2008 Presidential Race

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 10/10/2008 @ 01:47:21 PM
I'll admit, I'm still sort of in the "undecided" category. Although I am definitely leaning a certain direction.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/10/2008 @ 02:05:35 PM
That's not really an apt analogy. Despite the slump we're still a very rich country. Though you could argue otherwise it would be fair to argue that a person has a right to see a doctor, or take their kids to a doctor. (Well maybe a RIGHT to see a doctor is a bit far, but that they should be able to see one.) This isn't the same as saying "people have a right to a house/big screen/corvette."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 10/10/2008 @ 02:14:17 PM
I agree with Jeremy. The "slippery-slope" arugment is not valid logic, and that's basically what Alex is saying. Health care for everyone will surely lead to to houses/tvs/cars for everyone. I don't see that happening, and I don't think that is an issue of any kind.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/10/2008 @ 07:16:04 PM
That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I was implying that the whole "everyone in the middle class (and 95% of the population believes they are in the middle class) should be able to own a home" has already happened, and seems to be the primary cause of the economy exploding. It basically already happened, there was just never really an official announcement of said "right". I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/10/2008 @ 07:32:38 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 08:16:04 PM I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money. I agree with this for the most part. However (sorry for bringing the "won't someone think of the kids" argument), but should children be required to pay for the choices/mistakes of the parents?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 10/10/2008 @ 07:33:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:32:38 PM Alex Wrote - Today @ 07:16:04 PM I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money. I agree with this for the most part. However (sorry for bringing the "won't someone think of the kids" argument), but should children be required to pay for the choices/mistakes of the parents? Should the rest of us?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 10/10/2008 @ 07:33:27 PM
Maybe the confusion is in the meaning of a "right". The context of the question was "Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?". Hopefully this clip won't get deleted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uvXwqfjzi4 For my money, McCain killed Obama on this question. I'd say health care is a privilege, and yes insurance companies need to be watched to make sure they give you what you paid for. Obama's reference to his mother's situation made him seem very vigilante mode instead of thinking clearly about what is really best for his constituents.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 10/10/2008 @ 07:43:44 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:32:38 PM Alex Wrote - Today @ 07:16:04 PM I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money. I agree with this for the most part. However (sorry for bringing the "won't someone think of the kids" argument), but should children be required to pay for the choices/mistakes of the parents? Some children get born into billionaire families and some of them get born into desperate poverty. So unless you want to make all children wards of the state, then yes. Plus, in the thinking of the children mode, just think about all the under 4 year old children that would have been given OTC cold medicine in the past if it was free. Obviously it wouldn't really be free, but if you've already paid your taxes for your health care and your health care provides for these types of medicines (I don't know if they do/would) it's basically free at the time of purchase (unless it's like a co-pay). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_he_me/med_cold_medicines		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 10/10/2008 7:44:06 pm

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 10/10/2008 @ 07:48:22 PM
This probably won't help McCain/Palin much: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_ge/palin_troopergate		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/10/2008 @ 07:50:30 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:32:38 PM Alex Wrote - Today @ 07:16:04 PM I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money. I agree with this for the most part. However (sorry for bringing the "won't someone think of the kids" argument), but should children be required to pay for the choices/mistakes of the parents? Isn't there some existing program(s) for "the children" anyway?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/11/2008 @ 12:16:14 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:16:04 PM I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money. Right, except no one ever died because we didn't provide haircuts for everyone. Medical care isn't just like any other service. Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:43:44 PM Some children get born into billionaire families and some of them get born into desperate poverty. So unless you want to make all children wards of the state, then yes. Plus, in the thinking of the children mode, just think about all the under 4 year old children that would have been given OTC cold medicine in the past if it was free. Obviously it wouldn't really be free, but if you've already paid your taxes for your health care and your health care provides for these types of medicines (I don't know if they do/would) it's basically free at the time of purchase (unless it's like a co-pay). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_he_me/med_cold_medicines This may well win "stupidest post of the year." What the hell does the fact that there are rich kids as well as poor kids have to do with anything? Why would every kid have to be a "ward of the state" if we pay for some of them to see a doctor? Secondly, the fact that medicine can have side effects is a reason to be thankful kids that were actually sick can't see a doctor, because OTC medicine wasn't a free for all? (Which I'm not sure anyone is proposing. I think you'll be on your own for OTC meds for the sniffles.) Besides that, in this case specifically, as of now at least, the biggest risk is accidental overdose. Kids wake up in the middle of the night with their cough and take more medicine, or parents might give them too much. As of now this is the exact same over-reactionary bull-crap we've been talking about lately. Like I've said 1000 times before. We ARE paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance because our insurance companies are being billed higher amounts to cover those who can't pay. Add in that preventive care is 100 times cheaper than "well, you need a new heart now that it went unchecked this long" and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, in the long term, it's cheaper to just directly pay for everyone to see a doctor than the round about way we're already doing it. There's really only two arguments I ever hear to the contrary. 1) People will abuse the system and go to the doctor every time they get a headache. 2) People are stubborn and often wont see a doctor even with coverage, therefor the "preventive" angle is void. Either of these could happen, but they are mutually exclusive points, and are often made by the same person in the same argument. If people abuse the system then the increased demand for doctors will result in more doctors. The prices will settle down either way because hospitals could start charging more reasonable rates, since they know half the people here don't plan on stiffing them on the bill. If people don't visit the doctors then we have no problem, because we'd be more or less at where we are now. It's not out of the realm of reason to require health insurance for the same reason it's reasonable to require car insurance to drive. You not having insurance could cost me money. (Granted, on a lesser scale.) Something like 50 cents on the dollar of tax money goes toward interest on the debt, or the military. We could cut our military budget in half and still outspend every other country. Taxes wouldn't even have to go up, but if they had to, then so be it. I'm really sick of taxes being such a bugaboo in politics, especially in campaign season. The war in Iraq is costing $500,000 a minute. Do the american people REALLY think they shouldn't have to pay for that? Agree with it or not this war is being fought on your, and my, behalf. The national debt clock ran out of digits when it rolled over to 10 trillion the other day. Who do we think should pay for that? The issue shouldn't be the amount we pay in taxes, it should be what are we GETTING for that money. As far as I'm concerned if we paid 75% of our income in taxes, but in return the government paid for us to live where we wanted to and food, electricity, cable/internet, ect, was provided (though we'd obviously get to pick) it would be better than everyone kicking in $300 annually to be burned in a giant pile on the White House lawn every April 16th. Don't get me wrong, both would be bad, but I would prefer the first option. Healthcare to me is an obvious thing that we could get a lot of bang for our buck on (As opposed to say a "Houses for everyone" program.) because, as I said, I feel like those of us who pay for insurance are already paying a large part of what such a thing would cost in the end, just because of the way the system is currently set up.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 10/11/2008 12:20:10 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/11/2008 @ 06:56:40 AM
It's strange being in a world where Jeremy and I are in almost total agreement.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 10/11/2008 @ 07:33:01 AM
1. In response to Alex's opening question: Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin in '08 2. Getting back to whether health care is a right, I guess it would depend on what people mean by "right". I think that when most people talk about rights, they are thinking of those that are mentioned in the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights (technically, I think most of these are actually liberties, but since most people don't distinguish the two, I won't either). Now, most of these deal with preventing the government or others from doing things to you. So, if you want to argue that a right to health care means that the government can't interfere with my ability to buy health care, then you would get no argument from me. Of course, when people make the "health care is a right" argument, they are not talking about this, they are talking more along the lines of "the government should pay for my health care". I disagree with this way of thinking for a couple of reasons. First, if health care is so important that the government needs to provide it for everybody, then why shouldn't the government also pay for things like our food, water, clothing, and shelter. These things are more essential than health care, yet the government doesn't pay for them except for those who are absolutely incapable of providing for themselves. This is how it should be for health care as well. Second, the Bill of Rights gives us the right to bear arms and the right to freedom of speech/press. Now, the Constitution forbids the government from interfering (for the most part) in our exercise of these rights, but it doesn't mean that the government has to provide every citizen with a gun, or that everyone gets to have their own personal newsletter printed at the governments expense. It doesn't make sense then, that a "right" to health care involves the government paying for everybody's medical bills.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 10/11/2008 10:46:56 am

