prev <-> next
[2010-11-15 13:09:15] - Aaron: Hmmm, maybe I made it inevitable then. I just know that our negotiations felt very... odd, like you were (badly) trying to keep your attack on my a secret. -Paul
[2010-11-15 12:56:10] - paul: hmm i'm not willing to accept that the german/russian spat was inevitable. i didn't become super-dependent on turkey until after you and daniel allied against me - aaron
[2010-11-15 12:08:41] - I'm up for another round whenever as well. Somehow I doubt I will be able to replicate my results but thats ok. -Daniel
[2010-11-15 11:37:13] - Anyway, to answer Paul's earlier question: I'm up for a new round, if people are willing to accept that I'm clearly not as good a player as I need to be to be competitive at this time. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-15 11:37:00] - Aaron: I had to block Sweden or else you would've had the advantage in our war which I think we both knew was coming. -Paul
[2010-11-15 11:36:03] - mig: I figured this way I could appear to be siding with England while also not hurting France. Unfortunately, it didn't do much to help stop Andrew's downfall. -Paul
[2010-11-15 11:34:50] - mig: It was intentional. I really needed France to keep England occupied and not die quickly but I also wanted England's goodwill for help against Russia in the Scandinavians. -Paul
[2010-11-15 11:27:48] - Daniel: Yep. Brest to Channel was the right move and I thought about it for a long time. But, I misunderestimated the animosity elsewhere.
-- Xpovos[2010-11-15 11:26:15] - Or if Aaron hadn't been very clear in his goal to attack Germany. I think that had a big impact on the early game as well -Daniel
[2010-11-15 11:23:45] - Xpovos: Yeah its funny how things have a big impact. If you hadn't moved Brest to Picardy I think the game would have gone very differently. -Daniel
[2010-11-15 11:23:05] - paul: if you hadn't blocked sweden none of this would have happened! you could still be shitting in my warsaw clock or whatever the hell you germans do for a good time - aaron
[2010-11-15 11:21:32] - errr fall 1901 i mean. - mig
[2010-11-15 11:21:21] - paul: so was the misorder in spring 1901 (Kiel S A Yor -> Bel) intentional or not? daniel and I are dying to know. - mig
[2010-11-15 11:20:07] - Xpovos: Yeah, I made the bad assumption that you two would be evenly matched for the first few years. Once you started losing, I was already too involved in my war with Russia to add another enemy in England. -Paul
[2010-11-15 10:59:10] - I had an irrational belief that Germany and Russia would stop fighting if they saw you take a chunk out of me, which was clearly not the case. That said, once you had me in a bad position, you were able to exploit it very well. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-15 10:57:17] - Daniel: Congratulations on the game. I told you at poker, but again in a more public way, I'm pretty sure your victory is my fault, and it's my fault because while I knew you were coming after me, and while I knew Germany was busy with Russia, and vice versa, I still wasn't competent enough to stop you. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-15 10:55:35] - Paul: Yes. Phil Jackson. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-15 10:25:23] - Speaking of which, is there going to be a next time? Any interest in another game? -Paul
[2010-11-15 10:24:57] - Daniel: I am not pleased that my poor play allowed you to solo AND that you have essentially outplayed me in two of our games. Mark my words, it shall not happen next time. -Paul
[2010-11-15 10:04:38] - Diplomacy People: Woo Victory! 7 months later... Does that make our last two games solo's? Is that uncommon for those that have played mored than 3 games now? -Daniel
[2010-11-15 09:39:35] - Xpovos: Phil Jackson? -Paul
[2010-11-13 08:49:58] - Paul: I feel pretty good about that. The only coach who I could pick out by name and face now was also the only coach I could recognize as a player. So that makes me 1 for 1, right? Not 1 for 22. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-13 08:45:26] - I disagree with this perspective too, but it provides another viewpoint for trying to better understand our debate over the philosophical important of various elements of TP rhetoric. http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-what-tea-party-critics-dont-get/19713423 -- Xpovos
[2010-11-12 14:45:05] - NBA Fans: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1011/nba.coaches.as.players/content.1.html Fun game to play is to look at the pictures and guess which coach it is. -Paul
[2010-11-12 14:27:23] - daniel: no. i have nothing against mixing caffeine and alcohol, i love jager bombs and vodka/red bull and stuff like that. but stuff like "sparks" and the like have always tasted not-very-good to me - aaron
[2010-11-12 13:57:45] - anyone on here ever had one of those Four Loko drinks? -Daniel
[2010-11-12 12:16:07] - http://willusingtheprefixcybermakemelooklikeanidiot.com/ -Paul
[2010-11-11 17:41:18] - haha. i didn't eat lunch until 4:00 and now i'm already hungry for dinner? weird. ~a
[2010-11-10 17:25:21] - http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadgets/11/10/on.like.donkey.kong/ sorry, i don't know... what happened to that link... will it work this time? - aaron
[2010-11-10 17:22:24] - http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadgets/11/10/on.like.donkey.kong/ nintendo seeks to trademark "it's on like donkey kong" - aaron
[2010-11-09 14:51:54] - Xpovos: Every time I see a commercial for Tron Legacy, I think Olivia Wilde is Natalie Portman. She really looks like her with that hairdo. -Paul
[2010-11-09 14:45:56] - Paul: David Warner was in B5 too as Aldous Gajic. I can see what TRON nearly bankrupted Disney. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-09 14:40:38] - Paul: Yeah. Jeff Bridges too. I tried to watch it late-80s early-90s, but fell asleep and never went back to it. I think I'd find it much more exciting now given how my knowledge of computer programming has increased since then. Also, I really want to watch it before Tron Legacy (2.0) comes out. And that looks fun. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-09 14:37:00] - Xpovos: Wow, I had no idea two Babylon 5 actors were in the original. Now I feel like I should watch it too. -Paul
[2010-11-09 14:33:09] - paul: silly paul, those things are only bad when bush does them. - mig
[2010-11-09 14:29:24] - http://fakescience.tumblr.com/ why do zebras have stripes? - aaron
[2010-11-09 14:29:16] - http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ A counter point to the original site which I have seen posted on some people's facebook walls. Obviously, there is some crude language which might not be SFW. -Paul
[2010-11-09 14:04:46] - Does anyone own a copy of Tron? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-09 13:42:48] - a: Are you planning frisbee this weekend or am I? -Paul
[2010-11-09 12:59:16] - Paul: That's what newsletters are for. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-09 12:54:40] - Pierce: Yes. Thank god signs are only used to make short, concise points instead of laying out entire belief systems. -Paul
[2010-11-09 12:29:43] - Those comments would both fit well on a sign
- pierce[2010-11-09 11:47:21] - death to businesses who suck at business! - mig
[2010-11-09 11:45:15] - Daniel: Let em burn. -Paul
[2010-11-09 11:37:16] - forgot a quote
[2010-11-09 11:37:09] - BofA troubles?
