7964.

What do you do when faced with serious election irregularities?

I suppose you could draft a report. Maybe it will receive some mild press coverage upon its release. And then you can watch the established media ignore it and claim no such report of irregularities exists as a voter ID law goes through your state's courts.

I'm not sure why people want to *president* in their fantasies. What's the point of having fantasies and then simply be head of one of the coequal branches of government, ultimately answerable to the electorate?

Well it's more short-hand for "being the guy in charge"...which is kind of implied by the fact that I'm not sure the president actually has the ability to implement the plan in #8068.

I suppose you could draft a report. Maybe it will receive some mild press coverage upon its release. And then you can watch the established media ignore it and claim no such report of irregularities exists as a voter ID law goes through your state's courts.

Dude, you should at least read your own damned links. Here's a direct quote from the guy that did the report you're reeferencing:

"It's a highly charged political debate right now. Some want to see the report as proof that there are hundreds of thousands of cases out there; others are saying it's proof that there are no fraudulent votes. But, everybody wants to answer the question: How much of this is there? The report says, at the very beginning, that it was not our intention to find that number. The report, by design, was largely anecdotal. We were looking at examples of how voter fraud occurs and came up with a list of seven."

You're not very good at this game.

I suppose you could draft a report. Maybe it will receive some mild press coverage upon its release. And then you can watch the established media ignore it and claim no such report of irregularities exists as a voter ID law goes through your state's courts.

But does this just say that they were not looking to see what level of fraud occured, just the types of fraud that are possible?

There are all kinds of marriages, and couples often make adjustments. Mrs. Pet was obviously not a party to Gen'l Pet's solo adjustment in this case, and that's obviously a problem. What I'm shocked at is how doubly shocked a few people seem over why this happens, and how absurd it seems to me to try to remove from the conversation any notice of how age tends to differently affect men and women, as though such notice was 'piggish', and could only be meant to denigrate.

All true. I'm not expressing "shock", I'm expressing judgment. If you are married to someone you no longer find attractive, you have to figure something out. WITH THEM. You can't just take a person who has committed their life to yours and inflict grave emotional injury because you're a little horny. It's obviously a problem and one we're all likely to be in, from one end or the other, at some point. I'm also a lot more forgiving of an affair if really is "just sex" or a one off engagement. And, as I said, I don't think it is unforgiveable or makes one a terrible person. But it damned sure is a terrible thing to do.

And put me down for one who thinks the two not unequally physically matched. He has the power thing going but all we have are still photos. She may well be much more attractive.

In any case, it seems you didn't mean to "justify" and I accept that many things may happen over 40 years to lead one to stray. But if you go back and read the cluster of posts it really did read as if several folks here thought she had it coming for being frumpy. Since we're all posting on an internet chat site, I daresay we not let that precedent be set.

This slide about Commisar Obama's secret UN mind control Agenda 21 agenda is priceless.

I can't stand the smell of marijuana or cigarettes, but I love the smell of pipe smoke. I've long had a plan to open an establishment of some sort and to hire a couple of old dudes to sit in the corner and smoke pipes all day.

I know several instances of a couple getting married and the man immediately putting on 40 pounds. I'm generalizing, but men who are going to schlub up seem to do so early on.

(Spellcheck in Opera wants "schlub" to become either "Busch" or "Schlitz"!)

8103. Until there are procedures to monitor for fraud, collect evidence and track it to a suspect, proven cases of voter fraud will be few if any at all.

I know several instances of a couple getting married and the man immediately putting on 40 pounds.

I believe that's a required step in order to qualify as a sitcom couple. Seriously, how many sitcoms are there with the fat bald schlubby husband and the pretty-damn-hot wife?

Until there are procedures to monitor for fraud, collect evidence and track it to a suspect, proven cases of voter fraud will be few if any at all.

There are methods to detect voter fraud. Statistical and otherwise. They've been used countless times in previous years to detect patterns that would indicate significant voter fraud. They have, to a case more or less, failed to detect any sort of signal in that regard.

You cling to the hope that there is significant fraud that is simply undetected because it keeps you from having to reevaluation your opinions, beliefs, demographics, or at the very least, your ability to convince a plurality of voters that you are correct on the issues.

I can't stand the smell of marijuana or cigarettes, but I love the smell of pipe smoke. I've long had a plan to open an establishment of some sort and to hire a couple of old dudes to sit in the corner and smoke pipes all day.

Ooooh, I'd nearly forgotten that. A friend of mine bought me a pipe as a gift a couple years back. I only smoked it once because I'm scared to death of cancer, but the sweater I had been wearing smelled awesome for days after. I really wish I could get over my silly cancer hang-up. I even went so far as to get some more pipe tobacco, but it's sitting unused in a pouch by my pipe over there.

I may also add, smoking a pipe is a great affectation (or at least it feels great while you're doing it). A pipe serves as an excellent prop to punctuate various points you make in conversation. Also, I find the non-word sounds one makes in the course of a conversation (of approval, agreement, disbelief, sympathy) are all improved when forced through the clenched teeth of a pipe-smoker.

But if you go back and read the cluster of posts it really did read as if several folks here thought she had it coming for being frumpy.

Agree.

The smell of cigarettes reminds me of childhood. Mom and Dad both smoked, though not in the house. Every other adult in my life smoked as well. The smell of cigarettes permeated pretty much everything I did.

I'm honestly not sure why I don't smoke.

Petition to punch Grover Norquist in the dick.

8109. I'd like to believe there would be regular reviews, but it would also seem the established political class would have an incentive to maintain those loose loopholes. Care to share any reports you've come across?

