jonottawa

Not recent, but I watched A Face in the Crowd for the first time last night. What a great flick. Andy Griffith stars as Lonesome Rhodes, the original Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity type.

"For Mr. Obama: “This business of ‘Well, they can afford it; they should pay their fair share?’ Who are you to say ‘Somebody else’s fair share?’ ”" This is pretty rich coming from the guy who thinks it's his business to tell people how much soda they can drink.

I still don't know who to cheer for on Nov 6. Imagine how weak Barry will be if he wins and Willard wins the popular vote. I'd like to think the legacy of Obama will be that selling out your principles to try to appeal to Republicans doesn't work. Barry never fought, always chose likable over tough, never used the bully pulpit and then was a no-show for the most important night of his political career. He's been doing it wrong for 4 years and I think Repugs are going to either win this election or the next one and maybe it might as well be this one. Maybe it's time to let the wingnuts finish breaking America. Let them repeal Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion. They'll alienate women for the next 50 years. Let them crack down hard on illegal immigration. They'll lose the Hispanic vote for the next 50 years. Let them cut social programs to the bone. They'll lose the working class for the next 50 years. Let them voucherize medicare. They'll lose seniors for the next 50 years. Let them deal with the fiscal mess they created. Let them starve the beast. All Democratic opposition seems to have accomplished is to force Repugs to break America more slowly. Let's hurry things along.

I thought Biden won a decision, but I agree that the smiling and laughing was too much. I'm not surprised that the prediction markets didn't move much either way during/after the debate. I thought Raddatz did a good job, but then I read this and I have to agree that the questions she chose (and the inaccurate premises they contained) weren't the best. But that's the US mass media for you. I agree that we should all hope that neither of these guys ever becomes POTUS.

You seem to be implying that you're moderating the thread because people are getting emotional and then being rude. I think you're completely missing the point. The ideas expressed by some in here are offensive and reprehensible (far worse than anything I've ever posted here.) They clearly reflect a 'kill them all and let god sort them out' or 'muslims aren't quite human' mindset. (If you still don't quite get it, perhaps this will help: Do you think a thread entitled 'Zionist animals' and linking websites like this or this (if we're talking about killing young girls) would/should receive comparable treatment? If not, why not?) If that's a worldview you don't want to see on these forums, that's perfectly understandable, but to imply that those of us who don't share this view are being rude (or emotional) about it is simply not accurate. (And for the record, I don't think the thread should be censored/hidden, because I favor freedom of expression, but reasonable people can disagree about that.)

I was going to make the same comment about critical mass. A religion is merely a cult that is old enough and has gained enough adherents to gain general acceptance as 'not strange'. Any other distinction is silly or misses the point. As for your last point, I think this is perhaps a slightly more eloquent way of putting it: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

I don't think the abortion-doctor killer analogy is particularly apt or useful. Silencing opposition leaders, either through execution, assassination, torture, censorship, imprisonment, extortion, exile, control of communication channels, etc. is as old as politics. That this opposition leader happens to be a 14 year old girl doesn't change the equation much, though it riles up emotions more, to be sure. If Luke is positing that it is more immoral to kill a single 14-year old girl than to launch a war of aggression knowing that it would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians (many of them children,) then I disagree. I'm surprised he's even upset by this. She's an Obama supporter ("she was calling President Obama her ideal leader,") after all.

Daily Show I agree with Luke that religious extremists are (generally speaking) worthy of contempt. I think it's always easier to find fault with the religious extremists in other countries than to set an example by speaking out against religious extremists in one's own country. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" He seems to be advocating genocide. I don't agree with him about that. But if a bunch of Christian fundies wish to sign up for a cage deathmatch against a bunch of Muslim fundies, and let their respective gods sort out the winner, I would definitely watch.

Strange thread. I'm pretty sure I met Matt when I lived in Eugene in 1993-1994 and he didn't make much of an impression on me. Certainly not a 'larger than life' figure (or I'd remember him.) I have nothing against someone trying to promote a product they created. If your argument is that GIB was a superior product when Ginsberg was developing it and has gradually become an inferior product now that BBO owns (and is developing) it, I fail to see how that reflects badly on Ginsberg.

