Nevada Senate 2010: Reid vs. Angle

[Snowboarder Bo]

Issue#1 Forcing through bills without allowing them to be read.

Ok, so it was multiple bills that he pushed through without allowing them to be read? Which ones?

Issue#2 Thinking the government has the right to force citizens to purchase health care.

Just because they both happened on one bill doesn't mean they are the same issue. I didn't like it when the Republicans tried the tactic of forcing bills through without allowing the Democrats to read them either.

Homeowner's insurance is not mandated in my state, If you get a home-loan, the bank will have you purchase insurance as part of the loan deal, but there is no government mandate. If my state tried to mandate home-owners insurance, I would be against it.

I am opposed to government mandated auto insurance. Our founding fathers would have shot anyone who tried to do this to their means of transportation. Insurance is just a way of using fear and/or uncertainty to get people to gamble against themselves. If people choose to do this - fine, it is their choice. We don't, however live in the United Insurance-ocracy of America, in spite of the efforts of insurance companies to insinuate themselves into legislation.

Do you like Harry Reid?

Yes.

Why?

Well, for one thing, he's been doing a great job as senator from Nevada for over 20 years now. He's well acquainted with the issues which affect our state and citizens, and he has the clout to get things done. Also, he's not a raving lunatic or evil. He's a soft-spoken, intelligent person and I like that in a person who's going to represent my interests.

Are you just interested in what he can give your state?

Not "just" that, but primarily that, yes. See, that's what it is to vote for a state senator or representative. That's their primary job, is to represent their constituency. How strange that you seem to not know that.

Do you actually think that an independant business should be able to force citizens to purchase their wares?
Nope, and that's not what happened here. The government is mandating insurance be purchased, but not from whom.

And FTR, I'm not really thrilled with that aspect of the HCR bill. I'd rather I was just taxed appropriately and we had SPHC.

By the way, were you as upset about Halliburton and KBR forcing us to buy their wares by threatening the country with imminent death and destruction back in 1991-92?

[Enuma Elish]

Ok, so it was multiple bills that he pushed through without allowing them to be read? Which ones?
Since you are just being snarky, and have completely ignored that my point was about 'the perception of Harry Reid'., I can only assume you are not interested in an honest debate.

Yes. Again - a snarky response.


Well, for one thing, he's been doing a great job as senator from Nevada for over 20 years now. He's well acquainted with the issues which affect our state and citizens, and he has the clout to get things done. Also, he's not a raving lunatic or evil. He's a soft-spoken, intelligent person and I like that in a person who's going to represent my interests.

So its all about power and perception. I see. You would rather serve under a soft-spoken polite dictator than a loud bombastic representative. (I don't really expect you to answer this question, I'm just curious how you like having your words parsed out and turned against you. Does it feel good? Because I have looked at a few of your posts and see that this is your method of operation.)

Not "just" that, but primarily that, yes. See, that's what it is to vote for a state senator or representative. That's their primary job, is to represent their constituency. How strange that you seem to not know that.

Again - more snark and rude assumption-making.

Nope, and that's not what happened here. The government is mandating insurance be purchased, but not from whom.

That makes no difference to my wallet. Again, you are parsing and snarking.

And FTR, I'm not really thrilled with that aspect of the HCR bill. I'd rather I was just taxed appropriately and we had SPHC.

By the way, were you as upset about Halliburton and KBR forcing us to buy their wares by threatening the country with imminent death and destruction back in 1991-92?

Give me details on what you mean specifically and I may comment, but probably not, because I see what you are about and have lost interest in you.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Enuma, asking for clarification isn't snarky, nor is answering a yes or no question with a yes or a no.

So far, you've listed one bill, and it's method of passage, that bothers you about Harry Reid. You then made the claim that there were other bills that had been passed in a similar manner, and that you were bothered by them. How is it snarky to ask which bills? Is it because you really have no other issues, despite your claim that you do?

I like how you call me dishonest, when clearly the only one not participating with any degree of honesty is you.

Actually, the fact that the government didn't mandate where you buy your health care does matter to your wallet, as you are now free to shop around and find the insurance that best fits your budget; i.e. you can buy the cheapest insurance or the most expensive as either will satisfy the requirements of the law.

If you'd like to come back and have a discussion, I'll be here. Judging from the tone of your last post, tho, you aren't and you won't.

[Enuma Elish]

Seriously dude?

My initial post was about my perception of Harry Reid and how many voters in his state perceive him.

Do you know the difference between perception and fact? Do you know what causes one person to have an emotional response to another person? Do you know what feelings are?

They are not facts - and they cannot be explained by facts. All of your facts about Harry Reid may be true, but he is still in danger of being voted out of office in favor of a complete idiot. Why? Because no matter what Reid did or didn't do for his state or for the country, the perception is that when he finally came into a position of power, he wielded it with a fanatic's fervor - stifling debate, demeaning his opponents intelligence, ignoring the call of freedom in the hearts of many of his constituents and acting as if he was so overcome by a love of power that many see him as a classic Roman Senator.

