NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bradley/Wilder Effect is Bunk. Pure and Simple.

'Bradley Effect' And The Obama Presidential Bid (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95971918&ft=1&f=1012)

I've worked on a call-centre. That job pays shit, but sometimes it's all you can get, especially when all the permanent/'real' employment moves away.

The idea that people who are in a bottom-rung job - which means they NEED a job, bad - would find the material SO objectionable they walk out? That's not funny, but you SHOULD be impressed.

Believe me, I admire their guts for doing that. I just would have loved the idea of McCain's own campaign getting so disgusted they walked out.

I don't think it's possible to be friends with murdering terrorists without surrendering your integrity. No, it's not possible.

Yet, Senator Obama's relationships were stronger than that. He actively supported some of these radicals, like Odinga, who has proven to be a brutal murderer. Just do a Google search on what Odinga has done.

Senator Obama went to Wright's church for twenty years, a racist church that blatantly condemned our country and the Caucasian race. Only when he ran for president did Senator Obama finally "see the light" and leave the church. Strange that he couldn't see the anti-American and anti-white hatred they spewed for twenty years.

Senator Obama was mentored by Frank Davis, a communist. Look it up.

In 2003, Senator Obama attended a party supporting Rashid Khalidi, a PLO mouthpiece, a party that hosted many anti-Israel attendees.

The list can go on and on, but the mainstream media refuses to report it. In fact the LA Times has a videotape from the Khalidi party and refuses to release it.
so I am trying to figure out how to debate this guy...and I don't know enough.
thoughts?
(in the first paragraph he's talking about bill ayers)
http://www.dragonsinourmidst.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6556&page=34
heres the thread, I'm mediator if you look around. if you register, don't tell him I sent you ;)

so I am trying to figure out how to debate this guy...and I don't know enough.
thoughts?
(in the first paragraph he's talking about bill ayers)
http://www.dragonsinourmidst.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6556&page=34
heres the thread, I'm mediator if you look around. if you register, don't tell him I sent you ;)

Bill Ayers is not a murdering terrorist. He's a property destroying terrorist for starters. ;)

Edit: I would ask for proof. Links to the information from reputable sources. The idea that the mainstream media would suppress information that would sell lots and lots of newspapers and generate higher ratings is bullshit. The mainstream media doesn't report it because there's nothing legitimate to report.

lol true.
c'mon I know you guys can do better than that. ;) theres so much flame in that post, you know you have to fight fire with fire ;)
and look at the thread, its purty funny.

Here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/bradley%20effect)
All twelve to date entries Nate Silver has had to make regarding the Bradley Effect. I'm just posting this every time someone comes along with the same observation like they've just discovered the sun from now on. Probably more constructive than shoe fires...

I like it that people are 'discovering' the Bradley effect. That means that people are actually becoming somewhat more educated on the world of politics - and even on world politics - and are realising that elections cause and effect things, and are prone to causes and effects.

The simple fact that people are suddenly realising that this kind of grandstand politicking does NOT take place in a vacuum, is worth any amount of repetition.

The Bradley/Wilder Effect is Bunk. Pure and Simple.

'Bradley Effect' And The Obama Presidential Bid (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95971918&ft=1&f=1012)

A link to a radio transmission?

I might be able to address it, if only I had speakers on this computer...

I like it that people are 'discovering' the Bradley effect. That means that people are actually becoming somewhat more educated on the world of politics - and even on world politics - and are realising that elections cause and effect things, and are prone to causes and effects.

The simple fact that people are suddenly realising that this kind of grandstand politicking does NOT take place in a vacuum, is worth any amount of repetition.

At this point in the same way that noticing your shadow might alert people to the dangers of melanoma...

lol true.
c'mon I know you guys can do better than that. ;) theres so much flame in that post, you know you have to fight fire with fire ;)
and look at the thread, its purty funny.

I'd like to help you out, but registration seems to be disabled and I don't have an account. Pretty conservative forum you've got there, just looking at the poll.

I'd point out Mccain's ties to Gordon liddy, i'd point out that Ayer's group never killed anyone (apart from their own members in accidental explosions) and that the board on which both served was full of republicans.

Just for fun, an entertaining little read that was in my University's student newspaper yesterday:

Enlightening Examination of McCain (http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2008/10/27/Opinions/Enlightening.Examination.Of.Mccain-3506937.shtml)

Attention fellow Americans: John McCain is an unpatriotic, terrorist-loving, felon.

That's right, you read it here first.

This statement may come as a bit of a surprise to many, so let's dissect it.

First of all, there is no doubt concerning McCain's anti-American sentiments.

He deserted America in order to live in Vietnam for an extended period of time.

How can we trust a person who voluntarily left this great country in order to live in a third-world jungle?

McCain's choice to live in Vietnam for a good while is a blatant exhibition of his anti-American stances.

Now that we have that covered, here's a little-known fact for your enjoyment: Cindy McCain's hairdresser's nephew's kindergarten teacher grew up on the same street as Timothy McVeigh.

McCain must be a terrorist!

America's national security is too vulnerable for us to risk putting someone in office who has been known to cavort with bomb-wielding terrorists.

To make matters worse, McCain actually has served time in jail!

He's practically a felon.

Some people like to bore others with trivial details about prisoner-of-war-something-or-other, but let's not get caught up in technicalities.

The essential point is that McCain is a convict, and convicts should not be allowed to run countries.

Then, of course, is the indisputable fact that McCain is Jewish.

I read somewhere on the Internet - maybe it was a video on YouTube - that McCain's father is Jewish and McCain himself attended Hebrew school for a bit.

And I may be making this up, but I'm pretty sure that Sidney, McCain's middle name, is a traditional Jewish name.

Even though McCain promises us that he is a Christian, and there is only non-credible "evidence" to the contrary, I fervently believe that he is a Jew.

And so should you. I hope it goes without saying that a country run by a Jew is on the sure-path to destruction.

Mazel Tov!

We as Americans should honor the wishes of our Founding Fathers, and McCain, an unpatriotic felon-terrorist, is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the presidency.

No one should be more aware of this fact than McCain himself since McCain, an original signer of the Declaration of Independence, knew the Founding Fathers personally.

Please make the responsible decision on Nov. 4 by voting for McCain's opponent.

After all, if the "steady hand at the tiller" is a convicted, terrorist, Jewish hand, the great American vessel will spring a gaping leak - and that's one leak that not even Joe the Plumber can fix.


One of my favorite parts is that a lot of Republicans thought he was actually saying these things about John McCain instead of pointing out the absurdity of the Republican attacks on Obama.

At this point in the same way that noticing your shadow might alert people to the dangers of melanoma...

What's your point?

You'd rather people didn't think about the elections? About the reliability of pundits and polls? You prefer an election cycle where people don't think about the issues... not just the issues that politicans run on, but the issues surrounding the race?

What's your point?

You'd rather people didn't think about the elections? About the reliability of pundits and polls? You prefer an election cycle where people don't think about the issues... not just the issues that politicans run on, but the issues surrounding the race?

Boogeymen<Actual concerns.

Not all concerns are equal.

Boogeymen<Actual concerns.

Not all concerns are equal.

Ah, but nothing motivates Americans to action like irrational fear. ;)

You will
NIE!

For me, a big part of it was largely a lot of the volunteering that I've done. The long journey. The "one more week" thing really brought it all rushing back to me, all the people I've worked with and all the doors I've knocked on.

So, I'm planning on casting my vote early today. Add one vote to That One's column in Georgia! :D

Having invested so much emotion into the campaign, it is no wonder you felt so emotional.

Bring it on home volunteers.

Also:

http://mccainsevendays.ytmnd.com/

Just for fun, an entertaining little read that was in my University's student newspaper yesterday:

Enlightening Examination of McCain (http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2008/10/27/Opinions/Enlightening.Examination.Of.Mccain-3506937.shtml)



One of my favorite parts is that a lot of Republicans thought he was actually saying these things about John McCain instead of pointing out the absurdity of the Republican attacks on Obama.

No offense, but did you really expect anything more out of Georgia? Or college students?

lol true.
c'mon I know you guys can do better than that. ;) theres so much flame in that post, you know you have to fight fire with fire ;)
and look at the thread, its purty funny.

Forget Bill Ayers, it's the "Obama says the sermon on the mount doesn't apply" charge that irritates me. What Obama said (and I'm paraphrasing) was that if we strictly applied the Sermon on the Mount to government, we'd have to dismantle the Department of Defense, which is true. This is why the church (the Roman Catholics and all subsequent churches) has struggled to come up with an interpretation of the Gospels that justifies war. (If you think that nuclear weapons are controversial, realize that the medieval church was agonizing over the use of artillery, recognizing that hiding behind a wall and lobbing fireballs at your enemy's house seemed manifestly unfair.) That the theologians have been successful in bringing the words of Christ into alignment with the desires of Man doesn't mean that they didn't have to do some serious twisting of "blessed are the peacemakers" in order to do so. What Obama was saying is that it's very, very difficult to live in the world and follow the literal teachings of the bible, therefore interpretation is necessary, therefore we have to ask for guidance in interpretation. Since the people on that board seem to be so all-fired-up about their particular interpretation of Christ you think they'd understand such a simple point. [/end rant]

Sorry if that was a bit long; I get peevish about dogmatism.

One of my favorite parts is that a lot of Republicans thought he was actually saying these things about John McCain instead of pointing out the absurdity of the Republican attacks on Obama.

That'd be the political version of Poe's Law at work. (cf. infamous New Yorker cover.)

Boogeymen<Actual concerns.

Not all concerns are equal.

But all concerns are both objective AND subjective.

What concerns you might not concern me, but that might not be because of it's objective importance, or it's subjective value to you.

I assume the 'boogeyman' is the Bradley effect? You can be flippant and dismissive, if you wish, but that doesn't mean that the Bradley effect doesn't exist, nor does it mean that it will fail to affect this election.

Are you arguing there IS no 'Bradley' effect? Or that there never WAS?

Statistically, at least, there has historically been an effect which we are CALLING the Bradley effect, because of the specific similarities of the case. But, I also pointed out that there are other identical phenomena (the Shy Tory factor I mentioned earlier, for example) which both reinforce the validity of the Bradley model, AND suggest other reasons for potential swings from declared positions, come November.

No offense, but did you really expect anything more out of Georgia? Or college students?

Being both a college student and a resident of Georgia, I must concede that you bring up a very valid point. :D

Top McCain advisor calls Palin a "whack job"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/palin-a-whack-job-top-mcc_n_138523.html

But all concerns are both objective AND subjective.

What concerns you might not concern me, but that might not be because of it's objective importance, or it's subjective value to you.

I assume the 'boogeyman' is the Bradley effect? You can be flippant and dismissive, if you wish, but that doesn't mean that the Bradley effect doesn't exist, nor does it mean that it will fail to affect this election.

Are you arguing there IS no 'Bradley' effect? Or that there never WAS?

Statistically, at least, there has historically been an effect which we are CALLING the Bradley effect, because of the specific similarities of the case. But, I also pointed out that there are other identical phenomena (the Shy Tory factor I mentioned earlier, for example) which both reinforce the validity of the Bradley model, AND suggest other reasons for potential swings from declared positions, come November.
I refer back to the linked statistical analysis of said phenomena rather than drag out another discussion on shody math and monsters in the closet.

I refer back to the linked statistical analysis of said phenomena rather than drag out another discussion on shody math and monsters in the closet.

Which linked statistical analysis? Some link back in the depths of the thread?

Your refusal to debate the issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it just makes you look obtuse.

Top McCain advisor calls Palin a "whack job"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/palin-a-whack-job-top-mcc_n_138523.html

How reliable is the source? It's pretty funny if it's legitimate.

Which linked statistical analysis? Some link back in the depths of the thread?

The link is in post #4000, and you responded to it in #4004: WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ.
Your refusal to debate the issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it just makes you look obtuse.
Your refusal to look at information doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- it just makes you look obtuse.

How reliable is the source? It's pretty funny if it's legitimate.

Here is the original source:
http://www.politico.com/playbook/1008/playbook476.html

Which linked statistical analysis? Some link back in the depths of the thread?

Your refusal to debate the issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it just makes you look obtuse.
I have debated it with you. Do you have anything new, or is it more "boogety boogety boogety"?

And I know that the internet has shortened our attention spans, but even by that standard four hours does not seem like it should be considered 'ancient history' or buried in the depth, especially since it was where you decided to re-enter the discussion as if we hadn't already addressed your concerns.

Here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/bradley%20effect)
All twelve to date entries Nate Silver has had to make regarding the Bradley Effect. I'm just posting this every time someone comes along with the same observation like they've just discovered the sun from now on. Probably more constructive than shoe fires...

Looks like this little news article might be another Sign of Republican Apocalypse:

Fox's Shepard Smith Forced To Offer Disclaimer After Joe The Plumber Interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/foxs-shepard-smith-forced_n_138674.html)

The two confirmed signs so far:

1) Karl Rove declares the McCain Campaign is "getting too dirty".
2) Telemarketers refuse to phone in a vicious anti-Obama tirade and walk off.

and now

Possibly 3) FOXNews defends Obama after Joe The Plumber says he would spell the Death of Israel.

Four More Seals to be Broken.

The link is in post #4000, and you responded to it in #4004: WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ.


A link would have been handy here, just as it would have been in the post I was just responding to, since it would have allowed me to see the data I was responding to, rather than just being general hand-waviness.


Your refusal to look at information doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- it just makes you look obtuse.

And assuming you know what I have read makes you look ridiculous.

I didn't respond to the link, at all. I didn't 'refuse to look at the information'. Nate Silver is a worthy resource, but not the messiah.

We've discussed SOME of those 'twelve articles' before... maybe even in this thread, although I'm damned if I can remember where in 4000-and-some posts it might have been. I even pointed out some flaws in the assumptions, last time they were discussed. I even pointed out some factors that exist that the Nate Silver articles simply don't acknowledge.

So accusing me of 'not reading' it is just silly. I've seen and addressed parts of the list, if not every single one of the twelve articles.

Regardless - if Nate says it twelve times.... or even a hundred... that doesn't make it true.

Looks like this little news article might be another Sign of Republican Apocalypse:

Fox's Shepard Smith Forced To Offer Disclaimer After Joe The Plumber Interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/foxs-shepard-smith-forced_n_138674.html)

The two confirmed signs so far:

1) Karl Rove declares the McCain Campaign is "getting too dirty".
2) Telemarketers refuse to phone in a vicious anti-Obama tirade and walk off.

and now

Possibly 3) FOXNews defends Obama after Joe The Plumber says he would spell the Death of Israel.

Four More Seals to be Broken.
why the fuck does john mccain think that joe the plumber is going to save him?

I have debated it with you. Do you have anything new, or is it more "boogety boogety boogety"?


Trivialising it doesn't make it go away. Your playbook must be getting rather thin, by now - that's almost all the big guns you had, isn't it?

Trivialise it. Check. Say it's not happening. Check. Find someone elese who says it's not happening, and has said it twelve times.... check.

Did I add anything new? Didn't you read the posts you've been allegedly responding to?

I directly referenced a parallel phenomenon of the 'Shy Tory' effect. (I also hinted towards the fact that THAT could have an effect in THESE elections, too).

But - I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen. There are statistical discrepencies between polls and elections.

You sitting there saying 'I don't think it happens" isn't defeating that argument. It doesn't have to go away, just because you choose to believe something else.

You've basically prevented one source that questions the validity of the premise. That means, effectively, you have to write a bigger-than-the-margin-of-error shortfall off to... a bigger margin of error.

Whichever way you look at it - Bradley effect, or bigger margin of error... it means the numbers we're LOOKING at, aren't necessarily representing quite the right picture.


And I know that the internet has shortened our attention spans, but even by that standard four hours does not seem like it should be considered 'ancient history' or buried in the depth, especially since it was where you decided to re-enter the discussion as if we hadn't already addressed your concerns.