[2010-11-09 11:36:49] - aw href fail
[2010-11-09 11:36:42] - <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-04/bank-of-america-edges-closer-to-tipping-point-commentary-by-jonathan-weil.html>BofA troubles?</a> IF they did need it who supports more bank bailouts and who says let em burn! -Daniel
[2010-11-09 08:58:40] - aaron: Yeah, "Not in Love". I wasn't familiar with the original - can't say I liked it, but I thought the cover was really fun! - Stephen
[2010-11-09 07:56:59] - ha ha wait it had vocals. just weird distorted pitch shifted vocals that i couldn't understand. now that i'm listening to them, they might have even been the same lyrics. - aaron
[2010-11-09 07:54:58] - stephen: yeah i'm a fan! is it "not in love"? i just looked that one up on youtube... it's weird because they had an identical instrumental without vocals on their last album. good song though - aaron
[2010-11-08 21:06:08] - aaron: I forget, are you a Crystal Castles fan? If so, I just heard a cover they did of a Canadian 1980's song...Robert Smith of the Cure is the vocalist, bizarrely enough. - Stephen
[2010-11-08 16:54:56] - vinnie: i read it in one of those political threads on reddit, i thought it was a nice quote too. - aaron
[2010-11-08 16:42:23] - aaron: nice quote - vinnie
[2010-11-08 16:30:50] - "public elections are like being forced to choose between coke and pepsi when i just want a glass of water"
- aaron[2010-11-08 16:15:21] - xpovos: whoaaaaaaaaa creepy. sorry man. cockroaches are not my favorite insect - aaron
[2010-11-08 16:09:47] - My day just keeps getting better. Cockroaches in the office. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-08 15:00:27] - I can see it helping a bit in conjuction with stalkers and sentries because even if it doesn't do damage it does force mutas to move around a bit, costing them some attacking time. but the days of templars single-handedly holding back waves of mutas are long past. - mig
[2010-11-08 14:58:48] - paul: yes and no. Psi storm doesn't really require all that much effort to avoid, and you can actually just keep zig-zagging your mutas around until they blow all there storms. The design of psi storm for sc2 just makes it much better for masses of small ground units rather than air units. You have to be really, really, careless to lose mutas to high templars. - mig
[2010-11-08 14:51:34] - mig: I don't know if it's all that different from Thors, though. They also shouldn't technically work unless the zerg player is careless. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though. -Paul
[2010-11-08 14:42:51] - mig: it's just like, i rarely see mass void rays, 10-pooling, changelings in high level games, and i don't know why. they all seem useful to me but pros just don't even bother, and it's probably for some obvious reason i'm too noob to understand yet
- aaron[2010-11-08 14:40:37] - mig: yeah, i've seen the question asked on message boards and most people agreed that a combination of high templar, phoenix, and stalkers are supposed to handle mutalisks OK. i'm novice enough i can't really speak to it one way or the other. i've never seen mass muta in any high level game, i don't know why, i can only guess - aaron
[2010-11-08 14:34:04] - and I think Miguel might have been 2 of those on my side. -Danie
[2010-11-08 14:33:39] - For what its worth I think I've seen HT's or archons in a ladder game less than 5 times ever probably. -Daniel
[2010-11-08 14:22:12] - paul: true enough, if the zerg player is totally careless, or you make a really lucky guess at placing your storm. - mig
[2010-11-08 14:16:55] - mig: Fair enough, but a single HT can still do a lot of damage to huge groups of mutalisks. -Paul
[2010-11-08 14:04:39] - and you don't have a handy dark archon to stun them all for you, either. - mig
[2010-11-08 14:03:53] - paul: psi storm doesn't rock air units as much as it used to. - mig
[2010-11-08 14:01:41] - mig: Thor equivalent for Protoss? High Templar with Psi Storm. -Paul
[2010-11-08 13:51:56] - aaron: and yeah i've tried the whole sacrfice armored units like mauraders and tanks to the banelings, thing, but they always get through anyways and do inflict horrible damage to my marines. all they really need is 3 or 4 banelings and that's usually enough to kill a sizable portion of them- mig
[2010-11-08 13:37:48] - daniels: I think the big part of it is that mutas also benefit a lot more from stacking than other units. 50 stalkers can't all focus fire because there's not enough space (usually), but 50 mutas can all focus fire on the same target with no issues. Obviously thors discourage stacking like that, but protoss doesn't really have an equivalent. - mig
[2010-11-08 13:30:20] - mig: yeah!!! there was this video that kind of blew my mind where someone showed 8 sentries defending against 8 mutas, i will try to dig that up if you're skeptical. i know i would be. but sentries (with guardian shield obv) do really well against mutas. sentry/stalker with guardian shield does even better i bet, but the video didn't show that - aaron
[2010-11-08 13:29:18] - bunkers aren't a bad idea, but they're hard to incorporate into a push unless your zerg opponent just lets you do it. - mig
