Excellent way of putting it, although part of it is I moved as well. Those three issues I pointed out? I used to be passionate about them, but then sometime after adolescense(sp?) I became disillusioned with the church, which caused me to reevaluate a lot of what I thought I believed. College helped too.
Man, I see that. I used to be a hardcore libertarian until I got out of high school.
I'm trying to picture a high-school libertarian.
Were you the guy who wore obscene T-shirts and claimed the school had no right to search your locker?
A high school libertarian is usually a punk rocker who figured out that anarchy is a fucking stupid "cause".
ding ding ding!
But then, all a libertarian really is is an optimistic anarchist. "Hey, if we just privatize all this, it'll all work out great for everyone!"
Then I was in a state university because I didn't like the idea of being in debt for decades, and riding public transit everyday because I couldn't afford a car, and, well, I could continue but I think you get the point.
As far as the Deacon thing: I would love to have at least a few more McCain surrogates in here. I know they're on this forum somewhere. You're reading this, and you support McCain, and you don't currently post in here, please, come on in and give Deacon some backup. If you can intelligently defend your man, you might even win a few of us over. Who knows?
The problem is that Deacon's arguments always tend to boil down to finding something about Obama that challenges a percieved talking point of "The Left", pointing it out, and saying "Ha ha! Who is aggressor animal now?" Which is a) intellectually shallow, and b) easily refutable.
I think you forgot c) causes 10 pages of argument ending with "just stop posting, Deacon" comments.
I completely agree with you though, I want to hear from more McCain supporters. Or even people who just don't support Obama. I'd also like to hear from people who support other candidates or other primary candidates, but aren't enthusiastic about any of the nominees.
Man its like every three days or so Obama says or does something that makes me like him less.
Government money for Jesus is some bullshit.
And what is your opinion on government money for charity, regardless of whether or not said charity is church affiliated? Because, you know, that's the actual position.
His two statements aren't contradictory. He can feel that the states have the right to choose for themselves but still find the proposition divisive and discriminatory.
His two statements aren't contradictory. He can feel that the states have the right to choose for themselves but still find the proposition divisive and discriminatory.
But that's looking past the sound bite politics. Come on do we really want our politicians to have an actual discussion about issues?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
StraightDope message board has a good deal of McCain supporters on there. It's kind of interesting, but overall McCain supporters just make my brain hurt from stupidity. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7
King Boo Hoo on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
His two statements aren't contradictory. He can feel that the states have the right to choose for themselves but still find the proposition divisive and discriminatory.
He's also being called out for saying he's happy for the gays in CA getting married even though he says he thinks marriage = man + woman. Only a dirty liberal would want people with whom he disagrees to be happy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Our government currently has no party of fiscal sanity Jeffe.
They just want to waste cash on different things. Unless you considered dangerous uber-deficient spending to be a "conservative" tactic
I think he meant "classic conservative," not the pathetic excuse for conservatism we have now.
The 'indebt and spend conservatives' that constitute the GOP in fierce combat with the 'tax and spend liberals' of the DNC. Forever locked in combat over who should pay for our incompetence, China and our grandchildren, or rich people and their estates.
Excellent way of putting it, although part of it is I moved as well. Those three issues I pointed out? I used to be passionate about them, but then sometime after adolescense(sp?) I became disillusioned with the church, which caused me to reevaluate a lot of what I thought I believed. College helped too.
You're a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Congratulations, you're now without a home. You can disagree with liberals on matters of finance, disagree with conservatives on matters of morality, or disagree with libertarians on matters of sanity.
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
Man its like every three days or so Obama says or does something that makes me like him less.
Government money for Jesus is some bullshit.
This is why you should have started out with low expectations, like I did. I never really liked Obama that much, mostly because he's consistently indicated he would pander to religious people.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't work your ass off to get him elected, though.
Qingu on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
Comparatively limited spending, smaller and tighter government, balanced budget except when absolutely necessary.
Though really I'd settle for "not spending more than we take in" right about now.
edit: To elaborate, right now I think the "conservative" thing to do would be to immediately adjust our spending and taxation by a little bit each to bring them into equilibrium. Past that, I would put a long-term cap on spending increases that keep them somewhere below inflation+population growth, which would gradually shrink the effective size of government.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I call horseshit. The line between proselytizing and not proselytizing while doing charity work is a line in the sand. Are you going to fine the old lady who passes out church fliers to a sermon while chatting with poor kids in line for soup? What about the pastor who talks nonstop about how Jesus is what makes him do charity work to the people he's feeding, and isn't that great that he's saved?
There will always be a strong, subtle layer of emotional manipulation in religious charities. I do not want my money going towards that under any circumstance.