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 10/11/2008 @ 10:37:17 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:16:04 PM I think everyone has a right to see a doctor, IF THEY CAN AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT. Doctors shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race or age or whatever, but it's a service/good like many other things that if you can pay for it, great, and if not, too bad. It's not a service that should be provided by or paid for by the federal government, nor should a person be forced to buy it with their own money. Right, except no one ever died because we didn't provide haircuts for everyone. Medical care isn't just like any other service. And people in countries that have national health care die because of the limitations of their system too. You'll never get rid of the fact that some people won't get the treatment they need, you can only minimize the chances. In my mind this means staying away from nationalized health care and getting to a more free market type system. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM Like I've said 1000 times before. We ARE paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance because our insurance companies are being billed higher amounts to cover those who can't pay. Add in that preventive care is 100 times cheaper than "well, you need a new heart now that it went unchecked this long" and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, in the long term, it's cheaper to just directly pay for everyone to see a doctor than the round about way we're already doing it. Yeah, we've had this discussion before here: Clinton suggests tapping wages, but what's the point of having politics and the internet if you can't have the same argument over and over again. Anyway, back to the discussion. The government already pays for the poor and the elderly. And seeing as a large chunk of the uninsured are young adults who, on the whole, are money makers for the insurance companies, mandating them to buy insurance means that the older folks pay less for theirs because others are forced to pay for something they don't "need". How is that any more fair than your scenario? Having the government pay for them is not ideal either, since many can pay for their own, but choose not to. A better solution would be for things like HSAs and eliminations of regulations that cause health care to be more expensive that it should be, which will allow for more people to be covered, in better control of their options and more aware of the costs/benefits of their decisions. Then we can worry about the people who still need help, but by then it would hopefully be a much smaller number. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the potential savings from preventative care is less than you think. Not counting diseases that are due mostly to lifestyle (since you don't need to see a doctor to eat right or exercise) most people wouldn't develop a disease that could be prevented (this is especially true of those who are young and will eventually get insurance as they get older). Now, this would be a good deal for the few who would get a preventable disease, but looking at the group as a whole, I'm not sure how great a "deal" this would be. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM If people abuse the system then the increased demand for doctors will result in more doctors. The prices will settle down either way because hospitals could start charging more reasonable rates, since they know half the people here don't plan on stiffing them on the bill. Except that if you are in a single payer (i.e. the government) situation, then it doesn't matter. The total cost will still go up. Let's say that as the demand for doctors goes up, the price of an office visit goes up. Then more doctors are eventually hired and the price drops back down to where it was. While the government would still be paying the same price per visit, there are now more visits that need to be paid for (many of which were unnecessary). Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM It's not out of the realm of reason to require health insurance for the same reason it's reasonable to require car insurance to drive. You not having insurance could cost me money. (Granted, on a lesser scale.) See, at times it seemed like you were arguing for a single-payer nationalized plan, and other times (like this quote), it seemed like you were arguing for mandated coverage. I guess I kind of made arguments against both so I think I'm covered. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM Something like 50 cents on the dollar of tax money goes toward interest on the debt, or the military. We could cut our military budget in half and still outspend every other country. Taxes wouldn't even have to go up, but if they had to, then so be it. Well our military is also the only one in the world that can actually get things done as well. Besides, entitlement spending has gotten so out of control that it will soon (if it hasn't already) become the largest portion of the budget. I'm not sure making that part even larger would be for the best. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM I'm really sick of taxes being such a bugaboo in politics, especially in campaign season. The war in Iraq is costing $500,000 a minute. Do the american people REALLY think they shouldn't have to pay for that? Agree with it or not this war is being fought on your, and my, behalf. The national debt clock ran out of digits when it rolled over to 10 trillion the other day. Who do we think should pay for that? The issue shouldn't be the amount we pay in taxes, it should be what are we GETTING for that money. As far as I'm concerned if we paid 75% of our income in taxes, but in return the government paid for us to live where we wanted to and food, electricity, cable/internet, ect, was provided (though we'd obviously get to pick) it would be better than everyone kicking in $300 annually to be burned in a giant pile on the White House lawn every April 16th. Don't get me wrong, both would be bad, but I would prefer the first option. Well, taxes and government spending are two sides of the same coin, and since most people would probably say the government wastes a lot of money, I don't think complaining about being taxed too much is wrong. Also, while both your scenarios here are exaggerations, I would have to say that the second one is more plausible/realistic. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:16:14 AM Healthcare to me is an obvious thing that we could get a lot of bang for our buck on (As opposed to say a "Houses for everyone" program.) because, as I said, I feel like those of us who pay for insurance are already paying a large part of what such a thing would cost in the end, just because of the way the system is currently set up. I think getting rid of a system of employer-based insurance that is expected/mandated to cover all costs both major and minor would be the best start we could make. This along with HSAs and allowing people to shop for coverage across state lines would allow people to be more aware of the costs/benefits of their decisions, make better choices for themselves, and could likely help to drive medical costs down. While there will probably always be people who we will need to cover through the government, I think the answer is to keep the government involved as little as possible. I respectfully dissent.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Matt edited this 7 times, last at 10/11/2008 10:47:27 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/11/2008 @ 11:41:54 AM
Mostly I meant to say what Matt did. My bad for new blog but we're in the stretch run and no one posted on the other one in 1.5 months. The OTC medicine rant was tongue in cheek. Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:43:44 PM Plus, in the thinking of the children mode, means I'm about to say something totally ridiculous, but it's ok because it's for the children.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 10/11/2008 @ 11:56:50 PM
Well, as I believe we concluded the last time we solved the world's problems, an HSA system is definitely the way to go. That way people are still cover for the giant disasters but there's a great incentive to limit the day-to-day kind of expenses. (And insist on generic meds where appropriate, etc.) As for seeming to argue for different things that was just because I was addressing all the "cons" that are usually listed. I'm not sure what the best setup for this would be, there's likely no ideal solution, but I think letting people have their choice of companies, and then the government make a contribution to the HSA's of people who can't afford healthcare is a good start.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - If you got a problem ... yo i'll solve it. 10/14/2008 @ 01:10:21 PM
I'm probably going to write in this year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 10/14/2008 @ 01:21:40 PM
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 01:10:21 PM I'm probably going to write in this year. Actually, I'm not old enough yet to be president, sorry. Maybe in a couple elections.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 10/14/2008 @ 02:44:45 PM
I've got my mail-in ballot at my house. Looks like I'll be avoiding the long lines this year. Does Wisconsin have that option, because apparently Florida does.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 10/14/2008 @ 03:07:42 PM
MN does- absentee ballots and what not. I know I had the option to vote absentee when I was in basic training.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/14/2008 @ 05:58:06 PM
I'm not sure if what I have is technically an absentee ballot, but I'm sure the concept is the same either way. I just think it's nice to have the option of not going to the polling place. The problem is this, what if I cast my vote today, and then we get a major October surprise? I'm screwed! I won't be able to change my mind based on some probably meaningless "gotcha" moment. I'll just be a bum who voted for the guy who was sleeping with Paris Hilton or something like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/14/2008 @ 06:48:21 PM
You also likely wont even be counted.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 10/14/2008 @ 08:56:39 PM
Hey, yeah- you're in Florida, right? screwed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 10/15/2008 @ 12:18:09 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:58:06 PM I'm not sure if what I have is technically an absentee ballot, but I'm sure the concept is the same either way. I just think it's nice to have the option of not going to the polling place. Not that I think you're being fooled or anything, but I think you should make sure it's an actual ballot, or at least find out exactly what it is if it's not an absentee ballot. I got an automated type call today from one of the parties telling me they'd be sending out an application for an absentee ballot. Obviously, if you're picking a candidate on it, it's probably not an application, but it might not necessarily be an actual ballot either if it's not an absentee ballot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 10/15/2008 @ 07:50:11 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:18:09 AM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:58:06 PM I'm not sure if what I have is technically an absentee ballot, but I'm sure the concept is the same either way. I just think it's nice to have the option of not going to the polling place. Not that I think you're being fooled or anything, but I think you should make sure it's an actual ballot, or at least find out exactly what it is if it's not an absentee ballot. I got an automated type call today from one of the parties telling me they'd be sending out an application for an absentee ballot. Obviously, if you're picking a candidate on it, it's probably not an application, but it might not necessarily be an actual ballot either if it's not an absentee ballot. "If it's a dog, then it's a dog. But if it's a cat, then it's not a dog. buuuuut, if it's a cat, then it's a cat and not a dog. So there you go."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/15/2008 @ 08:02:20 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 01:18:09 AM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:58:06 PM I'm not sure if what I have is technically an absentee ballot, but I'm sure the concept is the same either way. I just think it's nice to have the option of not going to the polling place. Not that I think you're being fooled or anything, but I think you should make sure it's an actual ballot, or at least find out exactly what it is if it's not an absentee ballot. I got an automated type call today from one of the parties telling me they'd be sending out an application for an absentee ballot. Obviously, if you're picking a candidate on it, it's probably not an application, but it might not necessarily be an actual ballot either if it's not an absentee ballot. Well, it came from the county election supervisor. So he's going straight to prison if it is indeed a fake.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/15/2008 @ 09:14:47 PM
This debate is ridic.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 10/15/2008 @ 09:17:36 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:14:47 PM This debate is ridic. I'm not sure it's even a debate. And I wasn't trying to suggest it was a fake thing. My only point was that if Scott is participating in some new kind of voting that none of us are familiar with, I suggest taking the extra effort to make sure it's exactly what he thinks it is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 10/15/2008 @ 09:20:35 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:14:47 PM This debate is ridic. I'm an idiot. I realize now you were talking about the actual debate going on right now. But my comments still stands since I feel like my original comment was misunderstood. Edit: Although, in my defense, this was almost a classic Sarah non-sequitor comment. It just happened to deal with the thread topic but had the general lack of details.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 2 times, last at 10/15/2008 9:23:08 pm