The FACT that you are incapable of perceiving this lead me to believe that you were being intentionally snarky. If you weren't, I apologize.

The fact is, though, you have never addressed my comment about 'the widely held perception' of Harry Reid and until you do so (not in terms of fact, but in terms of feeling), I think that you are not being honest in this discussion.

Oh, and just to be fair, if I lived in your state, I would not vote for Reid. I would also not vote for Angle. Mine would be one of those amorphous votes that wasn't earned by either major candidate.

And one other thing - telling someone that they have to do something, but saying that they have the choice in how it is done is not an actual choice. This is the kind of slave-owner-thought that kept that ugly institution alive for far too long.

If you don't understand this then may God have mercy on your soul.

[Fear Itself]

If you don't understand this then may God have mercy on your soul.Which god?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Seriously dude?

My initial post was about my perception of Harry Reid and how many voters in his state perceive him.

Do you know the difference between perception and fact? Do you know what causes one person to have an emotional response to another person? Do you know what feelings are?

They are not facts - and they cannot be explained by facts. All of your facts about Harry Reid may be true, but he is still in danger of being voted out of office in favor of a complete idiot. Why? Because no matter what Reid did or didn't do for his state or for the country, the perception is that when he finally came into a position of power, he wielded it with a fanatic's fervor - stifling debate, demeaning his opponents intelligence, ignoring the call of freedom in the hearts of many of his constituents and acting as if he was so overcome by a love of power that many see him as a classic Roman Senator.

The FACT that you are incapable of perceiving this lead me to believe that you were being intentionally snarky. If you weren't, I apologize.

Come on, Enuma. There's no fact of me being incapable of perceiving anything, except the answer to my question, and that's only because you haven't given me one.

You wrote:

Issue#1 Forcing through bills without allowing them to be read.

When I ask what bills, you listed one. The word "bills" is plural, indicating more than one. When I ask you which other bills, you start in with name calling.

I'll ask again: what other bills, besides the HCR bill, did Harry Reid do this with?

The fact is, though, you have never addressed my comment about 'the widely held perception' of Harry Reid and until you do so (not in terms of fact, but in terms of feeling), I think that you are not being honest in this discussion.

I really don't have anything to say about a supposedly widely held perception of Harry Reid. I don't even know that it exists. But I do know that you have this perception, because you said so:

Harry Reid strikes me as someone who has grown to love power so much that he feels he is entitled to it.

So, I'm curious as to why you have this perception. That's what prompted this, remember?

Oh, and just to be fair, if I lived in your state, I would not vote for Reid. I would also not vote for Angle. Mine would be one of those amorphous votes that wasn't earned by either major candidate.

And one other thing - telling someone that they have to do something, but saying that they have the choice in how it is done is not an actual choice. This is the kind of slave-owner-thought that kept that ugly institution alive for far too long.

If you don't understand this then may God have mercy on your soul.
No, it's really not at all like the slave-owner thing, since slaves couldn't vote on who owned them, and besides, I've never seen a bill of sale that I was bought by my senator, or representative, or President, or even my city's mayor.

Rest assured that if God existed, he would not have mercy on my soul. I'd make sure that wasn't an option for him, as I think Hell's got all the good bands, anyway.*

But look, can you just put aside all the name-calling and obfuscation and answer the question about which other bills Harry Reid got passed without letting them be read? Please?





*That's a joke, eh. It's a line from an old song by The Flaming Lips called Ode To C.C. Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qshJsAeC4XI)

[Enuma Elish]

Fear Itself - I'm askaird of ever crossing a Moperator. Whatever god you choose.

Snowboarder Bo - namecalling? What namecalling? Please be specific. I think the things you have said and implied about me are much worse than anything I have said or implied about you. And you still haven't answered my question. I am talking about perceptions. You are talking about facts. Do you know the difference? If you are incapable of answering because you are a 'factual-based' person, just say so. We can agree to disagree.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Fear Itself - I'm askaird of ever crossing a Moperator. Whatever god you choose.

Snowboarder Bo - namecalling? What namecalling? Please be specific. I think the things you have said and implied about me are much worse than anything I have said or implied about you. And you still haven't answered my question. I am talking about perceptions. You are talking about facts. Do you know the difference? If you are incapable of answering because you are a 'factual-based' person, just say so. We can agree to disagree.

You're stalling again.

Which bills, besides the HCR bill, has Harry Reid gotten passed without letting them be read, that helped form this perception of him that you have?

Yes, I know the difference between perception and fact. I also know that perceptions are formed, they don't spring into being all by themselves. I'm trying to find out what shaped your perception.

[Enuma Elish]

Sigh.

No, I'm not stalling. I am attempting to communicate with you about the nature of elections.

You remind me of my oldest brother. He also thinks he is always right. He also thinks he has the right to control any argument on his own limited terms. He also only thinks only in terms of intellectual capacity and what he thinks are facts. If he perceives someone to be above his intelligence, he will freely engage in conversation, because he thinks he might learn something from them and in his intellectually competitive nature, use what he learns from them to surpass them so he can dismiss them as intellectually inferior.

