with Russia to initiate the onset of the rapture."
It pisses me off to have to defend fundies and the Left Behinders, because I think their theology is wrong. So for crying out loud, think before you write something so mind numbingly implausible. Going through life assuming everyone who thinks differently from you must be an idiot is, well, idiotic.
Posted by: heddle | September 19, 2008 3:27 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again, I think Heddle is arguing that because *he* doesn't believe something, then of course almost no Christians believe it.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 19 2008,18:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,23:44)
Our Heddle is getting < testy > chez Brayton:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
mark duran (and others),
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also I have read that many christian fundamentalists believe that the sooner we detroy this planet the sooner Jesus will come back...God bless us everyone...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is representative of a tiresome canard. While you can always find an isolated nut that holds any lunatic fringe position imaginable, fundamentalists do not, in general, have an attitude of "let's destroy the planet so that Jesus comes soon" or "who cares about pollution, Jesus will clean up the planet" or "I want to be VP so I can start a war with Russia to initiate the onset of the rapture."
It pisses me off to have to defend fundies and the Left Behinders, because I think their theology is wrong. So for crying out loud, think before you write something so mind numbingly implausible. Going through life assuming everyone who thinks differently from you must be an idiot is, well, idiotic.
Posted by: heddle | September 19, 2008 3:27 PM
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Once again, I think Heddle is arguing that because *he* doesn't believe something, then of course almost no Christians believe it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But we all know that Heddle and god play racketball on Sundays. He is, after all, the calvinist version of Metatron.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 19 2008,19:08

But we all know that Heddle and god play racketball on Sundays. He is, after all, the calvinist version of Metatron.

Louis[/quote]
I got news for heddle... god cheats.

Of course, since Heddle is a Calvinist, he's only getting what he deserves.

Ba-Dum- Ching!
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 20 2008,04:44

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 20 2008,01:08)
But we all know that Heddle and god play racketball on Sundays. He is, after all, the calvinist version of Metatron.

Louis[/quote]
I got news for heddle... god cheats.

Of course, since Heddle is a Calvinist, he's only getting what he deserves.

Ba-Dum- Ching!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


J-Dog, I have a question or two for you:

Are you here all week? Should I have the veal or the fish? My waitress, does she need tipping?

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 20 2008,09:52

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 20 2008,04:44)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 20 2008,01:08)
But we all know that Heddle and god play racketball on Sundays. He is, after all, the calvinist version of Metatron.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got news for heddle... god cheats.

Of course, since Heddle is a Calvinist, he's only getting what he deserves.

Ba-Dum- Ching!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


J-Dog, I have a question or two for you:

Are you here all week? Should I have the veal or the fish? My waitress, does she need tipping?

Louis[/quote]

To answer your questions, I have evaluated all the evidence, and I believe that the answer you are looking for is:
1.) Yes
2.) tHE VEAL
3.) Yes.
However, I think that you should also keep in mind that the Pope is Catholic.
Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 20 2008,13:17

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 19 2008,19:08)
Of course, since Heddle is a Calvinist, he's only getting what he deserves.

Ba-Dum- Ching!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no! That's 180 degrees off! The point of Calvinism is that some (the elect) get what they don't deserve.

Edit: typo. Too bad Biden doesn't have this feature.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 20 2008,16:54

< Somewhat topical, from Science >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Next year's federal budget may not contain a penny more for research and education if Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) is elected U.S. president and has his way with Congress. An aide to the McCain campaign delivered that sober fiscal message today to science lobbyists, who pressed him unsuccessfully for leeway in the candidate's promise to curb federal spending by imposing a 1-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending.

"The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars," Ike Brannon, an economist and senior policy adviser to McCain, told the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation at a private gathering in Washington, D.C. The task force, a coalition of scientific and professional societies, had heard a more upbeat message in July from aides for Democratic Senator Barack Obama (IL), who has proposed doubling over 10 years the budgets of a host of U.S. science agencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2008,17:58

Being a strictly non-partisan kind of guy, I think it is likely that the mortgage bailout will drain every available dollar from the federal budget for several years, effectively rendering presidential policy moot.

We did this once before, in the 80s.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 20 2008,20:17

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 20 2008,11:17)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 19 2008,19:08)
Of course, since Heddle is a Calvinist, he's only getting what he deserves.

Ba-Dum- Ching!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no! That's 180 degrees off! The point of Calvinism is that some (the elect) get what they don't deserve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Goddamn. Calvinism is weirder than I thought.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 20 2008,20:20

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 20 2008,14:54)
< Somewhat topical, from Science >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Next year's federal budget may not contain a penny more for research and education if Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) is elected U.S. president and has his way with Congress. An aide to the McCain campaign delivered that sober fiscal message today to science lobbyists, who pressed him unsuccessfully for leeway in the candidate's promise to curb federal spending by imposing a 1-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending.

"The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars," Ike Brannon, an economist and senior policy adviser to McCain, told the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation at a private gathering in Washington, D.C. The task force, a coalition of scientific and professional societies, had heard a more upbeat message in July from aides for Democratic Senator Barack Obama (IL), who has proposed doubling over 10 years the budgets of a host of U.S. science agencies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But McCain's a resourceful guy. Somewhere behind some sofa cushions somewhere he'll find the money to spend another hundred years in Iraq and bomb Iran.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 20 2008,20:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2008,21:17)
Goddamn. Calvinism is weirder than I thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trust me. You're better off not knowing.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 21 2008,23:16

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6_A_Eck3cU >
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 24 2008,07:18

Palin talks like O'Leary Writes...

< Pundit On Palin >

...and that's not so good.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 25 2008,05:20

Today's < Sinfest >:



Louis

ETA hyperlink
Posted by: Assassinator on Sep. 25 2008,05:34

I just have to share this cool < Article from Cracked.com >. It really suits the kind of discussion wich is being held here, and ofcourse how the subject itself actually is. I bet that most of you know this stuff already, but cracked.com always pens it down so good ;)
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 25 2008,07:28

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2008,17:58)
Being a strictly non-partisan kind of guy, I think it is likely that the mortgage bailout will drain every available dollar from the federal budget for several years, effectively rendering presidential policy moot.

We did this once before, in the 80s.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Late 80s to early 90s. We deregulated the Savings and Loan business in the 80s, and half of them promptly went tango-uniform. The government was forced to step in with bailout $$ and the Resolution Trust Corporation to prevent a financial melt-down. President was a guy named 'Bush'. Any of this sound familiar?

The cost of the bailout forced Bush to raise taxes, thereby violating his campaign promise to do no such thing ("read my lips") and so angering the Republican base that their already lukewarm support of him dried up, allowing Clinton to deny him re-election in 1992.

Bush Sr.'s status as a "one-termer" status puts him on a par with Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover. The shame, the shame! Bush Jr's presidency is largely about redeeming the family honor. It's all about Daddy.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2008,09:12

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2008,15:58)
I think it is likely that the mortgage bailout will drain every available dollar from the federal budget for several years,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought that was already the case. The US has been living on China's credit for 7 years. It's just a matter of whether our deficit is a trillion dollars versus several trillion.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 25 2008,09:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Late 80s to early 90s. We deregulated the Savings and Loan business in the 80s, and half of them promptly went tango-uniform. The government was forced to step in with bailout $$ and the Resolution Trust Corporation to prevent a financial melt-down. President was a guy named 'Bush'. Any of this sound familiar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was working in the mortgage industry and remember it somewhat differently. Mortgage interest rates went from 9 percent in 1978 to nearly 18 percent in 1982. All kinds of tricks were invented to enable people to buy houses. ARM loans, which quickly rose to market rate, and something called a Graduated Payment Mortgage, in which the first year's payment didn't even cover interest. People found themselves, after three years owing more than they had borrowed, and monthly payments twice what they had started at.

Foreclosures skyrocketed in the early to mid 1980s. At the time I was working on mortgage software, Bank of America had at least 150 people working on foreclosures. That's just people using the software I helped write.

The economy killer was interest rates. From 1984 to 1992, mortgage interest rates fell from 14 percent to about 8 percent.

< http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm >
Posted by: PTET on Sep. 25 2008,10:30

There's no mention of evolution, but I've got a bit of video up of < Jack Van Impe talking about Sarah Palin and World War III >.

Don't worry too much... The War isn't going to start until *after* the Rapture, apparently.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2008,12:53

Somewhat off-topic, Palin has one of the ugliest accents I've heard in a long time. Where the hell'd she get it? Is this a normal accent for white people in Alaska?
Posted by: PTET on Sep. 25 2008,13:13

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,12:53)
Somewhat off-topic, Palin has one of the ugliest accents I've heard in a long time. Where the hell'd she get it? Is this a normal accent for white people in Alaska?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I reckon Palin is playing up the homely-hic chic with her accent - especially when she gets out of her depth in interviews/speaking. Which means "normally".

Did you read that the morons at NRO are apparently calling for McCain to let Palin take his place in debates with Obama? That I would *pay* to see.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 25 2008,13:23

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2008,09:36)
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Late 80s to early 90s. We deregulated the Savings and Loan business in the 80s, and half of them promptly went tango-uniform. The government was forced to step in with bailout $$ and the Resolution Trust Corporation to prevent a financial melt-down. President was a guy named 'Bush'. Any of this sound familiar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was working in the mortgage industry and remember it somewhat differently. Mortgage interest rates went from 9 percent in 1978 to nearly 18 percent in 1982. All kinds of tricks were invented to enable people to buy houses. ARM loans, which quickly rose to market rate, and something called a Graduated Payment Mortgage, in which the first year's payment didn't even cover interest. People found themselves, after three years owing more than they had borrowed, and monthly payments twice what they had started at.

Foreclosures skyrocketed in the early to mid 1980s. At the time I was working on mortgage software, Bank of America had at least 150 people working on foreclosures. That's just people using the software I helped write.

The economy killer was interest rates. From 1984 to 1992, mortgage interest rates fell from 14 percent to about 8 percent.

< http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I can't claim to any expertise in the mortgage industry, but I believe my history was correct. The < RTC > was created in 1989 in response to the < S&L crisis > of the late 1980s. The RTC took over more than 700 failed thrifts by the mid 90s; the FSLIC took over several hundred others. These events post-date the ones you mention (which no doubt contributed to the crisis).

For investors and depositors who had their life savings tied up in these institutions, the impacts were devastating. In many cases the private insurance the S&Ls carried was not enough to cover the losses and the depostiors simply lost their savings, or were returned pennies on the dollar (until the government stepped in). The collapse of Old Court Savings and Loan, here in Maryland, was memorably devastating. Some small satisfaction could be gained by seeing its president, Jeffry Levitt, hauled off to prison for fraud. The same could not be said for the consequences suffered by Neil Bush (funny how that Bush name just keeps on turning up, doesn't it?!), who was director of the Silverado S&L when it went belly-up in 1988 to the tune of $1.3B taxpayer dollars (I think he paid a $50k fine for fiduciary irresponsibility), or for Senator John McCain, who, as a member of the < Keating Five >, was cleared of wrongdoing in that influence-peddling scandal by the Senate Ethics Committee, receiving only a hand-slap for poor judgment.

George Bush never quite lived down that "read my lips; no new taxes" pledge that he made in 1988 and broke in 1990. It surely helped to cost him the election in 1992. However, the tax increases he agreed to, as well as the pay-as-you-go federal budget processes he helped enact, eventually led the country from annual deficits to annual surpluses (at least, in the last three Clinton budgets). Ahh, the good old days.

And now, back to the thread topic...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 25 2008,13:57

RTC may have been created in 1989, but the damage was done by high interest rates and bad loans made a decade earlier. It takes years for people to default on mortgages when the default is due to creeping payments, and it can take years to foreclose on loans after default.

The costs associated with foreclosure, coupled with huge numbers of properties that had to be liquidated quickly at less than the value of the note, did in the savings and loans.

This cycle will repeat every time government policy makes loans available to vast numbers of people who will be unable to repay them. The current mess is exacerbated by loans made that exceed the market value of the property. This is a fact regardless of who deserves the blame. I suspect there is more than enough to go around.

The disastrous economy and high interest rates that made Carter a one-term president were the result of paying for the Vietnam War. Again, it often takes a decade or more for policy decisions to result in a national crisis.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2008,14:28

Lauren Upton wants to be < our next Vice-President. >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 25 2008,18:43

Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 25 2008,05:28)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2008,17:58)
Being a strictly non-partisan kind of guy, I think it is likely that the mortgage bailout will drain every available dollar from the federal budget for several years, effectively rendering presidential policy moot.

We did this once before, in the 80s.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Late 80s to early 90s. We deregulated the Savings and Loan business in the 80s, and half of them promptly went tango-uniform. The government was forced to step in with bailout $$ and the Resolution Trust Corporation to prevent a financial melt-down. President was a guy named 'Bush'. Any of this sound familiar?

The cost of the bailout forced Bush to raise taxes, thereby violating his campaign promise to do no such thing ("read my lips") and so angering the Republican base that their already lukewarm support of him dried up, allowing Clinton to deny him re-election in 1992.

Bush Sr.'s status as a "one-termer" status puts him on a par with Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover. The shame, the shame! Bush Jr's presidency is largely about redeeming the family honor. It's all about Daddy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Neil Bush (the more stupider one) managed to get his ass bailed out and avoid jail. John McCain was also one of the Keating 5. Of the K5 whores, McSame was the closest personal manfriend of Charles Keating.

(Oh, I see that this was covered much more better by earlier posts. Never mind).


Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 25 2008,18:56

< Directly relevant to the topic. >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 25 2008,19:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neil Bush (the more stupider one) managed to get his ass bailed out and avoid jail. John McCain was also one of the Keating 5. Of the K5 whores, McSame was the closest personal manfriend of Charles Keating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why all the selective reporting?  By the way, I find this amusing:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who had an easier time gaining re-election in 1992 than he anticipated,[46] and who ran for president in 2000 and became the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. McCain survived the political scandal in part by becoming friendly with the political press.[46]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not that the press is ever biased or anything.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 25 2008,19:43

< She's even bad at repeating her memorized answers >.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 26 2008,08:29

Once again, the MSM < twists things to distort their meaning >.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 26 2008,09:11

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2008,13:57)
RTC may have been created in 1989, but the damage was done by high interest rates and bad loans made a decade earlier. It takes years for people to default on mortgages when the default is due to creeping payments, and it can take years to foreclose on loans after default.

The costs associated with foreclosure, coupled with huge numbers of properties that had to be liquidated quickly at less than the value of the note, did in the savings and loans.

This cycle will repeat every time government policy makes loans available to vast numbers of people who will be unable to repay them. The current mess is exacerbated by loans made that exceed the market value of the property. This is a fact regardless of who deserves the blame. I suspect there is more than enough to go around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair E Nuff, but your < original post > referred to the impact on the federal budget, which became an issue when the RTC was formed and funded in 1989 to take over the failing thrifts:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being a strictly non-partisan kind of guy, I think it is likely that the mortgage bailout will drain every available dollar from the federal budget for several years, effectively rendering presidential policy moot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What available dollars? The S&L debacle of the 80s/90s eventually cost the taxpayers somewhere around $125B, and the upfront costs were enough to prompt the Republican president to raise taxes (at a considerable cost to his political career, I might add...but then George Sr always placed service before self-interest, a habit of mind that he failed to instill in his sons). This time around the upfront costs look to be more like ONE TRILLION DOLLARS

and no evidence so far that the Republican president's son has any intention of raising taxes. In fact, he remains dedicated to making permanent the cuts he enacted or are on the way; most importantly, the elimination of the inheritance tax in 2010. Just because our children are to inherit a crushing burden of debt does not mean that his children are. Or John McCain's.

Does he think that we can get there by cutting discretionary funding? Freezing the science budget? Gee, we could whack the financing for NPR; $200M down, $999,800M to go!

Perhaps it's too much to expect a lame duck president to do anything, but his presumptive Republican replacement isn't showing us anything different. Even as he air-drops himself into the bailout fray (though parachute rides ought to be something he avoids), McCain continues to self-identify as a de-regulator and tax-cutter. Not exactly the temperament one needs given that the problem was caused by lack of regulation and oversight, and whose solution will inevitably require new taxes. New taxes were going to be required anyhow, to pay for the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, and Medicare. And the cost of the War in Iran Iraq. Read my lips.

And what are we to make of his poor judgment (the Senate Ethics Committee's words, not mine) he displayed in the last bank crisis? "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment"?? Perhaps, but I also believe "past performance is a reliable predictor of future behaviour". I'm just sayin'.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The disastrous economy and high interest rates that made Carter a one-term president were the result of paying for the Vietnam War. Again, it often takes a decade or more for policy decisions to result in a national crisis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't overlook the 1970s oil shock. Or the Teheran embassy hostage crisis (which locked Carter in the WHite House, effectively denying him the ability to campaign). JMHO but had Desert One led to a successful raid (Entebbe-like), Carter would have been re-elected in 1980.

Don't get me wrong, mwt. I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Reagan in 1980. I read Jude Wanniski, and supply-side economics, and A Time For Truth. I am not playing partisan politics here. I am just noting that we are well and truly screwed. The last thing we need is leadership dedicated to screwing us in even further.

Sorry, all, for the huge OT post. Time for a trip to the loo, Lou?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 26 2008,09:33

I think it is a widely held opinion that money will be tight for the next administration, regardless of who wins. I doubt if any party not contemplating suicide will raise taxes significantly.

I have been registered as an Independent since my first vote in 1972. I voted for McGovern. It's about the only vote I've cast with any enthusiasm. I fully understand the enthusiasm for Obama, but I don't share it. I think a Hillary/Obama ticket would have been unbeatable. At the moment I wouldn't bet on Obama, even though today's polls have him ahead.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2008,09:50

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,07:33)
I think it is a widely held opinion that money will be tight for the next administration, regardless of who wins. I doubt if any party not contemplating suicide will raise taxes significantly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not necessarily. Obama's campaigned from the beginning saying that he'd raise taxes on the wealthiest people, and he's still been ahead of McCain most of the last 4 months.

Considering that the deficit is about to double to close to a trillion dollars, I think even some Republicans realize that spending on credit forever just might be risky. Of course, plenty of other GOPers won't see a problem with putting a new Iran war on our Chinese Express card.

Gutting government services the way the Norquist crowd fantasizes about would be suicide for the GOP. And those same people never favor big military spending cuts. So their position isn't tenable.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 26 2008,10:07

Taxing the rich is the Democrats' equivalent of the NRA and Right to Life.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2008,10:37

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,08:07)
Taxing the rich is the Democrats' equivalent of the NRA and Right to Life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your point being?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 26 2008,10:50

Campaign rhetoric.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 26 2008,10:54

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,16:07)
Taxing the rich is the Democrats' equivalent of the NRA and Right to Life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now even I wouldn't go that far! I'd even go as far as to call "bullshit!".

An affordable, incremental tax system hardly equates to the irrationality underpinning the two organisations you mentioned. That sort of rhetoric is a hair's breadth from claiming climate change to be a leftist conspiracy to increase taxes and government control. Look beyond your borders where taxes can be high(er) without the sort of juvenile envy of the rich you imply motivates them.

This doesn't for a second mean that a) I don't realise the "tax those rich bastards" rhetoric occasionally prevalent amongst certain "left" leaning groups exists (it does, and it's stupid), nor b) in a capitalist society there is some inevitable trade off between taxation and entrepreneurial encouragement.

Hasn't the last 100 or so years convinced anyone yet that the freer elements of free market, laissez-faire capitalism simply doesn't work? Greater control, however unpleasant such a prospect might be, is a necessary component of the market. That applies to tax as much as it does to curbing the excesses of corporations.

And I speak as someone paying the highest rate of tax in the UK (and paying it willingly) and for whom greater than 50% of their salary is taxed at this rate. (Which logically doesn't count for much, but I thought I'd pre-empt the inevitable)

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 26 2008,11:01

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,16:50)
Campaign rhetoric.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's something about this whole "rhetoric balancing act" I just don't get. Of course there is rhetorical bullshit flung left and right in any political campaign, but isn't the point to see through it to the issues?

I suppose if one were seriously interested in who flung more rhetorical bullshit one could find out but I'd argue that's an exercise in futility. The effort it would take is better expended cutting through the rhetoric, researching the issues, and quizzing the candidates on the issues. Don't let them get away with glib answers and appeals to prejudice, pin them to the floor and get answers out of them. Do we have to continue expecting so little from our politicians? (This applies equally to the UK btw).

Yes the Reps use rhetorical bullshit. Yes the Dems use rhetorical bullshit. We get it. We got it before anyone mentioned it. It is eminently getable. Now, is there any chance that political exchange could evolve beyond the "them and us" tribalism of a troop of chimps exploring a jungle made from the tu quoque fallacy and something like...oooooooohh I don't know.....a dialogue materialise?

Louis

ETA to fix stuff
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 26 2008,11:05

Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 26 2008,15:11)
[SNIP]

This time around the upfront costs look to be more like ONE TRILLION DOLLARS

and no evidence so far that the Republican president's son has any intention of raising taxes.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, I'm sending you a bill for a new keyboard and my afternoon double espresso.

This section of your comment caused major coffee expulsion through my nose. Which strangely isn't as pleasant as it sounds.

Louis
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 26 2008,11:27

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,10:07)
Taxing the rich is the Democrats' equivalent of the NRA and Right to Life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's because you think that taxing the poor is a much better idea?
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 26 2008,11:28

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,12:53)
Somewhat off-topic, Palin has one of the ugliest accents I've heard in a long time. Where the hell'd she get it? Is this a normal accent for white people in Alaska?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a Minnesota/Scandanavian accent, found throughout the Dakotas and into Montana and Idaho. It doesn't surprise me that it's common in Alaska too.
Posted by: JAM on Sep. 26 2008,11:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2008,13:57)
This cycle will repeat every time government policy makes loans available to vast numbers of people who will be unable to repay them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the policy of the mortgage-origination industry of making loans and not keeping them (selling them immediately after origination, leaving them no financial interest in the ability of the borrowers to repay) had nothing to do with the present cycle?
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 26 2008,12:21

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 26 2008,11:05)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 26 2008,15:11)
[SNIP]

This time around the upfront costs look to be more like ONE TRILLION DOLLARS

and no evidence so far that the Republican president's son has any intention of raising taxes.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By the way, I'm sending you a bill for a new keyboard and my afternoon double espresso.

This section of your comment caused major coffee expulsion through my nose. Which strangely isn't as pleasant as it sounds.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 26 2008,12:39

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2008,11:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 25 2008,13:57)
This cycle will repeat every time government policy makes loans available to vast numbers of people who will be unable to repay them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the policy of the mortgage-origination industry of making loans and not keeping them (selling them immediately after origination, leaving them no financial interest in the ability of the borrowers to repay) had nothing to do with the present cycle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is an excellent point and is part of why I believe that the whole situation is a case study in moral hazard. You can find moral hazard issues at every level of the problem, including the individual consumer.

And, while I think this bailout is necessary it only perpetuates the moral hazard problem, by absolving investment banks that financed long term securities with short term debt (and consequently found themselves facing liquidity issues) of their responsibility in this whole mess.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2008,12:55

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2008,09:28)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,12:53)
Somewhat off-topic, Palin has one of the ugliest accents I've heard in a long time. Where the hell'd she get it? Is this a normal accent for white people in Alaska?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a Minnesota/Scandanavian accent, found throughout the Dakotas and into Montana and Idaho. It doesn't surprise me that it's common in Alaska too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that when I watched her "Putin raises his head" interview -- it has some of that Fargo lilt, tho minus the usual charm that accent has.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 26 2008,12:58

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,12:55)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2008,09:28)

It's a Minnesota/Scandanavian accent, found throughout the Dakotas and into Montana and Idaho. It doesn't surprise me that it's common in Alaska too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that when I watched her "Putin raises his head" interview -- it has some of that Fargo lilt, tho minus the usual charm that accent has.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is funny you should mention "Fargo" because whenever I hear her voice, I imagine a cabinet meeting with her saying (a la Marge Gunderson) "I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your policy work, there, John. "
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 26 2008,19:42

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 26 2008,08:29)
Once again, the MSM < twists things to distort their meaning >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That man sure do talk purty...

Truly he is eloquent, and I am in awe of his ability to express and capture the mood of America in sucint , pithy phrases that resonate deeply within all of us.

Thank you Amadan.  Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Posted by: dhogaza on Sep. 27 2008,15:46

A lot of scandanavians settled along the pacific northwest coast, working as fishermen and loggers (depending on season), and the SW Alaska economy is based on the same.  Not sure if they settled in numbers in BC, would depend in part on immigration policy back in the late 1800s early 1900s.  There's a "Sons of Norway" lodge south of Astoria, OR for instance, prominently visible off the coast highway.

You can hear that sort of sing-songish lilting style of speech in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood ...

"I'M glad *I* live IN BalLARD."

If I did and were of scandanavian descent, that is.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 27 2008,16:44

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2008,11:27)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,10:07)
Taxing the rich is the Democrats' equivalent of the NRA and Right to Life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that's because you think that taxing the poor is a much better idea?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, we have Lotto for that. Plus cigarette and vice taxes.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 27 2008,18:39

Palin is to Speaking, what O'Leary is to Writing

Proof?  You want some  effin' proof?

Here's Your Proof:

< Palin = O'Leary >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 27 2008,22:18

having watched the douchebag duel, i can safely and with a clean conscience say that neither one of these fuckwits needs to be any where near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I found myself hoping that McSame had his aneurysm on stage during the debate, followed by Hussein immolating himself to Allah in a fiery pyre shortly thereafter.  Then Jim Lehrer would be president, or Dr Who.  Or perhaps Leonard Little.  Anyone but anyone that is running.

but if it's gotta be someone I don't know if I can stand the old white guy.  For all his talk about 'flexibility' I've never seen the old bastard raise his arms above his head.  I guess the zipper on his back might jump a tooth if he were to stretch that old leather shoe he calls his 'skin'.  And you could see Anti-Christ all over Hussein.

Clean Coal my ass.  What a lackluster gang of demented fuckwits.
Posted by: PTET on Sep. 28 2008,06:51

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 26 2008,12:58)
It is funny you should mention "Fargo" because whenever I hear her voice, I imagine a cabinet meeting with her saying (a la Marge Gunderson) "I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your policy work, there, John. "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. I get Fargo too. Apologies for yet another link, but < here's my wee wee spoof of Palin's CBS interview about Russia >.

What's really scary is that Palin still doesn't get why she's mocked for claiming that living next to Russia counts as foreign policy experience... Like no-one at the GOP has told her that yet...
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 28 2008,09:57

Quote (PTET @ Sep. 28 2008,06:51)
What's really scary is that Palin still doesn't get why she's mocked for claiming that living next to Russia counts as foreign policy experience... Like no-one at the GOP has told her that yet...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does she ever mention the other foreign country that she lives next door to??
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 28 2008,17:45

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 26 2008,10:58)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2008,12:55)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2008,09:28)

It's a Minnesota/Scandanavian accent, found throughout the Dakotas and into Montana and Idaho. It doesn't surprise me that it's common in Alaska too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I noticed that when I watched her "Putin raises his head" interview -- it has some of that Fargo lilt, tho minus the usual charm that accent has.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is funny you should mention "Fargo" because whenever I hear her voice, I imagine a cabinet meeting with her saying (a la Marge Gunderson) "I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your policy work, there, John. "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Sarah Palin's Accent Explained >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 28 2008,18:22

lol

I just saw her referred to as "Bible Spice".
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,20:25

< Fox News and UD--birds of a feather >


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,20:55

FWIW, I take no delight in Palin's humiliation. She just seems to me to be a small-town fundy gal, who doesn't know much about stuff, who finds herself thrown into a national spotlight and asked to do a bunch of stuff she can't. Imagine if the Lakers's GM took you to a regular-season game and put you in a Lakers uniform and told you to guard Paul Pierce. You'd look like a retard. The crowd wouldn't stop laughing. For a while. After a while they'd start wincing, and that's what people are doing with Palin. But the blame wouldn't be so much your fault as the a**hole General Manager who arranged the debacle. The event says more about him than it says about you.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,21:02

Palin should be proud she ain't got that thar fancy < 'book larnin' >.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Sep. 28 2008,21:03

This is a good point.  McCain should be profoundly embarrassed about choosing Palin, and yet he continues to defend her.  That's what's scary.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 28 2008,21:10

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,18:55)
FWIW, I take no delight in Palin's humiliation. She just seems to me to be a small-town fundy gal, who doesn't know much about stuff, who finds herself thrown into a national spotlight and asked to do a bunch of stuff she can't. Imagine if the Lakers's GM took you to a regular-season game and put you in a Lakers uniform and told you to guard Paul Pierce. You'd look like a retard. The crowd wouldn't stop laughing. For a while. After a while they'd start wincing, and that's what people are doing with Palin. But the blame wouldn't be so much your fault as the a**hole General Manager who arranged the debacle. The event says more about him than it says about you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the other hand, most of us would have the sense not to put the uniform on in the first place.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2008,21:11

I take delight in seeing any one of these impostors publicly and painfully exposed as a charlatan, the poseur that they all are.  If only we saw through the veil of the propaganda machine, it would be exceedingly obvious that every single one of them is a stuffed shirt myopic self serving cunt with the wherewithal of a peeled advocado.  Alas, if it became obvious that none of the emperor's contingent were clothed then there would quickly be an empty market for the shit-vendors.  

But of course I'm sure they are all nice people etc etc.  Yawn.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,21:16

up until a few days ago i thought the idea of withdrawing her was nuts, more damage than letting it ride, but after watching half a dozen conservative commenters suggest it, I wouldn't be surprised if baby Trig suddenly had a crisis and needed mom's full attention.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 28 2008,21:19

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 28 2008,21:03)
This is a good point.  McCain should be profoundly embarrassed about choosing Palin, and yet he continues to defend her.  That's what's scary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


McCain painted himself into a corner with this one.  Even if he can overcome his ego and recognize that Palin was a poor choice, who else is he going to choose? The conservative evangelicals love Palin and dropping her from the ticket might just piss them off enough that they stay home. Huckabee is about the only backup choice that could salvage the Religious Right vote and he isn't exactly free of baggage either.  But, when it comes right down to it, I doubt McCain's ego will ever let him admit he punted this one.

Frankly, I have to agree with Steve.  This has gotten pathetic and all I can feel is pity for her. While I doubt I would ever have common ground with Palin, I think she could have been a respectable pol with sufficient seasoning*. She just wasn't ready to be on the stage at this level and I cannot escape the feeling that the McCain campaign has her on a extremely short leash and won't allow her to do anything other than act the beauty queen and regurgitate the sound bites that they feed her.

* Garlic powder, cumin, a pinch of salt, and maybe some ground ancho pepper.   :D
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 28 2008,21:21

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 28 2008,19:03)
This is a good point.  McCain should be profoundly embarrassed about choosing Palin, and yet he continues to defend her.  That's what's scary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He knows that choosing Palin was a mistake, but he's reversed himself on so many things in the past couple of weeks that he can't afford to do it again. Instead, he's got to keep pretending that she's wonderful and hope that the rubes buy it.

The good news is that < her favorability rating has plunged > in the past week.  It looks like folks are catchin' on.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,21:28

McCain would almost have to pick RomneyHuckabee or risk Massive Fundy Freakout. Maybe Romney?

fixed in edit


Posted by: keiths on Sep. 28 2008,21:30

Pat Boone.  He's a maverick.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2008,21:36

I suggest James Garner, Roger Moore, Jack Kelly or Robert Colbert.  

Thank You wikipedia!!!
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 28 2008,21:36

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,21:28)
McCain would almost have to pick Romney or risk Massive Fundy Freakout. Maybe Romney?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a chance.  In addition to being a cultist Mormon, Romney's record from his time as governor of Massachusetts speaks to moderate positions on issues important to evangelicals that makes him suspect, his rightward tack during the primaries notwithstanding. Frankly, Mitt's "conversion" to hard right positions was even more transparent than McCain's.

Maybe Bobby Jindal. More of a cypher than Huckabee, but slick enough to be able to bluff his way through an interview.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,21:44

yeah i mistyped. i meant Huckabee. Though you're right, Jindal might work.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 28 2008,22:46

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,18:55)
FWIW, I take no delight in Palin's humiliation. She just seems to me to be a small-town fundy gal, who doesn't know much about stuff, who finds herself thrown into a national spotlight and asked to do a bunch of stuff she can't. Imagine if the Lakers's GM took you to a regular-season game and put you in a Lakers uniform and told you to guard Paul Pierce. You'd look like a retard. The crowd wouldn't stop laughing. For a while. After a while they'd start wincing, and that's what people are doing with Palin. But the blame wouldn't be so much your fault as the a**hole General Manager who arranged the debacle. The event says more about him than it says about you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck her. Watch her nomination speech again and ask yourself if she deserves our sympathy any more than GB2 or Dick Cheney.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 28 2008,23:25

I didn't say that I like her, but you've got to feel some sympathy for a person who gets turned into a national joke by a process they don't really understand.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 28 2008,23:42

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,21:25)
I didn't say that I like her, but you've got to feel some sympathy for a person who gets turned into a national joke by a process they don't really understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[checks pockets, rummages through desk drawers]

Ummmmm, nope. Can't seem to find any.

< But some of the people here seem to have what you're talking about. >
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 29 2008,06:59

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 28 2008,21:30)
Pat Boone.  He's a maverick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Maverick"? Here ya go:

Posted by: khan on Sep. 29 2008,09:43

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2008,00:25)
I didn't say that I like her, but you've got to feel some sympathy for a person who gets turned into a national joke by a process they don't really understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can find sympathy in the dictionary: between suicide and syphilis.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 29 2008,09:43

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 28 2008,21:21)
The good news is that < her favorability rating has plunged > in the past week.  It looks like folks are catchin' on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a < math quibble to take up about that linked article >.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 29 2008,10:04

Quote (khan @ Sep. 29 2008,07:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2008,00:25)
I didn't say that I like her, but you've got to feel some sympathy for a person who gets turned into a national joke by a process they don't really understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can find sympathy in the dictionary: between suicide and syphilis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny thing -- my uncle had the same saying, but he said sympathy was between shit and syphilis.

I never could figure out what that saying was supposed to mean as a kid. Somewhere around my 30s I figured it out.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 29 2008,11:51

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 29 2008,11:04)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 29 2008,07:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2008,00:25)
I didn't say that I like her, but you've got to feel some sympathy for a person who gets turned into a national joke by a process they don't really understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can find sympathy in the dictionary: between suicide and syphilis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny thing -- my uncle had the same saying, but he said sympathy was between shit and syphilis.

I never could figure out what that saying was supposed to mean as a kid. Somewhere around my 30s I figured it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My mother said it, probably wanted to be a bit more delicate.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 30 2008,08:06

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2008,00:25)
I didn't say that I like her, but you've got to feel some sympathy for a person who gets turned into a national joke by a process they don't really understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oooh, yeah, I'm gonna have to sort of disagree with you there. </Lumburgh>

Two Reasons.  Personal responsibility and competency.  She chose to accept the VP slot and thus all that comes with it.  Yes, McCain is also at fault for asking her in the first place, but she is responsible for her own choices and the outcomes that follow.  We don't feel much pity/sympathy for the UD crowd because they are doing it to themselves...Palin is no exception.

As for competency, you make the point yourself, "...a process they don't really understand."  If you can't even handle the process, how can you handle the responsibility?  Since McCain didn't vet her, it's up to the voters and it's my hope that's what's happening.

I understand that you want to feel sympathy for a person in this situation, and on one level, that's good.  But, seeing as this person will have tremendous sway and influence over so many areas of our lives, isn't it more important to make decisions based on facts rather than emtions?

I'm not trying to say that you were...just that I don't think she deserves sympathy in this situation.  She chose to accept the VP slot.  She keeps making comments that show she's little more than a convention speech.  She avoids tough questions and situations.  Until she puts herself through the process that every other candidate goes through, she will reap what she sows.

We ridicule people that lambaste evolution without understanding it.  We ridicule people that can't move beyond debunked talking points.  We ridicule people that have strange logic, non-sequitors, logical fallacies, hypocritical stances, empty rhetoric and more...you probably know the list better than I.  I guess I just don't see how this situation is different.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 30 2008,08:37

Look for Palin to be prepped by Rove to just attack Dems, Obama and Biden, and not really debate on Thursday.  It's all she's got, and they will rely on either getting Joe to lose his cool and go after her (a woman), or he will just have to take it.

Based on her recent performances, this could looked forced and transparent, although based on UTube footage of her debating in AK, she looks much more polished and able to at least throw a sentence together.

I'm hoping for another Tina Fey moment or two.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 30 2008,08:39

Quote (Spottedwind @ Sep. 30 2008,14:06)
[SNIP Excellent stuff]

 I guess I just don't see how this situation is different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't.

I find it very curious that there is an ever increasing anti-intellectual sentiment in the USA and the UK (and elsewhere). This is especially true in politics. It's also very interesting that the people who have developed the PR strategy of decrying the "liberal elite" (for example) as "not being like you and me" are themselves very elite, very competent intellectuals.

