Also--on attacks--political consultants have a vested interest in people believing the claims of the importance of campaigns and the efficacy of negative ads, but I've done a considerable amount of research in the area, and there is in fact no real evidence that negative ads are anywhere near as effective as many people seem to think. Sure, there's the anecdotal evidence, but nothing systematic. Dukakis and Kerry lost because they were crappy candidates.

TenuredVulture wrote:People can believe whatever they want. But I reserve the right to have scorn for people who send money to Don Lapre, who consult astrologers and psychics, and Met fans. IDers, I believe are at best intellectually dishonest, and most likely con artists who see the promotion of ID as a way to line their pockets.

I'd add to this only that there's a vast difference between my acknowledging that "people can believe whatever they want" and being vehemently opposed to seeing people who believe certain things placed in positions where their acting on those beliefs could materially impact me.

To put it another way, it bothers me not at all that a majority of Americans believes in angels and demons, or that some large chunk of them thinks Jesus will return in their lifetimes. It bothers me enormously if potential President Sarah Palin believes those things, and saber-rattles with Iran because she figures her family's "saved" anyway. Or even that her Young Earth Creationism might leech its way into less spectacular forms of policymaking--public school curricula, say, or the federal budget for scientific research.

(Perhaps this is the downside to putting Joe Sixpack and Hockey Mom on their blue and pink pedestals--you get all their stupidity inextricably tied to their down-home folksiness. Anyone care to speculate about how George W. Bush's faith-based certitude might have led to some bad policy choices?)

In a democracy, if enough people decide that her beliefs are a feature, not a bug, then I'm sunk. But I think it's entirely fair to give those beliefs the widest possible airing, and ask people to consider their potential impact when making their voting decisions.

dajafi wrote:
But I think it's entirely fair to give those beliefs the widest possible airing, and ask people to consider their potential impact when making their voting decisions.

A commitment to free speech doesn't even require that. Not all ideas get wide airing. Some don't get aired at all. I can have a blog, and blog about whatever I want, but no one else has to read it, comment on it, or refute it. It can just lay there dormant forever.

And you can put me on ignore, or ban me.

Religion sure seems like humanity just not being able to come to grips with the fact that no matter how great they find themselves, they will cease to exist at some point.

AKA problems admitting their mortality.

pacino wrote:Oh, and what's your point TP? Do you think he hangs out with 'terrorists'? Hmmmm?

McCain is the one with Scheunneman in his campaign, the man that helped an Iranian spy and international banking criminal get the White House's ear. With Curveball and Chalabi, the White House got their war and Iran broke the sunni rule of their hated neighbor. So who is close to terrorists?

TenuredVulture wrote:Sabato hasn't updated in awhile--at the end of July, he thought 3 was going to go D, while 7 was very competitive. All this seemed to be based on fundraising, so it's likely that going to change.

They'll both be very close races. Both districts are ancestrally Republican. Tons of local GOP elected officials district wide. They're also both very competitive at the national level, and the Dems have heavily outraised the GOP contenders. Thing is, broadcast TV is so expensive in both districts that there's only so much of an advantage you get from fundraising because even Adler and Stender can't afford to saturate on the networks.

NJ-07, we have the better candidate. Lance is a really good guy, and deserves to win. Myers, I hope, has enough $$ to get up a bit with a Saxton ad. I dunno.

After the presidential race, NJ-03 is my biggest focus on election night. I think we'll win, but it can really go either way.

Laexile wrote:

Laexile wrote:While the left is justifiably trying to end intolerance against gays and minorities they push an intolerance of the religious, among others. They allow no room for differing points of view on so many issues these days. Intolerance used to be the ugly underbelly of the right and tolerance used to be an admirable quality of the left. The left was about showing the right what tolerance was. Instead they've become them.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Laexile wrote:

pacino wrote:what a load of bullcrap

Hypothesis confirmed. Thank you. I don't think anyone could have said it better.

Tolerance is respecting other people's points of view regardless of whether you agree with them or think there's any basis for that belief. Tolerance isn't allowing someone to harm another individual because that's their belief. There are, of course, conflicts between personal beliefs and societal norms. In such cases society needs to make those judgements. Respecting a polygamist’s belief that plural marriage is acceptable and allowing plural marriage may be considered two different things.

But some points of view are dumb. Tolerance does not require suspending judgment, or lapsing into so mush headed relativism.

Tolerance isn't general, it's specific.

It really shouldn't be. Some points of view are dumb and judgement of the point of view shouldn't be suspended. It's one thing to not tolerate someone pushing the teaching of intelligent design, it's another to have scorn and disdain on someone for believing in it. If you want tolerance on your points of view, shouldn't you provide the same in return? Why should someone's private beliefs exclude them from anything? Have we gone so far into the 1984 world that we're invoking the thought police?

pacino, you make many assumptions about me, some of which doesn't make any sense. I, however, have made only one about you. You're intolerant of my point of view on this subject, let alone the rights of people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I respect your right to be intolerant, even if I'm being judgmental about it.

Just to make sure I'm following along, LAexile is tolerant of pacino's intolerance of LAexile's belief that the left is intolerant. Right?

Also, regarding NJ politics. This might become a big deal in the state. Looks like Corzine is clean on it, but Senate Dems have to answer for this crap, including perhaps the saintly Dick Codey (whom I like, to be fair).

Sen. Wayne Bryant's graft trial told about slush fund

phdave wrote:
Just to make sure I'm following along, LAexile is tolerant of pacino's intolerance of LAexile's belief that the left is intolerant. Right?

You meant correct, right?

TenuredVulture wrote:How hard do you think it will be to dig up someone who has some association with McCain (a major donor, someone who hosted a $#@! party for him, etc) who has a questionable past?

For how old McCain is, you may literally have to dig 'em up

In fairness, I'd love to be on a yacht with Anne Hathaway, too.

I mean goddamn

Woody wrote:In fairness, I'd love to be on a yacht with Anne Hathaway, too.

I mean goddamn

mccain is nothing if not a lover of arm candy.

Stocks getting kicked in the nuts again. Worldwide panic. Stock up on bread and milk.

The gap is widening...

TomatoPie wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:How hard do you think it will be to dig up someone who has some association with McCain (a major donor, someone who hosted a $#@! party for him, etc) who has a questionable past?

Impossible, I'd say.

Else it would be trumpeted in the media.

Yes, the media have just been filled this election cycle with coverage to remind voters about the Keating 5.

The media also should be trumpeting the McCain/Phil "We're in a mental recession" Gramm connection much more. I mean, last I heard, there's still a very good chance Gramm would be secretary of treasury in a McCain administration.

I don't know much about Phil Gramm, but, "We're in a mental recession," sounds pretty spot-on to me.

Dems haven't conquered Jersey yet

Re: NJ-03 and NJ-07

I'm in NJ 07 and I haven't heard a peep from Leonard Lance. In fact I thought Stender was running against Ferguson. It's pretty firmly R country but alot of the folks here are in the financial investment business so who knows what effect that will have. Pharma company employees are huge here too.

He doesn't have any money.

jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't have any money.

Doesn't it kind of suck working for a candidate who doesn't have money? And shouldn't you be in Jersey knocking on doors or something to get the word out?