>
I suspect he does view it fairly regularly, most liberals of course do not, any more than most conservatives read Drudge... I of course visit both, news and politics junkie. (shrug)
Well, I find that getting a just the facts view along with the bias versions alerts me to 'what's really going on' much better. Of course, you can only gain from that sort of approach if you begin with the assumption that 'both sides' are primarily composed of sane and rational people who are not stupid... the comments section of most articles tends to raise a false flag in that regard.
I find on potentially controversial subjects the 'discussions' section of a given wiki entry is very enlightening. I don't really expect people to needlessly cite things, it's sort of a personal quirk, but you usually reference something enough that I can easily google it and in a fashion that clearly indicates you are referencing something real, my major complaint is those who seem to only reference something in the worst hearsay fashion that if I can even dig it up is a massively misinterpreted version of the original document that itself is suspect. I like to include references because they drive home my points and counter the usual right=retard mentality lots of the younger libs tend to assume.
Politics tend to be divisive, especially when people get insulting and confrontational. It's a major reason I rein myself in when getting ready to rip strips into some of our more 'everyone is stupid who disagrees with me and I'll tell them so rather than making rational arguments' sorts. The Mafia game we play revolves around convincing others of your point so it's basically one prolonged debate of the classic courteous political variety, with the add on that your enemy this time might be your ally next game. Since a lot of the players post to the CMB in-between game posts, I think the style tends to reflect their game attitude. Lot of the ruder people here, where it isn't just there personal quirk, I think genuinely don't realize how many people nominally on their side actually have a fair amount of distaste for them, and I think it reflects that 'the opposition is stupid' mentality, they assume everyone who agrees with them is smarter so much that they begin getting the 'and everything I say is smart, so of course I'm right and those who matter will notice that' attitude. That's tricky to avoid, and lots of decent people develop it to one degree or another, that's why I *try* to keep polite and factual without coming off condescending at the same time, the latter is fairly difficult.
Hypothetical example, there are routes to discourage things without banning them, where discouragement is desired but a ban is expected to increase the action, other routes are preferable. That's a random example of a potential method, not a suggested action
Yep, lots of knife rules. Not really covered in the constitution. As for silencers being legal and not subject to regulation, I would say there is no legal or moral entitlement to secrecy in weapon usage. Owner a silencer and carrying one around concealed really are two different things, and I'm aware of the parallel to handguns but a silencer doesn't realistically alter your chance of survival in a self-defense situation. I've no real dog in that fight though, I couldn't really care if they were banned or not, for concealed use that is, a ban wouldn't seem like a major oppressive action.
Well, not really letting them play big brother, by and large if a drug is detectable in your system it is still affecting you. The ones that don't but are usually have effects longer than 24 hours. Pot is sort of a weird example but it's a weird case all the way around, I nominally favor legalizing it but the stuff makes me sick just being near it's users, weird since I'm a smoker though part of the reason I'm more sympathetic towards non-smokers who complain about the smell. 'Just so long as I come in on time and sober' is how things should be, but that's sort of the point. Drug-testing isn't the cheapest thing in the world, and the cost is proportional to the number of things you're testing for, so most will want to limit it to things that would represent genuine workplace dangers, and then you can also expect a fair amount of free-market common sense, where the price of labor is cheaper for places that don't screen. So you get a sorta of secret punitive tax on drug usage that way. One has to keep in mind general pragmatism, odds are you'd rapidly have a council formed that set a reasonably cheap and effective standard and issued a 'stamp' manufacturers could put on their product if they kept to that standard. That stamp would have an effective calculable value on price, and economists would rapidly calculate for a company whether or not their wage savings for their particular product merited passing on the stamp. Free-market controls aren't perfect but they do tend to work fairly well in a lot of cases, I'd think this one would work with minimal infringement on personal privilege... this all assumes we consider drug usage bad but allowable, if someone thinks cocaine use is just fine and not to be discouraged we're in a different ballpark.
We don't run anyone county or municipal in my area by party - they usually have one who often gives them a hand of course, but not name don the ballot. But I don't need to tell you Texas has a, er, unique approach to many things. There's nothing exactly fundamentally wrong about declaring a party, except it strikes me that in places where most are one thing you're losing good candidates for the essentially non-partisan job through primary attrition and lock-step voting, major reason few places do that.
Sorry, that was just an offhand reference to how all three of them were able to gain broad support for a lot of things from across the aisle.
I tend to think we wouldn't need many regs to keep schools in line if we did open it up to total voucher, religious and all.
Always handy for debate purposes though
Especially with people who tend to view their next door neighbor's situation as a good benchmark in the first place.
Unfortunately there was only a brief time when I had even the opportunity to be that engaged without having too many things going on to take advantage of it. Ironically, I often think randomthoughts spends more time at Kos than I do (really, he could hardly avoid it if he spends much time at all there. )
Used to be wotmania was my primary source, believe it or not; I watched the News Hour etc. a lot more back then, but by the time they got around to airing I'd usually spent the day reading about and discussing a given issue exhaustively. I miss the days when I'd turn on the TV to hear "breaking news" about something and think Oh, please, that subject was played out days ago.... 


