[jonottawa]

I still don't know who to cheer for on Nov 6. Imagine how weak Barry will be if he wins and Willard wins the popular vote. I'd like to think the legacy of Obama will be that selling out your principles to try to appeal to Republicans doesn't work. Barry never fought, always chose likable over tough, never used the bully pulpit and then was a no-show for the most important night of his political career. He's been doing it wrong for 4 years and I think Repugs are going to either win this election or the next one and maybe it might as well be this one.

Maybe it's time to let the wingnuts finish breaking America. Let them repeal Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion. They'll alienate women for the next 50 years. Let them crack down hard on illegal immigration. They'll lose the Hispanic vote for the next 50 years. Let them cut social programs to the bone. They'll lose the working class for the next 50 years. Let them voucherize medicare. They'll lose seniors for the next 50 years. Let them deal with the fiscal mess they created. Let them starve the beast. All Democratic opposition seems to have accomplished is to force Repugs to break America more slowly. Let's hurry things along.

[mike777]

I predict if a republican wins ...granted long shot


we will see many.. many more jokes on forums compared to last 4 years about prez...


feel free to count but i think many more....

I see dog on car jokes
I see binders on car jokes

you add.....

in any case how in the world can romney win with war on women....and war on rest....

I see about 1% vote

[kenberg]

TimG, on 2012-October-19, 20:25, said:

3 for 3! But, I was far from confident about the capital.

I bet the percentage of Americans that can point to Iraq, Iran, and Israel on a map is also rather small, but that doesn't mean Americans don't have strong opinions about all three.

Many opinions are not based upon a foundation of knowledge. (Mine included.)

This matches me exactly, including being glad that my life did not depend on being right about the capital. From the halls of Montezuma... and all that helped. I come from St. Paul, Minnesota, where we took great offense at the frequent reference to "Minneapolis, the capital of Minnesota". Many years back some radio station lured some legislators and would be legislators to a program where they were given a pop quiz. One of the questions was to name the Prime minister of Israel. One of the answers was "Some little Jewish fellow".

[luke warm]

jonottawa, on 2012-October-20, 03:32, said:

Let them repeal Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion. They'll alienate women for the next 50 years.

the two don't go hand in hand... reps view (mainly - they differ from one another as much as the useful idiots do) is that this and other issues are best left to the states, or the people (you know, kinda like the constitution says)

Quote

Let them crack down hard on illegal immigration. They'll lose the Hispanic vote for the next 50 years.

nah... i think when the vote is limited to only legals, it's doable... besides, what's wrong with trying to stop illegal immigration? there are tons of people trying to come here legally, playing by the rules, etc, and can't

Quote

Let them cut social programs to the bone. They'll lose the working class for the next 50 years.

don't conflate working class with the poor... presently, welfare funding exceeds all other fed gov't funding - defense, ssa/medicare, foreign aid, hell even obama's funding of green energies ... getting people back to work is the best thing that can happen to them and for the country

Quote

Let them voucherize medicare. They'll lose seniors for the next 50 years.

wrong again... actually look at the plan... besides nothing changing for present seniors, even those falling under the guidelines of the new plan can opt into medicare... also, that population changes very quickly... people beez dyin' all da time, jack

Quote

Let them deal with the fiscal mess they created. Let them starve the beast. All Democratic opposition seems to have accomplished is to force Repugs to break America more slowly. Let's hurry things along.

right, the mess *they* created... the useful idiots have had a hand in all of this

[lalldonn]

luke warm, on 2012-October-19, 20:00, said:

He evidently doesn't believe the latest polls

Either that, or he knows more about this than you. One of those two possibilities.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-19, 20:00, said:

He evidently doesn't believe the latest polls

Wikipedia has a good summary describing Silver's methods including how he weight's information based on time as well as nearest neighbor analysis.

http://en.wikipedia....FiveThirtyEight

FWIW, current reports suggest that Obama is establishing a firewall consisting of

Ohio: 70.7% chance of a Obama win
New Hampshire: 62.8% chance of an Obama win
Nevada: 72.9% chance of an Obama win
Iowa: 66.1% chance of an Obama win

If Obama is able to win all for states, its almost impossible for Romney to win.
Obama can lose Florida, Wisconsin, you name it...

[Winstonm]

Quote

luke warm' timestamp='1350744263' post='675980'


don't conflate working class with the poor... presently, welfare funding exceeds all other fed gov't funding - defense, ssa/medicare, foreign aid, hell even obama's funding of green energies ... getting people back to work is the best thing that can happen to them and for the country.

Curious where you get your data. Here is what I found for 2013 spending. I don't see your welfare claim reflected in the data, not that I am shocked to find no supporting data, as I am certain you heard some partisan GOP storyteller proclaim this perversion of fact to be true, making it, to those who share that worldview, true by narrative.



