Bill is obliterating the GOP.

They are an easy target.

The fact that this fascist,

Huh?

When you illegally assassinate American citizens, destroy the economy, and inflate the debt, you aren't in particularly good position to criticize those who have merely destroyed the economy and inflated debt.

illegally assassinate American citizens

New York Democratic Congresswoman says slavery existed in Brooklyn in 1898 under the Dutch.

 I'm really curious in an Election-geeky kind of way to see what kind of bump Obama gets after the convention. Romney looks to have picked up around a 1-2 point bump, which is pretty low historically, but not abnormal given the last 10 years.

it strikes me that it could be hard to parse out the DNC and the Friday jobs report.

The fact that this fascist,

Huh?



Forget it, he's rolling.

I think you know why freedom lovers call statist cheerleaders fascists.

So, because people who have a bizarre, crabbed definition of "freedom" also have a completely non-sensical definition of "fascism"?

I'm certain there are other people on this board more qualified to speak to this, but it strikes me that it could be hard to parse out the DNC and the Friday jobs report.

I think you know why freedom lovers call statist cheerleaders fascists.

Krauthammer said the Dems have known for months what the weather will be tomorrow night.

Meet Principal Chief Bill John Baker

Bill John Baker is a fourth generation of Cherokee, born and raised in Cherokee County and the great-grandson of Nancy Walker Osage, an early Tahlequah business owner and Cherokee Healer. Nancy’s mother, Sarah Tackett was brought to Tahlequah Indian Territory by friends after her parents died on the “Trail of Tears”.

"My Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a thousand times (and) remarked that he – her father, my papaw – had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do."

Good one. Shows that certain segments of both sides are can be as hypocritical. FTR, I'm opposed to most of those mandates talked about in the piece. But one can take this freedom of choice thing too far. Should I have a choice to not pay taxes? Should I have a choice to not educate my children? Should I have a choice to smoke in a public library? Should I have a choice to not wear pants in public?

They do want to progress.

Most of the rest of the world now has some sort or government mandated/controlled/provided health care. We don't

Most of the rest of the world has disbanded the death penalty. We haven't.

Most of the rest of the world has a progressive tax system. We don't.

839. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4227919)

They do want to progress.

Most of the rest of the world now has some sort or government mandated/controlled/provided health care. We don't

19th century idea.

Most of the rest of the world has disbanded the death penalty. We haven't.

Your conception of "most of the rest of the world" is rather narrow. 20th century idea.

Most of the rest of the world has a progressive tax system. We don't.

Yes, we do. Also, a 19th century idea.

Isn't Libertarianism from the 18th century?

Isn't the germ theory of disease a 19th-century idea?

Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."

Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."

Your conception of "most of the rest of the world" is rather narrow. 20th century idea.

but in the fact that "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism for pro-abortion.

but in the fact that "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism for pro-abortion.

Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."

And when it comes down to it, pro abortion isn't as accurate as anti abortion. When a woman get's pregnant, the pro lifers say "Don't get an abortion"

16th century idea. Copernicus.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Is that the first time a political entity has couched their position in a euphemistic way? Maybe the Republicans aren't really pro life, as many support the death penalty. Maybe they are really anti-abortion.

Worst thing about last night's convention: It was competing with the NFL's opening night.

Might I suggest name calling us statists and authoritarians.

The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.


That's essentially correct, if you replace "collective" with "corporation." Your inability to understand how power actually operates does not negate its operation.

The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

Except when it comes to anything sexual. Then the individual has radical autonomy.

The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

So who protected the actually talented and qualified from Harvard's exercise of its private power to give Elizabeth Warren a job and tenure because she was part-"Cherokee."?

Your "ethic of consent" involved branding misunderstandings as criminal, and applying different standards of consent and criminality based on the sex of the person.

My sexual ethic doesn't propose criminalizing anything that isn't already criminal.

These are almost as stupid, as they make the typical libertarian error of assuming that the absence of state power equals the absence of authority, and the presence of freedom.

All told, the research literature does not bear out the idea that negative campaigning is an effective means of winning votes, even though it tends to be more memorable and stimulate knowledge about the campaign. Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, though it does slightly lower feelings of political efficacy, trust in government and possibly overall public mood.

It found that, in contrast to earlier research, that negative advertising could be an effective strategy for challengers, while incumbents were hurt by going negative.

Targeted campaign ads appear to have only a small measurable effect on groups

Voters’ tolerance for negative campaigns and political rhetoric depends on individual characteristics: Those with a strong party affiliation and a deep interest in the campaign tend to be more tolerant and their impressions of candidates were not as deeply influenced by negativity. Men are more tolerant than women of negative content, while older respondents are less tolerant.

Across a series of three studies, we basically showed that not all negative campaigns lead to the same consequences. Specifically, especially personal attacks toward the opposing candidate may backfire at the explicit level…. Overall, it appeared that negative messages decreased the perceived warmth of the source while simultaneously increasing the perceived competence. Results are discussed by focusing on the importance of implicit measures in political psychology and on the crucial role of perceived competence.”

