So now anybody with enough money to, you know, actually be able to provide jobs, is basically the mob? They don't make a big enough roll eyes smiley.
You're so full of shit that I don't know how you haven't suffocated from the smell.

Dubai!

When is the last time that prick actually made a game worth buying????







I kid, I kid :):):)

So, Joe the Plumber was in the Dayton area yesterday, stumping for McCain.

.
.
.


I mean, seriously, who is in charge of that campaign?

Just for some fodder for the day. Rasmussen is showing a 2 point lead for Obama in their daily poll, while Gallup is reporting a 3 point lead for Obama. For purely selfish reasons, I hope it's true as this thread would get much more interesting in the last 6 days. Closer polling seems to bring out the worst in everyone in this thread. :)

Too bad a political hack like that has tenure. You'd think an economics professor would at least point out that the federal income tax is only one of many taxes that people pay.

For those who understand that a simple analogy to buying beer cannot provide a useful guide to global economic policy, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand that a simple analogy to buying beer cannot provide a useful guide to global economic policy, no explanation is possible.

Or perhaps this whole discussion should be moved over to the "how conservatives lost the educated class" thread.

That's a good one. Might be time to starting working more on games and less time posting here :D

True. I disagreed more often with the Arles of 2006 than the Arles of 2008. You also seemed to take most of 2007 off. :)


Even better, he was holding forth on foreign policy issues, with the usual "Obama will talk to Iran so he's an evil terrorist" line.

I do wonder how many prospective game buyers have been put off enough to decide that buying your games is no longer something they want to do.

I found this pretty amusing, at the least. I don't know if there are factual inaccuracies or not.

Visualizing Uncle Sam's Debt - Credit Card Consolidation Needed for National Debt | Personal Finance Blog, Online Money Management, Budget Planner and Financial Planning - Mint.com

And his sensationalist bullshit fits in perfectly with the rest of McCain's campaign.

While the 'death of Israel' notion that is presented is obviously wacko, I have concerns in regard to Obama's policy towards rogue nations. If he sticks to the policy that he'll only do what Bush does in regard to talks, that's fine. Any move to create more talks at this point with Iran is not a good move at this point. The public support at this point is withering away for their president. The U.S. just needs to stay out of the way until the Iran elections. There will likely be a pretty big change in their legislature and the presidential position.

I'm pretty sure Obama's already said that talks need to happen between delegates from the U.S. and reps of the actual power brokers in Iran (the Supreme Council), so I'd say that's basically his policy.

I REALLY hope he doesn't pursue that. It's not a good idea, especially given the unpopular status of the current government in Iran. Also, lending legitimacy to any form of religious involvement is a bad idea. You're opening up a whole new can of worms where other religious groups start to ask for recognition in the Middle and Far East. That's not good at all.

I'll hope that you're wrong in your recollection. :)

I really despise this "giving legitimacy" notion. Do they run the country? If so, then that is who "we" need to talk to. Do you want to go talk to someone that is really nice but doesn't run the country? Just sitting off to the side and hoping the bad guys go away is not the way to handle things, IMO.

You can't recognize them in that manner. You can engage that group through the government officials, but talking with them directly is a VERY bad idea. If you do that, Osama bin Laden could quickly assert that they are now the controlling factors in part of Pakistan and that they are the ones that the U.S. should talk to regarding developments in that area rather than Pakistan. The terrorists that control some islands in the Phillipines could assert a similar claim. You can talk with these organizations (religious or otherwise) through the government, but talking directly to them and giving them legitimacy is a form of power that can be wielded against the governments themselves, thereby destabilizing that country through your actions.

The worst part is that Obama doesn't appear to fully understand that notion. I assumed that Biden would help him understand the full ramifications of those thoughts, but evidently that's not the case.

Again, I fundamentally disagree. Do they run the country/government? I understand that it works through diplomats/etc, but what if a country wouldn't talk to Bush? Wouldn't the U.S. see that as a huge insult? I'm not going to argue back and forth on this because, like most topics in this thread, I just don't know enough about it to tread water, but I don't see any reason to leave a country to grow worse just because we're too petty to talk to the individual that the country has chosen (or allowed to take power) as it's leader.

it's called recognizing the practicality of the situation. if other religious groups can materially affect the situation then i would hope that they would be talked to in due time. That's not even considering that in Iran he's not talking about holding talks with some splinter religious-group here, this would be essentially holding talks with the Iranian State Church (if you want to cast it in that light). And in that sense, if they can wield power, either political, or social, why wouldn't you talk to them and try to utilize every means at your disposal.

just because in this country we believe in a seperation of church+state does not mean that we should "cut off our nose to spite our face" and refuse to have discussions with religious authorities in countries where religion+politics are intertwined.