The most commonly reported claim on this topic is 'we don't need voter ID laws because there are no individuals charged with the crime'. Or less related to the topic: 'knowingly committing a crime'. Both put the cart before the horse.

If you want to justify his cheating, just say he wanted some hot young thing, don't keep insisting his wife looks 15 to 20 years older than he does, when that is false.

The most I've said is that Broadwell isn't all that attractive, except standing next to Holly Petraeus. Broadwell is above average due to her slender figure.

I can't believe, though, that anyone would think that Holly Petraeus is in Broadwell's league. So I don't know exactly what you're barking about. Are we supposed to pretend that Holly Petraeus might not lose a fair beauty contest against Mrs. Doubtfire?

On looks, Petraeus does better in his category (60 year old men) than Holly Petraeus does in hers (60 year old women). Are you seriously disputing this? Why on earth?

@7871:

Honestly - I'm a bit jealous of that... I won't hazard a guess as to whether that's half or 3/4 or 1/4 of all marriages, but I do know that there are plenty of them like that.

Zonk, I've never defended Petraeus, merely looked into motive; it's true that many people don't cheat, regardless of whether they are attracted any longer to their spouses. What surprises me, though, is the great umbrage in some posts, as though there is no greater failing than the unwillingness to live the last half or better of ones life in a sexless partnership.

It may be that having a very close friend going through this kind of thing makes me more willing to consider the possibility that 'The Cheat' may have gone through his own special agony within the marriage. My friend married in his mid 30s after a two year relationship. He and his wife had a child and she promptly ballooned to 230 pounds. They had another child, but have sex perhaps once a year. He's tried everything, and can't rekindle her interest. He's a good guy, a loving husband, a committed father, a former navy man in the same shape he was when on active duty, and in his early 40s came to understand that he'd never have passionate sex within his marriage again. His children are young, he doesn't want to split up their home, he and his wife still love each other... if he strays and fins sexual love with a woman not his wife is he really the immoral monster that some people here would portray him as? I don't think he is.

I don't know Petraeus or his motives. I haven't defended him. What I object to is the automatic dismissal of a common occurrence through the use of moral absolutes.

Instead of the death penalty for abortion providers, I'd say everyone involved in this decision to let a pregnant woman die of miscarriage be placed in their own separate plastic bag to suffocate. Perhaps with a ski boot sewn into their bowel.

Horrifying, and inevitable, when we put a premium on unborn life. The actually living? Not so much.

It is a hard situation to figure out. I think the minority opinion poster will generically have some traits in common, or else they would not be willing to post so stridently as a minority opinion poster (and take the commensurate abuse).

This seems like an almost strangely openminded group, and no one I've noticed objects to Joe's views, per se, but rather his endlessly shifting goalposts, the artless changes of subject when cornered, the refusal to accept any statistic as definitive when it disagrees with his positions, and so on. It never ####### ends, ever. EVER. No one watching Joe in action thinks he cares about anything, not even babies in heaven, remotely as much as he cares about winning arguments and racking up imaginary points in righty pundit hell.

"You know, I don't know if by any chance, because I'm an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability, so they should not be able to cross my property. I don't know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well," she told the 911 dispatcher Monday.

Why wouldn't ordinary, existing laws on trespassing protect her?

I do make light of degrees that are indistinguishable from the similar education one could get simply from reading books.

Funny stuff, coming from a lawyer, the education for which seems primarily to teach you which formbook to use. Oh, and penetrating the arcana meant solely to confound the intelligent layperson. Good try, though.

edit: "Thanks for backing down from your erroneous claims that she appears 15 to 20 years older." No problem! And thanks backatcha for a positively Kehoskian taking remarks out of context, fragmentary quoting, imputing positions never held, and making exaggerated misstatements. Well done, lazy boy!

re Ray in 8115: as much as I may disagree with you elsewhere, in this matter there does seem to be a peculiarly liberal bias against plain facts.

There have been numerous investigations into voter fraud, most of them run by Republican officials and governments who *wanted to find fraud*, none of which found any evidence of fraud. All of this in recent years, again, during GOP held terms in various states (and while Bush II was president.) You can find reference to these studies via Google if you're willing to look for them.

Every attempt to find meaningful voter fraud finds the opposite; no evidence of such fraud exists, even when partisan apparatuses are looking to find as much.

Every attempt to find meaningful voter fraud finds the opposite; no evidence of such fraud exists, even when partisan apparatuses are looking to find as much.

Don't you see: that's exactly what the lamestream media WANTS you to believe. You're being MANIPULATED, man.

I'm still curious. Care sharing a report?

I don't know Petraeus or his motives. I haven't defended him. What I object to is the automatic dismissal of a common occurrence through the use of moral absolutes.

This is well said and I support it 100%.

I'm still curious. Care sharing a report?

Oh, for ####'s sake.

8121. I'm crowded out by the Brennan reports that measure the wrong thing and put the cart before the horse. Care sharing a report? Maybe you bookmarked one of these numerous investigations? Even the name of a city or year or official's name would help.

What surprises me, though, is the great umbrage in some posts, as though there is no greater failing than the unwillingness to live the last half or better of ones life in a sexless partnership.

I also don't know what has gone on in his life. If he is in a situation similar to your friend's, then, yes, I'd cut him more slack. I'd just note that, while I don't think Mrs. Petraeus is a beautiful woman I neither know her nor love her. The idea that because she looks older than her husband and is a little heavier (I haven't seen a picture that makes her look enormously fat - but I haven't seen more than a couple of pictures) that it must be a "sexless" marriage. It could be sexless if she were hot. It could be steamy though she's not. Who knows?