[2010-11-08 13:28:47] - mig: i've seen multiple pro-level games where a zerg sends in their 7-8 harassy mutas, the protoss warps in 7-8 stalkers, and the zerg runs away. maybe all pro-level zerg players are stupid, but it's how I see mutas work in ZvP. stalkers have "armor armor" right? it's not fake armor? doesn't that totally wreck any efficiency from the bounce shots? - aaron
[2010-11-08 13:27:44] - I forget exactly how well sentries do against but they do have very low health and cost just as much gas as mutas do. - mig
[2010-11-08 13:27:42] - Yeah I'm not as crazy as mass stalker as I once was. I think my macro has gotten better and if you focus fire you can do a lot of damage to them. -Daniel
[2010-11-08 13:27:07] - mig: i mean a baneling is 50 minerals 25 gas so unless one baneling takes multiple units, it's a terrible trade... rolling 15 banelings into a thor, or rolling 5 banelings into a bunker or supply depot might feel good, but wow, really bad deal for the zerg - aaron
[2010-11-08 13:24:36] - I still maintain that stalkers suck terribly against mutas. Mineral-wise maybe they aren't, but you can pump out mutas much faster and pretty much every experience I've had (both playing as zerg and against zerg) mass mutas just a+click steamroll the mass stalker. - mig
[2010-11-08 13:24:28] - mig: pretty much anything that's not a marine, right? vikings/marauders/seige tanks/bunkers/hellions/thors/ravens? well... maybe not ravens... can banelings outrun HSM? - aaron
[2010-11-08 12:59:33] - I'm not really sure what i'm supposed to do to protect my marines that are accompanying my thors from a fuckton of banelings rolling around with the speed upgrade. There's no way around it, i'm losing a ton of shit, and a wave of zerlings and mutas usually can finish off what's left. - mig
[2010-11-08 12:46:30] - mutas by themselves aren't really the issue. it's the combination of zerlings/banelings and mutas that gives a lot of Terran players problems. - mig
[2010-11-08 12:33:11] - i haven't seen any high-level T/P players GG because their opponent got one void ray, but i've seen a few zergs just call it right there. going to lair too early is just as bad, since if your opponent pushes you won't have enough of an army to hold them off. so it's difficult, you really have to scout their base effectively (which is also harder as zerg imho) - aaron
[2010-11-08 12:29:39] - paul: yeah, the only other zerg unit with anti-ground and anti-air capabilities are i guess infestors, and hydralisks? i think zerg just doesn't really have a good robust unit like marines/stalkers to mass up, it's one reason i find them so hard to play. if you go to lair tech too fast or too slow, you lose the game - aaron
[2010-11-08 12:02:14] - I'm also not crying imbal or anything, I just don't think it's accurate to claim that mutas are so powerful or that they are equivalents to marines because pretty much all they can do is harass. They can't stand up to almost any army that has anti-air. -Paul
[2010-11-08 12:00:49] - They killed a ton of stuff. Lots of SCVs, a few supply depots. I spent so long doing pretty much nothing but building marines and trying to hunt them down. Finally, my ally attacked them, forced the issue, and the mutas had to fight an actual army. They died quickly. -Paul
[2010-11-08 11:59:06] - Daniel: I agree somewhat. Mutas are definitely annoying and great at harassing. I distinctly remember one 2v2 game where a zerg player kept going from my main, to my ally's main, to his expo, to my expo, with my marines desperately trying to chase them down or outguess where they were going. -Paul
[2010-11-08 11:47:45] - daniel: so yeah i'm not crying imbal or whatever, but i'm just saying yeah mutas aren't really an equivalent to marines/stalkers where you'd amass them to use in any kind of viable high-level strategy - aaron
[2010-11-08 11:46:14] - daniel: i agree, although if i have 1,000 minerals worth of mutas and they have 1,000 minerals worth of thors, then they have somewhat of an army. if they can hold off my harass whatsoever, they have a 1,000 mineral advantage in any kind of battle. i think that's why pros don't go for too many mutas, just 5 or 6 where they don't hurt your army too much - aaron
[2010-11-08 11:04:40] - in general you don't want to have your muta cloud attack their bio ball out in the middle of their map. Either fly around and kill shit in their base or build some spine crawlers / banelings / whatever at your base and hvae your mutas defend with those. In a pitched battle in the middle of the map you give away mutas best attribute: their speed. -Daniel
[2010-11-08 11:00:05] - muta's give map control better than almost any other unit in the game. Thors can kill mutas very effectively but if you have Thor's at base 1 I go to base 2 and by the time your thors get to base 2 I simply leave and go to base 1. Then eventually you are forced to split your forces then the idea is you are weak enough to kill. -Daniel
[2010-11-08 10:58:21] - oops, well, here's the blog post with the correct XKCD link and some background info http://bieh.net/2010/11/08/xkcd-576/ - aaron
[2010-11-08 10:57:46] - some implemented the auto-buying bot from XKCD (http://xkcd.com/325/) ... here is the twitter feed http://twitter.com/trademe_xkcd576 - aaron
[2010-11-08 08:59:18] - aaron: Heh, so the zerg equivalent takes longer to get, is more expensive, and can't win battles? Sounds about right.