I suspect he does view it fairly regularly, most liberals of course do not, any more than most conservatives read Drudge... I of course visit both, news and politics junkie. (shrug)
I tend to be of the "just the facts" school; as soon as you introduce commentary I have to start sorting bias from reality, and can usually draw my own conclusions with little coaching. I guess one of the advantages of a large and well trafficked message board is that sooner or later you'll usually find some well informed people with no dog in the fight to offer an objective assessment.
Well, I find that getting a just the facts view along with the bias versions alerts me to 'what's really going on' much better. Of course, you can only gain from that sort of approach if you begin with the assumption that 'both sides' are primarily composed of sane and rational people who are not stupid... the comments section of most articles tends to raise a false flag in that regard.

Well, I'm probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to undocumented "facts" but try to indicate when I'm stating something that's just my opinion, belief, or something I read or heard at a forgotten source twenty years ago. It's just like Wikipedia, really; if someone states something as a fact and documents it with a reliable and objective independent source, well and good, but if it's just stated in a vacuum there's no reason to take it as gospel until it's substantiated. Good rule of thumb with news, too, even if a lot of "journalists" seem to have forgotten that.
I find on potentially controversial subjects the 'discussions' section of a given wiki entry is very enlightening. I don't really expect people to needlessly cite things, it's sort of a personal quirk, but you usually reference something enough that I can easily google it and in a fashion that clearly indicates you are referencing something real, my major complaint is those who seem to only reference something in the worst hearsay fashion that if I can even dig it up is a massively misinterpreted version of the original document that itself is suspect. I like to include references because they drive home my points and counter the usual right=retard mentality lots of the younger libs tend to assume.
But I've seen how the RPG board members speak of and two each other a little, too, and can't help recalling that there's usually a little more restraint when there's some actual respect or even affection for a debate partner, something else that's too often absent from the CMB these days. "Community" Message Board is becoming something of an ironic title in some quarters, I think, a continuing casualty of just how cliquish wotmania could be at the end. It's a problem that feeds itself, because as more and more people with no interest in such things put them behind them the little niche groups come to predominate, steer discussion in a way they can't when only a tiny fraction of the general population.
Politics tend to be divisive, especially when people get insulting and confrontational. It's a major reason I rein myself in when getting ready to rip strips into some of our more 'everyone is stupid who disagrees with me and I'll tell them so rather than making rational arguments' sorts. The Mafia game we play revolves around convincing others of your point so it's basically one prolonged debate of the classic courteous political variety, with the add on that your enemy this time might be your ally next game. Since a lot of the players post to the CMB in-between game posts, I think the style tends to reflect their game attitude. Lot of the ruder people here, where it isn't just there personal quirk, I think genuinely don't realize how many people nominally on their side actually have a fair amount of distaste for them, and I think it reflects that 'the opposition is stupid' mentality, they assume everyone who agrees with them is smarter so much that they begin getting the 'and everything I say is smart, so of course I'm right and those who matter will notice that' attitude. That's tricky to avoid, and lots of decent people develop it to one degree or another, that's why I *try* to keep polite and factual without coming off condescending at the same time, the latter is fairly difficult.
Ownership society, commie!
Ideally though, I don't to restrict people indirectly or otherwise, I want to discourage them from doing objectionable things that harm no one else, and the court of public opinion is a good way to do that so long as you don't overreact to idiotic protests and inadvertently lend them legitimacy.

Hypothetical example, there are routes to discourage things without banning them, where discouragement is desired but a ban is expected to increase the action, other routes are preferable. That's a random example of a potential method, not a suggested action

Now you sound like me; why should I let Big Brother infringe on my Constitutional right to shoot things with no one but the target knowing?
And, of course, knives are pretty thoroughly regulated, too, it's just most non-aficionados don't know it. 


