SuperJerk

In response to that billboard, here's the video the Republicans don't want you to see...

Is an Xbox 360 going to look any better on a 37" 720p lcd if you use the standard component cables, versus VGA adaptor or the HDMI adapter? Can someone explain the difference between VGA and HDMI output quality-wise? Would switching to HDMI for my computer or my Xbox make any difference?

Conservative exploitation of middle-class resentment towards minorities and the poor is based on perpetuating ignorance, so I can almost guarantee whoever wrote that song has no idea what percentage of the federal budget goes to the anti-poverty programs he hates so much.

Guiliani seems to think Americans will vote for John McCain based on the number of time's he's visited Afghanistan. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...s-inexperience/ So I guess McCain gets to cash in his frequent flier miles to become most powerful man in the world? I want to fly on that airline. Also... No word on what alternate universe the press conference was being held in. Another sign I'm right and their wrong...I'm not the one who made THIS: (Yes, this is real.)

The first part on my post was related, but the second part was a seperate topic I decided to use this as an opportunity to revisit. That's why a put the huge gap between the two parts. Anyhow, here's an interesting short essay I wanted to share that has nothing to do with third parties, either. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/coh...tics/index.html

Most people probably agree with one of the 2 major parties more than they disagree with them. For example, I may like McKinney's position on some environmental issues, but I despise her views on 9/11. There are three reasons a third party has never successfully emerged in the U.S. (the Republicans came to power only after the Whigs' demise...there were only two actual parties in 1860): Not enough people can agree on what what the third party should represent. A successful party must have broad appeal, and the most popular ideas are already represented by the two major parties. The winner-take-all system means you have to win an election to have a say, as opposed to parliamentary systems where representation is awarded based on how much of the vote you carry. If the Libertarians got 3% of the U.S. House because they won 3% of the vote nationwide, you'd see more catering to them and they'd grow in power. For example, Gov. Rick Perry only got less than 40% of the vote in Texas in 2006 because there were 3 major candidates. Thus, over 60% of the voters got shut out by the results. In an multi-party system, you end up with minority rule. Any time an idea becomes popular enough to win, one of the other two parties co-opts it, thus making the point of the party moot. Many of the Bull-Moose Party's ideas were implemented by Woodrow Wilson. Various anti-war and environmental parties and organizations saw their stances absorbed by the Democrats in 1972.

3 questions for Marvin: Why do you think gasoline prices have risen so much in the last few years? How much would the average person save if the federal gas tax were repealed? What effect have gas prices had on demand for gas?

This isn't a new thought, but another way of putting it... The people who are now telling us withdrawing forces from Iraq is a surrender, are the same people who thought the war was a good idea in the first place. How many times does someone have to be wrong before we can just ignore their advice and only listen to people who actually know something? We've already demonstrated time and again how little John McCain knows about the Middle East and most radio talkshow hosts are not experts in anything except broadcasting. Of all the former Secretaries of State alive today, I think only George Shultz has defended it. No one who has left the current administration is saying anything positive. And why is it surrender to leave Iraq? Doesn't "surrender" imply we are conceding defeat to someone? Why are we still over there, just to defeat the groups of people who's only unified goal is to get us to leave? We did all the stuff we said were going over there to do. We've toppled Saddam Hussein regime and installed a democratic government. We made sure they weren't building WMDs. There were no links to Al Qaeda until AFTER we invaded. This is maddening. The American casualties are maddening, the collateral damage has been maddening, and the effects of the war our our economy is maddening.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25736448/ I'm going to put aside the political analysis for now and just say "didn't see THAT coming". Also, WTF is a "time horizon"?

I remember him once saying his daughters wanted him to be president because presidents usually have dogs. Hey, they're little kids. Don't be hatin'.

You don't understand, man. You have the right to be born (by your mother squatting down in a field if you have a lazy family who can't afford modern facilities) and then nothing else. Your body is practically guaranteed to be banged up and exposed to disease, but if you want to counter that you need to do well in life! Succeed or prepare yourself for a life of pain and suffering. Also, a conservative believes that someone shouldn't be able to purchase an assisted, respectful suicide. Right to life means protecting your life from, uh, you. So, if you can't afford to protect your body from the wilds it's no fair to take an easy way out! I think my sarcasometer is broken.

Before I waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, I have to ask...is Wisconsin considered a battle ground state? Oh, shit it is, isn't. Alright, here's the sales pitch about voting against a candidate you generally agree with over a single issue:

I like Rachel Maddow when she's a guest or a contributor on MSNBC, but as a host she seems really by-the-numbers. Olbermann's show can be a circle-jerk most of the time, but I find him amusing most of the time. I'll say one good thing about Beck's show...it's obvious at all times its an opinion-driven talk/interview show. He's not trying to pretend it's a legitimate news show the way Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, or Lou Dobbs do.

