OT - I feel fortunate

[bironi]

I saw a news story this morning on NBC about early voting. I was amazed that some states make it so difficult to vote. Some were waiting in line for 2-4 hours. That is just pathetic. I live in Washington State. We have mail-in ballots that may be dropped off at local ballot boxes, or mailed with postage. Either way, I can cast my ballot early and easily.

What's the story in your state?

[RABikes2]

My son Andrew turned 18 this past Sunday; this will be his first time voting. We both received our ballots in the mail and will mail them in tomorrow. Postage is $1.00 (states this on the information paperwork.)

Andrew wanted to take off school Tuesday morning (of course), but the lines have been extremely long. Mom said, "I don't think so." :rolleyes: I might have considered it, but he's already taking off school this Friday for a crew bus trip to race at the Head of the Hooch in Chattanooga, TN. It's not a good idea to miss too many AP classes. ;)

Florida residents.

RA

[gemship]

very nice to mail in a vote. I'm not sure how it works here in Ma. but I'm inclined to believe it's not possible. I feel ashamed to say I'm not going to vote however it will be for good reason. I voted for Obama last Jan. and at the time he lost to Clinton. I would be surprised if loses here in Ma. due to the liberal majority of my home state. I also don't want to deal with the locals and waiting in a long line only to write myself in. Pretty disgusted with the lack of talent of both parties.

[Ray]

No early voting in PA (possibly one of the reasons McCain is still hoping to reverse his fortunes here), so likely a clusterf%*k at the polls next week if turnout is as high as expected. Hell, it was nuts in '04 and this one should have much higher turnout than that one.

Sounds like big percentages of people voting early in lots of states. That's gotta effect an election Particularly since early voting in some states started before the first debate was held. There's gotta be a better way, with the technology we have today, to make this process easier on everyone (maybe with the exception of the software designers.

-Ray

[RPS]

There's gotta be a better way, with the technology we have today, to make this process easier on everyone (maybe with the exception of the software designers.Ray, I’ll respectfully disagree with you -- vehemently.

We should strive to make voting much more difficult. Maybe then people will value it for what it should be but isn’t.

[RABikes2]

Interesting ... I was under the impression that all states, if requested in writing, provided absentee ballots. That's how our ballots were requested; I sent the name and DOB of the voters. If I remember correctly, requests could be for yourself and an immediate family member only.

I voted in PA by absentee when I was in the military in the '70's.

Yes? No?

RA

[Viper]

People wait on line at Walmart on big coupon days for 30 minutes, they can stand on line for a few hours to place a vote. I think of all the men who died allowing me to vote, if I wait on line for a few hours, my quads, hamstrings, calves and tiny arse could use the exercise, most Americans need it too. While I understand most people in the world would like to be able to vote from a couch, using a remote control, or voice-activated ballot, I will walk to my local school on November 4th, sign-in and sign-up. My grandmother's brother, Peter Hayes, he landed in Normandy on D-Day, he was 19 years old, I'm sure he spent a few hours in hell, I can spend a few moments waiting on a line. :beer:

Vote.

[gemship]

People wait on line at Walmart on big coupon days for 30 minutes, they can stand on line for a few hours to place a vote. I think of all the men who died allowing me to vote, if I wait on line for a few hours, my quads, hamstrings, calves and tiny arse could use the exercise, most Americans need it too. While I understand most people in the world would like to be able to vote from a couch, using a remote control, or voice-activated ballot, I will walk to my local school on November 4th, sign-in and sign-up.

Vote.


Good point and well taken. Speaking for myself I work 2nd shift at a machine shop lifting heavy objects and stand on cold concrete floors so the legs take plenty a beating. I also commute 7 miles by bicycle. I actually don't mind the idea of standing in line despite all this however it's all the silly nosy neighbors that I fear of running into while waiting in that line and the end result will be me writing myself in. Since I'm most likely the only one to vote for me I reckon the vote is safe if it stays with me. Besides my legs could use a break.

War, soldiers, this world, victims of victims.

[johnnymossville]

I'm not sure I like early voting. People voting before the first debate won't have access to the same information about a candidate than someone voting on election day has. I'd be bummed if I voted for a guy, then later (two days before election day) found out he was keeping dead people in his basement. Extreme example, but the point is, a more informed voter is better than a less informed one. Early voters are lesser informed and that's a fact.

Having said that, long lines suck.

[RPS]

Having said that, long lines suck.My wife voted early and doesn’t get why I want to stand in line on election day. She said it was so fast and simple that that’s the only way to go.

For me it takes some of the significance out of it. And I have no idea why – it just does. It's not that I like standing in lines, but I'll gladly do so if that's what it takes.

[johnnymossville]

My wife voted early and doesn’t get why I want to stand in line on election day. She said it was so fast and simple that that’s the only way to go.

For me it takes some of the significance out of it. And I have no idea why – it just does. It's not that I like standing in lines, but I'll gladly do so if that's what it takes.

I'd drive 4 hours and wait in line to vote in person over voting by mail any day. I haven't missed voting since I turned 18 and have no plans on starting now. It's pretty important to me so I'm with you on this.

[Viper]

Good point and well taken. Speaking for myself I work 2nd shift at a machine shop lifting heavy objects and stand on cold concrete floors so the legs take plenty a beating. I also commute 7 miles by bicycle. I actually don't mind the idea of standing in line despite all this however it's all the silly nosy neighbors that I fear of running into while waiting in that line and the end result will be me writing myself in. Since I'm most likely the only one to vote for me I reckon the vote is safe if it stays with me. Besides my legs could use a break.

War, soldiers, this world, victims of victims.


Vote for Viper. :banana:

You're a good man to work like you do and taking your vote to heart.

You can now vote in space:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=be-like-an-astronaut-vote-2008-10-27

:beer:

[goonster]

We should strive to make voting much more difficult. Maybe then people will value it for what it should be but isn’t.

Respectfully, this makes no sense.

The act of voting has value because of what it is, not how difficult or inconvenient it is.

The citizen owes the state his/her commitment to vote, and the state owes its citizens an efficient and accurate counting of those votes without imposing unnecessary burdens.

When there are long lines at polling stations, voters are effectively punished for living there, as opposed to some other place with either lower population density or lower turnout. There will be citizens who cannot vote, because their commitments to work or their family don't permit a four hour wait in line. This is not (always) a question of laziness or apathy.

[RPS]

Respectfully, this makes no sense.You interpreted my point too literally. Not that it matters since I doubt you’d agree with it anyway.

[goonster]

Here (http://www.wsbtv.com/politics/17819448/detail.html) is a report of 12-hour lines in Georgia.

Difficult enough for you?

Just to be clear, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect voters to show up in person at a polling station. But there is a point, probably somewhere beyond three hours, where the delay becomes unacceptable and the result is the disenfranchisement of voters.

[Viper]

disenfranchisement of voters.

Not the 'D' word. Man if I got a nickel every time I heard it. :D

[goonster]

You interpreted my point too literally. Not that it matters since I doubt you’d agree with it anyway.

I don't think that's fair.

I can agree that voting should require more effort than five minutes of mouse-clicking from a computer at home. I can also agree that it is better to stand in line for twelve hours than have no meaningful vote at all.

Can you agree that twelve hours is an unreasonable burden to ask of voters in the USA in 2008?

At any rate, the burden should be uniform, at least within a given state.

[Blue Jays]

"...Can you agree that twelve hours is an unreasonable burden to ask of voters in the USA in 2008?..."
"...Clayton County's election supervisor, Annie Bright, blamed the state.
She said the computer mainframe the state uses to check voter registration became overwhelmed and didn't start working correctly until 4:30 p.m. Monday.
The Secretary of State's Office said Clayton County should take the blame.
The office said back-ups took place intermittently and didn't last long enough to cause eight hour delays.
Advance voting continues in Georgia for the rest of the week..."They had an apparent technical issue and people didn't commence voting until late afternoon. It's not like they had one voting booth and intentionally got a laugh from making people wait.

[goonster]

They had an apparent technical issue and people didn't commence voting until late afternoon. It's not like they had one voting booth and intentionally got a laugh from making people wait.

I understand that, but that's not the point.

What if the servers went down on the 4th? Even without crashing servers, there will be extremely long lines.

(We use redundant servers for mission critical functions. A backup server with a sync'ed database should be neither overly complex nor prohibitively expensive.)

On a positive note, the article I referenced does not contain a single complaint. Voters are quoted saying "six hours is nothing." It speaks of both extremely low expectations, and a very high value attributed to the vote.

My overall point is that:
1. Registered voters should not be subjected to unreasonably long waits on election day.
2. As a nation, we should hold the election boards to a very standard of performance.

[KeithS]

In my home state they are projecting an 80% voting rate. I haven't missed the opportunity to vote since November of 1974. I haven't ever experienced a problem or a long line, I am not disenfranchised because I have lived in the same community for 20 years, the same house for the last 12. I have a friend who is an election judge, he has lots of stories to tell.

[sg8357]

No Robert Heinlein fans out there ?

In Starship Troopers, only retired veterans got the vote.

Anyway, I vote in person, no long lines, I get to feel like a Citizen.

Scott G.
NPR reported the New Hampshire primary is only 3 years away.
Looking forward to Jindahl vs. Clinton.

[Ray]

Ray, I’ll respectfully disagree with you -- vehemently.

We should strive to make voting much more difficult. Maybe then people will value it for what it should be but isn’t.
Back at you, also respectfully and also vehemently. The more people who exercise the franchise, the more democratic the society is, by definition. The easier it is to vote, the more people who will. A certain percentage will never appreciate how truly important and what a privilege a vote is. That's regrettable, but that's also not the main point. Everyone likes to hear the heroic stories about people who stood in line for hours or who ignored threats in order to vote, in the US or in Iraq or elsewhere. But the fact that many people have been willing to overcome these obstacles to vote does not mean we should create obstacles. Think of how many people DIDN'T overcome those obstacles and didn't vote. Are we more or less democratic for not including their votes? Are we having minimum requirements to vote based on how much you appreciate it and how much you're willing to put up with for it? I don't think that was ever the intent. Why not just go back to the days when you had to own property to vote and blacks only counted three fifths?

I say make it as easy as we can and still safeguard the results and, hence, open it up to the greatest number of people. I get your point and understand what you're saying, but I can't find any agreement with it.

