NationStates Jolt Archive

I swear it was there, a star cut into his hair.
That was just his halo.

if McCain can't win a foreign policy debate, his strong suit, and he can't win a town hall style, his preferred format, what hope in hell does he have in debate #3, a standard debate on domestic issues, both of which favor Obama?

Neither, I'm repeating what he said tonight, a freeze on all but the military and other "essential programs."

And, in the last debate, he said his freeze was everything, and then explained that meant eveything but 'defence related' spending.

So - mortgage buyouts... where's that money coming from?

if McCain can't win a foreign policy debate, his strong suit, and he can't win a town hall style, his preferred format, what hope in hell does he have in debate #3, a standard debate on domestic issues, both of which favor Obama?

Im thinking by October 15th Obama will be up by 10 anyway.

Honesty tend to make life more interesting.

I'm fine with NOT-interesting, actually. Especially when it helps us avoid unnecessary and costly war.

I think he threw in some good jabs tonight.
they were lame repeats of things he said last time. to be a good jab it has to be a new point.

And, in the last debate, he said his freeze was everything, and then explained that meant eveything but 'defence related' spending.

So - mortgage buyouts... where's that money coming from?
I dunno, nobody asked him that. I'd be curious to know that as well.

But I think you are reading way more into my post than was intended, I meant it more as a joke, poking fun at the idea of buying all those mortgages - that is why I said "Damn, I wish I had bought a bigger house."

McCain unchanged in favorables and unfavorables. Standing still is going backward. :)

McCain unchanged in favorables and unfavorables. Standing still is going backward. :)

Moonwalking, even.

So...what do we expect/hope for the third, given the last two pres debates and the VP one? What fun twists are coming?

I think it's interesting that we're a bunch of crazy liberals according to several of the conservatives here and we've absolutely nailed the numbers pretty well across the board.

We were virtually dead on about the results of the last debate and the Palin debate.

CNN poll is in, 54% say Obama won the debate, 30% McCain.

now, once we factor in the democrat bias in watching, we're probably closer to a 50%/35% results.

STILL, that's huge.

CNN poll is in, 54% say Obama won the debate, 30% McCain.

now, once we factor in the democrat bias in watching, we're probably closer to a 50%/35% results.

STILL, that's huge.

Did I say Obama will be up by 10%? I meant 15%.

CNN poll is in, 54% say Obama won the debate, 30% McCain.

now, once we factor in the democrat bias in watching, we're probably closer to a 50%/35% results.

STILL, that's huge.

I agree, but what does the "undecided" numbers say? I mean the debates are mainly for the undecided voters, everyone else already made up their mind at this point.

I think it's interesting that we're a bunch of crazy liberals according to several of the conservatives here and we've absolutely nailed the numbers pretty well across the board.

We were virtually dead on about the results of the last debate and the Palin debate.I'm more conservative than liberal, and I don't think you're crazy. :eek:
Does that make me a bad conservative? :eek2:

I'm more conservative than liberal, and I don't think you're crazy. :eek:
Does that make me a bad conservative? :eek2:

Yes, because you're not toting the Conservative line! BAD! Now go see Mistress Coulter.

Yes, because you're not toting the Conservative line! BAD! Now go see Mistress Coulter.


Coulter is a woman? This is news to me.

Coulter is a woman? This is news to me.

Well, the Alien Queen is technically a female.

I agree, but what does the "undecided" numbers say? I mean the debates are mainly for the undecided voters, everyone else already made up their mind at this point.

undecideds who are STILL undecided at this point will likely split their vote fairly down the middle.

Coulter is a woman? This is news to me.

Hey...unless you can provide undeniable proof that she is a he, then she's a Mistress.

Now go see Mistress Coulter.

You just made me imagine being dommed by Ann Coulter.

If anyone needs me, I'll be curled up in the fetal position whimpering and attempting to scrub out my brain.

Yes, because you're not toting the Conservative line! BAD! Now go see Mistress Coulter.But I already paid my dues for this week! :eek:

undecideds who are STILL undecided at this point will likely split their vote fairly down the middle.

Ahh fair enough. This really is Obama's election to lose.

There's still a month to go, I don't think Obama is stupid enough to screw up too bad....but that doesn't say that Biden or someone else in his campaign won't do it for him!

Hmm....is it me or have we not seen Biden much in this election season?

You just made me imagine being dommed by Ann Coulter.

If anyone needs me, I'll be curled up in the fetal position whimpering and attempting to scrub out my brain.

*evil laughter* YES!

You just made me imagine being dommed by Ann Coulter.

If anyone needs me, I'll be curled up in the fetal position whimpering and attempting to scrub out my brain.

may I suggest "It's a small world" for white noise? Its done wonders for me...

Ahh fair enough. This really is Obama's election to lose.

There's still a month to go, I don't think Obama is stupid enough to screw up too bad....but that doesn't say that Biden or someone else in his campaign won't do it for him!

Hmm....is it me or have we not seen Biden much in this election season?

There's a reason for that. Biden is dependable, he's smart, he's an asset to the ticket.

And he's as dull as a sack of spoons. Obama's the superstar, it's HIS campaign, it's HIS name at the top of the ticket, Biden knows that. His job is to prop Obama up, not steal his thunder.

A lesson Sarah Palin seems to not have learned.

I'm more conservative than liberal, and I don't think you're crazy. :eek:
Does that make me a bad conservative? :eek2:

You don't get to talk about my mental stability until we stop sleeping together.

Ahh fair enough. This really is Obama's election to lose.

There's still a month to go, I don't think Obama is stupid enough to screw up too bad....but that doesn't say that Biden or someone else in his campaign won't do it for him!

Hmm....is it me or have we not seen Biden much in this election season?

How much did we see Edwards, or Lieberman, or Cheney (hell, for that matter how much do we see Cheney now?), they're VPs, they aren't supposed to eclipse the spot light unless the candidate at the top of the ticket is so bad at grabbing the spotlight.

Oh, and FOUR WEEKS TO GO!!!

Seriously, do not ask for whom the bell tolls, John? And, no, that is not an age joke.

You don't get to talk about my mental stability until we stop sleeping together.Fine. :)

McCain is doing good tonight, he's actually answering the question.

What debate are you watching?

Once again...he's black....he may be well endowed...

Nevermind. Go back to your corner and think about what you've said and why you should be ashamed.

General "I want to have his children" Petraus.

Exactly. I'd like someone to ask McCain why Petraeus shouldn't be President instead of him.

So, we shouldn't take Osama to trail, we should just kill him Obama?

You really think that is going to be hotly disputed?

how will you get him? How do you know?

And WTF haven't you done it or told Bush how to do it?

is this the first time we have heard that mccain wants to buy everyone's bad mortgage?

what kind of insane idea is that?

Insane is exactly the right word for it. Didn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

Neither, I'm repeating what he said tonight, a freeze on all but the military and other "essential programs."

Actually he said:

And I recommend a spending freeze that -- except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have across-the-board freeze

It's not an "across-the-board" freeze if you exempt every program you don't want to freeze. :rolleyes:

It's a stupid gimmicky thing to say and McCain should be embarassed.

CNN poll is in, 54% say Obama won the debate, 30% McCain.

now, once we factor in the democrat bias in watching, we're probably closer to a 50%/35% results.

STILL, that's huge.

Yeah!!

Right now CNN is projecting Obama to pick up 264 electoral votes, not QUITE enough to win with just the states he has, he has to pull at least one swing state.

After tonight, my prediction is, by the end of the week, CNN will project a winning number of points for Barack Obama.

Andrea Mitchel from inside the hall on Countdown-there was a ladder in the background in front of a banner, looked like the Anhieser Busch symbol...



...sorry, that was more interesting to me before I typed it...>.>

There's a reason for that. Biden is dependable, he's smart, he's an asset to the ticket.

And he's as dull as a sack of spoons. Obama's the superstar, it's HIS campaign, it's HIS name at the top of the ticket, Biden knows that. His job is to prop Obama up, not steal his thunder.

A lesson Sarah Palin seems to not have learned.

Doesn't Biden also have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth?

Doesn't Biden also have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth?

Not as much as the republican spin machine would have you think. When you've been a politician for 26 years you're bound to trip up now and again.

But it certainly is something that would encourage him to stay quiet.

What debate are you watching?

The one on CNN.