Acting patronising is all well and good, but I post from work. While you may have been doing nothing important for the past four hours, I've been rather busy.

Thus, when you say something vapid like "...I refer back to the linked statistical analysis of said phenomena..." without linking to the analysis, or referencing WHERE you are 'refering back to', the problem is nothing to do with my attention span.

And assuming you know what I have read makes you look ridiculous.

I didn't respond to the link, at all.

Yes, we noticed that. We also noticed that you had no recollection of having been provided the link, at all. This is what made it non-ridiculous to assume you had not even bothered to look.
Nate Silver is a worthy resource, but not the messiah.

Nobody calls him the messiah. We do call him a worthy resource, yes. Worth considerably more than your vague claims to have refuted him once, sometime long ago, on some point or another.

Trivialising it doesn't make it go away. Your playbook must be getting rather thin, by now - that's almost all the big guns you had, isn't it?

Trivialise it. Check. Say it's not happening. Check. Find someone elese who says it's not happening, and has said it twelve times.... check.

Did I add anything new? Didn't you read the posts you've been allegedly responding to?

I directly referenced a parallel phenomenon of the 'Shy Tory' effect. (I also hinted towards the fact that THAT could have an effect in THESE elections, too).

But - I'm really not sure what you think is going to happen. There are statistical discrepencies between polls and elections.

You sitting there saying 'I don't think it happens" isn't defeating that argument. It doesn't have to go away, just because you choose to believe something else.

You've basically prevented one source that questions the validity of the premise. That means, effectively, you have to write a bigger-than-the-margin-of-error shortfall off to... a bigger margin of error.

Whichever way you look at it - Bradley effect, or bigger margin of error... it means the numbers we're LOOKING at, aren't necessarily representing quite the right picture.



Acting patronising is all well and good, but I post from work. While you may have been doing nothing important for the past four hours, I've been rather busy.

Thus, when you say something vapid like "...I refer back to the linked statistical analysis of said phenomena..." without linking to the analysis, or referencing WHERE you are 'refering back to', the problem is nothing to do with my attention span.
First of all, your inability to keep track of your own conversation is not my problem. I am not going to repeat myself over and over again because you're too busy to remember what you're talking about.

I refer to the articles because they contain a statistical analysis of the supposed effect. You can counter with, "B-b-but it totally happens!" or even, "This time it is different!" I, however, chose to believe what can be demonstrated without playing on fear and calling whoever doesn't cower to it 'naive.' The statistics show that even with Bradley the effect wasn't that pronounced, that if it existed at all it has had a diminishing effect, and that this particular candidate has had 50+ separate elections to examine and has not demonstrated it.

You got some numbers to disprove that? You have some analysis of the pattern that is more convincing than that? Or do you want to just keep insisting that it's 'naive' to not be jumping at shadows?

Yes, we noticed that.


It was hardly hidden. I was responding to whether or not it was a good thing that people were DISCUSSING the Bradley effect.


We also noticed that you had no recollection of having been provided the link, at all.


No, you ASSUMED it, and you know what they say about 'assume'.

In the last few pages, I've seen at least two DIFFERENT sources claiming to discredit the Bradley effect, one of which I commented on not being able to respond to, because it is audio only.

For me to say 'which link', in a debate of OVER 4000 posts, where two separate sources have been provided in the past few hours... no unreasonable.


This is what made it non-ridiculous to assume you had not even bothered to look.


No, it was still a ridiculous assumption.


Nobody calls him the messiah. We do call him a worthy resource, yes. Worth considerably more than your vague claims to have refuted him once, sometime long ago, on some point or another.

It's amusing that you point to my discussion of having debated the points earlier as 'vague claims... sometime long ago', etc... whilst at the same time apparently attacking me for not knowing which particular link some other poster was discussing.

Whether or not he is a worthy resource isn't actually being measured against my history, though... but against the recorded history of election politics... both here and abroad.

First of all, your inability to keep track of your own conversation is not my problem.


No, but apparently your inability to prepare a coherent response is.

As I mentioned to the other poster... in a thread with MORE than 4000 posts, and where yours is NOT the only link claiming to depose Bradley within the last few hours... being asked to provide the specific source you are claiming proves your point is not unreasonable.

To attack me for my 'short memory', where YOU were vague... THAT's your problem.


I am not going to repeat myself over and over again


All you had to do was provide a link, or a link to the post where you presented the source... or, hell - just reference which post I was supposeed to be looking at.

You're making a fight out of your own failing.


...because you're too busy to remember what you're talking about.


I remember what I'm talking about. I can't be as sure I know what you are talking about, especially when you don't provide any links or context.


I refer to the articles because they contain a statistical analysis of the supposed effect. You can counter with, "B-b-but it totally happens!" or even, "This time it is different!"


This time is IS different.

Also - that cute little aside suggests you DO remember my discussion of Nate's analysis earlier.


I, however, chose to believe what can be demonstrated without playing on fear and calling whoever doesn't cower to it 'naive.' The statistics show that even with Bradley the effect wasn't that pronounced,


Really? Do they show that, before absentee ballots were counted, Bradley actually had a majority?

Do they show that the actual 'error' is greater than the statistical 'margin of error'?

If so - how do they account for either of those two variances?


...that if it existed at all it has had a diminishing effect,


So, a minute ago it DID exist, but wasn't pronounced... and now it might NOT have existed, but if it DID... it's getting less important.

Talk about covering ALL the bases.


...and that this particular candidate has had 50+ separate elections to examine and has not demonstrated it.


And how many of them were for President?


You got some numbers to disprove that? You have some analysis of the pattern that is more convincing than that? Or do you want to just keep insisting that it's 'naive' to not be jumping at shadows?

You keep throwing that 'naive' out there like I said it... I wonder why?

If you're clumsily asking why I keep addressing the problems of statistical inconsistency with observed results... it's because people are treating the statistics in this race as though they MEAN something. Not in a general, gesuring sort of fashion... but as though they were somehow concrete and significant.

The "Bradley" effect is a term. It's used to describe a particular type of statistical skewing. Statistical skewing DOES happen all the time, it's WHY we have margins of error. But even margins of error don't allow us to account for surprise results - like people misrepresenting their position.

And, if you honestly think there's NO possibility for surprise results in this election, you are naive.

(And if you honestly believe there's no possibility for race to be a factor, you're not naive, you're in denial).

why the fuck does john mccain think that joe the plumber is going to save him?

If he were younger, I'd be able to make a "Played too much Mario Brothers" joke.

Sadly, he probably wouldn't even know what that is.

If he were younger, I'd be able to make a "Played too much Mario Brothers" joke.

Sadly, he probably wouldn't even know what that is.
you cant even make a PONG joke that mccain would understand!

Oh, for the love of Christ, not the Bradley Effect debate again.

No, but apparently your inability to prepare a coherent response is.

As I mentioned to the other poster... in a thread with MORE than 4000 posts, and where yours is NOT the only link claiming to depose Bradley within the last few hours... being asked to provide the specific source you are claiming proves your point is not unreasonable.

To attack me for my 'short memory', where YOU were vague... THAT's your problem.



All you had to do was provide a link, or a link to the post where you presented the source... or, hell - just reference which post I was supposeed to be looking at.

You're making a fight out of your own failing.



I remember what I'm talking about. I can't be as sure I know what you are talking about, especially when you don't provide any links or context.


It is not my job to hold your hand or guide you through the conversation. If you can't keep track of it, it is not my problem. You can whine about it all you want, it doesn't make it my job to guide you back through your own conversation.

This time is IS different.
Compelling.

Also - that cute little aside suggests you DO remember my discussion of Nate's analysis earlier.
I never said I didn't. And they are as lacking now as they were then.



Really? Do they show that, before absentee ballots were counted, Bradley actually had a majority?

Do they show that the actual 'error' is greater than the statistical 'margin of error'?

If so - how do they account for either of those two variances?

All discussed in statistical detail.


So, a minute ago it DID exist, but wasn't pronounced... and now it might NOT have existed, but if it DID... it's getting less important.

Talk about covering ALL the bases.
I am not responsible for arguments you have with yourself.



And how many of them were for President?
Now who is covering bases? Patterns exist and should be acknowledged, except patterns are of no use because this race is different. Which is it, different or the same? You can't have it both ways.



You keep throwing that 'naive' out there like I said it... I wonder why?
Because it is blatantly implied in your responses.

If you're clumsily asking why I keep addressing the problems of statistical inconsistency with observed results... it's because people are treating the statistics in this race as though they MEAN something. Not in a general, gesuring sort of fashion... but as though they were somehow concrete and significant.

The "Bradley" effect is a term. It's used to describe a particular type of statistical skewing. Statistical skewing DOES happen all the time, it's WHY we have margins of error. But even margins of error don't allow us to account for surprise results - like people misrepresenting their position.
Again, you want things to be both predictive and not predictive. Make up your mind.

And, if you honestly think there's NO possibility for surprise results in this election, you are naive.

(And if you honestly believe there's no possibility for race to be a factor, you're not naive, you're in denial).
Who said race wasn't, isn't, and will continue to be a factor? Don't confuse a specific and hard to verify abnormality with the overall discussion of race in the campaign.

Oh, for the love of Christ, not the Bradley Effect debate again.
Can it even really be called a debate? "Look, here's a break down of the instances where it supposedly happened and why it isn't as significant as made out and not trackable in recent elections and not present in the 50+ recent elections by this particular candidate."

"Your a sucker if you don't believe in it!"

Is that really a debate?

you cant even make a PONG joke that mccain would understand!

Poor guy. :(

Poor guy. :(
yeah. poor thing.

i asked my older sister (59) yesterday who she was voting for--she is rather more conservative than i am. she lives in florida.

she said "well im sure not voting for that old man who walks funny and his alaskan cracker running mate!"

it kinda summed up the problem mccain is facing.

Just thought I'd share this funny video (http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=yV.EY.ug5B9gPK3oSVCyoDIzNDY4Nw--&referred_by=12082273-kPNdG6x). It can be customized for any name, of course - that's the point. Share it with your friends!

It is not my job to hold your hand or guide you through the conversation.


No, but it is your 'job' to actually present the argument you're claiming.


If you can't keep track of it, it is not my problem. You can whine about it all you want, it doesn't make it my job to guide you back through your own conversation.


Here's what you said: "I refer back to the linked statistical analysis"

Here's what I said: "Which linked statistical analysis? Some link back in the depths of the thread?"

You didn't specify which link.

I didn't 'whine' about anything, I asked for a link or at least a reference, because you were incredibly vague.

You didn't have to guide anyone anywhere. All you had to do was specify which source I should be looking at. I still don't see why you're so combatative over that.


Compelling.


Non-answer.


I never said I didn't. And they are as lacking now as they were then.


I was just confirming that you knew which posts I was talking about. You say they were lacking, but you never managed to SHOW they were lacking. You're big on opinion, there.


I am not responsible for arguments you have with yourself.


Okay. And, on a relevent topic, since I basically just re-iterated what YOU had posted, you ARE responsible for arguments you have with yourself.


Now who is covering bases? Patterns exist and should be acknowledged, except patterns are of no use because this race is different. Which is it, different or the same? You can't have it both ways.


I'm not having it both ways.

Perhaps this is why you fail to understand.

People who would not have voted for a black man in 1982, even for Mayor, may well vote for a black mayor now. Why? Because that barrier is broken.

People who would not have voted for a black man, even for Senator, may well vote for a black Senator now. Why? Because that barrier is broken.

If Obama becomes President this November, race will likely be a much lesser issue in later elections. The simple fact that Obama has done so well, that he clinched the nomination... suggests that the hurdle won't be so high for the next black contendor.

I don't believe that you are really unaware of the trailblazing nature of Obama's run.


Because it is blatantly implied in your responses.


No - saying that you choose to ignore evidence isn't saying you're naive.


Again, you want things to be both predictive and not predictive. Make up your mind.


That's your strawman, not mine. I didn't say I wanted "things to be both predictive and not predictive".


Who said race wasn't, isn't, and will continue to be a factor? Don't confuse a specific and hard to verify abnormality with the overall discussion of race in the campaign.

Race is an abnormality now? I wish I'd read the whole post before I responded.

I think we're done here.

attacking me for not knowing which particular link some other poster was discussing.
When CTOAN said he was "referring back", I took it for granted he was referring back to your recent conversation. All I did was go back one page to the last post that YOU made, and saw the link, right there. I did not find it very taxing, or difficult, to figure out.
Whether or not he is a worthy resource isn't actually being measured against my history, though... but against the recorded history of election politics... both here and abroad.
He is a worthy resource precisely on the topic of "recorded history of election politics". You have not established yourself as an equally worthy resource.

No, but it is your 'job' to actually present the argument you're claiming.



Here's what you said: "I refer back to the linked statistical analysis"

Here's what I said: "Which linked statistical analysis? Some link back in the depths of the thread?"

You didn't specify which link.

I didn't 'whine' about anything, I asked for a link or at least a reference, because you were incredibly vague.

You didn't have to guide anyone anywhere. All you had to do was specify which source I should be looking at. I still don't see why you're so combatative over that.
If you yourself cannot remember where you enter the conversation, it's really not my problem. But please, whine about it some more.



Non-answer.
To a non-argument. We already knew your premise, restating it is not an argument.



I was just confirming that you knew which posts I was talking about. You say they were lacking, but you never managed to SHOW they were lacking. You're big on opinion, there.
Seriously? All you've done is say, "Nuh uh!" to people who've gone back and actually ran the numbers. Do better.



Okay. And, on a relevent topic, since I basically just re-iterated what YOU had posted, you ARE responsible for arguments you have with yourself.
Do you even understand that?



I'm not having it both ways.

Perhaps this is why you fail to understand.

People who would not have voted for a black man in 1982, even for Mayor, may well vote for a black mayor now. Why? Because that barrier is broken.

People who would not have voted for a black man, even for Senator, may well vote for a black Senator now. Why? Because that barrier is broken.

If Obama becomes President this November, race will likely be a much lesser issue in later elections. The simple fact that Obama has done so well, that he clinched the nomination... suggests that the hurdle won't be so high for the next black contendor.

I don't believe that you are really unaware of the trailblazing nature of Obama's run.
The 'can't be done until it's done' is a self defeating argument.



No - saying that you choose to ignore evidence isn't saying you're naive.
Get back to me when you provide some.



That's your strawman, not mine. I didn't say I wanted "things to be both predictive and not predictive".
That's not a strawman, quit abusing the poor scarecrow. You want to point to past patterns and then say that patterns are irrelevant because this is different. If that's not the case than restate your case, don't abuse freshman argument class curriculum.



Race is an abnormality now? I wish I'd read the whole post before I responded.

I think we're done here.
Once again, with feeling-the Bradley Effect is a small abnormality and only a small way in which the issue of race will manifest in the election. If you want to bail out of the discussion, I can understand-how many times can you insist, "No I'm right!" without supporting it before you run out of ways to say it. But don't be purposefully obtuse in your reading to make excuses for yourself. It does you no favors.

Looks like this little news article might be another Sign of Republican Apocalypse:

Fox's Shepard Smith Forced To Offer Disclaimer After Joe The Plumber Interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/foxs-shepard-smith-forced_n_138674.html)

The two confirmed signs so far:

1) Karl Rove declares the McCain Campaign is "getting too dirty".
2) Telemarketers refuse to phone in a vicious anti-Obama tirade and walk off.

and now

Possibly 3) FOXNews defends Obama after Joe The Plumber says he would spell the Death of Israel.

Four More Seals to be Broken.
Wait, they were defending him?!

I thought they were agreeing with Plumber-man. I saw bits and pieces of that because the gym television was tuned to Fox News and was muted with captions, so all I saw mostly was the tagline "Joe the Plumber agrees a vote for Obama = death to Israel" and figured they were rolling with it.

(I also noticed, among other things, that the news ticker loved to refer to Chavez as the "Venezuelan Socialist President" rather than just Venezuelan President.)