-Ray

[harlond]

Ray, I’ll respectfully disagree with you -- vehemently.

We should strive to make voting much more difficult. Maybe then people will value it for what it should be but isn’t.Hasn't turnout been at record levels the last two elections? Haven't millions of new voters been registered this year? Seems to me that in spite of the difficulties that many, many people have encountered in voting the last two elections, more and more people want to do it. That seems like good evidence that a high percentage of people value the vote.

In any event, what should it be that it isn't?

[RPS]

Are we having minimum requirements to vote based on how much you appreciate it and how much you're willing to put up with for it? I don't think that was ever the intent.You can’t possibly think I would find value in having people standing around in lines for hours to vote. :confused:

BTW, I don’t see value in your premise that more is necessarily better. Personally I’d like to see better quality than greater volume.

[johnnymossville]

I find it disturbing that the news media is reporting Obama getting 80% of the early votes in some areas. How is that information good for the process? It may be, but I'd like to know how exactly.

I think there should be an election day, not an election month or year. Seems to me the whole system is getting kinda ridiculous, ripe for fraud all over the place.

[Blue Jays]

"...I think there should be an election day, not an election month or year..."Absolutely concur. It would ensure day-to-day life has less strife and unnecessary turmoil.

[39cross]

At my polling place in my beloved state of Massachusetts I have never had to wait for very long in line. We use paper ballots that are scanned. Simple and effective.

IMHO, election day should be a holiday so people can vote without hassle. Next best thing is having voting available on weekends. Early voting seems like a good idea, it takes pressure off the system on Tuesday and lets the officials work out any kinks in the system.

And that said, if you don't vote I don't want to hear your opinion, because without voting it's worthless. Sorry, my friends.

[Viper]

At my polling place in my beloved state of Massachusetts I have never had to wait for very long in line.

That cause in your state, there's only one line. :D Are Cambridge and Somerville, MA equivalent to CA's Berkeley? :) FYI here, very interesting list:

http://www.epodunk.com/top10/liberal/index.html


:beer:

[cadence90]

People wait on line at Walmart on big coupon days for 30 minutes, they can stand on line for a few hours to place a vote.I completely agree, but what if Walmart offers BIG COUPONS on Nov. 4?

Walmart...............Vote
....:confused:......................:confused:


I'd drive 4 hours and wait in line to vote in person over voting by mail any day. I haven't missed voting since I turned 18 and have no plans on starting now. It's pretty important to me so I'm with you on this.+1.
I don't even mind the lines; I actually like the social aspect, the communal feeling of being physically present on such an important day.


Vote for Viper. :banana: Well, at least we all know you're fully vetted and qualified: :)
http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/ModConfused6605.gif

[Elefantino]

We voted early today. The line was 25 people long. We waited for 15 minutes. It was nice to get it out of the way early because Election Day will be a long work day for me and I don't need the added time constraint.

I couldn't help thinking as I was waiting in line: If early voting statistics were made available and showed that Party A received a substantially larger share of that vote than Party B, would Party B try to put an end to early voting?

NPR reported the New Hampshire primary is only 3 years away. Looking forward to Jindahl vs. Clinton.

You mean Jindahl vs. Palin. Clinton will have her hands full challenging the incumbent.

[bironi]

My original post was about how easy it is to vote in Washington State. I have voted every election from the time I turned 18, that is 9 presidential elections. I know how the system has changed for the better. I did not mind making the effort of showing up at my polling place, but I prefer the convenience of casting my vote from home on my own schedule, and I'm pretty sure that most Washington residents feel the same.

I do find it interesting that the patchwork voting systems of the many states, makes it difficult for pollsters to make accurate predictions. Some can vote early, others not. I agree with Ray, that PA is probably still a battleground state because there is no early voting. I was just surprised by the fact that some states have not made any investment in technologies that would make the system run smoother.

One other comment about high voter turnout in the last couple presidential elections. In the period 1840-1888 voter turnout in the US fell somewhere between 70-80 percent.

Byron

[39cross]

.... FYI here, very interesting list:

http://www.epodunk.com/top10/liberal/index.html
Well, at least now I know I don't have to move to Canada. :)

[SoCalSteve]

I always vote "absentee". I get to relax in the privacy of my own home and mark off the ballot...

Seems to work well.

I voted 2 weeks ago, btw.

Steve

[chuckroast]

No early voting in Missouri. There is absentee but there's a filing deadline as I recall and it is intended for folks that are really out of state. There's lots of kvetching here in KC because we're on a state line and they have early voting over in Kansas.

[Viper]

Well, at least we all know you're fully vetted and qualified: :)
http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/ModConfused6605.gif

Now that is funny stuff.

I feel like a Top Secret Scientist who knows something, like aliens from the Azure or Mutara Nebula crashed in Nevada in 1951 and are buried under Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands, right next to Jimmy Hoffa and I can't sleep at night...I lay there watching the tv, hoping it'll turn to full static, Poltergeist as I churn over the fact of voting Democratic for the first time in my life on November 4th. On Novmember 5th do I have to head down to the local Salvation Army and donate all of my sweater vests? Sell my Bimmer and buy a hybrid? Grow a beard? Ebay my Steve Austin doll? Stop eating beef? Go vegan? What? What??? I feel like this, so much like this, like I'm fighting something, myself, or my Dad and it turns out to be even worse, I've been kissing my sister:

[jhcakilmer]

Personally, I love to go to the polling station and vote. We live in a medium sized city, and our location is a Luthern church about 2 blocks from our house. The workers are some older women, that are very helpful, and pleasant....and they make cookies, brownies, etc....MMMMMmmmmm!!

I've volunteered at polls before in "undeserved" areas, basically poor minority populations, and it's ridiculous. They are understaffed, lacking enough equipment, etc.........we were just there to bring them a drink of water, and encourage them.

I can't help but get upset by the myopic ignorance of some postings, but I think that's the point. I've never been poor, and depressed, but I've tried to put myself in :their" shoes (although only for a short time), and I have a small understanding a glimpse of what some some of them feel, and how it effects how their exist.

[Tobias]

I can't help but get upset by the myopic ignorance of some postings, but I think that's the point. :confused: I can't follow this comment. Care to explain?

[jhcakilmer]

:confused: I can't follow this comment. Care to explain?

I don't want to be too specific, I'm not looking to attack individuals. Some postings "seem" to quantify that we should be willing to stand in line for a couple hours, since we are so privileged to live in this country (which I don't disagree with), without taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances (ie....having to work 2 or 3 jobs, and don't have the time to stand for 3 hours......also, who's the one standing in line for that long? "middle class white male"....I don't think so).

I put quotations on the "seem" because again, I don't want to characterize someone based on single statements or quote.....this is just a forum, we really can't understand one another character from a few postings.

[RPS]

I don't want to be too specific, I'm not looking to attack individuals.You are right, the word "seem" is appropriate when discussing “opinions”; and I appreciate your civility, particularly if your comment was directed at me (which I’m not entirely certain).

I have two “concerns” regarding modern-day voting; and bending over backwards to make it too easy is one of the two. It’s not that I want to take voting out of the hands of the poor and minorities either – my parents and entire extended family always found a way to vote being both.

What concerns me is what I “personally” perceive as a strong similarity with the underlying issues that led to the melt down of financial markets. In that case credit was made too easy so everyone could buy a house or get credit cards, greed led many to bend or break the rules to get rich (i.e. – achieve their ultimate goal), and all was facilitated by deregulation that was well intended but abused at the ultimate expense of us all.

I see early voting in a very similar light. It’s just an opinion so please don’t flame me for wanting to end Democracy – to the contrary. I think it does or will do more harm in the long run than what we get from it. Like easy money, easy voting is not a fix-all improvement.

IMO early voting is more open to fraud and corruption, and complicates the political process unnecessarily. I would limit it to those who can’t vote on Election Day.

[jhcakilmer]

You are right, the word "seem" is appropriate when discussing “opinions”; and I appreciate your civility, particularly if your comment was directed at me (which I’m not entirely certain).

I have two “concerns” regarding modern-day voting; and bending over backwards to make it too easy is one of the two. It’s not that I want to take voting out of the hands of the poor and minorities either – my parents and entire extended family always found a way to vote being both.

What concerns me is what I “personally” perceive as a strong similarity with the underlying issues that led to the melt down of financial markets. In that case credit was made too easy so everyone could buy a house or get credit cards, greed led many to bend or break the rules to get rich (i.e. – achieve their ultimate goal), and all was facilitated by deregulation that was well intended but abused at the ultimate expense of us all.

I see early voting in a very similar light. It’s just an opinion so please don’t flame me for wanting to end Democracy – to the contrary. I think it does or will do more harm in the long run than what we get from it. Like easy money, easy voting is not a fix-all improvement.

IMO early voting is more open to fraud and corruption, and complicates the political process unnecessarily. I would limit it to those who can’t vote on Election Day.

Actually, I don't even remember your posting (by the time I get done reading the postings I don't remember who specifically wrote what), and like I said more than one individual either overtly, or covertly expressed similar concerns to the issue I expressed.

Also, I agree about the absentee voting, it should be reserved for those that are "unable" to submit their vote in person. But that is were it becomes subjective.....what situation constitutes "unable"?

Voting is a privilege, but should not be overly burdensome, or restrictive to a certain group, or class.......which it is. I'm sure some will want to argue this point, but facts are facts.....minorities and low class (socioeconomic) groups are directly, and indirectly oppressed (yes I used the "O" word). They do not have the same opportunities that we have.

[johnnymossville]

My grandparents and parents were as poor as dirt, literally, yet found a way to vote in every election, on election day, for 70+ years. If they weren't working, they were sleeping. Having said that, making it easy for every single legal vote in America to count is a good thing. I don't think anyone here ever wanted anything less. You make it sound like people want other people's vote not to count. That's absurd.

[RPS]

Voting is a privilege, but should not be overly burdensome, or restrictive to a certain group, or class.......which it is. I'm sure some will want to argue this point, but facts are facts.....minorities and low class (socioeconomic) groups are directly, and indirectly oppressed (yes I used the "O" word). They do not have the same opportunities that we have.I agree that they may be "oppressed" financially (I don't like that word, would prefer being at a disadvantage) but that shouldn't prevent practically anyone who wants to vote from doing so. As I said, my parents and extended family were poor for a long time after arriving in US as political refugees but started voting as soon as they qualified. Being poor was never a factor.