Nevermind. Go back to your corner and think about what you've said and why you should be ashamed.

It was a joke...jeez. So I guess I can't make joke about stereotypes.

Fine, I'll just use Knock Knock and "What do you get when you cross a" jokes....

Doesn't Biden also have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth?

Who? :confused:

Biden.... Biden.... that name sounds familiar to me.... Hmm... *rubs chin thoughtfully*

Obama won the debate, but as with the last one, he stumbled a bit here and there and didn't fully answer questions the way I wanted to.

However, I could tell he was hesitating a bit not because he didn't have an answer, but because he was trying to make sure his answer wasn't something that would sound stereotypically bad to a lot of conservatives, etc. That's why I was so glad he said that healthcare is a right despite that, because it most assuredly is.

I just wish he'd bothered to answer the question on it being a commodity. It's not a commodity. It's a right and fuck companies who say otherwise.

As for Tom Brokaw: No offense to Gwen and Jim, but Tommy boy completely owned the moderation here.

"There are lights."

"Sit down and shut up."

"I'm gonna turn this debate around."

"You're blocking my script!"

Not as much as the republican spin machine would have you think. When you've been a politician for 26 years you're bound to trip up now and again.

But it certainly is something that would encourage him to stay quiet.

Obama can very well win this. The only way that this could go south for him, is...Well I honestly don't know. I would say a radical black organization that's on par with the KKK publicly support Obama, but we already had Rev. Wright....Him being connected to anything that has to do with Islamic extremist has failed miserably.

I dunno....I doubt even a sex scandal would derail his momentum, unless it was pedophilic in nature. That's really the only thing that could cost Obama the election, if someone connects him to being a pedophile.

and I just gave the right wing their next plan of attack....didn't I?

You really think that is going to be hotly disputed?


To be fair, I'd like to see Bin Laden get a trial, because it would show we're willing to treat our enemies on a higher moral standard than they're willing to treat us.

On that same token, I realize this is not something that is likely to be all that practical, and therefore I see no reason not to kill him if we have a chance. If it's risk losing him versus assuredly taking him out, I say we take him out. I'll feel bad about it due to my personal ethical and moral standards, but it'll still be ultimately the right decision.

Obama can very well win this. The only way that this could go south for him, is...Well I honestly don't know. I would say a radical black organization that's on par with the KKK publicly support Obama, but we already had Rev. Wright....Him being connected to anything that has to do with Islamic extremist has failed miserably.

We're talking irrefutable, undeniable, verifiable proof that Obama planned 9/11 territory here.

and I just gave the right wing their next plan of attack....didn't I?

You think they haven't thought of it already? Trust me, if there was a skeleton in Obama's closet, we'd have heard about it by now.

We're talking irrefutable, undeniable, verifiable proof that Obama planned 9/11 territory here.

I think in order at this point for Obama to loose, the Republicans would have to steal it, and not in that arguable way Bush did, we're talking dead people voting, people voting twice, mob tactics helping you out, Mayor Daley style steal here.


That or hed have to be caught having sex with Osama.

We're talking irrefutable, undeniable, verifiable proof that Obama planned 9/11 territory here.



You think they haven't thought of it already? Trust me, if there was a skeleton in Obama's closet, we'd have heard about it by now.

Well the main reason there isn't any skeleton in his closet, or very few is that he really hasn't been on the national stage that long.

McCain closet is full of skeletons, and Palin, well she's an idiot. Biden also has skeletons in his closet, so that's another reason why they may well be keeping him quiet.

Honestly though, if I was a real bastard, and if I was working for the Republican political machine. I would doctor some very sick pictures of Obama.....Hell the fact that they're faked won't matter. What will stick in the minds of people is "Obama = Pedophile". That's why when people are accused of rape, even if they're found not guilty, they still have that label.

Right now CNN is projecting Obama to pick up 264 electoral votes, not QUITE enough to win with just the states he has, he has to pull at least one swing state.

After tonight, my prediction is, by the end of the week, CNN will project a winning number of points for Barack Obama.

what exactly is their methodology? because pollster and e-v, not to mention 538, have an effectively insurmountable lead for obama

5% of democrats thought McCain won.
16% of republicans thought Obama won.

And independents swung in Obama's favor 54% to 28%

We're talking irrefutable, undeniable, verifiable proof that Obama planned 9/11 territory here.



You think they haven't thought of it already? Trust me, if there was a skeleton in Obama's closet, we'd have heard about it by now.They don't find the skeleton's in the winner's closet until after he wins. Makes for higher ratings.

what exactly is their methodology? because pollster and e-v, not to mention 538, have an effectively insurmountable lead for obama

e-v is a bad system, they count EVERY state that is in ANY way leaning for Obama and McCain. If a state has a 1% lead for Obama, they count it for Obama. That's bad practice because it's counting leads within the margin of error.

CNN's methodology, which is the conservative, and thus smarter methodology, is ONLY count states with a lead outside the margin of error, and only those that have consistently and stably been so. States where there is a statistically significant lead, and one that appears unlikely to change much.

When you count those, 7 states are left as "swing".

I don't count states where Obama's lead is statistically insignificant, nor where the lead is recent, and a lot of voters indicate they are likely to change.

We're talking irrefutable, undeniable, verifiable proof that Obama planned 9/11 territory here.



Speaking of 9/11, I love the fact that Obama talked about it in a MEANINGFUL sense rather than pulling a Guiliani and just referencing it a la Family Guy. When he first mentioned it I thought that he was going to pull a Guiliani but he turned around and used it in the right way.

And he didn't mention it again afterwards, unlike Guiliani and unlike McCain.

Obama does not spend much time pandering. He'll do it when he has to in order to get the electorate to listen to him, but otherwise he won't pander. I like that.

e-v is a bad system, they count EVERY state that is in ANY way leaning for Obama and McCain. If a state has a 1% lead for Obama, they count it for Obama. That's bad practice because it's counting leads within the margin of error.

CNN's methodology, which is the conservative, and thus smarter methodology, is ONLY count states with a lead outside the margin of error, and only those that have consistently and stably been so. States where there is a statistically significant lead, and one that appears unlikely to change much.

When you count those, 7 states are left as "swing".

I don't count states where Obama's lead is statistically insignificant, nor where the lead is recent, and a lot of voters indicate they are likely to change.

What are the seven swing states? Because I've been hearing that my state, North Carolina may play a role this time around.

What are the seven swing states? Because I've been hearing that my state, North Carolina may play a role this time around.

Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and, yes, North Carolina.

All of which Bush won, by the way.

If Obama takes even one, and holds on the his safe states, he wins.

McCain's trying to target women: As I looked up Five Thirty Eight, I saw an ad on the top banner that said that "Obama talks about equal pay for women; but the women in his Senate office make 0.83 on the dollar."

Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and, yes, North Carolina.

All of which Bush won, by the way.

If Obama takes even one, and holds on the his safe states, he wins.

Hmm....I may reconsider me voting for Bob Barr....my vote may actually count this time around.

Head of Five Thirty Eight is on Colbert right now.

Head of Five Thirty Eight is on Colbert right now.

will have to rewatch that.

What are the seven swing states? Because I've been hearing that my state, North Carolina may play a role this time around.
current swing states according to RCP.com:
Nevada (+3 Obama), Colorado (+4 Obama), Missouri (+.3 Obama), Indiana (+2.5 McCain), Ohio (+4 Obama), Virginia (+4.8 Obama), North Carolina (+.6 Obama), Florida (+3 Obama)

McCain only leads in RCP Average polls inb Indiana, as far as swing states. Missouri and North Carolina are almost tied, if not actually tied. All of these states are definatly in play, except maybe...MAYBE Virginia.

Head of Five Thirty Eight is on Colbert right now.

Crazy people of the near future...

I think he threw in some good jabs tonight.
what ones?
The 'voted for rasing taxes 94 times' one?
That's been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked ever since McCain first said it, now the only people who would believe it are the ones who would never vote for a Democrat ever, even if said Dem was the 2nd Coming and the GOP candidate was a dog-buggering Satanist.

If anything, all it does is make it worse for McCain. Everyone knows it's a lie, so it all does is show McCain for the lying scoundrel he is.