Why does anyone want the most elite and capable athletes to represent their nation, the most elite and capable surgeons to perform their surgery, the most elite and capable scientists to discover cures for their diseases and yet when it comes to the trifling and simple matter of controlling a nuclear arsenal or the labyrinthian convolutions of international relations or the complex fluctuations of economics they want "jes' plain ol' folks". It's one of the most staggering bits of irrational hypocrisy I've ever encountered.

Louis
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2008,08:52

We also insist on having a civilian as commander in chief of the armed forces. Sometimes someone with no military experience.

Go figure.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 30 2008,09:39

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 30 2008,09:52)
We also insist on having a civilian as commander in chief of the armed forces. Sometimes someone with no military experience.

Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Similar but a little different, IMO.  One aspect of having a civilain commander-in-chief is about trying to control the power of a military and avoid it having too much influence on the government.  In theory, such a commander could keep politics out of the military and keep the military out of politics.  And then of course we have reality, but I digress.

On the other hand, I think there is a good point that said commander should have a good understanding of the capabilites and limitation of the armed forces.  I think a good commander-in-chief should give heavy weight to the advice of his military advisors when regarding military actions.  Their advice shouldn't be taken as flawless, but < ultima ratio regum > is not something to take lightly.


quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2008,09:46



Republican's next pick after Palin bows out for 'family time'?

Would this be an improvement?  Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2008,09:49

I was being a bit sarcastic. I think civilian control of the military is as important as freedom of the press and secularism. The political Trinity, at least until someone adds more to the list.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Sep. 30 2008,09:59

I knew that, who said I didn't?


<insert Zoidberg image here>

(I have no excuse midwife, I'm bad at detecting sarcasm on the internet)
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 30 2008,10:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2008,15:46)


Republican's next pick after Palin bows out for 'family time'?

Would this be an improvement?  Inquiring minds want to know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would this be an improvement? Yes. I've always thought Arden's mother would be a good candidate.

Sorry, was that not the question?

Louis
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 30 2008,10:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 28 2008,21:19)


Frankly, I have to agree with Steve.  This has gotten pathetic and all I can feel is pity for her. While I doubt I would ever have common ground with Palin, I think she could have been a respectable pol with sufficient seasoning*. She just wasn't ready to be on the stage at this level and I cannot escape the feeling that the McCain campaign has her on a extremely short leash and won't allow her to do anything other than act the beauty queen and regurgitate the sound bites that they feed her.

* Garlic powder, cumin, a pinch of salt, and maybe some ground ancho pepper.   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sarah Palin and seasoning:  her nickname should be Bible Spice.  :D

Read on the intarwebs somewhere.

I can't work up any sympathy for a person who volunteered to be embarassed.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 30 2008,11:18

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 30 2008,06:52)
We also insist on having a civilian as commander in chief of the armed forces. Sometimes someone with no military experience.

Go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Naval War College did a very disturbing war game study some years ago. They found that "commanders in chief" who lacked personal military experience grossly over estimated the effectiveness and capabilities of the military. Plus, they were more likely to turn to a military solution when apparently frustrated diplomatically.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2008,11:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They found that "commanders in chief" who lacked personal military experience grossly over estimated the effectiveness and capabilities of the military. Plus, they were more likely to turn to a military solution when apparently frustrated diplomatically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm a Vietnam vet. Been there, done that. Anybody who's seen something like that will be cautious about what the military can do.

Now if you need to break something, no one can do it faster or better than the U.S. military.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 30 2008,12:54

Quote (Spottedwind @ Sep. 30 2008,09:59)
I knew that, who said I didn't?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR THIS IS YOU


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 30 2008,12:56

Civilian commander-in-chief v. military dictatorship or junta? I'll go with the civilian, please.

After having contracted to the military for several years as a civilian consultant, I'd commend that as another way to come to an appreciation of the limitations of military capability.

I think that the voting public was sufficiently apprised of the "chicken hawk" nature of the current administration at the least; I'd prefer that we take such choices on a case-by-case basis and not be quick to try to add restrictions on eligibility for our highest public office.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2008,13:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd prefer that we take such choices on a case-by-case basis and not be quick to try to add restrictions on eligibility for our highest public office.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one is adding restrictions, but it does figure into the voting decisions of some people.

Off topic, but if I were asking debate questions I would be more interested in how to deal with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia than with Iraq or Afghanistan, or even Iran.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 30 2008,14:29

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2008,18:56)
Civilian commander-in-chief v. military dictatorship or junta? I'll go with the civilian, please.

After having contracted to the military for several years as a civilian consultant, I'd commend that as another way to come to an appreciation of the limitations of military capability.

I think that the voting public was sufficiently apprised of the "chicken hawk" nature of the current administration at the least; I'd prefer that we take such choices on a case-by-case basis and not be quick to try to add restrictions on eligibility for our highest public office.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's absolutely no desire on my part to add restrictions. The tricky balancing act between getting the best person for the job and getting the best available democratically elected person for the job is the issue. It's up to parties to put forward better candidates under the current system, but I wouldn't argue against a certain degree of qualification being required for the post.

But then that requires the opportunity to get those qualifications be equally open to all......

Louis
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 30 2008,14:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No one is adding restrictions

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that's reassuring. The fact that my statement of principle seems not to be in any danger from a current instance is a pleasant non-surprise.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 30 2008,15:56

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 30 2008,14:29)
It's up to parties to put forward better candidates under the current system, but I wouldn't argue against a certain degree of qualification being required for the post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The American political system typically chooses President's from its pool of current and former executive leaders: state governors, presidents (up for re-election), and sitting vice presidents. This election cycle is the first in 100 years to break that rule, since neither candidate fits the 'former elected executive' criteria. That's one missing qualification, right there.

I don't know if military experience prepares anybody to be commander-in-chief; everybody in uniform has a senior commander, from whom emanate orders. It would be useful for the President to know the risks and limitations of military power, e.g. that foreign dictators are remarkably difficult to kill with Tomohawk missiles. But that sort of wisdom ought to be attainable from history, and common sense. (And a little outrage - why doesn't the weapon system do all the things we were promised it could do when we bought it?!)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2008,16:38

This may sound naive, but a president is himself plus his party. If the party can't fill the vacancies in a president's knowledge and skill package, the country is screwed, because very few people are fully qualified for the job.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Sep. 30 2008,21:42

I see < The Economist > is polling its readers to see who they would prefer. Each country gets votes according to its population following the American Electoral College system. Current results are McCain 3, Obama 8192 - but we all know how reliable internet polls are ;-)
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 01 2008,06:53

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 30 2008,21:42)
I see < The Economist > is polling its readers to see who they would prefer. Each country gets votes according to its population following the American Electoral College system. Current results are McCain 3, Obama 8192 - but we all know how reliable internet polls are ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no other reasons to vote for McCain (and there aren't many, other than Sarah Palin and Joe 'they shot at me!' Biden) that alone might provide sufficient cause.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 01 2008,07:33

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 01 2008,06:53)
If there were no other reasons to vote for McCain (and there aren't many, other than Sarah Palin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, after 8 years of Cheney's malevolent machinations it would be a pleasant change to have an effervescent incompetent take up residence at the Naval Observatory, although I am concerned that the change in address will leave her unable to monitor Russia.  It could be a problem, what with Putin raising it's head.

Another good thing about Sarah is that, unlike Cheney, she doesn't shoot her friends in the face. Only mooses and political enemies.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 01 2008,08:32

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 01 2008,06:53)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 30 2008,21:42)
I see < The Economist > is polling its readers to see who they would prefer. Each country gets votes according to its population following the American Electoral College system. Current results are McCain 3, Obama 8192 - but we all know how reliable internet polls are ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no other reasons to vote for McCain (and there aren't many, other than Sarah Palin and Joe 'they shot at me!' Biden) that alone might provide sufficient cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do so many Americans seem to take the view that it is a good thing to have a leader who is disliked elsewhere? I do not understand this attitude "I am opposed to whatever you want".
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 01 2008,08:38

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2008,08:32)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 01 2008,06:53)
   
Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 30 2008,21:42)
I see < The Economist > is polling its readers to see who they would prefer. Each country gets votes according to its population following the American Electoral College system. Current results are McCain 3, Obama 8192 - but we all know how reliable internet polls are ;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no other reasons to vote for McCain (and there aren't many, other than Sarah Palin and Joe 'they shot at me!' Biden) that alone might provide sufficient cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do so many Americans seem to take the view that it is a good thing to have a leader who is disliked elsewhere? I do not understand this attitude "I am opposed to whatever you want".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not that. I simply have an inviolate voting guideline:

If, in the postmodern world, China, Russia, and Venezuela are against a candidate, and Andorra is for that candidate, I'm going to vote for him no matter what. This rule has never let me down.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2008,08:56

The Bush/Cheney and the Clinton/Gore administrations are a good contrast re: military experience. Bush was jumped into the National Guard, and had no theater experience of any kind. Cheney ran out the war through 4 or 5 deferments. They used the military as a primary tool.

Clinton used student deferments, but Gore had some non-combat experience as a soldier in a war-zone. They used the military sparingly and only on terms that the military advised.

I agree with Wes that there are alternatives to direct service. As I recall, the War College study I mentioned only had  partisipants who were mostly politicians split military v. non-military. However, it has been probably 20 years since I read the article.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2008,09:02

More on topic, the Palin/Couric saga continues:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Couric: What's your position on global warming? Do you believe it's man-made or not?
Palin: Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All in all, not a bad answer adjusting for a bit of verbal salad tossing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No objection there, either.

Darn it!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2008,09:06

I think it might be useful for aspiring presidential candidates to go through boot camp. Tom Lehrer wrote a song about it, but it's not the same as being there.

Quite frankly, most vets, including Gore and myself, have not participated in close combat.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2008,09:14

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2008,07:06)
I think it might be useful for aspiring presidential candidates to go through boot camp. Tom Lehrer wrote a song about it, but it's not the same as being there.

Quite frankly, most vets, including Gore and myself, have not participated in close combat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The number of people actually shooting at each other in a war is actually a small percentage.
Posted by: Draconizza on Oct. 01 2008,09:32

I'm not so optimistic Dr.GH, look at the fine print of Palin's answer

Couric: Should creationism be allowed to be taught anywhere in public schools?

Palin: Don't have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories, all sides of ideas that they ever - kids do it today whether ... it's on paper, in a curriculum or not. Curriculums also are best left to the local school districts. Instead of Big Brother, federal government telling a district what they can and can't teach, I would like to see more control taken over by our school boards, by our local schools, and then state government at the most. But federal government, you know, kind of get out of some of this curriculum and let the locals decide what is best for their students.

Leaving the teaching of evolution in the hands of Fundies school board is a standard I.D. tactic
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2008,10:02

Quote (Draconizza @ Oct. 01 2008,07:32)
I'm not so optimistic Dr.GH, look at the fine print of Palin's answer

Couric: Should creationism be allowed to be taught anywhere in public schools?

Palin: Don't have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories, all sides of ideas that they ever - kids do it today whether ... it's on paper, in a curriculum or not. Curriculums also are best left to the local school districts. Instead of Big Brother, federal government telling a district what they can and can't teach, I would like to see more control taken over by our school boards, by our local schools, and then state government at the most. But federal government, you know, kind of get out of some of this curriculum and let the locals decide what is best for their students.

Leaving the teaching of evolution in the hands of Fundies school board is a standard I.D. tactic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I am not suggesting that she isn't a creationist- and probably YEC, merely that she sidesteped the question professionally.

PS: Welcome to the board.  :D


Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 01 2008,11:01

Actually, I doubt that she's YEC, and there really isn't too much evidence to suggest that she is. Whatever about the word-salad (and boy, can she ever toss 'em! Croutons, even), she isn't downright dumb.

What I do suspect is that she knows perfectly well what The Base wants to hear and is happy to say it. Like DocDoc* Billy, she knows it's all garbage, but hey, if you wanna hunt, ya gotta go where the ducks moose are.


*Who's there?
Posted by: Draconizza on Oct. 01 2008,11:05

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2008,10:02)
PS: Welcome to the board.  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks! My last account is gone for some reason, looking forward to the discussion here.

Isn't there a rumor that Palin once told someone that she saw man print with dinosaurs?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 01 2008,12:52

Intrade at the moment:

Barack Obama to win 2008 US Presidential Election
Last Price: 66.0

John McCain to win 2008 US Presidential Election
Last Price: 34.5

that's the biggest gap yet.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 01 2008,13:04

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 01 2008,08:38)
If, in the postmodern world, China, Russia, and Venezuela are against a candidate, and Andorra is for that candidate, I'm going to vote for him no matter what. This rule has never let me down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How would you know if the rule had or had not let you down?

If you voted for a candidate who became president, and by the end of his term in office the country's financial system, social system (health, justice, etc) and international reputation had declined markedly, then you would know that the rule had probably let you down (except that the one you did not vote for might have done even worse). If you voted for a president who left the country in as good or better shape than he found it, you still would not know if the alternative would have done better. If you did not vote for the president you could say nothing about the rule.

I would like to add that if Americans want their country to be seen as the world's leader they have to be prepared to see others' points of view and to make compromises, unless they are willing and able to impose their opinions on everyone else.

(Minor edit for grammar)
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 01 2008,13:14

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2008,13:04)
I would like to add that if Americans want their country to be seen as the world's leader they have to be prepared to see others' points of view and to make compromises, unless they are willing and able to impose their opinions on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well compromises aren't everything :P In Dutch politics, the goal is no longer to solve problems, but to "improve the situation". Wich is why barely anything changes over here. Compromises are important, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2008,13:23

The rest of the world is not monolithic. At some point you have to decide that dictators are dictators, and folks who want to impose a new dark age -- whether Muslim or Christian -- are simply wrong and have to be opposed.

There are, of course, all sorts of options short of invasion or aerial bombing, but I see no merit in diluting the notion that women must have equal rights under the law, and that this applies everywhere.

Just as an example.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 01 2008,13:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

unless they are willing and able to impose their opinions on everyone else.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The widespread view that non-science should be taught as if it were science in our schools here is an indication that the USA may not long continue to have the wherewithal to impose its opinion on others. If Bush & Co. were really serious about the notion that the USA should continue to be a pre-eminent superpower, they would have been getting very serious indeed about promoting science and engineering careers, and also on eliminating threats to good science education, such as religious antievolution. There was some brief mention of science and engineering initiatives early in 2006, but I don't recall that that lasted long, and certainly the administration has done little to nothing to hamper the religious antievolution movement, and from time to time has handed that movement opportunities instead. For instance, the August 2006 statement by Pres. Bush that "both sides" should be taught.

Students who are taught anti-science and science as if both were science are not going to be anything but confused about the nature of science.

Jingoists should be aware that "USA! USA! USA!'-ism comes with a price tag, and that is that our work force needs to be not just technologically informed, but needs to out-compete the other 96% of the world's population when it comes to making science and technology advancements. The Red Queen demands it. Religious antievolution is a distraction and hindrance that their vision of US hegemony simply cannot afford.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 01 2008,16:03

Kathleen Parker's inbox is not happy with her criticism of Palin.

< http://www.chicagotribune.com/news.....column >
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 01 2008,17:00

A while ago Erasmus sad that voting was similair to praying. 5 Minutes ago I came across this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where ONE vote has made the difference:
In 1776, English was chosen over German as the language for America by ONE vote.
In 1800, After an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives voted Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States by ONE vote.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by ONE vote.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States over Samuel Tilden by ONE vote.
In 1923, Hitler won the leadership of the German Nazi Party by ONE vote.
In 1948, Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th President, became a U.S. Senator by ONE vote.
California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington all became states by ONE vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from < http://www.napas.org/issues/voting/pava/TNInserts.pdf >
Interesting.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2008,17:01

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 01 2008,09:01)
Actually, I doubt that she's YEC, and there really isn't too much evidence to suggest that she is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Palin treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy Her faith views are strong and sometimes controversial. Her aides say she seeks to share but not impose her faith; her critics say she has 'a fine-tuned sense of how far to push."

By Stephen Braun
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 28, 2008

ANCHORAGE - Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time,"Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside
the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 01 2008,17:08

Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 01 2008,18:00)
A while ago Erasmus sad that voting was similair to praying. 5 Minutes ago I came across this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where ONE vote has made the difference:
In 1776, English was chosen over German as the language for America by ONE vote.
In 1800, After an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives voted Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States by ONE vote.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by ONE vote.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States over Samuel Tilden by ONE vote.
In 1923, Hitler won the leadership of the German Nazi Party by ONE vote.
In 1948, Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th President, became a U.S. Senator by ONE vote.
California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington all became states by ONE vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from < http://www.napas.org/issues/voting/pava/TNInserts.pdf >
Interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, maybe not:

< http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.asp >
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 01 2008,17:22

Quote (khan @ Oct. 01 2008,17:08)
Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 01 2008,18:00)
A while ago Erasmus sad that voting was similair to praying. 5 Minutes ago I came across this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where ONE vote has made the difference:
In 1776, English was chosen over German as the language for America by ONE vote.
In 1800, After an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives voted Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States by ONE vote.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by ONE vote.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States over Samuel Tilden by ONE vote.
In 1923, Hitler won the leadership of the German Nazi Party by ONE vote.
In 1948, Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th President, became a U.S. Senator by ONE vote.
California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington all became states by ONE vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from < http://www.napas.org/issues/voting/pava/TNInserts.pdf >
Interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, maybe not:

< http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.asp >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes it indeed a lot less interesting. The link still gives a true one-vote example (apperantly), but that's still meager and not so dramatic. Falling into an internet hype hurts ;)
Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 01 2008,19:56

Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 01 2008,13:14)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2008,13:04)
I would like to add that if Americans want their country to be seen as the world's leader they have to be prepared to see others' points of view and to make compromises, unless they are willing and able to impose their opinions on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well compromises aren't everything :P In Dutch politics, the goal is no longer to solve problems, but to "improve the situation". Wich is why barely anything changes over here. Compromises are important, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite true. I had no intention of implying otherwise. As far as I am concerned, countries should not compromise on, for example, equal treatment for all regardless of race, sex and creed, prohibition of torture, no imprisonment without a trial and the right to legal representation.

I was thinking more of issues like trade and territory disputes and yes, criticism could be validly made of many countries, not just the U.S.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2008,17:51

ooo, on Intrade McCain has slipped below 1/3rd.

< http://www.intrade.com/?reques....ge=true >

the electoral votes are right now polling

Obama 353
McCain 185

got-dang.

FWIW, there are almost 5 weeks left, i think it'll swing back closer for a while, but if you're the obama camp you have to be thinking about breaking out the Partagus and Corona boxes.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2008,18:08

Somebody mentioned the term "Bible Spice" for Palin. AFAIK, it came from this Balloon Juice post a week ago. John Cole is a principled conservative who of course is therefore in open rebellion against the deranged GOP. It's a great post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
26
Sep
Debate Preview and Open Thread

by John Cole

Apparently there is a debate tonight. The funny thing about it is I really don’t even care. There is, quite honestly, nothing Obama could say that would make me not vote for him. His opening statement could be “My name is Barack Hussein Obama, and I am a muslim, and winning this election is all part of a plot to turn the United States into my own personal caliphate,” and I would shrug and vote for him anyway because at least he would go about it in a competent manner. Compared to the last eight years with C+ Augustus and Darth Cheney and the possibility of four more with Johnny Drama and Bible Spice, that would be preferable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11433 >
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 02 2008,22:27

OMG...Sarah soooooo held her own tonight.  If I may be so bold, I THINK SHE KICKED BIDEN'S ASS!!!  

She must have been premenstrual during the Couric interview...she didn't even look like the same person.  Makes you wonder how that interview was conducted.  

I will say though, that Joe (if I may call him that...lol) was quite the gentleman, and he didn't talk down to her.

I'M SO WOUND UP THAT I'LL *NEVER* SLEEP TONIGHT!!!1111!!!!  I'll definitely be needin' my Monster drinks tomorrow...
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 02 2008,22:40

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,22:27)
OMG...Sarah soooooo held her own tonight.  If I may be so bold, I THINK SHE KICKED BIDEN'S ASS!!!  

She must have been premenstrual during the Couric interview...she didn't even look like the same person.  Makes you wonder how that interview was conducted.  

I will say though, that Joe (if I may call him that...lol) was quite the gentleman, and he didn't talk down to her.

I'M SO WOUND UP THAT I'LL *NEVER* SLEEP TONIGHT!!!1111!!!!  I'll definitely be needin' my Monster drinks tomorrow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course you did.  Any specific moments you'd like to share with us.

Please, I know evidence is a foreign thing for you, but I gotta know.

PLEASE.  PLEASE.  PLEASE.  Tell us one specific question in which she "kicked his ass".

Oh please.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 02 2008,22:46

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2008,22:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,22:27)
OMG...Sarah soooooo held her own tonight.  If I may be so bold, I THINK SHE KICKED BIDEN'S ASS!!!  

She must have been premenstrual during the Couric interview...she didn't even look like the same person.  Makes you wonder how that interview was conducted.  

I will say though, that Joe (if I may call him that...lol) was quite the gentleman, and he didn't talk down to her.

I'M SO WOUND UP THAT I'LL *NEVER* SLEEP TONIGHT!!!1111!!!!  I'll definitely be needin' my Monster drinks tomorrow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course you did.  Any specific moments you'd like to share with us.

Please, I know evidence is a foreign thing for you, but I gotta know.

PLEASE.  PLEASE.  PLEASE.  Tell us one specific question in which she "kicked his ass".

Oh please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh heavens, I can't be bothered with trying to remember every little thing she said!  I'm a creationist don't ya know...short term memory and all.  All I know is she looked good, winked a lot and smiled pretty.  


BAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA..!!!!  

[/ftk in blipster's twisted mind]
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 02 2008,22:50

Okay, Ftk, I'll even help you out; I'm a nice guy.  I've noticed that you have trouble sorting out specifics at times.  Here are some choices but, as always, feel free to use your own:

1.  Any of the questions in the first half hour that she answered by talking abut Alaskan Energy Policy, no matter the topic of the question.  (My personal favorite was when she answered the question on Americans' support of troop actions to settle trouble spots around the globe by talking about Alaskan Energy Policy--a clear winner.)

2.  Any of the 3,723 times she used the word "maverick"

3.  Any of the times she used the first 1/3 of her 90 seconds to make small talk so that it would seem she was using all of her time.  (My personal favorite was when she spoke for 30 seconds about the members of her family who were in the audience, and how they taught school and what lesson plans they gave their students--all unrelated to the question at hand.)

4.  Here's the easy one for you.  When she said it was apparent that she was a Washington outsider, because she didn't understand Biden's "Senate speak".  No mention of the content of what he said, just the implication that Senator's are bad people--expect, presumably McCain.

5.  Something else?
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 02 2008,22:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh heavens, I can't be bothered with trying to remember every little thing she said!  I'm a creationist don't ya know...short term memory and all.  All I know is she looked good, winked a lot and smiled pretty.  


BAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA..!!!!  

[/ftk in blipster's twisted mind]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You got the form of a joke correct.  Unfortunately, that comment looks exactly like 1,300ish other comments that are lying around here somewhere...if only I could remember who wrote them....
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 02 2008,23:04

Oh, now blipey, you're just sooooo jealous that we have a hot chick who is not only *hawt*, but obviously knows her stuff and can hold her own with one of the good 'ol boys from Washington.  I think her personal touch of telling the public that she *isn't* a Washington pure bred is certainly a plus.  We're sick of the shit going on at the top.

She represents change, and like Biden said....he'll "never change".


:p  :p  :p
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 02 2008,23:13

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,23:04)
Oh, now blipey, you're just sooooo jealous that we have a hot chick who is not only *hawt*, but obviously knows her stuff and can hold her own with one of the good 'ol boys from Washington.  I think her personal touch of telling the public that she *isn't* a Washington pure bred is certainly a plus.  We're sick of the shit going on at the top.

She represents change, and like Biden said....he'll "never change".


:p  :p  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk,

I'm going to state this politely just one more time.

What stuff does she know?

I gave a few examples of where I thought she DID NOT know her stuff.  Instead of countering those and giving examples of where I got it wrong, you merely state a generality about who she knows her "stuff".

I'm calling your bluff.  I say Palin doesn't know squat about 85% of the topics in that debate.  Furthermore, I'm saying that you don't know squat about 85% of the topics in that debate and will therefore be unable to give one example of Palin "knowing her stuff."

How 'bout it?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 02 2008,23:18

lol....even when I do know more than 'squat", you twist every word I say.

Been fun, blipster...never change.  Night luv.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 02 2008,23:24

Wow. Just feckin' wow.

You can't even be bothered to tell us what you thought your own candidate did well.  Not a thing.  Not even an opinion.

I know it's a different list, but I'm very tempted to put it on:

"On what specific question(s?) did Sarah Palin kick Joe Biden's ass?"
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 03 2008,00:10

Blah...show up...crow victory while citing no examples...disappear...even Joe Paterno can at least come up with new plays for his playbook...yawn...

As someone who generally identifies himself as a conservative, I thought watching Palin was like watching a retard trying to race Usain Bolt.  On the other side, I was extremely disappointed with Biden...but it was on an entirely different level...they both sucked if you ask me...but one sucked way more.  I 100% agree with Blipey's points.

<edit to add advance apology for abuse of sports analogies>
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2008,00:30

Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 01 2008,17:22)
 
Quote (khan @ Oct. 01 2008,17:08)
 
Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 01 2008,18:00)
A while ago Erasmus sad that voting was similair to praying. 5 Minutes ago I came across this:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where ONE vote has made the difference:
In 1776, English was chosen over German as the language for America by ONE vote.
In 1800, After an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives voted Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States by ONE vote.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by ONE vote.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States over Samuel Tilden by ONE vote.
In 1923, Hitler won the leadership of the German Nazi Party by ONE vote.
In 1948, Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th President, became a U.S. Senator by ONE vote.
California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington all became states by ONE vote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from < http://www.napas.org/issues/voting/pava/TNInserts.pdf >
Interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, maybe not:

< http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.asp >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Makes it indeed a lot less interesting. The link still gives a true one-vote example (apperantly), but that's still meager and not so dramatic. Falling into an internet hype hurts ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Of course the fact that one side or the other wins any particular contest and this is sometimes close does not even address the point i was raised, which was "So What".

Like tonight, you have got Tommy Tall Boy (a broker sort of Joe Six Pack) and his common law wife Vicky Valium (oft represented here as your favorite meek and mild hausfrau for Jeeesus, but that is only one instantiation)  who are probly plumb tickled that there pentecostal moose huntin woman is a-gonna get up there and kick some of the sissies out of washington.  Why hell yeah they say, GW is a pretty big dumbass but see John McCain could have been his daddy and his daddy wasn't too bad anyway and Dana Carvey did a good number on him so fuck it that means McCain is a lot like Reagan.  And lo and behold he says that too.  And some of these fuckers probably think he was actually Reagan's vice president.  or something.

And folks who prefer their talking heads on TV to be more egghead-like (let's call them Joe 13-year-old-whiskey and Career Mom Carol) and use all of those cultured sophisticated educated oratory styles, reference fancy theories from books, insist niggling over the details instead of speaking forcefully and with emotion without worrying about 'politically correct' and 'being sensitive to the worldview of others' are going to be able to find some solace in these two wordy nerdy stuffed shirts that the democrats put together.  No expense is too small to insure that we talk a whole lot about reducing expenses and then diddle ourselves for four years not doing a god damn thing about doing it (although to not be cynical about it what the hell could they really do, anyway).  

It's all identity politics as Louis has reminded us.  Where we part is that there is anything beyond that.  Heddle have you considered voting for the biggest Nascar fan?  Fuck it, which one plays the banjo?  I wanna vote for which ever one had the biggest mater bushes last year.  Do any of them like Tobasco sauce?  Who's got the highest score on Galaga?  Most eyebrow mites?  Whatever floats your boat, it's your little narrative you know so the world is your oyster.  Choose your own adventure, prove it's real by virtue of action and suspended disbelief.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
wille he tells me that the doers and thinkers say moving is the next best thing to being free
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



just like some kinda proto-nookular pomo pauli principle, and stuff.

End of the day, it doesn't matter what the brand is, it's the same old shit.  I've met a lot of squirrels and I am pretty sure none of those little bastards have ever voted.  They're doing great!
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 03 2008,01:17

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 03 2008,00:10)
Blah...show up...crow victory while citing no examples...disappear...even Joe Paterno can at least come up with new plays for his playbook...yawn...

As someone who generally identifies himself as a conservative, I thought watching Palin was like watching a retard trying to race Usain Bolt.  On the other side, I was extremely disappointed with Biden...but it was on an entirely different level...they both sucked if you ask me...but one sucked way more.  I 100% agree with Blipey's points.

<edit to add advance apology for abuse of sports analogies>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I certainly lean liberal and that may account for my thinking that Biden didn't suck.  I was disappointed in a couple of his non-answers, but he actually answered more questions than I thought he would (or maybe it just seemed that way compared to his opponent).

When asked about promises they would have to go back on, Biden actually mentioned (in passing) an item that they will probably not uphold.  Granted, not giving as much foreign aid as you said you were going to is not really what Gwen was after with the question.  OTOH, I didn't really expect a politician to answer that question so my disappointment level was rather low.  It would be nice if he did answer, but it wasn't going to happen.  Palin, on the same question, didn't even acknowledge it and spent time talking about what she would do.  Yes, that's tangentially related, but she spoke about the same things she'd just talked about in the previous 2 questions--energy policy.

Biden generally had answers, maybe not answers that all of us like, but he gave out a bit of real information.  Information that may or may not turn out to be true (Tax plans, spending plans, etc.), but real info that we can hold him accountable for.  Palin couldn't even be bothered to work up a single detail relating to much of anything.  In this, she reminded me several times of Ftk (I guess you'll be flattered, Ftk, but you shouldn't be.).

She even waffled on Gay Marriage.  Biden came out and said something concrete--pro equal rights, con on gay marriage.  (Personally I think that's a silly distinction-- marriage being almost wholly a legal status, if you're going to give them all the legal protections, why not the name?)  Palin was hesitant but eventually said much the same thing.  Then, when asked if they agreed on the status of gays in society, she avoided answering.  Why?

There were things Biden didn't accomplish in this debate, but many of them were things that no politician accomplishes in their debates (by plan): specific details of policy (health care, education, etc).  But, Biden made it seem like he either had a plan or had thought seriously about a plan in many of those cases.  Palin made it seem like she needed someone to give her a map in order to find the issues, let alone a plan to solve the problems they harbor.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2008,03:03

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,23:04)
Oh, now blipey, you're just sooooo jealous that we have a hot chick who is not only *hawt*, but obviously knows her stuff and can hold her own with one of the good 'ol boys from Washington.  I think her personal touch of telling the public that she *isn't* a Washington pure bred is certainly a plus.  We're sick of the shit going on at the top.

She represents change, and like Biden said....he'll "never change".


:p  :p  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is basically what I don't understand about USA politics.

Somehow, they've (McCain) managed to convince people like FTK that they represent "change" despite the fact that McCain has voted with the current administration 90% of the time and is quite obviously (look at his campaign staff if nothing else) a good 'ol boy from Washington. How can voting the same party back in with more or less the same policies be called "change"?

Beats me. In a kind of perverse way (that and I don't live in the USA) I almost hope McCain wins this one, just so Obama is not saddled with the utter mess that the current government has brought about. Almost hope so anyway.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're sick of the shit going on at the top.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I knew you were delusional FTK, but really? Do you really think a man who surrounds himself with the people who helped caused the current crisis and who voted with the current president 90% of the time will really fix any of that?

FTK, can you name a piece of legislation that McCain has supported in his couple of decades in the house that you would recognise as following your agenda for "CHANGE"?
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 03 2008,05:28

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,23:18)
lol....even when I do know more than 'squat", you twist every word I say.

Been fun, blipster...never change.  Night luv.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's simple Ftk: you say that Palin kicked Biden's ass, some of us would like to know with what Palin kicked Biden's ass.

About the change thing:
I wonder why people are focussed on that mantra so much. I see people calling McCain "brave" because he broke with his party 10% of the time, while Obama apperantly didn't do that. But isn't the only thing that matters if the change is actually good? For example: wanting rape to be legalised is certainly change, but not really good hmm?

oldman:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Beats me. In a kind of perverse way (that and I don't live in the USA) I almost hope McCain wins this one, just so Obama is not saddled with the utter mess that the current government has brought about. Almost hope so anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So he can make it worse?

blipey:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There were things Biden didn't accomplish in this debate, but many of them were things that no politician accomplishes in their debates (by plan): specific details of policy (health care, education, etc).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, but as a politician you really have to watch out with things like that. If you bring up the details, people are going to hold you on that, and if you break them for whatever reasons (for example, there is a 700 billion dollar gap), you're f*cked. That's bad for politicians, but good for the people. Afterall, they then know exactly what they get if that person gets elected. But for a politician it's better to keep things vague. Although giving a certain amount of details is good for politicians as well. For example, the McCain camp keeps saying that Obama would raise the burden for middle-class family's although the Obama camp keeps saying the opposite. Now if either one of them would actually have evidence for what they're saying, they can easily debunk there counterpart.

Edit: wow, this post is a mess. Excuse et moi folks.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2008,05:48

Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 03 2008,05:28)
So he can make it worse?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, not really, but if Obama wins and things don't go at all well then it all gets blamed on Obama (short memories) and the current lot get back into power in 4 years and can start to ruin it all over again. There might simply be nothing that can be done in only 4 years to fix problems of the magnitude they'll be faced with.  

Whereas at least if McCain wins and everybody is wearing sackcloth in 3 years it might keep their party out of power for twenty years, if things go badly for them (as per the Conservatives in the UK). Like I said however, I have the luxury of this view as I don't live in the USA.

So, no, I hope Obama wins but I also hope that the mess he will inherit won't mean that in 4 years the current lot get back in on the basis that "Obama could not fix it, he made it worse" when in fact it's likely that 4 years is simply too short a time to make a difference.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,06:05

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 03 2008,00:30)
End of the day, it doesn't matter what the brand is, it's the same old shit.  I've met a lot of squirrels and I am pretty sure none of those little bastards have ever voted.  They're doing great!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Erasmus, we know.  You've said that before.  

Shouldn't you be down at the surplus store stocking up on K-rations and Sterno?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,06:09

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2008,03:03)
This is basically what I don't understand about USA politics.

Somehow, they've (McCain) managed to convince people like FTK that they represent "change" despite the fact that McCain has voted with the current administration 90% of the time and is quite obviously (look at his campaign staff if nothing else) a good 'ol boy from Washington. How can voting the same party back in with more or less the same policies be called "change"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it is simple really. Bush/Cheney were held in thrall to the oil industry.  From the looks of his campaign staff, McCain will be owned by the banking and financial services, as well as the gaming, industries (see Rick Davis).

That is change we can believe in!
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 03 2008,06:38

Assassinator,

I completely agree that there are things politicians won't say--and wouldn't say even if you were torturing them.  That's why I said I didn't think Biden sucked.  He exceeded my expectations of actually saying anything.  While it's sad that you can win a debate by saying only a little, it sure beats saying nothing.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,06:45

IMHO Palin did MUCH better presenting herself than I would have predicted on the basis of her incoherent television interviews. She does an excellent job maintaining calm eye contact with the camera (this reflects her television training) and, as I said before, has a naturally sunny smile and presentation. That is a big stage - they don't get any bigger - and she did a good job on that score. She has a way of defiantly asserting herself no matter how ridiculous the content of her statements (any of this sounding familiar?), and I can see how lots of people like her.  

I think the difference is that the debate format, in contrast with a television interview with an informed interviewer, permits the candidate to use each question as a launching point for a two minute memorized speech. That is certainly what Palin did throughout - she often simply ignored the question and segued into a topic area in which she had memorized and practiced some spunky responses. Biden too, to a lesser extent, was obviously operating from well memorized scripts. But that's how it is done. And that is a format that allows Palin to present her strengths. There were responses during which she lapsed into near incoherence* - but maintained that spunky glow regardless. I'm not surprised Ftk likes her. In fact, as she said above, it is the spunky glow Ftk recalls, not the content.

Palin has some speech characteristics that, for me, are fingernails on chalkboard. She has a habit lapsing into backward sentence structures, e.g. "I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate." That's backward, and she does that a lot. I also feel a little ill when she lapses into that "gosh darn it" voice and assumes the vocal tone employed by kindergarten teachers addressing kids just before nap time, and she does that a lot too. But I can see how a constituency that is accustomed to being infantilized enjoys that too.

That said, there is a considerable distance between demonstrating that you aren't entirely clueless and "kicking somebody's ass." Biden more than held his own and demonstrated a LOT of restraint not going after Palin's many inaccuracies. He also avoided being baited by a tone that, at times, bordered upon disrespectful.