If he feels someone is beneath his intellectual capacity, he will often be completely dismissive of them because he has no idea that intelligence manifests itself in any other way than what he can perceive. Because of this he is often shocked and insulted when events turn out in a way he doesn't understand.

Elections are very rarely about facts. They are about perceptions and feelings. Your states Senatorial election could go either way. The reasons for such a close race are beyond your ken because you, like Harry Reid, are incapable of understanding the ways in which you are insulting to other people, very much like the way Herry Reid is incapable of understanding the ways in which he insults other people.

Harry Reid was a leader in forcing through a bill which takes basic freedoms away from the American people. He doesn't understand how insulting it is to a very large swath of Americans to be told:"You HAVE TO purchase something because WE tell you that you have to. You do not have the right to not purchase it" This time it is insurance. What will it be the next time?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Sigh.

No, I'm not stalling. I am attempting to communicate with you about the nature of elections.

You remind me of my oldest brother. He also thinks he is always right. He also thinks he has the right to control any argument on his own limited terms. He also only thinks only in terms of intellectual capacity and what he thinks are facts. If he perceives someone to be above his intelligence, he will freely engage in conversation, because he thinks he might learn something from them and in his intellectually competitive nature, use what he learns from them to surpass them so he can dismiss them as intellectually inferior.

If he feels someone is beneath his intellectual capacity, he will often be completely dismissive of them because he has no idea that intelligence manifests itself in any other way than what he can perceive. Because of this he is often shocked and insulted when events turn out in a way he doesn't understand.

Elections are very rarely about facts. They are about perceptions and feelings. Your states Senatorial election could go either way. The reasons for such a close race are beyond your ken because you, like Harry Reid, are incapable of understanding the ways in which you are insulting to other people, very much like the way Herry Reid is incapable of understanding the ways in which he insults other people.

Harry Reid was a leader in forcing through a bill which takes basic freedoms away from the American people. He doesn't understand how insulting it is to a very large swath of Americans to be told:"You HAVE TO purchase something because WE tell you that you have to. You do not have the right to not purchase it" This time it is insurance. What will it be the next time?

But you said there were multiple bills he forced through which he did not let people read. What other bills, besides HCR, did he do this for?

[twickster]

...
Elections are very rarely about facts. They are about perceptions and feelings. Your states Senatorial election could go either way. The reasons for such a close race are beyond your ken because you, like Harry Reid, are incapable of understanding the ways in which you are insulting to other people, very much like the way Herry Reid is incapable of understanding the ways in which he insults other people.


Whereas you, presumably, are conscious of the ways you insult other people, and are doing so deliberately here?

I'm not going to issue a warning here, but I do recommend that you dial it back.

twickster, 2010 Elections moderator

[gonzomax]

But you said there were multiple bills he forced through which he did not let people read. What other bills, besides HCR, did he do this for?

That is standard operating procedure. The Repubs jammed lots of bills through during Bush without permitting the senate or the house to read them. Why is it wrong for Reid, if he did it, and right for the Repubs.
The bills do not suddenly appear. They are thrashed over in committee with both sides represented. The party members are kept up with the procedings. They do not appear on the floor in a puff of smoke.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Sigh.


Harry Reid was a leader in forcing through a bill which takes basic freedoms away from the American people. He doesn't understand how insulting it is to a very large swath of Americans to be told:"You HAVE TO purchase something because WE tell you that you have to. You do not have the right to not purchase it" This time it is insurance. What will it be the next time?

At this point it would behoove you to admit that you were talking about only one BILL, and there are no other examples of other bills, and you typed the extra "S" in BILLS in error.

[gonzomax]

That's the implication, though, isn't it? Having a powerful senator gets you pork in your district and favorable treatment compared to other regions. Which is great, if you only give a shit about yourself and your area - that's how our system works, the guy who brings the most shit into his district wins elections, so it's a race to see who can rob from the national treasury most effectively and give back the least.

Yucca mountain is a good example - instead of having a centralized, safe, away from everyone, responsible repository of nuclear waste, we instead have that very same waste stored all over the fucking place all over the country in areas which are not as safe or secure. Having a powerful senator caters to that sort of NIMBYism, it hurts the rest of the country for a very small perceived (not even real) benefit.

Gonzo is implying hey, elect the powerful dude, you'll rob the national treasury way more effectively than with the newcomer! And I'm saying not everyone is selfish like that.

Only the ones living in this world. It is not rob. Most programs are needed and do good.
Every single state election now is stressing what programs the politician can bring to their home state. There is a serious unemployment problem. They need work and they need infrastructure updating. That is real work, not theft . But all states want some of it. The winners will likely be the ones with the most powerful and connected politicians. That is not a crazy woman like Angle. She will be avoided like the plague by serious pols if she actually wins. She will bring no prestige ,no programs and no elevation of political discourse.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Ya know what I thought was funny? Newt Gingrich was in Las Vegas to stump for Sharron Angle on 21 October. They were at the JW Marriott Center, a fancy-schmancy resort in Summerlin, and the theme of the rally was

Jobs Here, Jobs Now

I shit you not. Pics here (http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/galleries/2010/oct/21/gingrich_angle_rally/).