Also, Cruci, this is just a recommendation: quit it with the whole "Bradley Effect" debate. You're not convincing anyone. We know it's just that you're really convinced that everyone in America is just like the people you meet daily in Georgia.

We're not all like that. Obama is getting elected. Chillax already.

why the fuck does john mccain think that joe the plumber is going to save him?
Because Joe the Plumber (TM) is intensively qualified to be McCain's Foreign Relationship spokesman: The tools he uses in his job were made in China after all. Palin being able to see Russia from her house is good enough to VP, so why not Joe the Foreign relations expert?

Also, Joe has plenty of experience being elbow deep in shit, which is why he's fitted in so well within the McCain campaign.

anyone out there still think Joe's first contact with Obama wasn't anything but a McCain set-up?

Who else wishes Hunter S Thompson was still alive and on the campaign trail with McCain? His observations would easily have equalled his classic, "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972".


Found this article, which is worth reading:
Maverick Personality Disorder (http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/maverick-personality-disorder.html)
:tongue:

Also, Cruci, this is just a recommendation: quit it with the whole "Bradley Effect" debate. You're not convincing anyone. We know it's just that you're really convinced that everyone in America is just like the people you meet daily in Georgia.

We're not all like that. Obama is getting elected. Chillax already.

Couple of points.

1) I didn't re-start the Bradley thing. Indeed, when I did respond about it, I only responded to it in a generalised 'well, I think it's good that people are interested in politics' kind of way.

2) I'm not trying to convince anyone. A couple of posters have made claims that the Bradley effect simply doesn't exist. They're entitled to that opinion, but I'm going to contest it.

I don't care if that 'convinces anyone'.

If someone posts something like "Girls who get raped were asking for it really", I'll oppose it even if no one is converted by my argument. Because it's the right thing to do.

If someone posts something like "There is no Bradley effect", I'll oppose it even if no one is converted by my argument. Because it's the right thing to do.

3) It's not because I think everyone in America is like everyone I meet in Georgia.

The people I meet around here say things like "I ain't never gonna vote for no n****r", or "once you let a n****r in the whitehouse, we'll never get them out" or "if n****r becomes president, can we really call it the WHITE house any more".

There is no Bradley effect in this part of Georgia. These people don't say they'll vote for a black man and then... well, anything. They straight out tell you they won't ever vote for a black man. No Bradley effect here.


So - why do I keep talking about the Bradley effect? For the same reason I tend to respond about any kinds of arguments about what statistics tell us, or what polling tells us. Because the statistics aren't necessarily telling us what we think they're telling us, and for a variety of different reasons.

(Also - the argument that I'm only harping on about it because I live in an area where it's okay to be overtly racist falls down on the fact that I also mentioned the "Shy Tory" effect, which is the same kind of statistical anomoly, but has nothing to do with colour.)

We're not all like that. Obama is getting elected. Chillax already.

Responding to this part separately.

1) I know.

2) I hope you're right.

3) I'm chillaxed. The 4th will bring what the 4th will bring, and I can't do anything about it, either way. :)

Couple of points.

1) I didn't re-start the Bradley thing. Indeed, when I did respond about it, I only responded to it in a generalised 'well, I think it's good that people are interested in politics' kind of way.
A point.

2) I'm not trying to convince anyone. A couple of posters have made claims that the Bradley effect simply doesn't exist. They're entitled to that opinion, but I'm going to contest it.

I don't care if that 'convinces anyone'.

Another point.

If someone posts something like "Girls who get raped were asking for it really", I'll oppose it even if no one is converted by my argument. Because it's the right thing to do.

A third point.

If someone posts something like "There is no Bradley effect", I'll oppose it even if no one is converted by my argument. Because it's the right thing to do.

A fourth point!


3) It's not because I think everyone in America is like everyone I meet in Georgia.

The people I meet around here say things like "I ain't never gonna vote for no n****r", or "once you let a n****r in the whitehouse, we'll never get them out" or "if n****r becomes president, can we really call it the WHITE house any more".

There is no Bradley effect in this part of Georgia. These people don't say they'll vote for a black man and then... well, anything. They straight out tell you they won't ever vote for a black man. No Bradley effect here.

Ack, fifth point!

So - why do I keep talking about the Bradley effect? For the same reason I tend to respond about any kinds of arguments about what statistics tell us, or what polling tells us. Because the statistics aren't necessarily telling us what we think they're telling us, and for a variety of different reasons.

(Also - the argument that I'm only harping on about it because I live in an area where it's okay to be overtly racist falls down on the fact that I also mentioned the "Shy Tory" effect, which is the same kind of statistical anomoly, but has nothing to do with colour.)
And sixth point.

I have been defeated. :( I shall be quiet now.
Responding to this part separately.

1) I know.

2) I hope you're right.

3) I'm chillaxed. The 4th will bring what the 4th will bring, and I can't do anything about it, either way. :)

Ah, righto, righto. Just making sure, because it sounded to me like you were panicking a bit.

A point.

Another point.

A third point.

A fourth point!


Ack, fifth point!

And sixth point.


Ack! You numbered my points!

I only made that three points and a conclusion. Crap.

I fail at numbering my own posts.


I shall be quiet now.


No, please don't. You made a good point, and I have disengaged from the Bradley debate.


Ah, righto, righto. Just making sure, because it sounded to me like you were panicking a bit.

Nah. Chillin' like a villain.

I'm the NSG 'dose of reality' shitting in the custard of the NS-love-fest.

Responding to this part separately.

1) I know.

2) I hope you're right.

3) I'm chillaxed. The 4th will bring what the 4th will bring, and I can't do anything about it, either way. :)
is your wife voting for obama?

Ack! You numbered my points!

I only made that three points and a conclusion. Crap.

I fail at numbering my own posts.

I'm good at these sorts of things.


No, please don't. You made a good point, and I have disengaged from the Bradley debate.

Ah, goodie.

Not that it's necessarily not worth discussing, but simply because it's been discussed over and over and isn't really going anywhere at this point.

Nah. Chillin' like a villain.

I'm the NSG 'dose of reality' shitting in the custard of the NS-love-fest.
Please do make a new custard to replace the one you ruined.

is your wife voting for obama?

I believe so. Unless she's been disenfranchised. This is apparently quite the hotspot for that kind of thing.

I'm good at these sorts of things.


Haven't I always said, "If you want something numbered accurately, ask Kyronea"?

Oh, I haven't?

I should have. Make a note.


Ah, goodie.

Not that it's necessarily not worth discussing, but simply because it's been discussed over and over and isn't really going anywhere at this point.


In this kind of thing... I believe in education, and then letting people make their choices. If the argument was "I don't believe there's a Bradley effect" I'd have less of a problem... and from what I can tell, that's the best anyone can rationally propose.

But absolutes... be they statistical, or religious, have a way of just buzzing right in my ear.


Please do make a new custard to replace the one you ruined.

I will. I absolutely will. I've just got these fireworks to piss on first... and a parade I'm supposed to be providing rain for...

I believe so. Unless she's been disenfranchised. This is apparently quite the hotspot for that kind of thing.
my husband is a registered republican. more on their history of financial responsibility than anything else.

he is so screwed this year. he would have voted for mccain if mccain had made anything like a reasonable choice for vp. that didnt happen so now he has to decide if he should vote for obama to make sure that palin has no chance to fall into the presidency or find some kind of 3rd party candidate that isnt crazy.

poor thing.

Obama wins then gets assassinated, THE END

my husband is a registered republican. more on their history of financial responsibility than anything else.

he is so screwed this year. he would have voted for mccain if mccain had made anything like a reasonable choice for vp. that didnt happen so now he has to decide if he should vote for obama to make sure that palin has no chance to fall into the presidency or find some kind of 3rd party candidate that isnt crazy.

poor thing.

Poor thing indeed.... especially having to find a third party candidate to throw the vote, too. If Mike Gravel had got the Libertarian nomination, that might have been a third party candidate worth endorsing. Maybe.

But, if he's really worried about Palin (and a lot of people are...) he has to cross party lines. Just taking one vote away from her ticket isn't enough.

(Especially since I keep hearing these stories about voting machines changing votes to the Republican option...)

Obama wins then gets assassinated, THE END

End... of what? We might have some exciting times ahead of us, certainly.

And how many of them were for President?


All of them. People were choosing who of Hillary or Obama they wanted to be President. It's a preliminary election for President.

Grave, this is the second time this week you try to make you're argument have more weight or seem more important by comparing it to other more obvious arguments.

You made no argument here. You made assertions and when called to support them, you said, "But I already did... somewhere... I really did... I swear." That's just embarrassing. If you've demonstrated the flaw in Nate Silver's analysis, let's see it.

For now, we'll put your argument where we put all completely unsupported arguments when placed against a supported argument. In the trash.

All of them. People were choosing who of Hillary or Obama they wanted to be President. It's a preliminary election for President.

Grave, this is the second time this week you try to make you're argument have more weight or seem more important by comparing it to other more obvious arguments.

You made no argument here. You made assertions and when called to support them, you said, "But I already did... somewhere... I really did... I swear." That's just embarrassing. If you've demonstrated the flaw in Nate Silver's analysis, let's see it.

For now, we'll put your argument where we put all completely unsupported arguments when placed against a supported argument. In the trash.

Again with the couple of points format, if there be no objections.

1) Second time this week? Dude - it's Tuesday. I ain't made that many posts yet. Which other one was I presenting with more weight or seeming more important?

2) I dropped the Bradley debate already, so I'm trying to work out how to pussyfoot around the points I want to respond to without undoing myself...

3) I'm not being difficult, but when I say I already pointed out some issues I had with Nate Silver - somewhere in a thread now weighing in at more than 270 pages - I just don't have time to go trawling.

4) On the same point - the only reason I said I'd made those comments, is because someone was saying I'd ignored the Nate link without even reading it. Not only DID I read it, I've already written responses to the stuff. I'm not trying to add weight, or make it seem more important - I'm pointing out that another person's assumptions about me are about as valuable as all unbased assumptions.

5) Obama has never run for President before. This is the first time he'll be top of the ticket for the Presidential election. I already pointed out that even just his nomination is a big deal, but it's not the same thing as picking up enough voters from the masses to make him President.


Okay. I think I got out of that without having to revoke my un-Bradley-ness.

I'm not being difficult, but when I say I already pointed out some issues I had with Nate Silver - somewhere in a thread now weighing in at more than 270 pages - I just don't have time to go trawling.
But-- if they're YOUR points, you don't have to go trawling for them, do you? Unless your "points" were so thoroughly unimpressive that even you yourself can't remember a thing about them.

But-- if they're YOUR points, you don't have to go trawling for them, do you? Unless your "points" were so thoroughly unimpressive that even you yourself can't remember a thing about them.

What?

Ah... you want me to now replicate my responses? If I don't have time to go looking for the posts, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to go back through and recreate my responses.

Doubly so, since I've dropped the Bradley debate.

EDIT: And, let's be realistic - there's a BIT of a difference between me asking a poster to tell me which link he's referring to, and you asking me to reproduce or recreate a response I made somewhere in a thread that has been running since the beginning of September.

Again with the couple of points format, if there be no objections.

1) Second time this week? Dude - it's Tuesday. I ain't made that many posts yet. Which other one was I presenting with more weight or seeming more important?

In a week. Does that make it better?


2) I dropped the Bradley debate already, so I'm trying to work out how to pussyfoot around the points I want to respond to without undoing myself...

3) I'm not being difficult, but when I say I already pointed out some issues I had with Nate Silver - somewhere in a thread now weighing in at more than 270 pages - I just don't have time to go trawling.

Then you have no argument. Vague references to this phantom argument you had do not an argument make.


4) On the same point - the only reason I said I'd made those comments, is because someone was saying I'd ignored the Nate link without even reading it. Not only DID I read it, I've already written responses to the stuff. I'm not trying to add weight, or make it seem more important - I'm pointing out that another person's assumptions about me are about as valuable as all unbased assumptions.

5) Obama has never run for President before. This is the first time he'll be top of the ticket for the Presidential election. I already pointed out that even just his nomination is a big deal, but it's not the same thing as picking up enough voters from the masses to make him President.

Wrong. He was running for President in those elections. He has never won the Presidency before.

And, yes, this is the first time he is the top of the Democratic ticket or the ticket of any major party, but he was running for President and the people were voting for who they wanted to be President.

The parties have a preliminary election, but the election is of people who are running for President of the United States of America. They are very much Presidential elections, just not the general election.


Okay. I think I got out of that without having to revoke my un-Bradley-ness.

Sure you did. I'm sure if Baldy told you that if you searched hard enough he proved Jesus existed, you'd just let it go.

What?

Ah... you want me to now replicate my responses? If I don't have time to go looking for the posts, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to go back through and recreate my responses.

Doubly so, since I've dropped the Bradley debate.

EDIT: And, let's be realistic - there's a BIT of a difference between me asking a poster to tell me which link he's referring to, and you asking me to reproduce or recreate a response I made somewhere in a thread that has been running since the beginning of September.

If only they'd make an ability to search for your posts? If only.

A poster mentioned a post I'd made over a year ago with only a reference to the topic of the thread and I found the specific post in less than two minutes. It's taken you longer to complain your being held to task than it would have to use the search.

Just thought I'd share this funny video (http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=yV.EY.ug5B9gPK3oSVCyoDIzNDY4Nw--&referred_by=12082273-kPNdG6x). It can be customized for any name, of course - that's the point. Share it with your friends!

I laughed so hard when I got this via email. I couldn't figure out how to share it with NSG without telling everybody my name -- thanks for figuring that out!

My favorite bit had to be the old lady's cussing.

Just thought I'd share this funny video (http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=yV.EY.ug5B9gPK3oSVCyoDIzNDY4Nw--&referred_by=12082273-kPNdG6x). It can be customized for any name, of course - that's the point. Share it with your friends!

It was nice knowing you...

But seriously, that was just hilarious.

The RNC strikes again (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/voting-machine.html). Is anyone surprised?

The RNC strikes again (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/voting-machine.html). Is anyone surprised?I'm surprised that you think it's all the RNC's fault.
Is the software faulty? Are the touch-screen not calibrated correctly?

Can someone explain this to me please:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/drnoah.png

I don't get it.

I'm surprised that you think it's all the RNC's fault.
Is the software faulty? Are the touch-screen not calibrated correctly?

If it was faulty software, the probability of votes going the other way would be 50-50. But we don't see or hear that happening at all, not one peep. Why do you think that is?

Can someone explain this to me please:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/drnoah.png

I don't get it.

Apparently it's saying that Obama does not support Energy Security.

I'm surprised that you think it's all the RNC's fault.
Is the software faulty? Are the touch-screen not calibrated correctly?

It seems, from the article, that the software is very, very faulty, and also encouragingly that the state uses a printed paper ballot that the voter can verify. (Imagine the nightmare were this not the case.)

It is, however, a troubling coincidence that every story we ever hear about this is a vote for a democratic candidate being recast for a Republican candidate. it's an interesting pattern, for which I'm sure there is a rational explanation.

Can someone explain this to me please:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/drnoah.png

I don't get it.1) Dr. No a.k.a. Ron Paul.
2) It's a term often used to describe politicians who usually vote against proposals unless they feel a substantial case to vote for it has been made.

If it was faulty software, the probability of votes going the other way would be 50-50. But we don't see or hear that happening at all, not one peep. Why do you think that is?It jsut seems that you're very eager to shove the blame all on top of the RNC. "The RNC did it!" Without giving due consideration to other errors. It seems, from the article, that the software is very, very faulty, and also encouragingly that the state uses a printed paper ballot that the voter can verify. (Imagine the nightmare were this not the case.)

It is, however, a troubling coincidence that every story we ever hear about this is a vote for a democratic candidate being recast for a Republican candidate. it's an interesting pattern, for which I'm sure there is a rational explanation.No, I don't think so, actually. If you vote democrat, the "glitch" (If that's what it is.) is activated because it meets the criteria for the glitch to happen. If you vote republican, the criteria for the glitch is not met; therefore, it wouldn't activate. This means that it could be a specific part of the "vote:democrat" code. And not necessarily translate to the "vote:republican" code.

