OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Rodster]

I only play one game regularly right now, rFactor on the PC, and I paid full retail price for it 15 months ago.


Take care,
PK

At one point I use to look up to you as a role model and you had to go and spoil it.

[RobVarak]

Some much needed levity. For anyone having a bad day, it could be worse. From Joe Biden's rally today:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hPywKOTQZig&co ... fcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[pk500]

I only play one game regularly right now, rFactor on the PC, and I paid full retail price for it 15 months ago.


Take care,
PK

At one point I use to look up to you as a role model and you had to go and spoil it.

rFactor is a rare game, man -- worth every penny of the $40 I paid for it.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Rob:

That video was like a Coast Guard cutter breaking the ice of tension in this thread. PERFECT!



Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Rob:

That video was like a Coast Guard cutter breaking the ice of tension in this thread. PERFECT!



Take care,
PK

Southwest should turn that into a commercial immediately! "So you wanna get away?"

[Brando70]

LOL, the look on his face was priceless.

"Step into my office...because your f---king fired!"

[Jackdog]

LOL, the look on his face was priceless.

"Step into my office...because your f---king fired!"

How in the hell could that happen?

[JackB1]

Zogby's got a horserace:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1575

Don't bet the house on it. All the other polls show Obama up by
an average of 5%...one even as high as 8%!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... a-225.html

RCP Average 10/01 - 10/07 -- 49.0 43.9 Obama +5.1
Gallup Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 2747 RV 52 41 Obama +11
Rasmussen Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 3000 LV 51 45 Obama +6
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby 10/05 - 10/07 1220 LV 47 45 Obama +2
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/05 - 10/07 904 LV 45 44 Obama +1
GW/Battleground ing 10/02 - 10/07 800 LV 49 45 Obama +4
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/02 - 10/06 858 RV 47 40 Obama +7
NBC News/Wall StJ 10/04 - 10/05 658 RV 49 43 Obama +6
CBS News 10/03 - 10/05 616 LV 48 45 Obama +3
CNN 10/03 - 10/05 694 LV 53 45 Obama +8
Democracy Corps (D) 10/01 - 10/05 1000 LV 49 46 Obama +3

More importantly...The electoral polls paint a very shaky picture for McCain. He would have to win just about ALL the undecided states to win in the end. Recent polls have also shown FL and OHIO swinging towards Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... vs_mccain/

[JackB1]

I finally got to watch last night's debate and here are some thoughts:

-Pretty even overall. McCain didn't get the "game changer" he needed and I dont see this debate changing much in the polls.

-McCain continued to appear condescending to Obama....hardly looking at him and even referring to him at one point as "That One". He comes off like a grumpy old man who thinks he knows everything just because he has aged.

-McCain never once mentioned Palin....odd.

-McCain's proposal of buying back those mortgages must have confused 95% of the viewers, who must have been thinking "Didn't we just do that"?

-McCain keeps saying "I know how to do this..."I know how to do that"..."I know how to get Bin Laden"....If he knows, why hasn't he shared it with anyone these last 8 years?

-Obama has to stop saying ...Aaaaaaaand we will blah blah blah. Aaaaaaand we will blah blah blah. He was much better just speaking-wise in debate #1.

-Lots of regurgitated points. Why not bring up some new points? How about the environment? That was briefly touched on by McCain (big points in my book), but not enough.

Also, a pretty boring debate IMO. I was almost hoping Palin would come out and start winking or something.

[wco81]

Second, it seems some people are more interested in wallowing in their moral and ideological superiority and punish the "irresponsible" people, even if this punishment process hits everyone, not just with lower home values but lower retirement savings values.

What the f*ck do morals and ideals have to do with this? I pay my bills on time every month. I don't carry a credit card balance. I don't leave beyond my means. I read the fine print of every financial transaction and understand and plan for potential ramifications.

That's fiscal common sense, not morality or ideology.

And how is being held responsible for a dumb transaction or living beyond your means a form of punishment? Someone who didn't read the fine print, borrowed more than they could afford or was suckered by a predatory lender -- which also should be held accountable, too -- is now a victim? Caveat emptor.