It may be that having a very close friend going through this kind of thing makes me more willing to consider the possibility that 'The Cheat' may have gone through his own special agony within the marriage.

Of course. No one is saying he's a monster.* People are saying that whatever she looks like has nothing to do with justifying his putting her through this. If she is a mean, nasty ##### who refuses to sleep with him, despite his trying his best to salvage things, then, by all means, have at your biographer and grifting socialites. If she is, as portrayed in the stories I've read, a loving wife who has put up with a lot of crap over the years to support his career, then to hell with him.

Neither of us has any knowledge of the situation, obviously, so I'm going to cut some slack to the party I don't have to imagine as having a fault.

Whatever his wife looks like is completely irrelevant. He may regret she hasn't aged as well as he but you don't make a lifelong committment with the exception that you're out if she gets frumpy. Until someone comes up with some evidence she was a bad wife who made his life hell, I'm sticking with my view that he was an a$$ - and, given the publicity involved - an a$$ of epic proportions.


* We're implying you're the monster** for saying*** she should have expected it because she's aged badly.


** and monster is still too strong, just unbelievably superficial - we're talking a marriage here, not a hookup.
*** implying

I don't know Petraeus or his motives. I haven't defended him. What I object to is the automatic dismissal of a common occurrence through the use of moral absolutes.



This is well said and I support it 100%.

I do too. Too bad he didn't say it the first time. It isn't a moral absolute. You can cheat and be a good person. But I object to the acceptance of something that obviously causes great pain to the people the cheater claims to love. He isn't bad for all time. But neither is he at all "good" for this. And since people obviously do avoid screwing around, he could have, too.

Oh, I found one. A media organization sent a survey asking for election officials to self-report their failures at preventing voter fraud. Naturally of course they received back a portion of surveys, largely claiming the election officials weren't incompetent. Sound study that one.

We could keep an extremely loose federation on the model of the Holy Roman Empire

If you think the HRE was a success story, I have some Italian city states I'd like to sell you.

Mitt Romney told his top donors Wednesday that his loss to President Obama was a disappointing result that neither he nor his top aides had expected, but said he believed his team ran a “superb” campaign with “no drama,” and attributed his rival’s victory to “the gifts” the administration had given to blacks, Hispanics and young voters during Obama’s first term.

...The president’s campaign,” he said, “focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

Turns out the 47% was really 53%. Linky.

But while it may not enjoy any such right, Texas can legitimately claim to be holding an unusual ace up its sleeve, which—should it ever be played—could end up altering the face of the U.S. map even more significantly than secession would. And were it to be played deftly, that ace could even set the stage for the very secession scenario that Micah H. and his separatist compatriots so passionately envision.

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics, I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.

...

Could the current crop of Texas secessionists use the division clause in pursuit of their separatist goals? It would certainly be worth a shot. Naturally, it took the Machiavellian political mind of Texan Tom DeLay—the former House majority leader, currently out on bail while appealing a 2011 money-laundering conviction—to put the pieces of a tenable scheme together. The day after Perry blew his secessionist dog whistle to that reporter back in 2009, DeLay went on MSNBC's Hardball to cheerfully defend his governor's remarks. When host Chris Matthews insisted (correctly) that unilateral secession was illegal and couldn't take place, DeLay stopped his maniacal grinning for a moment and cited the division clause.

In a sign of just how much the two political parties' fortunes have shifted in Texas since the days when John Nance Garner represented the state in Congress, DeLay intimated that the threat of sending eight newly minted, and almost certainly Republican, senators to Washington might be the key to getting this whole secession ball rolling. Referring directly to the language of the joint resolution, he said, "If we invoke it, the United States Senate would kick us out ... because they're not going to allow 10 (sic) new Texas senators into the Senate. That's how you secede."

Slate.

But it is implausible that there were _59_ such precincts.

Why? Because you say so? Or because some other people on this board say so?

Petition to punch Grover Norquist in the dick.

Petition? For the sake of symmetry, it should really be a pledge that we require Democratic candidates for office to uphold.

If you think the HRE was a success story, I have some Italian city states I'd like to sell you.

Oh, I don't think it was a success. I just want to be subject of the Prince-Bishop of El Paso or possibly the Grand Margrave of Illinois.

But it is implausible that there were _59_ such precincts.

Just like with the Petraeus deal, Ray's not saying that there's a conspiracy, he's just saying that every other explanation is wrong.

Care to share any reports you've come across?

Boy, that was sure tough to find.

A pretty rough line about Mitt Romney from Garry Wills:

"What can be worse than to sell your soul and find it not valuable enough to get anything for it?"

Petition? For the sake of symmetry, it should really be a pledge that we require Democratic candidates for office to uphold.

True, but I still signed it.

I just want to be subject of the Prince-Bishop of El Paso or possibly the Grand Margrave of Illinois.

Laudable goals, both. I support you and will read your newsletter.

The Texas thing (8128) is kind of silly. Congress has to approve (Art. IV, Sec. 3), and it won't. And that's assuming the annexation provision still is in effect after Texas seceded and was allowed back in on terms.

It may be that having a very close friend going through this kind of thing makes me more willing to consider the possibility that 'The Cheat' may have gone through his own special agony within the marriage. My friend married in his mid 30s after a two year relationship. He and his wife had a child and she promptly ballooned to 230 pounds. They had another child, but have sex perhaps once a year. He's tried everything, and can't rekindle her interest. He's a good guy, a loving husband, a committed father, a former navy man in the same shape he was when on active duty, and in his early 40s came to understand that he'd never have passionate sex within his marriage again. His children are young, he doesn't want to split up their home, he and his wife still love each other... if he strays and fins sexual love with a woman not his wife is he really the immoral monster that some people here would portray him as? I don't think he is.

