• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Pit Politics Thread

RJKarl said:
You mentioned had "excessive regulations". What I said was in spite of those "excessive regulations", CA still has the 8th/9th biggest economy in the world.

CA is surrounded by very low regulation states of NV and AZ. Those two states have cheaper everything than CA, yet they haven't made serious inroads.

If the regs were so bad, many more companies would have left.
Click to expand...


I thought that saying California had some out of control regulations was pretty uncontroversial. I don't think your argument really follows. The size of the economy is irrelevant to whether or not regulations are excessive. No one is suggesting that excessive regulations would shrink the economy down to zero, so just citing an absolute size number doesn't say much. I'll try and find some numbers, but I've read recently that many companies are leaving California or relocating some operations out of the state b/c the regulatory burden is much higher there than in most states.
 
timdunkandthefunk said:
Did you notice the weird throat clearing grunt he made 400 times? First time I heard it I couldn't stop hearing it.
Click to expand...

Throat clearing is a tell-tale sign for somebody that knows they are lying. THE MORE YOU KNOW! (this is where a star would shoot from right to left if I controlled the internet)
 
the fact checkers are having a field day with Ryan's speech.
 
Wow, Herman Cain on the Daily Show. I hope he was kidding when he said the reason polls indicate that Romney gets very little support from the black community is because they're all out working when the pollsters call. It sure didn't seem like he was kidding.

It's incredible to think that for a brief moment, conservatives preferred him as their candidate over the guy they eventually picked.
 
I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not.

Legitimate criticism of polls all though when used properly, they shake out at the end.
 
I came across this article from PLoS ONE the other day that delves into the psychology of libertarians. I haven't read it closely yet, but it seems interesting and worth sharing here. From the abstract:

Libertarians are an increasingly prominent ideological group in U.S. politics, yet they have been largely unstudied. Across 16 measures in a large web-based sample that included 11,994 self-identified libertarians, we sought to understand the moral and psychological characteristics of self-described libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions that accompany this unique worldview. Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes.
Click to expand...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
 
Knight said:
Would you agree that it would be possible to sort people into two groups based on their relationship to regulation?

One group of people that benefit from regulation (lawyers, engineers, politicians, most government employees, etc.).

Another group of people who are subject to those regulations (builders, mnaufacturers, natural resource harvesters, restaurant owners, servers, retailers, etc.)

Your smart enough to see where I'm going with this, but I appreciate a thoughtful answer.
Click to expand...


The groups are not that easily divisible. Many people and businesses in this country can and do strongly object to regulations that make their lives/businesses harder or less profitable, and at the exact same time strongly support regulation that protects their lives/businesses at the expense of some other group or business. A concrete example: Downtown Greensboro restaurants. As a group, the owners of these restaurants have in the past objected to restrictions on outdoor dining, sidewalk use, parking requirements, and noise ordinances. However, now some people want to operate food trucks downtown, and a sizable group of the existing restaurants are up in arms arguing that the food trucks need to be regulated out of downtown.

There is a name for this. It's called "rent-seeking."
 
Mods can lock posters out of individual threads, right? Since Buckets created the thread, he should just be able to PM a poster's id to a mod when he deems they're out of line and on we go... Those that get booted can scurry back to the partisan mosh pit of the tunnels...
 
DCDeac said:
Mods can lock posters out of individual threads, right? Since Buckets created the thread, he should just be able to PM a poster's id to a mod when he deems they're out of line and on we go... Those that get booted can scurry back to the partisan mosh pit of the tunnels...
Click to expand...

Not easily, no.
 
Gipper Deac said:
So how you think Romney is going to do on his speech tonight?
Click to expand...

Given the considerable backlash toward last night's Ryan speech and its misleading/deceptive tone, Romney's message will likely be that much more focused on a positive angle of what he plans to do, rather than what Obama hasn't done.

I'm sure it will be an adequate speech that will excite the base. I can't imagine one Romney speech alone will do anything to convince undecided independents (same for Obama in two weeks). I imagine those people will be keeping their eye on the debates to make their decision.
 
Gipper Deac said:
So how you think Romney is going to do on his speech tonight?
Click to expand...
He really needs to shake the Tin Man label. Throughout the primaries he had a few decent jokes (Costanza) but his overall inability to empathize with Americans ('couple of Cadillacs' and 'not concerned about the very poor' soundbytes come to mind) is going to crush him. WakeandBake had a great line that Romney couldn't sell weed at Lollapalooza. Hopefully he can at a minimum empathize with the Hurricane Isaac victims in his speech tonight.
 
Here's what cracked me up about the whole Clint Eastwood thing - other than the fact that he just seemed like someone's drunk grandfather who wandered onto the stage: for the past decade or so, the right and especially the conservative media have fallen all over themselves to connect the left with Hollywood and use it as an example for how Democrats and their Hollywood buddies are out of touch with average Americans.

Then the RNC taps Clint freaking Eastwood (aka Charlton Heston lite) to help introduce their candidate for President on the biggest night of the year for the party. It just struck me as strange. Not as strange as the empty chair gimmick, but still strange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top