Once again...he's black....he may be well endowed...
And Wil's off again, thinking about Black men's dingdongs for the umpteenth time! Do we really need any further proof that Wil is lying to us (and more importantly to himself) about his sexuality? Just come out Wil! You're among friends. We won't judge nor dismiss you.

e-v is a bad system, they count EVERY state that is in ANY way leaning for Obama and McCain. If a state has a 1% lead for Obama, they count it for Obama. That's bad practice because it's counting leads within the margin of error.

CNN's methodology, which is the conservative, and thus smarter methodology, is ONLY count states with a lead outside the margin of error, and only those that have consistently and stably been so. States where there is a statistically significant lead, and one that appears unlikely to change much.

When you count those, 7 states are left as "swing".

e-v is also bad on its actual averaging methodology.

what margin is cnn using, exactly? different polls have different margins of error, after all.

Head of Five Thirty Eight is on Colbert right now.

nate has been getting a lot of media time recently

Dis to the serious media: the McCain campaign didn't provide anyone to go on Charlie Rose this evening. They've got Doris Kearns Goodwin and Mark Halperin (and David Brooks, later) and some lady spouting Obama's talking points, but nobody for McCain.

Seriously, dissing Charlie? Stupid. It's not a liberal show, it's a show for people who don't like sound bites.

i wish i could claim this
McCain's Worst Debate Moment Evar (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/mccains-worst-d.html)

John McCain:

"I knew Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was a friend of mine. And, Senator Obama, you are no Teddy Roosevelt!"

I don't think that worked.

e-v is also bad on its actual averaging methodology.

what margin is cnn using, exactly? different polls have different margins of error, after all.
if I'm correct, CNN views any state that's polling within 5% as being marginal. 5% is a big difference (since most polls have just a 3.1% error margin), so CNN is being very conservative here. Guess they don't want to look like idiots, a la 2000 and 2004 elections.

They also count any state as marginal if the voting perference isn't settled. eg. Obama might hold, say, a 6% lead in NC but last week this was 3% and the week before that 2% to McCain, then CNN would inlcude it in the marginal states list.
But if he'd been holding a 6% lead for the past month then CNN considers it safe.

Dis to the serious media: the McCain campaign didn't provide anyone to go on Charlie Rose this evening. They've got Doris Kearns Goodwin and Mark Halperin (and David Brooks, later) and some lady spouting Obama's talking points, but nobody for McCain.

Seriously, dissing Charlie? Stupid. It's not a liberal show, it's a show for people who don't like sound bites.

thus it's a liberal show. Right-wingers can only think in soundbites. :tongue:

Further proof of his capitulation, perhaps?

thus it's a liberal show. Right-wingers can only think in soundbites. :tongue:

Further proof of his capitulation, perhaps?

I doubt it. The campaign sent Guiliani in place of Palin to CNN for the first presidential debate. This just seems like more of the same.

Not as much as the republican spin machine would have you think. When you've been a politician for 26 years you're bound to trip up now and again.

But it certainly is something that would encourage him to stay quiet.

Compare Biden to... say... Bush Sr, Biden's the very image of vocal accuracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_acHApgkQ

Hmm....I may reconsider me voting for Bob Barr....my vote may actually count this time around.

You're voting for a Republican either way, right?

i wish i could claim this

Probably been said already, but my favorite quote of the night was, "I'm going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career."

Probably because I just read the Rolling Stone article last night. And because I've also, you know... been alive for longer than five minutes.

Lol, McCain got crushed. I wonder what the October Surprise will be that ends up costing Obama the election.

Lol, McCain got crushed. I wonder what the October Surprise will be that ends up costing Obama the election.

I was reading through the comments section of an article on Palin's attacks and saw the seeds of the next wave. Apparently the Rezko sentencing has been delayed because he is cooperating with investigators, which 'they' (the Palin crowd) of course believe means that Obama will be indicted any day now.

Not that I've seen a hint of that anywhere other than the random comments, but there ya go...

So...

The prime candidates for presidency include a charming, yet inexperienced and slightly naive man whose primary distinction is the colour of his skin. Another man who should have retired ages ago. A third man who seems to fit the "dependable but a tad bit dumb" stereotype. And finally a woman who is not only inexperienced and ignorant about the things she is supposed to stand for, but appears batshit insane as well.

When put together, they start flinging poo.

Tell me, citizens of the USA... are you feeling national pride ?

So...

The prime candidates for presidency include a charming, yet inexperienced and slightly naive man whose primary distinction is the colour of his skin. Another man who should have retired ages ago. A third man who seems to fit the "dependable but a tad bit dumb" stereotype. And finally a woman who is not only inexperienced and ignorant about the things she is supposed to stand for, but appears batshit insane as well.

When put together, they start flinging poo.

Tell me, citizens of the USA... are you feeling national pride ?

I don't think it's really fair to say that Obama's primary distinction is the color of his skin. There have been black candidates before, but they never got past the democratic primaries. Partly due to being seen as "The Black Candidate," I might add.

55 pages? That's >15 more than last time! Are you trying to kill me?

*reads*

Tom Brokaw will soon say "Its against the rules for Mr. Obama to use his turgid masculine potence to leave women audience members in slippery, dewey little puddles of their own quivering arousal, building, building to a thunderous, shivering orgasm of sound policy."

sigged.

if I'm correct, CNN views any state that's polling within 5% as being marginal. 5% is a big difference (since most polls have just a 3.1% error margin), so CNN is being very conservative here. Guess they don't want to look like idiots, a la 2000 and 2004 elections.
And because of the studied 5% inaccuracy of polling results due to closet racism.

That was much more interesting than watching the actual debate. And I got to see Troy beat FAU.

That was much more interesting than watching the actual debate. And I got to see Troy beat FAU.
It was. And I got to spend the night actually sleeping.

Fox News: Cindy McCain calls Obama Campaign “The Dirtiest” in American History (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/cindy-mccain-calls-obama-campaign-the-dirtiest-in-american-history/)

Cindy McCain’s visit to the Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt today, where she she described the Obama Campaign as “the dirtiest campaign in American history.”

From Howard’s report:


Posted at 9:03, timed so that it couldn't be answered until after the debate. Nice.
The mind. It is boggled.

the stern letter, america's most potent weapon
I love you.

I'm almost finished with the debate. More interesting than the first debate, but sooooo much rhetoric. I have heard a few interesting things. After I'm finished, and check factcheck.org I'll give a proper opinion.

55 pages? That's >15 more than last time! Are you trying to kill me?

*reads*
Funniest thing on the fivethirtyeight.com site was a guy whose buddy was doing a shot on "earmark" while he, poor sap, had to do one on "my friends". He lamented that McCain was trying to kill him.

so did anyone ever figure out why mccain thought obama trying to improve the most popular attraction at one of the major public science education centers of the country is a terrible terrible thing?

Not that I've seen a hint of that anywhere other than the random comments, but there ya go...


Because its completely unfounded.

so did anyone ever figure out why mccain thought obama trying to improve the most popular attraction at one of the major public science education centers of the country is a terrible terrible thing?

I don't think McCain's really has any idea what's going on there. I suspect he was trawling through data collected by minions, and saw 'projector' and a price tag - and figured that sounds like a lot of money for an fairly innocent name.

He might not even know what the item was - but it SOUNDS like it's overpriced, and a lot of Americans might agree.

Somewhere between ignorance and deliberate mischeif, I suspect.

So, McCain's "that one" comment is getting a lot of play.

I don't think McCain's really has any idea what's going on there. I suspect he was trawling through data collected by minions, and saw 'projector' and a price tag - and figured that sounds like a lot of money for an fairly innocent name.

He might not even know what the item was - but it SOUNDS like it's overpriced, and a lot of Americans might agree.

Somewhere between ignorance and deliberate mischeif, I suspect.

The fact that he kept called it an "overhead projector" which it so clearly ISN'T - hilarious to me. I think he was deliberately trying to stir up discontent AMONGST the ignorant. Because honestly, who would believe, at face value, the statement that an overhead projector cost $3 million?

That, or he just thinks everyone is stupid. Oh wait, I think he does.

I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] before this crisis.

So, McCain's "that one" comment is getting a lot of play.

I know, and Im kind of glad. When he said it I thought it was childish and rude, but figured maybe I was being over sensitive. Im glad it wasnt just me.

So, McCain's "that one" comment is getting a lot of play.

