Street Protest
 

Jesus Christ, bilmore. You're supposed to post from an airport bar near the end of the day, not in the middle of it.

Stirring the shit like this during business hours is like kicking over an anthill or something.

What happened to our halcyon days of civil political discourse? What, bilmore, what?

Gattigap

There was a debate????
 

Liar, liar, liar! He saw Pat Leahy.

And on that note, I give you today's Bad Reporter:

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pict...80-cartoon.gif

Street Protest
 

There's this story about three blind men feeling up a horse. Something about "the end" being a relative concept . . .

There was a debate????
 

Some of us want to live in a city on a hill, and some of us want to live in the ranch houses near the airport.

There was a debate????
 

That the left has "substance" in the debate and the right doesn't is bullshit.

Go back to 2000*. Bush actually answered the debate questions as asked. Because he did so, he had to think for a minute occassionally, and sometime misspoke. Gore on the other hand, turned every question asked into what he wanted to be asked. The simple viewer thought he was intelligent and full of substance. But the careful viewer saw the difference, I think.

Think of the best trial lawyer you know in 2 situations: first a judge is hitting him with questions- he keeps moving but sometimes has to pause or change a little, right. Same guy when he can control the scriprt- say closing- its like watching a lawyer TV show. maybe combined with a televangelist.

*doesn't apply to W last week.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

So, apparently, Tuesdays is the day of the Republican caucus (or some such thing) in the Senate, where Mr. Burns -- uh, I mean VP Cheney -- meets with the Republicans to -- well, I don't know what they do, but I guess they go over their strategery.

So, why Mr. Burns would find it surprising that he never ran into Senator Edwards at a Republican Strategery session, I am at a loss. To suggest that Mr. Burns was not trying to leave the impression that Senator Edwards is never on the job, and Burns should know because he's there every Tuesday is disingenuous at best, and affirmatively misleading at worst.

(And talk about not being on the job -- Bush has been on vacation some huge number of days over the last almost-four years. I'm trying to find a cite, but I can't right now -- I'll edit later.)

Tuesdays with the VP
 

A president can do most of his job from Texas. a senator can only vote from the senate floor.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

By your definition, I'm on vacation right now.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

Of course. After all, Texas is the only state that really matters.

Current Odds
 

- 170 means you have to risk $17 to win $10 (or any multiple thereof) on Bush. +140 means you get $14 for every $10 bet on Kerry. The difference (i.e. one side should be -155 and the other side +155) is the house vigorish.

As in all bookmaking, the odds do not reflect what the house thinks, but an attempt to get equal money on both sides (so that the house has no exposure, but gets its commission). Thus, if money comes in disproportionately on one side, the bookmaker moves the line until it evens out. Ergo, Kerry's move from +200 to +140 demonstrates that bettors have been betting more heavily on the Kerry side (at least when they could get 2 to 1 on what appears to be at least a horse race, if not a Kerry win - see Zogby, the only pollster worth reading).

One should never bet more than one can afford to lose. If you are asking what is the minimum to bet, I think an account must be funded by $50, and the minimum bet is $10. As for other political events, the only ones right now are the nationwide election, the Florida vote, and the Ohio vote, but they have betting on things such as the Oscars, how much money a movie will make on its opening weekend, and other events which they decide to book.

There was a debate????
 

Are you serious? Is this really all you have to say to defend that last comment?

TM

Tuesdays with the VP
 

Top Ten Things Overheard
During George W. Bush's Vacation
Dave's Top Ten, CBS
August 8, 2003

10."This vacation is flying by -- only 33 days left"
9."Dang, Springer's a rerun"
8."These margaritas are weapons of mass destruction"
7."Whoever's in charge really screwed up the economy"
6."My God! Mars is coming right at us!"
5."Don't worry, George. In 17 months, you'll have the longest vacation of your life"
4."Better start making stuff up for the State of the Union Address"
3."I'm itching to declare another war"
2."Proceed with 'Operation Letterman.' Make it look like an accident"
1."Sitting around doing nothing reminds me of being president"

The new Florida.
 

If checking the box next to Kerry actually registers a vote for Bush, then it is slick Republican bullshit trying to get in under cover of D paranoia.

sebby, I was intentionally mocking you with my self-contradictory thing. and I never defined fuckwad. Fuckwit? Sort of. Fucktard? Yes, in terms of fuckwit. Fuckwad probably has something to do with shooting one's wad while fucking.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

Please don't bother unless such cite differentiates those "vacations" where he is entertaining foreign heads of state or other prominent guests at the Crawford Ranch at Camp David.

