NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Democrats cannot and should not expect Obama to receive any sort of honeymoon from McCain voters this cycle based on their behavior, and as I've often heard said, don't reward behavior that you don't want to encourage." Yes, the Angry Left schtick seems to have worked for the Dems, which suggests that if the GOP finds itself out of power it will emulate it. If there is an Obama win, no b****ing allowed for the next 4 years when every tactic the left used against Bush and Republicans is turned full force against them. That philosophy is exactly why we have such amplified partisanship in Congress and government today, why nothing good is getting done, why no compromise occurs unless its a pork barrel festival, and why we see so much hate at these campaign rallies. And you want to further propagate that garbage? That accomplishes nothing and only makes things worse. its too bad that you and so many others will do just that. And for the record, I voted for Bush in 2000, wanted him to do well, but ended up criticizing him a lot as time went on. I did that because... HE'S BEEN A LOUSY f***ING PRESIDENT. Not because I gave him no chance, or because I wanted him to fail, both of which are absurd ideas.

This election hasn't necessarily resulted in a flip for me. But, I have voted for more Republicans for President (2) than I have Democrats (1), and I've voted independent once. But in recent years, I am voting Dem more often. Not because I've changed my view of things - but because of the GOP's move away from what I liked about their party (smaller government, individual rights) and more embraced the stuff I didn't like (social conservatism and warmongering). The GOP has moved right, and away from me. When McCain was nominated though, I thought we'd seen the beginning of a shift back to the core values of the GOP that had been missing. I was torn on McCain v Obama. But alas, McCain must have been feeling the pressure from the right, because he was swung further right than he was, picked a far-right VP who also happens to be clueless, and has decided to run an intensely, insultingly negative campaign. So, I'm on the left again.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 08:31 AM) We'd still need a centrally planned economy, no? Even with de facto government control of the banking system there's quite a ways to go for that. We are nowhere near it in most key areas. The big problem many conservatives and moderates have about approaching socialism is really with the use of the tax code as a redistribution of wealth. Obama's plan would do that slightly more than is already done.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 07:18 AM) That's kinda what I was getting at. Everything he described was our government, so I am not sure the distinction he was trying draw between that and socialism. This country isn't even in shouting distance from socialism. Even if Obama's most ambitious tax plans come true (which they won't), we'd moved a few inches closer but still be miles away.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 17, 2008 -> 01:12 AM) peanut and I are pretty big backers of the two-party system. Take New Zealand for instance, their conservative party will likely get 35% plurality, but they need 50% majority, so likely they will have to make deals with the green party (think of Lieberman caucasing with the democrats to the extreme), so, the conservative party, to stay in power, will make huge concessions to one of the most liberal groups in New Zealand. I think the third party system sounds pretty appealing, but in practicality in the American system, there's a reason they haven't gained weight. edit: by peanut I meant dukenukem. The reasons we haven't seen a third party make some noise are not because it doesn't work well in the system. Its the high barriers to entry. I think it might happen, if done the right way. We'll see.

By the way, LOL'd at McCain's "ZERO?!?!?!?!?!" reaction about the health care fines. Comedic gold right there.

Watched the whole thing. McCain gets the victory by a small margin. He came out strong, talked a lot about the stuff he should be talking about to get the attention of moderates - government waste particularly. Obama was a bit flat, on defense. McCain's big weakness though, and why it was a small victory for him instead of a potentially large one, was that snide paternal sarcasm again. When he was listening to Obama speak, he had all variety of dismissive facial expressions. And when he spoke, he'd give 95% of a great answer, then have to throw in some sort of little slap at the end. And while Obama was definitely too flat and too imprecise, he at least appeared to keep his wits about him. Overall, McCain did better. But he could have really had a game-changer, if he hadn't had those couple issues. I'll predict the polls get a little tighter the next few days, but not enough to change the playing field dramatically. He'll need something else.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) Is the 'minus' for him hurting himself in a way that could have been avoided or the one stretch when he slumped for 30 at bats or so? That's a tough grade. He's about as sold an A as they come. The injury time off, which was only by chance his fault, is part of it. I also thought his defense was below the level of what the scouting reports hinted at.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 05:45 PM) Is there any official body count for the enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq? I moved this post from the GOP thread to one that is at least slightly related to the topic. I don't have an answer for you, but I am sure its out there somewhere. Estimates anyway.

Oh, forgot to add... I don't like that Obama's plan is 20% specifically over a certain income level. I think that tying one kind of tax (investments) to another (income) is dangerous - it tends to create loopholes and problems. It also makes a hard line on income levels that creates a "sticky point" for salaries. That may actually keep salaries more depressed, which isn't good. Income tax has brackets, but the differential rates are applied on monies over certain lines. Its not, going from 20% to 25% on ALL income if you make over a certain amount - its 20% up to a certain amount, then 25% for each dollar above the line, if I understand correctly.