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/15/2008 @ 09:33:20 PM
Yea, yea you are. I was talking about the debate going on that we all should've been paying attention to. I wouldn't call whether or not Scott is getting hosed out of his vote a debate, more of a warning to beware of junk mail?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 10/15/2008 @ 09:34:13 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 09:20:35 PM Edit: Although, in my defense, this was almost a classic Sarah non-sequitor comment. It just happened to deal with the thread topic but had the general lack of details. I'm in the right blog am I not?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - many posts 10/15/2008 @ 09:41:06 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:34:13 PM Jon Wrote - Today @ 09:20:35 PM Edit: Although, in my defense, this was almost a classic Sarah non-sequitor comment. It just happened to deal with the thread topic but had the general lack of details. I'm in the right blog am I not? Yes you are. Which is why I said "almost." You didn't do anything wrong, it just didn't fit into the flow of posts that came right before it. Which it doesn't have to, but I just couldn't draw any clues that I should shift modes of thinking. You know, other than the debate playing in the background. I think we can all agree now that THIS debate we've just had is ridic(ulous). P.S. It wasn't even a warning against junk mail necessarily. It could very well be an official document (as Scott has since indicated) but not be the exact thing that will count as an official vote. It was a suggestion of due diligence. Or something.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this at 10/15/2008 9:41:59 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/16/2008 @ 08:37:21 AM
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:20:35 PM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:14:47 PM This debate is ridic. I'm an idiot. I realize now you were talking about the actual debate going on right now. But my comments still stands since I feel like my original comment was misunderstood. Edit: Although, in my defense, this was almost a classic Sarah non-sequitor comment. It just happened to deal with the thread topic but had the general lack of details. I read your first response and was like "really? That's what she was talking about?" And then I read the second response and had a good laugh.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 10/16/2008 8:37:30 am

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 10/16/2008 @ 09:15:06 AM
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:20:35 PM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:14:47 PM This debate is ridic. I'm an idiot. I realize now you were talking about the actual debate going on right now. But my comments still stands since I feel like my original comment was misunderstood. Edit: Although, in my defense, this was almost a classic Sarah non-sequitor comment. It just happened to deal with the thread topic but had the general lack of details. And to think- we don't have to pay for this entertainment! Genius!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 10/18/2008 @ 10:18:58 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_re_us/child_health_hawaii		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 10/28/2008 @ 08:42:26 AM
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free" "It costs the state about $50,000 per month, or $25.50 per child — an amount that was more than matched by HMSA." Hawaii can't spare 50 grand a month? Where are all of those dollars from overpriced services?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/30/2008 @ 10:12:22 AM
With less that a week to go the Democrats have first and goal from the 3. How do they mess this up? A regular old messup, or something epic? Since I last looked it looks like they've lost IN. http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 10/30/2008 @ 11:35:09 AM
I casted my mail in vote already for the state of Florida. Oh the excitement! Just so Jon doesn't worry, it is a real ballot. In fact, it said that if I do not want to mail it in I can bring that exact ballot into my polling place and fill it in on Election Day. I'm pretty confident that my vote will be counted regardless.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/30/2008 @ 11:54:24 AM
Oh, well if it said it was a real ballot then there's no way it won't count. The scammers' biggest weakness always has been that they identify when something is fake. In all seriousness though, is there a reason you wanted/had to mail it in? You live in Florida, so at best you're already looking at about a 75% chance your vote actually counts, even if you go down their and verify your registration and get a real ballot, and whatnot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 10/30/2008 11:55:00 am

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 10/30/2008 @ 11:58:20 AM
Well, again, the ballot came from the office of the county election supervisor. So it is just as likely that I got scammed this way as it is it would be if someone gave me a crappy ballot on election day. I worked over an hour away from where I vote, and I worked until 8:00 on election day. It would be difficult for me to make the time to vote any other way. It's just convenient.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 10/30/2008 @ 12:13:21 PM
Well, I don't think you got scammed, but it isn't "just as likely" that the little old lady handing out ballots at the polling place is a DNC/GOP operative who smuggled in some fake ballots as it is that a scammer happened to know the proper return address. Also, even if it is real there's still way way WAY more of a chance something could happen to it somewhere along the line and it doesn't count. You wouldn't even need some clandestine shady operation for that to happen. Good old incompetence from a well-intentioned individual could still lose/invalidate your ballot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 10/30/2008 @ 01:40:08 PM
Plus, don't they not count all the absentee votes if race in that district isn't that close or something like that? That would also reduce your chances of your vote actually being counted.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/30/2008 @ 03:39:23 PM
I'm not so sure about that.....the instructions say that they need to receive the ballot by election day or else it won't get counted. Oh well, as long as my guy wins that's all I care about. I have faith in the election process, but should I?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/30/2008 @ 04:40:06 PM
Hillsboroughh County Supervisor of Elections This is where I got my ballot from.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/03/2008 @ 01:15:58 PM
Looks like Wisconsin is going to Obama, so a vote for Obama or McCain is a waste, therefore vote for Bob Barr.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/03/2008 @ 01:23:15 PM
That's Craig's half-baked plan as well. The only problem being that polls don't win squat, so if no one actually DOES vote for Obama he won't win. Ask NFL MVP voters how giving "distant runners-up" a "nod" in the voting has worked out in the past. Bottom line is if you want to vote libertarian then do so.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	craig - 132 Posts 11/03/2008 @ 01:26:40 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:23:15 PM That's Craig's half-baked plan as well. The only problem being that polls don't win squat, so if no one actually DOES vote for Obama he won't win. Ask NFL MVP voters how giving "distant runners-up" a "nod" in the voting has worked out in the past. Bottom line is if you want to vote libertarian then do so. I will, and my plan is fully baked.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
craig perfected this at 11/03/2008 1:27:16 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/04/2008 @ 12:05:19 AM
Well, Wisconsin will most likely go to Obama, but there is a greater than zero chance that the polls are overestimating the turnout advantage for the Democrats and thus some states that are leaning Obama may end up being won by McCain.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 07:58:17 AM
That's why everyone has to go get their vote on! It's very exciting, that's fo' sure.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 11/04/2008 @ 09:29:15 AM
I voted, it was cool. I had to register THEN vote, but it took less than an hour- I went right at open. Too bad I've had to re-register 3 times now since I've been eligable to vote. Wish I would just stay somewhere.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 11/04/2008 9:43:59 am

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 09:31:24 AM
VOTE		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 09:34:42 AM
or die?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 11/04/2008 @ 09:37:41 AM
it's possible		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 09:39:05 AM
its possible.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 11/04/2008 @ 09:43:15 AM
SPAM will not be tolerated. Well, it will, but won't be appreciated.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 10:37:53 AM
So there's like 9 people that visit this site with any regularity and we have at least 2 Libertarian votes, with a potential 3rd from Carl. That's a pretty decent percentage for a third party. Clearly they have to ditch their official websites and all come here.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 11/04/2008 @ 10:48:41 AM
No, I would typically vote Lib by principle, but I had to vote for a mainstreamer. It was hard- I didn't make my final decision until the last moment. I did it scientifically at first- took one of those 1000000 question surveys from a reputable source, who aligned my answers with known policies and statements by the nominees. Then, out of 20 topics ranging from stem cells to iran to education, I figured which candidate I most agreed with. It was a 10-8-2 result, with Obama at the head. Too close for me, I chose 9 topics that were more important. 5-4 McC. Then, I chose 5 topics- 3-2 McC. STILL too close. Then, I brought in other factors, like overall approachability, trust in their Veeps, how the nation and the world would react to them, who I thought they would chose as their cabinets, etc, and finally settled on killing myself. Well, I voted, but I'm not sure I'll ever tell anyone who I voted for, although you're welcome to guess. Too bad I think 3, 4, 5th parties were wasted votes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this 3 times, last at 11/04/2008 10:51:38 am