[Vancouverdave]

[QUOTE=bironi]I saw a news story this morning on NBC about early voting. I was amazed that some states make it so difficult to vote. Some were waiting in line for 2-4 hours. That is just pathetic. I live in Washington State. We have mail-in ballots that may be dropped off at local ballot boxes, or mailed with postage. Either way, I can cast my ballot early and easily.
Amen, Bironi. We (down here in Clark Co.) are all mail-in. Our county auditor
(one of my customers, in fact, rides Dura Ace 8 Raleigh 753) pushed us to single-mode voting after that festive governor's election of '04. Re-elect Gregoire, keep the homebuilders' hoe out of Olympia!

[MarleyMon]

I rode my bike to the County Clerk's office today to vote early,
as I'll be travelling Tuesday. Early voting has been ongoing since 10/6 at the Clerk's office,
and this week 2 satelite offices opened (7 days a week, 11-7).
The wait was about 1 hour and worth every minute.
Thanks to all the people working the polls, whether civil servants, clerical workers
or volunteers, who make voting possible.
Its a most empowering feeling to exercise the franchise!
We are fortunate to have a voice in selecting our government.

[jel]

My precinct is too small to have a polling place, we all vote by mail.

[Blue Jays]

I walk to my polling place where the nice challengers greet me.
After waiting for less than thirty seconds I'll cast my vote by pulling levers or tapping on the screen.
Easy-peasy.

[93legendti]

Early voters will miss the news about Obama's aunt living illegally and in poverty in Boston. He made $5 million last year. C'mon Barrie, spread the wealth! Maybe Sen. Gaffe Biden can donate some of his massive charitable donations ($360 per year for charity) to her!

[Lazy Bill]

Early voters will miss the news about Obama's aunt living illegally and in poverty in Boston. He made $5 million last year. C'mon Barrie, spread the wealth! Maybe Sen. Gaffe Biden can donate some of his massive charitable donations ($60 per year for charity) to her!
what - no link? :rolleyes:

[RPS]

Early voters will miss the news about Obama's aunt living illegally and in poverty in Boston.I seriously doubt his supporters will care. Not everyone takes care of extended family in the same way, and from what I’ve read he is not close to his African side of the family having been raised by his mother’s white side.

“If” he knew she was in poverty I’d hope he would have tried to help out of common decency (although I don’t know if her being here illegally would compromise his position).

[Climb01742]

Personally I’d like to see better quality than greater volume.

this thought seems profoundly unamerican. all men are created equal, at least according to the founding fathers.

[Climb01742]

making it easy for every single legal vote in America to count is a good thing.

+1
thomas jefferson would like your thinking.

[93legendti]

what - no link? :rolleyes:

Sorry, it is a neo-con site:

http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-kenyan-aunt-in-us-illegally/234770

Stingy Joe's giving:

http://philanthropy.com/news/government/5685/bidens-average-annual-charitable-gift-total-369

[RPS]

this thought seems profoundly unamerican. all men are created equal, at least according to the founding fathers.Really, which part? I’m not a “real” American like most here but will express my opinion nonetheless. I gather you would rather have twice as many uninformed voters than half as many that are well informed and actually know the issues so they can make smarter decisions?

By the way, all men are NOT created equal; we are created with equal rights. There is a huge difference. And as to the founding fathers, they didn’t think blacks like Obama should vote, not to mention run for president, so please don’t elevate them to the rank of infallible gods. Same goes for their views on women – apparently the founding fathers didn’t have the absolute wisdom to give them certain rights either.

My full comment was:BTW, I don’t see value in your premise that more is necessarily better. Personally I’d like to see better quality than greater volume.And yes, it may be un-American but I’ll stand behind it because it makes sense to me – particularly in the context I made it.

If you take a poll of 20 million Americans regarding who they would vote for between two candidates, the accuracy of the results would be essentially the same as if you asked 50 million. Provided you ask a truly random sample, having more for the sake of more is not all that significant.

So if we make early voting incredibly easy in order to get a few more people to vote, it will only make a difference if the ease of voting in itself does not affect both sides equally. And that’s the real issue here, isn’t it? One side or the other thinks early and/or easy voting will benefit them more than the other side.

As to quality, I don’t think it’s un-American to want voters to know what they are actually doing rather than act blindly. As a society we require many participants in all kinds of tasks and activities to demonstrate proficiency, don’t we? Why should voting be different if it’s as important or more so?

Let’s see, pilots have to be type rated and demonstrate the ability to fly an airplane. We could say that all men are created equal and hence anyone who shows up has the God-given right to fly an airplane, but that’s not going to happen, is it?

Teachers must be certified to teach children.

Welders have to pass skill tests before welding pipes in a power plant.

We have to pass a drivers test to drive a car, or motorcycle.

I could go on but hope you get the point of how I feel. You can disagree all you want, but IMHO ensuring the participants of any activity are proficient to carry it out is the only way I know of making it better. And finally, since I'm only a naturalized-American, I hope you forgive me for being so brazen as to suggest that what is actually un-American is being able to pick drug addicts off city curbs and get them to vote for a bottle of cheap whisky.

So Climb, is not wanting the airport janitor flying your plane un-American or common sense? :confused:

[gasman]

[QUOTE=RP?
I could go on but hope you get the point of how I feel. You can disagree all you want, but IMHO ensuring the participants of any activity are proficient to carry it out is the only way I know of making it better. :confused:[/QUOTE]



Too bad you don't need to take a test to have a child. I would love to have a test required to vote but for neither of these issues could you really make a fair test.

[johnnymossville]

The absolute arrogance of BO to suggest we are our brother's keeper, with his own brother living on a buck and month, and auntie, who he spoke so well of in his "autobiography fairy tale" is living in slums as an illegal alien. Less than 1% of his own money to charity. I guess he only meant the rest of us. Not him.

I've been through the immigration process with family members, including my wife, and if you have someone in your family that is trying to come to this country "legally" you absolutely know full well their status. It's important to some of us. BO didn't know her status? Sorry, but that's BS BO.

I find it amazing how many things Obama doesn't know about people he is close too. I'll say it again though,... We are getting what we deserve Tuesday unfortunately.

[Flat Out]

We are getting what we deserve Tuesday
And it's about friggin' time. :banana:

Disclaimer: The above banana does not suggest victory. It is only me having... I don't know... The Audacity of Hope. Or something. We all know it's not over 'til the old guy's on SNL. Which is in about 30 minutes.

[Tobias]

Too bad you don't need to take a test to have a child. I would love to have a test required to vote but for neither of these issues could you really make a fair test.True, but not having an answer now doesn't mean we shouldn't look for one (general statement, not limited to this issue).

BTW, if my parents had to pass a tough test, I'm not sure I'd be here. :rolleyes:

[johnnymossville]

And it's about friggin' time. :banana:

Disclaimer: The above banana does not suggest victory. It is only me having... I don't know... The Audacity of Hope. Or something. We all know it's not over 'til the old guy's on SNL. Which is in about 30 minutes.

So I guess you won't mind taking care of his family for him. That's what he wants you to do. You are a very generous person. Thanks. :)

[Flat Out]

So I guess you won't mind taking care of his family for him. That's what he wants you to do. You are a very generous person. Thanks. :)

The Beatles taught me that at an early age. "The love you take is equal to the love you make."

Pssst, you might want to get all the facts before you start slingin' arrows. McCain's campaign made that mistake with the Khalidi/Obama connection... before it came out that McCain gave the same guy a half million dollar grant. ;)

[Ray]

BTW, if my parents had to pass a tough test, I'm not sure I'd be here. :rolleyes:
OK, NOW I'm in favor of a test for both parenthood and voting! (Just a joke Tobias - we'd all miss you a great deal.)

RPS, I respect your opinion, but I agree with Climb on this one. I find the attitude that only individuals of a certain level of quality should be able to vote profoundly undemocratic. I can't say I haven't felt the same way during extremely frustrating elections where I figured that the other half +1 of the country was a bunch of unmitigated idiots, but the whole point is that we're ALL supposed to be represented by our government and have the same input in choosing it. But how do you determine who gets to vote or even who sets the criteria. Just making voting more difficult establishes one set of criteria. Having an IQ requirement or an educational level requirement or a goes to church twice on Sundays requirement all have all sorts of biases built into them. Maybe it should only be natural born Americans, or 5th generation naturally born Americans. You get my point - its a VERY slippery slope.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

RPS, i agree wholeheartedly that for many, if not all, jobs some sort of certification is hugely beneficial. yes, i want the absolute best pilot flying any plane i'm in and the best surgeon cutting me open.

but voting is different. i would argue that america, and the world, has suffered from the idiocy of voters electing bush for two terms, yet for as much bad as has come from that idiocy, i wouldn't want it any other way. democracy is messy and sometimes flawed but it's the best system yet devised.

i'm sure at times, legendti thinks i'm a complete doofus and misinformed beyond belief. and :banana: :D the reverse holds too. but that's the beauty and ultimate strength of america. we each have an unalienable right to those beliefs and the ability to vote on them.

some things in life should be earned, but some things should, as the founding fathers said, be "natural" rights, flowing not from man or institutions, but from something more fundamental and unalienable.

one definition of freedom is advocating and protecting the rights of someone who you vehemently and completely disagree with. for me, those rights begin with voting. and the only way to insure that is to insure everyone's right to vote.

what can't be insured, but only hoped for, is that come wednesday morning, whatever the outcome, we all have the grace to accept it, and come together, because regardless of who the president is, the problems we face are too big to try to solve divided. the only way they'll be solved is together.

i think it's damn cool that on tuesday, all the opinions that have played out here for months will be played out in an election. in which EVERY one of us gets to vote. we'll all be heard, equally. how cool is that?

[andy mac]

"We are getting what we deserve Tuesday unfortunately."[/QUOTE]




yeah, like the last 8 years have been fantastic and we should stick with it?

:crap:

[keno]

While I do not support the man, I do believe that BO will be elected. At least we will then actually begin to learn what the man stands for and is willing to try to do something about. Until now he has been a chimera to me. Facile in speech, natty in dress, but otherwise undefined to me. He has been clever in portraying himself through platitudes onto which many have projected unrealistic hopes. My own suspicion, and not one that I hope for, is that he will not only fail to satisfy an emotion he has provoved others to latch onto in an irrational manner but will also increase division within this country. One impression I do get is that his idea of coming together is for everyone to embrace his beliefs, which is hardly realistic or worth debating. People simply are not so constructed.

keno

[Big Dan]

Why so much hate from the Neo-cons?
I'm sure glad I left the Repus........