How silly. Obama has repeatedly stated he is for energy security.

How silly. Obama has repeatedly stated he is for energy security.What's his voting record?

It jsut seems that you're very eager to shove the blame all on top of the RNC. "The RNC did it!" Without giving due consideration to other errors.

I'll give the possibility that the RNC might not have been responsible for it, if you allow that a full on investigation is called on this, with stiff penalties including decades in jail without parole if it's found that to be deliberate. The RNC is already involved in vote suppressing tactics, effectively stripping constitutional rights from citizens through illegal measures, and they aren't going to jail for it. There is precedent for their illegal activities in this manner. It cannot be ruled out that they would not be involved in voting fraud.


No, I don't think so, actually. If you vote democrat, the "glitch" (If that's what it is.) is activated because it meets the criteria for the glitch to happen. If you vote republican, the criteria for the glitch is not met; therefore, it wouldn't activate. This means that it could be a specific part of the "vote:democrat" code. And not necessarily translate to the "vote:republican" code.

You've obviously not had any software programming experience. Any competent software designer will not create excessively complex code for taking in simple single digit type input, and will most certainly not design two specific modules to do the job of one. This means any such glitch would distribute the probability of errors to either side evenly.

But that is not the case.

We only see Democratic votes going Republican with this so called "glitch".

Extreme incompetence or deliberate vote theft. Take your pick. Either one means that the machines must be taken out from the voting process with immediate effect at cost to the company, and a full on federal investigation launched.

It jsut seems that you're very eager to shove the blame all on top of the RNC. "The RNC did it!" Without giving due consideration to other errors. No, I don't think so, actually. If you vote democrat, the "glitch" (If that's what it is.) is activated because it meets the criteria for the glitch to happen. If you vote republican, the criteria for the glitch is not met; therefore, it wouldn't activate. This means that it could be a specific part of the "vote:democrat" code. And not necessarily translate to the "vote:republican" code.

How unusual that this glitch would recur so frequently, and in so many different machines running so many different pieces of software. How unusual that a different machine running a different set of software in a different state would produce these same results. how unusual that we never see votes for the democratic candidate going to a third party, or see Republican votes get switched, on any platform. how unusual that this problem has not been fixed, since incidents have been reported since the machine's first usage.

How lucky the Republicans are to be the apparently sole beneficiaries of this error.

What's his voting record?

That depends on what exactly they mean by energy security.

Dependence on foreign oil? Regulation on power plants? Protection from pirate raids on oil rigs?

It jsut seems that you're very eager to shove the blame all on top of the RNC. "The RNC did it!" Without giving due consideration to other errors. No, I don't think so, actually. If you vote democrat, the "glitch" (If that's what it is.) is activated because it meets the criteria for the glitch to happen. If you vote republican, the criteria for the glitch is not met; therefore, it wouldn't activate. This means that it could be a specific part of the "vote:democrat" code. And not necessarily translate to the "vote:republican" code.

Look, if you don't know anything about programming, please stop talking. There is no possible way that the code reacts to the party of the person selected. It would use keys attached to each person.

I hate when people molest jargon they don't understand.

I'll give the possibility that the RNC might not have been responsible for it, if you allow that a full on investigation is called on this, with stiff penalties including decades in jail without parole if it's found that to be deliberate. The RNC is already involved in vote suppressing tactics, effectively stripping constitutional rights from citizens through illegal measures, and they aren't going to jail for it. There is precedent for their illegal activities in this manner. It cannot be ruled out that they would not be involved in voting fraud.

But that is not the case.

We only see Democratic votes going Republican with this so called "glitch".

Extreme incompetence or deliberate vote theft. Take your pick. Either one means that the machines must be taken out from the voting process with immediate effect at cost to the company, and a full on federal investigation launched.

How unusual that this glitch would recur so frequently, and in so many different machines running so many different pieces of software. How unusual that a different machine running a different set of software in a different state would produce these same results. how unusual that we never see votes for the democratic candidate going to a third party, or see Republican votes get switched, on any platform. how unusual that this problem has not been fixed, since incidents have been reported since the machine's first usage.

How lucky the Republicans are to be the apparently sole beneficiaries of this error.What I'm saying is not necessarily true, but I think that you have to allow for all possibilities. No matter how "unlikely" the possibility may seem.

And why would I object to them being subject to the full penalty of the law they have possibly violated? I have no reason to allow them to "steal" votes.

Look, if you don't know anything about programming, please stop talking. There is no possible way that the code reacts to the party of the person selected. It would use keys attached to each person.

I hate when people molest jargon they don't understand.Hm. Alright. Sorry for the internal use.

That depends on what exactly they mean by energy security.

Dependence on foreign oil? Regulation on power plants? Protection from pirate raids on oil rigs?I'm not even sure what they mean by energy security.

I'll give the possibility that the RNC might not have been responsible for it, if you allow that a full on investigation is called on this, with stiff penalties including decades in jail without parole if it's found that to be deliberate. The RNC is already involved in vote suppressing tactics, effectively stripping constitutional rights from citizens through illegal measures, and they aren't going to jail for it. There is precedent for their illegal activities in this manner. It cannot be ruled out that they would not be involved in voting fraud.



You've obviously not had any software programming experience. Any competent software designer will not create excessively complex code for taking in simple single digit type input, and will most certainly not design two specific modules to do the job of one. This means any such glitch would distribute the probability of errors to either side evenly.

But that is not the case.

We only see Democratic votes going Republican with this so called "glitch".

Extreme incompetence or deliberate vote theft. Take your pick. Either one means that the machines must be taken out from the voting process with immediate effect at cost to the company, and a full on federal investigation launched.

Precisely. The choices would be displayed via a form with a reference to a table and it's key. The printout at the end would HAVE to be a result of associated the voterid with the candidateid and the position for which each candidate was running.

Look, if you don't know anything about programming, please stop talking. There is no possible way that the code reacts to the party of the person selected. It would use keys attached to each person.

I hate when people molest jargon they don't understand.

Oh, it's entirely possible that the code could react to the party of the person selected. If it was deliberately programmed to do so.

For example, a preset number counter that would kick in once a total number of votes a certain way were counted, and flip a corresponding number of votes that way the other way for a preset amount before going back to allowing actual votes to land where they should.

What I'm saying is not necessarily true, but I think that you have to allow for all possibilities. No matter how "unlikely" the possibility may seem.

And why would I object to them being subject to the full penalty of the law they have possibly violated? I have no reason to allow them to "steal" votes.

Not unlikely. What you're suggesting is nearly impossible. Software code doesn't link to explict values, but to the references for those values. It's simply more efficient.

They wouldn't have any reason to reference the party. It's simply not relevant. And they certainly would have no reason to reference the party.

Now one thing that is possible is that they inserted the Republicans first and they missed a filter somewhere that's making them get the first record rather than the right record.

The problem with that theory, of course, would be that they have different candidates in different counties so there would be no reason for them all to have inserted them in the same order relating to party. The only reason to force an order is if you wanted certain records to come first, which points to intentionally bad code.

Oh, it's entirely possible that the code could react to the party of the person selected. If it was deliberately programmed to do so.

For example, a preset number counter that would kick in once a total number of votes a certain way were counted, and flip a corresponding number of votes that way the other way for a preset amount before going back to allowing actual votes to land where they should.I would have no objection to the people responsible being prosecuted fully. The law applies to everyone. No exceptions, unless the Constitution says so.
Which it actually does, in special circumstances.

Oh, it's entirely possible that the code could react to the party of the person selected. If it was deliberately programmed to do so.

For example, a preset number counter that would kick in once a total number of votes a certain way were counted, and flip a corresponding number of votes that way the other way for a preset amount before going back to allowing actual votes to land where they should.

Too provable. It would be much easier to make a "mistake" where you tell everyone to put the records in a particular order and then leave out a reference that would only be necessary at certain times when one hits the buttons in a particular order. Inefficient, but it would look more like a mistake.

The problem with that theory, of course, would be that they have different candidates in different counties so there would be no reason for them all to have inserted them in the same order relating to party. The only reason to force an order is if you wanted certain records to come first, which points to intentionally bad code.

Lending credence to the idea that it's at the behest of the RNC or related groups does it not? And more than that, it should have been a flag to pull the machines there and then, and launch a thorough code check.

But that's not happening. And doesn't the election committee/council/whatever, have a rather strong Republican seating at the moment?

Too provable. It would be much easier to make a "mistake" where you tell everyone to put the records in a particular order and then leave out a reference that would only be necessary at certain times when one hits the buttons in a particular order. Inefficient, but it would look more like a mistake.

Maybe, but given how many instances of this sort of thing popping up, not to mention how many votes they have to steal in totality in order to eke out a win given the latest polls, a "mistake" that looks like random chance seems not very likely.

I have a question for you all.
Is there anything likely to happen because of this? Or will it just be ignored?

Lending credence to the idea that it's at the behest of the RNC or related groups does it not? And more than that, it should have been a flag to pull the machines there and then, and launch a thorough code check.

But that's not happening. And doesn't the election committee/council/whatever, have a rather strong Republican seating at the moment?

That's the most concerning part. Why isn't the code being checked? Honestly, I've been searching and I've only heard the accusations going one way. That is suspicious.

One could equally attribute it to Dems trying to make it look like there is a threat to the election. It's as likely.

There's an easy answer, though. They simply have to check. Clearly, something is fishy.

That's the most concerning part. Why isn't the code being checked? Honestly, I've been searching and I've only heard the accusations going one way. That is suspicious.

One could equally attribute it to Dems trying to make it look like there is a threat to the election. It's as likely.

There's an easy answer, though. They simply have to check. Clearly, something is fishy.

It's beyond fishy. It stinks to the stratosphere. Whatever checks and balances there are to ensure a fair election have been clearly subverted or suppressed, and not even the federal government is touching this.

It's beyond fishy. It stinks to the stratosphere. Whatever checks and balances there are to ensure a fair election have been clearly subverted or suppressed, and not even the federal government is touching this.Guess that answers my question.

You know what's funny to me?

If I were going to rig the election. I'd rig it backwards. I'd set the machines to have code in them that switch votes to Dems who are going to win anyway. That way you don't have to switch so many votes that it's blatantly obvious, but you destroy the credibility and thus the support of the new President. Even better, you'd be set to regain power in the following elections. It prevents you from any real chance of being caught. Worst case, you lose the election anyway. Best case, you destroy the momentum of the candidate, maybe even give rise to an impeachment.

I'm not even sure what they mean by energy security.

Something tells me they don't know what they mean by "energy security."

But it sure sounds good, doesn't it?

Something tells me they don't know what they mean by "energy security."

But it sure sounds good, doesn't it?...Not really. It doesn't even slide off the tongue really well.

...Not really. It doesn't even slide off the tongue really well.

let me rephrase, then.

It sure sounds frightening, doesn't it?

You know what's funny to me?

If I were going to rig the election. I'd rig it backwards. I'd set the machines to have code in them that switch votes to Dems who are going to win anyway. That way you don't have to switch so many votes that it's blatantly obvious, but you destroy the credibility and thus the support of the new President. Even better, you'd be set to regain power in the following elections. It prevents you from any real chance of being caught. Worst case, you lose the election anyway. Best case, you destroy the momentum of the candidate, maybe even give rise to an impeachment.

You're expecting subtlety and finesse from a party that has made it's name on fear mongering, mud slinging and outright hand in the air panic spreading electioneering?

let me rephrase, then.

It sure sounds frightening, doesn't it?It sounds like they're really desperate to make Obama look bad. Failing miserably at it, too.
But that's just my opinion.

It sounds like they're really desperate to make Obama look bad. Failing miserably at it, too.
But that's just my opinion.

I never said it sounded like an effective tactic.

And the polls seem to back up your opinion.

Hopefully the actual election will as well.

I never said it sounded like an effective tactic.

And the polls seem to back up your opinion.

Hopefully the actual election will as well.Shame that I won't be able to do my bit to help Obama win.

Shame that I won't be able to do my bit to help Obama win.

Why not? Convicted felon? Underage? disenfranchised through the purge of your registration?

Why not? Convicted felon? Underage? disenfranchised through the purge of your registration?The underlined. I'm around five months too young.

The underlined. I'm around five months too young.

well, that sucks. This is the first presidential election I've voted in (already cast my ballot for Obama) and It feels like a good one. I think I'll like being able to look back and say "I voted for Obama my first time."

Is this what you conservatives have come to? Really? You, Blouman Empire, and many others are so desperate to explain away the shameful, slanderous, and sometimes outright lies and inciting of race riots in the McCain campaign that your only defense lately (well, its been BE's from the start) is "Well if this was the Obama campaign doing it...."

Well I just like to ask people if they would be consistent in their message. And it is not just the election that I ask people this it is many other issues to when someone says they shouldn't be doing this but when it turns around to them they come up with some marvellous excuse.

Of course I don't think I have ever said "Well if this was the Obama campaign doing it..." but rather "Would you be saying the same thing if Obama did this?"

Oh and I resent being called a conservative, while I may have some conservative leanings I am not near to being a conservative certainly not what you would consider one to be.

Well I just like to ask people if they would be consistent in their message. And it is not just the election that I ask people this it is many other issues to when someone says they shouldn't be doing this but when it turns around to them they come up with some marvellous excuse.

Of course I don't think I have ever said "Well if this was the Obama campaign doing it..." but rather "Would you be saying the same thing if Obama did this?"


I have to say that if Joe Biden had said that Mccain was "palling around with terrorists" because he "saw america as so imperfect" I would be sick to my stomach. I would not defend that statement. I might still vote for the ticket, but I would be holding my nose a great deal more while doing so.

What we end up resenting is that you are essentially accusing us all of hypothetical hypocrisy, that we would be total hypocrites if the situation called for it. You are either flat out saying we would be, or you are implying it.

You're expecting subtlety and finesse from a party that has made it's name on fear mongering, mud slinging and outright hand in the air panic spreading electioneering?

Probably yes.

I've still got four more years before I can vote, I'll probably vote for Obama's reelection. (If he wins)

well, that sucks. This is the first presidential election I've voted in (already cast my ballot for Obama) and It feels like a good one. I think I'll like being able to look back and say "I voted for Obama my first time."

I don't know if I'd be game to have my first time with a 7 foot black man...

Can someone explain this to me please:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/drnoah.png

I don't get it.

I'm assuming that the above is a link to some version of this ad that Factcheck.org took apart (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_obama.html) back in June. (Why I remember this, I don't know. I assume I've forgotten something more useful in order to remember this stupid McCain ad. Curse you, John McCain!) "Energy Security" means, basically, a secure (i.e. diversified) supply of energy. Since Obama is (according to the ad) against the electric car, nuclear energy, and offshore drilling, he's the "Dr. No" of "energy security".

Either that or it's a completely different ad about how Obama is a member of SPECTRE. Which might be more plausible than some of the things that the candidates are saying about each other right now. Six of one, I sez.

http://media.tumblr.com/jgWRGzmqQemerjb15iVRgAoRo1_500.jpg

[/levity]

Can someone explain this to me please:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/drnoah.png

I don't get it.

its saying that obama is an old-school james bond villain who will ruin our country with some diablolical scheme involving offshore drilling.

I'm assuming that the above is a link to some version of this ad that Factcheck.org took apart (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_obama.html) back in June. (Why I remember this, I don't know. I assume I've forgotten something more useful in order to remember this stupid McCain ad. Curse you, John McCain!) "Energy Security" means, basically, a secure (i.e. diversified) supply of energy. Since Obama is (according to the ad) against the electric car, nuclear energy, and offshore drilling, he's the "Dr. No" of "energy security".