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 11/04/2008 @ 11:08:24 AM
Well, they're only wasted votes because no one votes for them. Also, I'm not sure any of them think they'll win, their goal for the time being is to get in the debates, which takes a fairly small percentage, though, I think, still way higher of a percent then they've been getting. Personally I think it should be a whole separate voting issue. Vote for your candidate in one spot and check the boxes for all the parties you'd like to see at the next debate. (Maybe like a top 4, and the party you voted for is implied.) Since that approach could lead to a bat-shit-insane party there could be a pruning process during the primaries after their bat-shit-insaneness is made clear to everyone so by the time the real debates roll around the White Supremacist party is gone and the legit parties are left. Though there would have to be some sort of vetting process to get on the ballot, ideally stringent enough to keep the whackjobs off, but then we might be in the same boat. I don't know the ideal way to do this. I just feel like there are a lot of people out there who would agree that the Libertarian party is a "legit" party that they would like to hear more from, but ultimately maybe votes from the previous election aren't the ideal way to decide this.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 11:36:15 AM
Remember that voting needs to be as simple a process as possible. I had to help someone in line today decide whether he was registered. I remember the day the guy moved into our building, so I asked him where he lived before. It was clear across the Metro, so I told him that it was very unlikely. Simple things like "are you registered" cause enough of a barrier. Adding your debate clause would cloud the whole thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	craig - 132 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 11:36:37 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:48:41 AM No, I would typically vote Lib by principle, but I had to vote for a mainstreamer. It was hard- I didn't make my final decision until the last moment. I did it scientifically at first- took one of those 1000000 question surveys from a reputable source, who aligned my answers with known policies and statements by the nominees. Then, out of 20 topics ranging from stem cells to iran to education, I figured which candidate I most agreed with. It was a 10-8-2 result, with Obama at the head. Too close for me, I chose 9 topics that were more important. 5-4 McC. Then, I chose 5 topics- 3-2 McC. STILL too close. Then, I brought in other factors, like overall approachability, trust in their Veeps, how the nation and the world would react to them, who I thought they would chose as their cabinets, etc, and finally settled on killing myself. Well, I voted, but I'm not sure I'll ever tell anyone who I voted for, although you're welcome to guess. Too bad I think 3, 4, 5th parties were wasted votes. If you agree more with the Libertarians, and instead you're voting for one of two candidates, you've had to agonize to decide between, neither of which you agree with as much as the Libertarian candidate I'd argue you are wasting your vote. Vote for the candidate you agree with not based on some self-declared definition of what it means to 'waste' a vote. There is never going to be a viable 3rd party (not counting the 'personality parties', e.g. Ross Perot) until people actually start voting for 3rd parties. If people are convinced that a vote for someone who doesn't have a chance, is a wasted vote so instead they will vote for someone they don't really agree with just so they can feel they didn't waste their vote, then they are wasting a vote. Vote Bob Barr! I am. Really. No, I'm serious. Stop looking at me like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 11:43:20 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 11:36:15 AM Remember that voting needs to be as simple a process as possible. I had to help someone in line today decide whether he was registered. I remember the day the guy moved into our building, so I asked him where he lived before. It was clear across the Metro, so I told him that it was very unlikely. Simple things like "are you registered" cause enough of a barrier. Adding your debate clause would cloud the whole thing. Well, too be fair, there are initiatives on the ballots like prop 214 "Are you against not letting homosexuals not get married? Yes __ No __" I don't know how much it could confuse people to say "Pick up to 4 parties you would like to see at future debates." I get where you're coming from, but I don't think we have to gear this entire important process around what the functionally illiterate and permanently confused can handle either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 11:58:01 AM
craig Wrote - Today @ 11:36:37 AM Yeah, I mean if your definition of "wasting a vote" is that it's irrelevant when it's all said and done then most votes fall under that umbrella. If 30 people vote and 10 vote for McCain, 19 vote for Obama, and 1 votes Barr in a winner-take all system then you could argue that those 10 McCain votes are just as much of a "waste" as Barr's. Or that 8 of Obama's votes were. Or both, which I guess by extension would imply that the only vote that "counts" is one vote for the winner. Especially for someone in Carl's camp who would be equally happy (or upset) about McCain or Obama, seems like a no-brainier to let the thing you really don't care about play itself out and see if you can't get your guy in the debates for the next time. In short, smooth move, ex-lax.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	craig - 12521 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 11:58:21 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:43:20 AM I don't know how much it could confuse people to say "Pick up to 4 parties you would like to see at future debates." There are a lot of things that could be done to help the visibility/viability of 3rd parties. The problem of course is that all the decisions regarding voting procedures are made by members of the two major parties, who have an interest in remaining the only two parties, so nothing is going to happen to help a third party in the electoral process until there actually is a third party taking part in the decision making process.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 12:28:42 PM
"To be fair", people seem to screw up Push/Pull doors with more frequency than we'd like to admit as well.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 11/04/2008 12:29:00 pm

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 11/04/2008 @ 12:31:35 PM
craig Wrote - Today @ 11:36:37 AM (this was funny, good call Jerm) I disagree with you. I would more closely agree with Libertarian, but since they'll get less than 10%, I do think it would be wasted. Instead, I voted for the candidate that most closely matched my feelings about very specific topics and who had a better chance of turning our country around for the better. Fundamentally, you could have some traction, but ultimately, I voted for a candidate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	craig - 132 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 01:00:58 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 12:31:35 PM I disagree with you. I would more closely agree with Libertarian, but since they'll get less than 10%, I do think it would be wasted. Instead, I voted for the candidate that most closely matched my feelings about very specific topics and who had a better chance of turning our country around for the better. Well, let's agree to disagree then, because I believe you're wrong. I've got loads of 'traction', the problem is people are stuck in this Left-Right, Democrat-GOP mindset. The ONLY way we are EVER going to have a 3rd (or more) party is if people vote for these parties. Just take a hypothetical example: Imagine if people did actually 'waste' their votes, and the Libertarian party got even 4% of the presidential votes. You don't think that would 'turn the country around'? The major parties would be running scared, the last thing they want is a third major party, and both would try to incorporate the (palatable to them) positions of the LP. A third party candidate wouldn't have to win, or even have a chance to win to make a major difference in the national debate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 11/04/2008 @ 01:30:56 PM
Craig is on point here. There will never be a 3rd party if no one ever votes for a 3rd party candidate. And quite possible it will never happen, but I feel good about voting for who I really wanted to vote for, and not voting "against" someone else by voting for someone else that I really wasn't too thrilled with. Here's an idea. Instead of voting for one person, you get to rank your top 5 choices. Your #1 gets 5 "points", 2 gets 4, 3 gets 3, 4 gets 2, 5 gets 1, and lets say you can tack on as many different 5s as you feel like and you can vote for all or none of 1-5. At the end, whoever has the most points wins. That system would definitely give other parties a better chance.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 01:38:51 PM
Craig and I were talking about that yesterday. Some sort of multi-vote system. I don't like it thought. I'm also ok with the "against" vote. If you disagree with one more than the other by definition you agree with the other more than the one. It's a perfectly legit reason, in my opinion. Unless, you prefer a 3rd party, but even then if the most important thing to you is "Nobama" then a vote for McCain is reasonable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 01:42:30 PM
I didn't say it wasn't reasonable, it just kind of stinks if you really would rather vote for a 3rd party.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 01:52:35 PM
Then vote 3rd party. (FYI - When Craig first said he was voting Libertarian, I had to actually tell him who the candidate was.) No one will ever get to vote for them "for real" if no one votes for them now, and as Craig said, either way you're sending a message.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." 11/04/2008 @ 02:17:04 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:30:56 PM Here's an idea. Instead of voting for one person, you get to rank your top 5 choices. Your #1 gets 5 "points", 2 gets 4, 3 gets 3, 4 gets 2, 5 gets 1, and lets say you can tack on as many different 5s as you feel like and you can vote for all or none of 1-5. At the end, whoever has the most points wins. That system would definitely give other parties a better chance. This isn't a marketing survey, it's a national election. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:52:35 PM Then vote 3rd party. (FYI - When Craig first said he was voting Libertarian, I had to actually tell him who the candidate was.) No one will ever get to vote for them "for real" if no one votes for them now, and as Craig said, either way you're sending a message. There's a good point to this too, and I bet it has a 'purpetual cycle' thing going on. No funding, no marketing/campaigning, no voting, no winning, no funding.... and on and on. The simple fact that you didn't know who he was makes me wonder if you know much about the candidate's stance on topics other than the "typical" Libertarian views. That's like saying you're going to just vote for whatever Repub stands up, regardless of their views on specific topics.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 11/04/2008 @ 02:19:10 PM
For the third straight presidential election, I will be voting third party. [Click to Enlarge] I actually own this button (one just like it at least). Bought it on eBay about eight years ago. Sadly, button wearing is a bit awkward, so I never really get to use it much. I'm not even sure exactly where it is. Of course, this brings up an important question. What (other) fictional character would you vote for? I would vote for Hank Hill. He would be among the greatest presidents we could have.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 11/04/2008 2:20:00 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 02:40:12 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 02:17:04 PM The simple fact that you didn't know who he was makes me wonder if you know much about the candidate's stance on topics other than the "typical" Libertarian views. That's like saying you're going to just vote for whatever Repub stands up, regardless of their views on specific topics. I'm ok with this too. In fact, as cynical as it sounds, I almost think this is what you HAVE to do. (ie Just pick a team and stick with it.) No matter how "maverick" a candidate is they are going to, more-or-less, have to tow the party line. Even if they didn't they are only going to do what congress allows. Let's say the cornerstone of Obama's campaign was making abortion illegal. He couldn't just do that. He'd have to get it past the democratic majority who, as an aggregate majority, are going to vote along party lines. In short, anything a president says is meaningless. Obama could only do what the other large number of democrats, who again, average out to be a "classic democrat" allow. Democrats are going to do one thing, Republicans another, and libertarians another. I don't think it's wise to look into the details of a person's position too much, because they're largely irrelevant. edit: Obama does, however, have the power to declare this country a "Muslim Nation," (Whatever that would even mean) so beware.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 11/04/2008 2:47:54 pm