:p

[93legendti]

While I do not support the man, I do believe that BO will be elected. At least we will then actually begin to learn what the man stands for and is willing to try to do something about. Until now he has been a chimera to me. Facile in speech, natty in dress, but otherwise undefined to me. He has been clever in portraying himself through platitudes onto which many have projected unrealistic hopes. My own suspicion, and not one that I hope for, is that he will not only fail to satisfy an emotion he has provoved others to latch onto in an irrational manner but will also increase division within this country. One impression I do get is that his idea of coming together is for everyone to embrace his beliefs, which is hardly realistic or worth debating. People simply are not so constructed.

keno
That's it, you're off the plane; your TV station will get no more interviews. If you live in Ohio, we're going to research your private records and release them without your consent.

[93legendti]

RPS, i agree wholeheartedly that for many, if not all, jobs some sort of certification is hugely beneficial. yes, i want the absolute best pilot flying any plane i'm in and the best surgeon cutting me open.

but voting is different. i would argue that america, and the world, has suffered from the idiocy of voters electing bush for two terms, yet for as much bad as has come from that idiocy, i wouldn't want it any other way. democracy is messy and sometimes flawed but it's the best system yet devised.

i'm sure at times, legendti thinks i'm a complete doofus and misinformed beyond belief. and :banana: :D the reverse holds too. but that's the beauty and ultimate strength of america. we each have an unalienable right to those beliefs and the ability to vote on them.

some things in life should be earned, but some things should, as the founding fathers said, be "natural" rights, flowing not from man or institutions, but from something more fundamental and unalienable.

one definition of freedom is advocating and protecting the rights of someone who you vehemently and completely disagree with. for me, those rights begin with voting. and the only way to insure that is to insure everyone's right to vote.

what can't be insured, but only hoped for, is that come wednesday morning, whatever the outcome, we all have the grace to accept it, and come together, because regardless of who the president is, the problems we face are too big to try to solve divided. the only way they'll be solved is together.

i think it's damn cool that on tuesday, all the opinions that have played out here for months will be played out in an election. in which EVERY one of us gets to vote. we'll all be heard, equally. how cool is that?

Nope, I repsect your beliefs. I just think they are misplaced and not supported by facts.

It's a fact that lower taxes leads to higher revenues. *
It's a fact that the top ten percent of tax payers pay 65% of the taxes in this country.*
It's a fact, and often stated here, that our Gov't wastes money.

If so, how do Dems support higher taxes? :crap:

Are there objective studies that show that Welfare works?

I read here that Sen. McCain wants to give oil companies tax breaks. Not true, in fact, he wants to end them. But B.O. and the Times say it, so it must be true. Right?

"According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, 1 the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes...

The 1960s: After President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise during the next three years by 57 percent and their share of the tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. 4

The 1980s: The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the "rich"? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988

Endnotes

1. Tax Foundation, "Distribution of the Federal Individual Income Tax," Special Report No. 101, November 2000.

2. The goal of legislators should not be to set the rate at the revenue-maximizing level; instead, they should lower rates even further to maximize growth. Regardless of the goal, however, it is self-defeating to set the top rate above the revenue-maximizing level.

3. Joint Economic Committee, "The Mellon and Kennedy Tax Cuts: A Review and Analysis," June 18, 1962.

4. Ibid.

5. Daniel J. Mitchell, "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1086, July 19, 1996, p. 7.

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Historical Income Tables--Families," Table F-3, Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1966 to 1999, at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html.

7. Peter Sperry, "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1414, March 1, 2001."

[39cross]

...My own suspicion, and not one that I hope for, is that he will not only fail to satisfy an emotion he has provoved others to latch onto in an irrational manner but will also increase division within this country. One impression I do get is that his idea of coming together is for everyone to embrace his beliefs, which is hardly realistic or worth debating. People simply are not so constructed.kenoKeno, reading your comments lead me to a few thoughts I'd like to put out there. First, could the country be any more divided than it is already? Obama is seeking to unite the country, to heal the artificial divisions that have been inflamed by the years of Rovian politics. A lot of Democrats wish, I am sure, for payback for the years of slander and lies that that have been told to inflame a nation against itself, but he has stood above the name calling and character assassination.

I do not have the impression that he is a man who forcefully impresses his beliefs upon others. I believe he is a leader who will govern by forming consensus. In this era perhaps that is akin to herding cats, but this seems to me to be one of his core values and strengths.

These will be difficult years ahead, but I am hopeful that he will lead us in a thoughtful, unifying style as well as or better than any other man or woman out there. We will soon enough see if a majority concurs.

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=39cross]Keno, reading your comments lead me to a few thoughts I'd like to put out there. First, could the country be any more divided than it is already? Obama is seeking to unite the country, to heal the artificial divisions that have been inflamed by the years of Rovian politics...QUOTE]

Which is why he joined the gang of 14 (oops, he didn't);
which is why he spent his time in the Senate drafting bi-partisan legislation (oops, he didn't);
which is why he refrained from making fun of Sen. McCain's war injuries (oops, he didn't);
which is why he can tolerate criticism from the press (oops, he can't);
which is why he didn't play the racist card (oops, he did).

[johnnymossville]

...I believe he is a leader who will govern by forming consensus. In this era perhaps that is akin to herding cats, but this seems to me to be one of his core values and strengths.

Exactly why I'm supporting McCain. He's the only one of these two with any interest in reaching across the aisle. You may not agree with all of his political views, I sure don't, but he's proven he can do exactly what you are looking for. I believe BO has no interest in reaching across the aisle. Ofcourse, we'll see about that shortly won't we? Of course, he won't have to reach far with Pelosi and Reed will he? LOL

As far as the last 8 years, they started with the dot-com bust, 9/11 and the war on terror. I'm not going to put blame on Bush for the housing crisis. So I'm gonna say I'm slightly better off right now since taxes are lower, for now.

[keno]

"First, could the country be any more divided than it is already?"

Unequivocally, YES. This idea has been dramatized to the nth by liberals. If you think for a minute that the divisions in the wonderful country we live in hold even a dim candle to Civil War times you are terribly mistaken. There are so many other times that far eclipse current events insofar as division is concerned. No doubt, the last eight years have not been good years. It is the liberal dream to make all things, regardless of what they are, seem doom-filled.

I definitely repect your point of personal point of view on the man, but your rhetorical question as to the times in which we live deserves an answer in my mind.

ken

[fiamme red]

yeah, like the last 8 years have been fantastic and we should stick with it?

:crap:No matter who gets elected, the Bush administration still has over two months left to destroy this country. :crap:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

[Ray]

He has been clever in portraying himself through platitudes onto which many have projected unrealistic hopes. My own suspicion, and not one that I hope for, is that he will not only fail to satisfy an emotion he has provoved others to latch onto in an irrational manner but will also increase division within this country. One impression I do get is that his idea of coming together is for everyone to embrace his beliefs, which is hardly realistic or worth debating. People simply are not so constructed.

keno
As to the section I emphasized above, what successful politician has NOT done that? That's how you get elected and you ultimately disappoint your hardest core supporters but they still prefer you to the alternative and you please the greatest number to the greatest degree that way.

As to divisions within this country, I seriously doubt it would be possible to INCREASE them. I've never seen two elections that were more divided and bitter than the last two. (edit - OK, I'll bow to Keno - its not as bad as pre-Civil War). We are a very badly divided nation. The question is whether the next pres will be able to decrease the level of division and I'm skeptical but mildly hopeful about that. Once they get out of election mode, I think either Obama or McCain is apt to try to be more bi-partisan than Bush has been. Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton were all far more bi-partisan than Bush II has been. I think that's part of why we're so divided now. Bush has always been a my way or the highway kind of guy, at least until the last two years when he's had to be a LITTLE bit accommodating.

No matter how unifying a president is, there will always be 30% or so on the extreme end of the opposite flank who will just hate him and see him as the anti-christ. If Obama is elected, those will be the same roughly 30% who still approve of Bush. I think I've seen a couple of those folks floating around on this board :cool: . Most other folks are probably inclined to at least give him a chance. My hope is that, if its Obama, he's smart and pragmatic enough to at least try for bi-partisanship. But that's tougher to do when you know you have the votes to get something done with or without help from the other side. And I'm sure there will be times when he'll take advantage of his numbers to shove something through, which is a divisive act by definition.

We'll see. McCain was damn funny on SNL last night, so maybe he'll still win.

-Ray

[fiamme red]

We'll see. McCain was damn funny on SNL last night, so maybe he'll still win.If an appearance on SNL is the deciding factor in the election, we're in even worse shape than I thought.

[Ray]

Facile in speech, natty in dress, but otherwise undefined to me. He has been clever in portraying himself through platitudes onto which many have projected unrealistic hopes. My own suspicion, and not one that I hope for, is that he will not only fail to satisfy an emotion he has provoved others to latch onto in an irrational manner but will also increase division within this country. One impression I do get is that his idea of coming together is for everyone to embrace his beliefs, which is hardly realistic or worth debating. People simply are not so constructed.

Aside from my lengthier post, above, I couldn't have done a better job of writing my initial impressions of Bush II when he was elected than the paragraph you just wrote about Obama. I wouldn't change a frickin' WORD. Further evidence that we all see things as we wish to see them. Per the book you just recommended, I think.

-Ray

[MarleyMon]

Early voters will miss the news about Obama's aunt living illegally...
Wow - who knew the Bush Justice Dept was so incompetent they can't enforce their own orders? Stunning.

[zap]

snipped

But that's tougher to do when you know you have the votes to get something done with or without help from the other side. And I'm sure there will be times when he'll take advantage of his numbers to shove something through, which is a divisive act by definition.


-Ray

Ray, the democratic party is quite different these days with a good number of fiscal conservatives. There is a split in the party about which programs to pursue first if at all, so it will be interesting to see, if Obama wins, how this will play out in the party.

Anyhow, I look forward to Tuesday.

[Ray]

snipped



Ray, the democratic party is quite different these days with a good number of fiscal conservatives. There is a split in the party about which programs to pursue first if at all, so it will be interesting to see, if Obama wins, how this will play out in the party.