Either that or it's a completely different ad about how Obama is a member of SPECTRE. Which might be more plausible than some of the things that the candidates are saying about each other right now. Six of one, I sez.
If the ad REALLY annoys, then click on it!!!
That costs the McCain campaign money, and the money goes to our friends at Jolt/OMAC.

ohmygod ARIZONA is a toss up!

mccain leads in his home state 46 to 44 with the margin of error being 3!


http://www.azpbs.org/horizon/poll/2008/10-28-08.htm

ohmygod ARIZONA is a toss up!

mccain leads in his home state 46 to 44 with the margin of error being 3!


http://www.azpbs.org/horizon/poll/2008/10-28-08.htm

Who would have thought. Although it also says that the number of undecided voters left is very low.

The statewide poll also found that a majority (62 percent) of all registered voters believes that Obama will win the presidency next Tuesday, while 20 percent think McCain will win.
Good, at least people will be suspicious if McCain manages to miraculously "win" the most votes.

The poll also found that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio leads Democratic challenger Dan Saban 56 percent to 35 percent.
I didn't even know that guy was still around, let alone winning elections. Jesus.

I don't know if I'd be game to have my first time with a 7 foot black man...

I voted for Obama, not Shaq.

And yes, it was good for me too...

yeah. poor thing.

i asked my older sister (59) yesterday who she was voting for--she is rather more conservative than i am. she lives in florida.

she said "well im sure not voting for that old man who walks funny and his alaskan cracker running mate!"

it kinda summed up the problem mccain is facing.
Alaskan cracker!! :D

I'm gonna get baking. That has to be an election night party snack.

The RNC strikes again (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/voting-machine.html). Is anyone surprised?
Nope. I especially liked these parts:

Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright blamed voters for not touching the screen properly and said that 400 other voters had cast ballots on the machine with no problem.
The "right way" to touch the screens being, perhaps, to vote for Republicans?

Putnam County's election director complained to the Charleston Gazette that there are "so many negative stories out there and not enough positive ones. We want people to vote. ...
I love it when they say this. I suppose it never occurs to them that if they don't want negative stories, they should use machines that work right.

yeah. poor thing.

i asked my older sister (59) yesterday who she was voting for--she is rather more conservative than i am. she lives in florida.

she said "well im sure not voting for that old man who walks funny and his alaskan cracker running mate!"

it kinda summed up the problem mccain is facing.


Reminds me of something that happened yesterday. My folks generally go to the senior center to eat. Since I am generally with them most of the time, I generally go with them as their guest. Anyway, my Dad is a big ole blow hard. He likes to hear himself talk, much to the embrassment of my mom at times.

Anyway, my dad was in one of his rants against the Republicans and talking about McCain and his lack of knowledge of the economy. And then this woman said something to the effect that Obama is all talk and that he doesn't know anything at all.

My dad coutered and said, you do know McCain is talking about freezing entitlements.

She then made the most assinane statement.

I'd rather lose my entiltments and be alive....

We finished our food and we were thinking WTF, clearly this woman has bought the stupid fear tactics the Republicans are spreading. *sighs* For one postive moment someone has to prove there compleat lack of knowledge.

I love it when they say this. I suppose it never occurs to them that if they don't want negative stories, they should use machines that work right.

But then how would Republicans ever win? :confused:

Reminds me of something that happened yesterday. My folks generally go to the senior center to eat. Since I am generally with them most of the time, I generally go with them as their guest. Anyway, my Dad is a big ole blow hard. He likes to hear himself talk, much to the embrassment of my mom at times.

Anyway, my dad was in one of his rants against the Republicans and talking about McCain and his lack of knowledge of the economy. And then this woman said something to the effect that Obama is all talk and that he doesn't know anything at all.

My dad coutered and said, you do know McCain is talking about freezing entitlements.

She then made the most assinane statement.

I'd rather lose my entiltments and be alive....

We finished our food and we were thinking WTF, clearly this woman has bought the stupid fear tactics the Republicans are spreading. *sighs* For one postive moment someone has to prove there compleat lack of knowledge.

I wonder how long she'd be alive once she wasn't able to get her medical care through Medicare.

But then how would Republicans ever win? :confused:

Disenfranchising typical democrat voters??

I want popcorn!

Alaskan cracker!! :D

I'm gonna get baking. That has to be an election night party snack.

Half-baked, topped with plenty of oil (Drill Baby Drill) and maybe some moose or elk meat.

Disenfranchising typical democrat voters??

And preying on the uninformed. Just talked to a McCain supporter who said "I'm too old to learn Arabic." He also thought Obama was going to take his guns and was "Left of Hugo Chavez". When I pointed out the inaccuracies he said "You're just drinking the kool-aid!".

It's like arguing with a parakeet.

More McCainiacs in action (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/mccain-miami-rally-getting-ugly-down.html)!

No atheists allowed (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/doles-godless-ad-causes-stir/#more-27133) in US government!

More McCainiacs in action (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/mccain-miami-rally-getting-ugly-down.html).

Read that, the only question is will the McCain/Palin hate campaign cause a riot before the election or the day after when the results hit.

absentee voting accomplished. now we wait. and contemplate tossing a few bucks at trauner in wyoming or minnick in idaho. trauner probably needs it more (seriously? the dem is leading in id-01?!?), but i actually lived in the other district...

anybody else keeping tabs on non-presidential lower key races beyond your own district?


also, i hate non-partisan judicial ballots. what the fuck america?

More McCainiacs in action (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/mccain-miami-rally-getting-ugly-down.html)!

No atheists allowed (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/doles-godless-ad-causes-stir/#more-27133) in US government!
Sickening and typical.

In a week. Does that make it better?


Maybe. I still wouldn't be sure what it was supposed to be. But, I'm not going to let it worry me.


Then you have no argument. Vague references to this phantom argument you had do not an argument make.


Perhaps I have an argument, perhaps I don't. But, since I'm no longer arguing about the Bradley effect, what I said in response to the Nate Silver articles is becoming increasingly irrelevent to me.

As I said - I only even rejoined the "Bradley" argument to say that I approve of people getting interested in politics. I never intended to actually get into the veracity of this particular issue, again. I already dropped it once because it felt like the points were made and were either received or not received, and there was little point banging heads over it. I'm not super inclined to restart that.


Wrong. He was running for President in those elections. He has never won the Presidency before.

And, yes, this is the first time he is the top of the Democratic ticket or the ticket of any major party, but he was running for President and the people were voting for who they wanted to be President.

The parties have a preliminary election, but the election is of people who are running for President of the United States of America. They are very much Presidential elections, just not the general election.


They are elections for a presidential nomination. They do not elect the president.

This looks like a quibble, and I'm not too worried about the terminology - so, you tell me what to call it, and I'll call it that.


Sure you did. I'm sure if Baldy told you that if you searched hard enough he proved Jesus existed, you'd just let it go.

I've let arguments go in exactly those circumstances before. The point was - I was saying I'm not debating the reality of the Bradley effect any more. Kyronea's right - my argument isn't swaying anyone, and only became re-involved because someone was claiming that the Bradley effect DOESN'T exist, as an absolute.

What I'm trying to do is answer the rest of your post, without getting into debating Bradley itself.

If you really want, we can re-open the Bradley debate, but I've been opting out for the last couple of pages. Ironically - that seems to have been a magnet for discussing the issue in a way that trying to discuss it failed to be.

If only they'd make an ability to search for your posts? If only.

A poster mentioned a post I'd made over a year ago with only a reference to the topic of the thread and I found the specific post in less than two minutes. It's taken you longer to complain your being held to task than it would have to use the search.

I'll admit to being a n00b at the search option. I don't think I've used it yet, so I'm really not sure of it's scope.

Kyronea pointed out to me that - not to put to fine a point on it, and he was a lot more diplomatic about me than I will be - my arguing about the Bradley effect was a boring pain in the ass.

So I've stopped.

Could I search back through and find posts I made about Nate Silver's Bradley commentary? Maybe. Probably, in fact, based on what you've said about the search function.

But since I've been trying to drop the subject, it seems like a LOT more time than it's worth.


EDIT: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097076&postcount=2735

(There's the specific response I was talking about).

I'll admit to being a n00b at the search option. I don't think I've used it yet, so I'm really not sure of it's scope.

Kyronea pointed out to me that - not to put to fine a point on it, and he was a lot more diplomatic about me than I will be - my arguing about the Bradley effect was a boring pain in the ass.

So I've stopped.

Could I search back through and find posts I made about Nate Silver's Bradley commentary? Maybe. Probably, in fact, based on what you've said about the search function.

But since I've been trying to drop the subject, it seems like a LOT more time than it's worth.

Searching for your own old posts is fairly straightforward. If you click on your name, here in the thread, a drop down should come up that says "Find More Posts by This User" that goes back among the past...105 posts, I believe.

What's his voting record?

The problem with voting records, is that people treat them as gospel - in isolation.

It doesn't matter if you vote against energy security because it's attached to a bill about legalising raping babies, it's portrayed as a 'negative vote', and no context is considered.

Voting record - in isolation - is almost as irrelevent as claims a politician makes about their position.

http://media.tumblr.com/jgWRGzmqQemerjb15iVRgAoRo1_500.jpg

[/levity]

Funny as fuck. Literal lol.

Interesting news: in light of recent polling, CNN has moved Colorado along with its 9 EVs from "tossup" to "lean democrat", which, along with a similar move not long ago with Virginia, gives Obama a projected 286 electoral votes

In addition, it moved Indiana and its 11 EV from Lean McCain to tossup, lowering his projection from 174 to 163 (though worth noting McCain still has a projected lead in Indiana, just one within the "tossup" threshold).

This is not meant to be a predictive map, but rather a "state of the nation" map, a showing of what would happen if hte election were held TODAY.

Map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/)

No atheists allowed (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/doles-godless-ad-causes-stir/#more-27133) in US government!

Much as I disapprove of the fact that being an Atheist is considered a factor WORTHY of this kind of comment, I'm still disgusted by the use of these 'palling around' tactics by Republicans at EVERY level (apparently).

Searching for your own old posts is fairly straightforward. If you click on your name, here in the thread, a drop down should come up that says "Find More Posts by This User" that goes back among the past...105 posts, I believe.

105 posts probably wouldn't take me back any further than the weekend...

EDIT: I just checked that search mode. It gives the last 300 posts, which takes me back only 11 days.

I believe so. Unless she's been disenfranchised. This is apparently quite the hotspot for that kind of thing.

Apparently, they still have to let you fill out a provisional ballot in case they decide you're a real voter.

That's comforting, right? /sarcasm

Apparently, they still have to let you fill out a provisional ballot in case they decide you're a real voter.

That's comforting, right? /sarcasm

Well, the one bright spot is that they haven't sent out any of those letters that TELL you you've been disenfranchised.

I've heard about them - but I really want to see one... does it tell you to go vote anyway, provisionally? I doubt it.


I guess we'll find out.

Interesting news: in light of recent polling, CNN has moved Colorado along with its 9 EVs from "tossup" to "lean democrat", which, along with a similar move not long ago with Virginia, gives Obama a projected 286 electoral votes

In addition, it moved Indiana and its 11 EV from Lean McCain to tossup, lowering his projection from 174 to 163 (though worth noting McCain still has a projected lead in Indiana, just one within the "tossup" threshold).

This is not meant to be a predictive map, but rather a "state of the nation" map, a showing of what would happen if hte election were held TODAY.

Map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/)

While that is excellent news, I cannot for the life of me figure out why CNN refuses to move Arkansas and Louisiana from leaning McCain to strong McCain. The closest Obama got in Louisiana was 50%-43% on 9/11. Since then, he has not been closer than 12%, and McCain is averaging a 13% lead for the course of the election. Similarly, in Arkansas, the closeset Obama has approached McCain is 51%-42% on 9/22, and averages for the election have McCain up by 11%.

The same goes for Maine with Obama, where he is averaging a 13% lead and, other than an outlying Rasmussen poll on 10/2, has not had less than a 10% lead since August.

I know CNN is cowardly when it comes to calling states due to the 2000 fiasco, but surely they can recognize states that are most definitely going one way or another. I'm not asking them to call the battleground states, but it wouldn't be too much to ask for Arkansas, Louisiana, and Maine to be put in the strong columns where we can all see they really are.

This looks like a quibble, and I'm not too worried about the terminology - so, you tell me what to call it, and I'll call it that.
No, "quibble" is good :D
Truce?

No, "quibble" is good :D
Truce?

Pax. I'm good with that.

No atheists allowed (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/doles-godless-ad-causes-stir/#more-27133) in US government!

Well we all know that athiests arent US citizens.

105 posts probably wouldn't take me back any further than the weekend...

EDIT: I just checked that search mode. It gives the last 300 posts, which takes me back only 11 days.

If you click the number of posts for a thread on the main page it gives you a list of the posters in that thread and the number of posts they have in it. If you click that number next to a poster's name it will give you all of that poster's posts in that single thread.

I discovered that on accident one day.

Well we all know that athiests arent US citizens.

hey KOL check TGs

Well we all know that athiests arent US citizens.

It's even more frustrating than the 'Obama is a Muslim!' nonsense largely because of the response.

In the climate it has to be, "Oh no, I'm totally Christian, check out my Christian bonofides!"

What it should be is, "Faith should not be a test for office. My personal faith is a personal issue and should not, in a country with separation of church and state, be a measure of my viability for office. I support the separation protecting your right to worship as you see fit and that's all you need to know."

Of course, that's a one way ticket to defeat.

hey KOL check TGs

Roger.

It's even more frustrating than the 'Obama is a Muslim!' nonsense largely because of the response.

In the climate it has to be, "Oh no, I'm totally Christian, check out my Christian bonofides!"

What it should be is, "Faith should not be a test for office. My personal faith is a personal issue and should not, in a country with separation of church and state, be a measure of my viability for office. I support the separation protecting your right to worship as you see fit and that's all you need to know."

Of course, that's a one way ticket to defeat.


Yeah, unfortunitally being rational gets you creamed.


Im actually really bothered that, even if she was an athiest, that would be a big deal.

But than again, this is America. I shouldnt be too shocked.

Yeah, unfortunitally being rational gets you creamed.


Im actually really bothered that, even if she was an athiest, that would be a big deal.

But than again, this is America. I shouldnt be too shocked.
Shouldn't we be shocked, though? I know I'm being pedantic (sort of, I don't want to look for a word that fits better right now), but while we shouldn't necisarrily be surprised we should be shocked. We should be outraged-we, at the very least (even though I just did) should not be making excuses for this, pardoning it with "what do you expect?" or "That's the way it is."

Not that I have an answer, certainly I can't suggest that she throw the election on principle, I don't have an answer to, "Well, what do you want us to do?" I guess the only thing I got now is to amend my initial response and stop making excuses for them. It's ridiculous and a betrayal of one of the founding bricks of this government, full stop.

Take that, you fucking windmill.

Shouldn't we be shocked, though? I know I'm being pedantic (sort of, I don't want to look for a word that fits better right now), but while we shouldn't necisarrily be surprised we should be shocked. We should be outraged-we, at the very least (even though I just did) should not be making excuses for this, pardoning it with "what do you expect?" or "That's the way it is."

Not that I have an answer, certainly I can't suggest that she throw the election on principle, I don't have an answer to, "Well, what do you want us to do?" I guess the only thing I got now is to amend my initial response and stop making excuses for them. It's ridiculous and a betrayal of one of the founding bricks of this government, full stop.

Take that, you fucking windmill.


We should be outraged. We should see it coming, but I agree, we shouldnt be making excuses for them.

If I was in North Carolina, she would lose my vote out of principle by playing into that, by pretending like there is something wrong with not having an imaginary friend.

Youre right, it is a betrayal of what this country was founded on.

Unfortunitally, not only are we unorganized (and Im skeptical if athiests could ever be "organized" effectively) we're also outnumbered and outgunned.

Well, the one bright spot is that they haven't sent out any of those letters that TELL you you've been disenfranchised.

I've heard about them - but I really want to see one... does it tell you to go vote anyway, provisionally? I doubt it.


I guess we'll find out.

