Author Topic: Presidential Debate Delay Rant  (Read 31095 times)

Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #50 on: October 21, 2008, 02:49:28 PM
What's sad is that Clinton, Obama and McCain all made appearances on WWE Monday Night Raw.

::Locks in the Million Dollar Dream::



Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5858
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #51 on: October 28, 2008, 09:18:31 PM
totally voted today.  I feel accomplished.

http://masterchiefforpresident.org/

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


Nt 2 B TKN INTRNLY

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 33
  • Program Error: User "Daniel" Terminated
    • Brain Radiation
Reply #52 on: October 28, 2008, 09:46:44 PM
totally voted today.  I feel accomplished.

http://masterchiefforpresident.org/

I'm in. I swear, we must have a Halo political party in Canada. I mean, we have these guys, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Marijuana_Party so...

But I'd have to agree with something I read on the NYT: Everytime Sarah Palin finished saying something, she looked like she wanted a cookie. All talk, no substance.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2008, 10:41:48 PM by Nt 2 B TKN INTRNLY »

I wonder what it would be like to feel my brain...


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #53 on: November 10, 2008, 06:58:44 PM
Oh, thread of pre-election politics, rise from the dead and come forth:

Well, they needed a woman to woo the disaffected Clinton voters, and they needed someone who was anti-woman to suck up to the religious right that McCain used to refer to as "agents of intolerance" and "a blight on the political landscape".

Between those two, you get a pretty short list.

Still, there had to be someone, who at least knew…something…about…something.

Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't go with Condoleezza Rice.  I'm not a fan of hers, but she certainly seems more intelligent (and experienced) than Palin.  I suppose this was McCain's way of distancing himself from the Bush administration, though. 
She's pro-choice. And the religious right, which is a large chunk of the Republican "base", was very vocal about not being able to vote for McCain if he picked a pro-choice running mate.

Still, had McCain been half the maverick he presented himself as, he'd have called their bluff, picked someone the centrists could relate to and dared the far-right to hand the election to Obama...

SO, now even the McCain people are calling her a worthless, stupid hick.  Why did they pick her?



wintermute

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • What Would Batman Do?
Reply #54 on: November 10, 2008, 07:27:04 PM
Meh. They're just casting about for someone to blame. It's not the consistently negative ads that McCain ran, that voters said pissed them off; it's not the fact that McCain didn't have any actual policies, other than being all mavericky; it's not that the Republican Party has a bad reputation for some reason; it's all the fault of that Palin woman, who forced herself onto the ticket, and the McCain people had nothing to do with it at all.

Pathetic, really.

Science means that not all dreams can come true


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4961
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #55 on: November 10, 2008, 07:29:22 PM
Yeah, not to mention that despite knowing all this, they picked her anyway.  It's not like they only found it out after the fact.

Unless, they didn't vet her as thoroughly as we were led to believe...


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2930
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #56 on: November 10, 2008, 07:32:17 PM
Yeah, not to mention that despite knowing all this, they picked her anyway.  It's not like they only found it out after the fact.

Unless, they didn't vet her as thoroughly as we were led to believe...

I can't remember who said it, but someone pointed out that even at McDonalds you're interviewed thrice before being hired.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


wintermute

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • What Would Batman Do?
Reply #57 on: November 10, 2008, 07:48:44 PM
Yeah, not to mention that despite knowing all this, they picked her anyway.  It's not like they only found it out after the fact.

Unless, they didn't vet her as thoroughly as we were led to believe...
Well, the people that would have been interviewed as part of the vetting process (co-workers, watchdog groups, local newspapers, etc) all said that they never even heard that she was being considered until two days before the pick was announced. So I'm inclined to believe that her vetting was, at best, minimal.

Science means that not all dreams can come true


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4961
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #58 on: November 10, 2008, 08:01:19 PM
Yeah, sorry, I was aiming at sarcasm and must've missed. 

I have little doubt that the vetting process for Palin was a joke.  Something MacGyver put together with a paperclip, a rubberband, and a can of Crystal Pepsi. 


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2930
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #59 on: November 10, 2008, 08:03:36 PM
Yeah, sorry, I was aiming at sarcasm and must've missed. 

I have little doubt that the vetting process for Palin was a joke.  Something MacGyver put together with a paperclip, a rubberband, and a can of Crystal Pepsi. 

Except MacGyver would have made it work.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4961
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #60 on: November 10, 2008, 08:47:38 PM
Well, it did kind of blow up  ;)


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #61 on: November 10, 2008, 09:30:48 PM
The problem is that they picked her to try to get conservatives and moderates on board, then tried to pigeon hole her into a role that she was unfit to fill.  Had they let her be the conservative side of the ticket, she probably would have come across as more likeable.  My conservative friends were excited about her all the way to election day.  They hated McCain.  If the McCain camp wanted Palin to turn out the conservative voters, they should have just turned her loose. 

Personally, I think McCain ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen.  Did he really think he'd win PA?  Did he think Palin would bring over Hillary Clinton's supporters?  All the years he spent being a "maverick" and bucking the Republican party, he enjoyed the support of a lot of the mainstream media.  Did he really think that was enough to win a presidential election? 

As far as likeablility goes, I preferred Obama over McCain.  If McCain had come across as angry but substanitive, I think he'd have run a better campaign.

I cast my 3rd party vote proudly.  My only true disappointment from the election is that the Democrats gained control of Congress as well as the White House.  I'm all for legislative gridlock.  I loved the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  Not because they "got" Clinton, but because they were so busy fighting each other that they left us alone.

Now is the time for a legitimate third party to start a grass roots movement and secure seats at all levels of government.  The Republican party is falling apart.