What I took away from that was a disdain, a total lack of respect, for Obama on McCain's part. Honestly, when is it appropriate to refer to a human being as "that one"? He could have just said, "him" or "that guy" instead. For me, it was a revealing slip. By the time in the debate when this occurred, though, people had probably already made up their minds (if they weren't made up before hand) on who they preferred or felt like was the winner*. But treating your opponent with such disrespect doesn't help your cause.

*I say that just based on the fact that humans have an amazing propensity for deciding whether they like someone based on very brief exposure. For example, ratings of professors at the end of a full semester are very similar to ratings made by a second group, who only see the professor lecture for a minute.

That debate format made that the most irrelevant and boring debate yet. 1 min limits? NO rebuttal??? Wat.

What I took away from that was a disdain, a total lack of respect, for Obama on McCain's part. Honestly, when is it appropriate to refer to a human being as "that one"? He could have just said, "him" or "that guy" instead. For me, it was a revealing slip. By the time in the debate when this occurred, though, people had probably already made up their minds (if they weren't made up before hand) on who they preferred or felt like was the winner*. But treating your opponent with such disrespect doesn't help your cause.

*I say that just based on the fact that humans have an amazing propensity for deciding whether they like someone based on very brief exposure. For example, ratings of professors at the end of a full semester are very similar to ratings made by a second group, who only see the professor lecture for a minute.

Or he could have shown Senator Obama the proper respect and referred to him as such.

Or he could have shown Senator Obama the proper respect and referred to him as such.

Haha, yes, that would have been better. Instead, he chose to refer to him as if he were an object. Oops!

Haha, yes, that would have been better. Instead, he chose to refer to him as if he were an object. Oops!

Let's be fair now. He's 72 years old. He probably just had a senior moment and forgot Obama's name.

Let's be fair now. He's 72 years old. He probably just had a senior moment and forgot Obama's name.

I am not certain that that explanation is not more damaging when appraising his fitness to be president than "he was being insulting".

Remember Dr Who, and the words he used to destroy the prime minister ;)

Don't you think she looks tired?

Don't you think she looks tired?

I'd rather use other words to destroy McCain, such as:

"Hastur, hastur, hastur."

"Cthulhu Ftaghn."

"Ikkorose, shinsô..."

I'd rather use other words to destroy McCain, such as:

"Hastur, hastur, hastur."

"Cthulhu Ftaghn."

"Ikkorose, shinsô..."

"Did you pee in bed again, you silly boy" ?

"Did you pee in bed again, you silly boy" ?

o_O

"Did you pee in bed again, you silly boy" ?

Well, I keep having this dream... :p

So, McCain's "that one" comment is getting a lot of play.
Yeah, that's getting a lot of wtf attention, and so are McCain's condescending maybe-you-never-heard-of-Fannie-Mae remark to that audience member and his bizarre wandering around the stage.

Seems like, having heard all there is to hear in McCain's platform and arguments, people are starting to look at McCain himself, and not so much digging what they see.

o_O

Hey - would it not be great to have the US president wet himself in front of terrorists ? ;)

Fortunately the democrats have not yet sunk themselves to such tactics, despite the "Obama muslim ebil dirt fighting terroristlover" strategy from their opponents.

Yeah, that's getting a lot of wtf attention, and so are McCain's condescending maybe-you-never-heard-of-Fannie-Mae remark to that audience member and his bizarre wandering around the stage.

Seems like, having heard all there is to hear in McCain's platform and arguments, people are starting to look at McCain himself, and not so much digging what they see.

I listened to the debate, so I don't know what his bizarre wandering was, but people are, at least anecdotally, noticing McCain's very condescending and demeaning attitude towards Obama and deciding that it's not a very flattering trait for a potential president.

I listened to the debate, so I don't know what his bizarre wandering was, but people are, at least anecdotally, noticing McCain's very condescending and demeaning attitude towards Obama and deciding that it's not a very flattering trait for a potential president.
It was so weird, he kept walking around the stage, both while he talked and while Obama talked. Maybe he's got Restless Leg Syndrome, or maybe he had to pee, or maybe he was just trying to keep the audience focused on him at all times -- whatever, he fidgeted and moved around through the entire thing.

The effect of it is that pundits and early poll respondents are saying it made him seem confused and distracted.

It was so weird, he kept walking around the stage, both while he talked and while Obama talked. Maybe he's got Restless Leg Syndrome, or maybe he had to pee, or maybe he was just trying to keep the audience focused on him at all times -- whatever, he fidgeted and moved around through the entire thing.

The effect of it is that pundits and early poll respondents are saying it made him seem confused and distracted.

Why does that smack of "Hey, hey! Don't look at him, look at me! Look at me! I'm here, look at me!"

Why does that smack of "Hey, hey! Don't look at him, look at me! Look at me! I'm here, look at me!"

Well he is a maverick, you know.

Well he is a maverick, you know.

Since when does Maverick = Attention whore?

Well he is a maverick, you know.

I'm reminded of another maverick pilot, someone who we thought was a likable okay guy, but then later turned out to be kind of nuts...
http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Articles/20071107/293.cruise.top.gun.110707.jpg

On a less silly note, this seems kind of mild, all things considered... (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html)
McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.

Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal mortgage agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”

McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.

Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we've heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from eBay, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.

Since when does Maverick = Attention whore?

You've seen Top Gun, right?

You've seen Top Gun, right?

Years ago, when I was a youngin'.

Years ago, when I was a youngin'.

Based on that, and a show I caught a couple of times also called "maverick", it's my considered opinion that "maverick" means self-centred, egotistical asshole. :)

Based on that, and a show I caught a couple of times also called "maverick", it's my considered opinion that "maverick" means self-centred, egotistical asshole. :)

In light of the lead actor in that movie, it makes sense.

Off topic: Do you do table-top RPGs? I don't remember if I've brought this up before, but Jocabia and a few other Generalites are involved in a game I've been running for a few months now off and on, and I'm always looking for new players.

If you're interested, I can TG info.

Yeah, that's getting a lot of wtf attention, and so are McCain's condescending maybe-you-never-heard-of-Fannie-Mae remark to that audience member and his bizarre wandering around the stage.

You forgot "Not YOU, Tom!" WTF was that about?

Who cares? All these debates are pointless, Obama won this election already and everybody knows McCain stands no chance in hell anymore. Don't like Obama, might as well learn to deal with him as he will be in power for atleast 4 years.

Who cares?

58 pages, on this thread alone, on just this forum, suggests that there might be some people that care...

Obama won this election already
So could we reschedule the Inaugural for, like, tomorrow?

So could we reschedule the Inaugural for, like, tomorrow?


That went over your head. :rolleyes:

In light of the lead actor in that movie, it makes sense.

Off topic: Do you do table-top RPGs? I don't remember if I've brought this up before, but Jocabia and a few other Generalites are involved in a game I've been running for a few months now off and on, and I'm always looking for new players.

If you're interested, I can TG info.

I have done. Workload or scheduling are more likely to be factors than anything else. Drop me a TG with a bit of basic info (the what, the how, and the when, mainly) and I'll see how it fits. :)


On Topic:

According to this source:

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91886

McCain's brilliant mortgage buyout strategy... was Hillary's idea.

"...the mortgage renewal idea actually originated with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, said Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain."
Beautiful.

I have done. Workload or scheduling are more likely to be factors than anything else. Drop me a TG with a bit of basic info (the what, the how, and the when, mainly) and I'll see how it fits. :)

TG sent!

It's a bit long, longer than I'd intended, but it has as much info as I could think to cram as far as "sales pitches" go. Take a look, and feel free to TG or PM me with any questions, concerns, etc.


On Topic:

According to this source:

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91886

McCain's brilliant mortgage buyout strategy... was Hillary's idea.


Beautiful.

That doesn't surprise me one bit. I'd heard it said that Obama had talked about doing the same thing not two weeks back, and the likelihood of it originating with him, I felt, was low.

TG sent!

It's a bit long, longer than I'd intended, but it has as much info as I could think to cram as far as "sales pitches" go. Take a look, and feel free to TG or PM me with any questions, concerns, etc.

That doesn't surprise me one bit. I'd heard it said that Obama had talked about doing the same thing not two weeks back, and the likelihood of it originating with him, I felt, was low.

I'd also heard that Obama was discussing this concept two weeks (ish) ago - this is the first I've heard of where it originated, though. I just find it interesting that McCain is trying to claim Hillary's plan as his own.

