Pangloss

Actually what it proves is that Obama has alien super-powers.

You might find this page helpful, although it tackles the question from a very different perspective. http://www.bls.gov/cex/

I think we had a thread on that earlier. It presents a quandary for planners, because you cannot have the last Democratic president NOT speak at the convention. But you need Hillary to introduce Obama for appearances reasons, and you can't have Bill speak before Hillary because that's not appropriate to their respective levels of achievement. And you can't have Bill speak on any other night because that would reduce his stature as well. As I understand it, that's one of the reasons the schedule hasn't been published yet. They're still trying to figure the problem out.

Because two wrongs don't make a right. Or as YT likes to put it, when you play with the pigs everyone gets dirty. Great debate tactic in certain situations, maybe even good politics, but it's not what I want my candidate, whom I've chosen because of higher goals, to be doing. That's why not. Just to give an example of that, Obama trotted out the RACE card yesterday in response to McCain attacks. He stopped a hair shy of accusing McCain of using race, but he did accuse his opponents in general of doing so, saying they're trying to scare voters because he "doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." (source) They may well be doing that, but a statement like that gives the appearance of throwing all his opposition into a racial bag. That's not fair -- people can oppose Obama without being racists. Period. And Obama's handlers know this, which is why that portion of the video was left out when it was posted to the Obama donations page yesterday afternoon: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/baracksresponse?source=feature So they know it was wrong and hopefully they'll stop doing it. I want to see McCain drop the negativity for the same reason, but I acknowledge the points raised above that suggest it's unlikely that he will do so.

It's absolutely a valid concern, but let's see if we can narrow the focus a bit further with a simple question which I recognize was not directly asked by the OP, but which I think cuts right to the heart of the matter: Is Barrack Obama a "demagogue"? From the Wikipedia: The point that I think is most relevant here is that the word has a negative connotation not because of the leadership aspect but because of the aspect of leadership through counter-productive, alienating, anti-social, prejudicial, or illogical themes. But Obama in no way discards logical, thought-provoking discussion, decision-making based on reason, listening to what the other side has to say, and avoiding stereotypes of all kinds. In a sense, he's the very antithesis of a demagogue, at least from where I'm sitting. Of course, this is only one aspect of the problem, and does not address the issue of "blind followers", if you will. I'm sure many people are just jumping on the bandwagon or doing what seems fun or popular. No question about it. But that's one of the inherent "expenses" of democracy, isn't it? People rarely look beneath the surface, pay attention, do the right things for the right reasons, etc. It's up to those of us who are paying attention to make sure they get the right information so they can make the most informed choice. None of which requires us to vote for Barrack Obama. None of this says "you have to vote for him because if you vote against him then you're voting against freedom", etc -- I'm not trying to be a snob about it. But I think it goes directly to the question of whether it's okay to vote for Obama for reasons that aren't related to the issues. Put another way, just because a candidate doesn't map to your personal set of "what should be dones", doesn't mean you can't vote for them. That rarely happens anyway, with so many issues and only two candidates. What we actually do is pick the candidate that we feel will be the most true to our overall, general intent and purposes. We ALWAYS do that. Every single time. Well, my overall intent and purpose is to have this country discard partisanship, inappropriate lobbying influence, and uninformed fumbling in foreign affairs. And I haven't seen a candidate come closer to that ideal than Obama in the 25 years I've been voting.

Those explanations are perfectly reasonable. You could be quite right, and there's no bad blood at all. We'll find out eventually. We always do.

Looks like Hillary is no longer in the running for Obama's running mate. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/campaign-for-clinton-ends/ Probably for the best. She just turns off too many voters. I think there may be more bad blood between Obama and Clinton than we were lead to believe. It's interesting that Bill Richardson, who seems to no longer be generating any veep buzz, is holding a fund raiser to help Hillary pay off her debts (something Obama has conspicuously avoided). It's especially interesting given that James Carville accused Richardson of betrayal when he endorsed Obama after dropping out of the race himself. The fundraiser has a scent of "forgive me, I'm not like that guy" about it. Anybody wanna refresh their veep picks?

Sure, I will. He shouldn't do that either.

Screen-cap video tutorials are all the rage in the .NET world these days. I've made dozens of them for my ASP students, to reinforce their classroom learning. Microsoft's ASP site is smothered in them, and there are tons of third-party sites going crazy with the concept as well. They're amazingly useful, though they do have their down sides. They don't replace books, IMO, though it's a great suggestion.

Woot, our energy problems are solved!

Just as an aside, it's interesting to note that Obama doesn't plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire any more than McCain does. Both of the plan to do the same thing, in fact: Extend the tax cut except for earners over $250,000 per year. (source) I don't think anybody's mentioned the BTCs in this thread, I just happened to run across that today and thought it was interesting.

QFT, full stop.

No, I agree with you on this. But I don't think you've necessarily demonstrated bias. And you are still dodging.