-Paul[2010-11-06 13:47:38] - paul: i guess my only point being, zerg kind of have an equivalent to mass marines/mass stalkers in mass mutas... but it's a little worse in some ways since it's higher tech, costlier in gas and pretty unlikely to win a "real battle" - aaron
[2010-11-06 13:46:05] - paul: yeah, daniel would probably chime in and point out that the same is true for mass stalkers. mass mutas do OK but protoss can counter them with stalkers or sentries. i think 1 sentry will actually beat 1 muta 1v1? if that's not true, sentries are still a lot cheaper and they definitely beat them for cost - aaron
[2010-11-05 17:52:38] - a: Those kinds of stories are pretty neat. It's one of the cool things about WebOS (the OS for my phone, which isn't a Blackberry), Palm (now HP) has been very hands off on people hacking the OS/overclocking the phone/etc. -Paul
[2010-11-05 17:13:35] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20021836-52.html stories like this warm my heart. my favorite part of the story was their response: double the payout! $2000! ~a
[2010-11-05 16:53:08] - Aaron: no no. I am only unemployed for the weekend.
~a[2010-11-05 16:40:33] - aaron: Yeah, although I think it goes beyond them just being anti-air. I still maintain that zerg have no real counter to mass-marines with appropriately timed stimpacks. Banelings come close, but they're nowhere near as good as helions are against zerglings or thors against mutas. -Paul
[2010-11-05 16:36:27] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/05/nbc-anchorman-suspended-donating-democrats I'm surprised MSNBC has a rule about not donating to political candidates. Olbermann is allowed to appear as biased as he wants to on the air but isn't allowed to donate? Seems odd to me. -Paul
[2010-11-05 16:02:48] - Speaking just from SC1 perspective, Marines are still among the most versatile units in the game. Decent health, small target which is good in some cases, bunching for mass fire power, stim pack and range upgrades, bunkerable, plus the obvious of being both anti-air and anti-ground. And very resource efficient, overall. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-05 15:44:02] - paul: but yeah marines, mutas, void rays, thors, hydras, arguably you can get enough of those to solve any problem... - aaron
[2010-11-05 15:36:05] - paul: ha ha
it's inarguably lopsided that the terran's T1 melee unit has anti-air capability. i don't mean it's unfair, i just mean it's different - aaron[2010-11-05 15:24:04] - http://i.imgur.com/g5d3v.jpg Heh, a funny (but predictable) "comic" regarding how some people think marines are a little too useful in all situations against zerg. I love the last "scene". -Paul
[2010-11-05 15:16:35] - a: did something go wrong with the contract? - aaron
[2010-11-05 15:12:34] - a: wait... what? are you coming to poker? i don't understand - aaron
[2010-11-05 15:06:35] - a: Congratulations? Don't expect me to take it easy on you at poker.
-Paul[2010-11-05 14:49:51] - a: x=eval("unemployed"=="self-employed");return x. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-05 14:43:24] - weeeeeee, i'm unemployed!
~a[2010-11-05 12:59:50] - ah, I dont know if you know Dave but he likes his books. I have started the Mistborn book... But havent made it far yet
~gurkie[2010-11-05 12:57:28] - gurkie: Brandon Sanderson. he's the author finishing up the Wheel of Time series and has a bunch of his own books that are good. -Daniel
[2010-11-05 12:43:55] - daniel: what author? ~gurkie
[2010-11-05 12:18:06] - a: I should be able to make it. Hopefully I will have a Miguel in tow. -Paul
[2010-11-05 11:00:41] - a: I can't saturday afternon
There is an author coming to town doing a book signing that I want to go to and I don't expect it to be quick cause he draws a fair number of people. -Daniel[2010-11-05 11:00:04] - i would be a very maybe. - mig
[2010-11-05 10:54:24] - also, mig and daniel: sup? we almost have a game. ~a
[2010-11-05 10:51:52] - paul: are you coming? we currently have six: aaron, me, tim, janie, janie's friend, mark mellinger, and mark t is a maybe. with you, that'd make seven-maybe-more. ~a
[2010-11-05 10:47:32] - amy and I can't make it. wes said he probably won't go either - vinnie
[2010-11-05 10:22:23] - a: Do we have enough for frisbee tomorrow? -Paul
[2010-11-05 09:50:59] - vinnie: metacritic calls it as 23% versus 56% which is more what i was expecting, well, i expected them both to be in the 20s... i really didn't think the jackass series would review very well - aaron
[2010-11-04 23:28:19] - heh 63% for Jackass 3D (fresh rating!) vs 9% for Saw 3D
- vinnie[2010-11-04 23:23:56] - aaron: yeah that sold out as soon as it went on sale. I get e-mails from the 930 club and it's been listed as sold out for months - vinnie
[2010-11-04 21:24:52] - title: i told you! ~a
[2010-11-04 20:19:53] - you think I am girthy
~hurkie[2010-11-04 18:09:14] - sad!! a live "la roux" performance came on my pandora station, and it occurred to me to check if she was touring. she's playing at the 930 club next wednesday and it's sold out! poot - aaron
[2010-11-04 18:07:54] - a: but... it's her girthday!