Huh? This has got to be the biggest stretch I've seen in this thread ALL DAY.

How can parallels be drawn between guys hiding in caves and the jungle and an organized religious council that controls a whole country?

The only paralells I see between the two are that they are both made up of Muslim fundamentalists.

The way the government of Iran is already set up (and has been since the 1979 revolution) is that the Supreme Council (of theocrats) is the government. The Presidency of Iran, itself, is the choice of the people made from a slate approved by the Supreme Council.

This isn't a group of clerics who just happen to influence the government (as in Iraq), this is the way the political system is set up in Iran.

You're aware of this, right?

1. They do not run the government. They exert a high amount of influence, but one could argue that the religious right or certain branches of the media do the same thing in America. That doesn't mean that foreign leaders talk to those people.

2. Iran is not 'growing worse' as a country. Their leader is making some stupid decisions that are pissing off the rest of the world and disenfranchising the poor people in Southern Iran for failing to deliver on campaign promises. As a result, his approval rating is brutal and he doesn't have much support in his own country. He won't win re-election.

Our best move is to stay out of the way in regards to leadership and let the Iranian people do the dirty work for us. Our only concern is the nuclear ambitions of their leader. To keep that in check, we have to speak directly to the Iranian president that is behind the nuclear initiative.

This is very, very incorrect.

The Supreme Council IS NOT equivelent to the "religious right" in America.

Although such a setup is probably a wet dream of the "religious right".

I don't know that I totally agree with that characterization. The only real leadership power that they have is control of the armed forces and the ability to created the election slate, though they have been pressed to allow more moderate candidates in recent years with mixed results. The president controls the executive branch and all lawmaking.

Without a doubt. Thomas Jefferson obviously foresaw the emergence of TV evangelists.

Mizzou, you really need to stick to topics you know about - like Sony press releases. What you've written here seems like something parroted from a 3rd-hand account that you read. "Only" the armed forces - do you get the power of the "Revolutionary Gard"? Without googling it, can you name the last moderate they allowed to run and what happened to him last time around?

I'd add one more thing. If we use the assumption that the President is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Supreme Council, what good would it do to talk to the council versus the president? It's not like he's holding back information from the council in that instance. You're not going to get any further by talking directly to the council than you are talking to the president.

I do know that the Revolutionary Guard is the main military influence in Iran. Are you suggesting that our government begin talks with the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard instead of the President?

FWIW.....I find it greatly interesting that the tightening presidential race is less interesting than Iran, but at least there's some chatter in the thread.

The Supreme Leader (currently Ali Khameni) not only appoints the heads of the Judicial Branch (who appoint everyone else), but he appoints half of the Guardian Council, which effectively has veto power over Parliament.

Not only that, but the Supreme Leader himself is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is what we're calling the "Supreme Council". It is comprised of 86 clerics elected (from a pre-cleared slate) by popular vote. In theory this Assembly has the power to remove the Supreme Leader, but the practicalities of Iranian politics mean this has never happened.


Basically the way Iranian politics work is that a bunch of senior clerics (the Assembly of Experts) appoint a Supreme Leader when necessary (i.e. when the previous one dies). The Supreme Leader has either direct control over parts of the state (for instance, the military and the sole authority to declare war), or indirect control (Judicial Branch) or considerable checks (Legislative branch, where there is considerable clerical involvement anyway) over the rest of the political structure.

To argue otherwise (that the power of the Supreme Leader is limited in some way, and/or that the Presidency can operate effectively and independently) is a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the way Iranian politics work.

Sorry MBBF, you are not a little wrong on this, you are completely wrong on this.

Probably because the race hasn't tightened.

So you are also of the opinion much like me that voting preferences haven't created a tightening of the polls, but rather the polling is actually being done with much more accurate weighting that better forecasts the results?

The urgency in Obama's recent speeches and the fire from McCain in recent days tend to mirror the insider notion from both campaigns that the race is much tighter than most polls show.

A real question here: Are you a statistician? Just wondering why you keep going on about the work of others unless you have some professional insight.

I don't know a damn thing about that stuff but what I can tell you is that every week I see Drudge touting how the race has tightened based on one or two polls. Then those polls start moving the other way and he moves on to another poll.