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 11/04/2008 @ 03:01:57 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:40:12 PM edit: Obama does, however, have the power to declare this country a "Muslim Nation," (Whatever that would even mean) so beware. Good Game, Separation of Church and State! Oh wait, I thought he was Catholic? Well, then that's OK!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	craig - 132 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 03:22:25 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 02:17:04 PM The simple fact that you didn't know who he was makes me wonder if you know much about the candidate's stance on topics other than the "typical" Libertarian views. That's like saying you're going to just vote for whatever Repub stands up, regardless of their views on specific topics. What's to know? I know, exactly, where the libertarian party stands on virtually every issue already. There's no mystery. He's not pro-war, or anti-drug legalization, or for higher taxes (I could go on). The Libertarian Party picked him, and that's good enough for me. Unlike the Dems or the GOP the Libertarians actually have a founding philosophy, so it's pretty safe to say you know what you're going to get. Unlike the other parties who craft their positions on political expediency, 'energizing' their base, and targeting the 'undecided' voters, the LP stands on it's principles. Which is probably why it's never going to be very popular.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
craig edited this at 11/04/2008 3:22:56 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/04/2008 @ 04:57:02 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:40:12 PM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 02:17:04 PM The simple fact that you didn't know who he was makes me wonder if you know much about the candidate's stance on topics other than the "typical" Libertarian views. That's like saying you're going to just vote for whatever Repub stands up, regardless of their views on specific topics. I'm ok with this too. In fact, as cynical as it sounds, I almost think this is what you HAVE to do. (ie Just pick a team and stick with it.) No matter how "maverick" a candidate is they are going to, more-or-less, have to tow the party line. Even if they didn't they are only going to do what congress allows. Let's say the cornerstone of Obama's campaign was making abortion illegal. He couldn't just do that. He'd have to get it past the democratic majority who, as an aggregate majority, are going to vote along party lines. In short, anything a president says is meaningless. Obama could only do what the other large number of democrats, who again, average out to be a "classic democrat" allow. Democrats are going to do one thing, Republicans another, and libertarians another. I don't think it's wise to look into the details of a person's position too much, because they're largely irrelevant. edit: Obama does, however, have the power to declare this country a "Muslim Nation," (Whatever that would even mean) so beware. I too am a believer in the "Vote the Party" method (for the most part). I was actually just discussing this with Jon the other day as I had read a post that echoed my views. Here it is if you want to take a look: Voting for the Party, not for the Candidate		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this at 11/04/2008 4:58:05 pm

	Jon - infinity + 1 posts 11/04/2008 @ 05:54:58 PM
Well, the first numbers are due in about five minutes. However this all unfolds, here's to hoping it happens civilly and peacefully, and that our future president and elected officials make wise decisions.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Jon messed with this at 11/04/2008 6:01:02 pm

	Jon - 3443 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 06:02:35 PM
Also, this is somewhat trivial, but I realized today that each of the two main presidential candidates were born outside the lower 48 states. Obama in Hawaii, and McCain in the Canal Zone in Panama.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 06:28:18 PM
with 0% of the precincts reporting, CNN projects Vermont for Obama!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 11/04/2008 @ 06:29:24 PM
We just voted and it was awesome!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 11/04/2008 @ 06:31:30 PM
With 0% in, they're saying it's too close to call in OH.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 06:38:27 PM
Florida was going i60-40 in favor of mccain one minute, then about 60-40 in favor of Obama the next time I refreshed. What the heck. Get your act together Florida.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 11/04/2008 @ 06:52:58 PM
I forgot to mention that when I went to vote at 8 this morning, their were about 50 people in line for A-M and no one in line for N-Z. So as soon as I registered with the old guy who couldn't read, I didn't have to wait in line at all. I think he called me Scheberi and read Armada Dr as Amanda Dr. At that point I wasn't too worried that I didn't fill in my previous address completely because I couldn't remember it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 07:10:34 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:38:27 PM Florida was going i60-40 in favor of mccain one minute, then about 60-40 in favor of Obama the next time I refreshed. What the heck. Get your act together Florida. They've already talked about how a lot of votes in Palm Springs are being examined and thrown out because they weren't filled out properly. Come on Florida, get it together indeed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - infinity + 1 posts 11/04/2008 @ 07:17:34 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:43:20 AM I get where you're coming from, but I don't think we have to gear this entire important process around what the functionally illiterate and permanently confused can handle either. Apparently voters disagree with you Jeremy. They're going in there blindfolded and just thrashing around and hoping something registers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 2 times, last at 11/04/2008 7:18:29 pm

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 11/04/2008 @ 10:06:13 PM
Obama wins. I for one welcome our new Democratic overlords.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 11/04/2008 @ 11:45:40 PM
At least I didn't waste my vote on McCain.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/04/2008 @ 11:46:19 PM
Looks like Nader is edging out Barr for the biggest slice of the "Within the Margin Of Error" slice of the pie in most states. You know 3rd parties are insignificant when a) The "election night thread" on the home page of Bob Barr's official website has 34 comments on it. b) News commentators note, very puzzled, that Obama's Votes + McCain's votes don't always equal 100%.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 07:48:50 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:06:13 PM Obama wins. I for one welcome our new Democratic overlords. Now that they are slated to run things, let's see if they hold to their promises. THey should be able to get all of their issues passed without much problem. This is their opportunity to prove something, so we'll see. I just hope the MN recount doesn't go to Al Franken for Senate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 09:19:22 AM
Well, as far as I know republicans can still filibuster.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 09:38:43 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:48:50 AM I just hope the MN recount doesn't go to Al Franken for Senate. Just admit, it would be awesome having a former SNL cast member in the Senate. Right?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 11/05/2008 @ 09:58:55 AM
Since we're onto the subject of recounts now and with the comment above about stupid people not filling out their ballots correctly: In Palm Beach Co Florida their ballots were like the ones we have here in Eau Claire. Every candidate has an arrow head and an arrow tail next to their name and you complete the arrow to vote for that person. The news caster was talking about how many absentee ballots were filled out with a circle around the candidates name or the arrow, or a check mark either in the arrow head, where the arrow tail was, or where they should have drawn the line. [Click to Enlarge] Can't we all agree that during a hand recount that the spirit of our democracy should be honored and that as long as it's clear who the person intended to vote for the vote should count? I guess I just don't feel like this is a time to get bogged down in whether or not directions were followed. That seems like such a grade school teacher move to me. (That's not a shot at teachers, but at that age sometimes the teachers want to get across that following the directions is as important as getting the right answers.) If there's one mark on a page (for one candidate), or one dimpled chad, or whatever, why shouldn't the vote count? Also, it's fairly easy to understand, all things considered, and there's pictorial directions at the top of the ballot, but is the "connect the arrow" method really the most intuitive thing they could use?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 11/05/2008 9:59:41 am

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 11/05/2008 @ 10:52:16 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:38:43 AM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 07:48:50 AM I just hope the MN recount doesn't go to Al Franken for Senate. Just admit, it would be awesome having a former SNL cast member in the Senate. Right? Except when the candidate is nothing but a line-crossing business man who adopts depolorable business practices (doesn't pay workers comp and some taxes?) and has a history of making temper tantrums and public anger fits. Did I mention the flat out lies he and his cronies fabricated to try and sling muck on the incumbant? This was probably one of the most dirty MN elections ever. Please also keep in mind the material he provided for SNL. Rape and race jokes, etc. NO it would not be awesome. Perhaps he can be your senator instead.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 11/05/2008 @ 12:26:07 PM
I just checked my district's voting info- looks like 60.19% McC, 37.85% Obama... but Barr did get 99 votes for .35%, Nader got 273 for .96% More interestingly, I found a couple of cases where a husband-wife combo voted for themselves... only problem is that he seemed to vote himself pres, her veep. When she voted, she was the pres, he was the veep. Screwed themselves out of votes!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 12:32:05 PM
they show you who the write ins were?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 12:47:35 PM
Yep- I tried to check on the same information for my old district in EC, but the results of the election won't be posted until Dec 1! Unfortunately I can't see if anyone voted for Mickey Mouse or Hillary or anything, I'll have to scout that out later. You can too, just go to this website: http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ I am district 034A		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 11/05/2008 12:50:41 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 01:00:48 PM
Where are you seeing this?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 11/05/2008 @ 01:41:20 PM
Connect the arrow does seem slightly less than obvious. Mine was fill in the little circle, which I think people are probably more familiar with.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 03:59:32 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:00:48 PM Where are you seeing this? Click link, under Results Summary, find Races by Legislative District, then choose 034A from the drop down, then click GO. Here you will see all the info I mentioned. The Wisconsin site told me election results were not avail from their main page: http://www.wisconsin.gov/state/home/app?COMMAND=gov.wi.state.cpp.command.LoadPortalHome		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - Push the little daisy's and make em come up. 11/05/2008 @ 04:29:44 PM
I too welcome the evil democrats.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/05/2008 @ 04:59:16 PM
Apparently someone hacked into Obama and McCain's internal documents during the campaign. The FBI speculates that it could be a foreign party wanting to be privy to how policy decisions were made to use as leverage in negotiations. So....that's good news.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 11/06/2008 @ 05:37:39 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:48:50 AM I just hope the MN recount doesn't go to Al Franken for Senate. I heard someone on national tv talk about how, from what they heard, a lot of democrats were privately quite embarrassed by Franken even to the point that they wouldn't want him in the senate because it would be too big of a negative. Carlos44ec Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:52:16 AM ...has a history of making temper tantrums and public anger fits. I didn't follow the race incredibly closely so I don't know all the specifics on other aspects of his life, but just from thinking back on my impression of Franken on tv in the past, the tantrums and fits was one of the things that stuck out in my mind too. So, good to see I wasn't imagining things I guess. That had to have been one strange election season in MN. Although, that's almost becoming a trend now. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:58:55 AM Can't we all agree that during a hand recount that the spirit of our democracy should be honored and that as long as it's clear who the person intended to vote for the vote should count? I guess I just don't feel like this is a time to get bogged down in whether or not directions were followed. That seems like such a grade school teacher move to me. (That's not a shot at teachers, but at that age sometimes the teachers want to get across that following the directions is as important as getting the right answers.) If there's one mark on a page (for one candidate), or one dimpled chad, or whatever, why shouldn't the vote count? I mostly agree with the spirit of this. So I'm not arguing against it as much as just adding to the conversation. But the problem, as I'm sure you know, comes down to the point that if the vote wasn't cast according to the directions, suddenly now the standard for what is a vote is lowered, even if by a very small amount, and the level of uncertainty rises, depending on the situation. Like you alluded to, some marks are clearly an indication that a person wanted to vote that way. Like circling the name. So we're 99% certain that should be counted as a vote. But how low do we let that percentage get before we draw the line and throw out the vote? I think they ran into this with the whole chad thing. What's the tipping point that needs to be crossed? Obviously one just dangling there was almost certainly a vote, but then they figured if there was an indentation it was probably a vote. Which is an ok assumption, if we're making assumptions. But how much assuming should be done when it comes to a vote? Very very little, I would argue. It's really tricky. And it seems like it shouldn't be because we could just be reasonable about it. And arguing for sticking to a strict standard can make you feel unnecessarily hard-assed, but it only takes one person to stretch the concept of reasonable too far and suddenly the whole thing goes to crap. And people do crazy things when an election is on the line. Which brings us back to the standard where votes that are cast correctly count and votes not cast correctly do not count. I'm not going to say that's the policy that should be followed to the absolute strictest extreme, but I would say wavering from it, even when it seems like it's just a bit, could really open up a can of worms. Wherever you set the bar, there will always be the fringe cases that fall in the "oh so close" category. Ideally we just make the best, most understandable ballots that take effort to screw up. And then when faced with the cases where people don't meet that minimal, yet clearly stated fair standard, we just shake our head and throw it in the trash. Because there's only so much we can do, and after a certain point it's actually really not fair to try and make a decision one way or another. So the work should really be done on the front end of the process, so that none needs to be done afterward. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:59:16 PM Apparently someone hacked into Obama and McCain's internal documents during the campaign. The FBI speculates that it could be a foreign party wanting to be privy to how policy decisions were made to use as leverage in negotiations. So....that's good news. Which means anyone who did not vote for Bob Barr wasted their vote, right? There's no way they hacked into that guy's documents.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 2 times, last at 11/06/2008 5:44:32 am