I think the one principled right-wing criticism of Obama that has merit is the rejection of his contention that he has offered a deficit reduction plan that reduces the deficit by 4 trillion dollars and that it contains 2.5 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in higher taxes. He counts things that have already been agreed on and signed into law as spending cuts. He counts money we aren't going to be spending on wars that have ended as spending cuts. It's a slimy claim and he should stop making it. Obama and Romney both need to explain what % of GDP they think the federal government should spend every year and then propose the tax increases and spending cuts that will plausibly achieve that result. I watched quite a bit of the GHWB-Ferraro debate tonight and the difference in tone, honesty, and seriousness of both the participants and the media questioners was striking. The press really is as bad as the politicians (and yes, the folks at FoxNews are by far the worst offenders, and have undoubtedly led other networks to emulate their reprehensible behavior (in an effort to achieve similar ratings.)) And someone in the media needs to get a clear answer from Romney whether he has unequivocally ruled out the possibility of amending this year's tax return to take full advantage of the charitable deductions he didn't claim if he were to lose the election.

Hint: M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I

I agree with that. They're both overrated, unprincipled, fiscally reckless, brimming with self esteem, not dumb but not terribly quick witted either, favoring style over substance and hailed as able communicators.

I think Intrade has it about right. Obama dropped from about 75% to about 2/3. Saying that debates haven't mattered much before is pretty irrelevant since nobody's ever been beaten as badly before. I had to laugh when Rachel Maddow said at the end of the debate "I'm not sure who won the debate tonight." which meant that Obama had gotten trounced. I'd also add that it's not just about the polls in swing states. It's about the enthusiasm of the respective campaigns. It's about how successful their rallies will be in the coming days. It's about what kind of stories the media will write. It's about the close races that will be lost by Democrats trying to retake the House or keep the Senate. It's about how much clout Obama will be have in January if he does get re-elected. If Barry had had the kind of night that Willard had (and vice versa,) we'd be talking about a Democratic house, we'd be talking about an electoral landslide. Wednesday night was HUGE, perhaps the greatest single failure of the Obama presidency.

Funny, I thought of the replacement refs metaphor too. (The first red flag for me was some inartfully worded question about 'trickle down' something or other.) And while he did a lousy job, he did it equally. He let Obama speak on way over time and he left the direction of the debate mostly up to the contestants (and Mitt was the only one to take advantage of that.) Barry was godawful tonight. Someone should tell him you don't start playing prevent defense at the end of the third quarter. He sure wasn't fired up and ready to go. He made Willard look like the young guy with fire in his belly while he played the role of the befuddled old out of touch guy who didn't really want to be there.

Thanks for the info. I vaguely knew about different GIBs but you've summarized precisely what I wanted to know. It's odd (that my GIB is the 'dumbest' of the lot) because it seems to me that at least 2/3 of the time when my GIB opps do something unusual (relative to other GIBs) that it is successful, but that may just be my natural pessimism.

I don't care so much about GIB mistakes. I make plenty of them myself. If GIB could wonder it would doubtless wonder why I am so bad at keeping track of spots or counting out a hand. But what I find quite annoying is when GIB makes a mistake against everyone else but me. Take this wonderful hand: All red IMPs You hold: 6 64 AKQ AKQT964 You open 1♣ in 3rd seat, pard bids 1♥ and you bid ... 2♣??? Oh wait, no, it's jonottawa, so I'll reverse. (Here are a few other examples.) I suspect this bug has something to do with the slider that adjusts how long GIB is given to 'think'. Rather than a slider, I'd like to see 4 or 5 options and the boards compared against other people who chose the same option. That way GIB's play would (presumably) be more consistent across the field. (And yes, I realize that from time to time I benefit from this behavior, but I think those of us who give GIB a little time to think tend to get burned in the long run (because it improves the play of 2 opps and only 1 partner.)) On another note, I'd like the table option of playing all hands for our side when playing with GIB (like the current default option in some tournaments.)

On 'strong defense': Nobody did more to break the military than Dubya. The notion that Republicans are more pro-military than Dems is absurd. Dems are more pro-grunt, pro-vet; Repugs are more pro-defense contractor. On healthcare: Obama desperately (and foolishly) tried to elicit Republican cooperation on healthcare reform. They refused to cooperate and did everything they could to demagogue the issue. So we ended up with a crappy bill. You will never get to 'small government' if you don't fix healthcare, it's by far the biggest long-term cost driver, especially with boomers retiring. On social issues: I have nothing against principled social conservatives. Those who say that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided are right, imo (and nothing would swell Democratic voter rolls more than if it were reversed/overruled.) Those who say that government doesn't belong in the marriage business (because marriage is a religious concept) are also right. The truth, however, is that Repugs use these issues primarily to rile up their low-information voters who would have no reason to vote for them otherwise.