If Christians want to do charity work with government funds, they can volunteer at a government-funded soup kitchen or something, and follow the rules there.
I'm with you in that I don't particularly like the idea of governmental responsibility being executed by religious organizations with taxpayer money.
But here's the thing: I like secular good more than I dislike religion. These programs - soup kitchens, aid and counseling to the poor, education programs - are just not getting funded at any significant level under the current system. Under Obama's formulation, the programs get funded by dint of the fact that the public selling point is letting some of the functions flow through church hands.
If the cost of implementing anti-poverty measures is getting buy-in through allowing religious organizations to execute some of the functions with oversight, then it's a compromise I can live with.
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
Comparatively limited spending, smaller and tighter government, balanced budget except when absolutely necessary.
Though really I'd settle for "not spending more than we take in" right about now.
When you say "smaller and tighter government" what types of programs are you talking about cutting/reducing in size?
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
Comparatively limited spending, smaller and tighter government, balanced budget except when absolutely necessary.
Though really I'd settle for "not spending more than we take in" right about now.
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
I think it's fundamentally linked to smaller government, at least for me. Smaller government means less taxes because we don't have to fund a whole bunch of bloat and we're more efficient with the way we spend our money. Hopefully this means we're not in debt up to our eyeballs.
“Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game. One day after earning praise for rejecting Gen. Clark’s attacks, Sen. Obama clarified that his remarks had been written months before and were not even aimed at Gen. Clark. After repudiating his own repudiation, he went on to ask why an apology to Sen. McCain from Gen. Clark would even be a priority. All Barack Obama has to do is tell his campaign surrogates to stop criticizing John McCain’s record of service and this discussion would be over. Apparently his campaign has no intention of doing so. The McCain campaign will not sit idly by and let these ongoing attacks go unanswered.â€
“Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game. One day after earning praise for rejecting Gen. Clark’s attacks, Sen. Obama clarified that his remarks had been written months before and were not even aimed at Gen. Clark. After repudiating his own repudiation, he went on to ask why an apology to Sen. McCain from Gen. Clark would even be a priority. All Barack Obama has to do is tell his campaign surrogates to stop criticizing John McCain’s record of service and this discussion would be over. Apparently his campaign has no intention of doing so. The McCain campaign will not sit idly by and let these ongoing attacks go unanswered.â€
Never mind that he's done that already.
And still no one has attacked his military record. I guess if you tell a lie often enough people will believe its the truth?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Hillary was a $#%^ in my opinion, but I just really don't like the low-blows McCain is sending. Just seems like Texan-bullying-cowboy kind of attitude, to act so aggressive and personally insulting while intentionally misquoting and misinterpreting...
I dunno, turns me off politics to watch this kind of stuff.
Here’s the strategy: You have a point to make. Say, that Barack Obama is coasting on the novelty of his blackness. Or, say, that John McCain’s wartime service is not, per se, an automatic qualification to be president. It’s delicate because making this point has the potential to piss off every black person in the country, in the Obama case, or every veteran in the country, in the McCain case. But the upside to winning these arguments is huge. Let’s take just the McCain case because it’s current: If you win, you kick a huge part of McCain’s rationale for being president out from beneath him.
Here’s the strategy: You have a point to make. Say, that Barack Obama is coasting on the novelty of his blackness. Or, say, that John McCain’s wartime service is not, per se, an automatic qualification to be president. It’s delicate because making this point has the potential to piss off every black person in the country, in the Obama case, or every veteran in the country, in the McCain case. But the upside to winning these arguments is huge. Let’s take just the McCain case because it’s current: If you win, you kick a huge part of McCain’s rationale for being president out from beneath him.
I don't like the comparison because it didn't work for Ferraro and damaged Hillary's already wounded campaign. We don't call it swift boating because it failed.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Here’s the strategy: You have a point to make. Say, that Barack Obama is coasting on the novelty of his blackness. Or, say, that John McCain’s wartime service is not, per se, an automatic qualification to be president. It’s delicate because making this point has the potential to piss off every black person in the country, in the Obama case, or every veteran in the country, in the McCain case. But the upside to winning these arguments is huge. Let’s take just the McCain case because it’s current: If you win, you kick a huge part of McCain’s rationale for being president out from beneath him.
I don't like the comparison because it didn't work for Ferraro and damaged Hillary's already wounded campaign. We don't call it swift boating because it failed.
I guess it's a cost-benefit thing. The cost doesn't have to be very high in the long run, but the benefit could potentially be enormous. And Geraldine Ferraro wasn't a 4-star general.