	Matt - 3941 Posts 11/07/2008 @ 12:34:28 AM
Election questions no one ever asks Here is a good article about, as the author puts it, "some of the goofy assumptions and buzzwords that defined so much of the coverage discussion this year". (Note: the author is a conservative writer but, other than a few small jabs at the other side, the piece is fairly non-partisan) The author does touch on one of the things that I have long hated about elections, and that is the stupid campaigns aimed at getting people to vote. If you can't follow politics/current events enough to where you actually want to go vote without some celebrity telling you to, then I think it's probably best for everyone if you just stay home on Election Day.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/07/2008 12:37:01 am

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/07/2008 @ 12:50:37 AM
I also like the point he makes about the press and undecided voters. I would add, though, that in an election like this one when both candidates are running as moderates, then you will probably have some moderate voters who are both informed and undecided. But, I would probably agree that they may be outnumbered by those who, like the guy mentioned at the end, are just not paying enough attention.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/07/2008 @ 09:57:57 AM
It's definitely true that we shouldn't care about turnout for turnouts' sake. We could look to that number to get a feel of how many people care enough to vote. Artificially inflating it by making it easier and easier to vote doesn't do anybody any good. Now don't get me wrong. If there are better and more efficient ways of doing things then I'm fine with that. We shouldn't necessarily cling to inconvenient polling places people have to wait in line for 4 hours at, just because then we know "Wow, they must have really wanted to vote." (Though, for Sarah and I, every time we've voted is 10 minutes from leaving our driveway to getting back home.) Online voting in some form seems inevitable, and we should look into that. Really, in terms of your vote not being safe, it couldn't be more insecure than the polling place, where you could take my vote if you knew my name and address, which is readily available in hundreds of locations. In terms of the votes being hacked enmass, everything in the end is already electronic. The physical ballots only get looked at if something goes wrong, and more and more places have no physical ballots anymore. The big concern, as I understand it, with the electronic voting booths is that they themselves can be physically broken into/hacked. In the end, I agree that it's the pushing and prodding of the least informed, in all its forms, that gets really old. Turnout for turnout's sake, progressiveness for progressiveness' sake, and all these things like it, are false goals. In fact they do more harm than good because then we don't get an accurate measure of where things are really at.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/09/2008 @ 10:25:47 AM
Can one of you Top Four start a thread that has something to do with Pres-Elec. Obama's policy and what we anticipate? This thread will soon go the way of the original Baseball 2008 thread. I doubt that I have the right audience, but I'm troubled by the possibility that Mr. Obama and his Democratic friends will put imposing limits on Guns. The politicos on the news are all talking about how gun sales are up 20% plus since tuesday in anticipation on harsher restrictions and limits. I of course am against this for many reasons, but will only state why I personally want access to guns and rifles; First, I WANT them. Straight out, I have a lot of fun going up to the cabin and shooting targets; it's something I've done with my dad and uncles since I was fairly young. We could bond over fishing, and we definitely did, but sport shooting is part of the family culture for may many Americans, and I would hate to lose that right. Second, my father hunts, every year, for the whole week. I would if I had easy access to my Wisconsin land, but of course I had to move to the Cities and haven't any idea of where to go. If there was a strict restriction on guns, this may not be an option anymore. Third, and most relevant to me as an adult: "assault rifles" such as AK 47 and M-16/AR-15 are surely to get the first boot, maybe the second behind handguns. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to making these weapons harder to get legally, and enforcing much stricter laws for when they are used illegally. I want to be able to purchase "assault rifles" for a very unselfish reason; the Reserves. We get no more than two opportunities to fire our weapons in the Reserves PER YEAR while we're on Ready Reserve (normal reserves, not activated or on our way overseas). I am not an expert marksman; honestly I hit 28 out of 40 last month. If I were to have my own AR-15 I would be able to practice on my own time. When I did have my own, I shot 36 out of 40. I don't want to talk about criminals getting their hands on guns, nor do I want to discuss what happens when kid get guns. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a weapon, regardless of laws and regulations. Unless you remedy the cause of crime, which we never seem to be intereste in doing, you won't be able to control the method. You can only penalize. On the topic of kids getting guns (Hear about the 8 year old who killed his dad and his dad's friend?)- education and a little prudence go a long way. Teach kids to respect the power of a gun, and to be responsible around it. That's not enough though, we need to securely lock weapons up. I just saw people talking about this on the news this morning, so I had to throw down my opinion. I know Jeremy has been fairly anti-gun in respects to people just having them for no reason, but I anticipate some fresh opinion out of the rest of the can community on this. I'll end by saying that I'm FOR tighter restrictions and harsher penalties. No, I'll end by quoting a bumper sticker from Red Dawn, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hand!"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/09/2008 @ 01:22:40 PM
I'm sure the gun lobbyists are paying the Dems to make big talk about tighter gun restrictions to boost sales. If the Dems are even saying anything, which I haven't really heard that, so maybe the lobbyists are just paying the media to run their mouths and fuel the paranoia. There's already enough gun laws.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/09/2008 @ 07:00:18 PM
Well, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about guns. It says arms. You could argue people should be allowed to own fighter jets, tanks, and WMD's too. I think virtually everyone would agree that that would be silly, therefor we've established we get to put a line somewhere, so the very idea of having a line isn't some crazy left-wing anti-gun thing. Democrats have no plans to "take your guns" and really never have. It's just to rile people up in opposition. They couldn't if they wanted to anyway. At most they would institute some sane restrictions. Off the top of my head I would guess maybe closing the "gun show loophole." NO ONE has, or ever has had, the plan to take your hunting weapons. (Well I guess I should never say "no one" but no legitimate candidate would support such a thing. It's about a sane approach to gun ownership. As for the straight-out-of-counterstike machine guns, I think it's worth talking about locking those down. They aren't used for squirrel hunting. Obviously these restrictions could include exemptions for people in your position. I'm very rarely for a hard and fast rule on anything, and this would be no exception. I'm not anti-gun per se, I just wish people would think about it logically or statistically. You're probably just as likely to get struck by lightening, twice, as you are you actually have your home broken into with you actually home, and actually in a position to defend it. The vast majority of the time people just end up shooting family members. Furthermore, if an intruder breaks into your home with a gun of their own it's almost always for intimidation purposes. They have no intention of using it. Pulling your gun on them, or fighting back in anyway is only going to escalate things. There's a reason that if you work at a business that's being robbed you're just supposed to stay calm and give them what they want. Your life is worth more than the cash in the drawer, and the robber, almost without fail, has no intention of using their gun. Likewise your life is worth more than your big screen. Also, and perhaps this is where I show my ultra liberalness, does the burglar deserve to DIE over your tv either?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 11/09/2008 @ 10:50:36 PM
I'm pretty sure people can own tanks. Didn't the Mythbusters go see some guy's collection of tanks and use 2 of them to try and pull apart the phone books? The shells for the guns maybe aren't so legal. I'm sure there are private owners of fighter jets too, like older ones. At least fighter planes anyway, WWII era ones. Statistically speaking, your probably way, way, way more likely to die in a car accident than a gun accident/crime, so maybe we should be submitted to background checks before we can hop behead the wheel of those death machines (isn't that what they called them in driver's ed?). As far as the logicalness of owning a gun for home protection, isn't the perceived security to the homeowner worth something, whether that security is real or not?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 11/10/2008 @ 05:45:14 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:00:18 PM Democrats have no plans to "take your guns" and really never have. It's just to rile people up in opposition. They couldn't if they wanted to anyway. Maybe not all Democrats, but some, and maybe not all guns, but most. Until just recently if you lived in Washington D.C. you couldn't own a handgun, and the Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban was only a 5-4 decision. According to the four dissenters, either individuals don't have a right to own firearms, or if they do, they can be regulated to a point that makes the right practically meaningless. Of course, these four dissenters are the same four who form what some call the "liberal wing" of the court (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer). With President-Elect Obama likely to appoint 2-3 new justices over the next four years, I don't blame some people for being worried about their 2nd Amendment rights, even if I don't share all of their worries. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:00:18 PM I'm not anti-gun per se, I just wish people would think about it logically or statistically. You're probably just as likely to get struck by lightening, twice, as you are you actually have your home broken into with you actually home, and actually in a position to defend it. The vast majority of the time people just end up shooting family members. I'm sure the likelihood of needing a gun for self-defense varies depending on where you live. Unfortunately, it seems that those most likely to "need" a gun (those living in a big city with high crime rates), are also those who are most likely to be prevented from legally buying one (ostensibly in order to "fight crime"). Sure, it's still unlikely that you would ever have to use a gun for self-defense, but I'd rather let each person decide for themselves if the benefits outweigh the risks. Speaking of which, I remember reading something a couple of months ago about those studies that show that a gun is more likely to be used against a family member than not. Basically, what the article said was that they were including intentional homicides (and possibly suicides, I can't remember) along with the accidental shootings. Since in many of these cases the killer would probably still commit the crime (only with a different weapon), including these makes it seem that having a gun around is more dangerous than it really is. Now, I can't remember if this was only dealing with one specific study or if it dealt with multiple ones, and it's still possible that their underlying points are true (if a bit overstated), but it's something to look into next time you see one of those studies. Finally, I think the two articles linked to in this post are worthwhile reading on this topic (they are from 2004, FYI). Basically (for those who don't want to read the articles), they deal with Britain, and how there they have strict gun laws and discourage fighting back or "escalation" to the point where victims have to worry about criminal and/or civil liability if they defend themselves. At the same time, however, the majority of burglaries there occur when the victim is home (compared with the U.S. where that happenes in just over 10% of the cases). Now, this doesn't prove anything by itself, but perhaps when burglars have to worry about their own safety, they might think twice about breaking in when someone is home.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 4 times, last at 11/10/2008 5:57:09 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/10/2008 @ 10:35:44 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:50:36 PM I'm pretty sure people can own tanks. Didn't the Mythbusters go see some guy's collection of tanks and use 2 of them to try and pull apart the phone books? The shells for the guns maybe aren't so legal. I'm sure there are private owners of fighter jets too, like older ones. At least fighter planes anyway, WWII era ones. Well, yeah, you can own the decommissioned versions of them, but it was implied I wasn't talking about a WWII era Panther that hasn't been able to start since 1967. Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:50:36 PM Statistically speaking, your probably way, way, way more likely to die in a car accident than a gun accident/crime, so maybe we should be submitted to background checks before we can hop behead the wheel of those death machines (isn't that what they called them in driver's ed?). As far as the logicalness of owning a gun for home protection, isn't the perceived security to the homeowner worth something, whether that security is real or not? This is so stupid I can only assume you're being factious, but since a decent chuck or people would look at that and say "hey he's got a point," I'll say this. Cars have a primary function of being used for transportation, a secondary function of teens having sex, and the nasty side effect of being dangerous, though it's still unlikely. A gun's primary, secondary, and tertiary functions are to kill/harm things. A handgun's function is to be used against people. These aren't the same thing. About the only other "function" you might be able to argue they have is intimidating people who are afraid of the death/harming that might come to them. Matt Wrote - Today @ 05:45:14 AM Speaking of which, I remember reading something a couple of months ago about those studies that show that a gun is more likely to be used against a family member than not. Basically, what the article said was that they were including intentional homicides (and possibly suicides, I can't remember) along with the accidental shootings. Since in many of these cases the killer would probably still commit the crime (only with a different weapon), including these makes it seem that having a gun around is more dangerous than it really is. Now, I can't remember if this was only dealing with one specific study or if it dealt with multiple ones, and it's still possible that their underlying points are true (if a bit overstated), but it's something to look into next time you see one of those studies. Well I don't think it's fair to say that the killer would be "just as likely" to kill anyway. Sure there are particular cases where had their not been a gun in the house the person would have found something else (likely a different gun) to use. There are, however, many "crimes of passion" where in a split second of rage someone pulls a trigger where, had there been no gun present, they wouldn't have beaten them to death with a beer bottle. Though, it is fair to point out that a certain percent of premeditated murders that just happened to use the family gun probably shouldn't be factored into those numbers. At any rate nothing I said above was addressing government controlling anything. I just wish people, for themselves, thought through everything it meant, and could entail, before buying a handgun. You have the profound unlikelihood of actually being in a position to scare off anyone with your gun, combined with the probable odds that even if it does happen you will just escalate that situation to a level of danger that was never going to happen, and the odds that, one way or another, the gun is just used on you or your family before it's ever used on an intruder. For every mass-killing robbery/"If I only had a gun" stories there are probably two-dozen uneventful robberies that would have been bloodbaths had someone with a gun tried to be John Wayne and escalated the situation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 11/10/2008 10:55:52 am

	Carlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower." 11/10/2008 @ 11:15:07 AM
To Jeremy's comment on Alex's comment about cars- I don't want to sort out the "quote" function: Guns are a device that allow people to hunt or shoot for sport. Cars have a basic function as well. Besides, cars are used as weapons all the time. Remember those people who used their cars to run over people waiting for starbucks? Or that lady who used the car to drown her babies? Wow, a perverse use of a potentially deadly-yet-functional device!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 11/10/2008 11:15:35 am

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 11/10/2008 @ 12:11:25 PM
First off, lets just pretend for as long as this topic of conversation goes on no one is talking about firearms intended for hunting*, unless specifically stated so. I mean, if you want to get "abstract" (read "stupid") enough, what solid object of any significant size isn't "deadly" if a person is dead set on killing you with it? I'm pretty sure I could go beat Craig to death with half the objects on my desk. The point is cars, monitors, staplers, shovels, steak knives, etc have other purposes. Hand guns* really don't, unless you use yours as a hammer. They aren't the same at all, and it's fallacious logic to compare guns and other objects, and especially for cars. You don't need to regulate staplers because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of stapler use is not to cause harm to someone. 99% of in-home firearm usage is. It's especially stupid to compare it to cars because there IS a licensing process, and a way more "restrictive" one, to allow you to drive a car. *Let's also assume we're not talking about the guy who owns a hand gun, for sport, to go to the range once a month, and doesn't actually even have bullets for the gun at home. We're talking about the "I have to protect my family" guy who keeps his loaded gun in the nightstand at all times.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 11/10/2008 12:45:24 pm