And there is a huge distance between demonstrating that you aren't entirely clueless, and perhaps have some charisma (we already knew that), and being qualified to handle the massive complexities and nuances of the presidency - complexities that aren't always amenable to memorized responses. Unfortunately for the country, were McCain/Palin to prevail and then McCain expire, it will be Interview Palin who must grapple with those complexities, not Speechifying Palin. Interview Palin was not very impressive.

*Regarding Biden's assertion that McCain does not support provisions to help homeowners facing bankruptcy: "That is not so. But that's just a quick answer. I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus -- your ticket's energy -- ticket, also, I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan, again, that was voted for in '05."

Eta: footnote above.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 03 2008,07:29

The FTK Palin Debate Flow Chart

It reminds me of the richardthughes ID flowchart!

I'm not surprised.  Palin has the data loaded into her like a talking Barbie, and when her string was pulled, noise came out.  CBS & CNN viewer polls gave the win to Biden.  And so do I.


Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,07:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Somehow, they've (McCain) managed to convince people like FTK that they represent "change" despite the fact that McCain has voted with the current administration 90% of the time and is quite obviously (look at his campaign staff if nothing else) a good 'ol boy from Washington. How can voting the same party back in with more or less the same policies be called "change"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Here's the deal, folks.  You're not going to see a lot of "change" regardless of who gets elected into office.

That's just a fact...we're screwed because of the situation we're in with the economy and the war.  Obama promises to get our troups out, but I guarantee you he's not going to be pulling them as soon as he promises, because at this point it would be frickin' stupid not to be *sure* that things have stablized over there.  He knows that.  Papa Bush pulled back too soon years ago, and we've paid for it ever since.

The economy is a disaster, and that most certainly does not all fall entirely on Bush and the republicans. You're all well aware of that regardless of how much you like to moan about Bush.  Both sides of the isle have made serious mistakes in regard to the economy.

Whoever gets elected is inheriting a flippin' mess and because of all the corruption on both sides, hands are tied in regard to how much "change" is going to happen.

I like Palin because, of all four candidates, she is a breath of fresh air.  She's spunky, and I don't get the feeling that she's afraid to confront the bull shit that goes on on capital hill.  She's not buried in debt to people who have supported her for eons, and she'll speak her mind without worrying about offending some joker who has her in his pocket.  

She's here to represent people like *me*, and that's a welcome change from the pasty, plastic clones on capital hill.  Of all four candidates, I believe *she's* the one who will go out on a limb for the average joe.

I think she's great....

[Oh, and I don't really think she kicked Biden's ass, but she did *much*, *much* better than I expected.  I was just messin' with you folks because it easy to do so...kinda fun too.  Shame on me.]
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,07:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CBS & CNN viewer polls gave the win to Biden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG!  What a surprise....I'm shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,08:04

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,13:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Somehow, they've (McCain) managed to convince people like FTK that they represent "change" despite the fact that McCain has voted with the current administration 90% of the time and is quite obviously (look at his campaign staff if nothing else) a good 'ol boy from Washington. How can voting the same party back in with more or less the same policies be called "change"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Here's the deal, folks.  You're not going to see a lot of "change" regardless of who gets elected into office.

That's just a fact...we're screwed because of the situation we're in with the economy and the war.  Obama promises to get our troups out, but I guarantee you he's not going to be pulling them as soon as he promises, because at this point it would be frickin' stupid not to be *sure* that things have stablized over there.  He knows that.  Papa Bush pulled back too soon years ago, and we've paid for it ever since.

The economy is a disaster, and that most certainly does not all fall entirely on Bush and the republicans. You're all well aware of that regardless of how much you like to moan about Bush.  Both sides of the isle have made serious mistakes in regard to the economy.

Whoever gets elected is inheriting a flippin' mess and because of all the corruption on both sides, hands are tied in regard to how much "change" is going to happen.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{checks temperature}

{looks at self in mirror}

{feels for lumps}

{finds lumps...oh no! I know what those lumps are, phew}

{books check up with GP}

Wow an FTK post I don't completely disagree with. I must be sick. All the Palin-loving-anti-intellectualism-home-town-folksiness I disagree with, but that stuff before that kicks in isn't all bad.

Louis
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,08:09

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,23:46)
     
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2008,22:40)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,22:27)
OMG...Sarah soooooo held her own tonight.  If I may be so bold, I THINK SHE KICKED BIDEN'S ASS!!!  

She must have been premenstrual during the Couric interview...she didn't even look like the same person.  Makes you wonder how that interview was conducted.  

I will say though, that Joe (if I may call him that...lol) was quite the gentleman, and he didn't talk down to her.

I'M SO WOUND UP THAT I'LL *NEVER* SLEEP TONIGHT!!!1111!!!!  I'll definitely be needin' my Monster drinks tomorrow...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course you did.  Any specific moments you'd like to share with us.

Please, I know evidence is a foreign thing for you, but I gotta know.

PLEASE.  PLEASE.  PLEASE.  Tell us one specific question in which she "kicked his ass".

Oh please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh heavens, I can't be bothered with trying to remember every little thing she said!  I'm a creationist don't ya know...short term memory and all.  All I know is she looked good, winked a lot and smiled pretty.  


BAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA..!!!!  

[/ftk in blipster's twisted mind]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But then you don't go on to contradict him.  To show him that he's wrong in any sort of way.  If someone accuses me of something that I think is patently false about me, I usually like to defend myself.  I know you two have a rather adversarial relationship, but still...if you think it is so untrue, why not have a subtantive post showing otherwise?


(Moving to a different post)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, now blipey, you're just sooooo jealous that we have a hot chick who is not only *hawt*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ignorning the obvious what-the-hell-does-this-have-to-do-with-compentency question, am I really that alone in not finding her to be hot?  She's not some horrible troll but I really don't see the appeal.  To each their own and whatever, but I just don't see it.  And by the way, just having this conversation makes me feel the dumb.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but obviously knows her stuff and can hold her own with one of the good 'ol boys from Washington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O.o

...

...


I...I just can't...


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think her personal touch of telling the public that she *isn't* a Washington pure bred is certainly a plus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, she has said that she isn't one of the Washington insiders, but just because she's said it doesn't mean anything.  She can tell the public whatever she likes; that alone doesn't make it true.  Nearly all politicians say they aren't one of the Beltway insiders or government fatcats...that's what everyone loves to hear.  So, what does it matter if someone says it?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're sick of the shit going on at the top.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The top you say?  Which top would that be?  For that matter, what 'shit' is going on, at said top, of which you are sick?  (I know that isn't the clearest sentence but I was just having fun with the wording...long and short, what shit are you talking about?)



I know this is cliche at this point, but I just don't get FtK.  I have avoided commenting in her thread because sharper minds than mine are doing the dirty work and I just don't think I can handle it.  I'll admit, I even hesitated responding to the above because I know the futility and that I'm just furthering that persecution complex.  But, really...I just don't get it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2008,08:09

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,07:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CBS & CNN viewer polls gave the win to Biden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG!  What a surprise....I'm shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

ROTFLMAO!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? Don't you trust the viewers? It's not the networks opinion, it's the viewers?

Faced with evidence, FTK can't say why it's wrong IT JUST IS!
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 03 2008,08:10

FtK says, "She's here to represent people like *me*, "

Multiple instances of incoherence? Check.

Demonstrated inability to converse beyond canned/cut-pasted arguments?  Check.

Veneer of folksiness?  Check.

Refusal to respond to specific, substantive questions?  Check.

An admitted outsider who claims to be more knowledgeable in a given area than those who've devoted their life's work to it?  Check.

FtK's right . . . Palin really *does* represent people like her.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Oct. 03 2008,08:14

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 03 2008,01:30)
just like some kinda proto-nookular pomo pauli principle, and stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Palin couldn't pronounce it anymore than the current occupant of the White House can.  Is there something in the platform of the Republican Party that says mispronouncing nuclear is a requirement for membership?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,08:25

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2008,08:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,07:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CBS & CNN viewer polls gave the win to Biden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG!  What a surprise....I'm shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

ROTFLMAO!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? Don't you trust the viewers? It's not the networks opinion, it's the viewers?

Faced with evidence, FTK can't say why it's wrong IT JUST IS!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Get real...everyone knows CBS & CNN are supported by left wingdingers..big time.

Hell, let's take a look at the Drudge poll...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

BIDEN   28% 94,459
PALIN   70% 232,460
NEITHER 2% 5,676

Total Votes: 332,595
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess it depends on what poll you point to, and who their viewers or readership consists of.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 03 2008,08:33


Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,08:36

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:25)
[SNIP]

Guess it depends on what poll you point to, and who their viewers or readership consists of.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which goes to show that polls of this type, which simply tell us what we already knew about what people believe, have zero informative value.

Don't you see through the "debate" and "folksiness", FTK? Don't you see how you're being manipulated? Is the security blanket of identity politics all you care about?

Oh wait, I know the answers to those. Don't trouble yourself. try the simple questions I asked you on your own thread.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,08:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you see through the "debate" and "folksiness", FTK? Don't you see how you're being manipulated? Is the security blanket of identity politics all you care about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dude, I've been "manipulated" by big government for too long now.  We're moving to socialism even as we speak....and Obama wouldn't stop it....doesn't even want to.

I don't want Washington to have so much power.  I want it distributed among the states.  We know what we need, and we don't need the government breathing down our necks telling us what to do and squandering our money.  

I think I'm becoming a confederate...lol.

Sarah supports what I want to see coming from Washington.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,08:49

Good one, Heddle.  That big shit eating grin was grinding on me.  Gads...
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Oct. 03 2008,08:52

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,09:25)
Get real...everyone knows CBS & CNN are supported by left wingdingers..big time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW!, I never knew Glenn Blech was a left wingdinger.  Thankyou for correcting me FtK.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,08:53

(Of course this came in as I was typing...always happens that way.  Not at you FtK, but as in Murphy's Law.  Anyway...)

   
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,08:53)

I like Palin because, of all four candidates
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are only two candidates for president, well major party candidates that is.  Obama and McCain.  They will be the ones that are making the majority of decisions.  The VP is important and the choice should not be overlooked, but putting too much stock in Palin (or Biden) and not enough in the actual Presidental aspirant is focused on the wrong thing.


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...she is a breath of fresh air.  She's spunky, and I don't get the feeling that she's afraid to confront the bull shit that goes on on capital hill.  She's not buried in debt to people who have supported her for eons, and she'll speak her mind without worrying about offending some joker who has her in his pocket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's not much I can say to this as it seems to be your gut feeling.  And I have no problem with what someone feels about a person...except if it were to contradict facts.  I'm still not clear on what specifically about capital hill bothers you and thus how she'll be different.  From her actions and history, she seems pretty like every other politician, just slightly different flavoring.

To be fair, I don't think Obama is some excessively different politician...I do see some areas that have been different and I like those...but he's not so different in the grand scheme of things.  To me, he's the best option right now, but I don't see him as the model all politicans should be.  He's got some ideas and tatics that, if emulated, might raise the quality of politics some, but he still falls into some of the same old habits.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She's here to represent people like *me*, and that's a welcome change from the pasty, plastic clones on capital hill.  Of all four candidates, I believe *she's* the one who will go out on a limb for the average joe
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which average joe?  I'm sure to some groups, I'm pretty average and she could not be much more my opposite if she tried.  I know everyone loves to think that they are the average and that everyone else is like them...but somehow that just doens't work out.

And why do you think she'll go out on a limb for the 'average joe' more than the others?  Are you one of those people that thinks simply because the others have money they don't remember or comprehend difficulties the middle class has?  I never liked the attacks on McCain because of the multi-house comment; simply because you have wealth does not mean you don't care or comprehend.  It's like when people attack celebrities for voicing an opinion.  Just because they are an actor, it doesn't mean that they are ill-informed.  Yes, some are and yes, some rich people don't really seem to care or understand the struggle of the poor or middle class.  But you can't predict those things one income alone.  Actions, past history, and comments will tell you what you need to know.

My apologies if I put words in your mouth and that's not the reason...it just seems to be a common one and a pet peeve I have.  Still, why is it that you see her as willing to do what the others won't?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Oh, and I don't really think she kicked Biden's ass, but she did *much*, *much* better than I expected.  I was just messin' with you folks because it easy to do so...kinda fun too.  Shame on me.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fair enough and well played.  Although, *much*,*much* better than the expected failure isn't necessarily success.  By the way, I'm not saying that you expected her to fail, but most people and commentators did and you are at least implying that you expected so little from her that you were happy with what you got.  Nonetheless, you did a good caricature...of yourself?

It does seem odd though that more than a few of us thought you were serious.  We all based that on evidence of the past...but I guess that's what we get from relying on evidence too much.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2008,09:40

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,08:48)
 
Dude, I've been "manipulated" by big government for too long now.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you give me an example? Whatever do you mean by that? Does "big government" come into your home and switch TV channels?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're moving to socialism even as we speak...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you give me an example of that?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and Obama wouldn't stop it....doesn't even want to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you say that?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't want Washington to have so much power.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The people you support handed over power (oversight) to the people they were supposed to be regulating. We can see how that worked out.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 I want it distributed among the states.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've noted before that you would allow "the states" to make individual decisions about abortion, but would be quite happy if they all banned it because "the states decided" and that would be just fine.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We know what we need, and we don't need the government breathing down our necks telling us what to do and squandering our money.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you give me an example of
a) Something that more money should be spent on
b) What should be cut-back to pay for that?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I'm becoming a confederate...lol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sarah supports what I want to see coming from Washington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is what exactly?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,09:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2008,09:40)
...      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sarah supports what I want to see coming from Washington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is what exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be "hawt" air.

And Palin (aka Bush Lite) is full of it.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,09:46

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you see through the "debate" and "folksiness", FTK? Don't you see how you're being manipulated? Is the security blanket of identity politics all you care about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dude, I've been "manipulated" by big government for too long now.  We're moving to socialism even as we speak....and Obama wouldn't stop it....doesn't even want to.

I don't want Washington to have so much power.  I want it distributed among the states.  We know what we need, and we don't need the government breathing down our necks telling us what to do and squandering our money.  

I think I'm becoming a confederate...lol.

Sarah supports what I want to see coming from Washington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you don't mind being manipulated as long as it's someone you think is like you doing the manipulating.

Interesting.

Louis
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,09:52

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,06:25)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2008,08:09)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,07:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CBS & CNN viewer polls gave the win to Biden.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OMG!  What a surprise....I'm shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

ROTFLMAO!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? Don't you trust the viewers? It's not the networks opinion, it's the viewers?

Faced with evidence, FTK can't say why it's wrong IT JUST IS!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Get real...everyone knows CBS & CNN are supported by left wingdingers..big time.

Hell, let's take a look at the Drudge poll...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

BIDEN   28% 94,459
PALIN   70% 232,460
NEITHER 2% 5,676

Total Votes: 332,595
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Guess it depends on what poll you point to, and who their viewers or readership consists of.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"4.5 billion, 6 thousand, it's all arbitrary*. No one's really 'right' (at least when my argument is losing)".







*I know, I know, FTK very likely doesn't know what this word means. You get the idea.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,09:54

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,06:48)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't you see through the "debate" and "folksiness", FTK? Don't you see how you're being manipulated? Is the security blanket of identity politics all you care about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dude, I've been "manipulated" by big government for too long now.  We're moving to socialism even as we speak....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Next thing ya know, the gummint will be closing all the churches and handing out mandatory marijuana injections! It all started when they fluoridated our water!!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,09:55

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Oct. 03 2008,06:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,09:25)
Get real...everyone knows CBS & CNN are supported by left wingdingers..big time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW!, I never knew Glenn Blech was a left wingdinger.  Thankyou for correcting me FtK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To FTK and millions like her, 'left wingdinger' simply means "they're currently saying something that displeases me".
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,10:04

What terrifies me is that even otherwise intelligent people are falling into this idiotic game of identity politics. It terrifies me when it's done abroad, and it terrifies me even more when it's done here in the UK.

The shallowness of thought around the political issues of the day reminds me of the shallowness of thought around religious issues. Why people let themselves be fooled is beyond me. Admitting to compromise isn't the same thing as willing blinkered gullibility (and that's where 'Ras and I really differ ;-) ).

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,10:19

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,10:04)
What terrifies me is that even otherwise intelligent people are falling into this idiotic game of identity politics. It terrifies me when it's done abroad, and it terrifies me even more when it's done here in the UK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The identity politics game is just one more example of the success of the anti-intellectuals in the US. Frankly, very few "intelligent people" have fallen for the faux folksiness of Gov. Bush Lite, but it resonates quite well in the "I'd rather not think about it" crowd. It's the same process that allows non-thinkers to become instant experts on evolutionary theory, philosophy of science, and other rather complex subjects.

I think I will be re-reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" sometime soon. The ability of the Republicans to package their anti-populist policies in fake populist packages like Bush and Palin is remarkable. People like FtK, who told us how the downturn in the housing economy has affected her family directly, still cannot begin to understand that these fakers do not have their best interests at heart. That's some powerful Kool-aid, and the Republicans have patented the recipe.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 03 2008,10:45

I disagree with the general charge of anti-intellectualism.

Like many here, I work among the smartest people on the planet—in my case in a national lab. I don’t want any of them governing me. Or, like WFB quipped, I’d take my chances with the first 200 names of the Boston phonebook over the Harvard faculty.

But this is not necessarily anti-intellectualism. It can be recognition that neither high IQ (especially) or an encyclopedic command of facts has a significant positive  correlation  with the ability to lead or govern. That is based on evidence: to first order everyone I work with has high IQ—but they all have different political opinions. Everyone on the SCOTUS has a high IQ and is legal expert, and yet we have many 5-4 decisions. Politics always, or almost always, comes down to the dreaded world-view. Intellectuals may be able to toss a prettier word salad, but that’s about it.

For further evidence go over to the brainiac of blogs and the bastion of rationality (Pharyngula) and start a debate about libertarianism, animal testing, or gun rights. Now imagine those smart, highly educated people are our congress, and what do you get? Name calling, nasty insults, apoplectic rants, and, most telling, no consensus. In other words, nothing different from any other group discussing politics.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,10:51

Somewhat off topic, < this > is incredibly creepy.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,10:54

Does anyone have access to The Scientist blog?  I'd like to hear about < this > entry but can't register at work.

From what I can glean, it's a post about who is advising McCain on Science, something I'd like to know.


(I've found < Obama's list > and I like what I see.)

One of my biggest frustrations with Bush has been interaction with science.  I get so angry and frustrated about how much interference this administration has shown in scientific* areas.  The agendas that they have pushed that went directly in the face of contrary evidence and either had to have that evidence changed, omitted, or just out right ignored.  Hell, that last sentence pretty much describes the decision making process they used at all times.

To be honest, I didn't think McCain would follow the path Bush has played...but he really doesn't seem like the same guy that ran in 2000.  I respected McCain there and felt that Rove really slimed McCain.  I could have even voted for McCain in 2000 I think.  But the McCain of 2008...I really don't trust him and to be honest, I'd kind of disappointed in that.  His secrecy, his actions...it makes me feel like he'd keep up the same level of interference and political manipulation that we've seen for the last 8 years.  I have no dobut about Palin doing just that.

* Other areas too but specific to science for this topic.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,11:16

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,16:45)
I disagree with the general charge of anti-intellectualism.

Like many here, I work among the smartest people on the planet—in my case in a national lab. I don’t want any of them governing me. Or, like WFB quipped, I’d take my chances with the first 200 names of the Boston phonebook over the Harvard faculty.

But this is not necessarily anti-intellectualism. It can be recognition that neither high IQ (especially) or an encyclopedic command of facts has a significant positive  correlation  with the ability to lead or govern. That is based on evidence: to first order everyone I work with has high IQ—but they all have different political opinions. Everyone on the SCOTUS has a high IQ and is legal expert, and yet we have many 5-4 decisions. Politics always, or almost always, comes down to the dreaded world-view. Intellectuals may be able to toss a prettier word salad, but that’s about it.

For further evidence go over to the brainiac of blogs and the bastion of rationality (Pharyngula) and start a debate about libertarianism, animal testing, or gun rights. Now imagine those smart, highly educated people are our congress, and what do you get? Name calling, nasty insults, apoplectic rants, and, most telling, no consensus. In other words, nothing different from any other group discussing politics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Surprise! You disagree.

Dumb =/= anti-intellectual.

Smart =/= intellectual.

The rest of your caricatures are just excuses for your own lack of engagement and desire for convenient faux relativism.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,11:30

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,10:45)
I disagree with the general charge of anti-intellectualism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disagree all you want; your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine.

Note that I did not say that ALL those folks who will be voting for McSame and Bush Lite were unthinking. Both you know and I know some smart folks who have looked at the issues and who will be voting for them because that slate reflects their stand on the issues a bit better. But that does not mitigate the fact that the Republicans have been a party of anti-intellectualism and anti-science for a couple of decades now. Beginning with Reagan and continuing now with Bush Lite, they have made no bones about their electoral appeals to the unthinking.

Note that I also did not say anything about having the folks running your national lab governing us. Please put that strawman down. My comment specifically dealt with the appeals of the Republicans to cultural identity politics rather than to substantive issues.

Finally, if you really think that the first 200 names of the Boston phonebook would yield a better president than the people on the Harvard faculty, you have set a very low bar for success at the presidential level. The performance of the current occupant unfortunately barely rises to that level. The performance of a sound-bite slinging airheaded cheerleader, who probably would disagree with most of McCain's positions on many issues if they were presented to her stripped of his name, would almost certainly be lower than that. If that's what you want, we'll continue to disagree, I'm certain.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,11:37

(I type too much and too slow...this was for Heddle and Albotrossity and started before Louis and Albatrossity responded more clearly and with less rambling.  Oh well, off to lunch)

I think you both have some points, but there are a differences between intelligence, anti-intellectualism, and emotion that perhaps aren't addressed.

Intelligenece does not prevent you from being wrong, from holding unfounded opinions, or reacting solely on your emotions.  I think we can all name very intelligent people, ones that can handle complex concepts and extract new and meaningful insights, that have acted irrationally or against evidence.  An intelligent person may look deeper into an issue than others and weigh the problems more, but that, in and of itself, doesn't mean they'll make a better decision than others.

As to anti-intellectualism, I think albatrossity has something of a point.  I look to most conservative commentators and hear intellectual as a pejorative.  'Ivory tower', 'elite' ivory league', and the like are thrown around on talkshows and the in blogosphere as a way of attack.  I don't work with the smartest people on the planet and although ancedotal, I can say without a doubt that there are people that are happy to not be a 'smart' person as they put it.  People who shun learning after college, or even high shcool.

Al Gore was thought to be too intelligent and that cost him votes.  Obama and Biden, apparently, have had the same complaint about them.  In my eyes, the anti-intellectualism that is the problem is the automatic dismissal of the opinoins and work of anyone more intelligent than yourself.  I think it comes from an insecurity about admitting someone is more intelligent than yourself.  There is an ingrained feeling of self-worth about intelligence that I think is a problem.  People seem to feel like they are less worthy as a person if someone else is smarter.  I, personally, don't believe that, but I understand the emotion.

My point is tied to the last bit, emotion.  Regardless of the intelligence of the person, emotion probably has the last say.  No matter how rational and thoughtful we are, the right situation can overcome our reason and leave us with nothing more than our emotions.  

A person that is intellectual is often seen as distant and smug, even if they have never done anything like that before.  The intimidation that many people seem to feel around intelligent people becomes internalized as a target of frustration and politicians know how to exploit it.  No group is free of this bias and people of all sorts have used it to their advantage.

All in all, you are right that an intelligent person is not inherently a good leader.  But to pretend that many vocal Bush supporters don't harbor or exploit anti-intellectual sentiments might be a bit much.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,11:51

Not rambling at all, nice summary of many of the issues.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,12:21

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,11:45)
But this is not necessarily anti-intellectualism. It can be recognition that neither high IQ (especially) or an encyclopedic command of facts has a significant positive  correlation  with the ability to lead or govern. That is based on evidence: to first order everyone I work with has high IQ—but they all have different political opinions. Everyone on the SCOTUS has a high IQ and is legal expert, and yet we have many 5-4 decisions. Politics always, or almost always, comes down to the dreaded world-view. Intellectuals may be able to toss a prettier word salad, but that’s about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not your finest bit of reasoning, Heddle. What your experience establishes is that IQ is orthogonal to political philosophy, not that it is orthogonal to leadership ability.

That said, I agree leadership ability is very likely largely orthogonal to IQ. It doesn't follow that IQ has no bearing upon the effectiveness and consequences of one's leadership, however. There is likely a cutoff - one that lies considerably above average IQ IMHO - below which effective leadership in a role as complex as the presidency becomes impossible. And there is probably an IQ level above which additional ability doesn't contribute further (150?). I would argue that, in between, leadership qualities being equal, higher IQ is likely to result in a more effective outcome of that leadership.

Of course, these assertions are difficult to establish empirically, given the complexities of "all else being equal" in a domain where uniqueness rules (human personality).

ETA: There is probably literature on this question worth looking into. And an edit for clarity.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 03 2008,12:22

I am not equating smart people with intellectualism. The smart people I mentioned are also intellectuals, at least in my definition of the word. They are smart and curious and informed and passionate and well educated and engaged. (I know that to be true of my colleagues, and concede it to be true of Pharyngula commenters.) The point remains that they display no (in my estimation) statistically significant bump in their leadership or governance or compromise or consensus-reaching skills over a random selection of “ordinary folk.”

As for those who disliked and didn’t vote for Al Gore, it wasn’t because he was too smart. (Hardly.) Rather, it was because he was perceived as creepy and condescending.

Bill Clinton was (is) very smart and popular. Why? In large part because he connects with people and he knew how to lead. You can dismiss this as identity politics but nevertheless it is true, and his personal popularity allowed him to run an effective government. Regan was not nearly as cerebral, but just as popular, and again an effective president, and again in part because of a connection that had nothing to do with intellectualism. Carter was an intellectual and a disaster in the Whitehouse. (Yes I know, these are just my opinions.)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,12:25

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,10:22)
As for those who disliked and didn’t vote for Al Gore, it wasn’t because he was too smart. (Hardly.) Rather, it was because he was perceived as creepy and condescending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While on the other hand, Bush was a cool dude you could have a beer with.

How'd that work out?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,12:31

From my experience [which of course is limited cuz' I'm a friggin' creationist loon who never leaves my church], I've often found that those with very high IQs often lack a great deal of common sense and don't always make the best decisions.  They also seem to have trouble keeping their marriages and family together.  It would be interesting to see some research into this.

My uncle had an extremely high IQ...was banned from Vegas due to the ease in which he counted cards.  He patented several inventions, etc.  But, the dude's personal life was a bit of a screwed up mess, and he made some weird decisions that seemed senseless.  You guys would have liked him...he never bought into the God stuff.  Right before he died (he knew his days were numbered), he came to have a visit with my parents and questioned and talked with them about religion, God, etc..  kinda weird conversations.  The dude actually asked my husband and I if we thought Jesus ever experienced a hard on...*sheesh*.  I think he was losing it at that point.

My husband's good friend's father is another one of those with an *extremely* high IQ.  His life is a mess as well.

Just an observation, and this is probably not the norm, but it would be an interesting thing to survey.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,12:33

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,13:22)
As for those who disliked and didn’t vote for Al Gore, it wasn’t because he was too smart. (Hardly.) Rather, it was because he was perceived as creepy and condescending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As a quick aside, I didn't say Gore lost soley because of being too intelligent; I said he lost votes.  And the condescending thing is my point.  IMO, that perception of condescension was because he came off as the dreaded intellectual to some people.  If it wasn't that, what was he being condescending about?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,12:38

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,13:31)
From my experience...

My uncle had an extremely high IQ...

My husband's good friend's father...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My grandmother lived to 98. She chased her breakfast with a shot of Jack, smoked 2 packs of unfiltered Camels every day 'till the day she died and chewed a cigar after dinner.

So the notion that smoking causes health problems is bullshit.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,12:39

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,10:31)
From my experience [which of course is limited cuz' I'm a friggin' creationist loon who never leaves my church], I've often found that those with very high IQs often lack a great deal of common sense and don't always make the best decisions.  They also seem to have trouble keeping their marriages and family together.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK, please answer me this.

What parts of the country have the highest rates of divorce and the highest rates of domestic violence?

Feel free to take a little time on Google to find the answer.

PS: While you're at it, please tell me what state in the US has the highest rape rate?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,12:43

Don't need to google.  Blue states...mid-west highest.  Christians the highest.  Course, the majority of people in the US consider themselves Christians.

You have to consider that a lot of people live together rather than get married today, so that screws up the results for sure.  Liberals and non-Christians would certainly be those who avoid marriage and go for the living together arrangement.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,12:47

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,10:43)
Don't need to google.  Blue states...mid-west highest.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong. You DO need to Google. Try again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You have to consider that a lot of people live together rather than get married today, so that screws up the results for sure.  Liberals and non-Christians would certainly be those who avoid marriage and go for the living together arrangement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your ignorance is painful. Things do not become true because your ideology demands them.

Again, highest rape rate? Got an answer?
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,12:48

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,13:31)
From my experience [which of course is limited cuz' I'm a friggin' creationist loon who never leaves my church], I've often found that those with very high IQs often lack a great deal of common sense and don't always make the best decisions.  They also seem to have trouble keeping their marriages and family together.  It would be interesting to see some research into this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can tell you stories about dumb people making dumb decisions...so?  We both have anecdotes which means practically nothing.  Yes, high IQ people can make terrible decisions and average and low IQ people can make good ones...we haven't established causation or even correlation.

People have marriage problems.  Period.  It doesn't matter your religion, your intelligence, your age, you anything...marriage can be tough.  Life can be tough.

And if you are willing insinuate that most intelligent people have marriage problems because of a few you've seen, try not to get upset next time that someone implies all Christians have marriage troubles when the next megachruch pastor gets caught in extramarital bliss.  It's the same type of "logic".
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,12:51

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:31)
From my experience [which of course is limited cuz' I'm a friggin' creationist loon who never leaves my church], I've often found that those with very high IQs often lack a great deal of common sense and don't always make the best decisions.  They also seem to have trouble keeping their marriages and family together.  It would be interesting to see some research into this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, it would. I suggest that you do that, and then see if the results fit your preconceptions.

Spottedwind's comments about the perception of condescension are bang-on. It doesn't take very much at all for someone who is on the losing side of an argument with an expert to bring out the complaint that the expert is being elitist, condescending, etc. This usually has nothing at all to do with the facts of the argument. But the average American almost always thinks that he/she, being blessed with an abundance of "common sense", knows more than any expert. When the opposite is pointed out to him/her, using factual arguments, the average American typically responds with non-factual accusations of elitism, condescension, and a lack of common sense on the part of the expert. When this is translated into the political arena, we get Bush, Palin, and the accompanying decline into Third World status.

One can only hope that the election outcome will be so one-sided that the Republicans will finally abandon their race to the bottom. Who can they nominate next who will be as feeble as Palin? Name #132 in the Boston phonebook? Let's hope not.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,13:01

Did you do that research yet, FTK? I was able to Google the answers in about 45 seconds.

(Added in edit: well, when I posted this message, FTK was logged on. Now she's not. I guess she found the answers and ran away. It's okay, the questions will be waiting for her when she comes back.)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,13:12

McCain's fallen 3 points today on Intrade. It's now 31 to 68.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,13:12

Honest to God, I meant Red states, Arden.  I already knew that...that's why I said midwest Christians.  Then I went on to explain what I think may affect those results.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,13:18

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,13:12)
McCain's fallen 3 points today on Intrade. It's now 31 to 68.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, not to worry, Steve.  Obama will take this election...the media will ensure that.

Funny thing is that most democrats used to like McCain because he crossed the isle on several issues.  Shoot, even hard core right winger Ann Coulter didn't want him due to his Democratic views.  The guy might have actually helped with bipartisanship to a degree.  Obama on the other hand is as liberal as they come...that's not helpful in bringing the two sides together.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 03 2008,13:28

Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,13:30

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,11:12)
Honest to God, I meant Red states, Arden.  I already knew that...that's why I said midwest Christians.  Then I went on to explain what I think may affect those results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for the clarification, but the Midwest is not dominant in this ranking. The bottom worst:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

30   Missouri        26,324   5.0
 31    West Virginia    9,179   5.0
32   North Carolina  36,292   5.1
33     Colorado        18,795   5.1
34   Georgia         37,001   5.2
35   Oregon          16,307   5.3
36   Texas           99,073   5.4
37   Alaska           3,354   5.5
38   Washington      29,976   5.6
39   Mississippi     15,212   5.7
40   Kentucky        22,211   5.8
41    Arizona         23,725   5.8
42   Florida         82,963   5.9
43   New Mexico       9,882   6.0
44   Idaho            7,075   6.2
45     Alabama         26,116   6.2
46   Indiana            ***   6.4
47   Wyoming          3,071   6.5
48   Tennessee       34,167   6.6
49   Oklahoma        21,855   6.7
50   Arkansas        17,458   7.1
51   Nevada          13,061   9.0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Lowest rates?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 1   Massachusetts  14,530    2.4    
 2   Connecticut     9,095    2.8    
 3   New Jersey     23,899    3.0    
 4   Rhode Island    3,231    3.2    
 5   New York       59,195    3.3    
 6    Pennsylvania   40,040    3.3    
 7   Wisconsin      17,478    3.4    
 8    North Dakota    2,201    3.4    
 9   Maryland       17,439    3.5    
10   Minnesota      16,217    3.6    
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah. Living together before getting married. Not getting pregnant at 16 and marrying instantly. Terrible thing. Only libs and nonchristians do it. Destroys families.

Highest rape (and incest) rate: Alaska.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,13:33

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,11:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife and I lived in sin for 6 years. Then we got married. We've now been married 19 & 1/2 years. Another outlier, I guess.

No doubt the only thing that saved our marriage is that my wife chose to stop at her Masters and not go on to her PhD.*

I can't remember, Reagan and McCain were only ever married once, right?

*If Prop 8 in California fails, I'm sure that'll finish our marriage off once and for all.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,13:39

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:18)
Funny thing is that most democrats used to like McCain because he crossed the isle on several issues.  Shoot, even hard core right winger Ann Coulter didn't want him due to his Democratic views.  The guy might have actually helped with bipartisanship to a degree.  Obama on the other hand is as liberal as they come...that's not helpful in bringing the two sides together.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You miss a key point here FtK...used to like McCain.  Back before he started on this new kick.  I'm not a Democrat but I recognized that he had tried to work with everyone and respected people he diasgreed with.  Actually, I did respect him for standing up for his views, when principaled and informed.  His effort in campaign finance reform was a good start and his standing on tortue was good.  The probelm has become that he's going against so much of what he championed.

Obama is not < 'as liberal as they come' >.  Too liberal for you?  That I won't argue as that is your opinion, but that hardly means he's the most liberal senator.  Yes, he's being painted that way by the spin machine, but if you take the time to look and listen, you'll see that claim is bogus.

I won't say that Obama has been blameless in esclating the partisan rhetoric.  He started off good but he's begun to pander and seems to be letting his team eye the mud....I'm disappointed but not surprised.  The problem has been that, sadly, this is what our electorate wants.  They like dirty politics.  Oh, they say they don't, but when it comes down to it, it's the negative ads that people remember and make decisions based on.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,13:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,13:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you also play the violin?


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,13:51

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,11:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,13:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you also play the violin?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife said "take me somewhere I've never been before!"  I said "How about the kitchen?"
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,13:59

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,19:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,11:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife and I lived in sin for 6 years. Then we got married. We've now been married 19 & 1/2 years. Another outlier, I guess.

No doubt the only thing that saved our marriage is that my wife chose to stop at her Masters and not go on to her PhD.*

I can't remember, Reagan and McCain were only ever married once, right?

*If Prop 8 in California fails, I'm sure that'll finish our marriage off once and for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit, my wife and I have PhDs. She got hers first (we alternated so we could afford to live etc). Does this mean our marriage is doomed?

Louis

P.S. Also, we lived in sin for 8 years, that's a whole 2 years more sin than Arden, but have only been married for 7 and a half years. Does this mean that if gay people get married we have to get divorced?

ETA: I know FTK's corrected herself on the state divorce rate, but I cannot help but mock.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,14:01

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,13:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's awesome, Wes.  Congrats!  Srsly.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,14:01

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:18)
Oh, not to worry, Steve.  Obama will take this election...the media will ensure that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In my 32 years on the planet, a democrat has been president for 12 years and a republican has been president for 20. If the media has the power you imagine them to have, I wish they'd use it more often.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 03 2008,14:04

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:12)
Honest to God, I meant Red states, Arden.  I already knew that...that's why I said midwest Christians.  Then I went on to explain what I think may affect those results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to throw out one more thing here.

If Arden had said that the number of Christians that get divorced is higher than other groups, then you could easily say ' well, yes, because there are more of them, duh'.  And you would be right and we could all point and laugh at Arden.

But he asked about rates.  Well that's different and your objections don't really matter.