Apparently Newt didn't see that Angle thinks that people don't want jobs because unemployment is such a plum position, and that senator's shouldn't trouble themselves with silly things like helping industry come to the state in order to create jobs for citizens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK-YtM52aPEMs).

And gonzo you just muddied the waters there with post #262, instead of clearing them, IMO. You say the Repubs also pushed bills through without letting them be read, then you in the next breath say that all bills are in committee so long that everyone has a chance to know what's in them. If everyone knows what's in them, what is there to bitch about no one reading them?

And no, you don't have to clarify; frankly it's way off-topic and I don't think an explanation will do any good. Just pointing out a bit of, ah, fuzzy logic there.

[gonzomax]

Ya know what I thought was funny? Newt Gingrich was in Las Vegas to stump for Sharron Angle on 21 October. They were at the JW Marriott Center, a fancy-schmancy resort in Summerlin, and the theme of the rally was

Jobs Here, Jobs Now

I shit you not. Pics here (http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/galleries/2010/oct/21/gingrich_angle_rally/).

Apparently Newt didn't see that Angle thinks that people don't want jobs because unemployment is such a plum position, and that senator's shouldn't trouble themselves with silly things like helping industry come to the state in order to create jobs for citizens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK-YtM52aPEMs).

And gonzo you just muddied the waters there with post #262, instead of clearing them, IMO. You say the Repubs also pushed bills through without letting them be read, then you in the next breath say that all bills are in committee so long that everyone has a chance to know what's in them. If everyone knows what's in them, what is there to bitch about no one reading them?

And no, you don't have to clarify; frankly it's way off-topic and I don't think an explanation will do any good. Just pointing out a bit of, ah, fuzzy logic there.

All the bills are thrashed over by people in committee. That is why the healthcare bill is an abortion. The Repubs got plenty of changes they wanted in order to get it out of committee. But not all Repubs are on the committee. Other politicians get some ,but not all the info because they are busy with their own committees. The bills are in a constant state of flux. Then they print it up and offer it on the floor, once they agree.
The idea that everyone knows whats in them is not quite correct. But no pol is totally blank on a bill. Or they should not be.

[gonzomax]

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/committees.tt?commid=sfina2&pcommid=sfina Here are the members of the committee. They were not gagged.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I got a flier in the mail today urging people to "send a message that Washington will never forget" by voting "None Of The Above" for senator.

The ad is funded by America's Future Fund. Can anyone guess who's side they're on?

Oh, and anyone who thinks they aren't shady, just check out their website:

http://www.americasfuturefund.com

That's the address listed on the flier. I'll be happy to scan it and post if anyone doubts me.

Another case of the Republicans trying their damnedest to subvert the democratic process. Why do they hate democracy and freedom so much?

[asterion]

None of the Above is a legitimate choice on the Nevada ballot. I expect that it will help Reid slightly, as I think more Republicans who don't support Angle but don't want to vote for Reid will select it. If anything, it's actually more logically consistent than the signs around here that only say "Vote the bums out."

I agree that it's probably more single rich Republicans behind it.

[Boyo Jim]

I got a flier in the mail today urging people to "send a message that Washington will never forget" by voting "None Of The Above" for senator.

The ad is funded by America's Future Fund. Can anyone guess who's side they're on?

Oh, and anyone who thinks they aren't shady, just check out their website:

http://www.americasfuturefund.com

That's the address listed on the flier. I'll be happy to scan it and post if anyone doubts me.

Another case of the Republicans trying their damnedest to subvert the democratic process. Why do they hate democracy and freedom so much?

That website is already down for "rebranding".

[Snowboarder Bo]

That website is already down for "rebranding".

It's not "down". It was never up. That's why I know it's a shady front organization. They just purchased the domain name (what's that cost nowadays? $15?) and sent out a bunch of fliers urging people to waste their franchise on a vote that is meaningless.

See, in Nevada, we do indeed have NOTA on the ballot, but it counts for nothing: whichever candidate has the most votes wins, regardless of how many people vote NOTA.

If Sharron Angle got 2 votes, Harry Reid got 1 vote, and 4 million people voted NOTA, Angle wins.

The SCOTUS really fucked the country with the Citizens United decision. Now there's no accountability at all in our politics. Anyone can spend money advocating without having to reveal who they are, which means no one can ever make any connections (or examine the disconnect) between the ads and the person/people behind them. This flier is just one example.

[gonzomax]

Angle has a good chance to win. How can that be? Stupidity, lies, craziness, and right wing goofiness, and people are going to vote for her? What has this nation become? She should be a joke, yet some want her for U.S. Senator. A newsman tried to talk to her yesterday. She said she would talk after she is elected Senator. She is not qualified for dog catcher, yet she could be voted into an important and powerful position. What has this country become?