Why is her weight relevant if he needs to rekindle her interest? If anything it sounds like he's one that has become less appealing sexually, no matter how much better he might have kept up his outward appearance compared to her; the stuff about her weight just seems to be included as a way to talk down about her.

I'm not going to claim it's 100%, but I would guess it's 99.9% good at blocking the fraud you suggest could/would be committed by individual voters in any large sample election (congress/state/prez).

Think about it: ....

Voter fraud at the polls is actually 99.9994% cured by the existing system. Republicans in high office told us so, after years and years and years of digging. ID cards fix a nonexistent problem. The real issue isn't the occasional, single vote cast through fraud where the penalty is up to five years in jail, but the massive number of votes that can be swung through aonymous tampering with a single voting machine.

I'm not interested in anyone else. And I honestly find it strange that anyone would consider it the least bit unusual.

I certainly noticed women and felt physical attraction, but actual interest while married, nope.

I don't doubt you, but this is in fact unusual. I know a lot of faithful husbands, but only very few who haven't wrestled with temptation as though the very demons of hell were shivving them in the loins.

I believe much literature is devoted to this very subject.

And I have no objection to those saying, rightly, that this kind of thing happens and that a person who cheats on their spouse is not, necessarily, a terrible person. I've known cheaters, was married to one once, and I know they're not all terrible people. However, it is, usually, a terrible thing to do....

Agreed.

My argument was with people alleging that Mrs. Petraeus had no right to be surprised or complain because she - in their opinion - was old and ugly. Which is just a despicable position, even if it is just an internet persona exaggeration.

While this is a very emotional issue, I'd prefer not to be taken out of context to this degree. A way back I wrote,

To continue in this vein, Mrs. Petraeus looks like she goes 5'-2", 190, and might be 15 years her husband's senior. I hate to say it, but should she have been surprised?

Assuming you were referring part to my post, what I wrote was very different from how you characterized it.

In any case, the intervebs are aflame with reports that Mrs. P is enraged, stunned, surprised, and so forth. "Angry", I can certainly understand. If she was genuinely surprised, though, she has no idea how libidos work, or her husband is an excellent actor.

8116. Jack Carter Posted: November 14, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4302921)

This seems like an almost strangely openminded group, and no one I've noticed objects to Joe's views, per se,

LOL.

These politics threads are not only occupied overwhelmingly by liberals, but a large subgroup can't even tolerate the mere sight of an opposing opinion. Hardly a day passes that some liberal doesn't make a big show out of putting a non-liberal on "ignore." Hell, someone put Ray on "ignore" last night for accusing politicians of acting like politicians.

The liberals here couldn't fill a thimble with "open-mindedness." Most of them don't even pretend to tolerate, let alone respect, dissenting opinions.

but rather his endlessly shifting goalposts, the artless changes of subject when cornered, the refusal to accept any statistic as definitive when it disagrees with his positions, and so on. It never ####### ends, ever. EVER. No one watching Joe in action thinks he cares about anything, not even babies in heaven, remotely as much as he cares about winning arguments and racking up imaginary points in righty pundit hell.

Wait a minute, I thought you ("Jack Carter") were brand new here? Since this is my first comment here since last Friday, and since you only joined a week before that, how could you possibly be positioned to be the spokesman for the BBTF Left when it comes to my (alleged) posting style and habits?

Liars shouldn't lecture others on honesty. It's unbecoming, and betrays a major lack of self-awareness.

I don't think that's what's happening, though, at least not here. What a few people, including myself, have noted is that Holly Petraeus looks old enough to be Petraeus' mother, and appears to outweigh him by a good thirty pounds. That's not all that unusual, as couples age unevenly, but I'm honestly a little surprised at how often people seem surprised that one spouse cheats in this kind of situation

I guess that is why Newt Gingrich's wives kept leaving him.

Since this is my first comment here since last Friday

has it been that long?

but I'm honestly a little surprised at how often people seem surprised that one spouse cheats in this kind of situation

The fact that I claim one person is treating another person like #### does not mean I am surprised by it; and the fact that you are not surprised by it does not mean the person is not treating the other person like ####.


The liberals here couldn't fill a thimble with "open-mindedness." Most of them don't even pretend to tolerate, let alone respect, dissenting opinions.

Except when they do, over and over, in this thread.

has it been that long?

It probably seemed like I was here the whole time, since I was the subject of a subthread for 3-4 days.

(I was lurking on my iPhone, but I only post when I'm on the computer.)

That bit from Slate seems to be much ado about nothing. Yes, Texas has the right to break into five component states, if it so chooses. Have at it. The Rio Norte state just on the border will be immediately blue. The state centered around Austin will probably be blue as well. The other three will be red for a while. None will have a right to secede from the Union any more than Texas currently has that right.

And the clause that limits Texas to five component state is actually there to prevent TX from breaking into more than five states. California is not so limited, and could counter any TX breakup with as many states as it wanted to create. Hell, you could counter a TX break up by breaking the burroughs of NYC into their own mini-states.

Hell, you could counter a TX break up by breaking the burroughs of NYC into their own mini-states.

Oh crap, is there really going to be a Pope of Greenwich Village and a Prince of the city?

I could be the Doge of the Bronx. RA Dickey just deposed Kevin James to be King of Queens. Cy Young baby

Nobody is going to let any states to break up because the Senate will lose the power they currently have and the Senate is if anything, houses the biggest egos in D.C.

courtesy that liberal rag cnbc:

Federal spending per capita: $11,452
Total federal spending: $294 billion
Number of residents: 25.7 million

Texas was the second-highest recipient of total federal money. However, on a per capita basis, it almost brings up the rear of the top 10, with $11,452 in federal dollars spent per Texan.