] Pensions 878.5 0.0 177.9 40.1 1,096.5
[+] Health Care 916.1 -376.7 464.1 135.8 1,139.4
[+] Education 136.1 -133.8 269.5 644.9 916.7
[+] Defense 901.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 902.3
[–] Welfare 422.3 -50.4 281.2 97.6 750.7
[+] Family and children 111.7 0.0 12.5 11.2 135.4
[+] Unemployment 77.4 -5.6 5.8 0.0 77.6
[+] Unemployment trust 0.0 0.0 171.0 0.6 171.6
[+] Workers compensation 7.4 0.0 14.4 0.0 21.8
[+] Housing 57.0 -44.9 12.9 46.6 71.7
[+] Social exclusion n.e.c. 168.7 0.0 57.2 39.2 265.1
[+] R&D Social protection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
[+] Social protection n.e.c. 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 7.4
[+] Protection 62.8 0.0 91.7 185.8 340.3
[+] Transportation 114.2 -68.7 116.8 139.5 301.8
[+] General Government 28.1 -1.2 32.8 54.3 114.0
[+] Other Spending 96.2 -64.8 97.4 350.5 479.3
[+] Interest 247.7 0.0 47.4 62.7 357.8
[+] Balance -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
[+] Total Spending 3,803.4 -695.6 1,579.8 1,711.3 6,398.8

[kenberg]

I'll bite. What do the numbers mean? The first line says
Pensions 878.5 0.0 177.9 40.1 1,096.5
From this I should conclude ?

[lalldonn]

kenberg, on 2012-October-20, 11:22, said:

I'll bite. What do the numbers mean? The first line says
Pensions 878.5 0.0 177.9 40.1 1,096.5
From this I should conclude ?

http://www.usfederal...Sbf_13bs1n_0010
The first number in each row is federal spending in billions for fiscal year 2013.

[y66]

And now for something completely different from Michael Bloomberg. I love this guy.

[jonottawa]

y66, on 2012-October-20, 11:57, said:

And now for something completely different from Michael Bloomberg. I love this guy.

"For Mr. Obama: “This business of ‘Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?’ Who are you to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ ”"

This is pretty rich coming from the guy who thinks it's his business to tell people how much soda they can drink.

[TimG]

jonottawa, on 2012-October-20, 03:32, said:

Maybe it's time to let the wingnuts finish breaking America. Let them repeal Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion. They'll alienate women for the next 50 years. Let them crack down hard on illegal immigration. They'll lose the Hispanic vote for the next 50 years. Let them cut social programs to the bone. They'll lose the working class for the next 50 years. Let them voucherize medicare. They'll lose seniors for the next 50 years.

US voters have much shorter memories than 50 years and somehow believe that things can be fixed in four years.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-17, 04:39, said:

What attack against "US soil"?

Embassies and consulates don't automatically have extra territoriality unless it is specifically created via a bilateral treaty.

Talk about "does not know".

Quote

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 22: The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats.

So not an attack on "US soil", but certainly an act of international terrorism, although probably not an act of war, since it was apparently not "armed conflict between military forces" (see 18USC2331).

[luke warm]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-19, 16:07, said:

But one thing I'll say is I don't think the general public cares about Libya nearly as much as you and Romney seem to believe. What percentage of Americans do you suppose can even point it out on a map, or name the capital city, or heck even say for sure what continent it's on?

i think you're wrong on this, though i wouldn't bet on it... it's not so much libya per se, as bad as that was, it's the fact that everyone was begging for more security and nobody seemed to think it was important (even with 9/11 looming)... that and the fact that it was over a month before obama took responsibility for it, though hillary sorta preempted him on that "buck stops here" stuff

so it's more about lack of leadership than anything else, imo

hrothgar, on 2012-October-20, 09:42, said:

FWIW, current reports suggest that Obama is establishing a firewall consisting of

Ohio: 70.7% chance of a Obama win
New Hampshire: 62.8% chance of an Obama win
Nevada: 72.9% chance of an Obama win
Iowa: 66.1% chance of an Obama win

If Obama is able to win all for states, its almost impossible for Romney to win.
Obama can lose Florida, Wisconsin, you name it...

really? hmmm... i'd be willing to take romney on some of those at those odds, if you want... say 7:3 OH (for $120), 7:3 NV (another $120), and (to even it out) 7:3 in IA (oh what the hell, another $120)... i figure you'll probably win one or two of those, but either of us could possibly lose all 3... crap, might as well go all the way... i'll take 3:2 on NH for $120, alex

i'm only doing this out of my innate kindness, so you can get even (or even make a few bucks)... i, like most conservatives, am nothing if not fair

