Trent

Did I say that? I didn't even suggest that. I suggested that polls open to people on the net are garbage. But since you brought it up.... remember when Kerry was beating GWB in the polls?? Oh, hello again!

Many processes "disenfranchise" eligible voters. Can't read the registration form? DISENFRANCHISED! Convicted of a felony? DISENFRANCHISED! Too lazy to register? DISENFRANCHISED! Just don't register to vote just because? DISENFRANCHISED! Here's the one that seems to be causing the problems here: Can't properly fill out your form with your DL# or SSN or legal name? DISENFRANCHISED! What more can we do to ensure that people that don't care enough to do things right or don't care at all get to vote? Oh, hello again!

Oh give me a break. "The most important election of our lifetimes" happens every 4 years if you buy the hype. I don't see the problem with requiring states to make sure that people who are registered to vote both exist and are eligible to vote. Oh, hello again!

*sigh* Just more evidence that polls are pretty useless. I used the newer version of IE. Tried again and it worked okay with Firefox. Guess we shouldn't bother with online polls anyway, eh? Oh, hello again!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.reportcard/index.html So, typical... they have a pundit scorecard. No biggie and no surprises. But at the bottom of the scores for each candidate, you can score them yourself. Once you select your scores, it shows you what you scored them and what the average score is so far, much like our polls here. Here's the funny part. I gave McCain an A because I knew everyone was going to give him Fs. I gave Obama an F because I know everyone else was giving him A's and because it doesn't really matter at all in those polls. Well, everything seemed to work fine. It said I scored McCain an A and he averaged a D. Okay, I buy it. When I scored Obama (an F, remember), it said I scored him an A and his average was a B. WTF? I give and F but it scores an A? Programming glitch or CNN poll BS? Oh, hello again!

So when people say that the US tortures people we're saying that these "experts" aren't the ones doing the interrogation, our interrogators have no idea what they're doing, maybe they just like torture, they don't really care about getting good intel from interrogations? Come on. If professional interrogators agree that "torture" doesn't work, then why would there be an institutional policy to use it? I would think that interrogators are much more concerned with getting accurate info that people give them credit for. At some point there is a middle ground that, on average, works well for getting information. Be it sleep deprivation, isolation, waterboarding, etc. I'd think it'd depend on the subject and how "hard" they are. I just don't see professional interrogators using techniques they know don't work. Why would they do that? Oh, hello again!

The crazy guy who posts random rants on his signs in front of his bar had a good one about this subject in particular. "If John McCain or Barack Obama is the answer, it must have been a really stupid question." Lol. Oh, hello again!

He helped legitimize Hugo Chavez so he could stay in power for another infinity years. Viva la revolucion!! Oh, wait... you meant what the best thing he did for the good guys.... shoot. I got nothing. Oh, hello again!

From the article: LOL! Who'da thunk it??? Oh, hello again!

Correct. That last paragraph applies to everyone. It's a neverending cycle. If one side does it, the other has to as well to keep up. I personally blame Jerry Springer for starting all of this! Oh, hello again!

It always amazed me how people complain about the money or jobs someone else has. Lately, it's focused on CEOs. Sure, I think those salaries are ridiculously high and I think that golden parachute clauses are ridiculous, but the problem isn't that the CEOs are making so much... it's that the board and shareholders allow them to make contracts agreeing to pay like this. The market for top-level executives is competitive and it's become such that huge pay and separation benefits have to be where they are to attract such "top talent". Granted, some of these guys are stupid, crooks, evil, etc... but that's who the board and shareholders hired! If the guy tanks the company, they lose their positions and money in their shares. I think part of the current problem, and it's happened before, is that people thought that the market was something that you just put money into and it got more money out of it later. Some people forget that when you invest in a company, you assume the risk of losing that investment based on what happens to the company. Same thing happened in real estate. Over the last few years, EVERYONE was some kind of developer, builder, flipper, investor, etc. One of my finance teachers told us that if your mother, father, grandparents, neighbors and friends are all into it... get out! That was sage advice. As for redistributing wealth, silly. I think that history has shown that every effort at making things equal for everyone only makes everyone worse off. Sure, it sounds great, especially to people who have less or do less, but the long-term effect is that it brings everyone down a few levels and we no longer have the over-achievers that we need for innovation. I wonder, how much money would our government really lose if they just went to a flat tax with a minimum income level cutoff? I say cut taxes on investing and corporations to encourage companies to come (back) here and get more jobs out on our market. Oh, hello again!