[Gyrate]

Angle has a good chance to win. How can that be? Stupidity, lies, craziness, and right wing goofiness, and people are going to vote for her? What has this nation become? She should be a joke, yet some want her for U.S. Senator. A newsman tried to talk to her yesterday. She said she would talk after she is elected Senator. She is not qualified for dog catcher, yet she could be voted into an important and powerful position. What has this country become?A country of people with a short attention span, short memories and few critical thinking skills. "Believe" has been outselling "Think" for a long, long time.

And it's not just America, sadly.

[gonzomax]

I live in Dearborn and I am glad that she told me about my living under Sharia Law. I did not know that.

[Gatopescado]

See, in Nevada, we do indeed have NOTA on the ballot, but it counts for nothing: whichever candidate has the most votes wins, regardless of how many people vote NOTA.

If Sharron Angle got 2 votes, Harry Reid got 1 vote, and 4 million people voted NOTA, Angle wins.



You sure about this?

[SenorBeef]

Yeah, it's true.

[Snowboarder Bo]

This is also true: Angle blames the media for her not talking to them (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/sharron_angle_we_stiff-armed_m.html). Srsly.

A perfect coda to the Nevada Senate race: In a radio interview this morning, Sharron Angle blamed the media for her campaign's decision to shut out reporters, slamming the press as "unprofessional" and adding that she thinks candidates should teach the media a "lesson" whenever they have the "opportunity."

It isn't that we don't want to talk to them. It is that we would like to have objective questioning and true professional reporting. That is really all we are asking from them.

Compare that with this quote from June (link in post #8 of this thread; thanks Biggirl)

Well, no, no, we wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported and when I get on a show and I say send me money to SharronAngle.com, so that your listeners will know that if they want to support me they need to go to SharronAngle.com.

She's a fucking liar. A cheat. A lunatic. And most likely, our next United States Senator. Good job, Nevada; good job.

[SenorBeef]

I'm not up to date with the races. CNN has Reid leading 52% to 44% with 52% of the vote in. Did they count Reid-heavy districts first? Nate Silver had Angle at an 82% chance yesterday.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Ross Miller announced at about 8pm that he was withholding release of any election results because some districts in northern Nevada were late.

ETA: Yeah, I'm starting to see stories now about early returns heavily favoring Reid. Which only leads me to wonder which of the loons who voted for Angle will take to "second amendment remedies" if she loses.

[SenorBeef]

Most of the early reports are from Clark County so I guess it's not that surprising that it favors Reid.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

If Harry Reid loses to Angle he has nobody to blame but himself.

[SenorBeef]

And the electorate. They play a small role in this from what I understand.

[Fear Itself]

If Harry Reid loses to Angle he has nobody to blame but himself.And he has Angle to thank when he wins.

[Lamar Mundane]

Colorado's Senate race just moved into a virtual tie as the El Paso County votes (Colorado Springs) came in. Bennet (D) still leads by 6000 votes, and while the remaining counties are probably going to lean Republican, most of them have only a couple thousand votes in total. I expect it will be a slight win for Bennet, but may be subject to a recount.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

And the electorate. They play a small role in this from what I understand.

He is a long-term incumbent and the Senate Majority Leader. He has a long record to run on. If he gets voted out after 24 years, is it really right to blame the electorate for his demise? If you get fired from a job after 24 years it's on you, not your bosses.

[Fear Itself]

CNN has projected Harry Reid will beat Sharron Angle in Nevada.

[Snowboarder Bo]

It's looking like Reid actually got a slim majority, and beat Angle by close to 7%. She's already threatened a recount, but I have to wonder if she's got the cash on hand to fund it. According to our statutes, she has to pay the estimated cost upfront.

[Fear Itself]

It's looking like Reid actually got a slim majority, and beat Angle by close to 7%. She's already threatened a recount, but I have to wonder if she's got the cash on hand to fund it. According to our statutes, she has to pay the estimated cost upfront.The corporate PACs will open their wallets.

[SenorBeef]

With a nut coming relatively close, you gotta think that if the Republicans had nominated a reasonable, likable guy then they'd have that seat.

[gonzomax]

The Tea Bagger goofy candidates lost probably costing the Repuibs control of the Senate. They served the Dems well.

[Enuma Elish]

That is standard operating procedure. The Repubs jammed lots of bills through during Bush without permitting the senate or the house to read them. Why is it wrong for Reid, if he did it, and right for the Repubs.
The bills do not suddenly appear. They are thrashed over in committee with both sides represented. The party members are kept up with the procedings. They do not appear on the floor in a puff of smoke.

Your assumptions are wrong. I did not like it when the Republicans did it. I don't like it when any one in power does it. I hate the my-way-or-the-highway think of both parties.

What the Democrats do that bugs me is this: They clearly recognize power-play asshattery when the Republicans do it, but when the Democrats gain control, instead of saying, "Forcing bills through without allowing them to be read is wrong on a fundamental level and we are not going to do that." they say,"Well they did it, so we get to do it too (even though we previously were clear that it is wrong.)"

And vice-versa.