[2010-11-04 17:40:18] - a: The media likes reporting on the crazies. I read somewhere that the Deleware Senate race got the most coverage of any other race leading up to the election even though it was never really close. The reason? Crazy Tea Party Wiccan Lady, apprently. -Paul
[2010-11-04 17:23:11] - title: i don't think gurkie would be amused. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:22:11] - being=be. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:22:01] - i'm not trying to convert anyone. i'm just trying to being part of an awesome group. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:21:01] - yeah, i saw interviews on fox news of the rally. i couldn't watch the whole thing because it made me too sad. but it put a new light on the interviews of the tea parties that i watched. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:19:31] - a: If I understand you correctly, I think he addresses that later in the article when he says that if you really want to affect an election, you should basically try to convert other people before the election. -Paul
[2010-11-04 17:18:25] - http://www.reason.tv/video/show/restoring-sanity-rally A six minute video of interviews that reason tv conducted at the Stewart / Colbert rally. Obviously from a biased point of view, but I found at least half of it amusing. Sadly, Pierce was not featured on it. -Paul
[2010-11-04 17:18:02] - paul: awesome. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:17:28] - as another example: i edit wikipedia. i know that i'm making an insignificant impact on the state of the encyclopedia alone. but if you sum up me with all of the people who think like i do, it makes for a huge awesome encyclopedia. an encyclopedia that is somehow able to hold back the tide of bored vandals. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:16:29] - a: Although I tend to agree with #2 and #3, which is largely why I vote anymore and is one of the big arguments I use when people tell me voting for a third party is a wasted vote. -Paul
[2010-11-04 17:15:30] - i'm refuting the "voting is irrational" part. it's NOT irrational because the odds of influencing the outcome of an election alone are irrelevant. what's relevant: the odds of influencing the election as part of a group of like-minded individuals. ~a
[2010-11-04 17:10:41] - a: For #1, you're not necessarily refuting his point. The world is highly unlikely to hinge on whether or not a single person recycles, right? -Paul
[2010-11-04 16:43:50] - "We're probably all better off if we leave the voting to the informed and committed." disagree. the committed are (statistically) often old republicans who strongly disagree with me on almost all of the issues. ~a
[2010-11-04 16:39:38] - 2. winning the election isn't the only outcome. it's not like the election results are completely ignored past who wins. 3. if your vote changes the outcome of a future election (which is completely plausible), then you have successfully voted. ~a
[2010-11-04 16:38:03] - "Many of us know that voting is irrational. The odds of influencing the outcome of an election are vanishingly small." this is a failure argument. the same argument (or a similar argument) could be used to argue against recycling. 1. you're doing your part. you and a bunch of people who think like you do, COULD influence the election pretty easily. ~a
[2010-11-04 16:36:03] - aaron: Totally agree that it's next to impossible that my cuts would ever get passed, but I still wish the options were there, just so I could see just how small my ideal government would be. I wonder if I could get it back to where the government didn't need an income tax. -Paul
[2010-11-04 16:32:44] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/39970869 "It's Okay That You're Not Voting Today". Mostly for Miguel. -Paul
[2010-11-04 16:31:25] - president miguel will be very sad when he learns that there is no "self destruct" chip embedded in our military personnel for his political purposes because, yes it would be cool just to pull a lever and have no more military but it's not very practical, in the real world everything is done 30,000 people at a time and it takes forever - aaron
[2010-11-04 16:29:34] - paul: well, even 75% of the things on that list are unrealistic and you're asking for things that aren't on that list
i bet barack obama wishes he could just check a box that says "public option" and be done with it - aaron[2010-11-04 16:10:08] - mig: Heh, yeah. I started both games and quit pretty early on because I didn't like the limited choices. -Paul
[2010-11-04 16:08:04] - aaron: only those of us lucky enough to win the space lottery get the "win the space lottery" option.... ~gurkie
[2010-11-04 16:04:44] - "science our way out of this mess: -$100T" - vinnie
[2010-11-04 16:01:11] - mig: i know, i was looking for "win the space lottery" - aaron
[2010-11-04 15:36:17] - the options the crfb one gives me are quite limited. Where's "phase out social security and/or medicare" or "bring all the troops home". - mig
[2010-11-04 15:20:16] - oh I meant to add that I ended up at 40% and probably would have been impeached and kicked out of office - vinnie
[2010-11-04 15:19:37] - I started trying to get the debt to 60% and ended up slashing everything in the end, regardless of how I felt about it. yay. interesting that establishing a public option saves $40B in the budget. I figured it would save the gov't money, I didn't realize on what scale - vinnie
[2010-11-04 15:12:20] - xpovos: what's IE? - aaron
[2010-11-04 15:11:54] - aaron: And IE gave him 8.6%, right? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 15:10:49] - Stephen: oo, gotcha. Yeah I'm pretty sure I would get voted out too. I jacked taxes up a lot, definitely enough to get me kicked out of office I think. It would be nice to look at different people's answers to see how they made it happen. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 15:04:55] - It said the goal was to stabilize teh debt to 60% of GDP by 2018. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 15:01:35] - Stephen: Hmm? what stated goal now? Did I miss a post? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 15:00:39] - http://consumerist.com/2010/11/capital-one-made-me-different-loan-offers-depending-on-which-browser-i-used.html capital one made this guy a different loan rate depending on which browser he used... FireFox gave him 3.5%, Chrome gave him 2.3%
- aaron[2010-11-04 14:58:01] - Current replay gets me to 2066. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 14:54:53] - Daniel: I found it pretty easy to accomplish the stated goal, although I probably would have been defeated when I ran for reelection. I kind of think that's what this country needs, a large number of politicians who are willing to sacrifice their careers for the sake of the country. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 14:54:10] - mig: I really wish that were true (Republicans being done as a major party if they fail this time), but I see no reason to think that. Social conservatives aren't going anywhere and the small government types haven't shown an ability to learn their lesson. -Paul