Again, I ask everyone who favors government bailouts: How is America going to pay for this, considering our government has huge deficits, both candidates propose tax cuts and neither guy seems too inclined to cut government spending?

Or are we just going to spend now and worry about paying for it later? Isn't that what spurred a lot of this crisis in the first place, fueled by lending institutions seeing an easy buck?

We've really entered a Bizarro World of American politics when both major parties want to increase the size of the Federal government, increase government oversight and spend a TRILLION on various bailouts, all while proposing tax cuts. An Obama-McCain ticket would have been unstoppable, eh?

Take care,
PK

The whole "I'm about personal responsibility" and being "responsible" reeks of passing judgement and moral superiority.

And ideals have nothing to do with ideology.

You can have rigid standards or beliefs on how govt and citizens should behave or you can inject a bit of pragmatism and adapting to the environment you face.

Think about cultures which have been ruled under rigid ideology. How have they fared?

[JackB1]

Fact Check on Last Night's Debate:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ca ... act-check/

Talk about stretching the truth!

Just for starters, here are the facts on Obama's "94 times of voting to raise taxes":

–53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
–23 were against proposed tax cuts
–11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care
–Seven were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
– The total includes multiple votes on the same measures.

Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

Verdict:
Misleading. McCain's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. A nonpartisan examination also finds that the 94 total includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

[pk500]

The whole "I'm about personal responsibility" and being "responsible" reeks of passing judgement and moral superiority.

Then so be it.

Read this c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y: Paying my bills in full on time, saving money, carrying no credit card balances and spending well below my means DOES make me fiscally superior to those Americans who have similar means and circumstances as me and choose to spend like sailors on shore leave looking for booze and tail.

Just as Obama is trying to paint being rich in America as something to be ashamed of, have we come to a point in American society where displaying fiscal responsibility also is something to be ashamed of because it might hurt the feelings of those in similar circumstances who don't or because it may make those who do appear superior?

Well, you're damn f*cking straight I'm smarter with my money than some asshole who earned the same as me yet had to have that Lexus, had to have that new iPhone and had to have that $400,000 house with an ARM, maxed to the hilt on credit.

If that's elitism, then I'm guilty as charged and make zero apologies for that. That doesn't mean I can run a five-minute mile. It doesn't mean that I don't need to lose 20 pounds. It doesn't mean that I'm Husband/Father of the Century. It doesn't mean that I have a 150 IQ. It doesn't mean that I understand world financial markets like someone like RobV. It doesn't mean that I don't need to focus harder on work at times.

But it sure as hell means that I'm pretty damn smart with my money -- thanks mainly to my lovely wife -- and I'm proud of it.

So be it.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

You can have rigid standards or beliefs on how govt and citizens should behave or you can inject a bit of pragmatism and adapting to the environment you face.

Think about cultures which have been ruled under rigid ideology. How have they fared?

So let me get this right,a family man running a fiscally sound houshold is bad? And he's an elitist if he's pissed about this catastrof*ck?

It's sounds as if he's adapted to his environment just fine. He knows his finacial limitations and lives within those boundries. His ideology is exactly what this country needs to embrace. He shouldn't be pissed for doing all the right things and still paying for those that don't?

[XXXIV]

Karl Marx is coming tralla tralla

[wco81]

I have no idea if Obama thinks individuals should live within their means. Not sure how his name got into this particular discussion about people spending responsibly or irresponsibly.

I believe in living within one's means and disdain conspicuous consumption much as you.

But policy IMO should not be driven by whether it helps people with a certain credit score or not. In this specific instance, the world is facing the biggest threat to economic stability since the Depression.

So when I referred to pragmatism and adaptation, I was talking about a policy response, not at the level of individual finances.

Do we have the luxury of engaging in a debate about what the role of govt. should be or do we try to put out the fire?

[pk500]

Do we have the luxury of engaging in a debate about what the role of govt. should be or do we try to put out the fire?

What makes us so certain that government has the proper type of extinguisher? Nothing this current Congress or Administration has done in the last two years has been effective, let alone the last two weeks.

I remain very skeptical of the current officials in Washington and in their policies. What if we throw $1 trillion at this problem, and it's not solved and solved quickly?