Anyhow, I look forward to Tuesday.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll be true on the big issues. But I'm sure on some of the smaller day to day stuff they'll be able to enforce "party discipline" if they need to.

-Ray

[RPS]

RPS, i agree wholeheartedly that for many, if not all, jobs some sort of certification is hugely beneficial. yes, i want the absolute best pilot flying any plane i'm in and the best surgeon cutting me open.

but voting is different. i would argue that america, and the world, has suffered from the idiocy of voters electing bush for two terms, yet for as much bad as has come from that idiocy, i wouldn't want it any other way. democracy is messy and sometimes flawed but it's the best system yet devised.Climb, I’m sorry I got really pissed at you – as you can probably tell from my reply. After a good night’s sleep (or as good as anyone can sleep these days) I see that your post was probably not meant as a personal insult.

Where I come from, if a person is told their ideas are idiotic, they are being called an idiot.
Likewise, if we tell someone their ideas sound racist, we are calling them a racist. Trust me on this.
When you stated my “thought seems profoundly unamerican”, I took it way more personal than I should have. I would have preferred you call me an idiot or racist – that I could ignore. In retrospect I should have remained calm and assumed you meant it sounded “undemocratic”, as Ray would say. Again, I’m sorry I overreacted.


Now that I’ve cooled off: I don’t believe the founding fathers ever intended for everyone to have equal say (that part seems obvious to me). On the other hand, I don’t think they were infallible either, although their idea for amendments was a good one. They knew times would change and some of their beliefs would no longer be applicable (slavery, women votes, etc…).

Somewhere between being an educated and/or wealthy land owner and being a completely dysfunctional person there has to be a better answer. I’m 100 percent behind anyone who wants to vote and can vote; provided they are acting on their own and on their own behalf. What I have a problem with is when others decide for voters in different levels of incapacitation (can’t think of a better word). Picking up crack prostitutes and buying their votes for $20 or having an adult caregiver vote for a brain dead person doesn’t seem democratic to me.

Simply having a heart beat doesn’t seem like an adequate standard. That’s simply my opinion. And there is nothing un-American about questioning the way we do things, is there? It’s not only our right, but our duty.

[Climb01742]

Climb, I’m sorry I got really pissed at you – as you can probably tell from my reply. After a good night’s sleep (or as good as anyone can sleep these days) I see that your post was probably not meant as a personal insult.

Where I come from, if a person is told their ideas are idiotic, they are being called an idiot.
Likewise, if we tell someone their ideas sound racist, we are calling them a racist. Trust me on this.
When you stated my “thought seems profoundly unamerican”, I took it way more personal than I should have. I would have preferred you call me an idiot or racist – that I could ignore. In retrospect I should have remained calm and assumed you meant it sounded “undemocratic”, as Ray would say. Again, I’m sorry I overreacted.


Now that I’ve cooled off: I don’t believe the founding fathers ever intended for everyone to have equal say (that part seems obvious to me). On the other hand, I don’t think they were infallible either, although their idea for amendments was a good one. They knew times would change and some of their beliefs would no longer be applicable (slavery, women votes, etc…).

Somewhere between being an educated and/or wealthy land owner and being a completely dysfunctional person there has to be a better answer. I’m 100 percent behind anyone who wants to vote and can vote; provided they are acting on their own and on their own behalf. What I have a problem with is when others decide for voters in different levels of incapacitation (can’t think of a better word). Picking up crack prostitutes and buying their votes for $20 or having an adult caregiver vote for a brain dead person doesn’t seem democratic to me.

Simply having a heart beat doesn’t seem like an adequate standard. That’s simply my opinion. And there is nothing un-American about questioning the way we do things, is there? It’s not only our right, but our duty.

RPS, i agree i should have chosen my words more carefully. i was talking philosophically, not personally. i am sincerely sorry if my post caused you any distress. and i agree 110% that it is VERY american to question how we do things. the freedom to question, and indeed as you say, the responsibility to question, is the essence of who we are as a nation. i hope we're cool. :D

[RPS]

i hope we're cool. :DCompletely. I’m cool. Thanks. :beer:

[johnnymossville]

McCain was the funniest part of SNL last night, by far. The part where the two guys did that song right after him was really funny too.

Oh, and the live act was pretty good.

[gemship]

McCain will be hilarious if he wins. I see a encore SNL in the works

[DukeHorn]

Well, it's a FACT that dinosaurs didn't exist 6,000 years ago, but surprisingly enough no one is mentioning that as a reason to preclude someone for running for President or Vice President.

It's equally a "fact" (as facts are defined by a certain poster here) that lowering taxes and raising government spending doesn't balance the budget but raises the deficit.

It's also equally a "fact" that the top 1% is paying less now in taxes than they did during the Reagan years.

It's equally a fact that Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

It's also a fact that McCain supported fewer regulations on big business till he flip-flopped a few months ago.

It's also a fact that linking to right-wing think tanks is not as persuasive as seeing the Economist endorse Obama or reading up on what Wills, Brooks, Parker and Buckley have written about the current anti-intellectual movement in the Rep. Party (oh wait, that's the discredited "educated" wing of the party /snark).

Come on--the Economist actually endorsed Obama, what's up with that??

As for the DOJ, I guess certain people here were just thrilled with a graduate from a bottom tier law school culling out honor applicants for their extracurricular activities. (Guess those Harvard guys got their just desserts for actually supporting the Sierra Club). Oh wait, being educated is anti-American according to Bachmann and Palin so they deserve what they got. I get it, that's the kind of America we really want--dumb and dumber.

[Ray]

McCain was the funniest part of SNL last night, by far. The part where the two guys did that song right after him was really funny too.

Oh, and the live act was pretty good.
Anyone else think SNL has been better this year than lately? I thought last night and last week's shows were both funny as hell. Previous weeks were pretty uneven, but the political stuff is usually pretty funny. They haven't done a lot with Obama, but both McCain and Biden have gotten reasonably funny treatment and Tina Fey doing Palin has been hilarious. I thought the QVC sketch last night, with the McCain fine gold collection was really good. His bit on Weekend Update was funny and Affleck's take on Keith Olberman had me nearly rolling on the floor.

-Ray

[johnnymossville]

Anyone else think SNL has been better this year than lately? I thought last night and last week's shows were both funny as hell. Previous weeks were pretty uneven, but the political stuff is usually pretty funny. They haven't done a lot with Obama, but both McCain and Biden have gotten reasonably funny treatment and Tina Fey doing Palin has been hilarious. I thought the QVC sketch last night, with the McCain fine gold collection was really good. His bit on Weekend Update was funny and Affleck's take on Keith Olberman had me nearly rolling on the floor.

-Ray

The Affleck bit on Olberman was great from an acting standpoint, the content wasn't great though. Affleck has Olberman's weird behaviors down pat though. LOL

[keno]

you are the first person I've seen refer to GWB as "facile in speech".

If you actually believe that the days of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman, who were executed in Philadelphia, MISS in 1964 by racists because of their activist work in support of blacks, and the days of the early civil rights movement were in a country less divided than today, I would like to know why. There is a very convenient kind of memory that goes on in liberals that is impossible to fathom except for the fact that it is convenient to remember in that why to support a faulty point of view.

As I see it, the halcyon days of the USA are over in the same way that the sun set on the UK. We no longer hold all of the cards, and I doubt that we will ever again. This is not to say that all is lost, which is the liberal threat.

Please tell me what are the issues over which the country is divided almost as never before. Interestingly, since the economic meltdown (hardly the doing of GWB inasmuch as much of the world is experiencing it and you tell me much of the rest of the world is con Bush), the word "Iraq" is hardly heard. Healthcare is an issue Clinton flunked. Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs are thorns in the side of the US taxpayer and always will be party independent. Exactly what divisions do you see BO addressing?

keno

[Tobias]

I get it, that's the kind of America we really want--dumb and dumber.Are we not already there? The dumb part anyway. But we can keep making change to support even dumber plans.

If your view of the world’s problems started with B43, then we should be OK in the near future.

However, if the fundamentals behind most problems preceded B43, then returning to the pre-B43 ways and furthering those agendas will just put us in an even deeper hole.

Time will tell. I hope BO works out for our sake, but I think the swinging of the pendulum in the opposite direction will only push us faster into chaos. Two wrongs don’t make a right, do they?

This is not to say I like Bush – although I don’t see him as evil as most here. Things like 9/11 and Wall Street greed were not his doing, and I can’t know how another president would have done under the same circumstances. I can only hope the next guy “could” have done better, but that’s just a guess on my part.

[Tobias]

Further evidence that we all see things as we wish to see them. I honestly hope you see things clearer than I.

[johnnymossville]

I gotta say, the older I get, the more disillusioned I've become in where this country is heading. I see the division getting bigger, not smaller. Most of which is kept alive for profit by the media and some very large special interest groups. There doesn't seem to be any desire by the powers that be to do what is best for our future. They've become self serving or only interested in changing America into something else.

Having said that, every time I go take a ride in the country it makes me hopeful. :)

[bironi]

Are there voters here that will cast their vote on Tuesday, or has everyone voted early? How low do you anticipate waiting in line?

Thanks much.

[Ray]

you are the first person I've seen refer to GWB as "facile in speech".

If you actually believe that the days of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman, who were executed in Philadelphia, MISS in 1964 by racists because of their activist work in support of blacks, and the days of the early civil rights movement were in a country less divided than today, I would like to know why. There is a very convenient kind of memory that goes on in liberals that is impossible to fathom except for the fact that it is convenient to remember in that why to support a faulty point of view.

As I see it, the halcyon days of the USA are over in the same way that the sun set on the UK. We no longer hold all of the cards, and I doubt that we will ever again. This is not to say that all is lost, which is the liberal threat.

Please tell me what are the issues over which the country is divided almost as never before. Interestingly, since the economic meltdown (hardly the doing of GWB inasmuch as much of the world is experiencing it and you tell me much of the rest of the world is con Bush), the word "Iraq" is hardly heard. Healthcare is an issue Clinton flunked. Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs are thorns in the side of the US taxpayer and always will be party independent. Exactly what divisions do you see BO addressing?

keno
OK, first of all, I was using "facile of speech" to refer to W's down home charm, which was very real (even if it wasn't) and a very effective way of making voters comfortable with him. And he WAS much more facile of speech when he was guvnor and first running for president, before he got overwhelmed by the job. Watch tapes of him from the late '90s and very early in his term and the difference between that guy and the stumbling bumbling W we have now is startling. Its kind of hard to remember, but its true. But, OK, facile may be overstating it.