I doubt it. But they're apparently now supposed to send out another letter telling you that you can vote provisionally and that you then have up until a week after the election to prove that you're actually eligible.

And the Obama website on voter rules says that you should as well.

We should be outraged. We should see it coming, but I agree, we shouldnt be making excuses for them.

If I was in North Carolina, she would lose my vote out of principle by playing into that, by pretending like there is something wrong with not having an imaginary friend.

Youre right, it is a betrayal of what this country was founded on.

Unfortunitally, not only are we unorganized (and Im skeptical if athiests could ever be "organized" effectively) we're also outnumbered and outgunned.

It's pretty ridiculous that faith is such a big deal for you guys. I mean, there was a bit of news here recently, coz the Speaker of the House wanted to get rid of the Lord's prayer before each session. Both parties are fairly religious, so it was gunned down, but the public seemed to be moderately in favour of the move.

Politician's religions are only noted here when they become PM (Rudd's godliness has been talked about a bit), or when it influences their poliy (fucking Abbott...) decisions.

To stop this Aus-centrism though, in what is a US thread, why do you think this is a big deal? I mean, Colin Powell said in his endorsement of Obama that, even were Obama a muslim, it shouldn't matter. Why don't people say the same for Atheists? I mean, it seems like there are enough godless heathens for you lot to be a respected votinig bloc.

Am I getting the wrong impression from an outsider's point of view? Is it just the majority of your musicians and people on the internet who are atheists, and that there is a serious discrepancy between internet religion and IRL religion?

Also, as for atheists organising properly, I have one letter for you. /b/.

It's even more frustrating than the 'Obama is a Muslim!' nonsense largely because of the response.

In the climate it has to be, "Oh no, I'm totally Christian, check out my Christian bonofides!"

What it should be is, "Faith should not be a test for office. My personal faith is a personal issue and should not, in a country with separation of church and state, be a measure of my viability for office. I support the separation protecting your right to worship as you see fit and that's all you need to know."

Of course, that's a one way ticket to defeat.
It's especially disgusting considering that the US Constitution specifically prohibits religious requirements for holding public office. But fuck the law -- there are elections at stake.

I doubt it. But they're apparently now supposed to send out another letter telling you that you can vote provisionally and that you then have up until a week after the election to prove that you're actually eligible.

And the Obama website on voter rules says that you should as well.

We'll be going, anyway. Well - she will. If we find out she's disenfranchised, we'll cross that boat when we burn our bridge. Or something.

It's especially disgusting considering that the US Constitution specifically prohibits religious requirements for holding public office. But fuck the law -- there are elections at stake.

But that just means you can be any religion you like, not that you can have no religion whatsoever!

:rolleyes:

Oh, and just on a slightly extremely different topic, this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/29/uselections2008-republicans) caught my eye. In particular...

It is intended to look at who should take over chairmanship of the party, whether the party needs to switch to the right, and to make plans for the next presidential election.
Yeah. Move to the right. Go on, I dare you.

"There will be a million post-mortems and finger-pointing. What is unusual is that the finger-pointing has begun before the campaign is ended."
Always a good sign when your party is figuring out who's to blame for losing when you havn't even lost yet...

The Virginia meeting, to avoid accusations of being premature, is to go ahead whether McCain wins or loses. If he were to win, the discussion would turn to how conservatives can influence the new administration.
I was really hoping they wouldn't cover their tracks like that. Dang.

Still, it says a lot when your party is so disheartened that they've already planned how to fix it after you broke it. I mean, couldn't they at least have given the PRETENCE of confidence? Have they learned nothing from the stock market crash? Confidence is king.

I'm compiling a list of things, which I'll publish at some stage, which will either be entitled "Things Obama can be thankful for, now that he's won", or "Things you should be worried about, now that McCain has won". This MAY just go on there.

No atheists allowed (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/doles-godless-ad-causes-stir/#more-27133) in US government!

I just made a phone call to Elizabeth Dole's Raleigh, NC office. Had a pleasant five minute chat with one of her staffers about why I wasn't voting for his candidate, and why this ad prompted me to change my party affiliation from registered Republican to Independent.

He and I were both pleasant throughout as I expressed my dissatisfaction and wished that I could tell Senator Dole directly rather than burn up the ears of a staffer. His unapologetic defense was that none of it was made up, though he wasn't able to counter my charges that it was misleading at best to show Kay Hagan's photo while some other female voice stated "there is no God".

He did confirm that the office had received numerous calls on both sides of the issue, and that my ire wasn't uncommon. Maybe the RNC will learn something from this by 2012. They'll have plenty of time to study, since Dole's gonna get creamed over this one.


In researching this issue I ran across this excellent Get Out the Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvw8rvcQxg) commercial for North Carolina voters. Check it out!

If you click the number of posts for a thread on the main page it gives you a list of the posters in that thread and the number of posts they have in it. If you click that number next to a poster's name it will give you all of that poster's posts in that single thread.

I discovered that on accident one day.

No fucking way.
You must be shitting me....
*goes and tries it*
...
No fucking way. I usually pick up on such tricks really quickly!


Anyway, something on topic:

Daughter of a slave votes for Obama (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html)

That just warms the heart, doesn't it?

I just made a phone call to Elizabeth Dole's Raleigh, NC office. Had a pleasant five minute chat with one of her staffers about why I wasn't voting for his candidate, and why this ad prompted me to change my party affiliation from registered Republican to Independent.



You were a registered Republican?


I am most disappointed in you.;)

You were a registered Republican?

We've told you time and again that NS moderation has a variety of views. Mod bias towards the left is a myth.

I originally registered as a Republican because that was the only way I could vote against Jesse Helms in the primaries. In North Carolina, the only way for your national vote to count was to be on the side of the Republicans. A Democratic primary vote is wasted when you know the candidate can't win the general. Also, those Democrats who did make it into state office have a pretty sorry record with regards government corruption. Can't say I'd want to elect most of them.

I've been assiduously (and largely unsuccessfully) attempting to move the party towards the center for the last 30 years. Between trying to keep order in NS and being a centrist North Carolinian, I guess you could conclude that I like lost causes. Besides, under the new rules, I can pick my primary as an Independent and not have to sit out the early race like it was in the past.



Back on topic, have a look at this cease and desist letter (http://projects.newsobserver.com/sites/projects.newsobserver.com/files/cease_and_desist.pdf) that the Hagan campaign sent to Elizabeth Dole. Pretty much destroys their bullshit claim to accuracy.

And I'm sure this is a mistake, but... RCP is showing Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia as TOSSUP? When did that happen?

EDIT: No, wait, I see. McCain's just only up by 3 or 4. Not super close at all. Dang

I just made a phone call to Elizabeth Dole's Raleigh, NC office. Had a pleasant five minute chat with one of her staffers about why I wasn't voting for his candidate, and why this ad prompted me to change my party affiliation from registered Republican to Independent.

He and I were both pleasant throughout as I expressed my dissatisfaction and wished that I could tell Senator Dole directly rather than burn up the ears of a staffer. His unapologetic defense was that none of it was made up, though he wasn't able to counter my charges that it was misleading at best to show Kay Hagan's photo while some other female voice stated "there is no God".

He did confirm that the office had received numerous calls on both sides of the issue, and that my ire wasn't uncommon. Maybe the RNC will learn something from this by 2012. They'll have plenty of time to study, since Dole's gonna get creamed over this one.


In researching this issue I ran across this excellent Get Out the Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvw8rvcQxg) commercial for North Carolina voters. Check it out!

The unapologetic defence that 'none of it is made up' is kind of irrelevent, and pretty pathetic. In effect, they're condemning someone for a religious belief (or, in this case, the ALLEGED LACK of belief).

Made up or no, attacking someone for their religious persuasion should be quite obviously verboten.

And I'm sure this is a mistake, but... RCP is showing Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia as TOSSUP? When did that happen?

All three have been trending that way for over a week now. I think North Dakota is actually gonna go blue, but I'm betting the other two stay red.

It's not good news for Saxby Chambliss, though. Georgians still remember the viscious attacks on Max Cleland in 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxby_Chambliss#2002_race). If anyone deserves to lose a Senate race for dirty campaigning, it's Chambliss.

In effect, they're condemning someone for a religious belief (or, in this case, the ALLEGED LACK of belief).

Made up or no, attacking someone for their religious persuasion should be quite obviously verboten.

You don't win in North Carolina by running against the Christians. Every local campaign profile includes church activity. In your world it may be verboten, but in NC Christianity is a requirement for office, official or otherwise.

Which is why you'll never see me up on the stump, by the way. I'd fail that litmus test in a heartbeat.

In researching this issue I ran across this excellent Get Out the Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvw8rvcQxg) commercial for North Carolina voters. Check it out!
I love that!! That ad is so excellent. *fluffles ad* :fluffle:

We've told you time and again that NS moderation has a variety of views. Mod bias towards the left is a myth.


Im aware, it was more a joke on my part.

In researching this issue I ran across this excellent Get Out the Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvw8rvcQxg) commercial for North Carolina voters. Check it out!
Ha, that is pretty excellent.

Back on topic, have a look at this cease and desist letter (http://projects.newsobserver.com/sites/projects.newsobserver.com/files/cease_and_desist.pdf) that the Hagan campaign sent to Elizabeth Dole. Pretty much destroys their bullshit claim to accuracy.

Nice. :D Why aren't the Obama campaigns and few other lower level campaigns sending out similar letters, I wonder? (Maybe they are, but they haven't been published.)

No fucking way.
You must be shitting me....
*goes and tries it*
...
No fucking way. I usually pick up on such tricks really quickly!


Anyway, something on topic:

Daughter of a slave votes for Obama (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html)

That just warms the heart, doesn't it?
Actually, it really does. I got all misty, reading that.

You don't win in North Carolina by running against the Christians. Every local campaign profile includes church activity. In your world it may be verboten, but in NC Christianity is a requirement for office, official or otherwise.

Which is why you'll never see me up on the stump, by the way. I'd fail that litmus test in a heartbeat.

In my world it's verboten?

Wouldn't that 'world' be the US? And... kinda protected, constitutionally?

Anyway, something on topic:

Daughter of a slave votes for Obama (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html)

That just warms the heart, doesn't it?

Why would it?

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.

Don't worry, you'll have four to eight years to learn to spell his name.

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.

How is the idea baffling? He's clearly very popular. He's an incredibly talented orator, he's clearly very intelligent and is capable of understanding the nuances of many issues. At the very least, he's not going to try and force his social ideals on others, and he certainly can't do much worse to the economy, and I expect him to fare much better than Bush. The idea of John McCain winning the presidency is what baffles me.

Welcome to NSG though!

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.

The idea that someone could be baffled by a competent leader running for President is completely understandable. It goes against everything we've learned about US Govt. history.

Why would it?

Oh, for crying out loud -- frikkin furriners.

Think about it! She's the daughter of black slave -- held in slavery in the US. She's 109 years old. She saw the rise of the KKK. She saw segregation and the brutality and murders and terrorism that went with it. She saw the civil rights movement and the assassination of Dr. King. And now she gets to cast her vote -- a vote she could have been killed for in her youth; a vote her father couldn't even dream of ever having -- for the first black presidential candidate in US history.

It's dramatic, dammit.

The idea that someone could be baffled by a competent leader running for President is completely understandable. It goes against everything we've learned about US Govt. history.

Oh, we get them every once in a while.

I mean, the rarity still makes it shocking, though.

Oh, for crying out loud -- frikkin furriners.

Think about it! She's the daughter of black slave -- held in slavery in the US. She's 109 years old. She saw the rise of the KKK. She saw segregation and the brutality and murders and terrorism that went with it. She saw the civil rights movement and the assassination of Dr. King. And now she gets to cast her vote -- a vote she could have been killed for in her youth; a vote her father couldn't even dream of ever having -- for the first black presidential candidate in US history.

It's dramatic, dammit.

One of my favorite bloggers (www.idrewthis.org) drew this, titled "The Road to Obama":
http://fc47.deviantart.com/fs37/i/2008/284/4/9/The_road_to_Obama_by_rainedog.jpg

Really helps drive the point home.

Oh, for crying out loud -- frikkin furriners.

Think about it! She's the daughter of black slave -- held in slavery in the US. She's 109 years old. She saw the rise of the KKK. She saw segregation and the brutality and murders and terrorism that went with it. She saw the civil rights movement and the assassination of Dr. King. And now she gets to cast her vote -- a vote she could have been killed for in her youth; a vote her father couldn't even dream of ever having -- for the first black presidential candidate in US history.

It's dramatic, dammit.

What the hell is a furriner?

Anyway, it may be dramatic but hardly surprising that she is voting for Obama.

What the hell is a furriner?

Anyway, it may be dramatic but hardly surprising that she is voting for Obama.

Nobody said it was surprising. I said it was touching.

We've told you time and again that NS moderation has a variety of views. Mod bias towards the left is a myth.


Perpetuated by ultra right trolls who whine about "leftist mods" when they get banned for trolling and flaming I suspect. The only ultra leftist troll we had this year was Andaras, while we've had more than a handful of neocon trolls.

Nobody said it was surprising. I said it was touching.

Well I don't see how it is that touching either the fact that she is voting for Obama (not anything else with her life) is really only a meh.

Oh, for crying out loud -- frikkin furriners.

Think about it! She's the daughter of black slave -- held in slavery in the US. She's 109 years old. She saw the rise of the KKK. She saw segregation and the brutality and murders and terrorism that went with it. She saw the civil rights movement and the assassination of Dr. King. And now she gets to cast her vote -- a vote she could have been killed for in her youth; a vote her father couldn't even dream of ever having -- for the first black presidential candidate in US history.

It's dramatic, dammit.

Wouldn't it be more dramatic... if she was voting for McCain?

Well I don't see how it is that touching either the fact that she is voting for Obama (not anything else with her life) is really only a meh.

She grew up one generation removed from when black people in this country were property. She grew up experiencing racism first hand her entire life. She presumably heard firsthand accounts of slavery from her father. And now she gets to live in a country where she can vote for a black man for president. I guarantee you she never thought she'd see the day when she was growing up. If that's not even a little bit inspirational to you, then you're not human.

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.

The idea that a looney old man who voted with the most unpopular and incompetent president in US history 90%, and his beauty pagent running mate who cant avoiding drooling on her mic without somone holding her hand and guiding her through it having anything more than 20% of the populations support baffles me.

She grew up one generation removed from when black people in this country were property. She grew up experiencing racism first hand her entire life. She presumably heard firsthand accounts of slavery from her father. And now she gets to live in a country where she can vote for a black man for president. I guarantee you she never thought she'd see the day when she was growing up. If that's not even a little bit inspirational to you, then you're not human.

I BET YOU WOULDNT FIND IT INSPERATIONAL IF SHE WAS VOTING REPUBLICAN!!!11!

Im just saving Blouman Empire time by giving you the response he will essentially give.

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.

Care to explain that, or are you just a petulant troll-and-runner?

Oh, we get them every once in a while.

I mean, the rarity still makes it shocking, though.

We do get them. And when they get elected, they sometimes get shot. God Bless America.

EDIT: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14097076&postcount=2735

(There's the specific response I was talking about).
That? I remembered that post, but I didn't think you could possibly consider THAT post to have done ANYTHING to combat the analysis by silver.

Wanna see me combat Bernanke's assessment of the current crisis?

...

...

"Oh, come on, Bernanke. Think about it. What about the effect that poor insulation has had on home heating and cooling costs? You didn't even mention it."

I'm going to vaguely reference this post in discussions about the economy. Clearly, we don't actually have to actually address the points raised in an argument. We just have to reply.

Well I don't see how it is that touching either the fact that she is voting for Obama (not anything else with her life) is really only a meh.
Oh, you are just determined to be impossible about this. Maybe you think it makes you look jaded and sophisticated, but really it just makes you look unimaginative. *scrapes BE off bottom of shoe*

(and "furriner" is a comedic American-accent pronunciation of "foreigner." Didn't you tell me once you are Australian and in Australia?)