I might be willing to take a flier with less money involved. But this is ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I shudder when that kind of sum becomes disposable income in D.C.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

We don't know if these problems can be fixed or disaster averted.

But is doing nothing really an option? Do you want to gamble that letting things go, letting the jumpy markets take their course will yield better results?

It's the hands-off, asleep at the switch approach which arguably led to the current crisis.

Do you really want to double down on that strategy?

Hoover thought the market and the economy would fix themselves. He also believed the fundamentals of the economy were strong.

Put it another way. Govt. is in the business of putting out fires, both real and metaphorical. That part hasn't been privatized or deregulated yet.

Govt. should try to prevent panic. If we just let the markets go, there might be financial panic -- one reason why FDR got the FDIC created, to reduce the likelihood of widespread bank runs.

[RobVarak]

I might be willing to take a flier with less money involved. But this is ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I shudder when that kind of sum becomes disposable income in D.C.

Take care,
PK

I saw one estimate that a global banking meltdown would vaporize over $30 trillion in wealth. And that's not even taking into account the human cost of high unemployment, higher crime, strain on the public healthcare infrastructure etc.

[RobVarak]

For those keeping score, there is a record of ACORN-related fraud in Washington, Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Nevada.

Community organizers at their finest.

You can include Wisconsin in that list. Only here, nothing is done about it other than to report that X number (growing by the day) of Acorn workers were caught turning in fake names.

And Connecticut, apparently

http://www.connpost.com/ci_10661361?source=most_viewed

[bdunn13]

Deleted - don't really want to do this anymore.

I hate these threads.

[RobVarak]

My wife is watching the debate on DVR tonight. I already bet her that she wouldn't be able to stay awake...

I'm struck as I listen to it how narrow the 3 debates have been so far. They've all covered almost exactly the same topics, and ignored enormous issues like global trade, China, abortion, judicial appointee philosophy, gun control, nuclear proliferation (Iran excepted) etc.

It's one thing to focus on the economy because of the crisis, but given the fact that the candidates are not going to break new ground on anything they've discussed thus far it would be nice to see them branch out a bit in Debate 3. It's supposed to be only domestic policy, but in light of the change to Debate 1 and the primacy of econmics in Debate 2, it seems prudent to widen the playing field a bit.

It would at least be nice to hear them get the facts all wrong while dealing out talking points on a different topic.

[JRod]

"FDR got the FDIC created"

He also got SS passed. We will be living with that pyramid scheme forever.


And on the topic of voter fraud, we need major reform in this country but that will never happen. If you don't contribute to the system you should not get a say in the system.


The parasites are growing faster than the hosts.

We don't know how many bad ones exist. Without that knowledge we don't know if they got any past the system. While ACORN should face charges of fraud because this extends past a few local organizers being over-zealous.

It seems like they got caught, so while people are talking about voter fraud, they fail to understand the ACORN got caught. It's getting harder and harder for these types of tactics to exist. That doesn't mean the system is 100% accurate but the story fails to recognize that county clerks and state sec. of states caught it before the election

How many more exist? We might not know.

[MACTEPsporta]

I consider this election over, so I affectively pulled out of this thread. I do have one thing to mention about the debate to mention, though. I think Obama missed one great opportunity to score some points.

McCain said something among the lines that Obama wants nuclear energy stored "safely" as if it was such a ridiculos notion, and added nuclear energy is safe and there is nothing to be worried about there. I would have loved to hear Obama mention Chernobyl there.

Otherwise, another win for Obama, not that it changes anything.

[RobVarak]

For those keeping score, there is a record of ACORN-related fraud in Washington, Ohio, Pennsylvania and now Nevada.

Community organizers at their finest.

You can include Wisconsin in that list. Only here, nothing is done about it other than to report that X number (growing by the day) of Acorn workers were caught turning in fake names.

And Connecticut, apparently

http://www.connpost.com/ci_10661361?source=most_viewed

Your latest "winner"...

Missouri

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_ ... oter_fraud

[FatPitcher]

More in the Obama-is-a-socialist department: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/ ... 021724.php

Not exactly definitive, but there's certainly reason to believe that the Obama campaign lied about the matter earlier this year.