Screw it - I just wrote a long missive in response to the more pointed part of your post, dealing with my "convenient memory" and "faulty point of view". But I'm not gonna post it. I'm not gonna convince you. You're sure as hell not gonna convince me. You got my bile running - I'm not gonna return the favor and ramp it up any further. What I wrote was probably every bit as insulting toward you as you've been towards me. So, in the name of civility, I'm not gonna engage further. Enjoy your feeling of superiority - I'll enjoy mine. Have a happy election day.

The one thing I agree with you on fully is the increasingly past tense of our place of power in the world. But I suspect we have very different ideas about how to handle the inevitable slide down from that pinnacle.

Later,

-Ray

[keno]

it was not my intent to insult or get your bile running. Ours has been a cordial exchange and it is not my style to insult. Take it as you will.

I take it that your comment that I have a nice election day was intended to be less than sincere and more along the lines of laugh all the way to the bank. Let's compare notes in a year and we will see if you got what you wished for.

keno

[RPS]

Are there voters here that will cast their vote on Tuesday, or has everyone voted early? How low do you anticipate waiting in line?

Thanks much.I’ve never voted early; and have always found the time to do it.

This may be the first presidential election I decide not to vote. Maybe a foolish form of protest, but both sides are so lacking and misguided IMHO that I want a viable third party; and it has to start somewhere. The absurdity coming from both sides is nuts. I'm disgusted with where we are headed.

If I vote I expect to wait maybe 30 minutes. That's about how long it runs; and this year they say more people voted early.

[Ray]

it was not my intent to insult or get your bile running. Ours has been a cordial exchange and it is not my style to insult. Take it as you will.

I take it that your comment that I have a nice election day was intended to be less than sincere and more along the lines of laugh all the way to the bank. Let's compare notes in a year and we will see if you got what you wished for.

keno
Ken, yeah we have had a cordial exchange, which is why it took me by surprise to have you call out my (and those who share my views) convenient kind of memory needed to support our faulty points of view. Glad you caught the sarcasm in the election day comment. I HOPE it ends up being sarcasm.

But I think you have a faulty view of what I hope for from Obama. Contrary to what many seem to assume, I don't see him as some kind of savior or messiah or believe that he will snap his fingers and all will be well. All I frickin' want in a president is someone who will pursue an agenda that I believe is the right one. I don't expect that I'll like everything he tries to do. I don't believe he'll succeed at everything he tries to do. I don't believe that everything he DOES manage to get through will work perfectly. But I believe that he will pursue an agenda (and enact portions of it) that I think is far better than the disaster of an agenda pursued and partially enacted by the current invisible occupant.

That's all - modest expectations at best. Bill Clinton did that until he forgot which head he was supposed to let do his thinking for him. He had his problems and I grew to detest the man, but I'd take him back in a second if we could erase the last 8 years. I think Obama's got his brains and problem solving skills, most of his ability to communicate, and none of his personal baggage. That's it. No magic. Just a skilled politician pursuing an agenda I like as opposed to one that I think has been a disaster. And if, like Reagan, he can inspire and motivate enough people to get behind him, he'll be more successful at it rather than less.

The fact that SOME Obama supporters, particularly the young ones, may attach unrealistic hopes and dreams to the guy is not much different than the people who voted for Bush because he shared their religious convictions and would somehow make this country right with the god of their choice. I'll take their votes and their disillusion and the inevitable pending lack of perfection to come will just be part of their maturation process. We all have to grow up sometime.

So check back in a year and I'll be satisfied with parts of what Obama has done or is trying to do, dissatisfied with other parts, but vastly more pleased to have a guy trying to do what I consider sensible things than another guy pursuing an agenda that I think has been terrible. I can predict this with 50% certainty. :cool:

Later,

-Ray

[93legendti]

He'll bankrupt new coal plants:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/shocking-new-audio-obama-promises-to.html

there's nothing like a liberal thug....

[keno]

I think that your personal approach to expectations on BO's performance is a realistic one. What concerns me is that while he may perform well, or even better than well, on many issues, it will be his failure to do so on critical ones that is the concern in the light of many whose expectations are not so balanced. In my view he has too many of his supporters seeing him as a messiah. He will be seen by many in a context, deservedly so as he has perpetuated it, of holding a magic wand. Life as we know it, and more so in DC, ain't magic. His possibility of disappoint too many is enormous.

Money is the focus of much of what ails. While he sees a vision of tax burden restructuring to support his goals, congress is filled with democrats (who rely on large, tax-sensitive contributors) and on whom BO will be reliant to move his agenda. Not only that, while his Internet fund raising has been touted as his major source of money, he has also relied heavily on very large contributors sensitive to taxation of their earnings. Like it or not, for the most part his ideals come down to money, where it comes from and where it goes. I think that support for his agenda and his arithmetic simply won't wash, and from that huge disappointment will flow.

In retrospect, Ray, I can see why you might have been offended by my earlier post. From our trading of views here on in PMs, I know you are hardly what I see as in the starry-eyed component of BO's supporters. I was not speaking to you personally. I was, however, and am concerned by what I hear as the view of far too many regarding division in this country. There will always be division, and it is always the best of times and the worst of times. I am sensitive to what I see as saying makes it so problems, largely the responsibility of the media. Also, to say that our country is currently the most divided is akin to a sports argument as to the greatest ballplayer of all time.

Coincidentally, last night I was reading a chapter in "Predictably Irrational" in which the conclusion is that personal decision making in a state of emotional arousal is far different from when in a cool state. The author demonstrates in a variety of ways how each of us embodies a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde. I think that some of my Mr. Hyde reacted to the division point and BO as the solution.

Sincerely,

Ken

[gemship]

He'll bankrupt new coal plants:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/shocking-new-audio-obama-promises-to.html

there's nothing like a liberal thug....


I just checked out this site, interesting. I bet Obama eats his words on this, especially if the pie graph illustrating a 50% coal dependancy is for real in the video. He does have a nice idea but reality and what keeps him in office I believe is far different.

Then again who knows, with the greenhouse effect/global warming a reality he may be the first president/world leader to own up to mankinds responsibilties. I can see it now, everyone who owns and operates a car will be taxed based on the car's carbon footprint. Tax revenue will be put toward bicycle lanes.

[39cross]

I'm with you, Ray, on "modest expectations". I consider that a great advancement over none at all.

And I got a chuckle over "liberal thug". I place that in the oxymoron hopper along with "compassionate conservative". :rolleyes:

In any case, happy election day to all, may your lines be short and your votes complete. Good luck and best wishes to all for playing in the the great game of democracy.

[BumbleBeeDave]

As usual, your commentary is thoughtful, restrained, and makes a great deal of sense.

Here is something from this morning's CNN site about wait times for voting . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/early.voting/index.html

I would tend to agree with those who commented (don't remember who they are) that the wait times to vote border very close to disenfranchisement. Three to six hour wait to vote is ridiculous. I think it will tend to actively discourage working middle class and working poor from voting. What guy working behind the counter at the local convenience store is going to risk going to vote on his lunch break and getting caught in a 3 or 4 hour wait? What boss is going to shut down his widget assembly line for a whole day so everyone can go vote? What working single mother with no child care can afford that wait? I'm actually lucky to be unemployed right now because I can afford to stand there for six hours! And believe me, I WILL if I have to!

My daughter is coming down from her college in Saratoga tomorrow evening to go vote with me and we are planning to have dinner afterward. Will we ever get to have that dinner, or will we still be standing in line at midnight?
It is incredibly refreshing to have her have such an interest in the election now that she is old enough to vote. I'm very proud. On the other hand, she told me she wanted to actually go to the poll with me because she said she is afraid to go there by herself after seeing all the vitriol and pure venom that has been slung back and forth in this election campaign.

I'm disgusted by the campaign process and I'm disgusted by what our current president has done almost single-handedly to this country and it's standing in the world. And I'm disgusted by the direction this country is going downward, with "Greedism" replacing capitalism and free enterprise. Regard for the "common good" from the people who run this country--both politically and financially--seems to be extinct. It's a sad, sad commentary on so many things in our country when my daughter is afraid to go to a poll to vote because she's afraid she will have to run a gauntlet of threatening campaign functionaries from both sides to get to the door.

Rant over.

BBD

[gemship]

Well with the promise of change from Obama, McCain is his own man. I mean its not like another Bush, yeah he is Republican and he did pick Palin for a running mate, rather silly but he's still not a Bush. Having said that I find it oddly amusing to hear of such hostility coming from both parties at the polls. I mean imagine if Bush could run for a 3rd term, ahhh, the stoning there would be.

[RPS]

I think Obama's got his brains and problem solving skills, most of his ability to communicate, and none of his personal baggage.This part reminded me of my worst experiences on the job. Senior management, who undoubtedly thought they could solve technical problems by simply talking them to death, would hold meetings and set goals that were – let’s say to be kind – unachievable.

Having an agenda, even a worthwhile one, should never be enough. If not realistic or achievable it will just detract from limited resources, waste time, and cost us in the long run.

[RPS]

In my view he has too many of his supporters seeing him as a messiah.That says more about our society than about him; although it concerns me greatly as well.

Again, not because of him but what it says about the American people following a person as if he is a movie or rock star. :confused:

[Ray]

Money is the focus of much of what ails. While he sees a vision of tax burden restructuring to support his goals, congress is filled with democrats (who rely on large, tax-sensitive contributors) and on whom BO will be reliant to move his agenda. Not only that, while his Internet fund raising has been touted as his major source of money, he has also relied heavily on very large contributors sensitive to taxation of their earnings. Like it or not, for the most part his ideals come down to money, where it comes from and where it goes. I think that support for his agenda and his arithmetic simply won't wash, and from that huge disappointment will flow.