Then I look at the state polls and I don't see much moving in favor of McCain.

This race is over and has been for a while.

So a degree and/or job listing is now required to discuss polls in a FOFC political thread? That's rich.

FWIW, if you'd like a statistician/political outlook on it, there's yet another article about the possibility of the polls not being terribly accurate.

Accuracy Of Polls a Question In Itself

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com commented today (or yesterday) that the stats show that the "tightening" of the race is mostly the result of previously uncommitted Republicans finally committing to McCain.

He also notes that while this trend is showing up in overall national polling, it hasn't cut into Obama's lead in the battleground states, and thus hasn't changed the overall EV picture.

Even the slow-to-award-hypothetical-electoral-vote website of RCP has Obama with a solid 311 electoral votes right now. I guess for McCain, that would be tightening up.

But I would love to hear more about how MBBF thinks that bin Laden will seize lands inside of Pakistan and force Obama into high-level talks with him.

Well, we haven't had state polls since October 26th in most of the key states. Missouri was a dead heat. Indiana was a 1 point lead. NC was a 2 point lead. On the negative side for McCain, AZ and GA are both close, but I think those will likely sway to McCain in the end. Hopefully, we'll have some new state polls today or tomorrow to see if they have a similar trend to the national polls.

Republicans cling to hope like they cling to guns and religion.

Yeah, because Pakistan obviously has no territory under Osama's control at this point.

Understood. You asked about the close ones. We'll obviously be interested in some of the other states where Obama previously held 5-7 point leads as well.

Any of the states you mentioned are merely icing on the cake for Obama. How about Ohio, Pennsylvania or Virginia? Best McCain could do in yesterday's polls was Obama +4 in Ohio.

It's like in football if you're down 17 and get a touchdown and two point conversion. You're still trailing by two scores even if you recover the onside.

Closer? Yes. Does it matter? No.

How the hell did Barack Obama get territory in Pakistan? Free land for Muslims?

I guess it's easier to make a one liner than discuss the actual topic. Fair enough. You should have just told me you weren't interested in actual discussion.

No you don't need a degree. But you seem to talk with such confidence about the weighting measures being so inaccurate, I figured maybe you had actual knowledge about it. There are other reasons why polls could be wrong other than incorrect weighting, I figured you'd have more to add than copy-and-pasted articles that agree with you since you seem to be so sure of it...repeatedly.

So we're going to let the Iran thing drop?

.

I said the 'tightening' race. I feel that was accurate.

I have no doubt that Obama supporters will be chewing their nails on election night despite their assuring posts that it's all over.

I think you did a fine job of summarizing some of the information, some of which I wasn't aware of. Well done.

Just like Missouri fans were chewing their nails when Colorado came to town. Sure, you were a double-digit favorite, but you never know until the teams get out there and PLAY.

Anyone want to guess what Obama's 30-minute commercial tonight will be?

I'm thinking Obama comes on and says:

"So, I bought this airtime tonight to save you from another 30 minutes of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. No, no need to thank me. Just remember to go out and vote next Tuesday. And instead of Buck & McCarver, we'll just run YouTube videos of McCain saying stupid things for 30 minutes."

I told you, I don't know a damn thing about polling weights and all that. I guess you must, but I don't claim I do.

I guess I don't see the plausibility of a massive case of error on the part of all pollsters. It's not so much that they all have Obama leading, but it's by how much they have him leading electoral vote wise. I guess national trackers may indicate trends some states may follow but like somebody said earlier, I don't see enough state races improving for McCain for him to pull it off.

No, I just have a problem with people that would rather lump people into one party or another without any middle ground. I have said that I'm voting McCain, but that doesn't mean I agree with much of the religions right or the gun toters. I'm not sure why you chose to go there. There are other alternatives.

I'm guessing you haven't seen McCain's comment on that situation. He's evidently appealing to the baseball hardcores who don't want their World Series delayed. Someone should tell him that no one watches baseball anymore. :)


Breitbart.tv » McCain Mocks Obama for Delaying World Series Game for ‘Infomercial’

That is a good article, but it suggests that the inaccuracy of the polling may not be in McCain's favor.

The polls in which McCain is close presuppose 1 of 2 things:

1. Solid republican voters will turn out in high numbers
2. Survey weighting is set to 2004 election demographics

Both suppositions are certainly possible, but there are strong arguments against both from happening (mentioned earlier in the thread, possibly by me).

