Seccession of leave. I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.

There's really no way around it - hating science is hating America. We didn't beat the Russians to the moon because we outprayed them.

"President Obama succeeded by suppressing the vote."

I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It's only the ###### up brother in Delaware, piece of ####, scumbag mother ###### who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won't tell me, but I'm almost certain voted for Obama.

They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.

Harsh, but a reality.

Actually, that was me, Ray. And I couldn't stomach the whole list of comments.

From Byrd's Wikipedia page:

Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?

Quick chime-in: have we talked about important issues like keeping more people behind bars than any other country? The highest military budget by some five times? Land of the free home of the brave indeed. Or has it all been small-minded schadenfreude over what some washed-up d lister said today?

Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?

It's funny to me what people on both sides have taken from this. Democrats feel it is overwhelming support for their ideas and an overwhelming rejection of Republican/conservative ideas. Republicans feel that Obama "suppressed the vote" and thus are in denial about how many people really do support Obama's policies.

Look: The country is basically split down the middle right now, for all practical purposes. Sometimes the balance tips to Democrats, sometimes it tips to Republicans. Denying this seems silly.

EDITed to state what I wanted more clearly.

It's funny to me what people on both sides have taken from this. Democrats feel it is overwhelming support for their ideas and an overwhelming rejection of Republican/conservative ideas. Republicans feel that Obama "suppressed the vote" and thus are in denial about how many people really do support Obama's policies.

Look: The country is basically split down the middle right now, for all practical purposes. Sometimes the balance tips to Democrats, sometimes it tips to Republicans. Denying this seems silly.

Also, have you personally spent all day working on a cure for cancer? If not, shame on you. I would have but I have been busy working on world peace, and am typing this while engaged in a sit-in protesting war and violence.

He'd quit it by 1950. You can keep hammering a guy for something he did and then apologized for and disavowed, but it's not very worthwhile.

To me, racism is the belief that certain ethnicities have inherent genetic deficiencies. I don't have that belief.

I do think it is dangerous for Democrats to think that they are now automatically in the driver's seat. Things change!

So Democrats absolutely shouldn't be overconfident.

And Republicans could cut the margin quickly by becoming just a bit less overtly alienating to Latinos and educated white women.

Yeah, I feel bad for him now, as well. Perhaps he is simply a very mentally-ill person.

Also: No matter how much you hate to hear it, long-term deficit reduction and entitlement reform really are pretty important. Just because conservatives abuse the point doesn't mean there isn't something to it.

Eric Dondero said...
I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It's only the ###### up brother in Delaware, piece of ####, scumbag mother ###### who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won't tell me, but I'm almost certain voted for Obama.

They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.

Harsh, but a reality.



So... was this not reasonable? Should he not have done that?

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade.

He'd quit it by 1950. You can keep hammering a guy for something he did and then apologized for and disavowed, but it's not very worthwhile.

I mean if Pretty Pathetic Polling as Joe calls them was able to accurately gauge the electorate, why wasn't Team GOP able to at least privately know what was happening?

Also, have you personally spent all day working on a cure for cancer?

“We didn’t think they’d turn out more of their base vote than they did in 2008, but they smoked us,” said one Romney operative. “It’s unbelievable that that they turned out more from the African-American community than in 2008. Somehow they got ‘em to vote.”

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?

Rasmussen's numbers are getting bashed, but he was consistently GOP+2 almost everywhere, so you could at least use his numbers as a baseline

In terms of institutional racism being an "unsolvable" problem, how about we start with an easy one: equalize the sentences for powdered and rock cocaine. That should be a no-brainer, right? How about we put a moratorium on stop-and-frisks? These are just two easy ones OTH. This notion that institutional racism is somehow amorphous and untied to public policy shows zero understanding of what the term actually refers to.

On HW's comment regarding adapting to climate change

It is the world's eighth most populous country and has one of the highest population densities in the world.

Most parts of Bangladesh are less than 12 m (39.4 ft) above the sea level, and it is believed that about 10% of the land would be flooded if the sea level were to rise by 1 m (3.28 ft).

...which Nate Silver did by adjusting the results from Rasmussen, and you ROASTED him for it.

