• Are you sueing for peace Gary? Well in that case, here are my terms:

    1. Do not interject into my conversations with other people and I will gladly not waste my wisdom on yours.

    2. Don't refer to me in non-direct manner through inferences in other posts with other people, and I shall refrain from the same.

    3. Stay out of my newest diary and I shall gladly stay out of your diary-a.

    4. Abstain from rating my comments and I'll not rate yours. You lack the bias to properly judge my comments and you probably think I lack the bias to judge yours.

    If you break any of these rules, I shall immediately troll rate you without explanation. I will also troll rate your troll ratings if necessary.
  • Neither of you are getting my point. Let me simplify:

    GOP increasing proportion of black vote = bad
    GOP decreasing proportion of black vote = good

    Say 20 million blacks vote in 2008. Which is better, GOP getting 11% or 9% of that?

  • comment on a post Why MSNBC sucks* over 9 years ago
    My problem with MSNBC is that it has only a handful of shows, reruns them constantly, and lacks the money and resources to run news 24 hours a day. It's actually more of an 8 hour news network. Networks like Fox and CNN offer constant realtime news, so of course they're going to get a wider viewership tuning in.

    But, for commentary I prefer MSNBC over all else for US cable news media. Countdown is great, Connected is ok because it has Ron Reagan, I like Hardball, and I even like Situation for humor -- Rachel Maddow kicks ass, as does Max. The conservatives on MSNBC like Tucker and Scarborough I can tolerate because they are paleo-cons. I even saw Scarborough switch positions on marijuana after an interview with Montel Williams. The one person I absolutely hate is that bitch Monica Crowley -- she is typical bushbot neocon trash.

    I still prefer the BBC over all US media though.

  • If you're right, then they have a funny way of showing it. So far I see 3 posts by people hoping the GOP wins and Hillary loses. I see one post by someone saying they'd vote for whoever wins the nomination -- me.
  • comment on a post Polling the masses 2 1/2 years out over 9 years ago
    The mainstream republicans have no clear frontrunner and seem more fractured than the democrats. Reminds me of the 2002 outlook for democrats. This should make for one interesting primary by the GOP.
  • That poll is so old and irrelevent. Don't ignore the fact that the biggest event to hit the US political landscape since Pearl Harbor, 9/11, happened just a few months after that poll -- which completely skews ALL the dynamics that affected that poll before 9/11. Basic rules of statistics would throw out that poll just based on that fact alone.

    Also, anyone who thinks for a second that Hillary isn't running in 2008 is dreaming.

  • I think Frist is still a contender, but I'm hoping Guiliani and McCain get taken down by the well-fed and spoiled religious right. McCain is the only GOP contender I think can defeat Hillary.
  • comment on a post The Shrinking Electoral Battleground over 9 years ago
    Kerry was much closer to the presidency using the electoral college than the popular vote. 100,000 votes in Ohio vs 3,500,000 votes nationally. So either system can bite you in the ass.

    Poetic justice would have been for Kerry to win EC and lose the PV in a repeat of 2000.

  • I found this shirt:

  • I always knew 2004 was an uphill climb because of polarization, Bush's wartime incumbency, and his lack of charisma to excite voters.

    I meant Kerry's lack of charisma, of course. The main reason you hardly ever saw him and Bill on the same stage together.

  • This country has become increasingly polarized over the last 10 years and both sides seem to be hardening into their positions even to the point where they now choose news sources that reflect and reinforce their own views. Being the case, polarization is to be expected, I believe it's becoming less relevent in general election politics, and based on the last 3 presidential elections I feel it's actually a boon provided the candidate can stir up enough energy to capitalize on it.

    I always knew 2004 was an uphill climb because of polarization, Bush's wartime incumbency, and his lack of charisma to excite voters.

    In 2008 the polarization will still exist, but this time the public will be very war weary. I also believe Hillary's sheer energy factor (good and bad) will work in the dems' favor. The more the GOP attacks the more it will close the dem ranks and fire up her supporters. Also, the Bill Clinton quotient can't be ignored. His full time campaigning on her behalf and the fact that she can stand on the same level as him is going to be a huge help. Who will have Bush campaign with them with his dirt poor ratings?

    All this of course depends on the GOP candidate. If McCain is nominated (doubt it) then I think he beats Hillary comfortably. But if it's Frist or another more conservative republican, I think no one can stand against her.

  • on a comment on The Immigration Wedge Issue over 9 years ago
    I will tell you that Latinos are like a big dysfunctional family.  Most Central Americans dislike people from other Central American countries. Same for South America.  And to top it off, South Americans dislike Central Americans.  HOWEVER, if anyone that is not Latino tries to say something bad about any Latino, we all jump in to defend said Latino.

    This is common across many ethnicities. Consider asians. Chinese, koreans, and japanese famously hate each other. But when it comes to asians versus others socially, they are quick to defend themselves. In the arab world there is also a long history of inter-arab divisions and hatred, but they also unite in the face of outside influences...of course in that case never enough to solve many of their problems it seems.

  • comment on a post GOP, Dems argue over beer money over 9 years ago
    Coors and Busch are republican backers. Which beers back dems? I think it says something that crappy beer is conservative.

    Heineken tastes like a liberal beer.

  • comment on a post The Immigration Wedge Issue over 9 years ago
    I support immigration because this country was built on the backs of immigrants from all over the world. I oppose illegal immigrants and believe they should seek entry into the country using the legal process of doing so.

    Immigrants are vital for filling so many of the menial jobs that many Americans just don't seem willing to do anymore. They've become an important part of many local economies due to this.

    At the same time, I'm not too keen on that initiative a few months back concerning issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Seems like awarding people who circumvent the existing legal means of gaining entry to the country. Also, the small minority of immigrants who do not adhere to the law become even more mobile and empowered to help others circumvent the system.

    While looking for immigration quota statistics I found the following, surprisingly from the conservative CATO institute:

    In The Cato Handbook on Policy, Daniel Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, suggests expanding, or at least maintaining, current legal immigration quotas: "Immigration is not undermining the American experiment; it is an integral part of it. We are a nation of immigrants. Successive waves of immigrants have kept our country demographically young, enriched our culture, and added to our productive capacity as a nation, enhancing our influence in the world.

    "Immigration gives America an economic edge in the global economy. Immigrants bring innovative ideas and entrepreneurial spirit to the United States, most notably in Silicon Valley and other high-technology centers. They provide business contacts with other markets, enhancing America's ability to trade and invest profitably abroad. They keep our economy flexible, allowing American producers to keep prices down and meet changing consumer demands."

    http://www.cato.org/dispatch/05-23-05d.html

    I think that's just right. Maybe we should look at raising the current annual quotas on immigration. Help more of these people enter the country legally.

  • comment on a post Paul Hackett shames Rush Limbaugh over 9 years ago
    Rush wouldn't know a damn thing about patriotism or military duty. He's a disgrace, he's never served, and he has the gall to attack people who have proudly worn the uniform. Reminds me of Bill O'reilly the other day lecturing John McCain on torture.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads