Election '06: Prognostication. - Page 2

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-25-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
My bet

52 Rs in Senate.
221 Rs in the House.

I like you even more now that I know you've access to really good weed. I'll be visiting.

Spanky · 10-25-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I like you even more now that I know you've access to really good weed. I'll be visiting.

My door is always open to you. Although I charge double for people that hail from fly over states.

SlaveNoMore · 10-25-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
I like you even more now that I know you've access to really good weed. I'll be visiting.

If you're visiting the cow-town where Spanky lives, you'll need it.

[come to think of it, this explains the 3 foot jack rabbit sightings]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-25-2006, 05:27 PM

Senate: 51R/47D+2I
House: 216R/219D

Spanky · 10-25-2006, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you're visiting the cow-town where Spanky lives, you'll need it.

[come to think of it, this explains the 3 foot jack rabbit sightings]

It is a cow town, but what is even more screwed up is that you can't buy a one bedroom house for less than a million dollars in this cow town.

SlaveNoMore · 10-25-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Senate: 51R/47D+2I
House: 216R/219D

Related question.

How many of these contests are going to be settled by litigation?

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-25-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Related question.

How many of these contests are going to be settled by litigation?

Can I say that it's just fucked up how (a) crappy and (b) politicized our elections officials are in so many places?

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-26-2006, 01:30 PM

How the Democrats would answer if I asked them to list 5 policies which would counter this meathook reality:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...439766,00.html

ETA: For purposes of the exercise, protectionist measures cannot be utilized. (since they're patently absurd responses).

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Can I say that it's just fucked up how (a) crappy and (b) politicized our elections officials are in so many places?

Cletus Miller · 10-26-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How the Democrats would answer

Why just the Dems? How have the Republicans answered that reality?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How the Democrats would answer if I asked them to list 5 policies which would counter this meathook reality:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...439766,00.html

ETA: For purposes of the exercise, protectionist measures cannot be utilized. (since they're patently absurd responses).

Speaking for myself, here's some I'd like to see:

(i) Embrace the brain drain -- open up more immigration from India, China and other countries for tech and scientific workers, students, entrepreneurs;

(ii) Move the social security tax burden to the general tax base -- most countries don't impose this cost on goods being exported; we ought to find a way to shift it as well; it's a regressive tax as well;

(iii) Teach more foreign languages and at younger ages;

(iv) Comprehensive education reform to encourage more creativity and problem solving, including more equitable funding and less teaching to the test;

(v) Focus on planting the seeds in industries that will play to strength - like biotech (see PB discussion on stem cells). The private sector can take the products out to market, but the basic research has often been accomplished here in academia, research hospitals, and with government support, and that needs to continue. Putting up artificial barriers to reseach has to end.

I'll let you work out the details. But tell me what the Rs have accomplished on this score with both houses and the oval office?

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(i) Embrace the brain drain -- open up more immigration from India, China and other countries for tech and scientific workers, students, entrepreneurs;

we actually educate tons of tech and science workers. a problem is a high percentage are from foreign countries. It gets especially high when one looks at grad degrees. I always thought it was because US students get a BS and have a decent job here. Foreign students are not in a hurry to go home, so they stay for 1 more degree.

This is why patent attorneys have such lucratives careers. It is hard for young people to resist the lure of a decent job and continue in school.

Tax breaks or loan relief for US citizens who get grad degrees.

Quote:

(v) Focus on planting the seeds in industries that will play to strength - like biotech (see PB discussion on stem cells). The private sector can take the products out to market, but the basic research has often been accomplished here in academia, research hospitals, and with government support, and that needs to continue. Putting up artificial barriers to reseach has to end.

and this will help the old middle class- those with a HS diploma- how?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Related question.

How many of these contests are going to be settled by litigation?

Are the Rs still fighting the Texas ruling not to place DeLay's successor candidate on the ballot?

And are they going to drop the fight to get Foley's replacement on the ballot?

Because that's two there.

Replaced_Texan · 10-26-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are the Rs still fighting the Texas ruling not to place DeLay's successor candidate on the ballot?

And are they going to drop the fight to get Foley's replacement on the ballot?

Because that's two there.

The ads telling voters how to write in "S-H-E-L-L-E-Y S-E-K-U-L-A G-I-B-B-S" on the electronic ballot have been kinda funny.

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Charlie - besides always being a hoot on the talk circuit - is always good for the big ceremonial act.

Remember, this is the guy that put up draft legislation a year or two back.

Yes, and what exactly happened to that bill? My quick Google search reveals that it failed by a vote of 402 to 2, with even Rangel voting against.

Do you really expect that Rangel will seriously try -- not just talk about, but try -- to cut off funding for troops in battle? Or that, if he does try, it'll get anywhere?

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If this were only true. They can't put up all sorts of trade barriers and restrictions to try and prevent outsourcing etc. and in the end they will just hurt our competitiveness"

Wow -- the House really has an awful lot of power. I had no idea.

Especially if it has a slim majority of Dems, who as we know are uniformly disciplined and always march in step.

Quote:

All they will do is cut off funding and encourage the insurgents. Then Iraq will become the quagmire they are pretending it is now (we haven't even gotten to ten percent of the casualties we have had in every other war this century) - except of course Guld War One. If you assume the war has cost 300 billion, that is just a little over ten percent of one years budget. We spend more money on farm subsidies. In terms of percentages of GNP by far the cheapest war this century - except of course Gulf War I.

This is such a crock of shit that even you should be able to figure that out. How many Dems have actually called for cutting off funding?

As for encouraging the insurgents -- I thought that was Bush's plan? Y'know, "bring it on"?

And as for the cost of the war, it's exceeded projections by a factor of--- 10? 100? To argue now that "it's still kinda cheap" is pretty lame, even for you. And is it cheaper than Kosovo? Afghanistan? I mean, you aren't even right about the "this century" part, and the century is only 6 years old.