That source also suggests that the mortgage buyout is supposed to be being derived from the 700 billion dollar bailout, which explains why McCain didn't feel the need to explain how it was going to be financed. I notice that - in suggesting it as his big plan, he DID however, neglect to mention that the power to do this ALREADY exists, explicitly.

So - basically, his entire answer to the question, was to cite something that already exists, and was someone else's idea. I'm not impressed.

(Checking TG now).

I'd also heard that Obama was discussing this concept two weeks (ish) ago - this is the first I've heard of where it originated, though. I just find it interesting that McCain is trying to claim Hillary's plan as his own.

That source also suggests that the mortgage buyout is supposed to be being derived from the 700 billion dollar bailout, which explains why McCain didn't feel the need to explain how it was going to be financed. I notice that - in suggesting it as his big plan, he DID however, neglect to mention that the power to do this ALREADY exists, explicitly.

So - basically, his entire answer to the question, was to cite something that already exists, and was someone else's idea. I'm not impressed.

(Checking TG now).

It's the sort of scummy crap I wouldn't put past them at this point. As soon as they trotted Ayers out like some big, game-changing scandal, I lost any respect I had for them, and any faith that they'd avoid every underhanded move they could make.

Apparently the Secret Service is now investigating the hick from the Palin rally the other day who shouted "Kill him." Good to see they're doing something productive with their time.

Replied, incidentally.

So here is a question I think they SHOULD ask.

What positive ads are you running? Give their names so our audience can look them up, and in what markets are you playing them?

What negative ads are you running? Give their names so our audience can look them up. In what markets are you playing them?

Why are we questioning their tactics we know they are corrupt (Marketing is just the background). The governing body is here to protect us, not entrap the people with the PATRIOT Act or disguise a bill for a bail out plan that’s more like a communist buy out. These so called HARD questions are more for the middle class slave state, than the Lower class War Machine. The real questions should be ‘why do I have to pay for corporate mistakes that the white house is caught up in?’ or ‘How does the PATRIOT Act defend the American people, when our Bill of Rights are stripped from us?’

You've seen Top Gun, right?

So... McCain's gay?

So... McCain's gay?

What? No! Ew! No! :gundge:

Deus: What hick? This is the first I've heard of this.

It's the sort of scummy crap I wouldn't put past them at this point. As soon as they trotted Ayers out like some big, game-changing scandal, I lost any respect I had for them, and any faith that they'd avoid every underhanded move they could make.

Apparently the Secret Service is now investigating the hick from the Palin rally the other day who shouted "Kill him." Good to see they're doing something productive with their time.

Replied, incidentally.
It's a little strange what a miserable failure McCain's recent character attacks on Obama have been. I can think of only two explanations:
The economy is bad enough that people are ignoring smear campaigns, even ones they believe.
Smearing is an art, and one which McCain is bad at.

I'd like to think the first is true. If it is the second, I have a new found respect for Karl Rove. Well, not really "respect," exactly. "Horror of," maybe?

What? No! Ew! No! :gundge:

I'm just saying, Top Gun's the gayest thing I've ever seen and I've see gay porno.

Well he is a maverick, you know.

BTW, have you read the Rolling Stone "Make-Believe Maverick" article about McCain (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain)? Fun stuff.

And, yes, I'm using any excuse to link people to that article. I find it delicious.

I'd also heard that Obama was discussing this concept two weeks (ish) ago - this is the first I've heard of where it originated, though. I just find it interesting that McCain is trying to claim Hillary's plan as his own.

That source also suggests that the mortgage buyout is supposed to be being derived from the 700 billion dollar bailout, which explains why McCain didn't feel the need to explain how it was going to be financed. I notice that - in suggesting it as his big plan, he DID however, neglect to mention that the power to do this ALREADY exists, explicitly.

So - basically, his entire answer to the question, was to cite something that already exists, and was someone else's idea. I'm not impressed.

(Checking TG now).
mccain may have stolen the idea from hillary but he doesnt understand it.

last night he advocated BUYING THE MORTGAGE then letting the homeowner refinance at the new lower housing value.... guaranteeing that the taxpayer will never get any of that money back. we would EAT the loss between the mortgage amount and the current house value.

the actual plan is to buy the mortgage so that the govt can change the terms until such time as the homeowner can refinance at a regular mortgage company and pay us back or sell the house for what it WILL be worth once the housing market rebounds and PAYS US BACK.

What? No! Ew! No! :gundge:

Deus: What hick? This is the first I've heard of this.
Though this question was for Deus, allow me:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/102008/_is_palin_trying_to_incite_violence_against_obama/

Milbank describes how Palin told the crowd in Florida that Obama has close associations with a terrorist who sought to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capital, in response to which the crowd responded with a threat on Sen. Obama's life:

"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers...And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

I saw and heard the video of this on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. It is not clear if the guy in the crowd was calling for the killing of Obama of Ayers, but in the US, we do not call for the killing of people at political rallies.

By the way, in googling this, I found an article on TPM (Talking Points Memo) Election Central that says Palin has dropped the Ayers reference from her stump speech, though it only speculates why.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/palin_drops_reference_to_willi.php

Though this question was for Deus, allow me:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/102008/_is_palin_trying_to_incite_violence_against_obama/



I saw and heard the video of this on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. It is not clear if the guy in the crowd was calling for the killing of Obama of Ayers, but in the US, we do not call for the killing of people at political rallies.

By the way, in googling this, I found an article on TPM (Talking Points Memo) Election Central that says Palin has dropped the Ayers reference from her stump speech, though it only speculates why.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/palin_drops_reference_to_willi.php
oh im so glad she has dropped it. she shouldnt be involved in inciting the mentally unstable to murder.

oh im so glad she has dropped it. she shouldnt be involved in inciting the mentally unstable to murder.
Yeah, no kidding. I wonder who it was who finally explained that to her.

Yeah, no kidding. I wonder who it was who finally explained that to her.
and how much yelling it took.

It's a little strange what a miserable failure McCain's recent character attacks on Obama have been. I can think of only two explanations:
The economy is bad enough that people are ignoring smear campaigns, even ones they believe.
Smearing is an art, and one which McCain is bad at.

I'd like to think the first is true. If it is the second, I have a new found respect for Karl Rove. Well, not really "respect," exactly. "Horror of," maybe?
I think it's a combination of the two. Rove certainly was the master of the Smear, but he apparently hasn't taught his charges well enough. The difference is that he was more subtle than the ones McCain has hired to do his dirty work.
Kerry had a lot of baggage and had built up a great deal of animosity between him and GOP - not only for his anti-war stance but also for being head of the investigating committee into the Iran-Contra affair among other things.
It was very easy for Rove to feed on and accentuate that high level of animosity amongst GOP supporters. He did it subtly - by having others do the smearing (all those 'swiftboat' 501s), it left Bush's hands clean. Which meant when the smears were found to be false, it couldn't be pinned on Bush. He got all the 'glory' from the smears but none of the tarnish.

This isn't happening now. McCain is the one flinging the dirt, and thus is the one being tarnished by the lies.

Of course as you say, the economy is in such turmoil that people are lookig for leadership right now, which McCain ain't providing. He's in a bind: With less than 4 weeks to go, he can't make up the ground by proving his leadership which leaves him with nothing more than smearing. But people don't want that, they want leadership.
His handlers can't see this though: They've been trained by the smear-master who won the last two elections, and all they can think is, "Smear works!", so will keep at for the rest of the campaign.
The longer the smear campaign goes on, the less likely he'll win. But if he changes tact (again!) and tries to show off his leadership skills, he's not got the time to really prove himself to the voters.
I almost feel sorry for him. His campaign is a trainwreck in slow-mo. We've another 4 weeks to watch him slowly disintegrate.

I know, and Im kind of glad. When he said it I thought it was childish and rude, but figured maybe I was being over sensitive. Im glad it wasnt just me.
I think it shows just how much trouble the McCain campaign is in. His handlers obviously thought that McCain shouldn't refer to Obama by name and calling him, "That one" would send a message out as to who's alpha male.
All it has done is make McCain look like a bitter angry loser.

who cares? All these debates are pointless, obama won this election already and everybody knows mccain stands no chance in hell anymore. Don't like obama, might as well learn to deal with him as he will be in power for atleast 4 years.

