Why then is McCain tumbling in the polls? Why is Palin's favorability tumbling? Why is Palin's unfavorability now higher than that of McCain, Biden or Obama?
I find it interesting that you accuse both sides of being wrong, and then go on to detail the pro-choice position on abortion as if it were your own idea.
Kind of makes one wonder if someone hasn't been listening.
either through line-item veto power or much tighter restrictions on the breadth of any given bill, I would prefer the latter as a restriction of Congressional power will serve us better in the long term over an expansion of Executive power.
Both issues require a Constitutional Amendment.
Line Item veto was struck down by the supreme court when it was tried before. If we're going to go through all that trouble I'd rather see the Balanced Budget Amendment.
If by "libertarian" he only cares about eliminating taxes, but doesn't care about other liberties and turns a blind eye to the moral majority legislating in our bedroom and so on. Then he's probably really just a Republican who is unwilling to call himself such.
There's a lot of them out there, people who claim to be libertarian who aren't. I don't know why? For the shock value, or they think it sounds more intellectual or something.
They chose a vendor to build out and operate a video infrastructure for the convention, and that vendor happens to have built on Silverlight (that's where incentives and support from MS likely came in, not directly to the DNC). Why the vendor did that, I have no idea.
It has to do with the technology. One of my good friends went to work for one of the larger video providing service that has contracts with some large international networks like Sky TV and Harpo entertainment and such. They've been using Flash for years, but even they are now starting to look at Silverlight. Silverlight apparently gives them more functionality, and would streamline some of their operations.
I think it comes from the fact that whereas video was a secondary thought for Flash, silverlight was built with it as a primary feature. So they leapfrogged. Flash may similar leapfrog now that video is pretty much the only way it's used anymore.
The last time I can recall would be Carter '77-'81, but I don't remember any huge spending binge. Now you could go back further, before my lifetime... LBJ '65-'69 and see a similar increase in spending.
It seems as though Bush's spending binge from 2001-2006 had to do with two things... Increased defense spending, which was in some ways justifiable, and Karl Rove's political goal of creating a "Permanent Republican Majority". The Rove thing goes back to the psychology thing, that they believed the only way to get people to like your guys was to hand out the dole.
Then again, the main thing LBJ and Bush have in common is they're bloody Texans. Maybe this is a Texas thing?
I never said that and please don't put words in my mouth - thank you very much.
You most certainly did state that you don't trust voters.
Listen, the term limits thing is a really bad idea for a number of reasons. Not only is it anti-Democratic, it requires a Constitutional Amendment to put in place.
How about looking at it from another perspective? How about we dilute the power of individual congress critters? How about we eliminate a large portion of the unelected staff?
How about we increase the size of the House from 435 to 1200? All it takes is to pass a law following the next census. That's it. Public Law 62-5 which set the size of Congress to 435.
California has term limits on it's legislature. If term limits were useful, california would have the best legislature in the country. That clearly isn't the case.
I think the reason why Republicans end up spending more money than Democrats is because their attitude sucks.
Because of their attitude they have this perception that they don't care about people, don't give a shit, etc. Then when something bad happens, they can't just say "I feel your pain, I understand your suffering" or whatever cause nobody believes them. So they respond by spending boatloads of money in order to prove they are Compassionate.
It's all about the psychology. When you've got economic advisors walking around saying the US is full of a bunch of whiners, and the economy is fine, you have to undue the damage through actions, otherwise known as spending boatloads of money.
Why? So the unelected bureaucrats can run the Government? I don't think so. If an incumbent is really bad, they get kicked out by the voters.
What you are really saying here is that the electorate is a bunch of stupid morons who you don't trust, and you'd prefer a monarchy. But who gets to pick the monarchy?
Picking a single issue and voting because one guy said yes or no, is a recipe for disappointment.
There are differences between candidates, surely, but you can look at the full record of what they are saying and see trends of how they think about issues. You're better off looking at this and voting for the person who seems to think most like the way you feel the country needs to go, then to focus on one single lone little issue.
In 30 years, I have heard a lot of talk about small government, but every time people go and vote for the small government candidate I lose some freedom, and money out of my pocket book.
Maybe it's time we just had an honest discussion instead of all these emotional buzzwords?
I had an argument back in 2004 with a "conservative" friend of mine who argued that banning gay marriage meant smaller government. Because, apparently these gay married couples would consumer more government services than they would as individuals.
