Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
He's been on vacation more than anybody I've known with a job in my whole life.

Once again, you're ignoring what I do for a living.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, and I are like Nixon and Kennedy (the original). We both started out believing. and trying to convince others of our positions. I gave up and retreated to dirty tricks, but with Ty its still Camelot....

Why is it considered laudable and smart by the left's standards to engage in thoughtful debate if that debate will ultimately detract from one's ability to get elected? If Bush can get elected by doggedly refusing to engage debate, and he does so, how does that make him stupid? Isn't he actually smart and the left dumb in that scenario? Is the left's Achilles Heel its refusal to measure "smart"by the results achieved and not the ability to process complex concepts and mentally masturbate an issue to death? It seems to me that the left is frustrated because it is always measuring itself agsinst the right in terms of classical academic expression of intelligence, but the actual scorecard is kept with votes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It seems to me that the left is frustrated because it is always measuring itself agsinst the right in terms of classical academic expression of intelligence, but the actual scorecard is kept with votes.

You've actually hit exactly on the reason for the left's antipathy to the rich, too.

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
I think you can only relate to half-wits.
TM

Clearly, seeing as we IM all the time

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
If you insist on being stupid, don't half-ass it, homey. Take the actual words "global test" and play it out to your illogical conclusion. It should mean that every country gets a vote on when we invade, right? This includes the "Axis of Evil," Djibouti and Estonia, right? No. Wait. It means that it should be submitted to every person on the face of the Earth as a referendum.

You're embarrassing yourself.

TM

It does mean France and Germany though right, even though they said no fucking way they'd vote for it, but they'd were happy to leave our 200K troops on the border so Blix could continue his tour of squeaky clean warehouses. Kerry is the one with the embarraassing stance not Slave, not W. Kerry. And in the next 15 minutes to try and attack because we didn't go alone to N. Korea....yes Kerry's positions are the ones that the smart people find consistant and wise.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by everyone (including, improbably, TM)
[Primal Scream]

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

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Gattigap
... Cheney does come to the Senate on many Tuesdays, but it's usually limited to the Republican leadership luncheons. It's not so much that he never sees Edwards there, it's that he never sees Democrats.

Liar, liar, liar! He saw Pat Leahy.

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

[bilmore]

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

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why is it considered laudable and smart by the left's standards to engage in thoughtful debate if that debate will ultimately detract from one's ability to get elected?

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why is it considered laudable and smart by the left's standards to engage in thoughtful debate if that debate will ultimately detract from one's ability to get elected? If Bush can get elected by doggedly refusing to engage debate, and he does so, how does that make him stupid? Isn't he actually smart and the left dumb in that scenario? Is the left's Achilles Heel its refusal to measure "smart"by the results achieved and not the ability to process complex concepts and mentally masturbate an issue to death? It seems to me that the left is frustrated because it is always measuring itself agsinst the right in terms of classical academic expression of intelligence, but the actual scorecard is kept with votes.

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.

[dtb]

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.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
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.)

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
(And talk about not being on the job -- Bush has been on vacation some huge number of days over the last almost-four years.

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

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A president can do most of his job from Texas. a senator can only vote from the senate floor.

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

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by viet_mom
It says:

Outcome Spread Money Line
GEORGE W BUSH PICK -170
JOHN F KERRY PICK +140

I know I should know this, but.....I have never bet before (not even sports) so what exactly do the numbers in the Money Line mean in terms of these two candidates and do they at all reflect how many people have placed bets through this forum or any other?

- 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).

In terms of fees charged to bet on the site, what is the lowest amount one should bet? Can one bet on other political or world events? Interesting.

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.