+1.

oh im so glad she has dropped it. she shouldnt be involved in inciting the mentally unstable to murder.

Aren't those who incite others to violence usually committing a crime of some sort?

And did McCain just say what I thought I heard him say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4FADXTI-vc&feature=related

Aren't those who incite others to violence usually committing a crime of some sort?

And did McCain just say what I thought I heard him say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4FADXTI-vc&feature=related

A very, very accurate slip of the tongue there...

Based on that, and a show I caught a couple of times also called "maverick", it's my considered opinion that "maverick" means self-centred, egotistical asshole. :)

Don't forget the Mel Gibson movie! Everyone who plays a maverick turns out to be a religious nut in the end. :(

BTW, have you read the Rolling Stone "Make-Believe Maverick" article about McCain (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain)? Fun stuff.

And, yes, I'm using any excuse to link people to that article. I find it delicious.

I wouldn't say "delicious", it made me sick, but important to spread, yes.

Aren't those who incite others to violence usually committing a crime of some sort?

And did McCain just say what I thought I heard him say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4FADXTI-vc&feature=related

What did he say?

(I've only got dial-up speeds for the time being, so I can't watch YouTube videos)

What did he say?

(I've only got dial-up speeds for the time being, so I can't watch YouTube videos)

He said, "my fellow prisoners" instead of "my fellow Americans". The silence just after he said it, along with the look on Palin's face was priceless.

What did he say?

(I've only got dial-up speeds for the time being, so I can't watch YouTube videos)

"...my fellow prisoners..." at a speech. To, well, people that aren't inmates.

What did he say?

(I've only got dial-up speeds for the time being, so I can't watch YouTube videos)

The full transcript reads as follows.


"You and I together will confront the ten trillion dollar debt that the federal government has run up and balance the budget by the end of my term in office."

*cheers*

"Across this country this country, this is the agenda I have set for my fellow prisoners."

*silence*

"And the same standards of clarity and candor must be applied, to my opponent."

*one clapper, few cheers*

"You know, we have all heard what he has said, but it's less clear what he has done, and what he will do."

*cheers, McCain tries to speak, but is drowned out by cries of No-ba-ma*

He said, "my fellow prisoners" instead of "my fellow Americans". The silence just after he said it, along with the look on Palin's face was priceless.

Not necessarily fellow Americans, since he's talking about agenda. Republicans or politicians would have fit better contextually.

"...my fellow prisoners..." at a speech. To, well, people that aren't inmates.

Or maybe McCain means he and all his supporters are going to Gitmo...

I'm reminded of another maverick pilot, someone who we thought was a likable okay guy, but then later turned out to be kind of nuts...
http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Articles/20071107/293.cruise.top.gun.110707.jpg

BTW, have you read the Rolling Stone "Make-Believe Maverick" article about McCain (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain)? Fun stuff.

And, yes, I'm using any excuse to link people to that article. I find it delicious.

I'm reminded of something I read...

There's no such thing as a Leftist fighter pilot. The job just doesn't allow for it -- takes too much ego, too much confidence. To put it bluntly, you have to be a talented jerk to be a fighter jock. Just think of the guy who always played QB in neighborhood football games, the smiley asshole you hated but knew was going to win, and multiply that by, oh, a thousand. That's your average fighter pilot.
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8319&IBLOCK_ID=35

That's McCain...

I'm reminded of something I read...


http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8319&IBLOCK_ID=35

That's McCain...

Except without the talent...

Don't forget the Mel Gibson movie! Everyone who plays a maverick turns out to be a religious nut in the end. :(


Now now, James Garner still seems like an okay guy...

Except without the talent...

Touché.

Though the argument is sound. The quote reads, "too much ego, too much confidence"

Reminds me of McCain's "I know...[how to win wars / how to fix the economy / how to cure cancer / how to make pigs fly / etc.]"

Aren't those who incite others to violence usually committing a crime of some sort?

And did McCain just say what I thought I heard him say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4FADXTI-vc&feature=related
its only going to get worse as he gets more and more worn out.

not that the other candidates arent going to get tired too but its much worse when you are 72.

mccain's stubbornly sticking to the rove method of winning shows that he isnt really flexible enough to run the nation. hillary clinton had the some kind of problem didnt she? she had planned out a way to win and when obama messed that up she didnt change course until it was far too late to make up the ground she had lost. mccain is having the same problem and probably cant bring it back around.

his only chance is for obama to make some kind of HUGE mistake.

mccain's stubbornly sticking to the rove method of winning shows that he isnt really flexible enough to run the nation.

To be fair, a significant portion of the country does seem to display a favorable view of inflexibility against insurmountable problems.


his only chance is for obama to make some kind of HUGE mistake.

Right now, he seems to be hoping that if he claims Obama makes enough non-existent mistakes, it'll warp the fabric of space time and change the course of already past history so that it becomes real.

Don't forget the Mel Gibson movie! Everyone who plays a maverick turns out to be a religious nut in the end. :(


I've not seen the Mel Gibson movie, but I believe it's basically the movie version of the series I was talking about.

its only going to get worse as he gets more and more worn out.

not that the other candidates arent going to get tired too but its much worse when you are 72.

mccain's stubbornly sticking to the rove method of winning shows that he isnt really flexible enough to run the nation. hillary clinton had the some kind of problem didnt she? she had planned out a way to win and when obama messed that up she didnt change course until it was far too late to make up the ground she had lost. mccain is having the same problem and probably cant bring it back around.

his only chance is for obama to make some kind of HUGE mistake.

Both Clinton and McBush showed little ability to adapt to the Obama campaign machine. Moreover, they both played old fashioned campaigns, sticking to older tactics. They attacked a classic problem in old ways. Obama came up with something new, and it has clearly worked. If we can judge how a person will be as president by how they manage their campaign, then both Clinton and McBush would have been mistakes. They failed to adapt to the new and changing world. Whereas if Obama's ingenuity, adaptability and management of his campaign travels through to his presidency, then he is clearly the best of the candidates (and also much better than Ron Paul, who is a fossil by comparison, as was indicated by his campaign).

Right now, he seems to be hoping that if he claims Obama makes enough non-existent mistakes, it'll warp the fabric of space time and change the course of already past history so that it becomes real.

What's scary, is the way it's being lapped up...

What he should do at the next debate, is start off by making a joke about Obama not having turned up yet, totally ignoring Obama even existing, and continue that policy until November 4th. Maybe if he pretends the problem just went away, it will become so.

Not necessarily fellow Americans, since he's talking about agenda. Republicans or politicians would have fit better contextually.

Or pensioners. Which makes the slip understandable, yet awkard.

What's scary, is the way it's being lapped up...


Well it is a country known for dogmatically favoring fiction over fact...

Or pensioners. Which makes the slip understandable, yet awkard.

Not really. Pensioners wouldn't be able to have an agenda capable of doing anything about a trillion dollar national debt.

Both Clinton and McBush showed little ability to adapt to the Obama campaign machine. Moreover, they both played old fashioned campaigns, sticking to older tactics. They attacked a classic problem in old ways. Obama came up with something new, and it has clearly worked. If we can judge how a person will be as president by how they manage their campaign, then both Clinton and McBush would have been mistakes. They failed to adapt to the new and changing world. Whereas if Obama's ingenuity, adaptability and management of his campaign travels through to his presidency, then he is clearly the best of the candidates (and also much better than Ron Paul, who is a fossil by comparison, as was indicated by his campaign).
thats what im thinking. if you cant change and adapt your freaking campaign, how are you going to change and adapt to sudden world crises?

I watched the debate for about 5 minutes before changing the channel. As usual it was a load of BS from both candidates.

I've not seen the Mel Gibson movie, but I believe it's basically the movie version of the series I was talking about.

In fact, it is almost an addendum to the series as James Garner (the series' original star, whose image I linked to in the VP debate after Palin said maverick for the fortieth time...) plays the senior Brett Maverick to the 'new generation' Mel Gibson Maverick. That was a spoiler by the way...but dammit, the movie is 14 years old at this point, you've either seen it or don't give a rats ass...

What's scary, is the way it's being lapped up...

What he should do at the next debate, is start off by making a joke about Obama not having turned up yet, totally ignoring Obama even existing, and continue that policy until November 4th. Maybe if he pretends the problem just went away, it will become so.