For whatever reason... one sides' success.... The Daily Show, Limbaugh, pick your example... just doesn't seem to translate well to the other side. Any attempts to "reverse engineer" it and make your own seems destined to fall on it's face.
As I recall one of the big laugh lines of the speech was the attack on reporters writing a book about a reporter asking tough questions about the government... you know, fiction.
Colbert and Stewart aren't in this for politics, they're in this to attack the culture that has surrounded modern politics. Namely the stupid ass media pundits.
I don't think you quite understand Stewart and Colbert. They aren't at all like Limbaugh, who is more of a propagandist.
They're not mocking conservatives. They're mocking mainstream news coverage. Where stupid issues are treated with such seriousness. "Did Barack Obama not wear underwear as a child? Stay tuned to CNN and find out more about this important revelation!"
Most people who go on the show find it refreshing and since they have a sense of humor, they play along.
But many conservative politicians are so used to the media playing deference to their stupid issue ideas, that they're confused at why they're being laughed at.
But at the core, what they're do is mocking mainstream news broadcasts. Nothing more.
I bought a cheap HD-DVD player at xmas, and got 10 free movies. Then proceeded to buy a Sharp TV and got a free Blu-ray with 5 free movies. You'd be really hard pressed to tell the difference in imaging. To try to explain the difference, there's a scene in Bourne Identity where Bourne is standing next to a concrete brick wall after they go to a bank. Watch it on DVD and it looks like a concrete brick wall. You watch it on Hi-Def and it looks like a concrete brick wall, but now you can see the little pieces of aggregate in the concrete clearly.
That's it. It's not nearly as dramatic as VHS to DVD was. Or even standard def television to HDTV has been.
Now, what's interesting to me is the sound. That I can actually tell the difference quite easily. If you get the content which is uncompressed, called Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD there's a remarkable improvement in surround sound quality. In an outdoor scene, you'll hear birds chirping in the background and the wind blowing through the grass.
Even then, it's not worth spending the money. I bought one blu-ray on sale for $20 just to have one movie to try it with. Other than that, I ain't buying blu-ray movies for $30. The only movies I buy these days are $5-6 on sale at Best Buy. Newer stuff, I just get it on Netflix and then wait for the DVD to be $5 in a year or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Why then is McCain tumbling in the polls? Why is Palin's favorability tumbling? Why is Palin's unfavorability now higher than that of McCain, Biden or Obama?
Are you so certain this pick was brilliant?
They're still there.
But only if you link to the site from google. If you try to browse the site yourself, you get nothing.
You're a fruitcake.
I find it interesting that you accuse both sides of being wrong, and then go on to detail the pro-choice position on abortion as if it were your own idea.
Kind of makes one wonder if someone hasn't been listening.
Both issues require a Constitutional Amendment.
Line Item veto was struck down by the supreme court when it was tried before. If we're going to go through all that trouble I'd rather see the Balanced Budget Amendment.
If by "libertarian" he only cares about eliminating taxes, but doesn't care about other liberties and turns a blind eye to the moral majority legislating in our bedroom and so on. Then he's probably really just a Republican who is unwilling to call himself such.
There's a lot of them out there, people who claim to be libertarian who aren't. I don't know why? For the shock value, or they think it sounds more intellectual or something.
I just put you on the list.
It has to do with the technology. One of my good friends went to work for one of the larger video providing service that has contracts with some large international networks like Sky TV and Harpo entertainment and such. They've been using Flash for years, but even they are now starting to look at Silverlight. Silverlight apparently gives them more functionality, and would streamline some of their operations.
I think it comes from the fact that whereas video was a secondary thought for Flash, silverlight was built with it as a primary feature. So they leapfrogged. Flash may similar leapfrog now that video is pretty much the only way it's used anymore.
Then you will disappoint others. :-)
The last time I can recall would be Carter '77-'81, but I don't remember any huge spending binge. Now you could go back further, before my lifetime... LBJ '65-'69 and see a similar increase in spending.
It seems as though Bush's spending binge from 2001-2006 had to do with two things... Increased defense spending, which was in some ways justifiable, and Karl Rove's political goal of creating a "Permanent Republican Majority". The Rove thing goes back to the psychology thing, that they believed the only way to get people to like your guys was to hand out the dole.
Then again, the main thing LBJ and Bush have in common is they're bloody Texans. Maybe this is a Texas thing?
You most certainly did state that you don't trust voters.
Listen, the term limits thing is a really bad idea for a number of reasons. Not only is it anti-Democratic, it requires a Constitutional Amendment to put in place.