I'm not presumptuous enough to dismiss the possibilities 1 and/or 2 of happening. It is possible that the Obama youth vote may be over-estimated and/or the republican base is being under-estimated. But, in any case, it is very reasonable to say that the demographics in 2008 won't look like 2004 since the basic dynamics of the race (e.g, race with incumbency vs race with open seat, candidates on both sides that appeal to different demographics relative to the candidates in 2004, etc) are different.

To your point about "right" weighting vs "wrong" weighting of the polls. Sure, some will be right some will be wrong. But we won't know that until after the election (ironically, with the use of another poll). We can't make that judgment now.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but a bettor.

If you'd like to wager with me (for any stakes, friendly or financial) on the closeness of this election I would be happy to do so.

Don't take things so god damned personal. Like you said, it was a one liner. I guess I'm used to debating with my dad (a McCain supporter). We make the most ridiculous assertions about each other's views that we know aren't true. It's all light hearted. Sometimes a lot of you all in here could stand to lighten up a bit when talking politics. :)

And I agree (though I didn't realize that I was required to post only articles that favor McCain :) ). It's something to discuss and I think there's merit to both arguments.

:D

I'd have to get odds on that bet. As I've stated repeatedly over the last week, I do still believe that Obama holds a slim lead.

Out of thsoe states, I'd toss Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado in Obama's bin at this point. All of the rest are still in play. I'd also add that even the Obama campaign privately believes Pennsylvania to be a 2-3 point race, so I'd include that in the list of states still in play.

And McCain missed the memo from Fox that the game wasn't delayed, they just sold the airtime instead of showing a pregame show:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi..._baseball.html

Name your odds and terms sir.

Choose your poison: 30 minutes of Joe Buck or 30 minutes of Barack Obama

I honestly think I'd choose Obama. Buck is TERRIBLE.

Let me back up a couple of steps here. Where is the assertion that Obama wants to talk to the Supreme Council? Here is what I can verify for certain:


from: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues...n_policy/#iran

I totally agree with the first bullet point. As for your question about the supreme council, the above doesn't even addres WHO they will talk with. Your point is valid that he is very general in this information. With that said, Obama's results won't be any different than Bush in the above scenario. I suppose he can argue that it's different in approach, but he's fooling himself if he thinks that will end in anything different (Iran is continuing its troubling behavior and the UN and Bush continue to isolate Iran along with sanctions). There won't be any progress.

Iowa + Nevada + Colorado = 21 EVs, for a swing of 42 EVs, giving Obama the election unless McCain picks off a Kerry state.

Given the way election results are going to be reported, the first two litmus tests will probably be Virginia & Florida. If Obama takes Virginia, it'll look very dire for McCain. If Obama takes Florida, it's all over and we can all go to be early. If, in the midst of those two, Obama manages to take North Carolina, it's probably a safe assumption that he's got the race.

Yes. I have gone from "Bipartisanship has no chance of working in our political system" to "Bipartisanship has no fucking chance of working because both sides will fight each other over the color of the sky even though the true differences between them is the true difference between baby blue and sky blue"

As long as the losers in this election don't give me some crap about "looking forward to working with" the winners, I will be happy. In fact, the first Dem who says "I intend to stick it to Republicans" or the first Republican who says "Fuck the Dems. agenda" will have the lead for my vote in the next election.

I really hope that the drama drags on a bit through Nevada. I've somewhat enjoyed the late night watching of the last two elections. It's like a Super Bowl. I'm guessing the major news channels are hoping for the same as they'll lose viewers pretty quickly if it is over early.

"Will the Democrats get 60 Senate seats?" might be what the networks have to turn to. I wonder what time polls close in Alaska, though that race might not be close now that Stevens has been found guilty.

And I'm not the one claiming he's going to talk to the Supreme Council, that was you. I was hoping you would back it up with some sort of reference.

Given the demographics it's very unlikely that NV will be a difference maker. If Obama wins there he's likely won in NM and CO which likely gives him the election. Personally I think it'll be a early night. If PA goes to Obama it's very difficult to craft a scenario where McCain wins.

I'd agree with that. As the Obama campaign has said, it's a close race in PA right now and it's very important that they win it. The avenues for a possible win open up for McCain if he can win there.

Bill O'Reilly has a map MBBF might approve of:

I made that assumption based on the fact that he said he wanted to go directly to the top. After your post from Obama's website, it's quite clear that even he hasn't laid out exactly who he'll be talking to, which is concerning in its own right.