Wouldn't it be more dramatic... if she was voting for McCain?
No, it would not ... smartass.

She grew up one generation removed from when black people in this country were property. She grew up experiencing racism first hand her entire life. She presumably heard firsthand accounts of slavery from her father. And now she gets to live in a country where she can vote for a black man for president. I guarantee you she never thought she'd see the day when she was growing up. If that's not even a little bit inspirational to you, then you're not human.

As I said only her voting for Obama is meh not the rest of her life, but I suppose if that means I'm not human than I'm not human. Though GnI is correct it would be dramatic and almost newsworthy if she was voting for McCain.

Im just saving Blouman Empire time by giving you the response he will essentially give.

Nice, but wrong again.

Oh, you are just determined to be impossible about this. Maybe you think it makes you look jaded and sophisticated, but really it just makes you look unimaginative. *scrapes BE off bottom of shoe*

Ouch, but maybe I'm in one of my cynical moods where nothing surprises me anymore. Though I wasn't going for the sophisticated look more the yeah not surprised look.

(and "furriner" is a comedic American-accent pronunciation of "foreigner." Didn't you tell me once you are Australian and in Australia?)

Yes I did and hence why as a foreigner I didn't know the American accent pronunciation.

As I said only her voting for Obama is meh not the rest of her life, but I suppose if that means I'm not human than I'm not human. Though GnI is correct it would be dramatic and almost newsworthy if she was voting for McCain.

Perhaps you could explain why you are so blase and entirely unimpressed with her story?

Perhaps you could explain why you are so blase and entirely unimpressed with her story?

The story that she will be voting for Obama or the story of her life? Because as I say I am not impressed in the sense that it is not groud breaking that she is voting for Obama but the story of her life is different that is the type of life that I enjoy hearing about and would be interested in speaking to her and learning more about it from her from her own perspective.

The story that she will be voting for Obama or the story of her life? Because as I say I am not impressed in the sense that it is not groud breaking that she is voting for Obama but the story of her life is different that is the type of life that I enjoy hearing about and would be interested in speaking to her and learning more about it from her from her own perspective.

You don't at all find it amazing that somebody whose father was property because of the color of his skin, somebody who herself once would have risked being lynched for trying to vote because of the color of her skin, is now able not only to vote, but for somebody who will probably become president, despite having the same color skin as this woman and her father?

The story that she will be voting for Obama or the story of her life? Because as I say I am not impressed in the sense that it is not groud breaking that she is voting for Obama but the story of her life is different that is the type of life that I enjoy hearing about and would be interested in speaking to her and learning more about it from her from her own perspective.

I think youre missing the point.


Whats remarkable isnt that shes voting for Obama, what is remarkable is that she can, which after the life shes lived must just seem insane to her.

The story that she will be voting for Obama or the story of her life? Because as I say I am not impressed in the sense that it is not groud breaking that she is voting for Obama but the story of her life is different that is the type of life that I enjoy hearing about and would be interested in speaking to her and learning more about it from her from her own perspective.

My lord, learn to punctuate.

Perhaps something's being lost in translation from the United States to Australia. The fact that a woman who is one generation removed from black people being property in this country is now able to not only cast a vote, but cast a vote for a black man to be president of this country, is an inspirational story. The fact that she's lived long enough to be able to do something that I'm certain she never thought she'd live long enough to see is heart-warming.

I just made a phone call to Elizabeth Dole's Raleigh, NC office. Had a pleasant five minute chat with one of her staffers about why I wasn't voting for his candidate, and why this ad prompted me to change my party affiliation from registered Republican to Independent.

He and I were both pleasant throughout as I expressed my dissatisfaction and wished that I could tell Senator Dole directly rather than burn up the ears of a staffer. His unapologetic defense was that none of it was made up, though he wasn't able to counter my charges that it was misleading at best to show Kay Hagan's photo while some other female voice stated "there is no God".

He did confirm that the office had received numerous calls on both sides of the issue, and that my ire wasn't uncommon. Maybe the RNC will learn something from this by 2012. They'll have plenty of time to study, since Dole's gonna get creamed over this one.


In researching this issue I ran across this excellent Get Out the Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvw8rvcQxg) commercial for North Carolina voters. Check it out!
Applause, I give you. There was a brief time in which I might have registered as a Republican myself, but I can tell you this would have made me go Independent if I wasn't already.

I can't tell you just how sickening this is to me, that being atheistic is somehow some sort of automatic evil. I mean, even MY PARENTS, who are some of the most liberal people I know, would not vote for an atheist for office. (Or at least my dad wouldn't...I actually haven't asked my mom.)

I really hope this political environment shifts over time, or else my political career is going to be shot down before it even gets started, because I'm not about to hide my atheism. (Especially since hiding it and having it revealed would probably be far more damaging than openly admitting it from the start anyway...)

You don't at all find it amazing that somebody whose father was property because of the color of his skin, somebody who herself once would have risked being lynched for trying to vote because of the color of her skin, is now able not only to vote, but for somebody who will probably become president, despite having the same color skin as this woman and her father?

She might find it amazing as KoL says (see below) it may seem insane to her that this has finally happened but I don't find it amazing that she can vote for him nor am I surprised that she is

Whats remarkable isnt that shes voting for Obama, what is remarkable is that she can, which after the life shes lived must just seem insane to her.

My lord, learn to punctuate.

Perhaps something's being lost in translation from the United States to Australia. The fact that a woman who is one generation removed from black people being property in this country is now able to not only cast a vote, but cast a vote for a black man to be president of this country, is an inspirational story. The fact that she's lived long enough to be able to do something that I'm certain she never thought she'd live long enough to see is heart-warming.

Hmmm. Perhaps if you made an analogy like this: how many Aborigine politicians are there or have there been? Any Prime Ministers? I don't think so on the latter. So: were an Aborigine candidate to get a large party's nomination for PM in Oz, how would other Aborigines feel? Having seen Rabbit-Proof Fence and read a bit about how Aborigines were treated until just about as recently as US Blacks were treated, I should think that those Aborigines old enough to have been as marginalized as they were would be stunned to be able to cast a vote for one for PM.

Does that help, or have I fucked it up?

Back on topic, have a look at this cease and desist letter (http://projects.newsobserver.com/sites/projects.newsobserver.com/files/cease_and_desist.pdf) that the Hagan campaign sent to Elizabeth Dole. Pretty much destroys their bullshit claim to accuracy.

Pretty awesome legalistic letter.

You don't at all find it amazing that somebody whose father was property because of the color of his skin, somebody who herself once would have risked being lynched for trying to vote because of the color of her skin, is now able not only to vote, but for somebody who will probably become president, despite having the same color skin as this woman and her father?
Keep in mind where he's coming from. To him, slavery is something that never really happened in his country, something that's just an old historical trivia fact that means nothing.

Whereas for us in the U.S., while it has been gone for a very long time, we still feel its effects throughout our society, from the racism and bigotry of the KKK, to the shame still felt by many Southrons over Jim Crow laws, and so on and so forth.

It's an inspirational story, but it's a story grounded in a very specific cultural mindset.

Keep in mind where he's coming from. To him, slavery is something that never really happened in his country, something that's just an old historical trivia fact that means nothing.

Whereas for us in the U.S., while it has been gone for a very long time, we still feel its effects throughout our society, from the racism and bigotry of the KKK, to the shame still felt by many Southrons over Jim Crow laws, and so on and so forth.

It's an inspirational story, but it's a story grounded in a very specific cultural mindset.

No, it isn't. You think a reasonably compassionate person could empathize with the plight of Nelson Mandella? You don't have to be a prisoner or from South Africa.

Pretending as if you can't see the emotional and cultural significance of a woman voting for a black man to run a country where she was born with virtually no rights because she was black and whose parents were born with absolutely no rights because they were black, so much so that they were property rather than people.

No one is so dispassionate that they couldn't understand the significance.

Pretty interesting article on the similarities between the last two series of The West Wing and the current election, no coincidence since the writers based the Democrat contender on Barack Obama, way back when...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/westwing-television-usa-elections-obama

No, it isn't. You think a reasonably compassionate person could empathize with the plight of Nelson Mandella? You don't have to be a prisoner or from South Africa.

Pretending as if you can't see the emotional and cultural significance of a woman voting for a black man to run a country where she was born with virtually no rights because she was black and whose parents were born with absolutely no rights because they were black, so much so that they were property rather than people.

No one is so dispassionate that they couldn't understand the significance.
Well, of course, you're right. I was just trying to play Devil's Advocate here.

Worth a shot. :(

That? I remembered that post, but I didn't think you could possibly consider THAT post to have done ANYTHING to combat the analysis by silver.


I don't think I said that I had diced Silver into tiny cubes and then fed him to himself in a soylent night of debauchery. I'm pretty sure I said something about how I had, not only READ the articles, but actually addressed them and pointed out one or two things.

We can get caught up in the wording I'm sure, but this particular battle is over. Right now, I'm not debating Bradley, and all this tapdancing closer and closer to it isn't going to convince me otherwise.

Applause, I give you. There was a brief time in which I might have registered as a Republican myself, but I can tell you this would have made me go Independent if I wasn't already.

I can't tell you just how sickening this is to me, that being atheistic is somehow some sort of automatic evil. I mean, even MY PARENTS, who are some of the most liberal people I know, would not vote for an atheist for office. (Or at least my dad wouldn't...I actually haven't asked my mom.)

I really hope this political environment shifts over time, or else my political career is going to be shot down before it even gets started, because I'm not about to hide my atheism. (Especially since hiding it and having it revealed would probably be far more damaging than openly admitting it from the start anyway...)

You have to give some consideration to the time in which people like your parents grew up. They came of age in a time where the United States was faced with a very real threat from a very real enemy in the USSR. And the way the propaganda played it (with a distinct basis in reality), the great enemy was this monolithic, godless nation without morals. They were exposed their entire lives to the idea that atheism = communism = bad. It's only natural that they'd still hold such prejudices. It's part of their upbringing.

As we move forward, in a world without that sort of great atheist bad guy, atheism will lose a lot of that stigma. It may take a long while before we've moved entirely past it, but it will come. Unfortunately, that stigma is being replaced by one involving Islam, considering the current political climate. I'd dare say that the US will elect an atheistic president before a Muslim president based on the current political climate.

Pretending as if you can't see the emotional and cultural significance of a woman voting for a black man to run a country where she was born with virtually no rights because she was black and whose parents were born with absolutely no rights because they were black, so much so that they were property rather than people.

No one is so dispassionate that they couldn't understand the significance.

I can see the emtional significance for her, but I don't see why other people do or even should get all emotional upon hearing about it. Yeah oj she had a poor life and now she can do what she had dreamt of doing for a long time and maybe thought she never would be able to do it, but that is all it is a story that is yeah ok I don't see why other people should feel something.

http://media.tumblr.com/jgWRGzmqQemerjb15iVRgAoRo1_500.jpg

[/levity]

I'll see you a train and raise you a browser. :p

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/09/candidates_equal_browsers_2.jpg

I'm watching a speech Obama is giving with Bill Clinton-he just said something to the effect of, "[the McCain campaign] has gone back and found evidence that back when I was in kindergarten, I would share my toys with other kids, that I'd split my peanut butter and jelly sandwich and said, 'See! He's a redistributionist!'"

I lol'd

I can see the emtional significance for her, but I don't see why other people do or even should get all emotional upon hearing about it. Yeah oj she had a poor life and now she can do what she had dreamt of doing for a long time and maybe thought she never would be able to do it, but that is all it is a story that is yeah ok I don't see why other people should feel something.

It's called empathy. It's called a sense of history. It's called a sense of progress.

You know everyone here is trying to be respectful to you, but at some point it hard to set aside that you're being sort of childish. "Yeah, so what's that mean to me." It's okay to empathize with people. It's okay to care about the plight of others and the betterment of man. Your arguments don't make you seem wise just because you're trying to play at being jaded.

I'm watching a speech Obama is giving with Bill Clinton-he just said something to the effect of, "[the McCain campaign] has gone back and found evidence that back when I was in kindergarten, I would share my toys with other kids, that I'd split my peanut butter and jelly sandwich and said, 'See! He's a redistributionist!'"

I lol'd

He made that joke on the Daily Show tonight too. It was pretty solid.

I'll see you a train and raise you a browser. :p:p


So - I just watched Obama's 30 minute commercial on Youtube. And it wasn't half bad, I thought. Much less cloying than expected (except for the music...). Personally, I liked the various featured people's stories - better than him just talking for half an hour.

The only part I thought was really bad were his closing remarks at the very end that seemed to have been taken verbatim from his "closing argument" speech from a couple days ago. That's stupid, unnecessary and embarrassing.

He made that joke on the Daily Show tonight too. It was pretty solid.
Wait, the Daily Show was already on? o_O Shouldn't it be on at, what, 11pm or something?

He made that joke on the Daily Show tonight too. It was pretty solid.

SHHHHHHH!!!! Time traveler!!! If I know the future I might kill my grandfather and not exist!! Think of the ramifications!

Pretty interesting article on the similarities between the last two series of The West Wing and the current election, no coincidence since the writers based the Democrat contender on Barack Obama, way back when...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/westwing-television-usa-elections-obama

The funny thing about that article is that the West Wing race was originally supposed to go to the Republican (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/arts/television/10wing.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1144692308-VPT49GbP4LTBxs5Aij9lSg&oref=slogin), but the real-life death of John Spencer made the writers change their minds, as they didn't want the show to go out on a double-downer (Leo McGarry dies and Our Heroes lose the election.)

SHHHHHHH!!!! Time traveler!!! If I know the future I might kill my grandfather and not exist!! Think of the ramifications!

Someone from the future could put it up on Youtube for me, I promise I'll watch it before they can take it down again. *puppy dog eyes*

It's called empathy. It's called a sense of history. It's called a sense of progress.

You know everyone here is trying to be respectful to you, but at some point it hard to set aside that you're being sort of childish. "Yeah, so what's that mean to me." It's okay to empathize with people. It's okay to care about the plight of others and the betterment of man. Your arguments don't make you seem wise just because you're trying to play at being jaded.

This off topic issue may be going to far, but I understand empathy but with this women voting for a black man I'm just not feeling it, it's a meh story to me. I understand why she feels good about being able to vote for a black man but I just have a sense of yes well good for her but yeah ok.

Non Aligned States: Is that an iPhone you have next to Obama? Well no wonder I am adverse to him give me Biden any day.

This off topic issue may be going to far, but I understand empathy but with this women voting for a black man I'm just not feeling it, it's a meh story to me. I understand why she feels good about being able to vote for a black man but I just have a sense of yes well good for her but yeah ok.

Non Aligned States: Is that an iPhone you have next to Obama? Well no wonder I am adverse to him give me Biden any day.

Oh, yes, right, cuz she was just hoping some with dark skin would show up. He could be a murdering, child molester and she'd vote for him.

You know, black people are just a hive mind.

Or perhaps, what's she's seeing and participating in is the rise of someone in her lifetime to the highest office in the land, placed there by the general population, someone that when she was born would have been murdered for dating a white woman (like his father did), for expressing a political view or suggesting black people are equal to white people.

Yeah, I can't see why anyone would think it's a big deal. Thank you for teaching me to be wise like you. You clearly understand culture and history. Teach me more.

Oh, yes, right, cuz she was just hoping some with dark skin would show up. He could be a murdering, child molester and she'd vote for him.

You know, black people are just a hive mind.

Or perhaps, what's she's seeing and participating in is the rise of someone in her lifetime to the highest office in the land, placed there by the general population, someone that when she was born would have been murdered for dating a white woman (like his father did), for expressing a political view or suggesting black people are equal to white people.

Yeah, I can't see why anyone would think it's a big deal. Thank you for teaching me to be wise like you. You clearly understand culture and history. Teach me more.

Wait a minute when she was born black people had next to no rights, her father was a slave, she has lived her life through the times where black people have had to fight to be given equal rights as others and would never think that at some point in her lifetime she would ever dream of seeing a black man be regarded as President and pbeing able to vote for it after what they used to be treated like isn't good for her and she is happy that the country has come this far? What the hell was your post about.