[2010-11-04 14:47:32] - Using BH I 'saved the budget from going bust until 2040' using my answers from about this time a year ago. They're updated now. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 14:45:34] - http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/budget_hero/ -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 14:39:15] - Daniel: Seems similar to "Budget Hero" at NPR/Marketplace. I like these tools, because they're perfect for simple education of the masses about very difficult real problems. Not so great for actually solving them, but at least the scope of the problem is more obvious. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 14:33:05] - http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/ Fun tool to try and balance the budget! And by Fun I mean "fun". It would be better if you could export the results somehow though. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 14:32:23] - stephen: you might get your wish. Honestly, if the republicans fail to live up to their rhetoric this time around I think they are done as a major party. - mig
[2010-11-04 14:31:24] - a: Sadly, I missed it. I might have to start recording the Colbert Report again. -Paul
[2010-11-04 14:23:52] - Daniel: More or less. Nothing the last two years has made me like the Republicans any more, but I've certainly become disillusioned with the Democrats. If only we had a multi-party system like, oh, basically every other industrialized democracy. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 13:57:57] - mig: Maybe overt, but I think the Republicans do worse with their actions. But, maybe that's just me being a dissatisfied conservative-type? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 13:53:47] - mig: hmm, maybe, although i think republicans were more overt in their contempt for their leaders than democrats - aaron
[2010-11-04 13:51:49] - xpovos: neither don't, although maybe it's just recent events that I'm basing this on, but it seems that the democrats are much more overt in their contempt for their base than republicans. - mig
[2010-11-04 13:50:36] - xpovos: let's just hope the party numbers have easy names to spell or they might not get any votes
- aaron[2010-11-04 13:50:30] - Stephen: "than actually being progressive" makes it sound like you want progressives but it sounded like you don't want to vote D because they aren't being progressive enough? Is that correct? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 13:48:41] - Stephen: I don't think either party treats their base very well. The thought is, "your my base, who else are you going to vote for?". Republicans got some TP backlash as a result. I'm curious to see if there's a similar progressive style revolt in a few more years. It might take a while, TP took 8 years of Bush and Obama to really get going. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 13:45:08] - mig: or sob story
I just resent being told that I oppose something because I am either a) stupid, or b) a closet conservative. - Stephen[2010-11-04 13:38:44] - stephen: rhetoric? it sounded more like a sob story to me. - mig
[2010-11-04 13:32:20] - Or this constant "people just don't understand the good things that we are giving them" rhetoric, like there aren't any intelligent reasons to oppose a Democratic party more concerned about keeping power than actually being progressive. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 13:31:32] - Paul: The obvious lie that the health care bill wasn't going to cost taxpayers, or the fact that the public option wasn't even thrown out there so that the Democrats could "compromise" down to what they passed. Or cloaking a bailout of the auto industry in green terms (cash for clunkers).
[2010-11-04 13:30:53] - mig: you bring up a good point. however, (as i've said before) it's hard to distinguish between being dissatisfied and staying home with being apathetic and staying home. ~a
[2010-11-04 13:30:40] - aaron: the story was that nobody could spell her name and you were required to spell her name correctly
~a[2010-11-04 13:29:00] - a: ha ha what was the story there? just that a write-in candidate is potentially going to win the alaska senate election? i think that hasn't happened since what strom thurmond? - aaron
[2010-11-04 13:24:56] - a: I know your Representative was facing an Independent Green opponent, at least. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 13:18:32] - a: I would submit that not voting is a much more effective gesture than leaving the ballot blank. What was a story of this election: dissasitisfied democratic voters from 2008 staying home. What was a story in 2006 and 2008: dissasitified republican voters from 2000-2004 staying home. - mig
[2010-11-04 13:15:31] - i like colbert's rundown of the write-in results in the alaska senate election on tuesday night. did anybody see that? ~a
[2010-11-04 13:08:30] - I voted for a school board too. Candidate was unopposed. I wrote-in. I'm not going to vote for a candidate I know nothing about. It's bad enough I have to vote for the ones I do know about and hate. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 13:00:26] - paul: i forget. maybe. that's a good question. ~a
[2010-11-04 13:00:13] - mig: no. leaving it blank was my suggestion to you instead of not-voting. ~a
[2010-11-04 12:50:59] - a: You couldn't write-in? I've chosen the write-in option a number of times in past elections. -Paul
[2010-11-04 12:48:23] - a: is leaving it blank such a shocking choice? - mig
[2010-11-04 12:40:15] - stephen: oh, on tuesday i only had the choice of a democrat, republican, or leaving the section blank. ~a
[2010-11-04 12:36:36] - Stephen: I can understand (and agree with the priorities), but what tactics have you been upset with? -Paul
[2010-11-04 12:35:39] - a: Heh, not a "bad", really. Just pointing out that I agree that it was a nice misrepresentation. -Paul
[2010-11-04 12:35:34] - a: You're assuming that I voted for the Republicans, who I like even less than the Democrats. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 12:27:07] - stephen: i assume you've been upset with the tactics/priorities of their opponents less? ~a
[2010-11-04 12:25:16] - paul: my bad. ~a
[2010-11-04 12:21:06] - Paul: Maybe I"m not like most liberals, but I didn't vote for the Democrats on Tuesday b/c I've been so upset with their tactics and their priorities over the last few years. - Stephen
[2010-11-04 12:16:10] - yeah, I read the 2008 elections as more of a "Bush's wars suck, Bush's power grabs suck, Bush's bailouts suck" not, "we need health care right now!" It certainly was prominent in Obama's campaign, but I have doubts that it was a major driving force among voters in '08. - mig