Yep, lots of knife rules. Not really covered in the constitution. As for silencers being legal and not subject to regulation, I would say there is no legal or moral entitlement to secrecy in weapon usage. Owner a silencer and carrying one around concealed really are two different things, and I'm aware of the parallel to handguns but a silencer doesn't realistically alter your chance of survival in a self-defense situation. I've no real dog in that fight though, I couldn't really care if they were banned or not, for concealed use that is, a ban wouldn't seem like a major oppressive action.
The problem I have with that sort of thing is it seems to boil down to letting corporations play Big Brother so the government doesn't have to do so. It's really none of my employers or their customers business what I do with my free time as long as I show up on time and sober to do a good job. Saying lawmakers have no authority to intervene but NON-lawmakers do strikes me as odd, and dangerous. "Here at Ford, we have the Dearborn police open fire on labor activists and their families and replace them with non-subversives; that's the Ford guarantee. " And pretty much what they did with striking workers on one occasion; get rid of the anarchists and you're safe from having your car sabotaged and your family endangered by crazy radicals, right? The issue for me isn't WHO tramples on my civil liberties. Why not let derision and ostracism do the job; it's worked so well for the South so far. 

Well, not really letting them play big brother, by and large if a drug is detectable in your system it is still affecting you. The ones that don't but are usually have effects longer than 24 hours. Pot is sort of a weird example but it's a weird case all the way around, I nominally favor legalizing it but the stuff makes me sick just being near it's users, weird since I'm a smoker though part of the reason I'm more sympathetic towards non-smokers who complain about the smell. 'Just so long as I come in on time and sober' is how things should be, but that's sort of the point. Drug-testing isn't the cheapest thing in the world, and the cost is proportional to the number of things you're testing for, so most will want to limit it to things that would represent genuine workplace dangers, and then you can also expect a fair amount of free-market common sense, where the price of labor is cheaper for places that don't screen. So you get a sorta of secret punitive tax on drug usage that way. One has to keep in mind general pragmatism, odds are you'd rapidly have a council formed that set a reasonably cheap and effective standard and issued a 'stamp' manufacturers could put on their product if they kept to that standard. That stamp would have an effective calculable value on price, and economists would rapidly calculate for a company whether or not their wage savings for their particular product merited passing on the stamp. Free-market controls aren't perfect but they do tend to work fairly well in a lot of cases, I'd think this one would work with minimal infringement on personal privilege... this all assumes we consider drug usage bad but allowable, if someone thinks cocaine use is just fine and not to be discouraged we're in a different ballpark.
Instant runoffs strike me as much better, but then, my best friends a Green who's been preaching them for years. I could vote Green, Dem, Libertarian and Constitutional in every race knowing that, realistically, only the second one will be counted (but it WILL be counted) and that if, by some miracle, a Green actually finishes in the top two my vote will go for him over a Republican (or Dem, or whoever. ) Then we'd see third parties break through on the national level, and suddenly we'd see a lot more coalitions (probably with the Libertarians siding with Dems on social and foreign policy issues and with Republicans on fiscal ones. ) There would also be incentive for the major AND minor parties to campaign together on shared issues, whereas right now it's as much or more in Democrats interests for the Greens to be a non-entity as it is for Republicans (and the same is true for Republicans with Libs. ) Likewise, even when a Green really REALLY wants Obama over McCain, he can't publicly endorse him because it prejudices the cause of getting the Green nominee elected, and it's not much easier to endorse Obama for President and Greens in local races (again, change the names for McCain, Libs and Republicans. )
Well, for my part I'm not a big fan of party affiliation in local races anyway, since local officials are rarely in a position to enact any national party platforms planks. Really, a Republican SHERIFF? His job is to catch murderers and bank robbers, not lower taxes or fight the War of Terror. And as long as he does his job it's his views on national politics are no more my business than my butchers are.
We don't run anyone county or municipal in my area by party - they usually have one who often gives them a hand of course, but not name don the ballot. But I don't need to tell you Texas has a, er, unique approach to many things. There's nothing exactly fundamentally wrong about declaring a party, except it strikes me that in places where most are one thing you're losing good candidates for the essentially non-partisan job through primary attrition and lock-step voting, major reason few places do that.
Um. Reagan never had a Republican Congressional majority (only briefly enjoying one in the Senate) and LBJ always had a Democratic majority (even if the Dixiecrats who became Reagans boll weevils made that uncertain support on Civil Rights. ) I don't have a problem with one party rule provided it's accountable; it beats the hell out of gridlock, which is what we've had for most of the last twenty years, and we can't afford much more. We need some pretty substantial changes whether conservatives like it or not, or Americas position and security will continue to erode for socio-economic reasons.
Sorry, that was just an offhand reference to how all three of them were able to gain broad support for a lot of things from across the aisle.
Or something into their coffee.
Though in terms of passing legislation Pelosi's a lot more effective than Reid. Or Obama. A single payer PUBLIC education system strikes me as a good idea, far better than the unfunded federal mandate to the states. The only problem I really have with vouchers is the exact opposite of the (unfounded) accusations about single payer health insurance: It seems like a Trojan horse for getting rid of REAL public education, an attempt to make public education more private education with subsidies. I don't really have a problem with taxpayers subsidizing education in religious schools chosen by the kids parents; no one's being forced into any religious observance (except maybe the kids, but it's well established that parents have a great deal of authority over their kids. )