[SenorBeef]

We're talking about the health care bill that had weeks of debate where the democrats accepted hundreds of republican amendments (including cutting out the public option, possibly the most significant part of the legislation) and then the republicans instead proposed "let's scrap the whole thing" instead of a real counter-proposal and voted against it, right?

If anything, the democrats are making too much effort to be bipartisan and accepting of people who are acting like insolent children.

[Enuma Elish]

At this point it would behoove you to admit that you were talking about only one BILL, and there are no other examples of other bills, and you typed the extra "S" in BILLS in error.

Fine. Technically, the Omnibus bill was one bill. However, referring to a multi-thousand page monstrosity pieced together from multiple sources in the singular makes my sphincter pucker.

[descamisado]

She's a fucking liar. A cheat. A lunatic. And most likely, our next United States Senator. Good job, Nevada; good job.Bo, you don't mind if I rub your nose in this post, do you?

:D

[Chronos]

Passing a bill without letting anyone read it would be wrong no matter who did it. But the Democrats didn't do that. My senator read the bill; did yours?

[Boyo Jim]

Interesting Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110900153.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics): Angle's campaign spent $97 per vote she received, Reid's campagn spent $69 per vote he received.

If she had skipped all the adds and gone to direct voter payments, she couldda won.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Interesting Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110900153.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics): Angle's campaign spent $97 per vote she received, Reid's campagn spent $69 per vote he received.

If she had skipped all the adds and gone to direct voter payments, she couldda won.

$97? That's chickenfeed compared to the big bucks people make being unemployed. Spoiled citizenry and all, ya know. ;)

[thelurkinghorror]

In my experience, Reid went for direct mailings. The Republicans (not necessarily Angle) went for robocalls. I found one slightly more annoying. Reid's ad campaign was actually interesting, it just got repetitive when I got the same thing over and over again.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

With a nut coming relatively close, you gotta think that if the Republicans had nominated a reasonable, likable guy then they'd have that seat.

Hell, they could have nominated that idiot Sue Lowden with the chicken based healthcare plan and very likely won.

[boytyperanma]

So she lost should we be expecting 'second amendment remedies' soon?

[Boyo Jim]

Interesting Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110900153.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics): Angle's campaign spent $97 per vote she received, Reid's campagn spent $69 per vote he received.

If she had skipped all the adds and gone to direct voter payments, she couldda won.

It turn out 69 is kind of a magic number for many Nevadans. :p

[Snowboarder Bo]

It turn out 69 is kind of a magic number for many Nevadans. :p

We tend to think of 00 as having more mojo. You can buy or cajole your way to a 69; you just have to be lucky to get a 00.

It's like I always say: I'd rather be lucky than good.

[DigitalC]

So what went wrong for Sharon Angle in Nevada? she was ahead on most polls and looked to be about to pull it off then goes and gets creamed in the election. Was it all the crazy she let loose right at the end of the campaign that did her in? (the mexicans look asian thing, and the town which does not exist living under sharia law thing).

[Snowboarder Bo]

The Mexican/Asian thing hurt her some. The sharia law thing went over everyone's head that wasn't already going to vote against her.

What hurt her the most was the short-lived ad portraying over 1/4 of the state's population as thugs & criminals. Here's a video showing the video from the ad, with the audio from her Rancho High School appearance superimposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z_3uRxLiXI).

[SenorBeef]

Hell, they could have nominated that idiot Sue Lowden with the chicken based healthcare plan and very likely won.

Oh, that was Lowden? All this time I thought it was Angle. It seemed consistent with her personality. Woops.

[BrainGlutton]

We tend to think of 00 as having more mojo. You can buy or cajole your way to a 69; you just have to be lucky to get a 00.

It's like I always say: I'd rather be lucky than good.

Wait, isn't 00 the space on the roulette wheel that means the house wins every chip on the table?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Wait, isn't 00 the space on the roulette wheel that means the house wins every chip on the table?

Not if you bet on 00, they don't. :D

[BrainGlutton]

Not if you bet on 00, they don't. :D

I thought it was also the one you couldn't bet on. Whoosh?

[magellan01]

I thought it was also the one you couldn't bet on. Whoosh?

I'm pretty sure you can bet on any number.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I thought it was also the one you couldn't bet on. Whoosh?

I don't gamble, but I called a couple of my buddies who do, and they're telling me that yes, you can bet 00.

[SenorBeef]

The edge in roulette comes from pretending the 0 and 00 aren't there for payoff purposes (ie the actual chances of hitting any number are 1 in 38, numbers 1-36+0+00 but you only get paid off 36:1), which makes betting them the same as any other number.

[Starving Artist]

The Mexican/Asian thing hurt her some. The sharia law thing went over everyone's head that wasn't already going to vote against her.

What hurt her the most was the short-lived ad portraying over 1/4 of the state's population as thugs & criminals. Here's a video showing the video from the ad, with the audio from her Rancho High School appearance superimposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z_3uRxLiXI).A quarter of Nevada's population is comprised of illegal aliens? And they can vote?