Coincidentally, last night I was reading a chapter in "Predictably Irrational" in which the conclusion is that personal decision making in a state of emotional arousal is far different from when in a cool state. The author demonstrates in a variety of ways how each of us embodies a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde. I think that some of my Mr. Hyde reacted to the division point and BO as the solution.
Ken, I can't argue the details of the money game. Never have been able to. My only retort is that you raise arguments very similar to what most conservatives tend to say about damn near ANY liberal president. And it never seems to play out that way. I remember the arguments Republicans made before Clinton pushed his tax increases through about how that was gonna wreck the economy. Didn't happen. Taxes were higher under Eisenhower than anyone is talking about now. We seemed to get through the 50s pretty well too. Obama or McCain faces problems that they will not be able to solve - only manage. As I've told you before, I think we're likely in for a run of one term presidents as Americans get used to our new (AND REDUCED!) place in the world and the world economy. I hope I'm wrong - I hope the next president can rally the population behind a plan to get through it. But I'm not optimistic. I agree with Obama on far more than I agree with McCain on, and I think he's more tempermentally suited to the job, but I hesitate to even say that because its become such an overused talking point. But I find it to be true anyway.

As to stepping on each other's feelings, don't worry about it. It happens. I obviously didn't react well either. And a day or two before a hotly contested election is probably not the time to assume that people are at their best. (Although I must compliment Adam - he's been tossing around far less invective than usual it seems - maybe he's just feeling overconfident?). And, anyway, as you've pointed out so well with your book reference, NONE of this is rational anyway, so its almost silly to try to be logical. We just use logic to rationalize our gut feelings anyway, right.

Have a good election day and week and month. And this time I DO mean it sincerely.

-Ray

[Fixed]

community organizer remember that was a joke at the gop convention well the ground game is all about that ..
cheers

[Ray]

I can see it now, everyone who owns and operates a car will be taxed based on the car's carbon footprint. Tax revenue will be put toward bicycle lanes.
If we make driving expensive enough and eliminate enough cars, we won't NEED more bicycle lanes. We'll have enough left-over, unused auto lanes to just convert some. A few splashes of paint is all it'll take! As someone who plans bike / ped facilities for part of my livelihood, I'm not sure how I feel about this. :cool:

-Ray

[Climb01742]

That says more about our society than about him

i think it says a lot about what we've been through the last 8 years. BO isn't "the" answer, but i think/hope he's part of it.

[Viper]

I think it says a lot about what we've been through the last 8 years. Viper isn't "the" answer, but i think/hope he's part of it. I'm voting for Viper, he's watched all seven seasons of The West Wing and he's bringing sexy back to the White House.

Fixed.

:beer:

[gemship]

If we make driving expensive enough and eliminate enough cars, we won't NEED more bicycle lanes. We'll have enough left-over, unused auto lanes to just convert some. A few splashes of paint is all it'll take! As someone who plans bike / ped facilities for part of my livelihood, I'm not sure how I feel about this. :cool:

-Ray


Sounds great! Those roads were made for you and me.

[Viper]

Sounds great! Those roads were made for you and me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuc4BI5NWU

:beer:

[RPS]

I remember the arguments Republicans made before Clinton pushed his tax increases through about how that was gonna wreck the economy. Didn't happen.Wasn’t the economy indeed wrecked? It may have had nothing to do with tax increases, but the tech bubble and a lot of suffering (to many I know personally, including myself) started at the end of the Clinton term. All the Enron and similar problems took years to unravel and prosecute after Clinton.

And as 60-Minutes reported in their piece FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, the law that allowed for Credit Default Swaps which appears to have been behind wrecking our economy more recently was passed under Clinton.

Whether you want to blame Clinton or Bush I don’t care, but for certain Clinton’s economy wasn’t anything close to perfect from where I sit. Personally I think it was a disaster. Lots of profits on paper until reality came to collect.

[RPS]

i think it says a lot about what we've been through the last 8 years. BO isn't "the" answer, but i think/hope he's part of it.I was referring to the fact that I was born “too serious” as my parents would say. I can’t relate to people who go all goo-goo eyed over movie or rock stars as if they are special. To me they are just people. Have never understood why people jump(ed) up and down for Elvis, the Beatles, the Pope, or Billy Graham. Has nothing to do with my thoughts about Obama, just don’t get why he or anyone else is treated as special.

To me his political opinions are of no more value than my next door neighbors’.

BTW, if people are voting for Obama to counter Bush as if that will turn the clocks back, that’s really scary. No doubt Bush was inadequate to the task, but two mistakes don’t make a right. If we feel Obama is the best choice that’s great. If we vote for him because he is the polar opposite of Bush, that’s horrendous.

[johnnymossville]

Luckily we don't have an all powerful king in charge. Each of us still holds far more power over our quality of life and that of our children than any empty suit in Washington does, for now. Happy Election Day Everyone!

[gemship]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuc4BI5NWU

:beer:


Thank you Viper, Springsteen rocks and what a stud to boot. Really enjoyed that David Bowie video too. Well....after all reading everyones input to this thread going a bit off course understandably I may just have to take the time to vote. Of course I'll be voting independant. Good luck to everyone out there.

Viper, I'm writing you in. You got my vote :p

[Viper]

Thank you Viper, Springsteen rocks and what a stud to boot. Really enjoyed that David Bowie video too. Well....after all reading everyones input to this thread going a bit off course understandably I may just have to take the time to vote. Of course I'll be voting independant. Good luck to everyone out there.

Viper, I'm writing you in. You got my vote :p

When I win, I will turn Pennsylvania Avenue into a three day weekend Folk Music Festival. Springsteen will play on Friday and rock for seven hours straight. The remaining Beatles and what's left of Bob Dylan are up next. All the while I will leak rumors that Zeppelin is showing up on Sunday, I will provide enough coke and money to bribe Robert Plant to join Page, Jones and Bonham Jr. The Eagles were to play, but Joe Walsh jumped off the wagon and was last seen in a tattoo parlor in Mexico. Carrie Fisher, dressed in Slave Leia costume, will open the show as she reads the US Constitution as Paul Simon plays Graceland and Mrs. Robinson. Edie Brickell shows up, grabs Simon's guitar and plays Love Like We Do and just as she finishes, Carrie Fisher/Slave Leia sees Brickell and Simon together, gets jealous and attacks Brickell where upon Slave Leie/Carrie Fisher's right breast is exposed and I get neck deep with the FCC before I put new drapes in the Oval Office. In a moment of desperation I grab the mic and yell out, "Leia, one, two, three...ho, you see these shackles? I'm you're slave!" and do my best My Love/Sexy Back as Barack Obama does backup vocals ala Timbaland. Carrie Fisher/Slave Leia calms down as the beat to My Love/Sexy Back reminds her of the Catina music on Tattoine. Nelly Furtado jumps on stage, gets jiggy with Obama and all hell breaks loose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vz-kcBjgNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9eA36YVn7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIM4DCn7AlE

:beer:

[Tobias]

community organizer remember that was a joke at the gop convention well the ground game is all about that ..
cheersI don’t think most Republicans hold that against him, it’s the unusual choice to pursue a job well below one’s education that is surprising to many. It’s not that it’s not honorable, just odd. And in today’s jaded world, people tend to get suspicious as to whether there may be more to it that appears on the surface.

It’s like a person training to be a doctor and then driving a truck. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would make people ask why? In the case of Obama, the job he held certainly didn’t need a law degree from Harvard.

[Tobias]

Each of us still holds far more power over our quality of life and that of our children than any empty suit in Washington does, for now..If this is put to the test, I fear it will lead to civil unrest; or worse.

Telling someone that the government won't or can't help is not the same as saying that the government is going to help itself to your stuff. Deep down people may want entitlements but know they don't own them. When material wealth one has saved is taken from you, it brings out a different response. That's why I've been so pessimistic about our future.

[Viper]

.If this is put to the test, I fear it will lead to civil unrest; or worse.

Telling someone that the government won't or can't help is not the same as saying that the government is going to help itself to your stuff. Deep down people may want entitlements but know they don't own them. When material wealth one has saved is taken from you, it brings out a different response. That's why I've been so pessimistic about our future.

Foreign Policy = should be # 1 focus for USA

Our economy will always be up/down, but the key to diminishing your pessimism and increasing hope for your/the future, is to change the path of America's foreign policies. Barack Obama got to where he is today due to this issue, defeated Hillary and is on the verge of winning the White House because of his stance and voice regarding foreign policies. The recent, domestic economic implosion only helped his cause.

[39cross]

When I win, I will turn Pennsylvania Avenue into a three day weekend Folk Music Festival. If I didn't know you I'd vote for you. ;)

[ClutchCargo]

I don’t think most Republicans hold that against him, it’s the unusual choice to pursue a job well below one’s education that is surprising to many. It’s not that it’s not honorable, just odd. And in today’s jaded world, people tend to get suspicious as to whether there may be more to it that appears on the surface.

It’s like a person training to be a doctor and then driving a truck. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would make people ask why? In the case of Obama, the job he held certainly didn’t need a law degree from Harvard.

Respectfully, your analogy is way off. His experience certainly is unusual, because most Ivy league trained law grads would turn up in a white shoe law firm or such. Legal knowledge is a vital part of effectively representing the rights of people in the community who typically don't have the means to represent their own interest. Would it have been odd for him to have gone to work in a publicly funded program to perform legal work for battered women, or as a public defender?

At least the Republicans didn't harp on poor Sarah P., with all that education (5 colleges!) behind her and she becomes mayor of a town of 5,000.

ok, back to bikes now . . .

[Lazy Bill]

I don’t think most Republicans hold that against him, it’s the unusual choice to pursue a job well below one’s education that is surprising to many. It’s not that it’s not honorable, just odd. And in today’s jaded world, people tend to get suspicious as to whether there may be more to it that appears on the surface.

It’s like a person training to be a doctor and then driving a truck. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would make people ask why? In the case of Obama, the job he held certainly didn’t need a law degree from Harvard.
Check your timeline. He left the organizing job to attend law school, I believe.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/obamatime.html

[johnnymossville]

Foreign Policy = should be # 1 focus for USA

Our economy will always be up/down, but the key to diminishing your pessimism and increasing hope for your/the future, is to change the path of America's foreign policies. Barack Obama got to where he is today due to this issue, defeated Hillary and is on the verge of winning the White House because of his stance and voice regarding foreign policies. The recent, domestic economic implosion only helped his cause.

I think the economy trumps foreign policy every time, but even that is questionable to how each person achieves individual happiness. I'm going to disagree with your notion that how America is viewed by Iran or Russia for example (foreign policy) as being the key to my hope for the future.