Ultimately that's why I favor Obama, even though I disagree with him on many issues. I see those things as relatively minor, and the overall need to break through the current political quagmire as much more important. I'm happy to compromise a bit on specific issues if it means we create a more egalitarian, transparent, forward-thinking, and open-minded society. I'll take a push to the left. Why not? Pushing to the right hasn't helped; it's made things worse. As a conservative I believe that liberals will take underlying conservative concerns more seriously if conservatives are more open-minded and less dogmatic, and I suspect that conservatives will take liberal concerns more seriously if liberals make the same sort of effort. We have far more in common than we think we do these days. We've been avoiding common ground for decades now, and how's that working out for us? Not so good, from where I sit.

And when Obama does the same thing, CBS doesn't even report it. How is that bias, and why should we ignore Obama's similar mistake? This is what happens when one spends too much time focused on one side's partisanship. One fails to realize that the other side's not playing puppet master and creating a huge advantage -- they're actually taking the exact same (stupid) hits and beatings. Come on, McCain directing the media? When cats fly out of my floppy drive.

Ohhhhhhh! Oh my! I sure see your point, iNow! Why yes, yes, I'll bet he probably just missed my question. Why yes, that must be it! Oh dear, how silly of me! Well that's no problem, I'll just... repeat it! Thanks for pointing out that error, iNow, I'm sure bascule will appreciate your assistance in this matter! Here you go Bascule: line[/hr] Bascule, the argument you raised against McCain on page one of this thread appears to apply to Obama as well. Or it doesn't apply at all. I think you should post whether you think it's the one or the other. It's only fair. Let's review those points:

I completely agree with the implications of the opening post. It's not about overarching philosophical differences OR the gap between the haves and the have-mores. It's about making choices that have the most beneficial impact on the economy, the budget, and the society of debt. Obama's plan makes mounds more sense on all three counts. He's reducing the tax burden on those most impacted by credit card debt (as Bascule points out), which can help us with a very serious problem in that regard. He positively affects far more people while burdening the budget less, and could do so right when we need it to happen most. It's a win-win-win. Thanks for posting it. Bascule, do you have a link to the article at the Post that it came from, by any chance?

... end of my interest. The issue of executive privilege and congressional authority needs to be resolved, but it won't be resolved by any specific, partisan "investigation".

So you wouldn't have a problem with me editing the subject of this thread, then, right? Cool.

I used to be too quick to judge you negatively. I may still be too quick to judge you a far-leftie. At any rate, I meant it with respect, and I appreciate your direct reply. I'm not trying to paint us into a moderacy-only corner or intolerance of dissent here, and I fear we run that risk sometimes when I challenge people about what I perceive as partisan obstinacy, but I felt there was something to be gained here and I think the post above does both you and the board credit. It's a risk, but one I think is worth attempting whenever possible. Thanks.

I teach an introductory game design course, and on the first day, after my introductory lecture, I whip out three old Steve Jackson games: Illuminati, Munchkin, and Ninja Burger. The students (rarely over the age of 20) look at them like they're relics of some bygone fantasy era. I might as well have pulled a rabit out of my hat. It's really quite amusing. Anyway, I make them learn how to play the games on their own (amusing in itself -- they have to actually read the instructions!), then they play the games for a little while, write up an assessment along various assignment criteria, and then present their findings back to the rest of the class. Mind you, this is just a first-day assignment, meant more for motivation and a bit of fun, rather than any real enlightenment, but I have to say the first couple times I got more out of the experiment than the kids did. It is a VERY novel experience for them, playing a "serious" board game, most of them for the first time in their young lives.

The article at Slate is the only place I've seen this mentioned, but that's really another discussion. The point is that the arguments you and bascule raised against McCain on page one of this thread appear to apply to Obama as well. Or they don't apply at all. I think both of you should post whether you think it's the one or the other. It's only fair. Let's review those points: In light of this revelation that Obama did the same thing, do you think both have committed the same errors, or do you now feel that these were minor gaffs, and your criticisms of McCain above were premature or heavy-handed?

Shubee, please be more specific in your arguments, don't just refer people to a link. As a moderator, I am concerned that your only purpose here is to advertise that link, since you've posted it in three different threads now. You can demonstrate your interest in this forum by being more specific in your arguments, instead of just referring people off site. Thanks.

Interesting -- apparently we need to update the subject of this thread to include Obama. I wonder why nobody brought up the fact that he made the same gaff? Perhaps because it wasn't in the news? So let's hear how this one is just a minor gaff, but McCain's was a major deception indicative of a lack of understanding of foreign affairs. How's that work? http://www.slate.com/id/2196068/pagenum/2

I think the rise of the video game has had a very detrimental effect on the popularity of classic games in general. There are some (like chess) that will never go out of style, and party games are quite popular, but serious board games and card games have really taken a hit. I'm not sure they'll ever recover.