Look at it this way:

Group A: 5 couples out of 100 get divorced
Divorce rate: 5%

Group B: 500 couples out of 10,000 divorced
Divorce rate: 5%

So if you look at pure numbers, 100 times as many Group B couples got divorced as Group A but they have the same rate.  One group being larger than the other has doesn't directly affect the rate.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,14:13

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,13:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,11:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife and I lived in sin for 6 years. Then we got married. We've now been married 19 & 1/2 years. Another outlier, I guess.

No doubt the only thing that saved our marriage is that my wife chose to stop at her Masters and not go on to her PhD.*

I can't remember, Reagan and McCain were only ever married once, right?

*If Prop 8 in California fails, I'm sure that'll finish our marriage off once and for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats to you too, Arden.  Hubby and I are going on 16 yrs., and we lived together for a few months before we got married....<gasp!>

We both learned a lot about what we didn't want from a relationship due to our prior serious boyfriend/girlfriend.  Both of us lived with them for a time <gasp again!> (I almost married my previous boyfriend...thank God I didn't...had the wedding invites ordered and everything).  We both knew from the start we were making the wrong choice with the first ones, but sometimes you get caught up in the wrong thing.   Within a year after our breakups, we found each other....thank God.  Looking back, I can se a *lot* of mistakes I made, but I learned from them as well.   I couldn't be happier.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,14:19

Hey, Spottedwind, you're kind of new to our discussions and I just wanted to say that you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders.  You must not be a scientist*



*Laughing hysterically as I'm writing that one....chill folks..lol.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,14:25

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,11:59)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,19:33)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,11:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife and I lived in sin for 6 years. Then we got married. We've now been married 19 & 1/2 years. Another outlier, I guess.

No doubt the only thing that saved our marriage is that my wife chose to stop at her Masters and not go on to her PhD.*

I can't remember, Reagan and McCain were only ever married once, right?

*If Prop 8 in California fails, I'm sure that'll finish our marriage off once and for all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dammit, my wife and I have PhDs. She got hers first (we alternated so we could afford to live etc). Does this mean our marriage is doomed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That and gay marriage? Absolutely. You're screwed.

No doubt that's the reason for Nevada and Arkansas's high divorce rates. All those PhD's.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,14:28

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:01)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,13:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's awesome, Wes.  Congrats!  Srsly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife and I have Wesley beat by one year (25 years this past July). I've got the Ph.D., she has two masters (just don't ask me who they are.)

Our secret? She's a whore in the kitchen and a cook in bed.





(Is that true? I just like that line.)
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,14:52

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 03 2008,12:51)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:31)
From my experience [which of course is limited cuz' I'm a friggin' creationist loon who never leaves my church], I've often found that those with very high IQs often lack a great deal of common sense and don't always make the best decisions.  They also seem to have trouble keeping their marriages and family together.  It would be interesting to see some research into this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, it would. I suggest that you do that, and then see if the results fit your preconceptions.

Spottedwind's comments about the perception of condescension are bang-on. It doesn't take very much at all for someone who is on the losing side of an argument with an expert to bring out the complaint that the expert is being elitist, condescending, etc. This usually has nothing at all to do with the facts of the argument. But the average American almost always thinks that he/she, being blessed with an abundance of "common sense", knows more than any expert. When the opposite is pointed out to him/her, using factual arguments, the average American typically responds with non-factual accusations of elitism, condescension, and a lack of common sense on the part of the expert. When this is translated into the political arena, we get Bush, Palin, and the accompanying decline into Third World status.

One can only hope that the election outcome will be so one-sided that the Republicans will finally abandon their race to the bottom. Who can they nominate next who will be as feeble as Palin? Name #132 in the Boston phonebook? Let's hope not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...that's interesting.  Though, as an example, I don't think that all of those here who probably hold a higher than average IQ are elitist, condescending, etc.  But, there are certainly those of you who I'd put in that category.  I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC.... :p
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 03 2008,14:58

Professor Heddle,

I am a long-time, daily lurker to AtBC (3 years at least...what a waste) and have come to have a measure of respect for you, your posts and what I view as a fair amount of integrity on your part. However, I am disappointed in your support of Palin.

I readily agree that "neither high IQ (especially) or an encyclopedic command of facts has a significant positive  correlation  with the ability to lead or govern."

In response, I ask if you believe a lower IQ and a limited command of facts and knowledge have a negative correlation?

There has to be a minimum level of ability to lead and Palin does not clear the bar, rather, she's doing the Limbo. Decisions may ultimately come down to world-views, but she has a very narrow and very small one from which to draw. SCOTUS judges certainly have broader world-views, regardless if they come from Long Dong Silver movies.

How can you watch any of the interviews and think this woman has much capacity to think critically in any unanticipated scenario? Even if the droning whine of "gotcha journalism" were remotely true in the case of the Couric interviews, you'd think someone truly capable and ready to lead the US in the world could handle an insignificant reporter like Katie. No? Palin may have a decent IQ, but for me she exhibits a severe handicap in the arena of world knowledge, facts and understanding – she's incapable of contemplative thought or coherent answers.

Although she is a *hawt*, smart, job creating, maverick hockey-mom with lipstick whom I betcha I might genuinely like if I got to know her better over a six-pack or two around a kitchen table there following a rousing day of moose-goosing while out guarding our precious environmentally safe drilling rigs there in ANWR (and our fellow Americans too, don'tcha know!) from the constant Russian fly-overs...Palin is the absolute worst choice I have ever seen on a presidential ticket. Period. Spiro T would make a better choice. Even in his present condition.

I acknowledge your world-views, have read your blog here and there, agree with your insightful assessments on occasion...but it is maddening to me that someone of your intelligence accepts this farce of VP pick and the nonsensical populist gambit that it is.

More disturbing are the millions of people in the voting public who, like FTK, are not near as smart as you are and credulously fawn over her (Palin, not FTK) with no thought whatsoever.

Tony M Nyphot
(more than half serious but still a bit looney)
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,15:07

Grrrrrrrr....!!  I oughta rip you apart for that post, but I'll allow you to live since you're basically a lurker.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Oct. 03 2008,15:08

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,11:04)
What terrifies me is that even otherwise intelligent people are falling into this idiotic game of identity politics. It terrifies me when it's done abroad, and it terrifies me even more when it's done here in the UK.

The shallowness of thought around the political issues of the day reminds me of the shallowness of thought around religious issues. Why people let themselves be fooled is beyond me. Admitting to compromise isn't the same thing as willing blinkered gullibility (and that's where 'Ras and I really differ ;-) ).

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In your favor Louis is that science has discovered that evolution tends to construct things more robustly, more durably than intelligent design.  I think of the British government as having evolved over a thousand years and the American government as having been intelligently designed over two months of a single summer.  Certainly I am oversimplifying in both statements above, but I take hope that perhaps your government won't be co-opted so easily as the American form has been.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,15:09

Obama is up 5 for the day on Intrade.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,15:16

Jumping Jeezus on a pogostick:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Lowry:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure you weren't the only one, but I should hope the others would have the sense not to admit it.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 03 2008,15:19

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:52)
I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC.... :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks a piggin' bunch, FTK.  I'm not going to get that song from The Mikado out of my head for the rest of the day now.


P.S.  Does this make me elitist or not?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,15:22

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)
Jumping Jeezus on a pogostick:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Lowry:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you weren't the only one, but I should hope the others would have the sense not to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hand lotion and kleenex futures are up 10 over at Intrade.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,15:22

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:52)
I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impossible to be a decent, concerned elitist?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,15:30

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:52)
I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC.... :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've no doubt that you keep such a list of indecent unconcerned individuals here, and that you find it very useful when you are trying to figure out which comments to ignore. Saves you the trouble of reading them, for sure.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 03 2008,15:30

Tony M Nyphot,

Yes, quite a few people are disappointed that I support Palin. I don’t understand that. People don’t disappoint me if they support a different candidate. I switched from Obama because he flip flopped on FISA and public finance. (He also flip flopped on Born Alive—but in that case his flop was preferred to his flip). And the final straw for me was the Biden selection. But for those for whom those things are not important, I don’t ponder why they don’t “get it.”

You would be wrong to assume anything even remotely close to “smart people support Obama.” (Or any other candidate.) There are plenty of smart people supporting each candidate. The closest you can come to making such a statement is that the smart people on sites like this support Obama—but these sites, and counterparts on the right, are merely unrepresentative blips. If you think that way, you are in danger of waking up the day after the election like the proverbial Hamptons socialite who said: “I don’t understand how Nixon won, everyone I know voted for McGovern.” (OK, that won’t happen this election which is, for all intents and purposes, over--but the point stands.)

As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.

If the Identity-Politics Watchdogs (who, in my opinion, cast their lidless-eye gaze in but one direction) don't like that--screw 'em. Democracy can be a bitch.

Edit: Biden Moment Typo.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,15:30

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:52)
I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impossible to be a decent, concerned elitist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmmm....perhaps, but as a general rule, NO.  They're too self absorbed about their immense IQ, endless education, job status, etc. to care about anything other than making sure everyone acknowledges them as always being the expert on virtually every topic.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,15:34

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:30)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:22)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:52)
I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impossible to be a decent, concerned elitist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmmm....perhaps, but as a general rule, NO.  They're too self absorbed about their immense IQ, endless education, job status, etc. to care about anything other than making sure everyone acknowledges them as always being the expert on virtually every topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Stevestory will exert his moderator powers here, but let me state that discussion of Davescot needs to take place over on the Uncommon Descent thread.  Thanks.




Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,15:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amen to that.  You *don't* have to be a genius to run the nation.  A hard working, above average person who is a quick study and eager/enthusiastic to do what's right for the nation is the best candidate we can ask for.  Like I said earlier...Palin is a fresh face who doesn't carry all the negative baggage, and she won't cave to the Washington BS.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,15:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)
Jumping Jeezus on a pogostick:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Lowry:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure you weren't the only one, but I should hope the others would have the sense not to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Obama had picked a Sarah Palin, you guys would be salivating all over yourselves while singing her praises.

Although there is that elitist group of individuals here who would still poo poo her for being too "folksy".   :angry:
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,15:50

The Palin - Fargo meme < picks up steam >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But who did she resemble more? Marge Gunderson, whose peppy pleasantries masked a remorseless policewoman's logic? Or Jerry Lundegaard, who knew he didn't have the car on his lot, but smiled when he said, "M'am, I been cooperatin' with ya here."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:45)
If Obama had picked a Sarah Palin, you guys would be salivating all over yourselves while singing her praises.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not hardly. There are any number of Republican women who if chosen, I would not have questioned their legitimacy to be there.  Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey-Hutchinson, Christine Todd-Whitman, and Olympia Snowe all come to mind.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 03 2008,15:56

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:07)
Grrrrrrrr....!!  I oughta rip you apart for that post, but I'll allow you to live since you're basically a lurker.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please...don't let my status as a lurker stop you. I should be easy prey compared to the other elitist intellectuals here. I have no fear of empty insults.

While I'm not the best at communicating my thoughts, it should be clear I was expressing an opinion about Palin. Take it or leave again..I don't care.

However, I am willing to stand by my statements that:
1. You are not as smart as Heddle, in anyway, by any stretch.
2. You credulously fawn over Palin with no thought whatsoever – as exhibited by your earlier vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous, "breath-of-fresh-air" posts.

As astutely pointed out by csadams (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5785;st=450#entry124508), you and Sarah are very much alike.

If, as you say, she is a good representative of who you are...Do you think you would make a competent VP?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:01

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,13:34)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:30)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:22)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,12:52)
I keep a running list of the elitists vs. the decent concerned individuals here at AtBC....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impossible to be a decent, concerned elitist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmmm....perhaps, but as a general rule, NO.  They're too self absorbed about their immense IQ, endless education, job status, etc. to care about anything other than making sure everyone acknowledges them as always being the expert on virtually every topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Stevestory will exert his moderator powers here, but let me state that discussion of Davescot needs to take place over on the Uncommon Descent thread.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve? Over here? POTW?

It's been like, two days, so we're overdue, right?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:04

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,13:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Amen to that.  You *don't* have to be a genius to run the nation.  A hard working, above average person who is a quick study and eager/enthusiastic to do what's right for the nation is the best candidate we can ask for.  Like I said earlier...Palin is a fresh face who doesn't carry all the negative baggage, and she won't cave to the Washington BS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coming from a person who is unshakably convinced you don't have to know anything about science in order to pass judgement on what is valid science, none of us should be surprised.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 03 2008,16:05

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 03 2008,21:56)
If, as you say, she is a good representative of who you are...Do you think you would make a competent VP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,16:12

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,16:30)
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Surpassing strange. Significant measures of both ability and expertise - professional levels of same - are required to operate a commercial aircraft, perform surgery, pitch effective baseball, teach 11th grade, practice law, build homes, conduct classical ensembles, complete scientific research... and on and on. All of which require years of tutelage and experience to acquire. There are sometimes obvious differences in ability and expertise, differences that can be detected and that (imperfectly to be sure) predict future success.

Apparently, inhabiting the presidency is a simpler task than any of the above.

What you are stating suggests a very strange characterization of the demands of the presidency - ability and expertise in the relevant domains mean little, and character and your sense of admiration (the arousal of which is apparently independent of your assessment of ability and expertise) everything.

That can't be right.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amen to that.  You *don't* have to be a genius to run the nation.  A hard working, above average person who is a quick study and eager/enthusiastic to do what's right for the nation is the best candidate we can ask for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to get an appendectomy next week. The guy who's going to do it has never operated on anyone before, and he's never studied medicine, but I'm not worried. He's a quick study and very enthusiastic. In fact, he's not really very bright, but I can admire him, and he's not an elitist, so I'm very optimistic. That's the best I can ask for.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:15

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 03 2008,14:12)
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,16:30)
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Surpassing strange. Significant measures of both ability and expertise - professional levels of same - are required to operate a commercial aircraft, perform surgery, pitch effective baseball, teach 11th grade, practice law, build homes, conduct classical ensembles, complete scientific research... and on and on. All of which require years of tutelage and experience to acquire. There are sometimes obvious differences in ability and expertise, differences that can be detected and that (imperfectly to be sure) predict future success.

Apparently, inhabiting the presidency is a simpler task than any of the above.

What you are stating suggests a very strange characterization of the demands of the presidency - ability and expertise in the relevant domains mean little, and character and your sense of admiration (the arousal of which is apparently independent of your assessment of ability and expertise) everything.

That can't be right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it remarkable that Heddle's 'admiration' of Palin is, for some reason, greater than his admiration of Obama, AND that this 'admiration' trumps Obama's superior command of the issues.

I think this is Heddle's more pretentious version of the traditional "I vote for whoever I'd most want to have a beer with" test.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,16:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, I am willing to stand by my statements that:

1. You are not as smart as Heddle, in anyway, by any stretch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm...probably depends on your definition of smart:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Amusingly clever; witty: a smart quip; a lively, smart conversation.
c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk.
2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace.
3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others: a smart negotiator.
4. Fashionable; elegant: a smart suit; a smart restaurant; the smart set. See Synonyms at fashionable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Obviously, I don't have the education that he does...he's a freaking physicist for cripes sakes.  So you have me there.  I, OTOH, am an underachiever...lol.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. You credulously fawn over Palin with no thought whatsoever – as exhibited by your earlier vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous, "breath-of-fresh-air" posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whatev...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As astutely pointed out by csadams (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5785;st=450#entry124508), you and Sarah are very much alike.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why thank you...thank you very much.  Of course, I'm deemed the piranha rather than the barracuda.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If, as you say, she is a good representative of who you are...Do you think you would make a competent VP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...hell no, I either pee my pants or faint dead away if I had to stand at the podium with Joe Biden in a *live* debate.  I'm a horrible speaker, so that would definitely knock me out of the running.  Although, as far as everything about the vice presidency goes, I'd be a shoe in.*

*God forbid anyone takes this post seriously, but it never fails that some of you step right into the shit I pull.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,16:21

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 03 2008,16:12)
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,16:30)
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Surpassing strange. Significant measures of both ability and expertise - professional levels of same - are required to operate a commercial aircraft, perform surgery, pitch effective baseball, teach 11th grade, practice law, build homes, conduct classical ensembles, complete scientific research... and on and on. All of which require years of tutelage and experience to acquire. There are sometimes obvious differences in ability and expertise, differences that can be detected and that (imperfectly to be sure) predict future success.

Apparently, inhabiting the presidency is a simpler task than any of the above.

What you are stating suggests a very strange characterization of the demands of the presidency - ability and expertise in the relevant domains mean little, and character and your sense of admiration (the arousal of which is apparently independent of your assessment of ability and expertise) everything.

That can't be right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Elitist!

Obama has a degree from Harvard don't ya know...he's, like, so much "smarter" than Sarah...bleh.

He also has less experience than she does for the positions we're discussing.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,16:22

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amen to that.  You *don't* have to be a genius to run the nation.  A hard working, above average person who is a quick study and eager/enthusiastic to do what's right for the nation is the best candidate we can ask for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to get an appendectomy next week. The guy who's going to do it has never operated on anyone before, and he's never studied medicine, but I'm not worried. He's a quick study and very enthusiastic. In fact, he's not really very bright, but I can admire him, and he's not an elitist, so I'm very optimistic. That's the best I can ask for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In a limited sense, I have to agree with Heddle.  The scope of the President's job is too wide for the person occupying the position to pretend to competency in every topic.  One of the marks of a truly great President (indeed, any leader) is his choice of advisors and management team.

That, though, is the limit of my common ground with Dave.  I find Palin woefully unprepared for high national office (a condition that might be fixed with more experience and exposure) and her choice reflects badly on McCain.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:24

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:21)
Obama has a degree from Harvard don't ya know...he's, like, so much "smarter" than Sarah...bleh.

He also has less experience than she does for the positions we're discussing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But so does McCain, right?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:25

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,14:22)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amen to that.  You *don't* have to be a genius to run the nation.  A hard working, above average person who is a quick study and eager/enthusiastic to do what's right for the nation is the best candidate we can ask for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to get an appendectomy next week. The guy who's going to do it has never operated on anyone before, and he's never studied medicine, but I'm not worried. He's a quick study and very enthusiastic. In fact, he's not really very bright, but I can admire him, and he's not an elitist, so I'm very optimistic. That's the best I can ask for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In a limited sense, I have to agree with Heddle.  The scope of the President's job is too wide for the person occupying the position to pretend to competency in every topic.  One of the marks of a truly great President (indeed, any leader) is his choice of advisors and management team.

That, though, is the limit of my common ground with Dave.  I find Palin woefully unprepared for high national office (a condition that might be fixed with more experience and exposure) and her choice reflects badly on McCain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be curious to know why Heddle apparently admires Palin so much more than Obama.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,16:27

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:25)
I'd be curious to know why Heddle apparently admires Palin so much more than Obama.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like likes like.

She is the first true evangelical candidate for such an office.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 03 2008,16:30

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 03 2008,14:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2008,13:28)
Diane and I celebrated our 24th anniversary this past June. We've both earned Ph.D.s. We're just a paradox given Ftk's views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Speaking of anniversaries . . . >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obama combines love and politics

GLENSIDE, Pa. (AP) — Barack Obama combined love and politics Friday, buying his wife a dozen white roses for their 16th wedding anniversary at a flower shop conveniently located in a swing district in suburban Philadelphia.

Dozens of reporters and photographers crammed into Penny's Flowers to see the Democratic presidential nominee pick out the roses for his wife, Michelle, for $47.70. Afterward, he headed for a flight home to Chicago so he could take her out to dinner.

Obama has slipped a couple times in recent days, incorrectly saying it's their 15th anniversary. That's understandable since they've spent most of the last year apart with separate campaign schedules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remind me again . . . what's McCain's matrimonial track record, and how does it fit with the Family Values folks?

On the other hand, a husband who can't correctly remember which anniversary it is . . .  ;)
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 03 2008,16:32

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,22:21)
Elitist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Is this a respectable source? >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Censorship is pretty elitist, don't you think? Granted, she wasn't able to pull it off, so I guess that doesn't count...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,16:35

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 03 2008,16:32)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,22:21)
Elitist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Is this a respectable source? >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Censorship is pretty elitist, don't you think? Granted, she wasn't able to pull it off, so I guess that doesn't count...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Minor quibble, but Palin did fire the librarian, but backtracked after there was a big outcry in Wasilla over it.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:37

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 03 2008,14:32)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,22:21)
Elitist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Is this a respectable source? >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Censorship is pretty elitist, don't you think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, NO. I can see you don't understand this whole elitism thing at all.

Reading a lot MAKES you elitist, so in fact Palin was attempting to prevent elitism in future generations. For this I can admire her.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 03 2008,16:38

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,14:30)
Tony M Nyphot,

Yes, quite a few people are disappointed that I support Palin. I don’t understand that. People don’t disappoint me if they support a different candidate. I switched from Obama because he flip flopped on FISA and public finance. (He also flip flopped on Born Alive—but in that case his flop was preferred to his flip). And the final straw for me was the Biden selection. But for those for whom those things are not important, I don’t ponder why they don’t “get it.”

You would be wrong to assume anything even remotely close to “smart people support Obama.” (Or any other candidate.) There are plenty of smart people supporting each candidate. The closest you can come to making such a statement is that the smart people on sites like this support Obama—but these sites, and counterparts on the right, are merely unrepresentative blips. If you think that way, you are in danger of waking up the day after the election like the proverbial Hamptons socialite who said: “I don’t understand how Nixon won, everyone I know voted for McGovern.” (OK, that won’t happen this election which is, for all intents and purposes, over--but the point stands.)

As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.

If the Identity-Politics Watchdogs (who, in my opinion, cast their lidless-eye gaze in but one direction) don't like that--screw 'em. Democracy can be a bitch.

Edit: Biden Moment Typo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Professor Heddle,

Thanks for the worthy reply. By no means do I think "smart people" only support Obama. I personally know many who do not. I also agree that Biden was a disappointing choice in many ways, just not perhaps in the same ways. He IS a smart, capable individual. I also think he is good and decent.

However, I believe it will take a presidential nominee reaching across the aisle on a VP pick to help remove some of the polarization that continues to fester in the political system. Biden is not that type of pick. (For some reason I had in mind someone like Lincoln Chafee.) Sarah Palin does not represent a reach across the aisle either. She is more of a reach back to the base and so is also a major disappointment in that respect. So much for the maverick label.

While I agree with much of of what you say in your response, the big disagreement comes in following your own criteria of "good and decent and capable." I can't say I really know enough to tell whether Palin is good and decent. I have seen enough, including attending one of her rallies, to say she is NOT capable.

The skills you subjugate to admiration in making your choice are necessary for dealing with national and world issues and should take precedence in my opinion. I want someone that has the ability to get the job done, not someone I admire for trying to do something they can't. Regardless, for me at least, she has not demonstrated she rises above an "intellectual threshold" and has done nothing more to gain my admiration that many others have not also done.

As far as flip-flops, Palin and especially McCain, are just as guilty. And I agree with you that Obama's change on FISA is disturbing. I guess it depends which ones mean the most to you as an individual.

Anyway, I respect your choice. I am disappointed in it and  I don't "get it" at all. Sorry...

Tony M Nyphot

Gratuitous BTW - You are much, much smarter than FTK.

Edit: just to pretend I can mess with FTK
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,16:38

< Sarah's experience vs. Obama's >

Like the source?? lol
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:38

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,14:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:25)
I'd be curious to know why Heddle apparently admires Palin so much more than Obama.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like likes like.

She is the first true evangelical candidate for such an office.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if that's true, that basically sounds like a religious litmus test.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Better than an 'ideological' one, I suppose.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,16:40

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:38)
< Sarah's experience vs. Obama's >

Like the source?? lol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is Barack Obama a genuine Christian or a Wolf in Sheep Clothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even *you* can probably do better than that.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,16:58

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:38)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,14:27)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:25)
I'd be curious to know why Heddle apparently admires Palin so much more than Obama.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like likes like.

She is the first true evangelical candidate for such an office.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if that's true, that basically sounds like a religious litmus test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what?  Individuals are allowed to apply whatever litmus test they wish.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Better than an 'ideological' one, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch your attributions. That wasn't me saying that.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,16:58

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Oct. 03 2008,21:08)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,11:04)
What terrifies me is that even otherwise intelligent people are falling into this idiotic game of identity politics. It terrifies me when it's done abroad, and it terrifies me even more when it's done here in the UK.

The shallowness of thought around the political issues of the day reminds me of the shallowness of thought around religious issues. Why people let themselves be fooled is beyond me. Admitting to compromise isn't the same thing as willing blinkered gullibility (and that's where 'Ras and I really differ ;-) ).

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In your favor Louis is that science has discovered that evolution tends to construct things more robustly, more durably than intelligent design.  I think of the British government as having evolved over a thousand years and the American government as having been intelligently designed over two months of a single summer.  Certainly I am oversimplifying in both statements above, but I take hope that perhaps your government won't be co-opted so easily as the American form has been.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish that were true.

Sadly I think the difference seems to be that we do basically the same things you do, only in some cases a couple of centuries ago when less people were watching, and usually with more tea and spanking.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,17:04

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,15:30)
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave

Would your high opinion of Palin be changed at all if the ongoing investigation finds that she abused her office in the attempts to get her former brother-in-law fired? Or is that also to be admired, because she was looking out for her sister?

I just don't get why having someone whom you can "admire" is the ultimate point-getter in your scorebook, trumping experience, legislative acumen, achievements, and reasoning ability. Going back to your original comment, do you not "admire" some of the folks you work with?  You know, the same ones who you are convinced would be a worse president than #132 in the Boston phone book?  Or is it possible that "admire" is a rationalization  for "makes me feel good about my religious views"?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,17:06

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,14:58)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:38)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 03 2008,14:27)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,16:25)
I'd be curious to know why Heddle apparently admires Palin so much more than Obama.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like likes like.

She is the first true evangelical candidate for such an office.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if that's true, that basically sounds like a religious litmus test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what?  Individuals are allowed to apply whatever litmus test they wish.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I’ll take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Better than an 'ideological' one, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch your attributions. That wasn't me saying that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say it was. Sorry if I was ambiguous.

The point is, I fail to see how an ideological litmus test is something to be avoided, but not a religious litmus test.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 03 2008,17:11

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,22:37)
No, no, NO. I can see you don't understand this whole elitism thing at all.

Reading a lot MAKES you elitist, so in fact Palin was attempting to prevent elitism in future generations. For this I can admire her.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stand corrected.

Just goes to show that if we work hard enough we might just have a cure for literacy within our lifetime.

ETA: GO TEAM!
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 03 2008,17:11

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,14:58)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Oct. 03 2008,21:08)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,11:04)
What terrifies me is that even otherwise intelligent people are falling into this idiotic game of identity politics. It terrifies me when it's done abroad, and it terrifies me even more when it's done here in the UK.

The shallowness of thought around the political issues of the day reminds me of the shallowness of thought around religious issues. Why people let themselves be fooled is beyond me. Admitting to compromise isn't the same thing as willing blinkered gullibility (and that's where 'Ras and I really differ ;-) ).

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In your favor Louis is that science has discovered that evolution tends to construct things more robustly, more durably than intelligent design.  I think of the British government as having evolved over a thousand years and the American government as having been intelligently designed over two months of a single summer.  Certainly I am oversimplifying in both statements above, but I take hope that perhaps your government won't be co-opted so easily as the American form has been.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish that were true.

Sadly I think the difference seems to be that we do basically the same things you do, only in some cases a couple of centuries ago when less people were watching, and usually with more tea and spanking.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like biological evolution, constututional evolution in the UK has left us with a pile of jury-rigged fixes, vestigial organs and cack-handed approaches to things which no rational designer would go anywhere near.  (< Exhibit A >).  It sort of works most of the time.  No-one knows how.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 03 2008,17:11

[Cue my first trip to the BTW]

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)


a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent. EPIC FAIL
b. Amusingly clever; witty EPIC FAIL
c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk. Now you're talking!
2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace. FAIL (see blog diet diary)
3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others FAIL (except in your own mind)
4. Fashionable; elegant: See Synonyms at fashionable. FAIL (peeing in your pants and fainting is an immediate disqualification for this category of smart - except maybe in Kansas. I'll consult with Jack.)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[Richard Dawkins "Beware The Believers" voice]

Heddle is much, much smarter than you. He has a science degree.

[/Richard Dawkins "Beware The Believers" voice]
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,17:11

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,17:21)
Obama has a degree from Harvard don't ya know...he's, like, so much "smarter" than Sarah...bleh.

He also has less experience than she does for the positions we're discussing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, very strange. Whatever your thoughts on Obama's political philosophy, it is absolutely obvious that he has an extremely high verbal IQ and corresponding grasp of nuanced and difficult concepts. A very vigorous and articulate intellect capable of wrestling complex and subtle ideas to the mat in real-time is plainly evident. This was particularly evident during his one on one debates with Hilary - although she was every bit his match in this respect. Both displayed a deep grasp of the positions they advocated and discussed them with a sense of mastery and expertise. These things, in my opinion, are a sine qua non for filling a professional or political role as demanding as the presidency.

Palin has a sunny, spunky presentation, and she clearly has some ability. But she doesn't have the intellect Obama displays. Not even close.

Strangely absent from this discussion vis IQ and presidency - as we sling examples and counter-examples - has been the incumbent. His lack of intellectual qualification for the job was evident to me from the first moment I heard his stumbling parody of the English language. His presidency has been a disaster, characterized by epic blunders with disastrous consequences. Far worse than my initial pessimistic expectations.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,17:15

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,21:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)
Jumping Jeezus on a pogostick:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Lowry:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure you weren't the only one, but I should hope the others would have the sense not to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Obama had picked a Sarah Palin, you guys would be salivating all over yourselves while singing her praises.

Although there is that elitist group of individuals here who would still poo poo her for being too "folksy".   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one's poopooing Palin for BEING folksy (more power to her on that front in fact), people are poopooing the transparent use of her apparent folksiness as an electioneering tool. A tool that explicitly distracts from the issues of substance and causes people to focus on issues of form.

Such behaviour is a tool of exploitation of the electorate NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. Do you want a list of example that the "liberal leftist wing dings" (or whatever convenient caricature you have in mind) use?

As usual FTK it's not a matter of which team Palin belongs to (at least for me, I don't have a dog in the hunt after all) it's a matter of the transparent tactics of exploitation.

Take for example the Labour party here in the UK (traditionally left wing, although recent years have seen them arguably drift to the centre right), a party that has engaged in EXACTLY this kind of tactic. The Conservative party here in the UK (traditionally right wing, although recent years have seen them arguably drift to the centre right also) does exactly the same thing also. It's part of the raft of tactics that effectively disenfranchise the electorate without having to do so 100% overtly.

I know you don't get this, despite it being repeated a lot, but it really, really, REALLY, REEEEEAAAAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYY is not about identity politics. I'm sure Sarah Palin is a lovely person, I'm chuffed to bits you have found a candidate that you resonate with so well. I simply don't care about any of it, nor do I care how nice a chap Obama or Biden is or isn't. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. What DOES matter is what stances these people espouse on the various issues of the day, why, how they've voted/acted etc.

I'm frustrated because there are very intellectual elitist people behind the scenes, writing speeches and preparing PR who are deliberately manipulating the "folksiness" of Palin (and the "blackness" of Obama no doubt, and the "war heroness" of McCain etc etc etc) deliberately so people like you and me will ignore the issues and be swayed by various prejudicial appeals. It works on everyone, we're all susceptible to it. The trick is to remember that you're susceptible and try not to be.

The chip on your shoulder about "elitists" here is ridiculous. I think if you read what people actually wrote once in a while, instead of projecting your own issues onto others, you'd find very few (if any) such people anywhere.

Louis
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 03 2008,17:19

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 03 2008,17:04)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,15:30)
As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but he’s a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent  and capable person—certainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achieves—but primarily I want a person I can admire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave

Would your high opinion of Palin be changed at all if the ongoing investigation finds that she abused her office in the attempts to get her former brother-in-law fired? Or is that also to be admired, because she was looking out for her sister?

I just don't get why having someone whom you can "admire" is the ultimate point-getter in your scorebook, trumping experience, legislative acumen, achievements, and reasoning ability. Going back to your original comment, do you not "admire" some of the folks you work with?  You know, the same ones who you are convinced would be a worse president than #132 in the Boston phone book?  Or is it possible that "admire" is a rationalization  for "makes me feel good about my religious views"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, unless there were mitigating circumstances. If her ex brother-in-law did indeed taser her nephew and did indeed make death threats against her father, then I'd give her a pass on that one. In that case, I'd do the same.

I tried to make it clear with many examples--Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Gore, Cheney--I see no reason why "experience, legislative acumen and achievements" are such a big deal. If I did, then I never would have supported Obama in the first place.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,17:25

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 03 2008,17:11)
[Cue my first trip to the BTW]

 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)


a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent. EPIC FAIL
b. Amusingly clever; witty EPIC FAIL
c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk. Now you're talking!
2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace. FAIL (see blog diet diary)
3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others FAIL (except in your own mind)
4. Fashionable; elegant: See Synonyms at fashionable. FAIL (peeing in your pants and fainting is an immediate disqualification for this category of smart - except maybe in Kansas. I'll consult with Jack.)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[Richard Dawkins "Beware The Believers" voice]

Heddle is much, much smarter than you. He has a science degree.

[/Richard Dawkins "Beware The Believers" voice]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol....okay, since I'm a good sport, I'll have to admit that was pretty funny.  

PS: I don't think Jack's ever seen me speak to a group other than maybe the one time I spoke at an open forum at a KBOE meeting.  I'm not sure he was there when I spoke.  Wouldn't have mattered anyway because I mostly read what I wanted to say and took a pill before I had to speak (I'm not kidding).  For some bizarre reason, I'm absolutely ***petrified*** of public speaking.  Scares the bejesus out of me.  I almost completely blacked out giving a speech in college once.  The intense fear keeps me from being involved in a *lot* of things I'd like to do (which involve public speaking).  

I'd guess the dudes at the DI are counting their blessing....!  lol
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 03 2008,17:26

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,17:19)
I tried to make it clear with many examples--Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Gore, Cheney--I see no reason why "experience, legislative acumen and achievements" are such a big deal. If I did, then I never would have supported Obama in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with your argument Dave is that those individuals weren't bad because of those skills, they were bad in spite of them.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,17:36

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,17:19)
Yes, unless there were mitigating circumstances. If her ex brother-in-law did indeed taser her nephew and did indeed make death threats against her father, then I'd give her a pass on that one. In that case, I'd do the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't you think that trying to shift the focus from her actions to his actions is just a tad obvious?

More to the point, don't you imagine that if the accusations against her brother-in-law are accurate, he would have been dismissed WITHOUT her abusing her office? Elected officials are public servants, and firing someone just because you disagree with their course of action is an abuse of that trust. It is not admirable in the least. In fact, I think that elected officials should take extra pains to distance themselves from personnel decisions when they are personally or emotionally involved with the situation. Obviously you disagree; you'd do the same thing yourself...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I tried to make it clear with many examples--Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Gore, Cheney--I see no reason why "experience, legislative acumen and achievements" are such a big deal. If I did, then I never would have supported Obama in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those are examples of folks who you think screwed up in leadership roles despite having that experience. You are ignoring the real point here, that experience and intelligence and the ability to surround yourself with capable smart people are necessary but not sufficient. Yes, people who should have been better leaders, based on those parameters, can still screw up. Nobody is supporting that strawman. Here's the real issue. What about situations where somebody comes into office without much experience,  moderate-to-low intelligence, or no real history of association with smart capable people? One recent example of such a case would be, as others have pointed out, the current occupant. How did that work out?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,17:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever your thoughts on Obama's political philosophy, it is absolutely obvious that he has an extremely high verbal IQ and corresponding grasp of nuanced and difficult concepts. A very vigorous and articulate intellect capable of wrestling complex and subtle ideas to the mat in real-time is plainly evident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



High verbal IQ perhaps, but I'd put him up against Sarah in ability to grasp difficult concepts.  You just like the guy because you relate to his "high verbal IQ".  Everyone relates to people who hold similiar qualities to their own.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Palin has a sunny, spunky presentation, and she clearly has some ability. But she doesn't have the intellect Obama displays. Not even close.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet, Obama refuses to release transcripts in regard to his education...hmmmmm....  If he's so highly intelligent, what's the hold up on that?  Sorry, I just don't see it.

Sarah shows more experience in pertinent areas as supported by the link I provided.  Obama can talk a good talk, and like yourself, sometimes he puts together eloquant verbage that sounds great to the eager ear, but in essence he isn't saying jack squat.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,17:47

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 03 2008,17:36)
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,17:19)
Yes, unless there were mitigating circumstances. If her ex brother-in-law did indeed taser her nephew and did indeed make death threats against her father, then I'd give her a pass on that one. In that case, I'd do the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't you think that trying to shift the focus from her actions to his actions is just a tad obvious?