Winstonm, on 2012-October-20, 10:32, said:

Curious where you get your data. Here is what I found for 2013 spending.

probably the same place you get yours...however, 2013 spending is a projection... i was speaking of actual spending we know of, 2011 being the last full year for which data exists... second, while i did exclude medicare, i did not exclude medicaid and other safety net programs, nor do i make any judgement concerning their necessity or desirability... there are "hidden" costs of medicaid-type programs, hidden from the fed budget anyway, since those funds are matched by the states... anyway, medicaid-type programs were about 8% of the 2011 spending, welfare itself another 13%, for a total of 21%

in 2013, healthcare alone is projected to go from nearly 13% to nearly 14%

yesterday at 4:30 i said:

Quote

seriously though, i don't think this is over yet... being the political savant that i am, i foresee one, maybe two, october surprises still to come... the easy one is drones taking out the libyan murderers (you know, the ones pissed about a video)... the tough one is obama getting iran to stop enriching in exchange for the easing of sanctions... i don't recall how many electoral votes iran has, but that should help obama

i see on the news today that #2 is about to come true... romney has to prepare some sort of response to this, and he doesn't have a lot of time between now and monday nite (good timing by the administration, eh?)

[Winstonm]

Quote

i was speaking of actual spending we know of, 2011 being the last full year for which data exists.

If you are interested at all in accuracy, then what matters is discretionary spending - lumping all social programs you don't personally like and calling them collectively "welfare" is disingenuous.

It is clear that defense and warfare overwhelm discretionary spending, and a quick search supports that claim:

Quote

Discretionary outlays—the part of federal spending that lawmakers generally control through annual appropriation acts—totaled about $1.35 trillion in 2011, or close to 40 percent of federal outlays. Slightly more than half of that spending was for defense. The remainder went for a wide variety of government programs and activities, with the largest amounts spent for education, training, employment, and social services; transportation; income security (mostly housing and nutrition assistance); veterans' benefits (primarily for health care); health-related research and public health; international affairs; and the administration of justice.

source: CBO

[kenberg]

A bit ago I suggested in an admittedly over-simplified form that the candidates seriously address our aims and policies in the Middle East. Here are a couple of much less simple-minded, and more global, versions one might think about.

David Ignatius has an article in today's Post. I'm not so sure non-subscribers can still read Post columnists online, but the article appears at
http://www.jconline....can-commitments

He refers to an article in the Washington Quarterly by Michael Mazarr. This can be found at
https://csis.org/fil...2FallMazarr.pdf

These guys know more than I do. That doesn't mean that they are right, people can know more than I do and still be wrong, but Ignatius would like to see the candidates address these issues and so would I.

To get back to my more simple-minded formulation, I want any candidate who says that we should bomb Iran on Thursday to tell me what we will be doing on Friday. And on Saturday and Sunday. Dropping bombs is the easy part. Surely we know that by now.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2012-October-21, 06:54, said:

I want any candidate who says that we should bomb Iran on Thursday to tell me what we will be doing on Friday. And on Saturday and Sunday. Dropping bombs is the easy part. Surely we know that by now.

yeah, there was a time (so i've heard, anyway) when our politicians, of all swipes, took a longer-than-next-election-cycle view on matters vital to the nation... people are so scared of seeming weak that they no longer practice statesmanship... there are a few, but they're dying off and not being replaced, that i can see (and no, "statesman" and "liberal" are not synonyms)

you can even see it on this forum... everyone is so partisan (except for me, of course - i'm the model of reasonableness, always looking for compromise)... hell, there are even american posters here who don't see any need for the constitution, or at least not the way it was written, or agree with american exceptionalism anymore... it seems to me that the guiding factor must always be the best interests of the country, as long as other nations are not unjustly affected... kind of an objectivist national political philosophy, even if such is not practiced individually

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 08:19, said:

....hell, there are even american posters here who don't see any need for the constitution, or at least not the way it was written, or agree with american exceptionalism anymore...

Perhaps your reading of the Constitution is too narrow? As to exceptionalism, America can be just as wrong in its actions and ideas as any other country. Exceptionalism is code for better than, and better than is simply an unjustified position.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2012-October-21, 08:48, said:

Perhaps your reading of the Constitution is too narrow? As to exceptionalism, America can be just as wrong in its actions and ideas as any other country. Exceptionalism is code for better than, and better than is simply an unjustified position.

i rest my case

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 08:19, said:

hell, there are even american posters here who don't ... agree with american exceptionalism anymore.

You acting as if "American Exceptionalism" once once the law of the land and something has suddenly changed.
I know you evangelicals have some dumb ass ideas, but you need to stop pretending that these define the status quo.