Of the top 10 prime award received, three went to the Department of Health and Human Services. The rest went to the Department of Homeland Security. Prime award contractors included Lockheed Martin and the Raytheon

i don't mind taking a jab at texas. those guys drive me nuts

Oh crap, is there really going to be a Pope of Greenwich Village and a Prince of the city?

I love these sort of crazy future-casting scenarios. Say Texas goes crazy(er) and runs with the breakup scenario. You get five states where you had one:

Rio Norte (San Antonio to El Paso) is deep blue immediately.
New Central Texas (Austin) is a swing state close to CO's shade of current blue.
Gulfland (Houston), Trinity (Dallas-Ft. Worth) and Plainsland (Lubbock?) are deep red.

So team red picks up 1 new state in the mix.

In reaction, California breaks into NoCal and SoCal (+1 more blue)
Puerto Rico is admitted to the union (+1 more blue)
DC is granted statehood (+1 blue)
NYC breaks off of NY State (+1 blue)

Everything from that point forward goes blue, really.

It's not going to happen.

i don't mind taking a jab at texas. those guys drive me nuts

They drive everyone nuts.

I don't know Petraeus or his motives. I haven't defended him. What I object to is the automatic dismissal of a common occurrence through the use of moral absolutes

I strongly agree with this statement of Jack's, and I also agree with several of bunyon's points (I don't think there's a huge range of fundamental disagreement between them). There are almost illimitable reasons why marriages collapse and partners are unfaithful. Sheer telegenic attractiveness or non- is not the only one, or perhaps even high on the list. There are always about an infinite number of people around who are objectively hotter than your partner, unless you trade in your partner annually for The Sexiest Person Alive (and granted, I know some men who strive for that, too). Often what drives someone to a new partner is not that the newbie is particularly X% hotter or anything, but that s/he makes them feel good about themselves, and the previous partner makes them feel like ####, and is terrorizing them into staying in the relationship. Kids complicate matters, and so do economics and careers and what not.

I remember when Tiger Woods had his troubles, and someone, perhaps here on BBTF, said that the various skanks that Woods was seeing (it is impossible to imagine them hotter than his wife, who could blister paint from 50 paces) probably would perform acts that his wife wouldn't. And I thought to myself, well, yes, probably; but maybe they were acts like cuddling, or reading to him after sex, or listening to him complain about his swing without saying "Tiger, for ####'s sake STFU, you are the greatest golfer of all time and I am tired of your ########." You just do not know unless you're in the relationship, or you listen over a long time with great care to the person who was.

They drive everyone nuts

Why thank you, kind sir :)

These politics threads are not only occupied overwhelmingly by liberals, but a large subgroup can't even tolerate the mere sight of an opposing opinion. Hardly a day passes that some liberal doesn't make a big show out of putting a non-liberal on "ignore."

You're not really a man until you've been banned. Being ignored is like being dinged with a marshmallow.

California is not so limited, and could counter any TX breakup with as many states as it wanted to create.

Two states! We want two states! North and South! Two states!

Rio Norte (San Antonio to El Paso) is deep blue immediately.
New Central Texas (Austin) is a swing state close to CO's shade of current blue.
Gulfland (Houston), Trinity (Dallas-Ft. Worth) and Plainsland (Lubbock?) are deep red.

It would be even more awesome if, instead of sensible natural geographic territories, the states were ardently gerrymandered into ridiculous curlicue shapes, intertwining between one another.

It would be even more awesome if, instead of sensible natural geographic territories, the states were ardently gerrymandered into ridiculous curlicue shapes, intertwining between one another.

That way they could zero out the vote in every precinct for one party or the other.

Two states! We want two states! North and South! Two states!

A better fit would probably coast and interior, but if we drew the lines right, we could do north and south and leave two solidly blue states.

I strongly agree with this statement of Jack's, and I also agree with several of bunyon's points (I don't think there's a huge range of fundamental disagreement between them). There are almost illimitable reasons why marriages collapse and partners are unfaithful. Sheer telegenic attractiveness or non- is not the only one, or perhaps even high on the list. There are always about an infinite number of people around who are objectively hotter than your partner, unless you trade in your partner annually for The Sexiest Person Alive (and granted, I know some men who strive for that, too). Often what drives someone to a new partner is not that the newbie is particularly X% hotter or anything, but that s/he makes them feel good about themselves, and the previous partner makes them feel like ####, and is terrorizing them into staying in the relationship. Kids complicate matters, and so do economics and careers and what not.

I remember when Tiger Woods had his troubles, and someone, perhaps here on BBTF, said that the various skanks that Woods was seeing (it is impossible to imagine them hotter than his wife, who could blister paint from 50 paces) probably would perform acts that his wife wouldn't. And I thought to myself, well, yes, probably; but maybe they were acts like cuddling, or reading to him after sex, or listening to him complain about his swing without saying "Tiger, for ####'s sake STFU, you are the greatest golfer of all time and I am tired of your ########." You just do not know unless you're in the relationship, or you listen over a long time with great care to the person who was.

There's not a woman or man alive that can meet the standard of never being cheated on, for those who want to cheat. You're married to the hottest blond ever, but she's not a brunette. You're married to a white guy, but he's not a black guy. The whole attractiveness business has little to do with many cheating scenarios.

Texas could never break into smaller states, because Texas ego would NEVER allow it. Become smaller? Texas? That is so not ever happening except over the dead bodies of many Texans.