[2010-11-04 12:10:39] - Daniel: The best reason I could give you is that they might not increase spending as fast as the Democrats (and yes, I realize that's basically a "they aren't Obama" argument). -Paul
[2010-11-04 12:07:31] - gurvos: Agreed on both points, but I don't recall hearing about any major movements for health care reform before Obama was elected and I don't recall it showing up as a major issue in polls either. I'm sure it was important to certain segments, but it didn't seem to be an issue for the country as a whole. -Paul
[2010-11-04 12:06:32] - Thats what I was looking for in the begining. A thought out reason for why to vote republican and not just a well they aren't obama and here is whats bad about him kind of thing. I get that that has its place, I was just looking for pro republican reasons. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 12:05:14] - I don't think the govt has policy tools that promote growth and help people succeed that are different from the ones that an individual (or state/local gov) has. Therefore if an individual(or state/local gov) wants to support those goals they can take action themselves instead of paying taxes to support those goals
[2010-11-04 12:04:38] - So I asked my original question on another board as well and finally got around to something that was kind of like what I was hoping to see. I think I'm currently less interested in why not democrats and was looking for why republicans. so the paragraph i got to eventually was:
[2010-11-04 11:45:18] - vinnie: But that's not == to health care reform. Most people want that in some fashion because they perceive it as a corrupt system, or too expensive, or just too (insert reason). And there are plenty to insert. They just want to reform that, and leave the rest as-is. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 11:41:38] - well, paul is right in a sense. ~half the people in this country don't want public health care, then or now - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:40:14] - Paul: another part is that most of your friends have health insurance and you dont have many friends who are out of work and facing medical issues... I think there is a lot more demand for it than you seem to think. ~gurkie
[2010-11-04 11:38:04] - Paul: Part of that is you knowing a younger population. Health care reform is a major issue for people more advanced in years. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 11:32:39] - Vinnie: Interesting. I definitely agree that Obamacare is important to his legacy, but in the climate of 2008 (economic problems, two wars), I felt like there were other, more pressing issues. I also didn't feel like there was a huge demand for health care reform among the population at that specific time. -Paul
[2010-11-04 11:25:37] - paul: yeah I would agree with that. the climate probably isn't right yet for public health care, which is why the final bill ended up being so chopped up. and by going after that first, it hurt his chances of doing other things - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:24:37] - vinnie: Ok, that's a fair point. He definitely threw that out as a bargaining chip to be used in the energy debate specifically to draw in Republicans. He took it back, but I'll grant that it was because of extraordinary circumstances. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 11:24:05] - paul: in retrospect, not sure because Obamacare ended up being so watered down (more concessions), but in 2008 I would have said health care was way more important to push first than Guantanamo or repealing DADT. ending the wars was a big issue to me too though, probably as important as health care - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:19:08] - Vinnie: I think he wasted a TON of political capital pushing through something that I didn't think there was a huge demand for and which had a decent chance of not helping the economy instead of doing less grand (in terms of legacy), but also less politically harmful things like "cleaning up" government or closing guantanamo. -Paul
[2010-11-04 11:17:12] - xpovos: offshore drilling for one, though I guess you could say that this wasn't a concession for him and maybe just what he wanted to do. at the time, I certainly thought it was a concession to get support for something else - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:16:41] - a: Hence the smile. I actually originally went more over the top, but was worried somebody might take me seriously and get us off topic. -Paul
[2010-11-04 11:15:41] - Vinnie: Yeah, I know a lot of democrats are upset with him (and good for them), but I was more wondering why my friends didn't seem as disappointed. Also, do you think it made more sense to try to push through Obamacare upfront (during a recession) rather than ending guantanamo or the wars? -Paul
[2010-11-04 11:13:56] - paul: "if you hate guns" nice misrepresentation there. i actually love guns. on the other hand, there are a few things that the NRA and i disagree on. ~a
[2010-11-04 11:13:35] - Aaron: I guess I am confused. Who was forcing him to make concessions on those things (5 days of public comments, reducing earmarks)? As far as I can tell, he just made empty promises that he had no desire to follow up on. -Paul
[2010-11-04 11:11:07] - vinnie: What concessions? From what I saw most of the concessions he had to make were with Democrats, not Republicans. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 11:09:25] - mig: and yes, it's infuriating that he is perpetuating the wars, won't give him any slack on that. at least he's in the right country this time - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:09:23] - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/0925/US-seeks-to-dismiss-suit-filed-for-radical-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki - mig
[2010-11-04 11:07:55] - but even I have been fairly disappointed by the way he handled negotiations with Republicans. way too many concessions for not enough gain - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:07:22] - stuff like that. politifact is a good site for keeping track, but he made a lot of campaign promises about "cleaning up washington" and whatever, and he hasn't really been able to 100% keep those promises and still get stuff done - aaron
[2010-11-04 11:06:41] - paul: yeah other than like, the public option thing, there was like 5 days of public comment before signing bills, reducing earmarks, - aaron
[2010-11-04 11:05:57] - paul: don't know how many liberal sites you read, but Obama's low approval ratings aren't coming entirely from R's. he's getting flack for a lot of things you pointed out. personally, I'm willing to give him until the end of his term to do the things he promised, because some don't politically make sense to do upfront - vinnie