The biggest influence on my politics over the past 20 years has probably been Thomas Sowell. Maybe some of the lefties here can tell us about "tolerance" as it pertains to Sowell and the slurs regularly hurled at him by people on the left.

So I am not sure how adapting to climate change is going to work out for some of the rest of the world. And selfishly I think the US is better off if the rest of the world is not dealing with climate change refugees and other such nonsense. That said in many respects it is too late to avoid everything, but it is not too late to get started.

But it's still awful, and a black mark on him for not finding a better way than killing an American citizen who had committed no crimes.

New Yorkers are running on empty, and may have to keep doing so for a little while longer.

Gas shortages could persist in the city for another “couple of weeks” as crews repair damage at several refineries knocked out of commission during Hurricane Sandy, experts said Thursday.

Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?

Andrew Jackson says hello.

In terms of institutional racism being an "unsolvable" problem, how about we start with an easy one: equalize the sentences for powdered and rock cocaine. That should be a no-brainer, right? How about we put a moratorium on stop-and-frisks? These are just two easy ones OTH. This notion that institutional racism is somehow amorphous and untied to public policy shows zero understanding of what the term actually refers to.

if i was a true opportunist i would be investing in companies that are developing means to help countries mitigate or manage the impact of climate change.

Oh, and smart people on both sides of the aisle should start thinking seriously about how to handle a future in which smart machines do more and more work and humans do less and less. I'm dead serious about this.


Is a good point that I'd be interested in hearing conservative views about, especially in light of 'limited government' and 'takers/makers'...

On one hand, this debate dates back more than a century -- you can find thinkers that were wondering what would happen to farm laborers, factory workers, etc -- when new machines would lead us to fewer jobs, etc.

We always seem to have found more 'work' for human beings - even if increasingly, much of it is just 'busy work - but what does happen when the day is upon us that a really big chunk of work today is handled by machines? Even, the building of machines to DO that work comes by machines?

Huh? I have no idea what Nate did with Rasmussen's numbers, and neither do you.

one would have thought this problem was self-correcting due to the fact that liberals all claim to want to drive electric or gerbil-powered cars.

Families are funny beasts.

Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.

Of course the US will by and large be fine, no matter what happens. Bangladesh one the other hand ...

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society. The easiest solution is probably to do more or less what we've been doing. Provide cheap government housing in undesireable locations, offer food assistance/welfare sufficient to keep them fed/drunk, and have everybody who can afford it move far away from "those people". Maybe try to direct the recipients energies into something non-harmful, where their desire to accumulate status and meaning could be sublimated; perhaps a sort of universal MMOG for people with absolutely nothing better to do. Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.

This is why liberals often tune out Kevin Drum his David Brooks from the left routine. There's little value in stating what everyone already agrees too.

1. Everyone agrees we need to address long-term deficit reduction.
2. Everyone agrees we need entitlement reform.

1a. Some folks believe, rightly in my opinion, that the danger presented by debt/deficits is massively overstated, and point to the fact that bonds are still beloved investment opportunities. The free market doesn't seem terribly concerned that the US is going to "go Greek" anytime soon.

1b. As such, we believe that addressing the recession and unemployment should take precedent over straight debt concerns.

2a. Entitlement reform should not be confused with the Ryan/Randian desire to eliminate the safety net altogether.

But one heat-of-the-moment internet crack about an umpire's kids and cancer and I'm disqualified forever! Life is so unfair.

This is fascinating stuff (to me anyway), and I've tried to steer a few conversations here in that direction, but most people don't seem very interested.

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society.

This is a classic Kehoskie red herring, by the way. Robert Byrd has nothing whatsoever to do with the current Democratic Party of today - he's DEAD. His alignment with the Klan from FIFTY YEARS AGO is even less relevant. Joe is attempting to equate a dead Dem Senator from 50 years ago with the GOP as it behaves today. It's classic false equivalency and classic Joe spin.

sure i got to see a lot of interesting stuff. but cars that drive themselves? self-directed machines that handle complex tasks?

cars that drive themselves? self-directed machines that handle complex tasks?

that's the science fiction i read growing up.

that and minnesota and north dakiota will likely become america's breadbasket. they are pretty nice folks

For the record, the conversation you guys are embarking upon is straight up Marxist theory of post-capitalism. But don't let that run you away. This is a conversation that needs to be had, and you're right: the answer is that the Puritanical moralism that associates human value with "work all day" is going to have to shift significantly in our looming robotic future.

Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes.

LIMBAUGH: But the Republicans get a large part of the Cuban vote, particularly South Florida, already. And it's oriented -- I can't win here, I just can't win. It's oriented -- the reason that the Cubans are not that popular, of the Hispanic divisions you've talked about -- it's a race thing. It's a race thing. They're just not quite dark -- as dark, and they're oriented toward work.

Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes. And I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of blacks seemingly had no problem voting for Dems during the 30 years that a former Klansman was prominent among the Dem leadership.

You've seen the acting in those things, who will know the difference?

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society.

The theory I liked was the structural issues around the parties and race. Even if the policies were exactly the same would you rather vote for one that is virtually all white male (OK there are a few females and a sprinkling of other) or one that is chock full of the rainbow of flavors that humanity comes in?

And of course the policies and rhetoric are not the same. Not coincidentally the pale male party has some harsh rhetoric and some kind of nasty planks intheir platform. The rainbow party has said many more nice things, has HR approved lingo in its party platform, and has actually tried recently to pass (not as hard as it should have I admit) additional legislation.

My concern is that it's not just "Puritanism" though. People with nothing to occupy their time create social pathologies. The ones who want status but have no outlet to do so through traditional means will turn to crime. Alcoholism and drug abuse become rampant. Depression and other mental illnesses become more common. There's a lot of evidence that it's not healthy for people to just do nothing.

I'd love to know how many people who don't watch the films voted to put a condom law on them.

Porn industry in uproar over the new condom law just passed.

only the ex son in law crossed the law and he's gone now anyway.

LIMBAUGH: But the Republicans get a large part of the Cuban vote, particularly South Florida, already. And it's oriented -- I can't win here, I just can't win. It's oriented -- the reason that the Cubans are not that popular, of the Hispanic divisions you've talked about -- it's a race thing. It's a race thing. They're just not quite dark -- as dark, and they're oriented toward work.

This is a mirror of Euro porn's condom laws. It's not about aesthetics. It's about STDs.

Is a good point that I'd be interested in hearing conservative views about, especially in light of 'limited government' and 'takers/makers'...

On one hand, this debate dates back more than a century -- you can find thinkers that were wondering what would happen to farm laborers, factory workers, etc -- when new machines would lead us to fewer jobs, etc.

We always seem to have found more 'work' for human beings - even if increasingly, much of it is just 'busy work - but what does happen when the day is upon us that a really big chunk of work today is handled by machines? Even, the building of machines to DO that work comes by machines?

This is fascinating stuff (to me anyway), and I've tried to steer a few conversations here in that direction, but most people don't seem very interested.

I think we're entering the early stages of this scenario right now; cheap labor from immigration and globalization is helping to stave off automation in some areas, but machines are getting cheaper and better all the time. Keep in mind that from the perspective of most corporations, employees suck; they slack off, get hurt, hurt others, sexually harass one other, miss work because of their kids and generally act like dumbasses. The only reasons not to automate whenever possible are costs and capabilities.

There are fewer and fewer unskilled and semi-skilled jobs out there, and those that remain are increasingly filled with cheap immigrant labor. Google has already successfully demonstrated that cars can be programmed to drive themselves autonomously; within 10 years, I expect that technology to be taking jobs away from truck drivers and cabbies.

The jobs that remain will require specialized skills, superior reading comprehension/reasoning/communication abilities, or some combination of both. A good chunk of the population is not smart enough to handle those jobs, and the traditional jobs those people would ordinarily take will be mostly gone.

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society. The easiest solution is probably to do more or less what we've been doing. Provide cheap government housing in undesireable locations, offer food assistance/welfare sufficient to keep them fed/drunk, and have everybody who can afford it move far away from "those people". Maybe try to direct the recipients energies into something non-harmful, where their desire to accumulate status and meaning could be sublimated; perhaps a sort of universal MMOG for people with absolutely nothing better to do. Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.