I tend to think we wouldn't need many regs to keep schools in line if we did open it up to total voucher, religious and all.
It's data, just not very MUCH data. In fairness, I can't recall the program saying either way, but it doesn't take a lot of snap to figure out that a Southern suburban school with rampant syphilis wasn't spending much time teaching kids how to put on a condom. One anecdotal case, however, does not a BODY of evidence make.
Always handy for debate purposes though

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Palin reads Cheat Notes.
08/02/2010 12:43:02 AM
- 1423 Views
Is it really worse than reading answers on a teleprompter? sorry, I see no big deal here. *NM*
08/02/2010 01:02:49 AM
- 251 Views
yes yes it is. a teleprompter is subtle
08/02/2010 01:22:17 AM
- 591 Views
a teleprompter is not subtle
08/02/2010 02:25:46 PM
- 520 Views
staring openly and blatantly at your hand is? *NM*
08/02/2010 03:09:25 PM
- 321 Views
I think if anyone else had done the dame thing we wouldn't even had heard about
08/02/2010 06:13:44 PM
- 522 Views
Yes for what the notes were
08/02/2010 12:44:35 PM
- 555 Views
he is calling her content free while attacking her in such a content free manner?
08/02/2010 02:50:04 PM
- 550 Views
It's good the media still hounds her. I don't want her to be a candidate. *NM*
08/02/2010 01:20:21 AM
- 281 Views
This only obscures the rational reasons for duly decrying her political popularity. Moooooooo. *NM*
08/02/2010 03:19:45 AM
- 324 Views
I disagree, I think it underscores it.
08/02/2010 03:39:57 AM
- 523 Views
Or they might believe that a far left liberal
08/02/2010 04:16:51 AM
- 540 Views
Calling someone who needs a cheat sheet for their talking points stupid isn't an ad hominem, IMHO.
08/02/2010 12:13:36 PM
- 535 Views
soory but your wrong, again
08/02/2010 02:23:31 PM
- 495 Views
You shouldn't need reminders of your major themes after two years pushing them.
08/02/2010 02:55:22 PM
- 526 Views
I used to work in a call center and had a note to remind me to talk slower
08/02/2010 05:54:25 PM
- 650 Views
I don't hate her, and I think most liberals love her.
09/02/2010 10:45:25 AM
- 647 Views
way to play the pregant daughter card
09/02/2010 03:06:37 PM
- 555 Views
*shrugs* If you're going to suggest sex ed is harmful, unnecessary and promotes promiscuity...
10/02/2010 08:34:16 AM
- 621 Views
so if you don't support the liberal agenda your family is fair game for attack? nice to you admit it
10/02/2010 06:26:30 PM
- 554 Views
Um, no, if you're going to demand everyone follow your advice it better not be disastrous for you.
11/02/2010 05:29:01 AM
- 540 Views
Do you have anb example of when she demanded everyone follow her advice?
11/02/2010 05:33:17 AM
- 591 Views
Honestly, her sex ed position seems so muddled to me it's hard to say
11/02/2010 06:50:39 AM
- 745 Views
That's a bit silly
08/02/2010 08:40:25 PM
- 689 Views
I'm perfectly happy to discuss her positions; I just think Huckabee does a better job of it.
09/02/2010 10:26:54 AM
- 708 Views
Well, let's discuss some of these points
09/02/2010 07:13:33 PM
- 714 Views
Re: Well, let's discuss some of these points
10/02/2010 09:15:04 AM
- 746 Views
Re: Well, let's discuss some of these points
10/02/2010 06:49:51 PM
- 812 Views
Ironically, Palin seems to agree this is different than using a teleprompter for a speech.
11/02/2010 09:05:19 AM
- 707 Views
Again, two seperate things
11/02/2010 09:51:15 PM
- 523 Views
Agreed, but Palin and other Republicans, not I, drew the comparison.
15/02/2010 01:02:25 PM
- 672 Views
Just to get the obligatory Feinstein comment out of the way...
15/02/2010 11:43:42 PM
- 734 Views
Hadn't heard, actually.
19/02/2010 06:58:50 AM
- 649 Views
Re: Hadn't heard, actually.
19/02/2010 08:32:11 AM
- 646 Views
Ah.
23/02/2010 09:55:45 PM
- 723 Views
Re: Ah.
24/02/2010 01:32:34 AM
- 671 Views
Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement.
01/03/2010 03:51:49 AM
- 665 Views
Re: Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement.
01/03/2010 11:46:24 PM
- 879 Views
Re: Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement.
05/03/2010 12:11:48 AM
- 754 Views
Random Title
05/03/2010 02:49:59 AM
- 681 Views
Re: Random Title
15/03/2010 05:37:22 AM
- 597 Views
Re: Random Title
15/03/2010 09:17:53 PM
- 912 Views
Re: Random Rejoinder
29/03/2010 03:45:08 PM
- 635 Views
Re: Random Rejoinder
30/03/2010 12:34:23 AM
- 1282 Views
I disagree. For all we know she has a learning disability. "Disability" does not equal "stupid".
09/02/2010 03:23:24 PM
- 608 Views
A possibility I hadn't considered, true, and sorry if I gave offense.
10/02/2010 08:25:52 AM
- 736 Views
oh yes, and the right never uses ad hominem
08/02/2010 03:56:42 PM
- 490 Views
I do see as the primary focus like I see from the left these days *NM*
08/02/2010 06:15:22 PM
- 336 Views
could you rephrase? you seem to be missing a noun or something in there. *NM*
08/02/2010 07:57:19 PM
- 282 Views
misisng a couple actually
08/02/2010 08:04:35 PM
- 519 Views
Touch typing is easier, at least to learn, if you don't try to read it at the same time, FYI.
10/02/2010 09:24:33 AM
- 574 Views