Zoolander on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Today's 538 momentum index:
4%-plus (starting today, bumped up from 3%; I'll bump it up again to 5% after the conventions): Hawaii- Up from 86% to 91%. Indiana- Up from 50% to 55%. Louisiana- Down from 20% to 9%.
50% watch: Virginia- Up from 50% to 51%. Remains in Obama's column.
State index: Winning, gaining ground: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin Losing, gaining ground: Kansas, Nevada, Texas Winning, losing ground: Maine, New Mexico Losing, losing ground: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming
Basically, a map-sharpening day. Not necessarily a bad thing if you're the current leader.
Notes of interest:
*Since I started tracking on June 11, South Dakota has shown movement every single day. On that date it stood at 16%, today it stands at 21%.
*Connecticut (96%), Michigan (74%), New Jersey (93%), and Wisconsin (86%) set record highs. Missouri (32%) and Montana (16%) set record lows.
*Wyoming has not shown movement towards Obama since June 22. On that day Obama stood at 8%, now he stands at 1%.
*Ohio and Michigan have shown three days of consecutive growth. Of these, the largest jump comes from Michigan. On Monday Obama stood at 67%, now he's at 74%.
Overall: Up from 65.6% to 67.4%.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I guess it's a cost-benefit thing. The cost doesn't have to be very high in the long run, but the benefit could potentially be enormous. And Geraldine Ferraro wasn't a 4-star general.
But it's still a bad comparison. Clark went after McCain for saying his pow experience was some how executive experience coming from a position of having been a 4 star general.
Ferraro went after Obama for being a black male as some kind of token reason for being a canadite because she was a token female vp on a failed ticket.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
Comparatively limited spending, smaller and tighter government, balanced budget except when absolutely necessary.
Though really I'd settle for "not spending more than we take in" right about now.
When you say "smaller and tighter government" what types of programs are you talking about cutting/reducing in size?
I'd have to do some serious research to figure out exactly which, but look, for example, at 2008 vs 2000. Adjusted for inflation, spending has grown by 25%. Are we 25% better off? No. Were our government programs fundamentally inadequate then, whereas they're awesome now? No. I dare say we could eliminate every new program and every expansion of existing programs implemented in the past eight years and not even notice.
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
And if you let me loose on non-military discretionary spending, I would have a fucking field day.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Here’s the strategy: You have a point to make. Say, that Barack Obama is coasting on the novelty of his blackness. Or, say, that John McCain’s wartime service is not, per se, an automatic qualification to be president. It’s delicate because making this point has the potential to piss off every black person in the country, in the Obama case, or every veteran in the country, in the McCain case. But the upside to winning these arguments is huge. Let’s take just the McCain case because it’s current: If you win, you kick a huge part of McCain’s rationale for being president out from beneath him.
I think the argument required against McCain would have to be a little too detailed to work for ads or MSM. Also are there any stats on how veterans / current military personnel usually vote? I would assume that they tend to vote heavily towards the republican side and I doubt you would be able to change their minds. Also I'm guessing there aren't large swaths of people who support McCain solely on his war record. This has a much larger potential to backfire.
I guess it's a cost-benefit thing. The cost doesn't have to be very high in the long run, but the benefit could potentially be enormous. And Geraldine Ferraro wasn't a 4-star general.
The benefit seems to be less people would vote for mccain, but it doesn't mean they will automagically vote for Obama.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I guess it's a cost-benefit thing. The cost doesn't have to be very high in the long run, but the benefit could potentially be enormous. And Geraldine Ferraro wasn't a 4-star general.
But it's still a bad comparison. Clark went after McCain for saying his pow experience was some how executive experience coming from a position of having been a 4 star general.
Ferraro went after Obama for being a black male as some kind of token reason for being a canadite because she was a token female vp on a failed ticket.
The pattern seems the same
One candidate’s surrogate makes an indelicate remark about another candidate on a subject that’s super touchy to a large group of Americans. Said surrogate is chastised by his superior. Offended candidate takes the high road by getting only mildly miffed in public, but his surrogates get into high dudgeon.
Then, instead of apologizing, the surrogate who did the original offending says: “Wait a minute, those offending remarks were taken out of context and misconstrued!†And then uses the opportunity to make a similar criticism in a slightly more subtle way, while also claiming not to be backing down, thus keeping the debate alive.
The main reason that I opposed the Bush version is twofold. One, he made it clear that only Christians need apply.
How? cite please.
Speaking of which, you still have not explained what "that way" means in your post here You said Obama thinks "that way" about religion, but you never explained what that meant or cited where he said he believed it.
You indicated you were familiar with the comment in question.