I'm always amazed that the left purports to distrust our government, then proceeds to demand that they take over more and more of our industry. It makes no sense. Let's have gov't provided healthcare! Yayyy, because we can just TRUST that it'll be run great like all other government programs. Let's tax the hell out of the companies and people that are providing jobs to the US like the costs won't get passed on to consumers. Let's raise minimum wage and expect that it won't affect inflation! Let's discourage investment in our markets by taxing the hell out of capital gains! GREAT IDEAS!! It's much better for them if they focus on what really counts, like Palin's daughter's baby's father. When your product sucks, you have to market to the largest and lowest common denominator to get people to buy it. Unfortunately, it works. Oh, hello again!

I'm just trying to stay on topic here. Something you and your fellow Obamites just cannot do lately. I'd think that any rational person can see that having the roster of the Dallas Cowboys registered through ACORN in Nevada is probably fraud. BUT... I really really don't expect rationality from all you apologists. Carry on with the insanity. Oh, hello again!

But what about ACORN and the voter fraud? Do the lefties here really think that it isn't happening or that we should not discuss it since there may be something on the other side that is bad? Oh, hello again!

Speaking of ACORN... why is voter fraud primarily the domain of the left? At least it is perceived to be. How about the ACORNies registering the Dallas Cowboys in Nevada? I wonder how many BS registrations they'll actually get through? Why is this type of thing even thought of as a strategy by groups like this? Oh, hello again!

So sayeth the Bill. I think who you're talking about is an extreme minority. I really do. You are quite adept at creating strawmen though! Bravo! I noticed someone calling you out on the fact that you sound like a parrot for the left talking points. You really do lately. Just thought you should know. Oh, hello again!

You should definitely avoid voting for the Bush administration then. Oh, hello again!

Yes you are. You're willing to give up some rights before others. You said it. Fortunately we're not in that situation right now. Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Oh, hello again!

This is the problem right here... you're willing to give up some rights. RIGHTS. You'd PREFER to keep a few in particular IF POSSIBLE. Well, Bill, it is not only possible but they are RIGHTS. We don't have to and should not be willing to give up any of them. Was it our government who gave us rights or were they already there and we allowed the government to enumerate them for their own good? Oh, hello again!

Clearly we should get rid of the rest of the rights and submit all authority to the UN. After all, this whole freedom of speech thing can be deleterious to "progress". Hell, so can the whole 4th amendment thing... you know, there's TERRORISTS out there!! Hmmm, what else is outdated.... Don't be jealous that you can't pack heat wherever you are! Oh, hello again!

TEOTWAWKI. That's right. It's happenin'! Grab yer guns and yer Bibles! Or just put money in the market while it's cheap! I'm eager to see how Elmer Fudd Frank, Pelosi, and Paulson see fit to make this $700 billion save the world. Oh, hello again!

I don't think that would happen on a large scale over a long period of time. When it affects EVERYONE, these soldiers have families that they won't want treated that way. I have heard members of law enforcement say that they would refuse orders that they felt violated the constitution. Specifically the 2nd amendment. Oh, hello again!

I disagree. Armed irregulars have done very well against organized militaries in the past. You also assume that the military would, as a whole, agree to fight their own people. Not to you Quade, but to Dekker... what other rights should we give away just because a few people don't think it's possible that we use them for what was intended? Why is having fewer rights better? Oh, hello again!

Why should we consider the 2nd amendment to be less important than any other? Sure it sounds cliche, but if it weren't important to the founders... why'd they put it second? It's a right. That's it. Destroying it makes it easier to destroy other rights. Oh, hello again!

But but but.... they passed a BAIL OUT!! What happened? *sigh* I hate having to say... I told you so. Thanks guys! Oh, hello again!