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 11/10/2008 @ 12:49:44 PM
You're making my point for me. Why would we blame the gun for killing when anything else can do the job? You can't call comparing licensing for guns and licensing for cars stupid because there are, in fact, licensing processes. In many states you cannot buy a gun without appropriate safety measures. There are even 5 and 10 day waiting period (cooling off, etc) laws before you can take possession of a gun. When you say that "99% of in-home firearm useage" do you mean that 99% of the times that weapons are fired in the home are done so in a violent fashion, or are you saying that 99% of all private use of firearms is for violence? One of these comments makes sense; the other is wrong and flat out offensive. Another part to think about is this: Terry robs a bank with a Colt Model 1911A hand gun. Brutus is with him, but he has a Heckler and Koch MP-5 submachine gun. Not a shot is fired, no injuries. They make their getaway in a 1987 Ford Crown Victoria. Once arrested and tried, are they charged with felonious assault with an automobile, or do they get wreckless endangerment? Does Ford get sued for providing them with an accessory? No, because the PERSON commits the crime, not the inanimate object. Instead, the firearm manufacturers get sued for millions when someone's son or daughter are killed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec screwed with this at 11/10/2008 12:50:56 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/10/2008 @ 01:27:18 PM
I never called the licensing processes stupid. I called the notion of comparing the car and gun stupid, which it, without question, is. I also meant, more so, "99% of the times that weapons are fired in the home are done so in a violent fashion" than the latter, though guns don't read too much into your intent. Though, I'm a little worried that the notion that I would potentially imply most gunfire outside of the gun range has a violent intent is actually "offensive". No, Ford doesn't get sued, and no one cares what kind of car they drove, or what kinds of shoes they were wearing, or where they bought their shirt because that would be absurdly ridiculous. The guns aided them in their robbery, and if they threatened someone with a crowbar, they would be charged with that. It is, however, awfully hard to "accidentally" kill the cashier with a crowbar, whereas one slip of the finger could kill the cashier being threatened with the gun. If you are holding a gun on someones head you should ABSOLUTELY be charged with more of a crime than if you pulled it off with no weapon, or a weapon that's much less effective. You are immediately putting another human being in harms way, regardless of your intent. I guess what you are getting at is that in both cases this represents a misuse of an item. A car is no more intended to be used for a getaway than a gun is for a robbery. There's a certain amount of truth to that, on some level, but it's a bit naive. For one, you aren't threatening people with the getaway car. Secondly, hand guns more-or-less exist to scare/harm people, even though the intention might be to protect yourself via that fear/threat, you're sort of splitting hairs there by saying that in this case using it as a threat is an equivocal "misuse". No one is producing or selling those firearms with the thought "man, I bet robberies go up 10 fold with this product," but it's also a bit naive to think that won't be the destiny of a sizable percentage of them. (That said, I don't think these lawsuits have any merit either.) I mean I guess I've learned you feel pretty strongly about this, so I doubt you'll concede this, but you can't seriously believe that the gun being held on the cashier during a robbery is one of many, completely irrelevant, inanimate objects present, no different than the robber's baseball hat, or the rack of magazines behind him. Can you?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 11/10/2008 1:32:01 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/10/2008 @ 01:39:05 PM
I was most definitely splitting hairs, it was never my intention to persuade you just as your intention wasn't to persuade me. I just enjoy the arguments. I guess I was making the point that criminals will always find ways. I always want to quote the aliens invading Springfield but can never remember the quote exactly- good game Google: "That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!" -Kang Ideally there would be restrictions in place to limit the distribution and availability of handguns and assault-type weapons to curb crime. The problem is, like drug use/drug crime, you can't try and remedy the symptoms, and you have to attack the cause. Dropping the supply only makes the demand rise. We agree to disagree partially, and I agree to stop baiting you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 11/10/2008 @ 01:41:32 PM
I guess the licensing aspect of cars and guns isn't totally apples to apples. My point was it's easier to buy a car (basically no legal requirements that I know of) than a gun, and once you have either item in your possession, it's pretty easy for you do what you want with them whether or not you actually have a driver's license or applicable gun permits.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/10/2008 @ 01:55:56 PM
Well, like drugs, this is also a problem the Government really can't solve. The only thing they can do is make some sane restrictions that, where applicable, just not make it not so easy to do whatever it is that's perceived as bad. All the laws/time/energy in the world won't "solve" the "problem." Likewise, and here's where I'm sure we'll agree, just like the "pro gun" people should consider the pros/cons of having a loaded gun in their house, the "anti" gun people needs to stop acting like 1) there's a significant chance that you'll die from a gunshot on any given day 2) While most people killed by guns in the house are not intruders, it also has to be true that most guns meant to ward off an intruder never hurt anyone. (In fact, I wonder what percent of guns are never fired.) 3) Lastly, stop acting like there's anything that can be done about it anyway. I'm all for the "cooling off" period, because that addresses a major concern without restricting anything. However, making more and more laws only takes guns out of the hands of the people who obey the laws, which I doubt will have much of an effect on the guys planning the bank heist. (So, in other words, the people you have to fear don't care about the laws and the people who obey the laws aren't the ones you have to fear.)		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 11/10/2008 2:19:36 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 07:56:17 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:55:56 PM I'm all for the "cooling off" period, because that addresses a major concern without restricting anything. However, making more and more laws only takes guns out of the hands of the people who obey the laws, which I doubt will have much of an effect on the guys planning the bank heist. (So, in other words, the people you have to fear don't care about the laws and the people who obey the laws aren't the ones you have to fear.) That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 09:47:27 AM
1. I don't agree that the car/gun analogy is as stupid as Jeremy seems to think. They are both things that are fairly safe when used properly, but can cause significant harm when they are not. Further, I wouldn't be surprised if more people were hurt/killed because of car accidents than gun accidents, when looked at proportionally. Also, if you use a car recklessly, you will face penalties. The same should be true of guns, we shouldn't just "assume" that if you have a gun in the house, you are going to be reckless with it. 2. Since the main sticking point here is over whether it is "rational" or not to keep a gun in the home for self-defense, I'll just end by saying that I think Jeremy underestimates the pros, and overstates the cons. As I dealt with in my previous post, the studies that show how "dangerous" it is to keep a gun, may be fudging the numbers a bit. Also, there is a good possibility that a "well-armed" populace actually lowers the occurrence of so-called "hot" burglaries that put innocent people in the most danger.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 11/11/2008 @ 10:06:26 AM
1) Car's are made to drive, Guns are MADE to shoot things. It's a stupid analogy, and you are all stupid. 2) The only instance those studies would be fudging the numbers are premeditated murders that just happened to use the gun on hand. Even if those are factored out (and it's not totally obvious they should be, you were still killed by the gun you had in the house to protect you) the numbers OVERWHELMINGLY state you're more likely to kill someone you didn't mean to than an intruder. It's not like it's a 45% vs 55% split, but if you factor the pre-meds out it's pretty even. I never said a family member is likely to die from your gun, just that if that gun puts a bullet in someone it's likely to be a family member. The con's outweigh the pro's because there's very little "pro" to be had for the reasons I've already stated. Now, if you're living in a high crime area that's one thing, but most of America doesn't. I never said these people were stupid. That junk food you brought into your house is probably more likely to kill you than your gun. It's just something that in most households has way more of a chance to do harm than it has to do good. Gun deaths are hardly an epidemic, but they are also something that we can make some strides to prevent. We can't demand people remove stairs from their houses, just because more people die of falling each year than gun shots. Stairs have a purpose, and it's an unfortunate side effect that people can fall down them. Some things just can't be helped, other things are an accident waiting to happen, and as opposed to cars, pools, and ladders a gun falls further to the latter.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/11/2008 10:32:49 am

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 11/11/2008 @ 10:50:16 AM
I was going to post, but what's the point? None of us will change our minds on the topic and nobody here has any power to change the direction this snowball is heading... so... I agree to stop posting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 11/11/2008 @ 10:53:47 AM
The thing is, we really don't disagree on the actual topic at hand (gun regulation). We just agree for different reasons.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/11/2008 10:56:13 am

	craig - 12521 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 10:55:15 AM
I'm not opposed to people keeping guns for 'home security' but I think it's terrible idea in 90% of the cases. If you're well trained in the use/storage/safety of gun use I've got no problem with it. It's people who don't know anything about guns and don't know what they are doing that cause 99% the problems. The gun/car analogy is beyond stupid (it's nonsense). The purpose of a gun is to kill things, the purpose of a car is transportation. End of story. I don't know how you can even be arguing the other side of this, it's a logical dead end. If guns didn't kill things would we even have guns? The fact that both can be used for alternate uses doesn't make any difference. You can kill someone with a frozen ham, or live in your car, that doesn't change their primary functions. Besides in the case of guns I can't really see any 'alternate' use beyond practicing killing things, and threatening to kill things (e.g. intimidation, 'home security', armed robbery).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
craig screwed with this at 11/11/2008 10:55:44 am

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 11/11/2008 @ 11:45:28 AM
The problem with these arguments is that everyone is posting things that are closer to being opinions and stating them as undisputed facts.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 11:48:06 AM
It was intentional grounding!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 11:53:47 AM
Case in point. See, in that case, my argument is fact. That is the exception.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 12:23:22 PM
Well, like anything, the numbers are wildly different depending on who you're getting them from. Especially in this gray area where there's no hard and fast rule. Take suicide for example, do we count that? True, suicidal people will likely find another way to attempt suicide, but guns make for a particularly "irreversible" attempt at it. Many many people fail at their first suicide attempt and end up getting help either because it was a wake up call to them, or their friends/family. So it's not fair to act like every gun related suicide is the "gun's fault" but it's also not fair to dismiss the role the gun played in the convenience and finality of the situation. Even the "pro gun" numbers I've been able to find, that totally dismiss any time a gun is used in a situation where someone would be "pretty likely" to try something else, find that it's pretty even. They do this, however, by counting every scared off intruder as a "success" even though there's little chance the intruder was going to harm anyone, which isn't comparing apples to apples either. (Not to mention it does the reverse of what they are complaining about and credits the gun for everything, when a baseball bat may have scared them off just fine.) It's all lies, damn lies, and statistics to be sure, but, in my opinion, if there's a .000001% chance that you'll scare off an intruder that intends to do you harm and a .000002% chance your 12 year old will shoot a friend showing it off the gun is not worth having.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/11/2008 12:24:24 pm

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 11/11/2008 @ 01:42:41 PM
And you're totally free to exercise your opinion in this case, and everyone else should be able to as well.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 02:08:15 PM
Happy Veterans Day Carl. (And anyone else). Thanks for your service.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 11/11/2008 2:10:01 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 02:34:48 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:42:41 PM And you're totally free to exercise your opinion in this case, and everyone else should be able to as well. I never said they shouldn't, nor has anyone else said or implied that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 11/11/2008 @ 04:25:41 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 02:08:15 PM Happy Veterans Day Carl. (And anyone else). Thanks for your service. Thanks! And Joe Thompto, USAF		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/11/2008 @ 05:43:51 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:45:28 AM The problem with these arguments is that everyone is posting things that are closer to being opinions and stating them as undisputed facts. Well, some of us try to make it clear we are stating opinion. Others just state them as facts.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/11/2008 @ 05:50:18 PM
Care to point out where either of those took place? Also, the real problem with these arguments is that no one is really arguing about anything more than some semantics, but this is the internet, so everything gets read into way too far.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 11/11/2008 5:53:21 pm