And as I stated yesterday, I'm not sure why I'd approve of a map that's not based in reality. I believe that map is just as unreliable as some of the polls giving Obama a 7+ point lead in the national election numbers. But I guess it's easier to paint me as being an extremist than to actually discuss the topic at hand.

The polling numbers would show it to be a bad move. His numbers have steadily declined since that information was released. Confidence is always a better motivator than fear in an election. It was a misstep if they thought otherwise.

Show me the Pennsylvania polling showing his numbers declining since that leak came out 2 weeks ago.

maybe this has been discussed to death while i was at lunch, but to me, the national tracking polls are largely worthless. it's the state-polling that matters, and McCain hasn't meaningfully closed the gap (in anything more than a "statistical noise" sense) in multiple battleground states.

I was speaking of the national polling, which has trended to McCain as is evident by the RCP numbers.

Anybody like to discuss Palin as the face of the GOP going forward (if McCain loses)? Is this even viable, or is it a pipe dream perpetuated by Palin's people?

:)

Wow. So, on one hand you claim the Supreme Council does not run the country, but on the other you interpret "straight to the top" to mean the Supreme Council. You can't have it both ways.

linky?

2-3pts? Really? Even though all the state polls have it at high single-digits? (down from low double-digits admittedly)

i'd like to see where you got that info

I would argue that, again, the national polling is irrelevant at this point and tightening of it to be expected during the final week of any election. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with any perceived tightening of the race in PA, because according to all released state polls up to now, that race has been static and for Obama for weeks. You would think that the PA poll would have some kind of effect in, of all places, PA, and not nationwide.

Add Biden to that mix. The choice is largely Dumb and Dumber if you're choosing between Palin and Biden.

But the two most respectable national trackers aren't really showing a tightening either. Rasmussen and Gallup have shown both guys very stable for nearly a month.

Rasmussen in October
McCain 44-47
Obama 50-52

Gallup Traditional since October 8
McCain 44-47
Obama 49-51

Gallup Expanded since October 8
McCain 43-45
Obama 50-53

All of the variance has been within the margin of error.

pipe dream. they've been smoking too much ganja.

I don't think there have been any national news articles arguing that if Obama loses, Joe Biden will become the face of the Democratic party. So I don't think that's pertinent.

They'll be too busy fending off attacks from the McCain people and Republican columnists for a bit before thinking about being the face of the party. We'll see what happens when the Civil War is concluded and which side wins.

a) i don't think anybody's talking about Biden as the future of the democratic party

b) for you to even insinuate that Biden is as intellectually-stunted and ill-informed as Palin is just sheer lunacy. Really I could pull out numerous examples to counter this, but it's a waste of time, because if you honestly believe that then no amount of examples will convince you, your head is buried in the sand. The guy has been a senior Senator for years, has authored landmark legislation and bills, and has been a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Comparing his intellect to Palin's intellect is like saying a tricycle could beat a Ferrari in a drag-race.

Wow - I hope not. Talk about giving yourself over to the lunatic-fringe.

Palin becoming the face of the Republicans would be awesome. There is no way in hell she could ever win the Presidency.

One other thing regarding the weights being used in the Pennsylvania polls. Arguably, the Democrats had their best turnouts in recent memory in 2006 when they did extremely well. In that election, 43% of the voters were Democrats and 38% were Republicans, giving them a 5% advantage. In the 2004 election, the Democrats held a 2 point advantage. The current polls showing 11-13 point leads for Obama are giving the Democrats anywhere from a 12-19 point advantage in voting turnout. Is it any wonder why the polls show one thing while the Obama camp quitely says it's a close race? There's some serious issues with the polling in that state. Those weights wouldn't even pass a 'six sigma' test given past voter turnout results in Pennsylvania.

We cant help that we are rednecks who don't know how and where to vote properly!

Racists. You forgot racists. :D

Doc, will you be on the ground at your local PA polling site giving live reports to FOFC?

Being the "face of your party" doesn't mean she's going to be the Presidential nominee. I mean Ted Kennedy was the face of the Democratic Party for a long while, but aside from 1980 never got close to the Democratic nomination.

Agreed. I see her playing a role in future elections regardless of this election's results much the same as Rudy Giuliani. She'll be more of a rah-rah type to keep the religious right fired up when elections come around. She obviously has the charisma and appeal to pull votes. McCain would be getting hammered right now without her.

The more interesting fight IMO is between her and Huckabee given that they have the same power base.