bascule

And asked what the difference is between it and a movie which likens evolutionists to Nazis. Perhaps I should ask a question: what's the difference between Pangloss and Hitler? What you did was blatant spin.

This thread will probably cater to US citizens, but if you recently voted in your country's national elections, feel to post here too. I'm going to go ahead and give a gist of who I voted for as well, but feel free to just say you voted. I voted! In my case, I voted for Obama for president, Udall for Senate, and Polis for Congress. The respective predictions of these people taking office (courtesy http://FiveThirtyEight.com): Obama 93%, Udall 94%, Polis 99% So I have pretty good confidence that I voted for the winners

I stopped watching SNL years ago when the last redeeming members of the cast left. However Tina Fey's return has enough to get me to watch those segments, but maybe that's just 30 Rock rubbing off.

Did any of you watch this, by the way? It was kind of disappointing. They took Palin through the wringer. She didn't really do a whole lot except just stand there.

CNN fact-checked McCain's latest claims against Acorn, specifically that they were helping to commit voter fraud. CNN's conclusion was the claims were false: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/17/lklv.griffin.acorn.sloppy.cnn?iref=videosearch

I'd at least withhold judgment on the movie itself until I've seen it. So basically what you're saying is it's okay for Pangloss to pass judgement and cast suspicion on a movie he's never seen (and equate it to a movie which likens a belief in evolution with Naziism) because hypothetically bascule would do the same, based on his previous outspoken tendencies? Sounds like you're judging me the same way Pangloss is judging this movie. Who cares about substance? Let's debate the hype.

This argument is a category fallacy. Newtonian mechanics is a model too. So are general relativity and quantum mechanics. Because economic models failed should we conclude that Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics are failures too? They're also models after all. You seem to be arguing that because something is a model that it's inherently untrustworthy, putting forward one example of a model, and not even one that's rooted in the physical sciences, but in the more abstract concept of economics. If you have problems with climate models, how about you point out the specifics, as opposed to pulling guilt-by-association?

Or, if they didn't have a warrant, they'd retroactively apply for one ASAP, as opposed to having no judicial oversight whatsoever.

I'm going to do early voting as well (it starts on Monday in Colorado). Colorado has an awesome early voting system. For the next two weeks you can walk into the County Clerk's office whenever you want between the hours of 9-5 and vote. It's two weeks, all day every day. I wonder... if every state did voting like that, how much it could improve turnouts. Anyway I'll be reviewing the ballot ahead of time and putting together what I'd like to vote for so I can pull it up on my phone and copy it onto my ballot. In terms of the local candidates for the most part I'll just be voting down party lines. The amendments/ballot initiatives I'll decide for myself, and the judges I'll generally go with what the ACLU has to say.

Wiretapping which complies with the law: in this case FISA, and by extension the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html The old McCain sure looks white. Albino white. But I like him better.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/MNQ013J6JV.DTL Joe the Plumber: 1) Isn't named Joe, his name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. 2) Sam isn't a licensed plumber 3) Is an odd fellow to be using as an example case for tax policy, considering he owes a substantial sum in back taxes 4) Despite all that, Joe, I mean... Sam, would still pay less tax under Obama, that is... if he paid his taxes *facepalm*

I've been using this site for the past several months to track the polls: http://fivethirtyeight.com (538 is the number of electoral votes, btw) It was developed by a guy named Nate Silver who originally wrote a model for predicting baseball games called PECOTA. The model predicted the Rays would turn it around, going from losing 96 games to winning 90. They ended up winning 97. Who'da thunk it? PECOTA did. Now he's turned to predicting elections. His model runs 10,000 times a day, and analyzes the history of polls vs election results with a data set going back to the '50s. He predicts Obama has a 94.7% chance of winning... on election day.

I've been using this site for the past several months to track the polls: http://fivethirtyeight.com (538 is the number of electoral votes, btw) It was developed by a guy named Nate Silver who originally wrote a model for predicting baseball games called PECOTA. The model predicted the Rays would turn it around, going from losing 96 games to winning 90. They ended up winning 97. Who'da thunk it? PECOTA did. Now he's turned to predicting elections. His model runs 10,000 times a day, and analyzes the history of polls vs election results with a data set going back to the '50s. He predicts Obama has a 94.7% chance of winning... on election day.

He's briefly mentioned nuclear as an option a few times (which is more than I've seen Al Gore do), but really he's just towing the party line. I don't understand why nuclear power turned into a liberal / conservative thing at all. I think nuclear power gets a bad rap in the environmentalist community because people are afraid of a meltdown or nuclear waste spill massively contaminating the environment, or something. Technologies like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are seen as "clean", although wind power poses dangers to both humans and animals alike. Environmentalists should be rooting for nuclear power though... it's not only carbon neutral, but carries the potential to actually assist in converting CO2 back into useful hydrocarbons by "cracking" it with waste heat, if that technology ever gets off the ground. In that case, it not only is a carbon neutral energy source, but could help existing gasoline vehicles become carbon neutral as well. All that said... windmills are pretty awesome looking. Driving along I-80 through Wyoming you go past one of the largest windmill installations in the country. Windmills are fun to look at whereas nuclear power plants generally convey fear and uncertainty. This isn't helped by depictions on shows like the Simpsons where the nuclear plant run by Mr. Burns is billowing out dark, toxic looking smoke rather than harmless steam.

I'm just curious why they call me, a registered Democrat. Shouldn't they be canvasing independents?

And unsurprisingly, the polls say Obama won 538 also said Obama didn't need to respond aggressively and left McCain with just enough rope to hang himself:

Basically what it comes down to is while our planet has a finite supply of fissile uranium which can be used for generating nuclear power, by the time we exhaust that we'll more than likely have come up with a solution for efficient fusion power production. The oil train is getting far more expensive to ride, and coal is comparatively expensive. If it weren't so goddamn hard to build new power plants, we'd be well on our way to fission emerging at the primary power source for our girid. So hop on the fission train. Wind and solar are great and all, but nuclear power is a proven, reliable technology with a consistent level of power production.

I almost thought Obama missed an opportunity with the Palin issue, but when it comes down to it Obama didn't need to be aggressive in this debate. He just needed to play it cool, which he did. Imagine how much Obama could've said if he wasn't trying to be polite... 538 presently estimates Obama's chances of winning at 95.1%. McCain was the one who needed to be aggressive this debate. I can't blame him for trying, but I don't think he succeeded...

This is the first debate I've seen with a real "WTF?" moment. Before this there was "that one" and Palin's blatant dodging of the question, but this debate had something truly awe inspiring: How much would Obama's healthcare program cost small businesses. Zero, explains Obama. "ZERO???" asks McCain. The look on his face is one of befuddlement, bemused in his realization that Obama has a pretty cool idea. Or at least, that's how I read him. He then proceeds to blink spasmodically, in a manner that reminded me of Bush in his first debate with Kerry: Of course, look at how much of an effect that had on the election...

William F. Buckley's views, like Goldwater's, are not representative of the modern day Republican party

Well, look at how well that whole switching running mates thing worked out for McGovern:

The afforementioned Yucca Mountain facility, which was originally scheduled for completion this September. However, due to underfunding (even among what would otherwise be a pro-nuclear Republican Congress, although Democrats like Harry Reid have tried to kill the project entirely) it won't be completed until at least 2017, at current funding levels anyway. Nuclear fission is an excellent way to go until we can better develop nuclear fusion

He's the Libertarian candidate... and wow Severian, I guess you're a moonbat too

Ralph Nader: 88% Cynthia McKinney: 86% Barack Obama: 80% Bob Barr: 53% John McCain: 48% I must be a moonbat