Interesting overview of the plans for cap gains taxes from each candidate. Now, I've said before, I don't agree with any raising of the cap gains tax, especially when the markets need more capital. I've also said that cutting them from the current 15% doesn't make much sense, though, when we are in dire financial straights and are fighting 2 wars. The good news is, neither candidate is proposing anything drastic. For Obama, this is a shift - he was talking going closer to 30% again at one point. Now its 20%, which is a much smaller increase. Still not good, but not as bad as I thought. He also includes an exception for startup investments, which is actually an interesting and positive idea. McCain wants to cut the 15% in half to 7.5%, but only for a two year period (2009-2010). This is good in that ultimately, more capital goes in. Its bad though, in that you create an artificial market horizon when you specify an end date like that. As the article states, neither plan is likely to have a HUGE impact. I would prefer we just leave it where it is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 03:23 PM) LF's civil liberties is a good general topic. What they've really moved away from is the concept of INDIVIDUAL rights, over group rights. They don't care for warrants anymore, they stamp all the signed bills with a "whatever, its what I say it is" stamp, they try to hide POW's in a legal black hole, they try to protect telecoms who violated privacy laws, they want to tell people who they can and cannot marry or spend their time with, they want to manhandle state governments to do their bidding... get the picture? They simply tossed aside the value of individual and states' rights. And yes, some Dems have gone along with some of those things too. And I've expressed displeasure over it in here before. By the way, to add to this line of thinking... strange as this sounds, one fo the few Congresspeople I have come to have more respect for in recent years is Dennis Kucinich. Not because of who he is - I think he's a little off his rocker. But because he's railed, consistently, against these violations of personal freedoms, and he's been more true to his word and his stances than most.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) I'm derailing the s*** out of the McCain sucks and RSO is God thread, but what the hell. What do you think the GOP has moved right on? I would even say they've moved right of "traditional conservatives" - or those who model "conservatism" like Reagan. And I do agree that it's a bad thing. I just saw LF's post, and yes, I agree somewhat, but then again, I really don't - because I think that's a mirage. And don't forget that the Dems went right along with it - so no, they don't mock Dems, because the dirty secret is they're not really idealogically that different on the "civil liberties" issue. LF's civil liberties is a good general topic. What they've really moved away from is the concept of INDIVIDUAL rights, over group rights. They don't care for warrants anymore, they stamp all the signed bills with a "whatever, its what I say it is" stamp, they try to hide POW's in a legal black hole, they try to protect telecoms who violated privacy laws, they want to tell people who they can and cannot marry or spend their time with, they want to manhandle state governments to do their bidding... get the picture? They simply tossed aside the value of individual and states' rights. And yes, some Dems have gone along with some of those things too. And I've expressed displeasure over it in here before.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 02:48 PM) I agree, but it's not enough to allow me to sit there and say, "I'm voting for RSO". There's no way in hell. Voting for McCain is just about like voting for Bill Clinton on the political scale, that's how far left the GOP has gone (save for the idiocy on shoving morality down out throats, which you rightly point out and it's a turn off of mine as well and highly disappointing). See, the GOP has moved right a lot more than left. The ONLY thing they've moved left on is overspending. That's it. In many areas, they've moved right. They've walked a lot further from the center than they were, in general. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that the nation has said, in 2006 and now in 2008, that the GOP has lots its keys to the government. And I'm with them in that regard. I'm with Obama on more issues than I am with McCain, though not by much. I also think Obama is a stronger leader, and IMO more importantly, a stronger MANAGER. But, the fact that the GOP has moved so far right (other than spending) is also a factor in my mind, especially on Congressional offices.

By the way, Dow down nearly 8% on the day, S&P down 9%. So much for that 11% we picked up recently.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) And you know what? It's not the GOP's fault. But you find it easy to say "you had your chance"... that's laughable, so have the Democrats, and guess what? Their crap don't work so well either - Bill Clinton was just smart enough to go with the GOP in the 1990's, until the GOP started going left, so maybe in that sense, it is their fault... but it's not for the reason you say. Well, SOME of those things are the GOP's fault, to at least some extent. Their tax policies, on balance, haven't been good. They wholly ignored good energy policy initiatives and the environment. And SOME of those things fall on both parties - not addressing holes in the financial system, for example. And yet others are mostly beyond government control for either party.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 02:03 PM) Yes, and it's their downfall. From that sense, they deserve some of what they're getting. The GOP's downfall has been the movement of the party away from their core values, and those of the country, in both directions. They moved left in order to spend-spend-spend. They moved right in order to try to force their morality on the nation on social issues. And they decided that a war to "fix" the Middle East was a good idea. Those are what caused the downfall of the GOP in recent years.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) at everything. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) haha, dude you are so clueless. but i do like the know it all college student studying journalism routine. it's classic and truly hilarious Is this going to get uglier, or are you two going to chill out a bit?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 01:31 PM) And you honestly don't think, after some of the quotes that have hit this week, that RSO isn't for a "financial nanny state"? I know, not that extreme, but seriously, stop and think about it. People need to be really careful what they wish for. He's for something closer to one in any case, yes. This is, and has been, my biggest concern with Obama - tax and spending policy. Ultimately though, he won't get done as much as he wants to.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) Each of the first 2 debates he's randomly thrown out a policy that hadn't been presented before and it's sort of been sneered at and laughed off as fairly silly. The last debate, he threw out the $300M debt package thingy. I don't remember anyone sneering at it. In fact, it was discussed after, which is what he would want.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) Will McCain bring up Ayers or Wright? Doubt it. McCain needs a game-changer, but, recent indicators are that he's decided to go a little more positive. if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say you may hear a couple new things from McCain. For one, he'll harp big on tax policy and spending, trying to get some of those independents back. Another thing, he'll probably bring up at least one, if not multiple, new policy ideas at the debate, to get things stirred up a little.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) I don't want to go down any road. I just didn't know if that post was even for me, because i didn't say anything sexist. I was just pointing out what someone else said....and that wasn't even sexist...it was just stupid. My warning was for everyone. Just wanted to head off a thread disaster before it took hold. Not directed towards you specifically.

This discussion is getting a little over the top, no?

Before we get further down this road, let's try to keep the accusations of sexism and racism out of here. Also, let's try to be at least a little bit respectful of the PERSONS we are discussing. Feel free to deride their leadership abilities, politics, etc.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 15, 2008 -> 11:07 AM) From Ben Smith today: There are a lot of crazies in this country. Those two examples are a good picture, because they are double-crazy. One, they actually believe some of the B.S. rumors out there about Obama. But two, they actually think a financial nanny state is a good thing. Scary.