More to the point, don't you imagine that if the accusations against her brother-in-law are accurate, he would have been dismissed WITHOUT her abusing her office? Elected officials are public servants, and firing someone just because you disagree with their course of action is an abuse of that trust. It is not admirable in the least. In fact, I think that elected officials should take extra pains to distance themselves from personnel decisions when they are personally or emotionally involved with the situation. Obviously you disagree; you'd do the same thing yourself...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I tried to make it clear with many examples--Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Gore, Cheney--I see no reason why "experience, legislative acumen and achievements" are such a big deal. If I did, then I never would have supported Obama in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those are examples of folks who you think screwed up in leadership roles despite having that experience. You are ignoring the real point here, that experience and intelligence and the ability to surround yourself with capable smart people are necessary but not sufficient. Yes, people who should have been better leaders, based on those parameters, can still screw up. Nobody is supporting that strawman. Here's the real issue. What about situations where somebody comes into office without much experience,  moderate-to-low intelligence, or no real history of association with smart capable people? One recent example of such a case would be, as others have pointed out, the current occupant. How did that work out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God, I hope you go after him for that one, Heddle.  Gag.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,17:48

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,23:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever your thoughts on Obama's political philosophy, it is absolutely obvious that he has an extremely high verbal IQ and corresponding grasp of nuanced and difficult concepts. A very vigorous and articulate intellect capable of wrestling complex and subtle ideas to the mat in real-time is plainly evident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



High verbal IQ perhaps, but I'd put him up against Sarah in ability to grasp difficult concepts.  You just like the guy because you relate to his "high verbal IQ".  Everyone relates to people who hold similiar qualities to their own.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Palin has a sunny, spunky presentation, and she clearly has some ability. But she doesn't have the intellect Obama displays. Not even close.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet, Obama refuses to release transcripts in regard to his education...hmmmmm....  If he's so highly intelligent, what's the hold up on that?  Sorry, I just don't see it.

Sarah shows more experience in pertinent areas as supported by the link I provided.  Obama can talk a good talk, and like yourself, sometimes he puts together eloquant verbage that sounds great to the eager ear, but in essence he isn't saying jack squat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But FTK, you're missing the point that people can (and do) ignore all this identity politics crapola and focus on the issues.

Why don't you try doing that? Is it the same reason why, whenever anyone tries to discuss anything scientific with you, you run away?

Louis

P.S. I'm watching the VP debate on UK channel 4 atm. I think Palin comes across very nicely btw (apart from the occasional error, but so what, I wouldn't do that well on the podium). I don't get why you are hating on Biden, he seems reasonably personable thus far.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,17:50

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,23:47)
[SNIP]
God, I hope you go after him for that one, Heddle.  Gag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go after him for WHAT? Politely pointing out the fallacious nature of Heddle's position?

I have a fervent wish that just ONCE you'd engage in a discussion with good faith and without those chips on your shoulder.

Louis
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,17:55

I'm not "hating on Biden".  I said nice things about his performance at my blog.  I only got nasty about him at my blog once when a commenter refered to me as "masterbating over Sarah".   I let the bastard have it, and Biden got caught up in my anger at the same time.

Honestly, like I've said before, I'm not going to cry in my beer if Obama gets elected.  The way I see it, it doesn't really matter who gets elected....the Washington wheel spins on.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,17:55

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,18:15)
I'm frustrated because there are very intellectual elitist people behind the scenes, writing speeches and preparing PR who are deliberately manipulating the "folksiness" of Palin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, the obviousness of the manipulation by the repubs has been a little startling this year. The GOP convention was really something. Fred Thompson, notorious DC cocktail partier and gucci-wearing lobbyist, praising McCain for not being one of those cocktail partying establishment types? The truly stunning moment was Rudy Giuliani, with a sneering tone, ridiculing Obama for being "too cosmopolitan" Rudy Giuliani. Former Mayor of New York city. Sneering at someone for being too cosmopolitan. At that point I wondered, is this crowd really going to fall for that?

Yes. Yes they are.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,17:59

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,23:55)
[SNIP Excuses]

Honestly, like I've said before, I'm not going to cry in my beer if Obama gets elected.  The way I see it, it doesn't really matter who gets elected....the Washington wheel spins on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well we agree pretty much on THAT at least.

Louis

P.S. Don't vote, the government might get in.

P.P.S. Do I need to point out which bit is humour and which isn't?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,18:00

< More on comparing Palin to Obama >....

< ...and here's another link. >
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,18:01

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,23:55)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,18:15)
I'm frustrated because there are very intellectual elitist people behind the scenes, writing speeches and preparing PR who are deliberately manipulating the "folksiness" of Palin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, the obviousness of the manipulation by the repubs has been a little startling this year. The GOP convention was really something. Fred Thompson, notorious DC cocktail partier and gucci-wearing lobbyist, praising McCain for not being one of those cocktail partying establishment types? The truly stunning moment was Rudy Giuliani, with a sneering tone, ridiculing Obama for being "too cosmopolitan" Rudy Giuliani. Former Mayor of New York city. Sneering at someone for being too cosmopolitan. At that point I wondered, is this crowd really going to fall for that?

Yes. Yes they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

H.L. Mencken

Louis

ETA: That quote works equally well without the word "American" by the way.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,18:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't you try doing that? Is it the same reason why, whenever anyone tries to discuss anything scientific with you, you run away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis.  Dear, dear Louis.  I don't run away from anything.  In fact, the last post I wrote on the RK thread has been highly overlooked.  People took a few pot shots, but there are at least half a dozen pertinent issues or questions that were left unanswered or addressed.  We even lost Tom in the discussion.

I'll get back to it when the mood strikes me.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 03 2008,18:13

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,00:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't you try doing that? Is it the same reason why, whenever anyone tries to discuss anything scientific with you, you run away?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Louis.  Dear, dear Louis.  I don't run away from anything.

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't?

Then you do a spectacular impersonation of running away. I could count the substantive posts you've made on any science topic here on the fingers of one banana.

Your post hasn't been ignored, it's been dissected. Of course you could deal with those dissections, but you won't, we all know your behavioural pattern. Who do you think you're fooling?

Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 03 2008,18:14

Hey, who let FTK out of her cage?

Steve?  Hey, we need a moderator here.  Cleanup on aisle 5.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,18:16

The religious right has proven to be a cheap date. They used to hate McCain, and many of the RR leaders who earlier this year said they absolutely would not vote for him have come out in force after he chose a bible-thumper for what is essentially a cosmetic position with almost no authority or power.

(The actuarial tables say McCain has a 75% chance of making it 8 more years, and that's before you factor in that the world's absolute best health care is afforded to a president.)

I actually liked McCain in 2000, when he would tell the intolerant bible thumpers what he really thought of them, but he learned from the harsh 2000 experience that a candidate who will tell vicious lies and play to racism and such can beat an honest candidate. And so he's using those Rovian methods this time around.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,18:29

Reports suggest that McCain is shifting his advertising to 100% negative ads against Obama. We'll see if the fear-mongering and division tactics of Rove can pull it off. My guess is no.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 03 2008,18:33

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,19:29)
Reports suggest that McCain is shifting his advertising to 100% negative ads against Obama. We'll see if the fear-mongering and division tactics of Rove can pull it off. My guess is no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems that way here in Ohio.

McCain lies like a fundie.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,18:34

BTW have we ever had a President and Vice President who've both taught constitutional law? Not in my lifetime. After the 8 years of shamefully unconstitutional behavior, it'll be a refreshing change.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,18:36

Intrade certainly doesn't think McCain'll pull it out. He's trading at 29.9 at the moment.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,18:38

BTW last weekend George Will on This Week said the GOP was a "shrinking party". Anybody know what he was referring to? Have GOP registration numbers gone way down lately?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,19:07

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,18:42)
High verbal IQ perhaps, but I'd put him up against Sarah in ability to grasp difficult concepts.  You just like the guy because you relate to his "high verbal IQ".  Everyone relates to people who hold similiar qualities to their own.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Palin has a sunny, spunky presentation, and she clearly has some ability. But she doesn't have the intellect Obama displays. Not even close.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet, Obama refuses to release transcripts in regard to his education...hmmmmm....  If he's so highly intelligent, what's the hold up on that?  Sorry, I just don't see it.

Sarah shows more experience in pertinent areas as supported by the link I provided.  Obama can talk a good talk, and like yourself, sometimes he puts together eloquant verbage that sounds great to the eager ear, but in essence he isn't saying jack squat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Verbal IQ refers to more than facility with words. It also encompasses the ability to think abstractly, to detect and articulate analogies, and to grasp and even originate conceptual representations by means of complex grammatical and syntactical constructions. In real time. This is not a superficial skill independent of thinking. In many senses this is thinking. And one does not need documentation from school records to observe Obama's obvious talent in this regard.  

With that in mind, I don't see evidence that Sarah possesses ability comparable to Obama on that score. And without making any claims about myself, whether I like him for possessing those skills is another question.  

That said, there are other forms of intelligence, and other media of abstraction (mathematics being the most powerful, but less relevant to the tasks undertaken by a president).  

And that said, it doesn't necessarily follow that Obama will be a good president.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,19:37

I have to say I'm a little puzzled by the size of the moves on Intrade today. Obama's up 7 points today, at the moment he's a little over 72%. McCain's down 5, to 29. I don't know why there's this much movement today.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,19:53

Scratch that last comment. I see what happened. < McCain gave up on Michigan last night, and that means he's probably toast. >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,20:37

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,15:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,21:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)
Jumping Jeezus on a pogostick:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rich Lowry:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure you weren't the only one, but I should hope the others would have the sense not to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Obama had picked a Sarah Palin, you guys would be salivating all over yourselves while singing her praises.

Although there is that elitist group of individuals here who would still poo poo her for being too "folksy".   :angry:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one's poopooing Palin for BEING folksy (more power to her on that front in fact), people are poopooing the transparent use of her apparent folksiness as an electioneering tool. A tool that explicitly distracts from the issues of substance and causes people to focus on issues of form.

Such behaviour is a tool of exploitation of the electorate NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. Do you want a list of example that the "liberal leftist wing dings" (or whatever convenient caricature you have in mind) use?

As usual FTK it's not a matter of which team Palin belongs to (at least for me, I don't have a dog in the hunt after all) it's a matter of the transparent tactics of exploitation.

Take for example the Labour party here in the UK (traditionally left wing, although recent years have seen them arguably drift to the centre right), a party that has engaged in EXACTLY this kind of tactic. The Conservative party here in the UK (traditionally right wing, although recent years have seen them arguably drift to the centre right also) does exactly the same thing also. It's part of the raft of tactics that effectively disenfranchise the electorate without having to do so 100% overtly.

I know you don't get this, despite it being repeated a lot, but it really, really, REALLY, REEEEEAAAAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYY is not about identity politics. I'm sure Sarah Palin is a lovely person, I'm chuffed to bits you have found a candidate that you resonate with so well. I simply don't care about any of it, nor do I care how nice a chap Obama or Biden is or isn't. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. What DOES matter is what stances these people espouse on the various issues of the day, why, how they've voted/acted etc.

I'm frustrated because there are very intellectual elitist people behind the scenes, writing speeches and preparing PR who are deliberately manipulating the "folksiness" of Palin (and the "blackness" of Obama no doubt, and the "war heroness" of McCain etc etc etc) deliberately so people like you and me will ignore the issues and be swayed by various prejudicial appeals. It works on everyone, we're all susceptible to it. The trick is to remember that you're susceptible and try not to be.

The chip on your shoulder about "elitists" here is ridiculous. I think if you read what people actually wrote once in a while, instead of projecting your own issues onto others, you'd find very few (if any) such people anywhere.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis, you're missing the point. Palin shoots out little starbursts every which way. That's why Republican men and FTK love her.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,20:39

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,15:19)
I tried to make it clear with many examples--Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Gore, Cheney--I see no reason why "experience, legislative acumen and achievements" are such a big deal. If I did, then I never would have supported Obama in the first place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if Palin can swing you to vote for McCain, evidently intelligence and being well-informed doesn't count for shit, either.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,20:41

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:42)
Yet, Obama refuses to release transcripts in regard to his education...hmmmmm....  If he's so highly intelligent, what's the hold up on that?  Sorry, I just don't see it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you can explain why the GOP was so hot to shut down the Troopergate investigation in Alaska?

If she's so highly moral, what's the hold up on that?  Sorry, I just don't see it.

PS: McCain hasn't released his medical records, either.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,20:42

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,15:55)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2008,18:15)
I'm frustrated because there are very intellectual elitist people behind the scenes, writing speeches and preparing PR who are deliberately manipulating the "folksiness" of Palin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, the obviousness of the manipulation by the repubs has been a little startling this year. The GOP convention was really something. Fred Thompson, notorious DC cocktail partier and gucci-wearing lobbyist, praising McCain for not being one of those cocktail partying establishment types? The truly stunning moment was Rudy Giuliani, with a sneering tone, ridiculing Obama for being "too cosmopolitan" Rudy Giuliani. Former Mayor of New York city. Sneering at someone for being too cosmopolitan. At that point I wondered, is this crowd really going to fall for that?

Yes. Yes they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the convention, didn't Romney also blast "Northeast Elites" or some such?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,20:44

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,16:16)
(The actuarial tables say McCain has a 75% chance of making it 8 more years, and that's before you factor in that the world's absolute best health care is afforded to a president.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would bet money that McCain won't be in good enough shape to run again in 2012, or if he does, that he won't make it to 2016.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,21:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one does not need documentation from school records to observe Obama's obvious talent in this regard.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm....if I made a statement like that, I would get blasted to hell and back.  You've made this claim about Obama's "obvious" talent several times now without any specifics as to why this talent is "obvious".   There's also something funky going on in regard to why he won't release his transcripts.  

When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.  Regardless of how much "talent" he might have, she seems to have put her spunkiness to work for her and soared to the top rather quickly.

I'd be interested in specifics regarding why you find Obama so highly intellectual and talented.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2008,21:49

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,19:13)
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.  Regardless of how much "talent" he might have, she seems to have put her spunkiness to work for her and soared to the top rather quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And in other news, freedom is slavery and peace is war.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 03 2008,21:58

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,22:13)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one does not need documentation from school records to observe Obama's obvious talent in this regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm....if I made a statement like that, I would get blasted to hell and back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Why? One needn't peruse his childhood growth records to observe that he is tall and slender. That may be directly observed. The qualities to which I refer above (e.g. the syntactic and conceptual complexity evident as he speaks) are not quite as unidimensional as height, and do entail somewhat more subjective judgment in their assessment - but they may, nevertheless, be directly observed. But, to bastardize Nietzsche's comment vis great books, "people are like mirrors: if an ape looks in, no angel will look out."
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him. Regardless of how much "talent" he might have, she seems to have put her spunkiness to work for her and soared to the top rather quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not making any particular points regarding Obama's achievements, or Palin's relative achievements. Indeed, I remarked immediately following the Republican convention that "...objectively, she must be a smart and capable woman. You don't get where she has without some of that." Her miserably poor performance in television interviews dimmed that estimation to a considerable degree, however.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2008,22:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2008,21:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,16:16)
(The actuarial tables say McCain has a 75% chance of making it 8 more years, and that's before you factor in that the world's absolute best health care is afforded to a president.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would bet money that McCain won't be in good enough shape to run again in 2012, or if he does, that he won't make it to 2016.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arden has a lot more time to comment here since losing his job at AIG.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 03 2008,22:28

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,17:47)
God, I hope you go after him for that one, Heddle.  Gag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gag?  What part of that was offensive? The part about two wrongs (Palin's alleged abuse of her office and her former brother-in-law's alleged abuses) not making a right? What part of your superior moral code allows that, FtK?

Or the part about Heddle setting up a strawman? Since you are also prone to that sort of behavior, it is not surprising that you are upset when somebody points it out, I suppose. But it is still a shady argumentative tactic, don't you think?

Or was it the comparison of Palin to the current occupant?

Please be specific.

Thanks.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,23:13

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 03 2008,21:58)
       
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,22:13)
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one does not need documentation from school records to observe Obama's obvious talent in this regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm....if I made a statement like that, I would get blasted to hell and back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
Why? One needn't peruse his childhood growth records to observe that he is tall and slender. That may be directly observed. The qualities to which I refer above (e.g. the syntactic and conceptual complexity evident as he speaks) are not quite as unidimensional as height, and do entail somewhat more subjective judgment in their assessment - but they may, nevertheless, be directly observed. But, to bastardize Nietzsche's comment vis great books, "people are like mirrors: if an ape looks in, no angel will look out."
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him. Regardless of how much "talent" he might have, she seems to have put her spunkiness to work for her and soared to the top rather quickly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not making any particular points regarding Obama's achievements, or Palin's relative achievements. Indeed, I remarked immediately following the Republican convention that "...objectively, she must be a smart and capable woman. You don't get where she has without some of that." Her miserably poor performance in television interviews dimmed that estimation to a considerable degree, however.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooooh Weeee....way to skirt the question there, Billy boy.  Let's try again.  I'll highlight a few words to help you out.


       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 You wrote:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one does not need documentation from school records to observe Obama's obvious talent in this regard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Hmmm....if I made a statement like that, I would get blasted to hell and back.  You've made this claim about Obama's "obvious" talent several times now without any specifics as to why this talent is "obvious".   There's also something funky going on in regard to why he won't release his transcripts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If I claimed someone had "obvious talent" without backing up my claim, you folks would flip out...  

[whining]

"Why won't you tell us *why* it's obvious that he has talent in this regard?  What have you observed or read that makes you feel that way?  We want specifics, damn it."

[/whining]

You wrote:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The qualities to which I refer above (e.g. the syntactic and conceptual complexity evident as he speaks) are not quite as unidimensional as height, and do entail somewhat more subjective judgment in their assessment - but they may, nevertheless, be directly observed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's not an answer. That's a "well, because I just know... that's why" response (more bs).  Specifics please. If his experience doesn't match Palin's and his proof of intellect is a mystery, what is it that so impresses you.  

So, again, I ask...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd be interested in specifics regarding why you find Obama so highly intellectual and talented.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You wrote:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Her miserably poor performance in television interviews dimmed that estimation to a considerable degree, however.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Something is amiss here, and I have to blame it on the left wingers.  The Couric Palin and the Palin we've seen live are not even the same person.  She exudes confidence, intelligence and charm when she's *debating* live in front of 70,000,000 people, yet she looks uncomfortable in front of Katie Couric.  It doesn't add up.  I've seen her in interviews and debates before she was chosen for the vp running mate, and she never came across like she did in the Couric interview.  Everyone knows Katie is a left winger.  I don't know how those interviews were conducted or how they were edited, but something is just *wrong* there.

It should be obvious that a debate with a guy like Biden, when under such pressure to do well, would be much, much more difficult to pull off than a little interview with Couric.  Something is amiss.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 03 2008,23:34

Here's another question...

What exactly is the *change* that Obama is offering?  What specifically is he going to do that is so much more advantageous for the America people?  He's not Bush... granted, but what exactly does his notion of *change* amount to?
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 04 2008,01:52

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,20:13)
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey FTK help me out here...by what measure?

I'll list Obama's achievements just as a US Senator at the national level and you list Palin's achievements in any capacity anywhere and let's compare. If Palin's record comes anywhere close to Obama's, I'll promise to buy you dinner. (I don't welch like the good DrDr and I'm not Welsh like some others around here.) If her record doesn't compare favorably, you only have to admit you have been fawningly credulous about her supposed achievements and that Palin doesn't shine at all and is, in fact, rather obviously dim. (By comparison of course.)

Then we'll move on to their life and world experience.

I'll start...Here's a summary of the Congressional Record at the < Library of Congress > as given at < TheZoo >:

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.

Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.

Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.

Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:

Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
Foreign Policy (10 bills)
Voting and Elections (9 bills)
Education (7 bills)
Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
The Environment (5 bills)
Homeland Security (4 bills)
Discrimination (4 bills)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can find a detailed listing of the bill numbers at either link and check up on them.

What of our darling Sarah?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2008,02:01

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,02:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,20:13)
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey FTK help me out here...by what measure?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she does have some qualifications. She left Wasilla with $20 million in debt. Being able to rack up huge debt is critical for being a movement conservative:



Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 04 2008,02:20

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2008,01:01)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,02:52)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,20:13)
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey FTK help me out here...by what measure?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she does have some qualifications. She left Wasilla with $20 million in debt. Being able to rack up huge debt is critical for being a movement conservative:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, okay...I'll give you that.

But doesn't every resident get $1000 back from the government to help offset this? It should only take one third of the town's population to give that up and make it right again.

And Wasilla got a damn fine hockey rink for the kids and their hockey-moms!

Who knows, in the long run maybe Palin's efforts could produce the next Roenik, Modano, Drury or Chelios.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 04 2008,02:45

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,01:20)
Who knows, in the long run maybe Palin's efforts could produce the next Roenik, Modano, Drury or Chelios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...either that or Armageddon...




Can I haz edit?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,08:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll list Obama's achievements just as a US Senator at the national level and you list Palin's achievements in any capacity anywhere and let's compare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um...I already listed 3 comparison lists, and they pretty much lay it out, dude.  

Yes, we already know Obama's good at voting yea, nay, or < "present" >, and of course he had a hand in developing some of those bills...but, to what extent?  Who knows.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That says nothing.   If he's so impressive, he sure didn't show those skills when trying to < better the Chicago educational system >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 04 2008,08:22

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,23:13)
Something is amiss here, and I have to blame it on the left wingers.  The Couric Palin and the Palin we've seen live are not even the same person.  She exudes confidence, intelligence and charm when she's *debating* live in front of 70,000,000 people, yet she looks uncomfortable in front of Katie Couric.  It doesn't add up.  I've seen her in interviews and debates before she was chosen for the vp running mate, and she never came across like she did in the Couric interview.  Everyone knows Katie is a left winger.  I don't know how those interviews were conducted or how they were edited, but something is just *wrong* there.

It should be obvious that a debate with a guy like Biden, when under such pressure to do well, would be much, much more difficult to pull off than a little interview with Couric.  Something is amiss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

The difference between that interview and the debate can be summed up in a few words.

Follow-up questions.  They were not allowed in the debate, but Couric was able to ask them. Those were the times that Palin was revealed to be out of her depth.

When/if she gives another interview with an interviewer interested in getting an answer and not a stump speech, we will see the "Couric Palin" again. When do you think she will be appearing on "Meet the Press"? I'm not gonna hold my breath.

Don't you find it embarrassing to have to hide behind the sad excuse of the liberal media?  If your candidate is such a great and brilliant person, why can't she triumph over those weak-minded liberals? Blaming others for her shortcomings is a pretty pathetic excuse...
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,08:32

I guess I missed Biden's interview with Couric, so it's difficult to compare how he would have done answering the same questions.  Biden avoids questions, falls back on his talking poinst, and outright lies about McCain's positions all the time.  He's a plagerist, but you never hear much about that.  If Sarah had done something like that, she'd be crucified.

Sarah did come back with follow up responses in regard to Biden's statements several times during the debate.

I have yet to hear what the big, miraculous *change* is going to be from either Biden or Obama.  The only change we'll see is that Obama's sitting in the oval office rather than Bush.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 04 2008,08:45

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,08:32)
I guess I missed Biden's interview with Couric, so it's difficult to compare how he would have done answering the same questions.  Biden avoids questions, falls back on his talking poinst, and outright lies about McCain's positions all the time.  He's a plagerist, but you never hear much about that.  If Sarah had done something like that, she'd be crucified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess you did. < Here it is. >. And here is his interview on < Meet the Press >. Of course, we all know that actual facts will not change your opinions, so you won't bother to read them, just like you didn't bother to pay attention to them when they were happening.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sarah did come back with follow up responses in regard to Biden's statements several times during the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sorry to see that you don't understand the difference between follow-up questions and responses. But I'm not surprised.

FYI, Kathleen Parker, no member of the liberal media, says this in < her latest column >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before we relax into giddiness or cynicism, however, it's important to consider that a debate differs from an interview in significant ways. A debate is a point-counterpoint exercise that allows little opportunity for probing or follow-up. An interview requires that a candidate explain an idea in depth and offer specifics.

The Katie Couric interview that was such a disaster for Palin -- and that prompted me to conclude that she was out of her league and should leave the ticket -- was awful precisely because Palin couldn't explain anything. For whatever reason, she couldn't even speak coherently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,08:48

Bill has PM'd me with further reasons why he believes Obama's intellect exceeds Palin's.  Because of a few things he revealed, he won't be posting it publicly.  Just wanted you folks to know he's not avoiding my questions.

Still not sure I'm terribly impressed by his response though.....I'll have to mull it over for a while.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,08:58

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 04 2008,08:45)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,08:32)
I guess I missed Biden's interview with Couric, so it's difficult to compare how he would have done answering the same questions.  Biden avoids questions, falls back on his talking poinst, and outright lies about McCain's positions all the time.  He's a plagerist, but you never hear much about that.  If Sarah had done something like that, she'd be crucified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess you did. < Here it is. >. And here is his interview on < Meet the Press >. Of course, we all know that actual facts will not change your opinions, so you won't bother to read them, just like you didn't bother to pay attention to them when they were happening.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sarah did come back with follow up responses in regard to Biden's statements several times during the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sorry to see that you don't understand the difference between follow-up questions and responses. But I'm not surprised.

FYI, Kathleen Parker, no member of the liberal media, says this in < her latest column >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before we relax into giddiness or cynicism, however, it's important to consider that a debate differs from an interview in significant ways. A debate is a point-counterpoint exercise that allows little opportunity for probing or follow-up. An interview requires that a candidate explain an idea in depth and offer specifics.

The Katie Couric interview that was such a disaster for Palin -- and that prompted me to conclude that she was out of her league and should leave the ticket -- was awful precisely because Palin couldn't explain anything. For whatever reason, she couldn't even speak coherently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're right.  I'm not going to base my decision soley on the Couric interview.  I'm going to consider their records and what they've accomlished.  

I also truly believe that she can more than handle the demands of the VP position, and she doesn't carry the baggage that Biden does.  I want something *new* in Washington.  What we've had *isn't* working.  We need someone who isn't afraid to step on toes and fight for us...the middle class who are struggling.  She comes across as sincere and determined to do what's right regardless of the consequences, and her record shows just that.

So, no, you won't be changing my mind, and if Obama/Biden win the election, that's fine by me.  But, I'd sure like to see what Palin could do for us.  I'm sick to death of all the crap and corruption going on in Washington at present, and she represents a change to that BS.  Obama/Biden have several ugly skeletons in their closets that nausiate me.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 04 2008,09:12

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,08:58)
So, no, you won't be changing my mind, and if Obama/Biden win the election, that's fine by me.  But, I'd sure like to see what Palin could do for us.  I'm sick to death of all the crap and corruption going on in Washington at present, and she represents a change to that BS.  Obama/Biden have several ugly skeletons in their closets that nausiate me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Consider their records?  If you had seriously done that already, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. You'd understand that her record indicates that she would give us more years of the failed policies of the neocons, leavened with even more naivete about the rest of the world than W had when he took office. There would be non "change from that BS", it would be higher and deeper BS.

I'm checking out of this for a couple of days; I'll be off the grid. So please don't infer assent from my silence.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,09:13

OMG, I just listened to the Couric/Biden interview you linked to.  YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FREAKING KIDDING ME.  You think *that* "interview" was comparable to the Couric/Palin interview?  Couric's all smiley and jovial....asking questions with absolutely no substance & NO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.  They had a simple conversation about the campaign trail.  

In the Palin interview, Couric looks like an interrogator.  Sheesh...she never smiled...she looked like she was going for the gotcha.  She questions her about real issues regarding her stances on foreign policy, energy, etc., etc.

You're an idiot if you think the two interview are in any way comparable.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 04 2008,09:13

What our next president will swear/affirm in January:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems like we'd want someone who actually knows and understands and respects our Constitution in office.  Like a recognized constitutional law scholar.  Or a former president of the Harvard Law Review.

But of course in wingnut land, actual expertise counts for nothing - it's all about charm and twinkling and perceived meanness.  Eight years ago, it was all about bjs instead of the candidate's admittedly poor academic, business, and substance abuse record.  Is it any surprise that under this kind of leadership we have rampant anti-intellectualism and the financial mess?

Why would we *want* someone just like ourselves for President?  Gimme someone more intelligent, more thoughtful, more experienced, more calm and level-headed.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,09:22

Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,09:13)
What our next president will swear/affirm in January:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems like we'd want someone who actually knows and understands and respects our Constitution in office.  Like a recognized constitutional law scholar.  Or a former president of the Harvard Law Review.

But of course in wingnut land, actual expertise counts for nothing - it's all about charm and twinkling and perceived meanness.  Eight years ago, it was all about bjs instead of the candidate's admittedly poor academic, business, and substance abuse record.  Is it any surprise that under this kind of leadership we have rampant anti-intellectualism and the financial mess?

Why would we *want* someone just like ourselves for President?  Gimme someone more intelligent, more thoughtful, more experienced, more calm and level-headed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?  I laid out a comparison of the two. Sarah has done a lot for Alaska, and she's honest.  That counts for a lot.   Obama's held hands with some unsavory characters, and honestly I don't trust that he won't do it again.  

His "intellectualism" is still under question as we know nothing about how he did academically.  His transcripts are kept under lock and key.

Again, it all boils down to the elitist mentality held by most of you folks.  Obama fits the elitist mold quite nicely...it's no wonder you folks love him.

I have to go help my husband get some work done this weekend.  

Later....
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 04 2008,09:31

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,09:48)
Bill has PM'd me with further reasons why he believes Obama's intellect exceeds Palin's.  Because of a few things he revealed, he won't be posting it publicly.  Just wanted you folks to know he's not avoiding my questions.

Still not sure I'm terribly impressed by his response though.....I'll have to mull it over for a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ultimately, as citizens we are asked to make our personal estimations of talent, ability, leadership, and qualifications of candidates relative to the offices to which they aspire. My estimation is that Obama has the force of intellect required for the presidency - a necessary but not sufficient qualification for the job. McCain also meets that necessary condition in my opinion (< formal testing > has established a McCain IQ of 133), BTW, as does Biden. Palin does not, in my opinion, as evidenced by her performance in recent interviews. However, her deficits may be in familiarity and expertise on the issues, and if that is the case might be remedied were she to become a student of national and international affairs for a few years. Either way, her performance in those more demanding interview settings disqualifies her for the presidency at present, at least for this voter.    

That's all I am asserting: my view. YMMV.

ETA: I've been poking around the intertubes vis this issue of "IQ and Obama" (for the first time) and see that the discussion is a quagmire of racism and unproductive incivility. I don't want to go there, so this is my final post on the topic.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 04 2008,10:36

Um, Ftk, besides knowing nothing about: biology, geology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, literary analysis, philosophy, constitutional law, logical argumentation, or dialogue, must we also add 7th Grade Social Studies to the list.  I'm starting to feel badly for you.

By "sponsoring or co-sponsoring" several hundred bills, Obama was responsible for the document that went to vote.  He didn't merely vote "yea" or "nay", he crafted the bill.  Certainly, he didn't write every word of every bill, but until someone proves otherwise I will assume that he had a very good grasp on the intricacies of each bill (as I would assume of every legislator who sponsors a bill).

So, your accusation of "we know he can vote" misses the mark by such a wide margin it's hard to put into words.

On unresolved business, would you care to actually back up ny of your statements of Palin "knowing her stuff"?

Please, list for us just one question from the debate in which she knew her stuff.  It shouldn't be that hard if she's as on top of things as you say.

DEFEND YOUR CANDIDATE FOR SHIT SAKE!  Most people would be bothered by not being able to come up with one sentence in their own words to defend a point they made.

You, OTOH, somehow find this level of stupidity a virtue.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 04 2008,10:48

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 04 2008,08:22)
Don't you find it embarrassing to have to hide behind the sad excuse of the liberal media?  If your candidate is such a great and brilliant person, why can't she triumph over those weak-minded liberals? Blaming others for her shortcomings is a pretty pathetic excuse...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She should. In fact, all Republicans should. But, I doubt they would ever admit to it.

I mean seriously.  The GOP wants the public to believe that they are the only party that can protect America from terrorists, dictators, and other assorted evil-doers.  But, they wither under fire from Katie Couric.  Katie Fuckin' Couric, fercrissakes!  If they can't out perky her, what will they ever do if Putin raises its head?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 04 2008,11:37

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,09:22)
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,09:13)
What our next president will swear/affirm in January:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems like we'd want someone who actually knows and understands and respects our Constitution in office.  Like a recognized constitutional law scholar.  Or a former president of the Harvard Law Review.

But of course in wingnut land, actual expertise counts for nothing - it's all about charm and twinkling and perceived meanness.  Eight years ago, it was all about bjs instead of the candidate's admittedly poor academic, business, and substance abuse record.  Is it any surprise that under this kind of leadership we have rampant anti-intellectualism and the financial mess?

Why would we *want* someone just like ourselves for President?  Gimme someone more intelligent, more thoughtful, more experienced, more calm and level-headed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello?  I laid out a comparison of the two. Sarah has done a lot for Alaska, and she's honest.  That counts for a lot.   Obama's held hands with some unsavory characters, and honestly I don't trust that he won't do it again.  

His "intellectualism" is still under question as we know nothing about how he did academically.  His transcripts are kept under lock and key.

Again, it all boils down to the elitist mentality held by most of you folks.  Obama fits the elitist mold quite nicely...it's no wonder you folks love him.

I have to go help my husband get some work done this weekend.  

Later....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet we don't see anybody calling for McCain or Palin to release their college transcripts. Wonder why that is? FTK, could you actually debate the issues rather than engaging in the time honored Republican practice of character assassination?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 04 2008,12:03

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,09:37)
And yet we don't see anybody calling for McCain or Palin to release their college transcripts. Wonder why that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don't know about McCain, but for Palin, be fair, that'd be like six different schools, and all just to find out how she did in her sports journalism degree at Idaho State. I doubt we'd find out much that isn't already abundantly obvious.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 04 2008,12:09

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2008,12:03)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,09:37)
And yet we don't see anybody calling for McCain or Palin to release their college transcripts. Wonder why that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don't know about McCain, but for Palin, be fair, that'd be like six different schools, and all just to find out how she did in her sports journalism degree at Idaho State. I doubt we'd find out much that isn't already abundantly obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


McCain finished 894th out of 899 in his class at Annapolis.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 04 2008,12:22

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 04 2008,10:09)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2008,12:03)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,09:37)
And yet we don't see anybody calling for McCain or Palin to release their college transcripts. Wonder why that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don't know about McCain, but for Palin, be fair, that'd be like six different schools, and all just to find out how she did in her sports journalism degree at Idaho State. I doubt we'd find out much that isn't already abundantly obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


McCain finished 894th out of 899 in his class at Annapolis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


USA! USA! USA!

Apparently McCain was actually so unimpressive in the Air Force that the only reason he was even allowed to fly bomber missions in Vietnam is because his father was an admiral. In other words, he spent all those years in that tiger cage in Hanoi because his father pulled strings for him.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2008,12:26

When somebody spends three years as a community organizer, helping the poorest and weakest get better food and shelter and education, and you come along and call him an 'elitist', you just make yourself look stupid. And how elitist can he be if he "held hands with some unsavory characters," how's that work? Maybe he only holds hands with the elite of the unsavory. "and honestly I don't trust that he won't do it again." what, he's going to put a malt liquor fridge in the oval office and invite some Crips over?

It's easy to understand why they're trying to character assassinate the guy. When they talk about issues, they lose. But elitist is pretty mild. The 100% negative ads from McCain just got underway. By mid-month, FtK'll be calling him a communist muslim revolutionary.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 04 2008,12:27

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2008,12:22)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 04 2008,10:09)

McCain finished 894th out of 899 in his class at Annapolis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


USA! USA! USA!

Apparently McCain was actually so unimpressive in the Air Force that the only reason he was even allowed to fly bomber missions in Vietnam is because his father was an admiral. In other words, he spent all those years in that tiger cage in Hanoi because his father pulled strings for him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Umm, Arden, Annapolis is the Naval Academy.

And I have to admit that it is a refreshing change to have someone's parents pull strings to get them into combat, rather than the opposite.  Although, in counterpoint, I have to state that we lost Vietnam and, undoubtedly due to Bush's National Guard service, neither Texas nor Alabama were invaded.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 04 2008,12:39

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,07:14)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll list Obama's achievements just as a US Senator at the national level and you list Palin's achievements in any capacity anywhere and let's compare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um...I already listed 3 comparison lists, and they pretty much lay it out, dude.  

Yes, we already know Obama's good at voting yea, nay, or < "present" >, and of course he had a hand in developing some of those bills...but, to what extent?  Who knows.  

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That says nothing.   If he's so impressive, he sure didn't show those skills when trying to < better the Chicago educational system >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes...I followed your links earlier, dudette. Perhaps you could point out where any of them show actual achievements, not just titles, general duties, resigning in protest and snagging a snowmobile champion as a husband. Summarize her accomplishments of substance for the greater good and then we can compare. If you already have the links, it shouldn't be too hard to make a quick list. Here's < another one > to help you out.