8133. See 8122.

I agree that there isn't much disagreement - I think there is some - in regard to cheating. Jack, your statement was one of several that happened in a row that gave a general sense. You've clarified your position, as has Sam and I don't disagree much, if at all, with the clarifications.

As to Texas breaking up, it would certainly be done in a fashion to ensure 5 red states and wouldn't be all that hard to do. It would be slimy, but it wouldn't be hard.


(Go ahead, use that sentence however you like).


It's an interesting possibility. I can't really believe we're at a point where we're talking about breaking up the Union in a serious sense - as bad as things are, they're a long, long way from bad. Most of us lead pretty comfy lives and it is hard for me to imagine us risking that for a few more seats in Congress or something. But, it meshes well with the infidelity issue - lots of reasons to break up, not all rational.

Anyway, as I've said many times in real life, I have enough trouble making sense of my own marriage to worry too much about someone else's.

The liberals here couldn't fill a thimble with "open-mindedness." Most of them don't even pretend to tolerate, let alone respect, dissenting opinions.

I am so very hurt.

Liars shouldn't lecture others on honesty. It's unbecoming, and betrays a major lack of self-awareness.

Normally you are so good about resisting personal attacks. I am a bit disappointed. Oh well. And just because some one newly registered doesn't mean they have not read previous threads or be on the site for a long time. Registration is needed only for posting. It might also be some super secret mole attempt to subvert OT:BBTF, but I bet we'll survive.

"What can be worse than to sell your soul and find it not valuable enough to get anything for it?"

ir Thomas More: Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales? -- A Man for All Seasons

as someone who has been an election official shutout precincts have been around for, oh, forever. now, back in the day it was because folks were buying votes. literally.

now it's morphed due to gerrymandering where like minded folks live in the same voting area.

this is not complex.

The liberals here couldn't fill a thimble with "open-mindedness." Most of them don't even pretend to tolerate, let alone respect, dissenting opinions.

Heal thyself.

Normally you are so good about resisting personal attacks. I am a bit disappointed.

It's a stretch to claim that an accurate description is a "personal attack."

Jack Carter's #8116 is at odds with the claims he made at the end of this post just three days ago.

. He may regret she hasn't aged as well as he but you don't make a lifelong committment with the exception that you're out if she gets frumpy

Since I still appreciate you,
Let's find love, while we may.
Because I know I'll hate you,
when you are old and gray.

So say you love me, here and now,
I'll make the most of that
Say you love and trust me,
For I know you'll disgust me,
when you're old and getting fat.

An awful debility
A lessened utility
A loss of mobility
Is a strong possibility.

In all probability
I'll lose my virility
And you your fertility
and desirability.

And this liability
of total sterility
will lead to hostility
and a sense of ... futility.

So let's act with agility,
while we still have facility
for we'll soon reach senility
and lose the ability.

Your teeth will start to go, dear
Your waste will start to spread.
In 20 years or so, dear,
I'll wish that you were dead.

I'll never love you then, my dear,
the way I do today,
So please remember,
When I leave in December,
I told you so in May.


Tom Lehrer. (I apologize for any slight errors or typos in the lyrics; I did this one from memory.

back in the early days of voting the days to vote were staggered so folks would vote in one or more states to elect the candidates of choice

now that is worth getting excited about.

and i will be a good gop solider but not when stuff looks silly relative to the country's history of voting.

the stuff being discussed now is ridiculously minor when you look at voting periods past

and are we going to lurch in teh direction of countries where there are armed guards at every polling location? right now there is a social contract of integrity. and it works.

the gop needs to get more voters. not try and put up barriers

to quote a famous baseball man it's the yelp of a beaten cur

* We're implying you're the monster** for saying*** she should have expected it because she's aged badly.

So, given that this wasn't I said at all, and apparently a reasonable discussion without namecalling is asking for too much, should we just close with, "You're an ####### IF you can't read what's in front of you"?

Why is her weight relevant if he needs to rekindle her interest?

Way to nitpick. Swaddling yourself in one hundred pounds of fat can, of course, be part and parcel of ending the sexual component of a marriage. Unsurprisingly, it makes her less attractive to him. Did it really need to be said?

edit: the above was posted after some conciliatory statements, which I appreciate. I still would rather be hammered for something I said, than nicked for something I didn't, though.

but I'm honestly a little surprised at how often people seem surprised that one spouse cheats in this kind of situation

The fact that I claim one person is treating another person like #### does not mean I am surprised by it; and the fact that you are not surprised by it does not mean the person is not treating the other person like ####.

True, this.

These politics threads are not only occupied overwhelmingly by liberals, but a large subgroup can't even tolerate the mere sight of an opposing opinion. Hardly a day passes that some liberal doesn't make a big show out of putting a non-liberal on "ignore."

You're not really a man until you've been banned. Being ignored is like being dinged with a marshmallow.

Tell it, brother.

I have all of one person on ignore, and it has nothing to do with the right- or left-wingedness of his opinions, and everything to do with what a sensational, overwhelming boor that person is. Their appearance inevitably sucks the life out of any thread due to their inability to argue honestly. Ever.

The liberals here couldn't fill a thimble with "open-mindedness." Most of them don't even pretend to tolerate, let alone respect, dissenting opinions.

If you want respect, have opinions worth respecting, and argue them in a manner other than 'I'll say anything to win'.

In any case, as someone said, 'reality has a well-known liberal bias'. Live with it.