Does Barack Obama cause Senility? The answer may suprise you....
:p

In fact, it is almost an addendum to the series as James Garner (the series' original star, whose image I linked to in the VP debate after Palin said maverick for the fortieth time...) plays the senior Brett Maverick to the 'new generation' Mel Gibson Maverick. That was a spoiler by the way...but dammit, the movie is 14 years old at this point, you've either seen it or don't give a rats ass...

I'm not a huge Mel Gibson fan. I like James Garner well enough, and saw some of the old series, but wasn't blown away or anything.

As a combination... when I heard there was a Mel Gibson movie called 'Maverick', which I figured was probably an adaptation of the series, I'll admit I didn't exactly bust through the door to get out and see it.

I've also yet to work out why it's supposed to be a virtue in a President...

The choice is certainly clear when it comes to alt energy. McCain wants to put up nuke plants where a windmill farm would work. A nuke plant needs nuke techs and a whole bunch of security. A windmill farm needs someone that went to a trade school and owns a cellphone & shotgun.

Aren't those who incite others to violence usually committing a crime of some sort?

And did McCain just say what I thought I heard him say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4FADXTI-vc&feature=related

You know, I'm not disturbed by the fact that he said it.

I'm disturbed by the fact that he didn't catch himself in the act and immediately correct himself.

(Also, chants of "Nobama!" scare me. [img]http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cry.gif/img])

The choice is certainly clear when it comes to alt energy. McCain wants to put up nuke plants where a windmill farm would work. A nuke plant needs nuke techs and a whole bunch of security. A windmill farm needs someone that went to a trade school and owns a cellphone & shotgun.

Source for this claim?

Nuclear energy SHOULD be the backbone of our new energy policy. It's the only kind of energy we've got that's clean yet sufficiently independent and capable of being run 24/7 while also producing enough power at a decent rate.

With that said, backbone means backbone. Not whole. So-called clean coal, along with the various alternative renewables must also be used, especially where they can do the most good.

I guess it depends what you mean by clean.

The cheapest energy possible is what's needed. Source was the last debate. McCain has voted time & time again against the wind turbines, solar, etc and just want's the nuke plants. Obama want's the nuke plants plus!

I guess it depends what you mean by clean.

I wonder how clean Nevadans think nuclear is.

I guess it depends what you mean by clean.

Fission nuclear power isn't perfect, no, but the waste is a lot more easily managed than is often suggested by anti-nuclear advocates. It's just that it's radioactive, which tends to throw people off a lot more so than other things do.

In other words, it produces a much more severe reaction than, say, normal pollution caused by fossil fuels, even though it's not anywhere near as damaging to the environment.

The thing is, all power sources have issues, and we've got to take what we can get. You offer me something that's completely clean but that can produce to the level of fission power--or, even better, fossil fuels--and that can operate 24/7 regardless of outside factors, and I'll take it. Till then, I'll take what I can get, and nuke's it.

The thing is, all power sources have issues, and we've got to take what we can get. You offer me something that's completely clean but that can produce to the level of fission power--or, even better, fossil fuels--and that can operate 24/7 regardless of outside factors, and I'll take it. Till then, I'll take what I can get, and nuke's it.

Note that fission is dependent on finite resources. While fast breeder reactors and such may stretch the use of those resources for a century or two instead of the often cited 50 years, fission is still not a solution for the ages.

You offer me something that's completely clean but that can produce to the level of fission power--or, even better, fossil fuels--and that can operate 24/7 regardless of outside factors, and I'll take it.

That's the 1500 mile wide wind belt that stretches from Texas to Canada.

Note that fission is dependent on finite resources. While fast breeder reactors and such may stretch the use of those resources for a century or two instead of the often cited 50 years, fission is still not a solution for the ages.

Technically, no power source lasts forever. Eventually, it will run out. But fission power, if developed, will last a bit longer than say, fossil fuels.

Note that fission is dependent on finite resources. While fast breeder reactors and such may stretch the use of those resources for a century or two instead of the often cited 50 years, fission is still not a solution for the ages.
Certainly not, and I wasn't saying it was.

It will, however, last for significantly long enough for us to develop, say, fusion, or some other wacky power source we're not aware of yet that'll do us well.

Until then, however, as I said, it's what we've got, so it's use it or watch our economy falter.
That's the 1500 mile wide wind belt that stretches from Texas to Canada.
Wind is not perfect, mate, and it can't get us the power all on its own. It will, however, be extremely beneficial.

Just don't count on it to be available 24/7, and you'll do fine. (Again, that's why nuclear is the backbone: it can work everywhere and it's available independent of the weather and geological activity.)

Just don't count on it to be available 24/7, and you'll do fine. (Again, that's why nuclear is the backbone: it can work everywhere and it's available independent of the weather and geological activity.)
24/7 with change to spare. Charged batteries for when the wind dies down. Actually I think the best use for windmill farms would be to charge batteries for electric cars. Then a nationwide garage system for battery replacment instead of gas stations.

24/7 with change to spare. Charged batteries for when the wind dies down. Actually I think the best use for windmill farms would be to charge batteries for electric cars. Then a nationwide garage system for battery replacment instead of gas stations.

Not quite. Wind power plants can only generate so much electricity, and they require certain--high--sustained wind speeds to truly generate enough.

And when the speeds aren't high enough, the power generation decreases at an extremely high rate.

Charged batteries can only get you so much when there's only so much you can generate to begin with.

In short, they're not that dependable.

Not quite. Wind power plants can only generate so much electricity, and they require certain--high--sustained wind speeds to truly generate enough.

And when the speeds aren't high enough, the power generation decreases at an extremely high rate.

Charged batteries can only get you so much when there's only so much you can generate to begin with.

In short, they're not that dependable.

You're not accounting for pump storage, interconnectivity using High Voltage Direct Current transmissons, and offsetting with geothermal or solar depending on location.

This study (http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf) (warning, PDF) indicates that up to 47% of power needs could be met with interconnectivity alone.

Combined power (http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/anlagejanuar2008_e.html) could account for 100% power without waiting for a genie to fix future problems or fucking over Nevada.

In short, there is more to wind power than just "Hey, that one isn't spinning, this must suck as a power source."

Models for 70% of Europe's power coming from wind (http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf) (second) (http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/Risoe200305.pdf) (both PDFs get that PDF extension for Firefox, it's awesome.)

I don't think Europe will be able to get 70% of its power from wind. In NZ 60%+ is from hydro and only 2% from wind. Plus there are problems with wind farms because they are eye sores to the people living by them and their production is random, and you can't use them as a reliable source to power a city.

I don't think Europe will be able to get 70% of its power from wind. In NZ 60%+ is from hydro and only 2% from wind. Plus there are problems with wind farms because they are eye sores to the people living by them and their production is random, and you can't use them as a reliable source to power a city.

Didn't I just address this? What does NZ's current grid have to do with anything? That's like saying the US can't use wind because we currently use a lot of fossil fuels.

Didn't I just address this? What does NZ's current grid have to do with anything? That's like saying the US can't use wind because we currently use a lot of fossil fuels.

That's an incorrect analogy. Wind Projects take lots of time and money, regardless of location. NZ is probably the best place to have wind energy yet even here there is trouble convincing the public that wind energy is in any way going to solve energy demands. Similar issues are coming up in Europe and the US.

If for example NZ only has 2% and other countries have less or not much more by percentage (when there have been several decades since wind energy became available) what hope does the US or the world for that matter use wind energy to solve its problems. Not a lot.

Also visual pollution is what puts most people off wind energy, personally I have to agree ever seen 1000s of wind turbines in a row? They are ugly and dominating.

That's an incorrect analogy. Wind Projects take lots of time and money, regardless of location. NZ is probably the best place to have wind energy yet even here there is trouble convincing the public that wind energy is in any way going to solve energy demands. Similar issues are coming up in Europe and the US.

If for example NZ only has 2% and other countries have less or not much more by percentage (when there have been several decades since wind energy became available) what hope does the US or the world for that matter use wind energy to solve its problems. Not a lot.

Also visual pollution is what puts most people off wind energy, personally I have to agree ever seen 1000s of wind turbines in a row? They are ugly and dominating.

Aesthetics are irrelevant. You need power, power with minimal pollution.