You mean the poll that said was quoted in the article I was referring to earlier said only 39% thought McCain would handle Iraq better, and 33% said Obama would. In others words, 28% don't know. That's a hell of an undecided vote for Obama to exploit by educating the public on the differences between himself and McCain. I'm confident that anyone who is going to support McCain is already doing so, given McCain's repeated embrace of failed and unpopular policies. Obama still has over 3 months to expand on the lead he's already established. I was watching the returns on election day in 2006, so I have more faith in the American people than that. I'm also a firm believer that issues, not personalities, decide general elections. Personality wins you the nomination, issues win you the election. If people think the country is on the right track, the incumbent party gets re-elected. If people think the country is on the wrong track, the incumbent party loses. No amount of personality stereotyping and scandal-mongering is going to change that fundamental principle. Many of the negative images did nothing to prevent the person from getting elected, so I think the average person either never bought into them or more likely just didn't care. The negative caricatures assigned to Nixon, Clinton, and both Bushes did not stop them from winning. Goldwater lost on the issues...he was running against civil rights movement at the pinnacle of that movement's popularity. Goldwater favored the use of nuclear weapons just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Democrats lost in 1968 and 1972 because of Vietnam. Bush still had the majority of the country supporting the Iraq War when he ran for reelection in 2004 (compare that to how the Republicans did in 2006). The centerpiece of Bush Sr.'s campaign was the robust Reagan economy and his promise not to raise taxes. And don't forget about the 1992 campaign. Bill Clinton used a recession to get elected, despite the huge negative stories about his past that were coming out and his opponent's reputation as a foriegn policy genius. If that doesn't convince you, let's look at numbers and the horse race. Right now the polls stand at 47% for Obama, 44% for McCain, and 9% either for someone else or is undecided. If that trend holds until the general election and they split the undecideds 50-50, Obama will win over 51%. And don't forget McCain has Bob Barr to deal with. The people challenging Obama on the left are Ralph Nader (people learned their lesson about him in 2000) and Cynthia McKinney, who is a black woman who at her best appeal to no constituency beyond a few African-Americans that might live in her old Congressional district. Since she is running against the most popular black politician of all time....well, you saw what that did to Bill Clinton's reputation. So, based on current trends, we're basically we're looking at a final day election popular vote tally of 50.5% for Obama, 47% for McCain, 2% for Barr, .5% for Nader, McKinney and various cartoon characters. That's not a mathematically close enough margin for the electoral college and popular vote to be contradictory.

Just to illustrate how incompetent the McCain campiagn is... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_...candidates_iraq So, according to McCain, we can't win in Iraq without losing in Afghanistan? Or did he mean that we can't lose in Afghanistan without winning in Iraq?

On what grounds? Obama's got the issues on his side. He's got the momentum. He's running against an incompentent campaign and a candidate who is widely hated within his own party. None of the allegations about him being "un-American" or too inexperienced have given his opponents much traction so far. Most people under 30 and every African-American in the country can't wait to vote for him. And, let's not forget, he is possibly the best campaigner anyone has seen in the last 20 years. Unless he gets caught having an extramarital affair with a homosexual Taliban spy on top of a pile of heroin, he's probably going to be the next president.

Like this one?

The next few months will alternate between calling Obama a radical and calling him an oreo, apparently. Here's the attack run-down I compiled to illustrate how INCOHERENT the criticism of Obama has been: Obama is a militant black because he knows ex-Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and was a member of Jeremiah Wright's church congregation, BUT is an elitist because he thinks people cling to guns and religion. Obama is a Muslim because there are Muslims in his family, BUT is also wrong for belonging to Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years. Obama doesn't know enough about foriegn policy because he's only been a Senator for 3 years, BUT isn't a real American because his father is from Africa and lived overseas for several years as a child. Obama is not liberal enough because he supports the death penality for pedophile rapists and voted for the FISA bill, BUT is too liberal because he had the most liberal voting record of any U.S. senator last year. Obama is wrong for not denouncing Jeremiah Wright sooner, BUT is disloyal for denouncing Jeremiah Wright. Obama is too politically inexperienced because of how long he's been a Senator, BUT is too much of a politician because he declined public financing after saying he'd accept it. Obama is not black enough because he doesn't spend enough time talking about urban poverty and he is critical of blacks who don't take responsibility for themselves, BUT is too racially divisive because he gave a speech critical of white priviledge and only became the presumptive Democratic nominee because he is black. Did I forget anything?

I concur.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_..._co/scotus_guns Thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/snow/index.html The first place I ever heard of Snow was when he frequently guest-hosted the Rush Limbaugh Show. He was also the host of "Fox News Sunday" for 7 years, and his been a regular fixture on the Fox News Channel since its creation. All of this alledged "criticism" Snow made about Bush was of the "Bush is great, but he doesn't bad-mouth Democrats enough" or "Bush needs to stick to his conservative principles" variety.

I'm not quite in your league yet, but I'm trying.

But, as you've noted many times I'm sure, Iran it isn't really a democracy. Besides, since both McCain and a certain former candidate/former First Lady have been talking pretty openly about nuking the shit out them, this is actually a step down from that. And I can't help but appreciate the irony that this comment would both simultaneously appeal to and alienate the key conservative demographic of tobacco farmers. And in other news... This is a parody, but...damn. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/oba...over/index.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...out-cigarettes/ I may not be favor of starting a war with Iran, but I also couldn't care less about their feelings. McCain's comment was hillarious.