My hope for the future for myself and those I'm close to lies in my own hands and not the Govt's. Now, the pessimism you speak of for me is more directed at the slow but steady decline we are seeing in valuing what the American Culture is all about (value of individual liberty and responsibility for your own destiny) in exchange for some notion that we are only as good as the least among us and must share responsibility for taking care of them. It's not mean to believe someone should be more responsible. In fact, it's respecting them with some level of dignity. Giving everyone access to achieve something in their own lives is better than just giving them stuff so they can survive one more day. Why do we reward failure so often? The failure of Public Education, the Belief that Social Security will take care of us sometime in the future and some notion that we have a right to good "free" health are a couple of good examples I see sinking our ship.

Our Government these days, all governments for that matter are much better at taking freedoms than giving them. Ever think to wonder that over the last 8 years some of the best examples of giving people freedom are in Iraq and Afghanistan while here in the USA we are being expected to give up a bit more each and every day? Chicago is more dangerous than Iraq right now, but the new guy Obama wants you to be prosecuted for defending your family if an intruder breaks into your house and starts wrecking the place or worse. Where is the logic in that?

Government: The good guys are punished every time and the rest are rewarded. It's their job. It's how they get elected.

[goonster]

Chicago is more dangerous than Iraq right now

Data, please.

[Viper]

Data, please.

It is for Steve Bartman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoumAUfwnI8


:beer:

[johnnymossville]

Data, please.

Alright, I know the data is skewed, only mentioning American deaths, but,..... Iraq is a lot bigger than Chicago and the numbers are startling either way.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

By the way, Obama used some of these same statistics in a speech in favor of some sort of gun control and how we value American Soldiers lives more than kids in Chicago or something like that.

[Louis]

Data, please.

Faith is sufficient. Data is irrelevant (plus they have a known bias).

[johnnymossville]

Besides, Obama rewarding convicted felons breaking into your house is the more important part.

[goonster]

Besides, Obama rewarding convicted felons breaking into your house is the more important part.

OK, since it's so important, I'll bite.

Please show me where Obama rewarded convicted felons for breaking into anybody's house.

Seriously, I'll give the issue a fair look.

[fiamme red]

Please show me where Obama rewarded convicted felons for breaking into anybody's house.G. Gordon Liddy. ;)

Oh wait, that was McCain who honored him. :p

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html

[Climb01742]

can election day come soon enough? :beer:

[Viper]

Besides, Obama rewarding convicted felons breaking into your house is the more important part.

I haven't followed this item. I do know the Left cries out the Right is already in your house/computer/bathroom...with the Patriot Act. :rolleyes:

Is Obama soft on crime? For me it's a village, town, county, state issue, maybe even moreso up to one's own 12 gauge Benelli shotgun and Spyderco knife (and the best defense is a great Labrador Retriever atmo). Still, this election isn't about crime, it's all about FRN's $$$ and Iraq.

[Viper]

can election day come soon enough? :beer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3re_xqu4ycQ


:beer:

[johnnymossville]

OK, since it's so important, I'll bite.

Please show me where Obama rewarded convicted felons for breaking into anybody's house.

Seriously, I'll give the issue a fair look.

I think it's the media's job to infor,....oh wait. nevermind. :p

[fiamme red]

Is Obama soft on crime? For me it's a village, town, county, state issue, maybe even moreso up to one's own 12 gauge Benelli shotgun and Spyderco knife (and the best defense is a great Labrador Retriever atmo).Or a German Shepherd for the truly paranoid. ;)

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:2f0Nhqoar18J:mensjournal.com/feature/johnson/lemond.html+yester+dog+lemond&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Yester the dog senses the unease in the air. "He’s overkill for us," Kathy says, "but if someone tries to carjack me, he will jump through the open window at them."

[johnnymossville]

Or a German Shepherd for the truly paranoid. ;)

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:2f0Nhqoar18J:mensjournal.com/feature/johnson/lemond.html+yester+dog+lemond&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Yester the dog senses the unease in the air. "He’s overkill for us," Kathy says, "but if someone tries to carjack me, he will jump through the open window at them."

He only understands German I hear. hehehe

[goonster]

Obama rewarding convicted felons breaking into your house is the more important part.

OK, I looked it up .

Obama opposed Illinois SB 2165, which had an amendment that would have prevented folks from being fined for owning guns in violation of local ordinances, if they used that gun to shoot an intruder.

A guy has a gun which local laws say he can't have. He's breaking the law. But if he shoots an intruder with that illegal gun, the anti-gun ordinance can't be enforced against him. (The bill would have had no bearing on the shooting itself)

I'm not anti-gun per se, and don't see how opposition to this bill can be construed as monstrously anti-gun. The proposed law was highly problematic, because it provided an incentive for the gun owner to fire the weapon, when deadly force may not be warranted.

Either way, the law would not have "rewarded convicted felons [for] breaking into your house" nor would it have penalized residents for the act of shooting intruders.

[RPS]

OK, I looked it up .Since you looked it up, please tell us what he believes in rather than what he opposed.

Does he think people have the right to own guns or not? I'm not sure I understand why the opposition to the law, but don't know why he may have opposed it. Did you find out? I'd like to learn.

BTW; here in Texas, that's not going to fly either way. Not only is gun ownership legal but using them against intruders is expected -- maybe encouraged.

[Viper]

OK, I looked it up .

Obama opposed Illinois SB 2165, which had an amendment that would have prevented folks from being fined for owning guns in violation of local ordinances, if they used that gun to shoot an intruder.

A guy has a gun which local laws say he can't have. He's breaking the law. But if he shoots an intruder with that illegal gun, the anti-gun ordinance can't be enforced against him. (The bill would have had no bearing on the shooting itself)

I'm not anti-gun per se, and don't see how opposition to this bill can be construed as monstrously anti-gun. The proposed law was highly problematic, because it provided an incentive for the gun owner to fire the weapon, when deadly force may not be warranted.

Either way, the law would not have "rewarded convicted felons [for] breaking into your house" nor would it have penalized residents for the act of shooting intruders.

It's interesting, the whole gun thing. The Left has been able to coin the phrase gun control or gun control laws whereas the Right hasn't been able to coin the phrase infant murder or fetal murder laws*. Marketing and perception often mean more than the thing itself. For instance, those on the Right never use the phrase gun control, nope, it's always referred to as Second Amendment law or right to bear arms. Food for thought atmo.

* = why is this so? It's a great topic and very interesting to me. I enjoy the meaning of words and how things come to be. The fact that murders are something we see on the streets, on the news, in the media and tv...society can grasp the phrase gun control. Abortion on the other hand, while legal and quite important to many, we don't see them, women don't rave about them, it's whispered so the majority of society (mouth breathers) don't grab onto the topic with one or even both hands. I wonder if 99% of those who are staunchly opposed or in favor of abortion even know who Norma McCorvey is and how she now admits that Roe vs. Wade was a total sham, lie and coverup. The framers of the Constitution addressed weapons, not abortions, interesting. The Fourteenth Amendment became an issue in 1992, Sandra O'Connor felt that 'liberty' pertained to the woman, her freedoms, not the fetus...but the 14th Amendment from 1868 (overturning Dred Scott from 1857) pertains to slavery, not a woman's right for abortion! Interesting, the word "Liberty" from 1868 was used in 1992 for a completely unique and seperate case. And this is where marketing comes in, liberty to live (which is what the 14th Amendment includes and the 5th) or liberty to abort aka murder? Interesting how words, even one word, matter so much.

Fwiw, the character Sam Seaborn, from The West Wing, is loosely based on me. Was I excited that Rob Lowe was a total ectomorph and lacked testosterone at times, no, but overall, he did a decent job and Bartlet knew Sam was the only one on the show, I mean, on his staff who could actually get the Oval Office someday. Mebbe I should ride my bike to DC after all.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . about what Viper just said. And I've never watched The West Wing . . .

But I gotta admit, you guys HAVE gotten to ten whole pages without ripping each other apart and getting the thread locked, so good on 'ya! :beer:

BBD

[goonster]

Since you looked it up, please tell us what he believes in rather than what he opposed.

He believes:

1. Some cities would benefit from restrictions to gun sales and ownership.
2. Gun control legislation is not politically feasible, and therefore off the table.

The NRA has won. With the Supreme Court decision and the Assault Weapons Ban extension being voted down 80-9, the big picture issues are settled for a generation or more.

[ClutchCargo]

. . . about what Viper just said. And I've never watched The West Wing . . .

But I gotta admit, you guys HAVE gotten to ten whole pages without ripping each other apart and getting the thread locked, so good on 'ya! :beer:

BBD

I didn't understand him either. And another thing I've never understood, as long as he mentioned it. What is it with having the right to bear arms? Why would you want bear arms anyway. If I was gonna want some animal arms, I would want gorilla arms! Or maybe orangutan arms; that would be cool! :rolleyes:

Seriously,however [clear throat] -- the NYT recently featured Drew Westen, a psych professor out of Emory Univ. who has written about the choice and use of particular terms and phrases in political discussion, and how they affect voters. He's published a pamphlet that's been widely circulated among the Dems. His basic point is that progressives (the Left) need to revise their way of referring to issues in the same way that the Right has been doing for awhile. Interesting stuff.

Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/politics/30message.html?scp=2&sq=Drew%20Westen&st=cse

And here's the pamphlet:
http://afv.3cdn.net/6aa05fa8b9249f3364_0im6b9k8u.pdf

[RPS]

He believes:

1. Some cities would benefit from restrictions to gun sales and ownership.
2. Gun control legislation is not politically feasible, and therefore off the table.

The NRA has won. With the Supreme Court decision and the Assault Weapons Ban extension being voted down 80-9, the big picture issues are settled for a generation or more.Thanks, I appreciate the update.

I agree with #1 (some cities would benefit), but don't think it's the right thing to do. Always go by principles first.
I'm OK with registering and licensing guns provided the ultimate intent is not to control their sales and ownership. Americans should have the right to defend themselves (yes, even if a lot of innocent people get killed in the process). Just like driving we can't stop innocent people from getting hurt.

The assult weapons ban was always a puzzle to me. Why allow some semi-automatic rifles and handguns and limit others -- just because they look scary? Never made sense to me. Most hunting rifles are more lethal and are OK. :confused:

Thanks again, Rick

[johnnymossville]

...just because they look scary?...


exactly. purely a reflex emotional decision, not based on logic.