Wait a minute when she was born black people had next to no rights, her father was a slave, she has lived her life through the times where black people have had to fight to be given equal rights as others and would never think that at some point in her lifetime she would ever dream of seeing a black man be regarded as President and pbeing able to vote for it after what they used to be treated like isn't good for her and she is happy that the country has come this far? What the hell was your post about.

What part didn't you get we get it the emo act is cool where youre from and among your peirs we arent your peirs you can lay down the act its not wise its not cool and its not impressive to pretend like you cant understand what the big deal is shes voting for the first black president shes the child of slaves dismissing it as big deal of course she voted for the black guy is not just missing the point its saying something about yourself and trust me that message you're sending none of us are missing it save you we both know you get it peddle the feigned "I just don't get" crap elsewhere.

EDIT: Lemme fix that. First time, it was too serious.

What part didn't you get? We get it, the emo act is cool where you're from and among your peers. We aren't your peers. You can lay down the act. It's not wise, it's not cool and it's not impressive to pretend like you can't understand what the big deal is.

She's voting for the first black President. She's the child of slaves. Dismissing it as, big deal, of course she voted for the black guy is not just missing the point, it's saying something about yourself. And trust me, that message you're sending, none of us are missing it save you.

We both know you get it. Peddle the feigned "I just don't get" crap elsewhere.

As I have said before I get it from her view point and why it is a big deal for her but despite what other people have I don't see why it is a big deal to a lot of other people and why they should get all choked up about it, for her and others similar to her yes to other people why? Emo act that made me laugh.

As I have said before I get it from her view point and why it is a big deal for her but despite what other people have I don't see why it is a big deal to a lot of other people and why they should get all choked up about it, for her and others similar to her yes to other people why? Emo act that made me laugh.

Fine. You don't get it; we get that. It makes you seem like a self-absorbed child. Now, if you REALLY don't care, stop posting about it, eh?

As I have said before I get it from her view point and why it is a big deal for her but despite what other people have I don't see why it is a big deal to a lot of other people and why they should get all choked up about it, for her and others similar to her yes to other people why? Emo act that made me laugh.

People have this thing called empathy. It comes from our rational understanding of how others feel and our ability to enjoy things that are historic and positive advances.

So it should only matter to "people like her"?

Also, please, please, sentences. Seriously.

People have this thing called empathy. It comes from our rational understanding of how others feel and our ability to enjoy things that are historic and positive advances.

So it should only matter to "people like her"?

Yes, ok well I'm not feeling it with her, I understand why she is happy about it and glad that society has progessed this far but I'm not getting emotional about it.

Also, please, please, sentences. Seriously.

Never liked the damn things. Is that why you changed the other post and placed in spelling mistakes?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24575530-12335,00.html

Did anybody see this 30 minute commerical? 30 minutes that's a long time and cost quite a bit.

Was it any good? What is your vedict does it successfully argue why Obama should be voted in?

Yes, ok well I'm not feeling it with her, I understand why she is happy about it and glad that society has porgessed this far but I'm not getting emotional about it.



Never liked the damn things. Is that why you changed the other post and placed in spelling mistakes?

Why did you watch the Olympics? How could anyone watch that? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I can understand if you were IN the Olympics or an Olympian or something, but why would anyone WATCH the Olympics? I mean, shocking, gee, Michael Phelps is swimming again. That's so predictable. And, yet, there was a whole thread about the Olympics. But you didn't participate, right? Because you could never get excited for someone else's accomplishments, right?

Why did you watch the Olympics? How could anyone watch that? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I can understand if you were IN the Olympics or an Olympian or something, but why would anyone WATCH the Olympics? I mean, shocking, gee, Michael Phelps is swimming again. That's so predictable. And, yet, there was a whole thread about the Olympics. But you didn't participate, right? Because you could never get excited for someone else's accomplishments, right?

So now you see where I'm coming from.

I should change this, I never said I couldn't get excited from someone else's accomplishments, I said I couldn't feel emotional from her voting. Now the difference between this and the Olympics maybe that, people may feel an association with the country or the swimmer or something. Now the same thing goes on with this women, but as you know that I don't feel an association with her or her plight I understand what she has lived through (to an extent) but I don't feel an association with it.

Fine. You don't get it; we get that. It makes you seem like a self-absorbed child. Now, if you REALLY don't care, stop posting about it, eh?

Well, he's managed to alleviate that perception, surely. I mean, it's not like I found an example of him getting all worked up about the accomplishments of others and he just trying to shake it off. Petulant, you forget petulant.

So now you see where I'm coming from.

I should change this, I never said I couldn't get excited from someone else's accomplishments, I said I couldn't feel emotional from her voting. Now the difference between this and the Olympics maybe that, people may feel an association with the country or the swimmer or something. Now the same thing goes on with this women, but as you know that I don't feel an association with her or her plight I understand what she has lived through (to an extent) but I don't feel an association with it.

But you feel an association to an Olympic swimmer. Well, you absolutely have things figured out, I see.

I do, honestly, wonder what some people think they're accomplishing when they post their "points". So you made a post just to show us how much you don't care. Then you made a dozen more in an effort to explain just how sure you are that you don't care that much. Nicely done.

But you feel an association to an Olympic swimmer. Well, you absolutely have things figured out, I see.

I do, honestly, wonder what some people think they're accomplishing when they post their "points". So you made a post just to show us how much you don't care. Then you made a dozen more in an effort to explain just how sure you are that you don't care that much. Nicely done.

Did I say an Olympic swimmer? You pointed out Phelps but I thought you were using that as an example. Now if I swam competively I would associate myself with him becuase I have the understanding to know how difficult it is to be able to get up to that level and to stay at the level of competition. As opposed to me being a black American that has had to fight to be reconginsed as equal. See the difference?

Kiddies, this is getting silly.

Did I say an Olympic swimmer? You pointed out Phelps but I thought you were using that as an example. Now if I swam competively I would associate myself with him becuase I have the understanding to know how difficult it is to be able to get up to that level and to stay at the level of competition. As opposed to me being a black American that has had to fight to be reconginsed as equal. See the difference?

I read you're posts. You realize that this is a forum and your posts are available, right?

So if you voted you'd identify yourself with this woman? Or if you were a woman? Or some other insignificant point? That's every bit as important as caring about Phelps because you were a swimmer.

Does it surprise you to learn that many people got excited for Phelps who weren't swimmers? I bet you can't understand that, either, right?

Do you happen to know how difficult it is to survive 109 years? How difficult it is to survive a time when you have no rights? How difficult it is to simply endure what she has?

But you hit the point. You don't have the understanding. We agree. Perhaps next time, you'll just remind yourself that you're not capable of understanding and not feel the need to point out your shortcomings to us, no? Or are you claiming that your shortcomings are universal?

Why did you watch the Olympics? How could anyone watch that? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I can understand if you were IN the Olympics or an Olympian or something, but why would anyone WATCH the Olympics? I mean, shocking, gee, Michael Phelps is swimming again. That's so predictable. And, yet, there was a whole thread about the Olympics. But you didn't participate, right? Because you could never get excited for someone else's accomplishments, right?

Oddly enough I often, in all seriousness, wonder just that about pretty much all televised sports.

Kiddies, this is getting silly.

Silly is the point. I thoroughly enjoy the people who post for pages to prove how little they care and how silly we all are for understanding a particular struggle. Notice the circle he's painted. First, he can't understand how it's touching. Then he describes exactly how it is touching. Now we're back to how he can't understand.

How is that not fun?

Blouman, if you don't care, then stop caring and stop posting about it, for Christ's sake.

You have to give some consideration to the time in which people like your parents grew up. They came of age in a time where the United States was faced with a very real threat from a very real enemy in the USSR. And the way the propaganda played it (with a distinct basis in reality), the great enemy was this monolithic, godless nation without morals. They were exposed their entire lives to the idea that atheism = communism = bad. It's only natural that they'd still hold such prejudices. It's part of their upbringing.

As we move forward, in a world without that sort of great atheist bad guy, atheism will lose a lot of that stigma. It may take a long while before we've moved entirely past it, but it will come. Unfortunately, that stigma is being replaced by one involving Islam, considering the current political climate. I'd dare say that the US will elect an atheistic president before a Muslim president based on the current political climate.

I know, I know.

It still infuriates me, though, especially when it comes from my dad, who is a strong social liberal. (But then again, he would also fight against allowing any A.I. to gain sapience and would be the first in line to prevent any sapient A.I. from gaining any rights, etc...he's stuck in the past in some ways. Not his fault really, given he was born in 1942, but still...)

I know, I know.

It still infuriates me, though, especially when it comes from my dad, who is a strong social liberal. (But then again, he would also fight against allowing any A.I. to gain sapience and would be the first in line to prevent any sapient A.I. from gaining any rights, etc...he's stuck in the past in some ways. Not his fault really, given he was born in 1942, but still...)

Is there a big movement for AI rights?

I read you're posts. You realize that this is a forum and your posts are available, right?

Fuck are you serious? I never knew that.

So if you voted you'd identify yourself with this woman? Or if you were a woman? Or some other insignificant point? That's every bit as important as caring about Phelps because you were a swimmer.

Does it surprise you to learn that many people got excited for Phelps who weren't swimmers? I bet you can't understand that, either, right?

No it doesn't surprise me either of course I bet a lot of people got excited because they were American or wanted to feel associated with America or jump on the bandwagon with him. Byt hey you can get emotional about it and everything all I have sais is ok yeah she is getting to vote for a black man something which she probably never thought would ever happen in her life time if it all.

Do you happen to know how difficult it is to survive 109 years? How difficult it is to survive a time when you have no rights? How difficult it is to simply endure what she has?

Having never lived to 109 years old no I don't but I do know that it would be difficult I do know she has gone through a lot and had to endure a lot I understand that she has.

But you hit the point. You don't have the understanding. We agree. Perhaps next time, you'll just remind yourself that you're not capable of understanding and not feel the need to point out your shortcomings to us, no? Or are you claiming that your shortcomings are universal?

Half of this makes no sense my shortcomings are universal? You come up with wacky things sometimes such as emo act.

The idea of Barrack Hussein Obama winning the presidency baffles me.
the idea that you can breathe through your nose baffles me.

Blouman, if you don't care, then stop caring and stop posting about it, for Christ's sake.

I don't care about Transformers! I don't care right up your Transformer anus! *slams door*

Silly is the point. I thoroughly enjoy the people who post for pages to prove how little they care and how silly we all are for understanding a particular struggle. Notice the circle he's painted. First, he can't understand how it's touching. Then he describes exactly how it is touching. Now we're back to how he can't understand.

How is that not fun?

Well you see you have missed the circle I painted I said that I didn't understand why it was a huge deal worthy of making it to the news, yet I do understand why beng able to vote for Obama is a big deal for her, yet people want to know why I don't feel all emotional about it.

And actually I am having a fun time this little back and forth, it brings me enjoyment.

Half of this makes no sense my shortcomings are universal? You come up with wacky things sometimes such as emo act.
Aw, dang, and I used proper grammar and punctuation and everything. It's called a question. Do you believe your shortcomings are universal? It's a simple yes or no. Because if they aren't, then your question that started this wasn't genuine at all.

I suspect, Blouman, it would be better to equate this with Cathy Freeman in Sydney - what were your feelings on that?

Did you think it all meant nothing, not to her nor to the nation?

Well you see you have missed the circle I painted I said that I didn't understand why it was a huge deal worthy of making it to the news, yet I do understand why beng able to vote for Obama is a big deal for her, yet people want to know why I don't feel all emotional about it.

And actually I am having a fun time this little back and forth, it brings me enjoyment.

Why is Phelps a big deal enough to make news? Why did you start a thread about the Olympics?

No one wanted to know why you don't feel all emotional about it. You posted to tell us how you don't feel all emotional and pretended not to understand why anyone else would care.

I suspect, Blouman, it would be better to equate this with Cathy Freeman in Sydney - what were your feelings on that?

Did you think it all meant nothing, not to her nor to the nation?

Well to tell you the truth I was glad she had won the medal for Australia that was it I was happy she had won over people representing other countries. Sure it meant something to her she won the race she was hapy a big improvement on the Silver she won in Atlanta which for some reason earnt her the right to light the flame but that is another issue, I suppose she felt relieved to after all she had to win gold she really had no other option. To the nation it meant a big gold medal considering all the media hype and attention placed on to her it was a race we had to win and winning it meant a big deal.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24575530-12335,00.html

Did anybody see this 30 minute commerical? 30 minutes that's a long time and cost quite a bit.

Was it any good? What is your vedict does it successfully argue why Obama should be voted in?

LOL I missed it. But I DVRed it. I thought it was good. Obama didn't focus on himself so much, he focused on people from all across the country. I think that was well done. If anything else, it gets people to stop thinking of 'Joe the 'fake' Plumber' and on to the lives of honest to goodness people, and their struggles to exist.

Of course it was a rehash of all the things he's promised over the campagne cycle, but that's a given. I liked it better than Palin's 'paling around with terrorist remarks' or McCain's other mindless attacks. Obama spoke about people, not about character, and in this election I feel that matters the most. I am sick and tired of the character assination attempts the Republicans have done on canidates. From McCain's attacks on Obama to the recent attack from Sen. Dole on Hagen. I am not sure about a lot of Americans but I want meat and potates issues, that focus on the economy, not flim-flam that the Republicans have sold and I think Obama has won on that hands down.

Anyway the commerical hit the mark with me. Of course with hard-hearted Republicans I doubt it's going to make the mark. But the guess is good on how this is going to hit the undecideds, the inependants, and others who are on the fence.

Well to tell you the truth I was glad she had won the medal for Australia that was it I was happy she had won over people representing other countries. Sure it meant something to her she won the race she was hapy a big improvement on the Silver she won in Atlanta which for some reason earnt her the right to light the flame but that is another issue, I suppose she felt relieved to after all she had to win gold she really had no other option. To the nation it meant a big gold medal considering all the media hype and attention placed on to her it was a race we had to win and winning it meant a big deal.

Big deal? I don't understand what you mean by big deal? Are you talking about television shows?

(See, I can pretend to be confused, too.)

Why is Phelps a big deal enough to make news? Why did you start a thread about the Olympics?

No one wanted to know why you don't feel all emotional about it. You posted to tell us how you don't feel all emotional and pretended not to understand why anyone else would care.

Because he has a good PR team, and he was a good chance to win a few medals. Not to mentoin when doing a sports report they actually have to report on sports sometimes. I started a thread on the Olympics because I thought it was something people might want to talk about.

Well I orginally posted this because a question was asked something along the lines of "this just makes you feel good doesn't it?" I replied to the question and then people wanted to know why I felt like that.

SHHHHHHH!!!! Time traveler!!! If I know the future I might kill my grandfather and not exist!! Think of the ramifications!

But then you might sleep with your own grandmother like in Futerama.

Well to tell you the truth I was glad she had won the medal for Australia that was it I was happy she had won over people representing other countries. Sure it meant something to her she won the race she was hapy a big improvement on the Silver she won in Atlanta which for some reason earnt her the right to light the flame but that is another issue, I suppose she felt relieved to after all she had to win gold she really had no other option. To the nation it meant a big gold medal considering all the media hype and attention placed on to her it was a race we had to win and winning it meant a big deal.

...and in terms of the history of aboriginals, you don't think it was significant?

I remember reading about the aftermath of 9/11, that it created a shared sense of being American - people talked about the huge improvement in race relations, all relations, in NYC after the event.

Perhaps it was just a nod of the head, an 'are you okay', a shared sense of responsibility to each other and the most noted point was that this was occurring between black and white, rich and poor.

Everyone became a little more human, perhaps just for a little while.

Events like these, the election of America's first black president, are significant and this woman epitomizes why, just as the Cathy Freeman story released such positive feelings in Australia.