StrangeSox

I'd like a consistent, sensible definition of terrorism that doesn't include using car bombs to blow up scientists and intimidate a country from pursuing a particular goal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) If it is against you, it is terrorism. If it is by you, it is asymetrical warfare. You say potato, I say potaaaato.... It's straight-up terrorism. Just like "enhanced interrogation" is straight-up torture.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 08:08 AM) Well, Nate had an update a little while later: Note that, like the Iowa caucuses, there was a lower percentage of self-identified Republicans voting in the GOP caucuses than in 2008. So even if turnout was even or slightly higher, there would still be less Republicans. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 08:17 AM) Looks like Romney got 39.4% of the vote with a total of 95669 votes, meaning ~242k people voted in the GOP primary and it was a record-setter by a slim margin of overall votes. But Republican turnout was still lower. NH turnout dropped 18% among Republicans despite record overall turnout. I'm still hedging against this being a direct indication of a lack of enthusiasm for the 2012 election that will translate into an unmotivated base that doesn't turn out in strong numbers. It's still an indirect measure, and the base could rally strongly behind "anyone but Obama." But, as we saw in 2004, that isn't exactly a winning electoral strategy.

I have a sinking feeling that the new GM is going to be an in-house stooge.

Not sure how you could honestly distinguish this sort of act from terrorism.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) I started with college, as I don't really consider HS "higher" education. that wouldn't capture going from "no higher education" to "some higher education"

Looks like Romney got 39.4% of the vote with a total of 95669 votes, meaning ~242k people voted in the GOP primary and it was a record-setter by a slim margin of overall votes. But Republican turnout was still lower.

Well, Nate had an update a little while later: Note that, like the Iowa caucuses, there was a lower percentage of self-identified Republicans voting in the GOP caucuses than in 2008. So even if turnout was even or slightly higher, there would still be less Republicans.

Republican turnout in New Hampshire looks like it will be significantly lower than 2008's primary. Possibly by as much as 40%: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...pshire-primary/

VAN BUREN!

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) Coach Ditka said yesterday on the Mike & Mike show, that the 49ers remind him a lot of the 84 & 85 Bears teams.. Mike Ditka is a moron. Not for saying this, but just a general comment.

What do you like about Romney? What policies would you hope he would implement?

A concept car is meant to be an expensive, not-necessarily-practical design study to generate interest in the brand and showcase new design possibilities, even if the likelihood of a specific design detail or function making it into a production vehicle is relatively low.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 11:06 PM) plus if you succeed in STL you can open up a s***ty restaurant and people will go to it no matter what. Who is this in reference to?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Pretty sure he hates on Huntsman mostly to egg me on. As for Ron Paul, I can't believe I am defending the guy again, but need to clarify yet another falsehood from Reddy... Paul served ACTIVE Air Force as a surgeon for 2 tours of duty. Then he went to the National Guard. Reddy has this odd tendency, when he hones in on something he doesn't like, to try to add to his position by making things up and/or being selective in his acceptance of which facts he likes and doesn't. If Huntsman were to somehow win the primary lottery and win the nomination - which is incredibly unlikely - he would definitely have my vote. Romney I am on the fence about, I don't like the guy, but I think as President he is likely to be more like the centrist version of Romney than the far-right one he acts like in the primaries. And I'd be OK with that. Paul is intriguing, but he just has too many bats*** crazy ideas for me to vote for him. Anyone else from the GOP field wins, and I'm voting for Obama. If you're looking for a centrist Republican, vote Obama!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 09:17 AM) And especially with "Test ban" treaties, the national labs are vital to maintaining that arsenal. You shut down the labs, you may as well just dismantle the weapons. They simply cannot be maintained without the research and testing infrastructure. They're also vital for a whole bunch of science and technology research, as I'm sure you're aware. One of the labs tests and validates a lot of critical infrastructure security technology. I wonder if Paul would abolish the NRC and allow the industry to self-regulate?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 08:24 AM) Presumably there's an implied "Eliminate our nuclear arsenal" in there along with the "Eliminate the Department of Energy", although no one in the press has been intelligent enough to push the candidates on that one (you really can't maintain a nuclear arsenal without the DOE) You could roll the DoE's nuclear responsibilities into the DoD, but you'd lose all of the DoE national labs in the process.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 09:46 PM) I'd characterize their treatment of him as more "ignoring" than "going after" him. The guy continues to poll pretty well, but nobody pays attention. Whenever he's covered by Fox, it's dismissive and insulting. I'd imagine that Paul would face the same problem as the rest, though: once he does start seeing increased coverage, the spotlight will reveal a lot of issues and positions that many people will be uncomfortable with.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 09:35 PM) Gotcha. I guess I just see Republicans as more of a cohesive group when it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans. They very much have been in the past, but Paul is openly antagonistic to almost everything that's made up the Republican coalition of the last several decades. Just look at how hard Fox News, Limbaugh et. al. go after him, and you can see the problems he'd have getting that large part of the Republican base behind him. But to credit you argument, apparently there was a CBS poll that came out yesterday that had Paul and Obama essentially tied.

FIELD GOALS ARE SO EXCITING!

I'm pretty sure any of the GOP candidates save Paul would have signed the NDAA, or maybe threatened to veto it because it didn't mandate detaining US citizens. I don't like Obama. I won't be voting for him. But I sure as s*** won't be voting for someone with far-right conservative ideology, either. And make no mistake, that's what Huntsman is. That the rest of the candidates are so terrible that they make his ideas look sane and rational by comparison isn't exactly a compliment. I can't imagine what you agree with Huntsman on that Obama doesn't also agree with.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 09:12 PM) do you know a single thing about Huntsman? He's the most moderate candidate in the campaign. He supports environmental reforms, civil unions, is actually religiously tolerant - teaches his adopted indian daughter about hinduism. How awesome is that? He also supports lowering taxes and all that other GOP fiscal policy. I'd vote for him over Obama. I wouldn't vote for the Dept of Education cutting, National Endowment for the Arts cutting, Health care destroying, pro life, anti gay Ron Paul if my life depended on it. And I know y'all wont believe me, but I'm NOT crazy liberal. I just seem like it compared to all these Right wing wackos these days. No, openly supporting Huntsman does a good job of ensuring everyone that you're not a liberal. Huntsman's economic plan, like every other Republican plan, results in massive tax cuts for the wealthy (particularly for the investor class, capital gains and dividends rates get slashed) and minimal cuts if not increases for everyone else while almost eliminating many social services. Oh, and he's back-tracked on some of his global warming acceptance and he wants to cripple the EPA. Weren't you campaigning pretty hard for Edwards 4 years ago? I'm not sure how you could go from what Edwards policies were to Huntsman without some serious political/philosophical changes.

Paul's supported DOMA.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 08:37 PM) hes not as focused on social policies. He would love to completely eliminate all forms of the social safety net. That's pretty core to his philosophy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 08:43 PM) It's the very specific small government though. For example, he has repeatedly attempted to itoduce "life begins at conception" laws at the federal level which would clearly compel abortion bans, which he also supports. He also is happy to support corporate rights over individual rights, for example, since I'm still waiting for a coal plant to pay me back for my lungs. Those personhood bills would also have the wonderful effect of outlawing many forms of contraception.