Voters tend to separate a campaign ad’s tone from whether they believe it to be informative: many voters will (correctly) perceive a campaign as negative but will also believe that it is providing truthful information. “These dimensions appear to be separate constructs in citizens’ minds.” Voters can accurately perceive whether a campaign is negative, and such judgment is not just a matter of which candidate they prefer. “Public perceptions of negativity do in fact respond to reality.” The degree of a campaign’s negativity as reflected in advertising has little bearing on whether voters believe it is informative. “There was no relationship between the volume of negative appeals and beliefs about whether the candidates were providing useful information or discussing policy issues.

We find evidence that personally delivered messages can be effective at influencing voting preferences, but neither experiment uncovered a systematic difference between the effects of negative and positive messages on voter turnout or political attitudes

We find that messages from the news media influence people’s willingness to rate the candidates on trait dimensions. In addition, negative trait messages emanating from challengers and the press shape citizens’ impressions of incumbents. In contrast, voters’ evaluations of challengers are unmoved by campaign messages, irrespective of the source or tone of the communications. Finally, we find citizens rely heavily on traits when evaluating competing candidates in U.S. Senate campaigns, even controlling for voters’ party, ideological and issue preferences.

We find that in equilibrium, the proportion of negative ads depends on both voters’ knowledge and the candidate’s budget. Furthermore, for an interesting subset of the parameter space, negativity increases in both knowledge and budget.”

Taken together, both tests reinforce that negativity can only demobilize when two conditions are met: (1) a person is exposed to negativity after selecting a preferred candidate and (2) the negativity is about this selected candidate.

As predicted, partisans in primary election conditions had lower ad and sponsoring candidate evaluations for comparative ads attacking a primary opponent than for positive ads or comparative ads attacking the eventual general election opponent, but there were no differences between the latter two. Independents in the general election conditions responded more positively to positive ads than comparative ads. Issue ownership had no main effects.

Men are disproportionately mobilized by uncivil negativity as compared to women [and] women appear to be slightly more likely than men to vote after viewing civil negative messages.

We assess the role of education, party polarization, and paid advertising in explaining trends in Americans’ political knowledge and engagement. We show that the public’s steady level of information and increased focus on policy in presidential politics reflects the high level of policy content in paid ads, which have compensated for the shift of news coverage toward candidate character, scandal, and the horse race.

Then why don't you follow the same logic on other issues?

The leftist view is that people are never at fault for their bad outcomes, and society should always bail them out of trouble. Criminals are criminal because of "root causes" not because they're venal or evil. Poor people are always victims of circumstance, never laziness and stupidity, and have to be supported in a near-middle class lifestyle, by the rest of us. No one is ever to be made to suffer for their bad choices, if a sufficient amount of taxpayer money can alleviate that suffering.

The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

Do gays have to sign the form at each stage, too? If so, who signs?

But, IIRC, you still believe in a version of radical sexual autonomy. You just believe that people have to be stone cold sober, and hyper-communicative, to exercise autonomy.

I'm all for helping those who are trying, but if you do wrong and stupid things, you need to pay the consequences.

And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.

The guy that drops out of high school, gets addicted to drugs, refuses to work, engages in criminality, and fathers a bunch of children who he doesn't support, still gets benefits under your system.

I for one believe that there is a level of subsistence (education, housing, food, healthcare and so on) that society can and should provide for all its citizens. How that becomes "Poor people are always victims of circumstance" or "No one is ever to be made to suffer for their bad choices" is a complete mystery to me.

It is true that poor people should only be allowed to fall so far and no farther, and they should always have the opportunity for themselves and especially their children to better themselves.

It's really sad to me that people find consent to be this onerous imposition on their sexual lives.

If you wanted to provide access, you'd be for voluntary health insurance pools, and a voluntary retirement savings system. Perhaps they'd be subsidized, but they wouldn't be mandatory and hugely redistributive. And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.

The guy that drops out of high school, gets addicted to drugs, refuses to work, engages in criminality, and fathers a bunch of children who he doesn't support, still gets benefits under your system.

Right. I mean, I don't believe that poor people should be sold into debt slavery. Neither does snapper.

If you wanted to provide access, you'd be for voluntary health insurance pools, and a voluntary retirement savings system. Perhaps they'd be subsidized, but they wouldn't be mandatory and hugely redistributive. And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.

I mean, I don't believe that poor people should be sold into debt slavery. Neither does snapper.

Isn't Libertarianism from the 18th century?

that's sex working as designed.

Yes, the whole purpose is to provide for everyone. Even people who make bad decisions. The idea is that a higher floor provides people with the ability to recover from bad decisions. This is good for society, as it encourages dynamic risk taking and innovation.