[Chronos]

We tend to think of 00 as having more mojo.Hey, that's the amount I spent per voter in Nevada, why didn't I get elected to the Senate?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Hey, that's the amount I spent per voter in Nevada, why didn't I get elected to the Senate?

Dude, you aren't nearly crazy enough for Nevada. :D

[Kevbo]

The edge in roulette comes from pretending the 0 and 00 aren't there for payoff purposes (ie the actual chances of hitting any number are 1 in 38, numbers 1-36+0+00 but you only get paid off 36:1), which makes betting them the same as any other number.

They also tip the odds to the house for the even money bets, as they count neither red, black, odd, or even.

[Ravenman]

A quarter of Nevada's population is comprised of illegal aliens? And they can vote?Look at the ad linked in your previous reply. See the people shown at 9 seconds in. What identifies them as "illegal?" The backwards baseball cap? The hoodie? The whispy mustache?

Or is it that they are a bit swarthy?

I can see why Latinos are sensitive about the inference that brown skin in the Southwest means illegal alien.

[SenorBeef]

What image would you use to identify illegal aliens when you were discussing them? Keep them all in shadow so no one would get offended when the ethnic group that constitutes the vast majority of illegal aliens was shown?

[Ravenman]

What image would you use to identify illegal aliens when you were discussing them? Keep them all in shadow so no one would get offended when the ethnic group that constitutes the vast majority of illegal aliens was shown?
If memory serves, Mrs. Angle attempted to say that was what her ad showed. I seem to recall her saying that the image of shadowy people sneaking along the fence (I believe it was in the same ad I referenced) could have been a reference to a Canadian fence. That's not me who suggested it, that's Mrs. Angle describing her own ads (albeit erroneously).

If I were Latino, and a candidate ran ads showing nondescript Latino people with the word ILLEGAL highlighted on them, I would question whether that candidate is sensitive to the fact that honest, hard-working, born-in-the-USA Latinos might not appreciate the association between my skin color and being an "ILLEGAL."

So, Hispanics voted against Angle in significant numbers, and for the guy who appeared to be more sensitive to the racial aspects of the issue. Angle made her bed, now she's laying in it.

[SenorBeef]

And what are you going to show if you want to convey illegal aliens? Show some random white people and say "THERE ARE A FEW CANADIAN ILLEGALS TOO!" just to be super PC? Just seems like manufactured controversy to me. Yes, obviously there are lots of legal, hardworking etc etc hispanics, but if you were to put a face to the general group of illegal aliens, it would logically be a hispanic one.

[Starving Artist]

Look at the ad linked in your previous reply. See the people shown at 9 seconds in. What identifies them as "illegal?"Uh, the fact that the words "Illegal Aliens" or "Illegals" are flashed continuously across the bottom of the ad whenever they are shown?

[Ravenman]

I can think of a dozen ways to convey illegal aliens without resorting to race. As Angle did, show people sneaking around a fence. Show people with jackets pulled up over their faces being led away in handcuffs by guys in blue CIS windbreakers. Have a hand place a Social Security card on a big red FAKE stamped on it. Show the Border Patrol looking out on the desert with big binoculars.

Heck, even showing B-roll of the faces of illegal immigrants in the lock-up is better than taking a picture of three three men who are completely unremarkable other than they are Hispanic and putting the word ILLEGAL on it.

You keep referencing the ridiculousness of referencing Canadian illegal immigrants in the context of this discussion. If it is so bizarre to do so, why are you not understanding that it was Mrs. Angle (not her critics!!) who said that the fence in the ad in question was actually a reference to the US-Canadian border?

I understand that you think this is a manufactured controversy, but I'm also betting that it isn't your ox being gored. Let me try on a different scenario for you: I'm running for Congress on the platform that there is a looming threat of domestic terrorism that has to be controlled. I run an ad in which I show three men, who are all white, kind of blue collar looking, carrying bolt action rifles (along the lines of what one might use for deer hunting), perhaps one wearing a Cabella's cap. On this photo I superimpose the words, "RIGHT WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS."

Do you think sportsmen/hunters/gun owners would be manufacturing a controversy if they say that it is unfair to label their "type" as being associated with domestic terrorism? After all, if I am going to put a face on domestic terrorists, wouldn't it be white, blue collar gun owners?

[Starving Artist]

I think most people do view domestic terrorists that way. The Timothy McVeigh/Ruby Ridge types. And if that's what those guys look like I would have no problem with their being portrayed that way.

And do you really think there would have been less of an outcry had their faces not been shown? It's more likely that under a scenario like you suggest where their faces are covered, the complaints would be that she was cowardly and really talking about Hispanics but wasn't honest enough to show them as such. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that any objection to illegal aliens is met with righteous indignation and accusations of racism by the left. There is simply no way Angle, especially as a Republican, could have brought up the issue of stopping illegal immigration without being accused of racism.

[Ravenman]

And if that's what those guys look like I would have no problem with their being portrayed that way.And yet, right wingers (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/) flip their shit when the notion that domestic terrorists might have a background in the military, or oppose abortion, or favor limited government, etc.

