StrangeSox

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) I read Obama received less votes last night in NH than W did in 2004. 53k+ for W vs. a reported 49k+ for BO. Not sure if that is a harbinger of things to come though. There seemed to be a decent amount of cross-over of dems and independents. Did that hold true in 2004 as well? It's very possible that both bases are unmotivated right now.

American History

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) A potential argument would be, Scientist was not really a civilian he was part of the military, therefore not "terrorism." Once again, what determines "terrorism" is based on the facts. Easy ones are where civilians that have no connection to the military are targeted, its more gray when it could be argued that civilian was actually military. IE If the US had killed Wernher von Braun, was that terrorism or was that a military target? I dont have the facts, Iran will say that the scientist had nothing to do with an illegal nuclear weapons program, assassin would say that there was evidence that the guy was building illegal nukes. I dont really care what you call it because I think you can make an argument both ways. USS Cole bombing no longer a terrorist attack, then?

Yeah, I don't think you want a GM who thinks you need a change at QB.

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.