StrangeSox

Not going to get excited about this until I know who the replacements are.

That's a pretty ridiculous meltdown from the Ocean Marketing guy. Wonder how long he'll have a job. edit: lol, should have read that second link before posting!

Keep in mind that the caucuses are party-specific, so an "average" Iowan could hypothetically be composed of equal parts radical conservative and radical liberal that 'balance' out to a 'moderate' Iowan who somehow represents a cross-section of America while being predominately white and having no large urban centers and an agriculture-heavy economy.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) Do you think the average person really does extensive internet research? I do not think the average person whose main political knowledge comes from running into a candidate at a diner or attending a single meeting or gathering can be considered 'informed'

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 29, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) The Santorum surge is because all the people that were voting for Bachman then Perry then Cain then Gingrich are just now going to Santorum. Listen, it doesn't help that the crop of candidates is horrible. The voters who didn't want Romney or Paul last time STILL DON'T, there just isn't a viable alternative so they're jumping from ship to ship. Not all that irrational if you don't support one of the two candidates who you saw last time. And by DEFAULT Iowans are more informed of the candidates views because they actually get to talk to them face to face. While living in Iowa (moved to Chicago in 05) I met and spoke to: Bob Graham Dick Gephardt - spoke at my house John Kerry John Edwards - spoke at my house Dennis Kucinich how many of those have you had a conversation with? I know this is obviously a biproduct of BEING first, but it's also just the reality now. Briefly speaking to a candidate in person doesn't actually make you more informed than someone with an internet connection.

btw is their some sort of support you can show me for the claim that Iowans are more rational and better informed than people in other states? The recent Santorum surge there seems to point to the exact opposite.

Yeah, who cares about minorities anyway, right? Lily-white Iowa represents real America! The 'average' American is not a real person or a real set of people, and you can't assume that a state that kinda-sorta resembles that average in some ways but really doesn't in others represents a good sample of American voters.

how does Iowa represent the majority of Americans that aren't overwhelmingly white, rural and in the middle of the country?

Got a few games (deus ex, Fallout:new vegas, la noire) for Christmas, but I have a feeling Skyrim is still going to be dominating my time.

FWIW Martz has thought Hanie was garbage since he got here.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) If they can get to the voting places, why can't they get ID's? Do they vote now? Do they have ID's now? Hell I have more restrictions on my right to own a gun than most people have on voting. Would you favor banning ID's for that as well? I still think it is a lame excuse. Needing an ID does not discriminate against poor people. Tex already explained this to you. Stop being lazy and do some research if you are legitimately curious as to what the arguments are.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) They aren't trying to get Republicans kicked off of the ballots in Indiana? They didn't structure the current situation to keep republicans off the ballot. If I had to guess, both d and r agreed to this setup to keep 3rd parties out because they would have to run an sos candidate.

He has a role as a 3/4 receiver and belongs (or, at least, belonged) in the NFL. He's way too unreliable with catching and running routes to be an actual, bonafide starter.

"the level he was at beforehand" wasn't exactly starting-quality.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) : jealous:

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) There are voter rolls in every precinct that you sign into when you vote. There always has been. Paper trails are not an issue. You mean current laws are adequate, and draconian laws that "just happen" to disproportionately restrict voting access for the poor aren't necessary to stop a very tiny amount of voter fraud?!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) You are pretty much restricting access to an entire party for the whole state if the Democrats get their way. That is the difference here. I'd call that "disenfranchisement" on a level way past making someone show an ID. I already said that was pretty ridiculous unintended consequences, but they are consequences of the law, not "what democrats want." Democrats didn't push for the legal structure for this chain events as an attempt to restrict ballot access to political opponents, so it isn't very analogous to voter disenfranchisement. I wouldn't have a problem if a judge found a creative way to allow republicans still on the ballot.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) I'm just saying that they knew it'd have negative effects on their bodies later in life. Understanding that they could be paralyzed and accepting that, but then getting angry about brain damage because they didn't expect it. Sorry, I'm not feeling sorry for them. As I said, they'll probably win their case. It's like me deciding to smoke knowing full well that I could get lung cancer. But then I find out that smoking gave me testicular cancer and being pissed. I knew there were risks to my body and I took it anyway. But you may not have been aware of the actual risk levels. Sure, there is always the very remote freak injury, but these head injurious are becoming common-place, life-long debilitating conditions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) The 0-14 1976 Bucs averaged under 9 points per game and were shut out 5 times during the season. The 1991 Colts scored 14 touchdowns all season. What are the bears averaging since cutler went down?

Get my email?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) You might well be able to get away with that argument starting in about 20 years, when the people who are just starting right now wind up having their bodies collapse under them. The ones who retired 10 years ago though, I can believe that a lot of them really didn't understand the kind of long term damage they were doing mentally. It's a problem that has gotten worse over time as players bulked up, right?

To be fair this doesn't seem like a really eggregious case of fraud, but the irony is still pretty fantastic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) Which, ironically, Democrats are pretty much trying to do after crying about disenfranchisement, they are going to do exactly that to the majority of the state of Indiana if they have their way. But now its OK. Restricting voting access isn't the same thing as removing a politician who committed voting or election fraud from office. Was it "disenfranchisement" to remove blago?

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) What he did was vote in an incorrect precint and served on a local board. He was eligible to vote, he just may have voted in a local election in which he was not eligible. He also prevented someone from the local area to serve on that board. How major do you consider that to be? I believe you used the phrase "all he needed to do" . . . Should he be punished and removed from office? Yes. Should the power shift in Indiana at the level it may? No. I agree with your last couple of sentences there. Seems to be a result of a quirk in the law and not intended consequences.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) Those are two, or ever three, different things. How is showing an ID to vote restricting poor people's right to vote. Shutting down voting places in poorer neighborhoods is a different matter. And for all the Dems complaining about making it easy to vote, they sure shut the hell up when it comes to getting the votes from soldiers overseas in time. They shut down id-issuing facilities and make it more difficult for the poor to get id's. It also amounts to a poll tax.