It's more likely that under a scenario like you suggest where their faces are covered, the complaints would be that she was cowardly and really talking about Hispanics but wasn't honest enough to show them as such. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that any objection to illegal aliens is met with righteous indignation and accusations of racism by the left. There is simply no way Angle, especially as a Republican, could have brought up the issue of stopping illegal immigration without being accused of racism.Could you even try to shoehorn any more speculation into one paragraph? How am I even able to respond in a reasoned manner to such wild-eyed fantasy?

[Chronos]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that any objection to illegal aliens is met with righteous indignation and accusations of racism by the left.Well, yeah, if it weren't for racism, we'd let them in legally.

[Starving Artist]

And yet, right wingers (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/) flip their shit when the notion that domestic terrorists might have a background in the military, or oppose abortion, or favor limited government, etc. You asked what my response would be and that is what I gave you.

Could you even try to shoehorn any more speculation into one paragraph? How am I even able to respond in a reasoned manner to such wild-eyed fantasy?Okay then, can you show me any instances where Republican politicians or candidates have advocated strong measures to enforce the law and put a stop to illegal immigration where they we're castigated and reviled by liberals?

Well, yeah, if it weren't for racism, we'd let them in legally. Pardon my French, but horseshit! There are somewhere around 84 countries in the world. Can you name any that just stand by and allow people from other countries to come flooding in at will? Every country has immigration laws (even Canada. :D What evil motive do you suspect is behind their immigration laws?), and those laws have nothing to do with racism. Where do you people get this shit?

I've mentioned this before, but my next-door neighbor is a woman who came here from Mexico legally. She has busted her butt and is not in charge of 9 or more McDonald's restaurants. She also works for another Hispanic who came here legally and worked his way up from dishwasher in his teens to ownership of over 30 restaurants now. They both object very strongly to illegal immigrants and are furious at proposals that we give them amnesty. Both of these people recognize the rights of countries to control immigration and they feel that if someone wants to come here from Mexico or points south, they should do it legally just like they did. Are you going to call them racists too? I mean after all, their thinking is identical to that of most of us who object to illegal immigration.

ETA: We do let them in legally, as the people I just described illustrate.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Pardon my French, but horseshit! There are somewhere around 84 countries in the world.

As with damn near every one of your posts on damn near every subject conceivable, you're wrong. You're so far wrong, it makes it look like you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

[Ravenman]

Okay then, can you show me any instances where Republican politicians or candidates have advocated strong measures to enforce the law and put a stop to illegal immigration where they we're castigated and reviled by liberals?
First of all, I'm not sure your question made any sense. Second of all, I'm not talking about liberals having a problem with Sharon Angle's ad, I'm talking about Hispanics having a problem with showing three normal-looking Hispanic people and declaring them ILLEGALS in a major TV ad, apparently for no other reason than the color of their skin. And remember it wasn't the ACLU or some liberal group who raised this issue with Angle, it was some high school kids in the Latino student union (or something like that). Try to keep up with my points, please.

To state it another way: there's a difference between not agreeing with a candidate on policy grounds and having a problem with a candidate because his/her TV ads look insensitive toward your race.

[SenorBeef]

It's the other way around. The ad doesn't somehow declare them illegals because they're hispanic. They wanted images of illegal aliens to highlight policies related to illegal aliens. So they chose hispanic people, since they make up the vast majority of illegal aliens.

Should they have shown some norwegians cause I'm sure there are a few norwegian illegals in the US?

This is some weird hypersensitive PC thought crime interpretation going on here. The ad doesn't in any way imply that all (or most) hispanics are illegal. It just shows some hispanic people as typical illegals - and not only is that reasonable, it would be pretty silly to show any other ethnic group in that spot.

[Chronos]

Pardon my French, but horseshit! There are somewhere around 84 countries in the world. Can you name any that just stand by and allow people from other countries to come flooding in at will? Every country has immigration laws (even Canada. What evil motive do you suspect is behind their immigration laws?), and those laws have nothing to do with racism. Where do you people get this shit?And if someone from a predominantly-white country wants to immigrate to the US, those laws are easily dealt with, but if someone from, say, Mexico wants to immigrate, the laws are considerably more difficult. The reason people don't run scary ads about Norwegian illegal immigrants is because most Norwegians who want to come here, we let in legally.

[SenorBeef]

So in the application process, if you check the "white" checkbox, you get +10 towards your immigration score then?

[Ravenman]

Politico has a post-mortem (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45463.html) on Mrs. Angle's campaign. This bit really gave me a chuckle:

[Angle campaign manager] Campbell frequently pitched unorthodox forms of advertising, such as buying advertisements on closed-circuit television cameras at gyms and hiring a plane to be called “Angle One” for sky-writing the candidate’s name....

At one point, Campbell hired a digital billboard truck with Angle’s face on it that drove around the tourist-drenched Las Vegas Strip — a tactic he referred to as a “game changer,” according to three sources.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45463.html#ixzz161NxAcbu