I'll admit having 5 kids and keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" is quite an achievement. However, it's not that unique as demonstrated by the Louis/Arden/carlsonjok wife-envy competition. I could be wrong..."smoking hot" might be a relative measure in their case.

I am impressed with her private sector experience. Not just anyone can be a sportscaster!!one!11! Or a salmon fisherman!! WOW!!!!

Your link to a deranged anti-ACLU site likewise says nothing.

Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and being President of the Harvard Law Review does say something. (Cue whine about educational records.)

Not that Obama is some man of great stature, but if you had any honesty at all, when you look at what each has accomplished in making a positive impact in people's lives, Palin pales in comparison.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 04 2008,12:46

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2008,12:26)
When somebody spends three years as a community organizer, helping the poorest and weakest get better food and shelter and education, and you come along and call him an 'elitist', you just make yourself look stupid. And how elitist can he be if he "held hands with some unsavory characters," how's that work? Maybe he only holds hands with the elite of the unsavory. "and honestly I don't trust that he won't do it again." what, he's going to put a malt liquor fridge in the oval office and invite some Crips over?

It's easy to understand why they're trying to character assassinate the guy. When they talk about issues, they lose. But elitist is pretty mild. The 100% negative ads from McCain just got underway. By mid-month, FtK'll be calling him a communist muslim revolutionary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing. Once upon a time Republicans used to be tough, macho kind of folk, now they are afraid of effete liberals like Katie Couric - who never met a puff piece she didn't like. Sad, I tells ya, sad.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 04 2008,12:51

Did I say "wife-"?

I meant "mother-".
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Oct. 04 2008,13:28

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,19:29)
Reports suggest that McCain is shifting his advertising to 100% negative ads against Obama. We'll see if the fear-mongering and division tactics of Rove can pull it off. My guess is no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I say no as well, but I fear that they will come close enough that the loss will not repudiate the tactics.  Only a blow out, of say a 60% win by popular vote, by Obama and a clean sweep of the electoral college (ok a 75% take of the EC, I can still dream) will show the American public can see past negative identity politics.
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 04 2008,13:56

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Oct. 04 2008,13:28)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,19:29)
Reports suggest that McCain is shifting his advertising to 100% negative ads against Obama. We'll see if the fear-mongering and division tactics of Rove can pull it off. My guess is no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I say no as well, but I fear that they will come close enough that the loss will not repudiate the tactics.  Only a blow out, of say a 60% win by popular vote, by Obama and a clean sweep of the electoral college (ok a 75% take of the EC, I can still dream) will show the American public can see past negative identity politics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worst is though, is that the Obama seems to 'take the bait' and going the negative route as well (although not 100%). If Obama really is going to take the bait, I think he's in for a rough time since I don't think that those fragile (fragile as in, easy to loose) voters, like Independents, will like that. I don't think he'll win that easily IF he's going to win. I doubt the public is over the identity politics.

Edited for obvious, easy-to-eliminate-by-proofreading mistakes.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 04 2008,14:50

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,12:46)
Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas evidence republicans ID/creationists can't compete, so they have to create special rules change the definition of science and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media scientists and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing getting their stuff taught as science to public school kids.

Is this what literature professors call parallel structure?  Or just SSDD?
Posted by: simmi on Oct. 04 2008,16:11

Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,15:50)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,12:46)
Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas evidence republicans ID/creationists can't compete, so they have to create special rules change the definition of science and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media scientists and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing getting their stuff taught as science to public school kids.

Is this what literature professors call parallel structure?  Or just SSDD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, one is a subset of the other:


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 04 2008,16:19

Quote (csadams @ Oct. 04 2008,14:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,12:46)
Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas republicans can't compete, so they have to create special rules and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and that's another thing. In the free and open marketplace of ideas evidence republicans ID/creationists can't compete, so they have to create special rules change the definition of science and come up with silly nonsense like how the big bad elitist media scientists and elitist east coasters are preventing them from getting a hearing getting their stuff taught as science to public school kids.

Is this what literature professors call parallel structure?  Or just SSDD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IMHO, there is some cross fertilization going on, but it is running from ID to politics...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 04 2008,17:25

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,13:39)
...keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's nothing "librarian" or "smoking" about ignorance or illiteracy.
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 04 2008,17:30

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 04 2008,17:25)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,13:39)
...keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's nothing "librarian" or "smoking" about ignorance or illiteracy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't ignore the fact that she's kinda milf-y though ;)
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 04 2008,18:39

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,06:32)
Biden avoids questions, falls back on his talking poinst, and outright lies about McCain's positions all the time.  He's a plagerist, but you never hear much about that.  If Sarah had done something like that, she'd be crucified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Err what ? They both ignored questions and spouted talking points instead, and both distorted their opponents positions. My feeling is that Biden did it a little bit less (not surprising since he is undeniably more familiar with the issues), but I found it pretty disgusting on both sides.

Not sure where you get the plagerist part from.

See Afarenis post here for an example < http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/10/02/vp_debate/ >
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 04 2008,19:11

< Plagiarism >

< Biden's debate screw ups >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2008,19:26

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,19:11)
< Plagiarism >

< Biden's debate screw ups >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTK posts a link to "Biden's debate screw ups" which takes you to johnmccain.com.

It's no wonder you think posting links to AIG counts as "evidence".
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 04 2008,19:55

[FTK]

The sky's not blue.  Go here if you doubt me; the following is a site not run by atheists:

www.theskyisgreen.looneybin.com

[/FTK]
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2008,20:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Biden avoids questions, falls back on his talking poinst, and outright lies about McCain's positions all the time.  He's a plagerist, but you never hear much about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's spelled plagiarism, it happened 43 years ago, he apologized, and we've heard about it 72 billion times. Meanwhile, your girl is trying to get lawyers and politicians to disrupt her *ongoing* ethics investigation. You really need to find something better to do with your time FtK. Embarrassing yourself on the internet is not a great hobby.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2008,20:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but you never hear much about that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, just on his wikipedia page, in the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Slate, Huffington Post, Fox News, Newsbusters, the Weekly Standard, Media Matters, Yahoo, Salon,  370,000 hits on Google....

I'm convinced someone's 'playing' FtK. Nobody could get everything ass backwards all the time, day in, day out, year after year. We're being had.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 04 2008,20:06

In fairness, the plagiarism link is to a third party source, The Washington Post.  The events sort of tickle my memory and shame on Biden.  However, that issue has little relevance to the discussion going on: Palin's apparent inability to reason.

The practice of plagiarism speaks to an ethical lapse.  It is not to be admired, but it does not (by itself) speak to one's ability to reason and think deeply.

Ftk is still avoiding a direct comparison between Palin and Biden except that of a "I'd drink a beer with him/her" type.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 04 2008,20:42

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,19:11)
< Plagiarism >

< Biden's debate screw ups >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Your forgot lying about divesting in Somalia >

Oh, no, wait, that is the lesser Maverick that fibbed. :O
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 04 2008,20:55

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 04 2008,20:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,19:11)
< Plagiarism >

< Biden's debate screw ups >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Your forgot lying about divesting in Somalia >

Oh, no, wait, that is the lesser Maverick that fibbed. :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, like Ftk, Palin doesn't think people can read.

Edited to see if I can today and to add that I think it's strange that creationists etc. don't think people remember what was said a minute ago.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 04 2008,21:25

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,17:11)
< Plagiarism >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wasn't aware of the Biden plagiarism incidents, so as much as it pains me, thanks for that FTK. Certainly doesn't improve my opinion of Biden.

However... you've conveniently ignored my main objection: Palin clearly spent at least as much time ignoring the questions and spouting standard talking points as Biden.
Posted by: JAM on Oct. 04 2008,23:39

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,17:19)
Yes, unless there were mitigating circumstances. If her ex brother-in-law did indeed taser her nephew and did indeed make death threats against her father, then I'd give her a pass on that one. In that case, I'd do the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting evasion of the ethical point.

I don't see what her brother-in-law is accused of doing has to do with it.

Do you always have such contempt for due process, Dave?

It seems to me that even if he was a child molester, a governor has no business pushing others to fire a state trooper.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2008,23:46

If that's all there was to it, I expect her lawyers wouldn't be arguing that releasing the report would cause "Irreparable harm" to her and other alaskans.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,00:32

I have to say I'm kind of interested in how negative McCain's 100% negative strategy is going to get. I've heard the normal negative stuff. "Obama loves terrorists" "Obama was born in Indonesia" "Obama is a Black Power Radical" etc. I want some new kooky stuff like I see on the fringiest blogs, like "Obama dealt drugs from Pakistan". Part of me kinda wants the McCain campaign to go hog-wild, just for the entertainment value. Go crazy, you know? Call him a pedophile. Accuse him of hot-wiring a Buick in the parking lot after the first debate.


Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 05 2008,00:42

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 04 2008,16:25)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,13:39)
...keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's nothing "librarian" or "smoking" about ignorance or illiteracy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.

Just want to clarify that is not my opinion. I don't find unplumbed depth-of-dumb wrapped in a pretty skin very attractive.

That line is directly from a side-by-side comparison of Palin and Obama at one of FTK's links. I'm guessing it's one of the ways FTK believes Palin outshines Obama in experience and achievement.

I hope there is a God...then maybe he will help us.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,00:57

I don't think she's necessarily dumb, I think she's completely out of her element. If you threw me in scrubs and gave me a scalpel and told me to bisect the vena cava and perform a Smith retraction on the Floogy valve, I'd stumble as badly as Palin trying to answer questions about the constitution. Usually when politicians seek national office they've spent years preparing themselves on questions of national policy. Talking to think-tankers, reading books about The Great Society, etc. It takes time to become familiar with the hundreds of topics pertinent to those positions, and then you have to practice how to sound knowledgeable without sounding too knowledgeable, < else some moron comes along and calls you an elitist with too much Book Larnin. > So it takes a lot of preparation and practice to perform effectively at the national level, and Palin just doesn't have that.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Oct. 05 2008,01:18

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2008,23:57)
I don't think she's necessarily dumb, I think she's completely out of her element.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah...I was a bit uncharitable by using the "d" word. I'll take it back.

Even so, Palin displays a dearth of general knowledge and real-time thinking skills I would expect any semi-intelligent person to possess independent of specific topics. After 44 years, I'm not convinced years of preparing, reading books, and talking to think-tankers will change that for her.

She's not just in over her head – she doesn't know how to swim and shouldn't be near the pool.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,01:49

There's only 30 days left. Not enough time. So McCain has really one shot at winning: racism. Not overt, but indirect.  What the psychologists call Aversive Racism. He's already shot whatever integrity and honesty he may once have had, so why not?

If I were suddenly put in charge of the campaign I'd*:

Get an agent provocateur to plant weed on his tour bus. Accuse Obama of getting high. Pay some derelicts to claim they used to shoot heroin with Barack back in '03. Find an Obama impersonator and put him on commercials saying he can't wait to personally go get some reparations out of the M***** F****** treasury. Show him shootin' craps against the wall of a liquor store, then trying to pick up some teenage white girls. Print up a million Black Power signs with Obama's face on them and plaster them all over buildings in rural places in Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina. Sneak into a big Obama rally and start throwing things at cops. 3 days before the election buy $10 million of commercials showing slender black guys pushing old ladies, wearing saggy pants, smoking weed, talking shit to cops, acting thuggish.

(Actually I would turn the position down. I have ethics. But the people who run successful presidential campaigns often don't, and it works. For further reading see: Year 2000, South Carolina GOP Primary, "McCain's black baby")
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,02:09

I don't think much about White Privilege--few white people do--but try to imagine the treatment Barack would get with Palin's credentials:

1) bad public speaking
2) 5 universities in 6 years
3) *ongoing* ethics investigation
4) unmarried pregnant 17 yro daughter
5) spouse who belonged to a separatist organization

I know cute white girls get special treatment that black men don't, but look at that list. That's one hell of a double standard.
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 05 2008,05:09

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:49)
There's only 30 days left. Not enough time. So McCain has really one shot at winning: racism. Not overt, but indirect.  What the psychologists call Aversive Racism. He's already shot whatever integrity and honesty he may once have had, so why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They apperantly have another trick up there sleeve, namely Obama's connection to William Ayers wich Palin now brought up. How rediculous, at the time of the bombings Obama was just out of the shitting-his-own-pants phase! Ayers is a university professor now, they met a few times because they, and I quote CNN, " both worked with a non-profit group trying to raise funds for a school improvement project and a charitable foundation." I already saw some true hardcore/crazy Republicans coming with this, I never imagined that the campaign would go this low. Although...we're talking about Palin here ;) I think McCain is starting to think twice about this choice, or at least he should.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 05 2008,05:22

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 04 2008,23:39)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,17:19)
Yes, unless there were mitigating circumstances. If her ex brother-in-law did indeed taser her nephew and did indeed make death threats against her father, then I'd give her a pass on that one. In that case, I'd do the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting evasion of the ethical point.

I don't see what her brother-in-law is accused of doing has to do with it.

Do you always have such contempt for due process, Dave?

It seems to me that even if he was a child molester, a governor has no business pushing others to fire a state trooper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are confusing the question--which was what I would think about it. Of course if she broke the law she will have to face the consequences. But if (and I don't know this for a fact) it turns out the brother-in-law is indeed a scumbag who tasered the nephew and made death threats, then I wouldn't hold it against her.

In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."
Posted by: simmi on Oct. 05 2008,06:50

dheddle:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a better analogy to the Palin situation would be if one of Obama's law students threatened his family and then Obama failed him/her (or tried to kick them out of law school).  How would you feel about that?

I think you're allowing someone to take political/professional retribution against someone who has personally wronged them (or at least giving them a pass).  In my opinion, it is the mixing of the personal with the political that should carry greater weight, especially when the person under examination is seeking political power.

I don't know how far you would go with this, but it sounds like you're willing to give a pass to "eye for an eye" morality.  What about "turn the other cheek"?  (Or at least "render unto Caesar"?)
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 05 2008,10:16

< Palin and the Experience Factor >
Posted by: PTET on Oct. 05 2008,11:54

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2008,10:16)
< Palin and the Experience Factor >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh for heaven's sake - < Sarah Palin has never heard of Hamas >.

I'd always considered "American Thinker" to be one of the stupidest and most hilariously named websites of all time. FTK's link confirms that nicely.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 05 2008,12:00

Quote (simmi @ Oct. 05 2008,06:50)
dheddle:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a better analogy to the Palin situation would be if one of Obama's law students threatened his family and then Obama failed him/her (or tried to kick them out of law school).  How would you feel about that?

I think you're allowing someone to take political/professional retribution against someone who has personally wronged them (or at least giving them a pass).  In my opinion, it is the mixing of the personal with the political that should carry greater weight, especially when the person under examination is seeking political power.

I don't know how far you would go with this, but it sounds like you're willing to give a pass to "eye for an eye" morality.  What about "turn the other cheek"?  (Or at least "render unto Caesar"?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, we are talking about me. I give her a pass under those circumstances. Whether or not God does is up to Him.

And if Obama got a student who threatened his family kicked out of school, I'd say "rock on."
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 05 2008,12:08

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2008,10:16)
< Palin and the Experience Factor >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  That's a brutal piece of reasoning.  Did you bother to think about the points raised in that piece and ponder their import, Ftk?  Of course you didn't; you haven't thought about anything in years.  You like to have other people do that for you, that way you can spend your time shooting ducks.

Let's see:

from your link, emphasis in original:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sarah Palin is the only one with any of the requisite executive experience required for office. She is the sole candidate who has ever run anything larger than a college debating society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He doesn't mention what any of the requirements might be here, nor does he get around to mentioning what they might be.  He tries to go point by point and refute objections to her experience--very reactionary.  If she was qualified, you would think it would be easy to say "look at the things she does well, instead of merely saying she doesn't do these other things poorly.

Maybe you can tell us, Ftk, what any of the "any" are?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A major peculiarity of this election is that three of the candidates are senators. Only two senators have been elected president in this century: Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy.  (Johnson, Bush, Sr., and Truman all served as VPs before entering the Oval Office.)  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Immaterial, we're going to get a Senator for a President no matter what.  He also destroys his own argument with the last part here.  The examples he gives were Senators who became VPs; isn't that what he's trying to argue against?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The value of having been a governor is obvious, the progression from there to the presidency apparent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, what is it?  If his point is--and it seems to be the only point he makes in the whole piece--that running something "bigger than your own office" makes you a great Presidential Candidate, I wonder why Perot didn't win....  Perot even had a general as a VP candidate, something that Mr. Dunn praised Eisenhower for being.  The Perot ticket should have been a slam dunk.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The governor of the smallest state or territory in the union easily trumps them on that score. Often, that's all that's necessary. After his Three Stooges first term, the only edge that Bill Clinton had on Robert Dole was his gubernatorial experience. That was enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All that's necessary?  So Mr. Dunn's sole requirement for running the United States of America is that you have presided over an organization?  He apparently didn't like Clinton, so he destroys his own argument yet again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The differences between running a town, a state, and a country are matters of degree, not of essence. The same skills and abilities are required in each case. An individual who has learned to run one is not likely to be overwhelmed on taking the next step up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really?  Run an army as the Mayor of Wassila?  Negotiate treaties with hostile armed forces as the Governor of Alaska?  Run an intelligence gathering service out of Juneau?  Not to mention that this completely ignores the issue of having knowledge about these new things.

That's like saying a high school football player can play in the NFL without being overwhelmed--it's merely a matter of degree.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The governor of such a state will have met and overcome challenges quite unfamiliar to continental U.S. governors, Washington senators, and East Coast pundits. This certainly has to be taken into consideration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sorry.  I'm not sure how having to take a plane to another town necessarily makes you qualified to do anything in particular.  By those standards, I'd make a great President as I've spent months on my own flying around the bush of Alaska (something that I doubt Palin herself has done--maybe I should be on the ticket).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The last point involves the question of success. Wasilla, the town of which Palin served as mayor, increased its population by 2,000 -- nearly a full third -- under her stewardship. Not bad for a hockey mom.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now he's just making stuff up.  Not the population increase, but that this is an accomplishment.  I suppose it might qualify if we want the population of the US to be 400 million in 4 years.  That might not be the best idea....

And on Palin's foreign policy experience?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...except for the easily demonstrated fact that Governor Palin, on August 27th of this year, completed a pipeline agreement with Canada, which is a foreign country. The agreement had been stymied for over two decades by various interests in Alaskan state government. Palin got it wrapped up in that busy eighteen months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've worked in Canada as a US citizen, I had to negotiate a guest artist contract to work in a foreign country.  Yikes.  Seriously?

For some place called the American Thinker, there isn't a lot of thinking going on.

Now, ftk, please paste another link.  Or, ideally, you could discuss my objections in your own words, providing links to support your points....  No?  You don't have any points?  Too bad.  Maybe you ask your kids; they probably have some opinions.
Posted by: clamboy on Oct. 05 2008,12:55

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:49)
"McCain's black baby"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obama's fathered two black babies!!!
Posted by: simmi on Oct. 05 2008,13:38

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 05 2008,13:00)
Quote (simmi @ Oct. 05 2008,06:50)
dheddle:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a better analogy to the Palin situation would be if one of Obama's law students threatened his family and then Obama failed him/her (or tried to kick them out of law school).  How would you feel about that?

I think you're allowing someone to take political/professional retribution against someone who has personally wronged them (or at least giving them a pass).  In my opinion, it is the mixing of the personal with the political that should carry greater weight, especially when the person under examination is seeking political power.

I don't know how far you would go with this, but it sounds like you're willing to give a pass to "eye for an eye" morality.  What about "turn the other cheek"?  (Or at least "render unto Caesar"?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, we are talking about me. I give her a pass under those circumstances. Whether or not God does is up to Him.

And if Obama got a student who threatened his family kicked out of school, I'd say "rock on."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough.  My take on this, however, is that you would condone using a position of power to prosecute personal vendettas.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 05 2008,13:57

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:49)
(Actually I would turn the position down. I have ethics. But the people who run successful presidential campaigns often don't, and it works. For further reading see: Year 2000, South Carolina GOP Primary, "McCain's black baby")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of that smear against McCain, one of the people responsible - Tucker Eskew - now works for < the McCain/Palin ticket. >

Which doesn't say much good about McCain or Palin.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 05 2008,14:05

I can see why FTK likes Palin - they're just alike.

The debate was filled with instances where she got asked a question and said "Well, I'd like to talk about something else...." or didn't even bother with that and just said something completely unrelated.

If it wasn't on the script that she seemed to be spending the entire debate looking down reading, she wouldn't say it.

And, of course, she's got a nasty lying streak.

It's getting to the point where its hard to find something Palin says that is actually true. If she said the sky was blue, I'd go out and check.

Didn't support "Bridge to Nowhere" - Oops, she did.
Didn't accept bridge money - Oops. Did.
Had a policy discussion with British Ambassador - Oops - he wasn't there.
Pulled investments out of Sudan - Oops - she opposed that effort.

Yeah, she's got some "executive experience" - and her administration is full of friends from high school rather than qualified people and she's now under ethics investigation and she's barely done anything yet. Real great leadership there.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 05 2008,14:34

And now she out stumping that Obama and Ayers were close personal friends and intimating that Obama is chummy with terrorists and has them over for tea.  Not that she says those exact words, but it's hard to believe it's meant in any other way.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 05 2008,14:59

Of course, he's not nothing left.

McCain loses on the war, on the economy, and every other issue he can speak about. The polls for the last week or two are shaping up for a major victory for Obama. He's getting desperate and all he can do is dig up old smears that didn't work the first time around.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 05 2008,15:13

And, of course, if Palin wants to say that the fact that you were once on the same charity board, but were not close to, someone who went to far in anti-war protests when you were about 6 years old, perhaps she should remember her husband, former member of the AIP - from its founder:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government...and I won't be buried under their damn flag...

I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then he was killed in a "plastic explosives sale gone bad".

I'll leave the reasons why a secessionist party was buying plastic explosives up to you.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 05 2008,15:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll leave the reasons why a secessionist party was buying plastic explosives up to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Deciding that showing the people a robust and vigorous economy was the surest path to victory, they were anticipating the mad popularity of Mythbusters in their quest for global monetary dominance?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 05 2008,16:56

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 05 2008,15:13)
I'll leave the reasons why a secessionist party was buying plastic explosives up to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dealing with herons that attacked their ducks' nest?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,17:27

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 05 2008,13:08)
from your link, emphasis in original:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sarah Palin is the only one with any of the requisite executive experience required for office. She is the sole candidate who has ever run anything larger than a college debating society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He doesn't mention what any of the requirements might be here, nor does he get around to mentioning what they might be.  He tries to go point by point and refute objections to her experience--very reactionary.  If she was qualified, you would think it would be easy to say "look at the things she does well, instead of merely saying she doesn't do these other things poorly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's also wrong. For the last 2 years Barack's run a nationwide organization with thousands of employees which has raised and spent nearly $400 million and achieved dominant market share over first Hillary and now McCain.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,17:50

Why can't Palin go two days without lying about something? The Sudan divistiture being the latest one.

Nerull: thanks for the info. It doesn't surprise me about Palin's husband belonging to a radical terrorist group. You see that a lot in the rural northwest, like Idaho and Montana.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2008,17:54

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:32)
I have to say I'm kind of interested in how negative McCain's 100% negative strategy is going to get. I've heard the normal negative stuff. "Obama loves terrorists" "Obama was born in Indonesia" "Obama is a Black Power Radical" etc. I want some new kooky stuff like I see on the fringiest blogs, like "Obama dealt drugs from Pakistan". Part of me kinda wants the McCain campaign to go hog-wild, just for the entertainment value. Go crazy, you know? Call him a pedophile. Accuse him of hot-wiring a Buick in the parking lot after the first debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


today, Matt Yglesias:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Brad DeLong calls our attention to the fact that Bobby May is part of the McCain-Palin Virginia Leadership Team, and Treasurer of the Buchanan County (VA) Republican Party. And also author of a pamphlet claiming that Barack Obama favors “Mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes,” would make Al Sharpton Secretary of State, would “hire rapper Ludacris” to paint the White House black,” wants to increase US development assistance so that unnamed African relatives of Obama’s can “skim off enough to allow them to free their goats,” would make Palestine an American state, and change the national anthem to “‘The Black National Anthem’ by James Weldon Johnson.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ >

SWEET. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 05 2008,18:38

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,17:50)
Why can't Palin go two days without lying about something? The Sudan divistiture being the latest one.

Nerull: thanks for the info. It doesn't surprise me about Palin's husband belonging to a radical terrorist group. You see that a lot in the rural northwest, like Idaho and Montana.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This just in < Palin is a progressive, says women who don't support her are going to hell! >

Albright ain't amused...
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 05 2008,18:50

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,09:13)
OMG, I just listened to the Couric/Biden interview you linked to.  YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FREAKING KIDDING ME.  You think *that* "interview" was comparable to the Couric/Palin interview?  Couric's all smiley and jovial....asking questions with absolutely no substance & NO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.  They had a simple conversation about the campaign trail.  

In the Palin interview, Couric looks like an interrogator.  Sheesh...she never smiled...she looked like she was going for the gotcha.  She questions her about real issues regarding her stances on foreign policy, energy, etc., etc.

You're an idiot if you think the two interview are in any way comparable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations!  Not only did you take the bait and show us once again how facts, even self-observed ones, fail to penetrate the armor of your opinions, but you ended up with a personal insult. All in all, a classic FtK performance.

Yes, as you correctly observed, Couric's interview with Biden was filled with softball questions. In case you hadn't figured it out before, that's her style. In fact, that is why the McCain campaign agreed to having her interview Palin; they figured she wouldn't ask many hard questions.

So let's analyze the variables in those two debates, and see if we can figure out why Palin came off as an idiot. Was the interviewer the same?  Yep. So we can eliminate that variable. Were the questions at the same degree of difficulty? Yep, another variable eliminated. Were the interviewees the same?  Nope! That might explain the difference. Did Biden answer the questions the first time? Yep; that could be another important variable. Could that explain why there were few, if any, follow-up questions for him? Could it explain why Softball Katie seemed more smiley? Yep, and yep again. Did Palin evade the questions, forcing Softball Katie to ask again and again? Yep. Did Biden speak in sentences that could be understood clearly?  Yep. Did Palin speak in sentences that can't even be diagrammed? Yep again.

So this analysis would seem to indicate that Palin failed to answer questions, and, when gently questioned with the same question again (and again), failed to clarify her initial failure, and failed, in most cases, even more spectacularly. That, and not the whiney excuse of "liberal media bias", could explain the difference that EVEN YOU observed between those debates. Unfortunately, that observation was not allowed to change your analysis of the debate vs. interview dynamic. So here it is, in plain English as well. Please ignore it, per usual.

Palin can't explain herself or her running mate's policies when asked about them in plain English. She evades the questions with glib sentences that she memorizes, but, when pressed for an actual answer, spouts gibberish. It might give you a lot of credibility with the Pentecostals when you speak in tongues, but most Americans expect a bit more from their leaders. Especially after eight years with the language-challenged current occupant, who has demonstrated quite clearly that a command of the language has some relationship to the generation of policies and strategies which pay off for most Americans.

Finally, did you watch that Biden interview on "Meet the Press"? If you did, can you imagine Palin facing that sort of questioning? If she really is going to be the VP under an increasingly senile and frail old man, don't you think she will have to face some tough questions sometime BEFORE she has to face tough adversaries in the global struggles that are surely forthcoming?

When do you predict that she will appear on "Meet the Press" or some other arena where she won't be able to wink and spew sound-bites as if they were answers to questions?
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 05 2008,19:05

It must be nice to live in a simple, ignorant world, where "What newspapers do you read?" is not a softball question.

I'd imagine its filled with fuzzy bunnies and teletubbuies.

Meanwhile, in the world we call "reality"....
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 05 2008,19:13

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 05 2008,19:05)
It must be nice to live in a simple, ignorant world, where "What newspapers do you read?" is not a softball question.

I'd imagine its filled with fuzzy bunnies and teletubbuies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that purple one though.  He's teh gay.  And an atheist on a daily basis.  And is friends with terrorists.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 05 2008,19:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the questions at the same degree of difficulty? Yep, another variable eliminated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...hardly.  I don't even know how you can say that without feeling like a dishonest shmuck.

Couric and Biden were shooting the shit on a bus while talking about the road trip and the campaign.  Big whoop...there were no questions of substance at all.

She hit Palin with specific questions about energy, the economy, foreign policy, etc., etc..

I admit, Palin could have done much better, but she's only 5 weeks into the game.  She's newer to the national campaigning scene than McCain/Obama/Biden.  They've had practice for over a year now.  That is a HUGE advantage they hold in these interviews, etc.  I'm tickled pink that she did as well as she did against Biden considering he's already taken a stab at the presidency twice.  He's used to piling on the bull if necessary....goodness knows he made as many errors (if not more) at providing the facts in the vp debate as she did.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 05 2008,20:11

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2008,19:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the questions at the same degree of difficulty? Yep, another variable eliminated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL...hardly.  I don't even know how you can say that without feeling like a dishonest shmuck.

Couric and Biden were shooting the shit on a bus while talking about the road trip and the campaign.  Big whoop...there were no questions of substance at all.

She hit Palin with specific questions about energy, the economy, foreign policy, etc., etc..

I admit, Palin could have done much better, but she's only 5 weeks into the game.  She's newer to the national campaigning scene than McCain/Obama/Biden.  They've had practice for over a year now.  That is a HUGE advantage they hold in these interviews, etc.  I'm tickled pink that she did as well as she did against Biden considering he's already taken a stab at the presidency twice.  He's used to piling on the bull if necessary....goodness knows he made as many errors (if not more) at providing the facts in the vp debate as she did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, another insult. It's good to be back...

The interview segment shown was very short, but there were some hard questions. For example, she asked him about the ads that were found to be less-than-truthful. He didn't evade them, contra Palin. And she pressed him to clarify that answer; he answered the question with complete and understandable sentences.

I noticed you avoid substantive questions about WHAT she said (which was gibberish) and focus instead on the excuse that she is "new to the scene". Doesn't that clash just a bit with your previous assertion that she is ready to be VP? More critically, if she actually had substantive answers to real questions, why can't she deliver those when she needs to?

I noticed that you also continually avoid the discussion of why Gov. Bush Lite hasn't showed up on shows like "Meet the Press". Why is that?

Oh, and before you yank out that "liberal media" whine, didja notice that Bush Lite herself is not above < quoting the liberal media when it suits her purposes >? If you can't trust the liberal media, why would you rely on a New York Times story?  

And didja notice that she is being < sued by a Republican (horrors!) to release emails > that discussed state business but were sent to and from (by her request) her private email account?  Her penchant for conducting government business in secret does make her seem a lot like Dick Cheney, although she probably is a better shot.

At any rate, when and if your new BFF VP candidate ever does appear in a forum with tough questions and tough questioners, I suspect you will be disappointed. But, per usual, that probably won't stop you from cheerleading for this latest creationist nincompoop. Fortunately, most sentient Americans have figured her out already.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 05 2008,20:31

Here's another one for ya, FtK.

< Couric asking Biden and Palin the SAME QUESTION >. Note that Biden answers it, and Palin does not. Note that Palin, per usual, gets some facts wrong.

Which one seems more presidential to you? Gosh darn it, I think I already know that answer!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 05 2008,20:33

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 05 2008,10:00)
Quote (simmi @ Oct. 05 2008,06:50)
dheddle:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a better analogy to the Palin situation would be if one of Obama's law students threatened his family and then Obama failed him/her (or tried to kick them out of law school).  How would you feel about that?

I think you're allowing someone to take political/professional retribution against someone who has personally wronged them (or at least giving them a pass).  In my opinion, it is the mixing of the personal with the political that should carry greater weight, especially when the person under examination is seeking political power.

I don't know how far you would go with this, but it sounds like you're willing to give a pass to "eye for an eye" morality.  What about "turn the other cheek"?  (Or at least "render unto Caesar"?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, we are talking about me. I give her a pass under those circumstances. Whether or not God does is up to Him.

And if Obama got a student who threatened his family kicked out of school, I'd say "rock on."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The corruption investigation of Palin stems from her firing the head of the Alaska State Troopers because he refused to fire her Ex-brother-in-law without an investigation.

Like Cheney, she has refused to obey the law and claimed "executive privledge." (Of course Darth Cheney next claimed he was not part of the executive branch).

I predict she will lose her job in Alaska in late November- just after she looses the VP election.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 06 2008,10:09

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 05 2008,20:33)
I predict she will lose her job in Alaska in late November- just after she looses the VP election.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DING!  DING!  DING!

We have a winner!
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 06 2008,10:40

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 05 2008,20:31)
Here's another one for ya, FtK.

< Couric asking Biden and Palin the SAME QUESTION >. Note that Biden answers it, and Palin does not. Note that Palin, per usual, gets some facts wrong.

Which one seems more presidential to you? Gosh darn it, I think I already know that answer!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad that Ftk will completely ignore this comment.  That's the best juxtaposition of the two candidates you could ever ask for.  Though in fairness, Harry Whittington probably thinks it's the worst thing that Cheney's ever done as well.
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY on Oct. 06 2008,10:45

God prefers Atheists anyway!

< Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles on Atheists >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,11:03

< via Andrew Sullivan: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"If you are going to end visits to the state by McCain/ Palin, do it. Just don't formally announce that you are 'pulling out' of Michigan, and then come back two days later asking the base core of support to 'keep working.'  What a slap in the face to all the thousands of people who have been energized by the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket. I've been involved in County Party politics and organization for 40 years, and this is the biggest dumbass stunt I have ever seen...

He has given up on our State? What a total and complete crock of crap. Again, I think McCain owes the Republicans and the People of Michigan a HUGE APOLOGY. SOON!" - Jack Waldvogel, Chairman of the Emmet County GOP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you sure it's the biggest? Bigger than 'suspending' his campaign? Bigger than picking Palin? Bigger than whatever big dumbass stunt he's going to pull next week? Earth to Jack: McCain is a reckless gambler.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,11:14

If McCain's going to try to guilt-by-association Obama, Obama's gonna put a hurtin' on him. < McCain's got way more criminal associates. >And as Ben Smith says, the Keating scandal wasn't guilt-by-association. It was guilt-by-guilt.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 06 2008,12:03

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 06 2008,11:14)
If McCain's going to try to guilt-by-association Obama, Obama's gonna put a hurtin' on him. < McCain's got way more criminal associates. >And as Ben Smith says, the Keating scandal wasn't guilt-by-association. It was guilt-by-guilt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No way, McCain will "win" the negative war hands down. On one side the friggin' boring Keating 5, a witch doctor, and trooper-gate. On the other, you have Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Kinnock and resume padding. If McCain wants to go totally negative, nothing will trump repeated playings of Wright's GD-ing America.

I am not advocating this, not by any stretch--and I have no idea if it will be effective or not. It's just an observation. If the campaigns go totally negative, if they havn't already, McCain has more fodder.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 06 2008,12:59

Which is why Hillary Clinton is the democratic nominee for POTUS.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,13:38

It's sad to watch Heddle audition for his spot at UD.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,13:51



< Linky >
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 06 2008,13:54

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 06 2008,13:38)
It's sad to watch Heddle audition for his spot at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That doesn't make any sense. I'm merely stating the facts. If you imagine a campaign gone hog-wild negative, the 800 pound gorilla will be Wright's GD-ing of America. That's not advocating that the campaign go in that direction--I hope they don't. I find the TV ads repulsive enough as they are. It's merely stating the obvious. Put differently, I suspect the Obama campaign is more leary of a highly negative campaign than McCain--and not just because they are winning. It doesn't take Fellini to figure out that a Wright ad is potentially more effective than Keating 5 ad with the undecided Reagan democrats.

What is sad is to see you, of all people, respond with a dumb, meaningless, irrational comment. You can go to hell.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 06 2008,14:00

Yeah, Steve, go to hell.  IMHO, *everything* you write is *stoopid*.  You're a one line wonder.


[I deeply apologize for supporting you here, Heddle.  I know you think I'm a pain in the ass like everyone else does, and I'm certainly the last one you want in your corner, but I can't help it.  Most of the crap Steve writes makes me want to puke...he's so full of it.]
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,14:02

< WOW. No wonder the McCain camp doesn't want to talk about the issues. > Course, by making it personal, they just invite charges of McCain's corruption, his censure by the senate, his wife's criminal behavior, her dad's criminal behavior and organized crime ties, his running mate's attempt to coverup the facts about the trooper, etc.

(Now Dave, play nice. I tried to make a joke out of it. What I actually think would be unsuitable for the board.)
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 06 2008,15:15

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 06 2008,13:54)
It doesn't take Fellini to figure out that a Wright ad is potentially more effective than Keating 5 ad with the undecided Reagan democrats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< These Reagan Democrats? >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 06 2008,16:04

The < beginning of the end > for McCain?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 06 2008,16:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 06 2008,14:04)
The < beginning of the end > for McCain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The beginning of the end was a while ago - perhaps, in hindsight, the Palin pick.  This is the middle of the end.