How about looking at it from another perspective? How about we dilute the power of individual congress critters? How about we eliminate a large portion of the unelected staff?
How about we increase the size of the House from 435 to 1200? All it takes is to pass a law following the next census. That's it. Public Law 62-5 which set the size of Congress to 435.
California has term limits on it's legislature. If term limits were useful, california would have the best legislature in the country. That clearly isn't the case.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2006/pr060815termlimits.htm
Ponder this question. Why are there 435 members in the House? Why not 1200?
You will always be disappointed.
Ok, but then why the disparity? Going back through my lifetime, Republicans have tended to spend money way more freely then Democrats.
If this was true that they're both the same, wouldn't I see similar spending binges during times when Democrats were in office?
I think the reason why Republicans end up spending more money than Democrats is because their attitude sucks.
Because of their attitude they have this perception that they don't care about people, don't give a shit, etc. Then when something bad happens, they can't just say "I feel your pain, I understand your suffering" or whatever cause nobody believes them. So they respond by spending boatloads of money in order to prove they are Compassionate.
It's all about the psychology. When you've got economic advisors walking around saying the US is full of a bunch of whiners, and the economy is fine, you have to undue the damage through actions, otherwise known as spending boatloads of money.
Why? So the unelected bureaucrats can run the Government? I don't think so. If an incumbent is really bad, they get kicked out by the voters.
What you are really saying here is that the electorate is a bunch of stupid morons who you don't trust, and you'd prefer a monarchy. But who gets to pick the monarchy?
I for one am damned happy that some politicians haven't been able to deliver on their promises.
Picking a single issue and voting because one guy said yes or no, is a recipe for disappointment.
There are differences between candidates, surely, but you can look at the full record of what they are saying and see trends of how they think about issues. You're better off looking at this and voting for the person who seems to think most like the way you feel the country needs to go, then to focus on one single lone little issue.
Ed Meese's porn crusade doesn't count?
I don't understand why you would try to compare social programs to defense.
I was actually thinking Reagan. But no matter.
In 30 years, I have heard a lot of talk about small government, but every time people go and vote for the small government candidate I lose some freedom, and money out of my pocket book.
Maybe it's time we just had an honest discussion instead of all these emotional buzzwords?
I had an argument back in 2004 with a "conservative" friend of mine who argued that banning gay marriage meant smaller government. Because, apparently these gay married couples would consumer more government services than they would as individuals.
What exactly was small about massive defense spending, and trying to legislate morality?
#dontgo!, anyone? :-)
As I recall one of the big laugh lines of the speech was the attack on reporters writing a book about a reporter asking tough questions about the government... you know, fiction.
Colbert and Stewart aren't in this for politics, they're in this to attack the culture that has surrounded modern politics. Namely the stupid ass media pundits.
I don't think you quite understand Stewart and Colbert. They aren't at all like Limbaugh, who is more of a propagandist.
They're not mocking conservatives. They're mocking mainstream news coverage. Where stupid issues are treated with such seriousness. "Did Barack Obama not wear underwear as a child? Stay tuned to CNN and find out more about this important revelation!"
Most people who go on the show find it refreshing and since they have a sense of humor, they play along.
But many conservative politicians are so used to the media playing deference to their stupid issue ideas, that they're confused at why they're being laughed at.
But at the core, what they're do is mocking mainstream news broadcasts. Nothing more.
I bought a cheap HD-DVD player at xmas, and got 10 free movies. Then proceeded to buy a Sharp TV and got a free Blu-ray with 5 free movies. You'd be really hard pressed to tell the difference in imaging. To try to explain the difference, there's a scene in Bourne Identity where Bourne is standing next to a concrete brick wall after they go to a bank. Watch it on DVD and it looks like a concrete brick wall. You watch it on Hi-Def and it looks like a concrete brick wall, but now you can see the little pieces of aggregate in the concrete clearly.
That's it. It's not nearly as dramatic as VHS to DVD was. Or even standard def television to HDTV has been.
Now, what's interesting to me is the sound. That I can actually tell the difference quite easily. If you get the content which is uncompressed, called Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD there's a remarkable improvement in surround sound quality. In an outdoor scene, you'll hear birds chirping in the background and the wind blowing through the grass.
Even then, it's not worth spending the money. I bought one blu-ray on sale for $20 just to have one movie to try it with. Other than that, I ain't buying blu-ray movies for $30. The only movies I buy these days are $5-6 on sale at Best Buy. Newer stuff, I just get it on Netflix and then wait for the DVD to be $5 in a year or so.