Then, you agree that the comment Obama made has nothing to do with what we were talking about! That's good, because just saying "you know!" without explaining yourself would make you obscenely frustrating to converse with.
I guess it's a cost-benefit thing. The cost doesn't have to be very high in the long run, but the benefit could potentially be enormous. And Geraldine Ferraro wasn't a 4-star general.
But it's still a bad comparison. Clark went after McCain for saying his pow experience was some how executive experience coming from a position of having been a 4 star general.
Ferraro went after Obama for being a black male as some kind of token reason for being a canadite because she was a token female vp on a failed ticket.
Yeah. Clark's point is defensible. Ferraro's is stupid and demonstrably false.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
The Osprey isn't really all that stupid, once they figured out how to get it to stop killing whole squads of Marines. I'd have picked the F-22 as a better example.
Daedalus on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
The Osprey isn't really all that stupid, once they figured out how to get it to stop killing whole squads of Marines. I'd have picked the F-22 as a better example.
Or ballistic missile defense, which is an absolute failure on any number of levels.
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
The Osprey isn't really all that stupid, once they figured out how to get it to stop killing whole squads of Marines. I'd have picked the F-22 as a better example.
I have a dim view of any aircraft that requires a quarter of a century of development and $50B to get to the point where it doesn't wipe out dozens of people every time you fire up the ignition.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
4%-plus (starting today, bumped up from 3%; I'll bump it up again to 5% after the conventions): Hawaii- Up from 86% to 91%. Indiana- Up from 50% to 55%. Louisiana- Down from 20% to 9%.
50% watch: Virginia- Up from 50% to 51%. Remains in Obama's column.
State index: Winning, gaining ground: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin Losing, gaining ground: Kansas, Nevada, Texas Winning, losing ground: Maine, New Mexico Losing, losing ground: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming
Basically, a map-sharpening day. Not necessarily a bad thing if you're the current leader.
Notes of interest:
*Since I started tracking on June 11, South Dakota has shown movement every single day. On that date it stood at 16%, today it stands at 21%.
*Connecticut (96%), Michigan (74%), New Jersey (93%), and Wisconsin (86%) set record highs. Missouri (32%) and Montana (16%) set record lows.
*Wyoming has not shown movement towards Obama since June 22. On that day Obama stood at 8%, now he stands at 1%.
*Ohio and Michigan have shown three days of consecutive growth. Of these, the largest jump comes from Michigan. On Monday Obama stood at 67%, now he's at 74%.
Posts
But then, all a libertarian really is is an optimistic anarchist. "Hey, if we just privatize all this, it'll all work out great for everyone!"
Then I was in a state university because I didn't like the idea of being in debt for decades, and riding public transit everyday because I couldn't afford a car, and, well, I could continue but I think you get the point.
I think you forgot c) causes 10 pages of argument ending with "just stop posting, Deacon" comments.
I completely agree with you though, I want to hear from more McCain supporters. Or even people who just don't support Obama. I'd also like to hear from people who support other candidates or other primary candidates, but aren't enthusiastic about any of the nominees.
Closer to the middle of the month.
To the other topic, pragmatism has changed my political views significantly.
Government money for Jesus is some bullshit.
And what is your opinion on government money for charity, regardless of whether or not said charity is church affiliated? Because, you know, that's the actual position.
Steam | Twitter
I'm just... I'm just tired of Husseins.
pleasepaypreacher.net
His two statements aren't contradictory. He can feel that the states have the right to choose for themselves but still find the proposition divisive and discriminatory.
But that's looking past the sound bite politics. Come on do we really want our politicians to have an actual discussion about issues?
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7
He's also being called out for saying he's happy for the gays in CA getting married even though he says he thinks marriage = man + woman. Only a dirty liberal would want people with whom he disagrees to be happy.
The 'indebt and spend conservatives' that constitute the GOP in fierce combat with the 'tax and spend liberals' of the DNC. Forever locked in combat over who should pay for our incompetence, China and our grandchildren, or rich people and their estates.
Can someone explain to me that currently counts as "fiscally conservative". Not the GOP line, but what it means to people like ElJeffe. Are we just talking about balancing the budget, or something more complex?
That doesn't mean you shouldn't work your ass off to get him elected, though.
Comparatively limited spending, smaller and tighter government, balanced budget except when absolutely necessary.
Though really I'd settle for "not spending more than we take in" right about now.
edit: To elaborate, right now I think the "conservative" thing to do would be to immediately adjust our spending and taxation by a little bit each to bring them into equilibrium. Past that, I would put a long-term cap on spending increases that keep them somewhere below inflation+population growth, which would gradually shrink the effective size of government.
