Hey, I asserted the same thing a while ago in this thread and you disagreed with me!
No doubt a couple of decades from now there will be calls for “Gen X” to depart the stage because of its stubborn prejudices and resistance to change.
Or maybe by then we’ll be smart enough to let go of ageism, and stop defining people according to hackneyed generational stereotypes.
I have my doubts.
Thanks, Merneith. That did give me the location of some files that appear to have the same numeric-style string described by OttoDaFe, but none of them were the same letter/number combo as his, or even close in file size. And none of them seem to be openable by any program I have.
OttoDaFe, can you upload your saved version to Youtube? If you could, that would be awesome!
As for Forking Hillary, every day makes me want to fork her even more. An anecdote from a Texas elected Pledged Delegate on the Obama boards:
They really are pulling some scuzzy things to try to steal this nomination.
One of my favorite articles supporting Obama was the one written by Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic. He eloquently discusses Obama’s role as the first post-Baby Boomer candidate. His focus is not on racism, but on how conflicted the Boomers are over Viet Nam and other social issues of the '60’s.
It’s worth reading for a fascinating take on the generational issues of this campaign:
That’s not the point. This is not some sort of “cycle”
The baby boomers were the “me generation” They are the ultimate in selfishness. Sure they fought the good fight in the 60’s with regards to Civil Rights. But really afterwards they were responsible for the Reagan revolution. Now that they start to make money, all of these ideals start to suck when it costs money, right?
Nobody said, “Gee, I’m so tired of those ‘Greatest Generation’ fucks, let’s get a baby-boomer in the white-house.” That’s what happened in 1992. Then we got the most self-absorbed President we’ve ever had. What good did Clinton do for our country that simply wasn’t an ancillary benefit to his greater goal (helping himself?).
Then we have Bush… 'nuff said.
And now, after only two baby boomer Presidents we’re going to go with a non-boomer or McCain, who feels more like a greatest generation type than a boomer.
You know what the post-boomer generation will be known for? I hate to say it, but here it is…Fixing the fucking country after 24 years of pillaging and plundering. And who’s going to pay for all of the fucking debts? WE ARE. I’d prefer to start paying them now instead of all of these tax-cutting Republicans who went to Woodstock but drive an SUV for “safety” now.
Just look around, the country is fucked, and who’s going to fix it? The next generation.
I don’t think the argument that “The new generation always hates the old” here because I have no problem with WWII era generation folks. Those were the people who didn’t invent constant medication of their kids, constant therapy, all of this other bullshit that we deal with these days.
So that’s what annoys the hell out of Hillary because they think that a victory by her would equate to some kind of “feminist victory” It’s complete bullshit because if anything it would be a step back. Yes, that’s right little girls, if you work hard enough, you too can become president. That is if you hook your star to a philandering, needy, liar, and are able to look the other way regarding his indiscretions.
Tunnel-vision and stereotype much?
The qualities you attribute to baby-boomers probably don’t apply to as much as five percent of that demographic.
You’ve drunk too much kool-aid, I’m afeared.
Glad we got that settled. :rolleyes:
You could say the same thing about all those Freedom Fighting, Civil Right crusading, LSD-enlightened hippies commonly associated with the boomer set. The cariacature drawing works both ways.
Never mind racial divisions, can Obama bridge the age gap?
Stay tuned.
I recall thousands upon thousands of baby-boomers marching on Washington in an effort to bring about racial equality in this country.
I do not recall thousands upon thousands of bespoke-suited SUV drivers marching on Washington to bring about the pillaging and plundering of future generations through massive government debt.
Because you don’t need to march on Washington for this to happen–you just have to sit around and do nothing.
Did I? Perhaps I was mistaken. That’s happened once or twice. 
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that…
Looks like at least one pundit thinks Hil can actually win the Popular vote for the Nom, and is more likely to win the General election:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html
*“The Clinton campaign has taken to boasting that its candidate has won states with more electoral votes than has Barack Obama. True. By my count, Clinton has won 14 states with 219 electoral votes (16 states with 263 electoral votes if you include Florida and Michigan) while Obama has won 27 states (I’m counting the District of Columbia as a state, but not the territories) with 202 electoral votes. Eight states with 73 electoral votes have still to vote. In percentage terms, Clinton has won states with 41 percent of the electoral votes (49 percent if you include Florida and Michigan), while Obama has won states with 38 percent of electoral votes. States with 14 percent of the electoral votes have yet to vote.
The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton’s states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama’s states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton’s states have 44 percent of the nation’s population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama’s states have 34 percent of the nation’s population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation’s population.
…This would eliminate Obama’s current popular vote margin, without including Florida and Michigan totals and even if you use imputed vote totals for the four caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington) where Democrats did not disclose vote totals. The current popular vote margin for Obama on realclearpolitics.com is, under those favorable assumptions, 827,498. My spreadsheet numbers would give Clinton a 106,186 margin. The Obama margin if you don’t give him his imputed margin in those four caucus states is 717,276. My results would convert that to a Clinton popular vote margin of 216,408."*
Interesting. :eek:
In Massachusetts, yes, it is.
And bullcrap. IF you’re going to count individuals, you don’t count the total population. You count the popular vote, because the total population will not be voting in November. No one has ever counted “total population” to determine an election.
Yeah, he’s insane if he thinks Hillary will actually put up those numbers.
Optimistic? He’s predicting 20% margins for Clinton in PA, IN, MT, SD; 30% margins in KY and PR; and a 40% margin in WV! Meanwhile, Obama wins NC and OR with mere 10% margins. These numbers make zero sense considering everything that’s been happening this primary season. Hillary’s carried only two states with margins greater than 20%, and her best showing after Super Tuesday was RI with 18%.
That guy is off his rocker.
So yes, DrDeth. If this isn’t some kind of screwy math above, this is the ammount that
Clinton will need to win these primaries…
These are some pretty awesome percentages, essentially what we’ve been saying all along, that she’ll need to win by about 60 percent in every primary from here on out.
Pennsylvania 20.0%
Indiana 20.0%
North Carolina -10.0%
West Virginia 40.0%
Kentucky 30.0%
Oregon -10.0%
Puerto Rico 30.0%
Montana 20.0%
South Dakota 20.0%
I’ve already come to terms with the fact that Clinton won’t go anywhere before NC, so it doesn’t matter. But she won’t lose by less than 10 there. Her 20 point PA lead is gone too…
Indeed. All he had to do was come up with a system of evaluation that has NO RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING.
Heh. For some reason, this makes me think of the editorial cartoons I’ve seen from the days when we annexed Hawaii. No one back then even knew what a Hawaiian looked like, so the cartoonists simply portrayed them as black.
Shayna et al., looks like someone beat me to it — this YouTube video matches the one I pilfered out of the cache. Hopefully he’s the 'droid you’re looking for.