[insert photo of Kerry windsurfing here]

Tuesdays with the VP
 

Just to throw out another possible interpretation of what Cheney said, as heard through the ears of those who fell asleep in government: "I'm Vice President, and my job is to be the head of the Senate. I show up for my job one day a week, unless I'm busy with something else. You, Edwards, must be bad because on the one day a week I actually do my job, you don't seem to be there. But I don't have direct knowledge of other days, because I'm not there, 'cause I only work one day a week."

There was a debate????
 

Your point seemed to have been, don't bring non-pols into this - Hollyweird is full of outlanders and we shouldn't be judged by them. My point, as to Moore, was that he's been accepted into the mainstream inner circle of demdom, and most certainly represents that philosophy, and that group. How is this non-responsive? My other examples were Moveon/Soros/.org, another main player, and . . . others I don't remember now. All pertinent and relevant. At least the ones I remember . . .

There was a debate????
 

Wow. I think something happened to you from you first started posting on these boards. Maybe you hit your head on a rock while kayaking one too many times. But you used to actually use your brain. Remember that?

I ignored SD's post because he's been pretty consistent since he started posting.

But are you actually suggesting that the measure of intelligence is how much money you have?

TM

There was a debate????
 

I always use really small words with you, though.

TM

The new Florida.
 

Why cannot it just be the fault of the idiot Democrats in charge of ordering the ballots in the first place?

Nowhere in that article does Drum mention the party in charge of the mistake - which omission, knowing Kevin's work, speaks volumes.

Also, if you read on, someone apparently "fixed the glitch"

There was a debate????
 

Yeh, but you'll never get brick one of that City laid unless you start playing by the rules which control who gets access to the the bricks.

Its not smart to lose over and over because you find the rules of the game repugnant. That sort of arrogance may get you a round of applause at a round table discussion of policy wonks and professors, but the prize here is not being thought objectively smart. The prize is votes.

The left seems to hit this perpetual disconnect where it defines the "win" as looking superior, but losing the game. Your brightest politician, Clinton, taught you nothing. You were always embarrassed by his "white-trashness" and commonness. In actuality, he embarrassed the left most because he was smarter than the lot of you. He knew how to think and how to manipulate the masses. He was the real left's greatest fear come to life because he showed that true intelligence was not just being able to theoretically debate policy with long words, but being able to actually understand its practical implications AND (and this is important) being to sell it to people who only understand short words. The left squandered the lessons of the smartest cat it ever had. He's laughing in Chappaqua. He'd have killed Bush months ago... He knows that to beat bush you have to be somewhat like Bush, and he knows the left would sooner drink rat poison. But he's a winner, and thats the difference between him and the smarter-than-everyone-by-half lefties.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

This is all nice and good, except for the irrefutable fact that (1) Cheney actually shows up for his job and (2) Kerry and Edwards don't.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

You know, this argument would be a hell of a lot more effective if the Senate [Republican] leadership didn't reschedule votes when Kerry and Edwards do show up so as to prevent them from voting.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...y.senate.vote/

Welcome to the PB
 

TM,

It's good to see you over on this board, but you need to understand the way a few things work. When Bilmore has lost an argument, he either posts a truly lame joke about it or he posts saying he never meant what he said to begin with (generally suggesting anyone who argued with him is some kind of a tool for think he ever COULD have meant it). When Hank loses an argument, he posts claiming victory. When Les or Slave lose an argument, they tell the victor to go fuck themselves. Club either slinks away in disgust or hits on Fringie.

Attempting to drag this process out by pointing out to them how badly they lost usually just brings Not Me in to defend them. This is a very bad thing, and we try not to let it happen. Let him slink away; he'll be back for more tomorrow.

Helpfully yours,

G3

There was a debate????
 

Don't be stupid. You're well-paid.

No, I mean that the measure of success in our society is wealth, and there are a lot of very smart academics who really resent the fact that they are not valued higher than people who are, in their minds, dumber than them. There's a resentment that their own perceived intellectual gifts don't translate into that monetary measure of success - that our society fails to reward the right factors.