I'm with you in that I don't particularly like the idea of governmental responsibility being executed by religious organizations with taxpayer money.
But here's the thing: I like secular good more than I dislike religion. These programs - soup kitchens, aid and counseling to the poor, education programs - are just not getting funded at any significant level under the current system. Under Obama's formulation, the programs get funded by dint of the fact that the public selling point is letting some of the functions flow through church hands.
If the cost of implementing anti-poverty measures is getting buy-in through allowing religious organizations to execute some of the functions with oversight, then it's a compromise I can live with.
When you say "smaller and tighter government" what types of programs are you talking about cutting/reducing in size?
:winky:
Steam | Twitter
I think it's fundamentally linked to smaller government, at least for me. Smaller government means less taxes because we don't have to fund a whole bunch of bloat and we're more efficient with the way we spend our money. Hopefully this means we're not in debt up to our eyeballs.
And McCain's response is just gold
Never mind that he's done that already.
And still no one has attacked his military record. I guess if you tell a lie often enough people will believe its the truth?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I dunno, turns me off politics to watch this kind of stuff.
I don't like the comparison because it didn't work for Ferraro and damaged Hillary's already wounded campaign. We don't call it swift boating because it failed.
pleasepaypreacher.net
4%-plus (starting today, bumped up from 3%; I'll bump it up again to 5% after the conventions):
Hawaii- Up from 86% to 91%.
Indiana- Up from 50% to 55%.
Louisiana- Down from 20% to 9%.
50% watch:
Virginia- Up from 50% to 51%. Remains in Obama's column.
State index:
Winning, gaining ground: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin
Losing, gaining ground: Kansas, Nevada, Texas
Winning, losing ground: Maine, New Mexico
Losing, losing ground: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming
Basically, a map-sharpening day. Not necessarily a bad thing if you're the current leader.
Notes of interest:
*Since I started tracking on June 11, South Dakota has shown movement every single day. On that date it stood at 16%, today it stands at 21%.
*Connecticut (96%), Michigan (74%), New Jersey (93%), and Wisconsin (86%) set record highs. Missouri (32%) and Montana (16%) set record lows.
*Wyoming has not shown movement towards Obama since June 22. On that day Obama stood at 8%, now he stands at 1%.
*Ohio and Michigan have shown three days of consecutive growth. Of these, the largest jump comes from Michigan. On Monday Obama stood at 67%, now he's at 74%.
Overall: Up from 65.6% to 67.4%.
But it's still a bad comparison. Clark went after McCain for saying his pow experience was some how executive experience coming from a position of having been a 4 star general.
Ferraro went after Obama for being a black male as some kind of token reason for being a canadite because she was a token female vp on a failed ticket.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'd have to do some serious research to figure out exactly which, but look, for example, at 2008 vs 2000. Adjusted for inflation, spending has grown by 25%. Are we 25% better off? No. Were our government programs fundamentally inadequate then, whereas they're awesome now? No. I dare say we could eliminate every new program and every expansion of existing programs implemented in the past eight years and not even notice.
The degree of redundancy and stupid waste in our government is ludcicrous. I'd probably cut the size of the military by about 30% for starters. The size of our military is still premised on the need to be able to wage two simultaneous full-scale wars, which we don't need. I'd wager that we actively don't want to encourage our military to occupy two nations at once. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. And that's not figuring the stupid amount of money dedicated to retarded projects. See: the Osprey.
And if you let me loose on non-military discretionary spending, I would have a fucking field day.
I think the argument required against McCain would have to be a little too detailed to work for ads or MSM. Also are there any stats on how veterans / current military personnel usually vote? I would assume that they tend to vote heavily towards the republican side and I doubt you would be able to change their minds. Also I'm guessing there aren't large swaths of people who support McCain solely on his war record. This has a much larger potential to backfire.
The benefit seems to be less people would vote for mccain, but it doesn't mean they will automagically vote for Obama.
Then, you agree that the comment Obama made has nothing to do with what we were talking about! That's good, because just saying "you know!" without explaining yourself would make you obscenely frustrating to converse with.
Yeah. Clark's point is defensible. Ferraro's is stupid and demonstrably false.
It isn't a smear and it isn't a lie.
So . . .
The Osprey isn't really all that stupid, once they figured out how to get it to stop killing whole squads of Marines. I'd have picked the F-22 as a better example.
Or ballistic missile defense, which is an absolute failure on any number of levels.
I would love to hear at least a little on what you have to say on this topic.
That said, that and and the JSF is a bit much.
I have a dim view of any aircraft that requires a quarter of a century of development and $50B to get to the point where it doesn't wipe out dozens of people every time you fire up the ignition.
Thank you :-)