Nope, but I've eaten p- oh wait, I'm sorry, this is a family show.

My beliefs put me in the mainstream of traditional conservatism. Where they put me in a nation of ignoramuses is of no consequence to me whatsoever. I find it somewhat comical that you talk about 'false equivalence' and then you draw a false equivalence between Romney's statements and Obama's statements. Romney is channelling Ayn Rand. He wasn't misquoted or taken out of context. He is being lambasted for his open contempt of working class people and for his belief that the people who pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than he does are somehow 'moochers' or 'parasites'. Obama ate dogmeat when he was a boy. Who cares? I am an animal lover but thousands of dogs are euthanized in this country every day and I have no more of a moral objection to eating them than I do to eating any other mammal. I have an 'ick factor' objection to it because of the society I was raised in, but I am intelligent enough to see the difference. Obama said that business owners didn't build the American infrastructure without which their businesses would not succeed. A few deliberately dishonest people on the right try to pretend he intended to say something else. Either you're one of them or you're uninformed, I'm curious which. Obama's the first to admit that the cling to guns/religion comment was a mistake. But if you read the entire monologue and not just that quote you realize that he is urging his supporters to reach out to those people, not to be dismissive of them. What he said was true, but insulting/condescending, and thus a gaffe.

I feel kinda sorry for Mitt. His constituency is crazy; he isn't. Unfortunately, the lesson the Repugs will draw from this won't be 'Our party's ideas are morally and intellectually indefensible.' It will be 'Mitt blew it.' All he can do is keep lying to/misleading the American people (and being as non-specific as possible about his policy proposals) because if he started telling the truth now his party would crucify him. As an aside, I wish the press would stop describing members of the modern Republican party as 'conservative'. They're not. I'm a conservative and these people are batshit crazy. I believe in equality of opportunity. They believe in 'you're on your own'. I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. They believe in religious zealotry and intolerance. I believe that the military industrial complex has way too much power (I like Ike!) and that there is exponentially more waste and fraud in the defense budget than in any other area of government spending. They believe in writing a blank check to defense contractors. I believe that the pernicious influence of the prison-industrial complex and the 'war on drugs' on our society is an outrage. They believe that for-profit prisons are just dandy. I believe that in a world of crony capitalism, massive amounts (say >$10M) of untaxed inherited wealth are incompatible with a just society. They believe that what your great great grandfather did during Prohibition (bootlegging) or during WWII (war profiteering) or more recently (government bailouts/corporate welfare) should set you up for life. I believe that polluters should pay for the damage they do to our air, our water and our environment. Hence I favor a significant energy tax (which would obviously allow the government to lower taxes on other things.) They believe that inserting the word 'clean' before 'coal' somehow makes it so. I believe that health care professionals are some of the smartest people in the country and that it is their moral responsibility to craft (or to have the AMA craft) a far more efficient and fair health care delivery system than what we have now. If they don't accept that responsibility, then they shouldn't grumble when government imposes (an imperfect) one on them. They believe in blocking any attempts at serious reform ('death panels' 'rationing') and allowing health care costs to continue to skyrocket while drug companies, insurance companies and doctors make out like bandits and the taxpayer ends up with the bill. I believe that meaningful campaign finance reform needs to be enacted so that billionaires and corporations are unable to exert so much influence on the political process. They believe that the 1% should run things, by whatever means necessary. I'm a middle of the road conservative. And the Republican party doesn't represent me.

Sean Smith Vile Rat

Sorry, I don't know all the fancy names for various esoteric squeezes so I might be using the wrong one.

Again, E's diamond holding is irrelevant. If he has 4+♣ and the ♥ guard, after 6 rounds of ♠ (pitching 2 ♦ from South) E must let go of his last ♦ and now 4 rounds of ♣ But you're right, the strip squeeze against W doesn't work (I missed that originally.) It would work if you had one of S's club honors in dummy and if the ♦6 were higher than either of E's ♦.

Also can strip squeeze east when he has 4+ clubs and 6 hearts (or ♥QJ10)

Richard Pavlicek's Beginning Bridge teaching materials are excellent imo. I'd second what was said about teaching play before bidding. You might just always make dealer the declarer (in a trump suit of his choice upon seeing dummy), though (so that everyone gets a turn.)