Really how many times can you rememeber a Bush press sec openly ridicule people in a press confrence
10/02/2010 06:28:57 PM
- 463 Views
Good point; all they used to do was have the VP say opponents helped terrorists.
11/02/2010 05:33:08 AM
- 514 Views
one is about actions ands the other is about personal attacks
05/03/2010 02:19:38 PM
- 479 Views
True, one is about what Palin DID and the other is just characterizing opposition as treason.
15/03/2010 04:39:45 AM
- 495 Views
This is petty and also rather ignorant
08/02/2010 03:59:40 AM
- 686 Views
so you're saying you're as dumb as sarah palin?
08/02/2010 10:55:00 AM
- 501 Views

In other news liberals can't get over someone being popular they don't agree with
08/02/2010 04:12:19 AM
- 662 Views
It's completely unprofessional
08/02/2010 08:27:47 AM
- 520 Views
yeah, she should have had them inscribed into her nail polish instead...
08/02/2010 10:55:43 AM
- 495 Views
why?
08/02/2010 02:29:44 PM
- 544 Views
You know that's a good question
08/02/2010 05:19:10 PM
- 505 Views
maybe you are just projecting
08/02/2010 06:15:57 PM
- 510 Views
well what is the association we have with notes on hands?
08/02/2010 07:58:41 PM
- 536 Views
or people on the far left are being grossly disingenuous
08/02/2010 08:18:06 PM
- 648 Views
dude, only posted it because it was funny
08/02/2010 08:43:55 PM
- 504 Views
so you like to point at people and laugh and can't understand why others would object
08/02/2010 11:24:37 PM
- 589 Views
Who cares? She's hot. *NM*
08/02/2010 03:06:58 PM
- 245 Views
Much ado about nothing. She was just making sure she didn't forget anything.
09/02/2010 02:00:56 AM
- 487 Views
I don't like the woman at all, but this is just silly. Who cares? *NM*
11/02/2010 10:11:17 PM
- 247 Views