"I remember when Tiger Woods had his troubles, and someone, perhaps here on BBTF, said that the various skanks that Woods was seeing (it is impossible to imagine them hotter than his wife, who could blister paint from 50 paces)"

I walked a few holes alongside Tiger's then-newlywed wife from about 2 paces (it's ok, I was being paid to be there).

Like many celebrities (including men like Tom Cruise and Matt Damon), she is smaller than one would think. And without much makeup, she looks like the pretty blonde captain of your town's cheerleading team - assuming your town is of a decent size and prohibits inbreeding, of course.

My wife is a Swedish blonde, as well, so I am hardly knocking the look.

And in unrelated news, I have never been tempted to cheat, either.

So, given that this wasn't I said at all, and apparently a reasonable discussion without namecalling is asking for too much, should we just close with, "You're an ####### IF you can't read what's in front of you"?

Now THAT's the black cloud I remember.

Now that people realize that the reason voters in St. Lucie County, Florida submitted more cards than there were eligible voters is that each voter got two cards, we have this stuff about the one-party precincts, as if that was a new phenomenon. I see that RDP's "Occam's razor dictates that because there is insufficient evidence you are right, I am right" principle extends beyond sports, and now is being expanded to "Because there is insufficient evidence you are right, other people will think you are wrong and that's bad for you whether or not you are right".

Among poor black people in Philadelphia nobody disputes that the winning margin was somewhere above 90%. Precincts are very small, there are tons of precincts, and a lot of them are 100% poor black people and obviously what Republicans exist are ignored by Republican GOTV efforts. What do you expect to happen?

WaPo's writeup of Romney's "gift" comments [8127, thx LAElHofA] is Onion-worthy, complete with a concluding counterpoint from Bobby Jindal. This paragraph also:

In the call, Romney didn’t acknowledge any major missteps, such as his “47 percent” remarks widely viewed as denigrating nearly half of Americans, his lack of support for the auto bailout, his call for illegal immigrants to “self-deport,” or his change in position on abortion, gun control and other issues. He also didn’t address the success or failure of the campaign’s strategy of focusing on the economy in the face of some improvement in employment and economic growth during the months leading up to Election Day.

The vote fraud discussion reminds me of the motto* of alt.folklore.urban: "It could have happened so it must have happened."

* Okay, one of the dozens of mottoes.

Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?

We should be able to break this down a little further, no?

That's a shutout in divisions averaging a little more than 300 votes each. How many divisions, a priori, should we expect to look at? In Pennsylvania Obama won the popular vote by 2.9 to 2.6 million, suggesting around 18,333 vote divisions. Is it really that odd, that one candidate would pitch a shutout in 59 of 18,333 divisions? If 1.5m votes were cast in Philly (can't find exact numbers) that's around 5,000 vote divisions. Is 59 out of 5,000 that unlikely? How many divisions are in areas with no registered Republicans?

Okay--latinospost.com carried the following:

Now that all the votes from last week's presidential election are in, the magnitude of the Republicans' loss is apparent.

But in some urban areas, Mitt Romney actually received no votes.

In 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia, not a single person voted for the Republican presidential candidate.
Results like these usually send people scurrying for evidence of voter fraud, but experts say it's not that unusual.

First, the voting divisions themselves are fairly small. Philadelphia alone has 1,687 of them, and the 59 divisions comprise a total of 19,605 votes, an average of about 330 apiece. And the divisions are scattered through West and North Philadelphia, areas that are overwhelmingly African-American and Democratic.

A Philadelphia Inquirer search for the 12 Republicans listed on voter registration forms in one division was unable to locate any of them, or anyone else identifying as a Republican.

Nationwide, 93 percent of African-Americans support Obama.
Voters in cities, who live in densely-packed areas, are also easier to organize and reach out to. Canvassers can literally knock on every door in a city, and it's difficult to avoid a blanket of targeted campaigning.

In fact, Republicans have been shut out of elections in these parts before. In 2008, 57 voting divisions in the area counted no votes for then-Republican candidate John McCain.

The situation seems to be getting worse for the Republicans. In 2004, only five divisions cast no votes for George W. Bush. And the phenomenon is not restricted to Philadelphia.

The Cleveland Plain-Dealer found that in nine voting precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, no one cast a ballot for Romney.

This is the extreme end of a demographic shift that is eroding Republican support across the country.

Aside from African-Americans, other minorities and women are moving away from the conservatives.

Nationwide, 55 percent of women voted for Obama, resulting in an 18-point gender gap between the two parties, the largest ever. In addition, 73 percent of Asian-Americans and 71 percent of Latinos voted for Obama, the latter statistic climbing from 68 percent four years ago, and only 60 percent in 2004.

In any case, if you were going to hack a vote machine, would you ring up a score of 330 to nothing, or 330 to 8?

In any case, if you were going to hack a vote machine, would you ring up a score of 330 to nothing, or 330 to 8?

We hit this point earlier, but it is worth repeating. If it was 57 in 2008, that is worth knowing as well. It would be interesting to see a listing of 0 vote precincts for both parties over the last few elections.

"In any case, if you were going to hack a vote machine, would you ring up a score of 330 to nothing, or 330 to 8?"

If I learned nothing else from this thread, it's that 330 to 0 is the play, because people will say, "C'mon, if someone was going to tamper, they wouldn't put ZERO!"

I mean, the whole discussion is silly (which is not to say not worth having), but it's not hard to figure out that the first thing any sympathetic observer would say is a "330 to 8" line.

With zero, you get an exta 8-vote margin AND perceived greater credibility, since of course fraudsters would never be so bold. Not that I assume there are such people.

If I learned nothing else from this thread, it's that 330 to 0 is the play, because people will say, "C'mon, if someone was going to tamper, they wouldn't put ZERO!"

