Rex Kickass

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) You're inclined to be biased, you mean. I am biased to begin with, thankyouverymuch.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) I disagree. Even if there's really nothing to this at all..."President uses executive privilege" and "Attorney General held in contempt" are big, powerful headlines. They make it clear that something untoward happened. Those are now buried on page 9. When even National Review is burying the story, because there's little being uncovered from the mountains of data that has already been provided in this investigation - I'm inclined to trust my gut. I think there's precious little to see here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) As a matter of politics, I have no idea why on Earth you would bury the House voting to hold the Attorney General in contempt on this day. Because its ultimately a loser. Eric Holder's initial response was pretty strong and kind of a winner, politically to be honest. National Review has even gone out and said that this contempt vote is ridiculous. The deeper this investigation goes, I think the less we'll see actually happened.

Best internet reaction so far: http://yfrog.com/hw7ozrfj

Not ignoring that. Although that would be countered by the 15-20 million dollars in independent expenditures from the various super PACs that supported Walker. From the data I've seen there was roughly an equal amount of funds spent independent of the campaigns on either side of that divide, although if there is an edge, it would lean Republican.

Last time I checked 2.935 million times 10 was 29.35 million. You're right, its 9.96 times, not 10. My apologies for rounding.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2012 -> 09:57 PM) I keep seeing that $# thrown around and it's just plain bulls***. It's now an Obama White House/DNC talking point that's just wrong. Ok, fine. I was wrong. It was actually 10 to 1. http://www.wisdc.org/pro12con.php Scott Walker raised $30,505,082.66 in his recall campaign. He spent $29,250,959.08 in his recall campaign. Tom Barret raised $3,938,574.59 in the same campaign. He spent $2,935,761.51 in the same campaign. This does not count outside independent expenditures.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jun 6, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) More frustrating...$64 million dollars pumped into a recall election that could have gone to...well anything else but that. Very true. It shouldn't be nearly as frustrating for Democrats as it is for Republicans. For every dollar spent by the Democrats in Wisconsin over the last couple months, Republicans spent 8.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 6, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) I would bet that a high percentage of college kids vote in more than one place, most without realizing that they are not supposed to do it. I would bet that to be completely wrong.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 6, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) If a college kid is registered to vote in their home state, can they change their registration to vote in Wisconsin? And if so, how long until they can change it back? Or do they just vote in 2 different states, breaking the law in the process? Legally, if you register in one state, the other state is supposed to take you off the voter rolls. This is not always done with a lot of accuracy. As late as 2007, I was listed as a registered voter in Indiana, despite not having lived there since 2000.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) He won by ~150k votes. I doubt there's 150k college students in the state, let alone 150k students that would (1) vote and (2) vote for the democrat. I also enjoy how every time a democrat loses the reaction is "the system is broken! democracy has failed!" Or, people don't think like you as much as you would like to believe, so you lost. Actually, I love how you think me pointing out poor strategy equals me saying the system is broken. Especially one sentence after I say that I dislike recall elections and I feel that elections should have consequences. The recall advocates didn't play the game the best way possible. And yeah, that may very well have depressed under 25 voting by more than you may think. Would that have made the difference? Probably not. But it definitely was a handicap that the recall advocates never needed. If you want to go with the system is broken meme, you can point to the fact that Scott Walker had a year to raise unlimited funds to this effort, and the recall candidates themselves had just a few weeks by state law, IIRC. But I also think that this is a bulls*** excuse too. It's all a moot point anyway when Walker gets his indictment in the next year or so, following Illinois Governors straight into federal prison for the shady s*** he did in Milwaukee before he was governor.

I have to say. As much as I dislike Walker, I really dislike recall elections. Elections have s***ty consequences sometimes, and unfortunately for Democrats - not showing up in 2010 for their guy will cost them over the next few years. Also, having the election in the summer was probably not a great idea for recall advocates either. This limited the college vote significantly and actually could have been the difference. There was one bright spot in all this though for the Democratic party, one Wisconsin senator was successfully recalled giving the Democrats control of a chamber and therefore preventing the worst of the Walker excesses.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 10, 2012 -> 10:22 PM) The man doesn't give a s*** about ssm. But you all love him for it. Sorry, I stopped feeding trolls kap. Hand up, not a hand out brother!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 10, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) First, this is why I respect Dennis Kucinich. The man's a rock in his beliefs. I don't care for his beliefs but I would trust this guy before the hack that's in office now. Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple. I think that Dick Cheney is worthy of some respect for his belief that gay marriage should be legal. However, when in office he's been on the opposite end of the issue for political expediency, and even today - he certainly isn't using his power within the GOP to change that position in his own party.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 10, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) I don't know that the other ones stripped civil unions from those that had them. The NC amendment goes further than a simple ban on SSM. It bans any legal recognition of SS any unmarried couples. It is truly a disgrace for the country. Fixed that for you.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) the first 29 states didn't do that? It just happened to be the 30th. Yeah, not buying that either. 33rd actually. Not that I've been keeping score....

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs. I should also point out that Reagan was a union president before he decided that unions were wrong. Things like that are HUGE red flags to me. Almost more so than abortion or gay marriage. At least abortion and gay marriage are at their essence, very personal decisions - that allow for a change of heart with personal experience. Although Bush became Pro-Life to get the VP nod in 1980, and for no other reason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs. You don't think a formerly tortured POW in Vietnam doesn't have a core belief about the treatment of prisoners of war?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) Great, you want me to prove the impossible. I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so. Would you have voted for Reagan? Because he did that. (Unions) Would you have voted for Bush Sr? Because he did that. (Abortion, Supply Side Economics) Did you vote for Bush Jr? Because he did that. (Cap and Trade/Global Warming, Assault Weapon Ban, Nationbuilding) What about McCain? Because he did that. (The Right of Enemy Combatants to trial, Immigration) Politicians change core beliefs all the time. To not vote because they suddenly represent the policy you support instead of having been there all along means you'll probably never vote again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) Call it what you like. I'd rather support someone I disagree with and can trust, versus someone like this. You say this like you don't think that a politician could ever have a change of mind or change of heart on an issue. That's a pretty high bar to live up to. People do change and their views do too. I don't doubt that a big part of his views are shaped by polling numbers. You could argue that's pandering. And its true if the views change with every audience. Something candidates like Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent, John Kerry were very good at - as well as Abraham Lincoln, actually. However, if your views change because society changes, and your governance reflects the people you represent - that's not pandering, that's properly representing the people who elected you.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) I think it is. There are plenty of quotes out there floating around that have him clearly against gay marriage and defining marriage as one man and one woman. There are also statements dating back to 1996 saying that he supported marriage equality.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Isn't this Kap's point? The fact that people are applauding Obama for finally seeing the light when it's so clearly obvious that he did it not because of some new understanding of the issue, but just to get $$? I mean, I agree with those that say regardless of how he did it, the end result is the result they wanted. But i'm not sure how you can't also look at Obama a little differently - someone without much of a backbone and who will whore himself out to win votes. Edit: though really that's almost by definition of what a politician is these days so....maybe it's not that big of a deal, even though it should be. I actually just thought the first couple paragraphs were witty.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) IIRC, the biggest opposition group to gay marriage during the California vote was Mexican Catholics. African American churches also could have been the difference maker as well.

Really interesting argument from Slate that basically says that race plays into the calculus of coming out for gay marriage. The argument? A white Democrat could never have successfully made this choice. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol..._couldn_t_.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 10:31 AM) Oh no, that was quite on purpose knowing the story All will be revealed in January to those wondering.