Oops.  Sorry, got a little long winded there.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2658
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #62 on: November 10, 2008, 10:44:00 PM
well, legislative gridlock wouldnt exactly be the way to help the country fix its epic problems, heheh.



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #63 on: November 10, 2008, 11:03:32 PM
well, legislative gridlock wouldnt exactly be the way to help the country fix its epic problems, heheh.

IMO, it's a sight better than what we've got.   ;)



deflective

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1170
Reply #64 on: November 10, 2008, 11:10:47 PM
how do you resolve that with the general opinion that it's the lack of bank regulation ignited the economic meltdown?



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #65 on: November 11, 2008, 12:01:06 AM
I generally don't find the "general opinion" to be a good enough reason to believe something.



deflective

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1170
Reply #66 on: November 11, 2008, 12:53:07 AM
is there a theory that you prefer over the one the economists believe? or do you just refuse to consider something that challenges your worldview?



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #67 on: November 11, 2008, 03:16:23 AM
is there a theory that you prefer over the one the economists believe? or do you just refuse to consider something that challenges your worldview?

Now you are attributing it to economists?  I thought it was the general opinion.  I don't listen to talking heads on tv.  There were other things that contributed to this, as has been shoved in my face when I said it was greedy bankers.



deflective

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1170
Reply #68 on: November 11, 2008, 03:43:02 AM
you make a valid point, a term like 'general opinion' has such a broad definition that people can take it to mean pretty much anything they want.

the whole greedy banker thing is pretty much equivalent to saying unregulated banker. maybe you're a big government lover and just don't know it. =)

sorry if this is touching off of other conversations i'm not aware of. on the other hand, you can't be proud of willfully avoiding the issues and still have your opinion carry weight.



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #69 on: November 11, 2008, 10:35:06 AM
My only true disappointment from the election is that the Democrats gained control of Congress as well as the White House. 

The Dems already had the House and the Senate.  They just substantially increased their majorities.


is there a theory that you prefer over the one the economists believe? or do you just refuse to consider something that challenges your worldview?

Now you are attributing it to economists?  I thought it was the general opinion.  I don't listen to talking heads on tv.  There were other things that contributed to this, as has been shoved in my face when I said it was greedy bankers.

If you actually want to know what happened from beginning to now in this whole meltdown, the place to go is the NPR Planet Money podcast.  It's been explaining the situation and they do it without treating you like an idiot.



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #70 on: November 11, 2008, 04:10:24 PM
you make a valid point, a term like 'general opinion' has such a broad definition that people can take it to mean pretty much anything they want.

the whole greedy banker thing is pretty much equivalent to saying unregulated banker. maybe you're a big government lover and just don't know it. =)

sorry if this is touching off of other conversations i'm not aware of. on the other hand, you can't be proud of willfully avoiding the issues and still have your opinion carry weight.

It may not have come off correctly, but I was being a bit silly.  Greedy banker, greedy people trying to flip houses...  The greedy bankers made BAD LOANS and lost money on them.  I was against the government bail out.  Let the insurance companies and banks go out of business for their mistakes.  I will check out Nash's link sometime tonight, so I don't want to go into that stuff too much. 

Also, I knew the Dems had the House and Senate already.  I should have said retained for that. 



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #71 on: November 11, 2008, 05:49:01 PM
you make a valid point, a term like 'general opinion' has such a broad definition that people can take it to mean pretty much anything they want.

the whole greedy banker thing is pretty much equivalent to saying unregulated banker. maybe you're a big government lover and just don't know it. =)

sorry if this is touching off of other conversations i'm not aware of. on the other hand, you can't be proud of willfully avoiding the issues and still have your opinion carry weight.

It may not have come off correctly, but I was being a bit silly.  Greedy banker, greedy people trying to flip houses...  The greedy bankers made BAD LOANS and lost money on them.  I was against the government bail out.  Let the insurance companies and banks go out of business for their mistakes.  I will check out Nash's link sometime tonight, so I don't want to go into that stuff too much. 

Also, I knew the Dems had the House and Senate already.  I should have said retained for that. 

I'm all for letting jackasses hang for doing stupid shit, but in this case it's different.  When you listen to that podcast, you'll understand why.  The scope is just way out of hand.  The amount of money involved is approximately 12 times the US GDP.  They're totally insane numbers we're dealing with today.



wintermute

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • What Would Batman Do?
Reply #72 on: November 11, 2008, 05:51:50 PM
I was against the government bail out.  Let the insurance companies and banks go out of business for their mistakes.
I think we tried that in 1929. Didn't turn out so good, if I recall...

Science means that not all dreams can come true


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #73 on: November 11, 2008, 11:28:23 PM
It coulda been more of an auction, with the gov't as the opening bidder.



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2930
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #74 on: November 11, 2008, 11:45:48 PM
It coulda been more of an auction, with the gov't as the opening bidder.

Which they didn't do because there was no way to price the value of those assets because the market (which already works as an auction) had stopped working. No one in the private sector wanted them because they were viewed as toxic. Now, the Gov't could have placed a bet of X amount, but they would have been buying assets of unknown value for a probably inflated price. Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel in Economics this year, had some blog posts and columns in the NYT about this. Basically the direct injection of capital by buying preferred stock and giving out lines of credit was/is the safer option for taxpayer dollars.

And they have been facilitating mergers left and right in order to keep more companies from failing.

Edit: And to go against the original point, the NYT has a front-page-of-website-probably-front-page-of-paper-tomorrow story about falling gas prices.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 11:49:07 PM by Heradel »

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.