In this particular situation, with these two guys, maybe not. Given that Obama was presumably going to get ~97% of the vote in these precincts, 330-8 doesn't look all that strange. If I read an article that said, "Romney averaged less than 10 votes over a group of 59 precincts", losing 311-8, 325-14, etc. that sounds less strange to me than "Romney got 0 votes in each of 59 different precincts."

But maybe 330-0 59 times doesn't really sound strange, as it happens, if you have a knowledge base, which I don't. But intuitively for me it does. YMMV.

And it is not so much that they would "put zero" but that they might change 242 to 324 or whatever.

Mitt Romney, keepin' it classy.

If I learned nothing else from this thread, it's that 330 to 0 is the play, because people will say, "C'mon, if someone was going to tamper, they wouldn't put ZERO!"

But that means I can't possibly drink the wine in front of me...

Mitt Romney's core demographic, people 65 and over get government assistance (primarily SS, and medicare) at a rate of 7 to 1 to the 18-35 group.

Mitt Romney's core demographic, people 65 and over get government assistance (primarily SS, and medicare) at a rate of 7 to 1 to the 18-35 group.

"Government assistance"? That's odd. When Republicans talk about reforming Social Security and Medicare, the Democrats scream that the meanie conservatives are trying to take away money and benefits those seniors earned.

In any case, if you were going to hack a vote machine, would you ring up a score of 330 to nothing, or 330 to 8?

Maybe they're lazy hackers, and it's just easier to map everything to Obama.

Mitt Romney's core demographic, people 65 and over get government assistance (primarily SS, and medicare) at a rate of 7 to 1 to the 18-35 group.

If your mother is anything like mine, then may God help you, if you classify SS and Medicare as government assistance. They paid for it, damn it!

Yes, yes, "The Government better keep their hands off my medicare" and all that. But if Romney wants to points to groups that receives 'gifts', he needs to look in the mirror.

Actually, the boomers paid for it. But the ones that were killed when they turned 18, feel free to now throw off the side of the sinking Titantic.

The quickest and easiest way to counteract any possible threat of a division of Texas is to make DC and Puerto Rico states as well.

But first you have to get Texans to actually go along with the plan and I doubt they will do so so willingly.

You can't just plan your moves, you also have to plan your opponent's moves as well.

McCoy, who plays Chess nowadays, we're a Call of Duty world now.

Like they've got either the balls or political support to do it in any event, even in Texas

Yes, yes, "The Government better keep their hands off my medicare" and all that. But if Romney wants to points to groups that receives 'gifts', he needs to look in the mirror.

No doubt, many seniors get out more than they paid in. But when it comes to people receiving true "gifts" — i.e., getting something for nothing — Obama and the Dems have a near-monopoly on that voting demographic.

No doubt, many seniors get out more than they paid in. But when it comes to people receiving true "gifts" — i.e., getting something for nothing — Obama and the Dems have a near-monopoly on that voting demographic.

You mean to tell me I don't have to pay for the federal loan I took out? No, wait. I probably shouldn't take your word for it, and instead look at the contract that I signed to get the loan that specifies what my terms are.

Is there anything more treasonous than voter fraud, vote tampering, and vote suppression?

You mean to tell me I don't have to pay for the federal loan I took out? No, wait. I probably shouldn't take your word for it, and instead look at the contract that I signed to get the loan that specifies what my terms are.

Not sure how this refutes #8192. I was referring to, among others, the welfare/food stamps/Medicaid/etc. demographic, which went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and '12 and has gone overwhelmingly for Dems since the very beginning of such programs.

Almost all seniors get more out of it than they paid into Social Security. That's the way it's worked since the beginning. But Walmart is subsidized by the government, too, as is Exxon, as are all businesses, and the bigger the business, the bigger the subsidy. Leases on federal lands are pretty cheap, and you got the US military to protect your investment overseas.

8188:

That should be "weren't killed".

Almost needless to say,

Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said in May that he’d written off votes from 47 percent of Americans who are collecting government aid. Turns out many of them are part of his political base.

Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6 percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado.

That means Romney is counting on votes from areas where lower-income people have become more reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps. Mark Baisley, who heads Douglas County’s Republican Party, said many recipients will back Romney in hopes he’ll improve the economy.

It was almost too predictable.

***

So, given that this wasn't I said at all, and apparently a reasonable discussion without namecalling is asking for too much, should we just close with, "You're an ####### IF you can't read what's in front of you"?

Now THAT's the black cloud I remember.

I do realize that because you disagree with me on this issue (or at least, with what you imagine me to be saying), it might be a little too much to expect you to note that I was more restrained than the poster with whom I was disagreeing (and that the vituperation began on your side, even with you), but perhaps if you could avoid confirming any statements by Kehoskie so directly, the world would be a better, safer place for us all.

In any case, women should do a better job of staying in shape after bearing children and/or turning 40, and if you let yourself go you lose some of the right to ##### when your partner strays. I'll leave it to Rickey Poles to stab you in the neck.

Almost all seniors get more out of it than they paid into Social Security. That's the way it's worked since the beginning. But Walmart is subsidized by the government, too, as is Exxon, as are all businesses, and the bigger the business, the bigger the subsidy. Leases on federal lands are pretty cheap, and you got the US military to protect your investment overseas.

I think some people feel that SSI should have collected this big stockpile of money before they could pay everything out. But we could always just pay today's retirees with today's dollars. Of course the first generation didn't have to pay in, and there would be nothing left if you wanted to stop. Which I guess lessens the incentive to stop, since there is no money to get back. And if we keep going forever, there's no problem.

flip