The end of the end is when McCain appoints DaveTard as senior campaign co-ordinator, and the "Obama eats cuddly puppy dogs" ads flood the airwaves in swing states.
Posted by: Assassinator on Oct. 06 2008,17:59

O hell I was just watching CNN, and those little parts of the VP came by showing Palin blinking while talking. I wonder if it's a twitch (I'm f*cked I'm f*cked I'm f*cked!!!) or some kind of....tactic (they will like me if I flirt!). Whatever it is, it's friggin' disturbing. And I though Hillary was scary.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,19:24

The Intraders right now are giving Obama 353 electoral votes to McCain's 185. Being overly cautious, I'm inclined to call it 311 to 227, putting North Carolina's and Florida's 42 votes in the GOP column. Why? Because I lived in 5 cities in those 2 states, over 30 years, and I've seen the racism of rural southern whites, and it's a potent force.

McCain's announcement Sunday that they'd pay for their upper-class tax cuts by cutting medicare & medicaid by 20% should be the last nail in his coffin, especially in Florida, but I suppose there's an outside chance that the fear-mongering scares enough people.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 06 2008,19:27

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 06 2008,19:24)
McCain's announcement Sunday that they'd pay for their upper-class tax cuts by cutting medicare & medicaid by 20% should be the last nail in his coffin, especially in Florida, but I suppose there's an outside chance that the fear-mongering scares enough people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't underestimate what McCain will do to keep the grayheads on board.

< Linky >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2008,19:32

Time's Jay Carney:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There may be froth in some of these poll numbers, but it appears neither Sarah Palin's debate performance nor the passage of the financial bailout bill has slowed, let alone reversed, the pro-Obama, anti-GOP trend that's been gathering momentum for two and half weeks. Which means McCain will feel enormous pressure tomorrow night to produce a game-changing moment, lest the trend become irreversible and Republicans start ruminating openly about how to rebuild from the ashes of an apocalyptic defeat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SWEET. I'm all about a pressurized McCain trying to produce a game changing moment on demand. Especially after the last couple of Hail Marys. He's like a football coach who only calls trick plays. You know he's going to lose, but you might see something fun and unexpected.
Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on Oct. 06 2008,19:44

The last three weeks for McCain / Palin has got this swing voter heading for Obama now.  The Palin Couric interview was simply a disaster.  She was incoherent at times - the SNL parody was almost too close to be funny.  Complaining that the interview was somehow "biased" simply ignores the low quality of her answers.  

But what has me angry now is the Roveian tactics.  The weekend "He associates with terrorists" comments are simply pitiful.

I liked McCain for his independence and I thought Palin was a high-upside choice.  But like a fine baseball prospect, she's got some holes in her swing.  It works in the minors, but the big league guys make you look bad.

McCain disappoints me.  But, I live in Texas so it's not like my vote counts.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 06 2008,20:32

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Oct. 06 2008,19:44)
McCain disappoints me.  But, I live in Texas so it's not like my vote counts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's Kansas where your vote never counts...

But according to < this map >, Texas might be in play!

Psst! Don't tell FtK. She thinks Palin is gonna make a great president, and Walt Brown will be the next presidential science advisor...
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 06 2008,20:37

I thought you've "changed your ways"....so I take your last comment, in your twisted world, would not be considered an insult.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 06 2008,20:44

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,20:37)
I thought you've "changed your ways"....so I take your last comment, in your twisted world, would not be considered an insult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What part of that comment is insulting?  Did I call you a name?  Did I cast aspersions on your teaching abilities?  Did I say anything but the truth (you are on record re Palin and her presidential potential), and extrapolation from that truth (you do seem to regard Walt as a guru on all things scientific)? Are you humor-challenged; do I need to use asterisks and footnotes like Louis so that everyone understands the joke????

Inquiring minds would definitely like to know what, exactly, about my comment comes across as "insult"? My world is not so "twisted" that I can't recognize "twisted" as an insult, but you'll have to explain your world to me...

Thanks
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 06 2008,20:46

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 06 2008,20:44)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,20:37)
I thought you've "changed your ways"....so I take your last comment, in your twisted world, would not be considered an insult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What part of that comment is insulting?  Did I call you a name?  Did I cast aspersions on your teaching abilities?  Did I say anything but the truth (you are on record re Palin and her presidential potential), and extrapolation from that truth (you do seem to regard Walt as a guru on all things scientific)? Are you humor-challenged; do I need to use asterisks and footnotes like Louis so that everyone understands the joke????

Inquiring minds would definitely like to know what, exactly, about my comment comes across as "insult"? My world is not so "twisted" that I can't recognize "twisted" as an insult, but you'll have to explain your world to me...

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I see, so the answer is that in your own twisted little world that wouldn't be considered an insult.

Thanks for the clarification.  Carry on jack ass*.

*humor.  srsly.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 06 2008,21:10

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,20:46)
Ah, I see, so the answer is that in your own twisted little world that wouldn't be considered an insult.

Thanks for the clarification.  Carry on jack ass*.

*humor.  srsly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

If you can't explain yourself when someone asks (politely), you really should get into another line of work. Blogging should be an exercise in allowing others to see what and how you are thinking.

I don't understand your perception that my comment was insulting. I'm asking you to explain it. Can you do that?
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 06 2008,21:33

Excellent.  Ftk, I take it that I can put you down for thinking that Palin is a terrible VP candidate?  Otherwise, I think you'll have to let Albatrossity's comment stand.

In case you're having trouble sounding out the two and three syllable words, his statement was:

Ftk thinks Palin will make a great President

Your recent comments, I assume, mean that this is in fact not true.  You'll be posting this on your blog right after you tell everyone you're pro-choice?

The Walt Brown crack is a little less straight forward.  AFAIK, you are not on record saying that Brown will or should be the Presidential Science Adviser.

However, it is my understanding from your comments that you think he is qualified.  Is that true?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 06 2008,21:41

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,20:46)
Ah, I see, so the answer is that in your own twisted little world that wouldn't be considered an insult.

Thanks for the clarification.  Carry on jack ass*.

*humor.  srsly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

If you can't explain yourself when someone asks (politely), you really should get into another line of work. Blogging should be an exercise in allowing others to see what and how you are thinking.

I don't understand your perception that my comment was insulting. I'm asking you to explain it. Can you do that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROTFL....you've gotta be fucking kidding me.  I can't imagine that you'd make a comment like that if I were a student in your class and you were familiar with my thoughts on politics and science.

Get real, dumb ass.*

*Again, just in jest...
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 06 2008,21:47

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,21:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:10)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,20:46)
Ah, I see, so the answer is that in your own twisted little world that wouldn't be considered an insult.

Thanks for the clarification.  Carry on jack ass*.

*humor.  srsly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

If you can't explain yourself when someone asks (politely), you really should get into another line of work. Blogging should be an exercise in allowing others to see what and how you are thinking.

I don't understand your perception that my comment was insulting. I'm asking you to explain it. Can you do that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROTFL....you've gotta be fucking kidding me.  I can't imagine that you'd make a comment like that if I were a student in your class and you were familiar with my thoughts on politics and science.

Get real, dumb ass.*

*Again, just in jest...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So....  No, you can't explain how it's insulting.  Nicely done.

ETA: Don't your kids read the #*(@ing inteernetz!
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 07 2008,03:05

It really doesn't matter any more: < Human evolution is over >.

Shame really. I was really keen on the grand-kids getting invisible wings.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2008,03:06

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 07 2008,02:44)
[SNIP]

Are you humor-challenged; do I need to use asterisks and footnotes like Louis so that everyone understands the joke????

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even that doesn't work.

The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 07 2008,06:31

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,21:41)
ROTFL....you've gotta be fucking kidding me.  I can't imagine that you'd make a comment like that if I were a student in your class and you were familiar with my thoughts on politics and science.

Get real, dumb ass.*

*Again, just in jest...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ftk

That's not an explanation of why you think it is insulting. It's a poor analogy.

You are not a student in my class. You are allegedly an adult discussing politics on an internet discussion board. So no, I wouldn't say that to a student in my class. Do you want me to treat you like a student in my class?  Do you want me to assign you a grade?

I would say it to an adult, with whom I have had a long history of discussion, in a peer-to-peer discussion forum.

So if you can put aside the assumption that I am always in a classroom, I'd appreciate it if you can explain, in civil terms, why you were insulted by that comment.

Srsly
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 07 2008,09:11

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 07 2008,06:31)

So if you can put aside the assumption that I am always in a classroom, I'd appreciate it if you can explain, in civil terms, why you were insulted by that comment.

Srsly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because she can't understand it?

edited to clean formatting again and in hopes of finding more coffee...
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 07 2008,11:07

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,01:06)
The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't that be "Dickensian satire"?*



* This is satire/humour.**


** I apologise if you found the footnote unnecessary.***


*** Or patronising.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 07 2008,11:11

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2008,11:07)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,01:06)
The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't that be "Dickensian satire"?*



* This is satire/humour.**


** I apologise if you found the footnote unnecessary.***


*** Or patronising.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


****Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,11:31

< http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive....060.php >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yesterday, John McCain delivered an unhinged anti-Obama diatribe in New Mexico, and when he posed a rhetorical question -- "Who is the real Barack Obama?" -- someone shouted, "A terrorist!" McCain paused momentarily, but did not comment on the remark.

Also yesterday, Sarah Palin repeated one of her unusually stupid attacks, rehashing the nonsense that Obama "pals around" with terrorists. One man in the audience, responding to Palin's smear, shouted, "Kill him!" Palin also did not comment on the remark.

At the same Florida event, Republicans shouted abuse at journalists, hurling obscenities. The Washington Post reported, "One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

And just to top things off, last night, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania announced its belief that Obama is "a terrorist's best friend."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Today's GOP--appealing to the better angels of our nature.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 07 2008,11:42

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2008,11:07)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,01:06)
The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't that be "Dickensian satire"?*



* This is satire/humour.**


** I apologise if you found the footnote unnecessary.***


*** Or patronising.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution means never having to say your sorry*


* Sorry for asterisks specifically.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,12:11

< http://money.cnn.com/quote....mb=DJIA >

Dow Jones Industrial Average January 22nd, 2001, the first Monday after GWB became president: 10,578

Dave Jones Industrial Average 10/07/2008, approximately 7.5 years later: 9812.

Percent decline: 7.2
Percent decline adjusted for inflation: 21.

edit: Jan 22, not Jan 1


Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 07 2008,12:12

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,10:11)
< http://money.cnn.com/quote....mb=DJIA >

Dow Jones Industrial Average January 22nd, 2001, the first Monday after GWB became president: 10,578

Dave Jones Industrial Average 10/07/2008, approximately 7.5 years later: 9812.

Percent decline: 7.2
Percent decline adjusted for inflation: 21.

edit: Jan 22, not Jan 1
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That should, of course, be Dave Dickens Industrial Average.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 07 2008,12:44

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 07 2008,17:11)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2008,11:07)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,01:06)
The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't that be "Dickensian satire"?*



* This is satire/humour.**


** I apologise if you found the footnote unnecessary.***


*** Or patronising.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


****Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


***** My sister was bitten by a møøse....

Louis

P.S. It was fine John.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 07 2008,13:09

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,12:31)
< http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive....060.php >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yesterday, John McCain delivered an unhinged anti-Obama diatribe in New Mexico, and when he posed a rhetorical question -- "Who is the real Barack Obama?" -- someone shouted, "A terrorist!" McCain paused momentarily, but did not comment on the remark.

Also yesterday, Sarah Palin repeated one of her unusually stupid attacks, rehashing the nonsense that Obama "pals around" with terrorists. One man in the audience, responding to Palin's smear, shouted, "Kill him!" Palin also did not comment on the remark.

At the same Florida event, Republicans shouted abuse at journalists, hurling obscenities. The Washington Post reported, "One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

And just to top things off, last night, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania announced its belief that Obama is "a terrorist's best friend."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Today's GOP--appealing to the better angels of our nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're creating a monster. Their only remaining option is to bring out the white hoods and burning crosses. The question is, will it get out of control? The mob never tends to give much heed to its authorities once set off.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Oct. 07 2008,13:30

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2008,11:07)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,01:06)
The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't that be "Dickensian satire"?*



* This is satire/humour.**


** I apologise if you found the footnote unnecessary.***


*** Or patronising.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This whole footnote fest reminds me of what a friend said when he heard David Foster Wallace had died:
"Oh, did he leave a footnote."
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 07 2008,14:39

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 06 2008,13:51)


< Linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New one!



< Link >
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Oct. 07 2008,14:44

I think the wrinkly pale Repug does not correspond to a classical instrument. Maybe a cheap knock-off Malaysian copy of a bad American knock-off of a low-end Martin, but not a classical guitar. Sheesh.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,14:46

those are pretty good. I like the sword one too.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,16:30

taking into account the margins of error in the state-by-state polls:



< http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-106.html >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,16:33

LOL!

Bill Maher on Palin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"The big headline today is that she 'exceeded expectations,' which is like saying Andy Dick only drank half a bottle of Woolite." --Bill Maher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.othercrap.com/ >
Posted by: khan on Oct. 07 2008,17:47

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 07 2008,14:09)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,12:31)
< http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive....060.php >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yesterday, John McCain delivered an unhinged anti-Obama diatribe in New Mexico, and when he posed a rhetorical question -- "Who is the real Barack Obama?" -- someone shouted, "A terrorist!" McCain paused momentarily, but did not comment on the remark.

Also yesterday, Sarah Palin repeated one of her unusually stupid attacks, rehashing the nonsense that Obama "pals around" with terrorists. One man in the audience, responding to Palin's smear, shouted, "Kill him!" Palin also did not comment on the remark.

At the same Florida event, Republicans shouted abuse at journalists, hurling obscenities. The Washington Post reported, "One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

And just to top things off, last night, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania announced its belief that Obama is "a terrorist's best friend."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Today's GOP--appealing to the better angels of our nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're creating a monster. Their only remaining option is to bring out the white hoods and burning crosses. The question is, will it get out of control? The mob never tends to give much heed to its authorities once set off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have this image of RNC meetings chanting "N-word".
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,19:28

While you ponder the financial calamity we're in, you might be interested to know that prior to George W Bush, the last time Republicans had control of the White House, Congress, and the Senate for 6 consecutive years was 1923 to 1929, the 6 years immediately prior to the stock market crash and the Great Depression.

source: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....ongress >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 07 2008,19:47

< 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' >

Oh, boy, satire that's uncomfortably prescient.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2008,20:58

Earth to stevestory:  Raleigh is a yankee colony.  Don't know about the others you have lived in.  Also, Florida is a suburb of New Jersey, except for the northern part and the pan handle, which are actually part of Alabama.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2008,21:01

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,03:06)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 07 2008,02:44)
[SNIP]

Are you humor-challenged; do I need to use asterisks and footnotes like Louis so that everyone understands the joke????

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even that doesn't work.

The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


honey i think those little old footnote ass trisk thingies are real cute.  you just keep on-a gettin' them sugar, I do it too now.  thanks mmmmmmwwwah
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 07 2008,21:04

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 07 2008,11:42)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2008,11:07)
 
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,01:06)
The only problem with Swiftian satire, or even just simple humour, is that not everyone understands that it's satire/humour. To those who do, I apologise for the footnotes, they are unnecessary and patronising. To those who don't, and FTK I am thinking of you particularly here, they are very necessary.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't that be "Dickensian satire"?*



* This is satire/humour.**


** I apologise if you found the footnote unnecessary.***


*** Or patronising.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution means never having to say your sorry*


* Sorry for asterisks specifically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, my neanderthal friend, it is a baculum that means never having to say I'm sorry.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 07 2008,21:41

< The overhead projector annoyance >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,22:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2008,21:58)
Earth to stevestory:  Raleigh is a yankee colony.  Don't know about the others you have lived in.  Also, Florida is a suburb of New Jersey, except for the northern part and the pan handle, which are actually part of Alabama.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Raleigh was somewhat Yankee, though not nearly as much as Cary. And it depends on where in Raleigh you live, North Raleigh, East Raleigh, and around NCSU are three very different places. And Durham is certainly different. And so is Chapel Hill. You're partially right about Florida, but Florida is at least 3 states, maybe 4. The one I live in is the Alabama part, which is one of the more redneck places in the world. I don't know if even Alabama is more redneck, and I've spent a while in Opelika. Even Neal Stephenson referred to the "distinguished trailer parks of North Florida." Though the missus lives between Orlando and Tampa, which is utterly different.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,22:08

(For those of you who don't know about North Florida, and think Florida is just old jews and cubans, the diner I was in two days ago had no fewer than 4 patrons wearing confederate flag t-shirts.)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,22:12

I was disappointed in the debate. I wanted McCain to throw a big crazy hail mary, and he didn't. He was actually pretty reasonable the whole time and mostly talked about the issues. I know that makes me look like a bad person but I don't care I'm being honest.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 07 2008,22:14

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,22:08)
(For those of you who don't know about North Florida, and think Florida is just old jews and cubans, the diner I was in two days ago had no fewer than 4 patrons wearing confederate flag t-shirts.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And probably work on horse ranches.
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 07 2008,22:49

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,22:12)
I was disappointed in the debate. I wanted McCain to throw a big crazy hail mary, and he didn't. He was actually pretty reasonable the whole time and mostly talked about the issues. I know that makes me look like a bad person but I don't care I'm being honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was also disappointed.  I'm not sure there was a lot of question answering going on, but there was some.  I thought the best answer of the whole night was Obama's health care response.  McCain was reasonable (fairly), said a lot of crap about Obama (who returned the favor) instead of answering questions (ditto), and kept on the talking points instead of introducing details (which Obama did too).

Disappointing, on the whole.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,23:03

almost exactly 4 weeks to the election. Intrade's back up to 72/28 Obama/McCain. The insta-polls after the debate say Obama won by a few.

I wonder if McCain's behavior means anything about the next 4 weeks. Did he strike a more substantive tone because he realizes that nobody's buying the ridiculous attacks of the last few weeks (well, almost nobody)? Or was the town hall format just a bad forum for negativity? I don't know.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,23:11

I just got around to listening to the podcast of This Week from two days ago. Somebody on the roundtable remarks about Obama's cool, presidential demeanor, and George Will says something along the lines of "Well, he's a black man. If he acted half as angry as McCain he'd be called a 'militant'."
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 07 2008,23:45

good thing we didn't play a drinking game. Some of the expected take-a-shot moments weren't there (Ayers, Wright) but if I'd had to take a shot every time McCain said "my friends", my liver would be filing for divorce on the grounds of Depraved Indifference.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 08 2008,04:50

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,21:45)
if I'd had to take a shot every time McCain said "my friends", my liver would be filing for divorce on the grounds of Depraved Indifference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How long has McCain suffered from this verbal tic?  Any Arizonans out there who can tell us whether he was doing it during his early House and Senate campaigns?
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 08 2008,07:38


Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,08:56

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 08 2008,05:50)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,21:45)
if I'd had to take a shot every time McCain said "my friends", my liver would be filing for divorce on the grounds of Depraved Indifference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How long has McCain suffered from this verbal tic?  Any Arizonans out there who can tell us whether he was doing it during his early House and Senate campaigns?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Part of this insta-poll stuff all the networks are doing now shows live viewer reactions to things said in the debate. McCain's numbers take a noticeable dive every time he says "My friends".
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,08:58

McCain didn't go off the deep end during the debate. He managed to put in a pretty average performance.

The problem, though, is he needed a spectacular performance. Average won't rescue you from losing by double digits, and that's not even taking into consideration the electoral vote map, where McCain is in very dire circumstances indeed.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 08 2008,09:16

I think I was looking for signs that the participants might give of the gravitas one might expect of a president. What I saw was primarily the sort of behavior one expects of politicians.

Of course, I haven't read detailed accounts of the campaigns of some of our early presidents, so maybe the only president who didn't have to act as a politician to get the job might have been Washington.

In any case, McCain is not getting my vote for reasons I've given years back, and Obama looked to be doing OK by comparison. I noticed that the town hall meeting debate did not put the question of torture as official policy on the line, nor the erosion of the rights and liberties of citizens. I would have liked to have heard the reactions to such questions, even if they did not rise to the status of answers.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,09:31

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 08 2008,09:16)
Of course, I haven't read detailed accounts of the campaigns of some of our early presidents, so maybe the only president who didn't have to act as a politician to get the job might have been Washington.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If memory serves, Washington was the glue that held the Union together during the immediate post-Constitution era, so was basically a shoe-in for both the elections of 1789 and 1792.  

The election of 1800 between incumbent John Adams and eventual winner Thomas Jefferson probably sets the standard for outright nastiness.  None of the veiled, wink-wink broadsides we see today for them.

Added in edit: Although, interestingly, alot of the bile was thrown not by the candidates, but by pamphleteers and partisan newspapers.  They could be considered the colonial equivalent of today's 527 organizations.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 08 2008,09:34

Heddle - What is the dog that McCain is equal to?  It looks familiar, but to be honest, I'm not sure what type of dog it is.  Not trying to deconstruct the joke*, just curious about the dog.


* - My personal proclivities aside, I think the guitar and train jokes are funnier because they are clearer and easier to get, IMO.  They also seem a bit more focused on just Palin and, IMO, actually give McCain some respect.  In the guitar at least...he's the acoustic...kind of classic, timeless, and dependable, if less flashy and modern than the others.  The train...well, yeah that's the 'old' thing no matter how you cut it.  But Palin in both cases is just a toy, well out of her league.

** - Yes, I know analyzing a joke is just about the most boring thing possible...and I have no defense for that :)

*** - Because it's what all the cool kids are doing.
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 08 2008,09:40

Quote (Spottedwind @ Oct. 08 2008,09:34)
Heddle - What is the dog that McCain is equal to?  It looks familiar, but to be honest, I'm not sure what type of dog it is.  Not trying to deconstruct the joke*, just curious about the dog.


* - My personal proclivities aside, I think the guitar and train jokes are funnier because they are clearer and easier to get, IMO.  They also seem a bit more focused on just Palin and, IMO, actually give McCain some respect.  In the guitar at least...he's the acoustic...kind of classic, timeless, and dependable, if less flashy and modern than the others.  The train...well, yeah that's the 'old' thing no matter how you cut it.  But Palin in both cases is just a toy, well out of her league.

** - Yes, I know analyzing a joke is just about the most boring thing possible...and I have no defense for that :)

*** - Because it's what all the cool kids are doing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For McCain I did a google image search on "old German Shepherds" and that was one of the returns.
Posted by: Spottedwind on Oct. 08 2008,09:59

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 08 2008,10:40)
For McCain I did a google image search on "old German Shepherds" and that was one of the returns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks...that's what I was thinking but it looked a bit furry to me.

Inconsequential in the grand scheme of things but I was curious.
Posted by: ERV on Oct. 08 2008,10:08

Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 08 2008,07:38)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Governor, I own a pit bull: I sleep next to a pit bull every night; A pit bull is my best-est friend on this planet. Governor, you're no pit bull.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2008,10:45

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 07 2008,19:41)
< The overhead projector annoyance >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has McCain ever given an example of "Gummint pork" which isn't science-related?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,10:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
McCain Advisers Taking Ayers, Wright Off The Table?
By Greg Sargent - October 8, 2008, 9:26AM

As noted here and elsewhere, the words "William Ayers" appeared nowhere in yesterday's debate, despite the fact that the McCain campaign hinted for days that McCain would go hard at Obama's associations.

Now Politico reports that McCain advisers are privately indicating that Ayers, and Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, may be off the table for good:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

After days of attempts to persuade voters that Obama's ties to '60s radical Bill Ayers are a crucial character issue, McCain didn't mention Ayers' name during the 90 minutes of Tuesday's forum. His top aides suggested afterward that, going forward, the candidate wouldn't focus on the former domestic terrorist nor invoke the name of Obama's controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it's really true that the McCain team is holstering this pistol, it suggests that the McCain campaign's internal polling on how the Ayers stuff is playing is just brutal, likely among independents. It also suggests that Obama's counter-attack -- lambasting McCain's campaign for wanting to change the subject from the economy to personal attacks -- has been effective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008....s_w.php >
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,11:00

McCain's ad guy is probably breathing a sigh of relief. Imagine his difficulties.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We know inflation is high, you've just been laid off, nobody's hiring, your 401(k) hasn't budged in the last eight years, and you're underwater on your mortgage...but think about this...Barack Obama served on an education panel with a guy who was a 60's radical 40 years ago...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kinda hard to make that look intelligent and serious.


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 08 2008,11:03

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,10:54)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
McCain Advisers Taking Ayers, Wright Off The Table?
By Greg Sargent - October 8, 2008, 9:26AM

As noted here and elsewhere, the words "William Ayers" appeared nowhere in yesterday's debate, despite the fact that the McCain campaign hinted for days that McCain would go hard at Obama's associations.

Now Politico reports that McCain advisers are privately indicating that Ayers, and Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, may be off the table for good:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

After days of attempts to persuade voters that Obama's ties to '60s radical Bill Ayers are a crucial character issue, McCain didn't mention Ayers' name during the 90 minutes of Tuesday's forum. His top aides suggested afterward that, going forward, the candidate wouldn't focus on the former domestic terrorist nor invoke the name of Obama's controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it's really true that the McCain team is holstering this pistol, it suggests that the McCain campaign's internal polling on how the Ayers stuff is playing is just brutal, likely among independents. It also suggests that Obama's counter-attack -- lambasting McCain's campaign for wanting to change the subject from the economy to personal attacks -- has been effective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008....s_w.php >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frankly, McCain's stock would rise in my estimation if he decided to run his campaign as he promised in the primaries, and not as a standard Rove/Atwater rethuglican. If Palin still uses the Ayers and Wright connections as seasoning for her red-meat rallies, however, we'll know that this is all politics as usual.

I do suspect that the issues of past associations of both candidates are not resonating among independents, even if they are big applause items at rallies for the party faithful.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,11:13

Quote (ERV @ Oct. 08 2008,11:08)
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 08 2008,07:38)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Governor, I own a pit bull: I sleep next to a pit bull every night; A pit bull is my best-est friend on this planet. Governor, you're no pit bull.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


how many self-respecting pit bulls would whine for a week about being mauled by Katie Couric?
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,11:20

So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 08 2008,11:37

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe McCain was referring to a particular planetarium, one that was to be funded by an earmark requested by St. Barack, for a museum merely coincidentally tied, personally, via its chairman, to Obama fundraising--which could never be a problem, because Obama has agreed to public financing of his campaign.

Oh, wait...

But don't ask me about McCain anymore. I don't particularly like McCain. I'm voting for Palin.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,11:42

So when McCain said we shoudn't fund "silly things like planetariums", he wasn't referring to all of them, like he clearly said?
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 08 2008,11:56

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:42)
So when McCain said we shoudn't fund "silly things like planetariums", he wasn't referring to all of them, like he clearly said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am referring to the discourse when people started criticizing Palin for earmarks, right after she was announced:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

McCain stood up for Palin at other times in the interview.
He was asked about nearly $200 million in congressional pet projects Palin requested for 2009 for her state, despite her boasts that she opposes such projects and his claim that she didn't ask for any. McCain responded by criticizing Obama for seeking more than $900 million in these earmarks, by one count.

"That's nearly a million every day, every working day he's been in Congress," McCain said. "And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn't be saying anything about Governor Palin."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That clearly is a criticism of Obama's earmark request, not of planetariums in general.

Do you have a different reference where he was referring to "silly planetariums" generically?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2008,12:09

well heddle i guess it is that time of the month or astrological zone or whatever.  can't be rational all the time i reckon.  Palin.  pardon me for spitting on the floor.

now, when mccain bitches about spending 3 million on a genetic study of grey wolves, should we take that seriously?  those of us who consider the ESA to be worth taking seriously should not be uneasy when he vows to slash all sorts of federal programs and budgets?

NSF?

USFWS?

USFS?

NPS?

are you shitting me, or are you just pulling the liberal chains?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,12:11

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 08 2008,11:03)
I do suspect that the issues of past associations of both candidates are not resonating among independents, even if they are big applause items at rallies for the party faithful.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just had this conversation with my farrier and I told him to show me a politician that hasn't associated with an unsavory character or two during their career and I'll show you a politician that has never won an election.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2008,12:16

from the old bastard's website



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i say he is bullshittin'.  it can't be serious.  BUT IF HE IS...  what do you think he will do to EPA/USFWS/NPS/USFS?  you probably understand that when their budgets get cut, their work load doesn't.  That means shittier enforcement of the ESA, shittier enforcement of CWA and CAA (as if that wasn't already shitty), shittier law enforcement and research investment in national parks, shittier law enforcement, project scoping, research, NEPA compliance, and mitigation compliance from the Forest Freddies, which in my neck of the woods already have a lot of trouble with keeing their nose clean and just following the goddam law as it is.

I think they are all a bunch of stuffed shirts, turds with lipstick.  so don't think i like obama any more than i like the others, they all suck.  but it appears that your desire to lower the bar to the bottom (vis Palin) will have dire consequences on the machinery that funds science in this country and protects the ecological commons from greedy exploitation by bourgeoise resource extractionists.

here is a carrot:  both of these cunts support "Clean Coal".  there ain't no such thing.  both have come out (tepidly) in opposition to mountain top removal surface mining.  If Yosemite McSame freezes the federal government, who will watch or oversee these activities from the federal level (as if it weren't abysmally ignored already)?
Posted by: dheddle on Oct. 08 2008,12:17

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2008,12:09)
well heddle i guess it is that time of the month or astrological zone or whatever.  can't be rational all the time i reckon.  Palin.  pardon me for spitting on the floor.

now, when mccain bitches about spending 3 million on a genetic study of grey wolves, should we take that seriously?  those of us who consider the ESA to be worth taking seriously should not be uneasy when he vows to slash all sorts of federal programs and budgets?

NSF?

USFWS?

USFS?

NPS?

are you shitting me, or are you just pulling the liberal chains?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Your posts always make me think of Peter from Family Guy when he ventured into the "beyond" section of "Bed, Bath and Beyond." Feel free not to take anything McCain says seriously--I don't.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,12:19

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a stupid statement to make...at a time when the nation is drowning in debt, people are losing their homes, some are losing all of their retirement or savings, etc.  Lately, there have even been instances of < suicide >, < murder >, etc. due to an enormous financial crisis that the government has led us into.

FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,12:22

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,13:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a stupid statement to make...at a time when the nation is drowning in debt, people are losing their homes, some are losing all of their retirement or savings, etc.  Lately, there have even been instances of < suicide >, < murder >, etc. due to an enormous financial crisis that the government has led us into.

FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right. A tiny sum for education: Right out.

Spending trillions to kill more people: Excellent use of resources.

And its people like Bush and McCain that lead us into the financial crisis in the first place. And you want to let them try to fix it?
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 08 2008,12:24

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:19)
FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ya...all the larnin kids ned is in teh Wholly Babble.  fak plaentrariums.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,12:30

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,13:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a stupid statement to make...at a time when the nation is drowning in debt, people are losing their homes, some are losing all of their retirement or savings, etc.  Lately, there have even been instances of < suicide >, < murder >, etc. due to an enormous financial crisis that the government has led us into.

FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Troll, troll troll.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,12:30

Since the planetarium cost several times less than Expelled, and is far more educational - I wonder if FTK will say "FUCK EXPELLED" as well?

And, of course, unlike Expelled, planetariums make money. It will pay itself back.

And how about that AIG museum? That makes the planetarium look like pocket change. I assume that should never have been built?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2008,12:52

sorry heddle i will try to use some nascar-speak.

beer, crash, titties, toby keith.

ok now are we on the same page?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We're not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana," McCain said earlier this year, referring to a request from Montana for federal money to study the endangered grizzly bear. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so i screwed up the taxon of interest.  

< http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008....ons.php >

google the quote for more sources.

Now the question is, was that a waste of money?  Why or why not?  Please, have another Natural Light and a fistful of doritoes before answering, if you feel like that will bring you back from beyond my friend.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,12:57

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2008,12:52)
sorry heddle i will try to use some nascar-speak.

beer, crash, titties, toby keith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An interesting, but tangential, bit of trivia: Toby Keith is a registered Democrat. His home is about 7 miles from mine and I drive by it occasionally and, with only one exception, when there has been signs for political candidates on his property they have all been Democrats.  The one exception was a sign for a Republican running for county sheriff in the recent primaries.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,13:05

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,12:30)
Since the planetarium cost several times less than Expelled, and is far more educational - I wonder if FTK will say "FUCK EXPELLED" as well?

And, of course, unlike Expelled, planetariums make money. It will pay itself back.

And how about that AIG museum? That makes the planetarium look like pocket change. I assume that should never have been built?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did the federal government fund the creation museum?  That's news to me.

If I were the president, I'd rip that freaking budget apart and take every little stinking insignificant piece of shit (including planetariums) out of it for at least the next four years.  Then I'd *slowly* start funding some of the excessive bullshit again.

The number 1 thing we need to do for education is PAY OUR TEACHERS A HIGHER SALARY.  Forget all this no child left behind bs and all the other idiotic programs we have to pay for.  If we pay our teachers, we'll get quality education....  STARTING *EARLY ON* WITH OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.  They don't get paid shit.  A few of the teachers my kids had during their early elementary years were worthless.  And, all the testing crap going on because of NCLB is frustrating beyond belief.  OMG, let's test again (my kids just finished early warning) to be sure our district doesn't get *left behind*.  If they'd just teach instead of dumb down subjects so the kids test well, we'd be a lot better off.

Hell, I'd even suggest taxing churches in order to help decrease the federal deficit if there were some way to ensure that the struggling ones wouldn't have to shut down because of the strain on their pocketbooks.

Something has to be done, and everyone has to be willing to give somewhere.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Oct. 08 2008,13:10

I'm in agreement with FtK here, for the most part.  FWIW and YMMV.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,13:15

:O  :O  :O
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2008,13:17

Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 08 2008,14:10)
I'm in agreement with FtK here, for the most part.  FWIW and YMMV.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm going to get this one nicely matted and framed.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,13:19


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2008,13:20

FtK

would enforcement of the ESA, NEPA, CWA or CAA be part of the budgets you'd cut?

given the tendency of the administration of George II to underfund and slash the budgets of the agencies responsible for those activities and the keen similarity of McSame and Governor FtK to that administration, do you think I am Beyond the Bed and Bath too?
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 08 2008,13:26

Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 08 2008,19:10)
I'm in agreement with FtK here, for the most part.  FWIW and YMMV.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh my, if this isn't sig-worthy I don't know what is, context be damned.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,13:28

My oldest had a 1st grade teacher, who he unfortunately had again in 2nd grader.  She had gone to several seminars (funded by the feds of course) where she supposedly learned new techniques for teaching.

She felt it was better to let the kids make errors like crazy when spelling...don't correct them, etc.  No spelling tests.  She also didn't teach much phonics at all.  I about shit.  They did a lot of "expressing themselves" through writing journals.  That was the way to go in her opinion.  Christ.  My kid still isn't the greatest speller, and he does worse in language class than any other subject.

Sometimes I think public schools should take a look at the private schools that are more exclusive.  Both my sister's kids go to private school...one is a latin school.  The education level in the latin school is way above what my kids are getting, and the phonics program is unbelieveable.  Problem is I can't afford private school, and transportation is a problem as well as they don't have a busing system.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,13:28

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 08 2008,13:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2008,12:52)
sorry heddle i will try to use some nascar-speak.

beer, crash, titties, toby keith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An interesting, but tangential, bit of trivia: Toby Keith is a registered Democrat. His home is about 7 miles from mine and I drive by it occasionally and, with only one exception, when there has been signs for political candidates on his property they have all been Democrats.  The one exception was a sign for a Republican running for county sheriff in the recent primaries.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still, I want that F.U.T.K. t-shirt.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,13:30

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 08 2008,14:26)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 08 2008,19:10)
I'm in agreement with FtK here, for the most part.  FWIW and YMMV.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh my, if this isn't sig-worthy I don't know what is, context be damned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm trying to figure out how "FWIW and YMMV" translate to "I've just taken a whole fistfull of shrooms" but I can't puzzle it out.

:D

(Just kidding, the person playing Ftk was actually kinda reasonable there)
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 08 2008,13:46

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a stupid statement to make...at a time when the nation is drowning in debt, people are losing their homes, some are losing all of their retirement or savings, etc.  Lately, there have even been instances of < suicide >, < murder >, etc. due to an enormous financial crisis that the government has led us into.

FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sooo, you are going to add to those problems by throwing the people that work at the planetarium out of work? I guess you'd rather they be on unemployment or something.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 08 2008,13:53

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 08 2008,13:19)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[I] CREEPY GUY - STOP!!!!!![U]
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,13:53

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 08 2008,13:46)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:19)
FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sooo, you are going to add to those problems by throwing the people that work at the planetarium out of work? I guess you'd rather they be on unemployment or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't they just use their brainwashing device in order to get patrons to donate money to < the plane'arium >?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 08 2008,14:04

Ftk:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The number 1 thing we need to do for education is PAY OUR TEACHERS A HIGHER SALARY.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, I'm totally on-board with that, too.