You're not accounting for pump storage, interconnectivity using High Voltage Direct Current transmissons, and offsetting with geothermal or solar depending on location.

This study (http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf) (warning, PDF) indicates that up to 47% of power needs could be met with interconnectivity alone.

Combined power (http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/anlagejanuar2008_e.html) could account for 100% power without waiting for a genie to fix future problems or fucking over Nevada.

In short, there is more to wind power than just "Hey, that one isn't spinning, this must suck as a power source."

Models for 70% of Europe's power coming from wind (http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf) (second) (http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/Risoe200305.pdf) (both PDFs get that PDF extension for Firefox, it's awesome.)
...interesting...

Still, I would have nuclear as a backup. (And really, Nevada would NOT be fucked over. Seriously. I'm telling you, people are overreacting because it's nuclear and because it's radioactive. That waste is not going to mutate Mount Yucca into some killer beast or whatever. Nevada is probably one of the best places to store it, too, because it's mostly empty desert.

I know people don't like the idea, but, honestly? Suck it up. That's my answer.)

That's an incorrect analogy. Wind Projects take lots of time and money, regardless of location. NZ is probably the best place to have wind energy yet even here there is trouble convincing the public that wind energy is in any way going to solve energy demands. Similar issues are coming up in Europe and the US.

If for example NZ only has 2% and other countries have less or not much more by percentage (when there have been several decades since wind energy became available) what hope does the US or the world for that matter use wind energy to solve its problems. Not a lot.

Also visual pollution is what puts most people off wind energy, personally I have to agree ever seen 1000s of wind turbines in a row? They are ugly and dominating.
I actually find wind turbines a very nice sight, especially in nature, because it literally screams "We're getting along with nature and still keeping our lifestyle!" which is always a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Believe you me, I'm all for protecting and working with the environment rather than working against it. That's not always possible to the extent we'd like, however.

Not quite. Wind power plants can only generate so much electricity, and they require certain--high--sustained wind speeds to truly generate enough.

And when the speeds aren't high enough, the power generation decreases at an extremely high rate.

Charged batteries can only get you so much when there's only so much you can generate to begin with.

In short, they're not that dependable.

I don't think you can appreciate just how many wind turbines could fit inside the wind belt.

I don't think you can appreciate just how many wind turbines could fit inside the wind belt.

Think offshore turbines. I wonder if we couldn't put underwater turbines on major ocean currents too.

Think offshore turbines. I wonder if we couldn't put underwater turbines on major ocean currents too.

Oh yea. The high seas can get quite windy too. After that you throw in the solar farms and nuke plants start to become very useless. (not everywhere but most everywhere)

There's plenty of ways to provide power. Please don't misunderstand me, or perceive this as me trying to play down the effectiveness of wind power.

I'm simply placing it in the category it belongs: not fully dependable. That's why you need a backbone of a weather and geological independent power source.

There's plenty of ways to provide power. Please don't misunderstand me, or perceive this as me trying to play down the effectiveness of wind power.

I'm simply placing it in the category it belongs: not fully dependable. That's why you need a backbone of a weather and geological independent power source.

That's an apt description, frankly. It seems like you're "simply placing", but the only evidence that's been shown in this thread shows the opposite of "not fully dependable". Honestly, you've not given a lot of support for your position. All we've seen is the assumption that there wouldn't be enough wind. No studies. No evidence. Not even a detailed explanation. You're going to have to do better, Kyr.

I don't think you can appreciate just how many wind turbines could fit inside the wind belt.

Think offshore turbines. I wonder if we couldn't put underwater turbines on major ocean currents too.

Fuck that. I was reading in Pop Sci a few years back about a project to essentially float an array of wind turbines IN THE JETSTREAM.

Which has tons of practical problems associated with it, but apparently they were steadily working those out.

That's an apt description, frankly. It seems like you're "simply placing", but the only evidence that's been shown in this thread shows the opposite of "not fully dependable". Honestly, you've not given a lot of support for your position. All we've seen is the assumption that there wouldn't be enough wind. No studies. No evidence. Not even a detailed explanation. You're going to have to do better, Kyr.

Indeed.

I'm trying to find some sources. Hang on.

Oh, duh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Intermittency_and_penetration_limits

There's plenty of ways to provide power. Please don't misunderstand me, or perceive this as me trying to play down the effectiveness of wind power.

I'm simply placing it in the category it belongs: not fully dependable. That's why you need a backbone of a weather and geological independent power source.

There is no such thing. Nuclear plants, for example - are dependent not only on fuel, but also on waste removal and cooling. Cooling alone, means geographical limitations (you need a ready supply of water - a river, for example) and there are other factors like seismic sensitivity that have to limit where you can put reactors. The 'defence in depth' strategy that makes nuclear power safe, only works if the consecutive layers aren't breached by - for example - earthquakes.

The beauty of windpower, wavepower, solarpower - is that there are no byproducts, nothing to leak, and once they're in place, you don't have to fuel them or remove waste. Which effectively means you can leave them in place apart from a maintenence tour. And you can take off the power to any location, no matter how remote - just like any other source - which means being 'geographically limited' is irrelevent.

Oh, duh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Intermittency_and_penetration_limits

What is this supposed to show?

That windfarms need storage? It looks like you're citing a 'problem' that already has a solution.

I fail at research. :(

I'm going to shut up now since I apparently don't know what I'm talking about.

I fail at research. :(

I'm going to shut up now since I apparently don't know what I'm talking about.

Heh... not bad as a threadjack. :o

To steer back towards the topic, any energy plan that does not include BOTH energy source diversification and new tech development AND incentives to reduce energy consumption at both industrial and consumer levels is going to be a non-starter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111058/Obama-Rated-Winner-Second-Presidential-Debate.aspx

Poll on who won the debate:
Obama - 56% McCain - 23%

That's an incorrect analogy. Wind Projects take lots of time and money, regardless of location. NZ is probably the best place to have wind energy yet even here there is trouble convincing the public that wind energy is in any way going to solve energy demands. Similar issues are coming up in Europe and the US.

If for example NZ only has 2% and other countries have less or not much more by percentage (when there have been several decades since wind energy became available) what hope does the US or the world for that matter use wind energy to solve its problems. Not a lot.

Also visual pollution is what puts most people off wind energy, personally I have to agree ever seen 1000s of wind turbines in a row? They are ugly and dominating.

First, having lived next to both a wind farm and a nuclear power plant, I can tell you that at best, the NIMBY factor is a push at best. There was FAR more of a stink over the nuclear plant than the complete non-stink over the Altimont Pass wind farm that's practically a tourist destination.

As for New Zealand, it continues to show nothing. Denmark gets 19% of its power from wind, Spain and Portugal get 9%, Germany and Ireland get 6% of theirs. It's a relatively new push to get wind power, so it's not going to account for large percentages as of yet. That New Zealand is not an early adopter says next to nothing. You don't often hear the phrase, "As goes New Zealand, so goes the world." Sorry. Nice movies, though.

Forgive me for using a Wikipedia formula, but-
Over an asset life of 40 years and low cost utility investment grade funding, the cost of $60 billion investment would be about 5% p.a. ie $3 billion p.a. Dividing by total power used gives an increased unit cost of around $3,000,000,000 x 100 / 4,000 x 1 exp9 = 0.075 cent / kWh.
It's not like nuclear is free, and there is still extracting fuel.

First, having lived next to both a wind farm and a nuclear power plant, I can tell you that at best, the NIMBY factor is a push at best. There was FAR more of a stink over the nuclear plant than the complete non-stink over the Altimont Pass wind farm that's practically a tourist destination.

As for New Zealand, it continues to show nothing. Denmark gets 19% of its power from wind, Spain and Portugal get 9%, Germany and Ireland get 6% of theirs. It's a relatively new push to get wind power, so it's not going to account for large percentages as of yet. That New Zealand is not an early adopter says next to nothing. You don't often hear the phrase, "As goes New Zealand, so goes the world." Sorry. Nice movies, though.

Forgive me for using a Wikipedia formula, but-

It's not like nuclear is free, and there is still extracting fuel.

I always thought the shit tons of windmills was one of the cool things about visiting Cali.

there are other factors like seismic sensitivity that have to limit where you can put reactors.

A point I had forgot.

If there is a terrorist attack or natural disaster at a nuke plant and a windmill or solar farm. Which will be back up and running first?
;)