[2010-11-04 11:04:29] - i'm sure fox news made a bigger deal out of the muslim cleric assassination than they did of bush's civil rights abuses but i wouldn't find it perplexing. i'd find it... obvious - aaron
[2010-11-04 11:03:52] - Aaron: Maybe, but his party controlled both branches of government with filibuster proof majorities for some of the time. If Obama doesn't deserve the blame, than the rest of the Democrats do. Besides, where did he have to compromise his ideals other than possibly Obamacare? -Paul
[2010-11-04 11:03:40] - that by of itself may not an issue, but there's no real check or accountability on this power, but essentially we have to take Obama on his word that this guy is bad and needs to die for the sake of our national security. - mig
[2010-11-04 11:03:23] - mig: democrats were screaming bloody murder about the bush civil rights abuses, and democrats are giviing obama a pass... are you really perplexed by this? or are you being sarcastic - aaron
[2010-11-04 11:02:17] - daniel: obama essentially put out a "hit" on an american citizen who's living as a muslim cleric in the middle east somewhere. - mig
[2010-11-04 11:00:04] - I respect organizations like the ACLU still being active in their criticism, and people like Feingold and Ron Paul as well, but a lot of dems have been hypocritically silent about this. - mig
[2010-11-04 10:59:16] - ' assassination thing' ?? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:58:48] - also considering how much people were screaming bloody murder about the Bush civil rights abuses I'm a little perplexed why people are giving Obama such a pass considering that he has not only continued those same abuses, but gone beyond what Bush has done in some cases (the assassination thing being a major one). - mig
[2010-11-04 10:56:15] - I think Guantanamo is a fair knock. I think he promised to close it then discovered how hard it would actually be to do that when no one else in the world (literally) wanted those people. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:55:16] - maybe they could have accomplished some of the things we're talking about here if they had picked different targets but, i think the economy and health care are more important than DADT/gay marriage, because they affect everybody and not just the 5% of america who's gay and wants to get married or enlist in the military - aaron
[2010-11-04 10:55:11] - Palin said they wouldn't prohibit visitation or signing of contracts. I think civil unions would give gay couples more rights like end of life decisions and default legal standards like if your partner dies you are first in line for their estate rather than your partner's sister. I think there are signifigant differences to be legally equivalent to married. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:54:17] - paul: as miguel would point out, obama only passed a lot of his changes after compromising on a lot of his ideals on things like back door dealings, "open government", etc... so, i don't know. i think they got a lot done honestly in the last few years. - aaron
[2010-11-04 10:43:30] - Daniel: I just don't understand because I support a lot of the social issues that my liberal friends support, and which Democrats are supposed to also support. When the Rs got crushed in 2008, I was hopeful for some positive change in at least a few areas and instead I've seen virtually no difference, so I wonder why my liberal friends are giving the Ds a pass. -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:40:01] - Daniel: I guess that's probably true, although that seems like semantics to me. Is there something special that civil unions provide over what McCain/Palin were advocating? -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:33:57] - a: And for stem cell research, I believe there was a common misconception that Bush banned stem cell research when he really just cut federal funding. I guess that's technically restricting the research, but that seems like a technicality. -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:33:31] - Basically, I just had so much personal animosity against the person who happened to be my Democrat candidate that it overwhelmed my (still very impressive) animosity against the Republican. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 10:32:48] - Paul: I dont think Obama supports gay MARRIAGE but I think he supports gay civil unions to be legally indinstuighable from marriage. The different being the religious aspects. Thats how I understood his position to be. However I don't think he has done anything on that front because the economy and healthcare were his priorities. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:32:42] - To answer Daniel's initial question, I end up voting for Republicans occasionally because of a handful of social issues--but usually only because the Democrat made an issue of it. In this election I voted for a Republican because I voted against the Democrat two-years ago, because I thought he was an awful candidate. He won in spite of my vote, of course. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 10:31:32] - a: Gun trade: Definitely agree with you here. If you hate guns, the Ds are the party to support.
-Paul[2010-11-04 10:31:14] - Paul: during the last two years? I think they were pretty busy. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:30:30] - that doesn't agree with it = that doesn't agree with ending DADT. -Daniel edit
[2010-11-04 10:30:16] - a: Same thing with gay marriage. The Obama campaign didn't even talk about supporting gay marriage. I agree that they probably are more likely to support it in the future , but I would also be a little dismayed that they were presented a golden opportunity to do something the past two years and punted on it. -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:29:56] - paul: I guess I believe that Obama wants to end DADT and is working towards it but is trying to be pragmatic about it to not super piss off the part of the country that doesn't agree with it. If he doesn't get it done then I think you would be right that it should be a mark against him. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:28:32] - paul: Free Speech, R's seem much more willing to censor the arts than D's. I can see if you think campaign finance laws are bad how that could come out as a wash. What are the hate speech laws that D's champion? I'm unaware of those I guess. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:28:03] - Huh, or actually time-stamps have most of it from this morning, so I'm just late to the party. Woo. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 10:26:11] - I missed most of the fun conversation, it looks. Sorry. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-04 10:25:06] - a: DADT: Probably also agree there, although they had two years to do it and haven't succeeded yet. Like Guantanamo, I wonder why people are giving Obama and the Dems such a pass here. -Paul
prev <-> next