There was a debate????
 

One quote I read said that Bush has been on vacation (at the Crawford ranch or at Camp David, probably) for "44% of his Presidency". I'm not sure if that's right -- it couldn't possibly be -- but then again...

I'll keep looking.

There was a debate????
 

FOR THE RECORD, that is not MY point. Thats my point twisted a bit. My point was just that the greatest measure of intelligence is succeeding in whatever endeavor you're in. If you choose academia, than it is being the objectively smartest. If you choose politics, its being the guy with the most votes. If you choose politics, but focus on being smartest instead of amassing the most votes, you're not very smart.

There was a debate????
 

He is ENTERTAINING important HEADS of STATE. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

Welcome to the PB
 

Funny, I always think of "I Am Sam" when I read your posts. I really WANT you to do well, and be happy, and succeed, but deep down, I wonder if I'm being realistic.

Welcome to the PB
 

When G-3 posts something, almost everyone scrolls.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

Why are either of those irrefutable? As to (1), if I recall correctly, according to the Constitution the VP's only job is to preside over the Senate. Cheney claims to do that on "most" Tuesdays, a claim which is not actually born out by the record. WTF does he do all day?*

As to (2), see my last post.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...ry.senate.vote/


*I recognize that Cheney is actually spending his days running the country on behalf of the puppet President. But I think the truth here hurts more than the rhetorical argument I am engaging in.

There was a debate????
 

So that's why "the left" hates the rich. Gotcha.

I didn't listen to the egghead profs much even when they actually had the power of grades hanging over me. I cannot fathom why you think the rest of us on the other side of the aisle are looking to them for leadership in our antipathy for your side. We can do that all on our own.

And wealth is a measure of success in our society, not the measure. I will go to my unmarked grave outside of debtor's prison believing that.

There was a debate????
 

Point taken. "One part of the left, specifically the intelligentsia."

Move over, then. Were I ever to submit to some religious belief, it would have to be Reverse Calvinism.

Tuesdays with the VP
 

Kerry claims that this one (1) vote was rescheduled.

a) Why would I believe him, and
b) How does this explain all the other votes, or - just as important - the missed intelligence briefings?

There was a debate????
 

You're totally correct about the leftist resentment. Its very prevalent in this industry. "But I was law review... why am I getting canned?" We're in a false meritocracy that creates a whole lotta people who are smart in some compartmentalized arena, but they lack the whole package. The left is chock full of these people - long on theory, short on action. "getting the dough" requires that extra bit of energy the left doesn't want to expend. The lefties are always the kids who'll tell you in a heartbeat that they don't want to shmooze anyone. That's "below them". They're smarter than that. But how smart is someone who doesn't recognize that perpsnal relationships are one of the most important things in one's career? The left seems to believe, because they're wrongly trained by teachers who harbor strong resnetments, that intelligence in the strictest book-derived organizational diligence form is a rare currency which ought to collect a premium. How soon they learn otherwise. Did they really think that there weren't 10 other equally smart people out there selling the same skill set? These lefties then get jaded and develop a hatred for the people who succeed by hustling or working personal networks. They deride self-promoters as showboats. They become threatened judgmental people, and as techincally smart as they may be, they are not palatable to 70% of people. No one wants them around. The left is isolated, and unless higher education starts focusing more on how to give these kids complete skill sets needed for careers, rather than mere theoretical knowledge, there are going to be a lot more of these angry people around bitching about how they have to work for people like Clinton or Bush.

There was a debate????
 

This is especially stark in the financial world -- where some dude who barely finished high school and cannot write a simple declarative sentence makes more money in one year than I will probably make in 15. Remind me why I went to college...? (I recognize that's not really a question, for those of you who are dying to point out my mistaken use of the question mark; I put it there to indicate the upward tone inflection at the end of the sentence.)

There was a debate????
 

You're sick of other people being smarter than you. We get it.

There was a debate????
 

Actually we're rich as hell, and we don't even try. It's like gravy to us. But keep striving!!

The new Florida.
 

So what you're admitting is the people who are voting for Bush are all smart enough to realize something is wrong with the ballot, and we only need worry about the Kerry voters? I think we could agree on this.

There was a debate????
 

I thought they were for Kerry.

There was a debate????
 

Doesn't count. Never having made much money at all himself, he gets a sort of honorary underachiever status.