I've long held that various of our problems with education come from a long-term undervaluing of teachers. Part of that has to do with the disparity in pay accorded male and female workers. When teaching became one of the few respectable professional careers that a woman could practice, there was a lot more supply and less demand for teachers, and the salaries dropped... and that's not even counting for the further drop in salary that women experienced
compared to their male counterparts. As we passed the mid-20th century, there was a gradual opening of career opportunities for women, and a consequent decline in the pool of qualified applicants for teaching positions. The salary situation did not get corrected then, though, as if the shift in career choices was a momentary demographic hiccup. So now we have a profession whose members are mostly underpaid and overworked, and a common complaint about paying higher salaries (beyond the simple one of taxing for the increase) is that if we do that, then people who aren't worth that salary will nonetheless benefit by the salary increase. This is just spite, and shortsighted besides. An increase in salary may temporarily benefit some people who aren't doing a good job, but those higher salaries will attract more and more qualified people to do the work, and sub-performing teachers will be, by and large and eventually, squeezed out of the market.

Back in 1982, I took the exam and obtained a Florida teacher's certificate. I was offered a science teaching position at a private Christian school, but the offer was so low that I'd have been in worse financial shape to take it than I was in my current job, mostly due to the commute it would have required. And that was in the days of $0.35/gallon gasoline. My life would have taken a completely different course if teachers had been making living wages back at the time.

I'm not so much on board with de-funding science and science education related stuff, though. The government spends a piddly amount on science and science education, and reaps huge benefits out of that.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,14:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 08 2008,13:53)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 08 2008,13:46)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:19)
FUCK THAT PLANETARIUM!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sooo, you are going to add to those problems by throwing the people that work at the planetarium out of work? I guess you'd rather they be on unemployment or something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't they just use their brainwashing device in order to get patrons to donate money to < the plane'arium >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would certainly think so, no?  Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2008,14:18

Howie Ahmanson?

troll, troll, troll, you got a potty mouth.



Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 08 2008,14:25

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:07)
You would certainly think so, no?  Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy.  One side actually conducts research, advances science, publishes in peer-reviewed technical journals, faces competition for grants, and has their research scruitinized by others in their field.  Basically, anything they have to present is far beyond the understanding of most people.

The other side sells video tapes in church basements (essentially taking money that would potentially be donated to the church instead), face little to no scrutiny from within their own "field" regardless of the numerously apparent conflicting opinions, they publish minimal "research" and instead focus on press releases, and present "science" in factless one-liners meant to reinforce their constituency's already determined conclusions.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,14:26

[url=An increase in salary may temporarily benefit some people who aren't doing a good job, but those higher salaries will attract more and more qualified people to do the work, and sub-performing teachers will be, by and large and eventually, squeezed out of the market.[/url]

Which is EXACTLY what needs to happen...!  Let the less qualified folks who are interested in teaching be aides, substitutes, paraprofessionals, etc.  Raise their salaries as well.  Cut all the excessive programs,  educational tools, supplies and other bs and give the money to the teachers.  Pull in *talent* from the universities.  An intelligent, enthusiastic teacher doesn't need all the other bullshit to get the kids interested in learning.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,14:30

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:07)
You would certainly think so, no?  Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy.  One side actually conducts research, advances science, publishes in peer-reviewed technical journals, faces competition for grants, and has their research scruitinized by others in their field.  Basically, anything they have to present is far beyond the understanding of most people.

The other side sells video tapes in church basements (essentially taking money that would potentially be donated to the church instead), face little to no scrutiny from within their own "field" regardless of the numerously apparent conflicting opinions, they publish minimal "research" and instead focus on press releases, and present "science" in factless one-liners meant to reinforce their constituency's already determined conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...

So, creationists are able to raise millions, and evolutionists aren't because the public doesn't get them?

WTF?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2008,14:34

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:30)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:07)
You would certainly think so, no?  Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy.  One side actually conducts research, advances science, publishes in peer-reviewed technical journals, faces competition for grants, and has their research scruitinized by others in their field.  Basically, anything they have to present is far beyond the understanding of most people.

The other side sells video tapes in church basements (essentially taking money that would potentially be donated to the church instead), face little to no scrutiny from within their own "field" regardless of the numerously apparent conflicting opinions, they publish minimal "research" and instead focus on press releases, and present "science" in factless one-liners meant to reinforce their constituency's already determined conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...

So, creationists are able to raise millions, and evolutionists aren't because the public doesn't get them?

WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, creationists are doing nothing else all day except separating the believers from their money.  Meanwhile, most scientists are doing science.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,14:35

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:30)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:07)
You would certainly think so, no?  Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy.  One side actually conducts research, advances science, publishes in peer-reviewed technical journals, faces competition for grants, and has their research scruitinized by others in their field.  Basically, anything they have to present is far beyond the understanding of most people.

The other side sells video tapes in church basements (essentially taking money that would potentially be donated to the church instead), face little to no scrutiny from within their own "field" regardless of the numerously apparent conflicting opinions, they publish minimal "research" and instead focus on press releases, and present "science" in factless one-liners meant to reinforce their constituency's already determined conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...

So, creationists are able to raise millions, and evolutionists aren't because the public doesn't get them?

WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This might help.


Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 08 2008,14:35

Unless ftk's past abuses of the edit button were extremely in excess, I would think she can handle having an edit button again.  The common design and common descent mixup was priceless though  :)

Of course, this wasn't and never would be my decision.  Just my opinion.
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 08 2008,14:38

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:30)
Hmmm...

So, creationists are able to raise millions, and evolutionists aren't because the public doesn't get them?

WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying hundreds of millions aren't spent on research in those scientifically relevant fields?  Hmm where the fuck did that money come from?

I guess I am missing your point.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,14:39

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 08 2008,14:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,12:30)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:25)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:07)
You would certainly think so, no?  Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy.  One side actually conducts research, advances science, publishes in peer-reviewed technical journals, faces competition for grants, and has their research scruitinized by others in their field.  Basically, anything they have to present is far beyond the understanding of most people.

The other side sells video tapes in church basements (essentially taking money that would potentially be donated to the church instead), face little to no scrutiny from within their own "field" regardless of the numerously apparent conflicting opinions, they publish minimal "research" and instead focus on press releases, and present "science" in factless one-liners meant to reinforce their constituency's already determined conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...

So, creationists are able to raise millions, and evolutionists aren't because the public doesn't get them?

WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, creationists are doing nothing else all day except separating the believers from their money.  Meanwhile, most scientists are doing science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...okay.  

Still, I'm thinking that if you sciency folks put your thinking caps on, you might be able to raise a bit of cash for your, oh so vital, planetarium.   Get groups like NCFS to work on projects like that rather than having Genie & crew out looking for creationists she can bad mouth.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,14:40

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:30)
Hmmm...

So, creationists are able to raise millions, and evolutionists aren't because the public doesn't get them?

WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying hundreds of millions aren't spent on research in those scientifically relevant fields?  Hmm where the fuck did that money come from?

I guess I am missing your point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you are too.  I give up.
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 08 2008,14:44

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:40)
I think you are too.  I give up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe we can figure this out in one simple question.  What do creation "scientists" do?
Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2008,14:46

Just want to mention that McSame attack ads here in Ohio are quote-mining.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,14:51

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:44)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:40)
I think you are too.  I give up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe we can figure this out in one simple question.  What do creation "scientists" do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  I just recently ran across a person in Second Life who works on creationist projects in her spare time (baraminology). Get a hold of some creationist journals, books, etc.  I've found all kinds of creationists papers on the Internet lately that I never knew existed.  There are creationist seminars all the time in which creation scientists discuss what they've been working on.  It's amazing how much *is* going on in creation science considering that everything that funds it is volunteer.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,14:54

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Albie, what is the annual budget of the biology deparment up there in The Little Apple in comparison to Ken Ham's $20 mill Flintstone's Museum?
Posted by: American Saddlebred on Oct. 08 2008,14:55

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  I just recently ran across a person in Second Life who works on creationist projects in her spare time (baraminology). Get a hold of some creationist journals, books, etc.  I've found all kinds of creationists papers on the Internet lately that I never knew existed.  There are creationist seminars all the time in which creation scientists discuss what they've been working on.  It's amazing how much *is* going on in creation science considering that everything that funds it is volunteer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link me?

Show me a research project that involves bacterial cultures.  Show me some medical research.  Show me something, don't just tell me *oh it's going on all over the place* and not provide anything.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 08 2008,14:57

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,20:07)
You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not at all we are saying. We (meaning non-antievolutionists) are saying that there is no EVIDENCE in favour of it.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 08 2008,14:58

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  I just recently ran across a person in Second Life who works on creationist projects in her spare time (baraminology). Get a hold of some creationist journals, books, etc.  I've found all kinds of creationists papers on the Internet lately that I never knew existed.  There are creationist seminars all the time in which creation scientists discuss what they've been working on.  It's amazing how much *is* going on in creation science considering that everything that funds it is volunteer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is amazing, I agree.

Too bad it is all total BS, advancing our knowledge of the world not one iota.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 08 2008,15:01

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 08 2008,14:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Albie, what is the annual budget of the biology deparment up there in The Little Apple in comparison to Ken Ham's $20 mill Flintstone's Museum?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our budget from the state funds is about $1.5 million. We bring in approx $10-12 million per year from grants and contracts. That money contributes significantly to the employment rate here in the Little Apple.

But hey, since we're all condescending atheists on a daily basis, they should cut that money off pronto...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2008,15:04

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 08 2008,15:01)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 08 2008,14:54)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Albie, what is the annual budget of the biology deparment up there in The Little Apple in comparison to Ken Ham's $20 mill Flintstone's Museum?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Our budget from the state funds is about $1.5 million. We bring in approx $10-12 million per year from grants and contracts. That money contributes significantly to the employment rate here in the Little Apple.

But hey, since we're all condescending atheists on a daily basis, they should cut that money off pronto...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what you are saying is for the cost of his museum (ignoring the ongoing income/cashflow), Ken Ham could have fully funded the teaching and research of a major universities biology department for two years?  Wow!  Imagine all the groundbreaking research that his creation scientists could have done if they only had access to that kind of funding.  Think of all the new medical advances that will be missed now!
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,15:10

So, to recap, when Obama requests money for an educational tool that makes money, and hence helps the economy, this is bad.

When McCain requests $10 million for "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence", three times what the planetarium cost, during the same time period, this is important, wise spending.
Posted by: Jkrebs on Oct. 08 2008,15:12

I should make it clear that I'm not for cutting science funding, but I do agree that there is a lot of stuff that could be/should be cut from the federal budget.  (I'm thinking of a war or two right off the top of my head.)

I also agree that teachers are way underpaid, and that NCLB has been a detriment to education. I also agree that some programs, like the spelling stuff that Ftk mentioned, are excessive and not well-balanced: there are times when you want to encourage fluency in young writers and therefore can tolerate inventive spelling, but you also need a solid strand of instruction in conventional spelling, and you need times when correct spelling in a finished product is expected.

However, I also know that the right wing often (usually?) exaggerates the flaws of public education and fails to put both our efforts and the challenges we face from the broader society into perspective. (IAAPSE, by the way - I am a public school educator.)

So I'm sure I'm not in total agreement with FtK concerning the post in question above, and I'm sure that we would differ on what parts of he budget we should cut.  I'm for education, health, and social services, for instance, and against war.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2008,15:24

Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,13:10)
So, to recap, when Obama requests money for an educational tool that makes money, and hence helps the economy, this is bad.

When McCain requests $10 million for "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence", three times what the planetarium cost, during the same time period, this is important, wise spending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd still have disagreed with him on funding, but I wouldn't have minded the planetarium issue being brought up if McCain had used some of that "straight talk" he's supposed to be so good at.  Calling a planetarium projection system an "overhead projector" is blatantly dishonest.  It's like calling the Spirit and Opportunity rovers radio-controlled toys.


[edited teh speling...]
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,15:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DAVID BROOKS SEES SARAH PALIN AS A 'CANCER'.... The New York Times' David Brooks appeared at an event this afternoon, alongside The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, and had a few provocative things to say about the presidential race. Specifically, the columnist described Sarah Palin as a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party," and compared Palin's anti-intellectualism to the president's.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"[Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Brooks added that Palin is "absolutely not" ready for national office.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From < http://washingtonmonthly.com/ > . There's more, about Brooks contradicting himself, but I thought this was the interesting bit. It is just more of what I've said the last few weeks, that the stupids are pushing the smarts out of the GOP.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,15:32

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 08 2008,16:24)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,13:10)
So, to recap, when Obama requests money for an educational tool that makes money, and hence helps the economy, this is bad.

When McCain requests $10 million for "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence", three times what the planetarium cost, during the same time period, this is important, wise spending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd still have disagreed with him on funding, but I wouldn't have minded the planetarium issue being brought up if McCain had used some of that "straight talk" he's supposed to be so good at.  Calling a planetarium projection system an "overhead projector" is blatantly dishonest.  It's like calling the Spirit and Opportunity rovers radio-controlled toys.


[edited teh speling...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Straight Talk go thrown under the bus long ago. He's been outright lying for a while now - dishonesty is an improvement.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 08 2008,15:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Calling a planetarium projection system an "overhead projector" is blatantly dishonest.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think "obviously ignorant" or "apparently stupid" haven't been ruled out yet.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,15:38

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:55)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  I just recently ran across a person in Second Life who works on creationist projects in her spare time (baraminology). Get a hold of some creationist journals, books, etc.  I've found all kinds of creationists papers on the Internet lately that I never knew existed.  There are creationist seminars all the time in which creation scientists discuss what they've been working on.  It's amazing how much *is* going on in creation science considering that everything that funds it is volunteer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link me?

Show me a research project that involves bacterial cultures.  Show me some medical research.  Show me something, don't just tell me *oh it's going on all over the place* and not provide anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Something that you seem to really *fail* to understand is that there is no need for them to do medical research, etc.  Sweetie, creationists simply aren't as cut off from the real world as you seem to believe.  You act as if they don't agree with anything that science has to offer.  That's ridiculous...they are *pro* science, regardless of what you would like to believe.  

Where they differ is in regard to the area of origins research, and yes this can involve many areas of science.  There are still so many questions in this regard, so to suggest that you evolutionists have all the answers and creationist don't know squat is just absurd.  Both sides have massaged their theories over the years, and I truly believe both should be considered if for no other reason that for checks and balances.  Some of the stuff I see put out by evolutionists is laughable.  The stories are outrageous.

You can google can't you?  A lot of it is in creationist journals, and of course good 'ol Walt has done all kinds of field work and research that you refuse to even acknowledge exists.  His theory about < the grand canyon > alone makes much more sense than a lot of secular theories out there.  But, you have to actually read it in it's entirety.  And, yes, he actually left his armchair to do the work.

The gal I've been talking to about baraminology told me there are people working on it in their spare time, and a few Christian colleges getting some funding for it.  You'd be surprised how similar it is to what evolutionists do when placing organisms in certain groups.  Like I said before, the only difference is the presupositions that people hold when comparing organisms and their simliarities and differences.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,15:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His theory about the grand canyon alone makes much more sense than a lot of secular theories out there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are completely and utterly insane, FTK.


Posted by: Gunthernacus on Oct. 08 2008,15:45

I somewhat agree with FtK, too, about the pork barrel projects during an economic crisis - are these projects of Obama's that recent?  However, pork fat is the grease of the government engine.  Just look at the pork that had to be added to the bail-out bill to get those principled congressmen to re-examine (and pass) it.

     
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:07)
Those f*ucking moronic creationists sure are able to < raise some serious cash for their projects >. Maybe you can take some pointers from them?

You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.  So, think of all the cash you folks could generate seeing as there are millions upon millions of supporters of "good" science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say "creation science", but I can't find any science (not even any pretend science) at your link.  I can find what a day's admission costs, and what a 2-day pass costs.  I found a link where I can donate without visiting.  I found a link where I can sign up (and pay for) a new membership.  I found a link where I can make a payment on an existing membership.  I found a link to a store where I can buy some merchandise.  But no science (not even pretend).

 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:07)
You folks try to convince us that there are virtually no supporters of creation science, yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are the "us" and the "they" I bolded above?  How are you not part of "they"?  Did you not donate any money or do you not think the "museum" is important - or are you just pretending to be on the fence?

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:51)
...[Creationists] do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,16:38)
The gal I've been talking to about baraminology told me there are people working on it in their spare time, and a few Christian colleges getting some funding for it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,15:07)
...yet look how much money they raised for something they thought was important.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.  Did I mention that there wasn't any science at your link (not even pretend)?
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,15:46

Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 08 2008,15:12)
I should make it clear that I'm not for cutting science funding, but I do agree that there is a lot of stuff that could be/should be cut from the federal budget.  (I'm thinking of a war or two right off the top of my head.)

I also agree that teachers are way underpaid, and that NCLB has been a detriment to education. I also agree that some programs, like the spelling stuff that Ftk mentioned, are excessive and not well-balanced: there are times when you want to encourage fluency in young writers and therefore can tolerate inventive spelling, but you also need a solid strand of instruction in conventional spelling, and you need times when correct spelling in a finished product is expected.

However, I also know that the right wing often (usually?) exaggerates the flaws of public education and fails to put both our efforts and the challenges we face from the broader society into perspective. (IAAPSE, by the way - I am a public school educator.)

So I'm sure I'm not in total agreement with FtK concerning the post in question above, and I'm sure that we would differ on what parts of he budget we should cut.  I'm for education, health, and social services, for instance, and against war.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with war is that we've gotten our economical success mixed up in it.  It's a sick circle, and one I'm not sure can be made right again.  That and relying on foreign energy...guarding our oil supply etc..  It's a fricking disasterous mess. My husband and I were discussing this all weekend, and my head hurt by the end of the day.  It's depressing.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,15:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HUSSEIN.... Way back in February, Karl Rove heard a growing number of Republicans blasting "Barack Hussein Obama," and warned his fellow Republicans to drop the line. Rove argued it would only perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted, which in turn would hurt the party.


That same week, at an event in Ohio, McCain was introduced by some conservative loud-mouth named Bill Cunningham, who blasted "Barack Hussein Obama." McCain, who was not on stage during Cunningham's harangue, later expressed said he wanted to "disassociate" himself from the remarks. McCain added that he would take responsibility to ensure that similar comments are not repeated at future campaign events.

That was February. This is October.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the second time in three days, the speaker at a McCain campaign rally used Barack Obama's middle name "Hussein" in a demeaning fashion to ignite the crowd.

Speaking in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Bill Platt, the GOP chair of Lehigh County, twice referred to "Barack Hussein Obama" minutes before John McCain and Sarah Palin were set to take the stage.

On Monday, a local Florida sheriff preceded Palin's speech by declaring: "On Nov. 4, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

To be fair, a campaign aide later conceded that this was "inappropriate rhetoric." But the trend nevertheless seems to point in one direction: whipping the angry, far-right Republican base into a frenzy. That includes the increasing frequency of "Hussein" references, but it also includes looking the other way while campaign supporters exclaim "treason!," "terrorist!," and "kill him!" during official rallies.

Josh Marshall, not exactly one for off-the-wall theories, argued the McCain campaign may very well be doing this deliberately: "It is obviously with tacit approval (to believe anything else is to be a dupe at this point); and quite probably on the campaign's specific instructions. Given the regularity of the cries of 'treason' and 'terrorist' and the like, and the frequency with which the screamers seem in oddly convenient proximity to the mics, we should probably be considering the possibly that these folks are campaign plants. It happens all the time. It's just that usually they don't scream out accusations of capital crimes."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://washingtonmonthly.com/ >
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,15:54

No, I didn't donate to the creation museum.  Shoot, we haven't had any extra money to donate to anything the past year or so, other than some to my church.  This economy is absolutely killing our pocketbook.  We haven't vacationed in several years, and have watched every single penny we've made.
Posted by: Nerull on Oct. 08 2008,15:57

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,16:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HUSSEIN.... Way back in February, Karl Rove heard a growing number of Republicans blasting "Barack Hussein Obama," and warned his fellow Republicans to drop the line. Rove argued it would only perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted, which in turn would hurt the party.


That same week, at an event in Ohio, McCain was introduced by some conservative loud-mouth named Bill Cunningham, who blasted "Barack Hussein Obama." McCain, who was not on stage during Cunningham's harangue, later expressed said he wanted to "disassociate" himself from the remarks. McCain added that he would take responsibility to ensure that similar comments are not repeated at future campaign events.

That was February. This is October.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the second time in three days, the speaker at a McCain campaign rally used Barack Obama's middle name "Hussein" in a demeaning fashion to ignite the crowd.

Speaking in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Bill Platt, the GOP chair of Lehigh County, twice referred to "Barack Hussein Obama" minutes before John McCain and Sarah Palin were set to take the stage.

On Monday, a local Florida sheriff preceded Palin's speech by declaring: "On Nov. 4, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

To be fair, a campaign aide later conceded that this was "inappropriate rhetoric." But the trend nevertheless seems to point in one direction: whipping the angry, far-right Republican base into a frenzy. That includes the increasing frequency of "Hussein" references, but it also includes looking the other way while campaign supporters exclaim "treason!," "terrorist!," and "kill him!" during official rallies.

Josh Marshall, not exactly one for off-the-wall theories, argued the McCain campaign may very well be doing this deliberately: "It is obviously with tacit approval (to believe anything else is to be a dupe at this point); and quite probably on the campaign's specific instructions. Given the regularity of the cries of 'treason' and 'terrorist' and the like, and the frequency with which the screamers seem in oddly convenient proximity to the mics, we should probably be considering the possibly that these folks are campaign plants. It happens all the time. It's just that usually they don't scream out accusations of capital crimes."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://washingtonmonthly.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the Secret Service are taking it seriously, so if it is a plant and they find out about it I suspect that's one gamble that defiantly won't pay off.
Posted by: Quidam on Oct. 08 2008,15:58

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:38)
You can google can't you?  A lot of it is in creationist journals, and of course good 'ol Walt has done all kinds of field work and research that you refuse to even acknowledge exists.  His theory about < the grand canyon > alone makes much more sense than a lot of secular theories out there.  But, you have to actually read it in it's entirety.  And, yes, he actually left his armchair to do the work.

The gal I've been talking to about baraminology told me there are people working on it in their spare time, and a few Christian colleges getting some funding for it.  You'd be surprised how similar it is to what evolutionists do when placing organisms in certain groups.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when a geologist goes into the field with his hammer it looks a lot like what convicts do breaking rocks.  But because something looks 'sciency' doesn't make it so.

I have read Brown's tale. Nothing about Brown's geology makes sense to someone with any geological knowledge.  Nothing he has said accounts for faunal succession, the existence of changing facies thoughout the column, generations of animals living and dying, layer upon layer in rocks that are claimed to have been laid down and re-excavated in a year or so.

Recently consolidated and saturated sediments do not and cannot form cliffs of the scale of the Grand Canyon.
Posted by: Quidam on Oct. 08 2008,16:06

McCain IS Gollum.

< >

He was one an honorable creature who doesn't like what the lust for power has done to him.  He's now a shrunken shell dominated by forces and creatures out of his control
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2008,16:08

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 08 2008,15:04)
Ftk:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The number 1 thing we need to do for education is PAY OUR TEACHERS A HIGHER SALARY.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wow, I'm totally on-board with that, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Lord, the End-Times are truly upon us. *Wailing and gnashing of teeth*
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Oct. 08 2008,16:16

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,16:54)
No, I didn't donate to the creation museum.  Shoot, we haven't had any extra money to donate to anything the past year or so, other than some to my church.  This economy is absolutely killing our pocketbook.  We haven't vacationed in several years, and have watched every single penny we've made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hubby doesn't go to church?

Maybe you should petition your congressman for a new planetarium.  A new building project creates all kinds of jobs - even one for an architect.
Posted by: csadams on Oct. 08 2008,16:22

Sent to me by scary-smart daughter . . .


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Montana rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President. The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know, she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumbass put her up there to begin with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To her frustration, scary-smart daughter isn't old enough to vote yet.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,16:42

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Oct. 08 2008,16:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,16:54)
No, I didn't donate to the creation museum.  Shoot, we haven't had any extra money to donate to anything the past year or so, other than some to my church.  This economy is absolutely killing our pocketbook.  We haven't vacationed in several years, and have watched every single penny we've made.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hubby doesn't go to church?

Maybe you should petition your congressman for a new planetarium.  A new building project creates all kinds of jobs - even one for an architect.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's *our* church, but no hubby isn't a regular church goer (probably why I said *my*).  He's usually worked on Sunday mornings that past year or so.  But, even when he's not working, he's not terribly keen on going to church.  It has nothing to do with his beliefs.  He's a Christian and his beliefs are quite simliar to mine.  He likes listening to our current Pastor's sermons, but he's not into all the other social stuff that goes on...too time consuming for him.  I don't participate in much of it either any more for lots of reasons...lack of time certainly one of them.  

He also feels like he needs to be home working on yard work and getting caught up on stuff around here and doesn't like to spend the time at church on Sunday mornings.  Wrong attitude, IMHO, but I understand it because we've spent many Sunday mornings together lately working on that damn house we're trying to sell.  Life is time consuming, period.  But, when he does go, he always mentions that he was glad he did.  Our Pastor's sermons always seem to zone in on particular problems we're experiencing in our lives lately, and it feels good to get that moral support.

Also, he grew up in a few churches with some serious issues....long story.  He's always quick to point out the hypocrisy of some people.  Of course, Christians are *NOT* perfect, that's for sure.  We're all at church for that reason...working as a community to *try* to better our lives for Christ and our fellow man.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Oct. 08 2008,16:52

FtK

Now that you are back here, can you answer < my question > in a previous comment on this thread?  I never saw any reply.

thanks
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 08 2008,17:43

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:44)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:40)
I think you are too.  I give up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe we can figure this out in one simple question.  What do creation "scientists" do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  I just recently ran across a person in Second Life who works on creationist projects in her spare time (baraminology). Get a hold of some creationist journals, books, etc.  I've found all kinds of creationists papers on the Internet lately that I never knew existed.  There are creationist seminars all the time in which creation scientists discuss what they've been working on.  It's amazing how much *is* going on in creation science considering that everything that funds it is volunteer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, they don't do anything?  Otherwise, you might have been able to give just one particular, a tiny one, one detail maybe?...
Posted by: blipey on Oct. 08 2008,17:55

I, also, am on board with Ftk regarding teacher pay.  I may, however, take some issue with related matters she brought up.  I'm going to have to get some definitions to decide.

Ftk, when you talk about cutting teaching aids and materials and other costs out of budgets, what exactly are the things you are cutting?  Sure, good teachers can teach whatever the circumstances, but is there not some value in "extra materials"?

What is your stance on the following:

1.  Field trips
2.  Text books
3.  Supplementary reading material
4.  Guest speakers and assemblies
5.  Hands on training

All of these things contribute significantly to education and all of them need to be paid for.  Are you for cutting these things?

Related topic: is your idea for raising teacher salaries merely to get that money from cutting the above items?  If so, what do you think the net educational gain will be by paying teachers more and making them work with less.  If not, are you in favor of raising taxes (property, most likely) in order to pay for this pay increase, or do you have something else in mind?

I agree with a lot of what you said on this topic and I am merely asking what your ideas on fixing a problem we both agree exists.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,18:03

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 08 2008,17:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:51)
 
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 08 2008,14:44)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,14:40)
I think you are too.  I give up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe we can figure this out in one simple question.  What do creation "scientists" do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For not being federally funded, they do a lot, though they are limited because of cash flow.  I just recently ran across a person in Second Life who works on creationist projects in her spare time (baraminology). Get a hold of some creationist journals, books, etc.  I've found all kinds of creationists papers on the Internet lately that I never knew existed.  There are creationist seminars all the time in which creation scientists discuss what they've been working on.  It's amazing how much *is* going on in creation science considering that everything that funds it is volunteer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, they don't do anything?  Otherwise, you might have been able to give just one particular, a tiny one, one detail maybe?...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did come up with one thing, you moron.  I linked to Brown’s work.  Want more?  Just google, you little shit.  It takes about 10 seconds to come < up with something >.  There’s tons of stuff out there...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speakers

Paul A. Garner is a lecturer and researcher with Biblical Creation Ministries. A Fellow of the Geological Society, Mr. Garner's current research focus is the depositional environment of the Coconino sandstone in the western United States. He is author of more than fifty creationist papers.

Todd Charles Wood is the director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College and the president of BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group. Author of over thirty research papers and monographs, Dr. Wood's main research interests are baraminology and genomics.

Kenneth J. Turner is Associate Professor of Bible at Bryan College, where he primarily teaches Hebrew, Old Testament, and theology courses. Dr. Turner's specialty and main interest is Old Testament Theology.

Roger W. Sanders is Associate Professor of Science at the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College. Dr. Sanders has more than 30 years of experience in plant systematics, with forty publications. Dr. Sanders's research interests include island biogeography and speciation.

Kurt P. Wise is director of the Center for Science and Theology and Professor of Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A paleontologist by training, Dr. Wise has been very active in the creationist community for years, publishing more than fifty articles.

Joseph W. Francis is Professor of Biological Sciences at the Master's College, where he supervises a successful undergraduate research program in invertebrate and cellular immunology. His main research interest is microbiology and the origin of pathogenesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BTW, I’m keeping a running list of you IP address changes and plan to do something about your stalking.  Not sure yet what people do about an obsessed clown who has a serious mental problem, but I plan to look into it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 08 2008,18:07

Lots of jolly fludee debate< here >.

There was never any danger of any discussion here, or there.
Posted by: Ftk on Oct. 08 2008,18:09

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 08 2008,17:55)
I, also, am on board with Ftk regarding teacher pay.  I may, however, take some issue with related matters she brought up.  I'm going to have to get some definitions to decide.

Ftk, when you talk about cutting teaching aids and materials and other costs out of budgets, what exactly are the things you are cutting?  Sure, good teachers can teach whatever the circumstances, but is there not some value in "extra materials"?

What is your stance on the following:

1.  Field trips
2.  Text books
3.  Supplementary reading material
4.  Guest speakers and assemblies
5.  Hands on training

All of these things contribute significantly to education and all of them need to be paid for.  Are you for cutting these things?

Related topic: is your idea for raising teacher salaries merely to get that money from cutting the above items?  If so, what do you think the net educational gain will be by paying teachers more and making them work with less.  If not, are you in favor of raising taxes (property, most likely) in order to pay for this pay increase, or do you have something else in mind?

I agree with a lot of what you said on this topic and I am merely asking what your ideas on fixing a problem we both agree exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a lot of ideas about cut backs, but you are the very last person I want to discuss this with.  Sorry.  I'm just not in the mood for clowning around with an asshole.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 08 2008,18:10

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,18:03)
I did come up with one thing, you moron.  I linked to Brown’s work.  Want more?  Just google, you little shit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I googled. Results are above*, but please reply in the FTK thread.

Oh, I make a funny!

EDIT: Results now in the FTK thread.

I can't ask any nicer then I am for a discussion FTK. Take it or leave it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 08 2008,18:11

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,18:09)
 Sorry.  I'm just not in the mood for clowning around with an asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm happy to move to your thread and discuss the first paragraph of Walt's theory on the formation of the grand canyon?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,18:12

Detailed discussion of Ftk and Walt Brown etc should be moved to the Ftk thread.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,18:22

Holy smokes, Intrade's now got Obama 76 McCain 24.

(If you think McCain's going to win, go buy McCain contracts and quadruple your money in 27 days)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,18:38

FWIW, I think it's bad that the GOP is in such sorry shape. I don't want the choice to be between 'tolerable' and 'sucks out loud'. What kind of choice is that? I want intelligent conservatives (George Will, Steve Bainbridge, Rod Dreher, Reihan, Jon Rauch, etc) to take back the party they began to lose around 1964. I want to have to choose between two intelligent, reality based groups of people. I don't want to have to automatically pick the Dems. But as long as the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, "Obama is a terrorist/traitor/Muslim/Elitist/etc" "Palin is qualified", global warming denying, evolution denying, Grover Norquist Complete Total F*&%ing Moron crowd runs the GOP, I have no choice. I want a choice. But I suppose it's inevitable that at any given time, at least one party will be playing to the anti-intellectual strain of the American psyche.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2008,18:46

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,18:38)
FWIW, I think it's bad that the GOP is in such sorry shape. I don't want the choice to be between 'tolerable' and 'sucks out loud'. What kind of choice is that? I want intelligent conservatives (George Will, Steve Bainbridge, Rod Dreher, Reihan, Jon Rauch, etc) to take back the party they began to lose around 1964. I want to have to choose between two intelligent, reality based groups of people. I don't want to have to automatically pick the Dems. But as long as the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, "Obama is a terrorist/traitor/Muslim/Elitist/etc" "Palin is qualified", global warming denying, evolution denying, Grover Norquist Complete Total F*&%ing Moron crowd runs the GOP, I have no choice. I want a choice. But I suppose it's inevitable that at any given time, at least one party will be playing to the anti-intellectual strain of the American psyche.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


good luck!

while you are at it, wish for a beer volcano and a little stream of whiskey tumbling from the rocks.

Anti-intellectualism IS America.

USA USA USA USA USA
Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2008,18:50

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,19:38)
FWIW, I think it's bad that the GOP is in such sorry shape. I don't want the choice to be between 'tolerable' and 'sucks out loud'. What kind of choice is that? I want intelligent conservatives (George Will, Steve Bainbridge, Rod Dreher, Reihan, Jon Rauch, etc) to take back the party they began to lose around 1964. I want to have to choose between two intelligent, reality based groups of people. I don't want to have to automatically pick the Dems. But as long as the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, "Obama is a terrorist/traitor/Muslim/Elitist/etc" "Palin is qualified", global warming denying, evolution denying, Grover Norquist Complete Total F*&%ing Moron crowd runs the GOP, I have no choice. I want a choice. But I suppose it's inevitable that at any given time, at least one party will be playing to the anti-intellectual strain of the American psyche.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In some ways, I still consider myself a 'conservative'; but my definition of that word has been dragged out back and stomped flat.

I could debate with and consider intelligent conservatives even if I didn't agree with them; but you're right about the current 'leaders'.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,19:44

I used to consider myself a conservative, back when I equated conservativism with Buckley, Will, Goldwater, Rauch, GHWB, Brent Scowcroft, etc. I mean I didn't wholly agree with them, but they were smart people with some smart ideas. This was around the late 80's, early 90's. I'm not going to write a big biographical piece about my political evolution, but let's just say my distance from conservatism grew as that strain of conservatism waned and the Hannity/Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Tom Delay wing waxed.

(Just to be clear, that party didn't transform in the 80's/90's, my perception of the party transformed in that period. The transformation of the GOP started around 1964, as Nixon was touring the southern bigots and know-nothings, and telling aides, 'this is the future of the Republican party'.)
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,19:48

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2008,19:46)
while you are at it, wish for a beer volcano and a little stream of whiskey tumbling from the rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The beer volcano is in the Afterlife my friend. Have...have you heard the good news?


Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2008,20:47

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,20:44)
I used to consider myself a conservative, back when I equated conservativism with Buckley, Will, Goldwater, Rauch, GHWB, Brent Scowcroft, etc. I mean I didn't wholly agree with them, but they were smart people with some smart ideas. This was around the late 80's, early 90's. I'm not going to write a big biographical piece about my political evolution, but let's just say my distance from conservatism grew as that strain of conservatism waned and the Hannity/Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Tom Delay wing waxed.

(Just to be clear, that party didn't transform in the 80's/90's, my perception of the party transformed in that period. The transformation of the GOP started around 1964, as Nixon was touring the southern bigots and know-nothings, and telling aides, 'this is the future of the Republican party'.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As someone of the female grouping, the 'conservatives' lost me when they decided that my body was subject to their control.  

Creepy Christian Crotch Police
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,20:58

I was hanging in there when I thought their anti-abortion stuff was based on simply thinking the baby was a unique individual. Even though liberals were saying cons just want to control females I wasn't buying it just from the abortion thing. Then I heard about conservative efforts to ban birth control, and I had one of these moments


Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2008,21:05

"We're into personal responsibility."

"We're into getting the government off of people's backs."

"We're into forcing you to give birth to the child of your rapist."

"And said forced birth is only an inconvenience."

Any further thoughts are unprintable.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2008,21:35

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,21:58)
I was hanging in there when I thought their anti-abortion stuff was based on simply thinking the baby was a unique individual. Even though liberals were saying cons just want to control females I wasn't buying it just from the abortion thing. Then I heard about conservative efforts to ban birth control, and I had one of these moments


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome to the reality of the female contingent.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 08 2008,22:27

I got it. It took me a while, but eventually I got it.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Oct. 09 2008,00:04

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,22:27)
I got it. It took me a while, but eventually I got it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no idea what political side I'm in, but I am with you in thinking the GOP sold its soul with the 'Southern Strategy' post Goldwater. I still think Will writes better English than most people in the planet, and consider fiscal responsibility and restraint a Holy Grail. Or a grail-shaped beacon.
I have conservative female friends who well into the 90's still gave the right wing of th