Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Yorker Magazine endorses candidate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New Yorker Magazine endorses candidate

    For the first time ever (the magazine has been printed for the last 80 years Source).

    They endorse Kerry.

    This article is the best one I've read on the upcoming U.S. presidential election. It is very well reasoned, well written, learned if you will. It makes very good sense to me. As I read through, many of their arguments were ones I had been debating with my decision making.

    Its long, its worth it, read it.



    New Yorker Magazine Article

    “We are surrounded by warships and don’t have time to talk. Please pray for us.” — One Somali Pirate.

    #2
    I think Kerry is going to win by a much larger margin than people expect.

    There's a boatload of newly registered voters and I think a very large portion of them are going to swing his way. We'll know in less than 2 days as long as theres no bullshit this time.
    "All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC


    Reverse punch Kiaii!!!

    Comment


      #3
      I'm a subscriber. This, the Atlantic, and WaPo.

      (Those ten, by the way, got exactly what they deserved. Some of them - such as Carolyn Kuhl, who devoted years of her career to trying to preserve tax breaks for colleges that practice racial discrimination, and Brett Kavanaugh, a thirty-eight-year-old with no judicial or courtroom experience who co-wrote the Starr Report - rank among the worst judicial appointments ever attempted.)
      So hilarious it calls for repeating.
      Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the fuck I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
        I think Kerry is going to win by a much larger margin than people expect.

        There's a boatload of newly registered voters and I think a very large portion of them are going to swing his way. We'll know in less than 2 days as long as theres no bullshit this time.
        I'm not calling this one. The prevailing models don't capture this election very well. High turnout is historically very bad for incumbents, but we'll see.
        Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the fuck I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

        Comment


          #5
          Told you, long article.

          “We are surrounded by warships and don’t have time to talk. Please pray for us.” — One Somali Pirate.

          Comment


            #6
            Well if Kerry doesn't win I owe Streetfighter $10, which is unthinkable to me.

            If I win I'm going to make him donate the $10 to Bullshido so now you ALL have a personal stake in the matter dammit!

            "A vote for Kerry is a $10 bill for www.Bullshido.com" thats my motto.
            "All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC


            Reverse punch Kiaii!!!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
              I think Kerry is going to win by a much larger margin than people expect.

              There's a boatload of newly registered voters and I think a very large portion of them are going to swing his way. We'll know in less than 2 days as long as theres no bullshit this time.
              DON'T

              FUCKING

              JINX

              IT
              Captain's Log: Just a little update for all my TRUE and HONEST friends out there:

              1) I am STRAIGHT! I am STRAIGHT! Get it through your thick skulls, numbskulls!

              2) My name is not Ian Brandon Something.

              3) Kacey is coming with me now. I have stolen her from the other Christian Weston Chandler.

              REMINDER: I am still the one and only true creator of sonichu and rosechu electric hedgehog pokemon

              Comment


                #8
                Very good article, I think I'll give it to grandma tomorrow, and have a little sit down and chat about things like foreign policy.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Good article.
                  He boasts that he listens to no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has his solipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Didn't work, damned easily frightened old people. I tried to have a discussion with ehr about the candidates and all she can say is she ahs a bad feeling about Kerry.... the fact that Bush has been nothing but a bad feeling for the past 4 years doesn't seem to mean much to a grandma's intuition >_<

                    Blegh. Old people...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I think that a lot of people vote on "feelings" about candidates. That's why image is so important.





                      That's also why I think that an enormous amount of people in this country are blisteringly stupid.
                      Lone Wolf McQuade Final Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrDe_mYUXg

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Mr_Mantis
                        For the first time ever (the magazine has been printed for the last 80 years Source).

                        They endorse Kerry.

                        This article is the best one I've read on the upcoming U.S. presidential election. It is very well reasoned, well written, learned if you will. It makes very good sense to me. As I read through, many of their arguments were ones I had been debating with my decision making.
                        I completely disagree with this assessment. It's written by someone who lacks basic understanding of economics and free markets among many other issues. I don't even have time to address all of the issues so I'll just touch on a few:

                        There were many irregularities on both sides. For starters the state was called too early for Gore and the voters in the Republican majority pan handle didn't turn out as strongly thinking things were over. Some estimates have Bush as losing as many as 10,000 votes as a result.

                        Also, Gore only wanted recounts to happen in a very select group of counties and not statewide. This was obviously to skew results to his favor.

                        Further, whenever you have people counting and handling ballots designed for a machine to read you're going to have, shall we say, "issues" of fairness. The machines are built to read the cards, they suffer from the same margin of error regardless of what candidate's name is punched, and they offer repeatable results. Humans on the other hand can fiddle with the cards, hide cards, destroy cards, count them wrong, etc. The recount process was not only ridiculous but rife with opportunity for abuse on either side.

                        Lastly, Florida law allows for seven days for a recount to occur if I recall. Not 10 days, not 17 days, not 40+ days, but seven. After seven days the Secretary of State is required by Florida statute to certify the election. The Supreme court made the best call based on the interpretation of state law and to prevent any further shenanigans from either side.

                        A result so inimical to both majority rule and individual civic equality was bound to inflict damage on the fabric of comity. But the damage would have been far less severe if the new President had made some effort to take account of the special circumstances of his election - in the composition of his Cabinet, in the way that he pursued his policy goals, perhaps even in the goals themselves. He made no such effort. According to Bob Woodward in "Plan of Attack," Vice-President Dick Cheney put it this way: "From the very day we walked in the building, a notion of sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, that lasted maybe thirty seconds. It was not contemplated for any length of time. We had an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election - full speed ahead."
                        They won the election. I'd expect nothing less. For the short of memory, I give you the election results from 1992 and 1996:

                        1992
                        Bill Clinton 44,909,889
                        George Bush 39,104,545
                        H. Ross Perot 19,742,267

                        Percent of popular vote:

                        Clinton: 43%
                        Bush Sr.: 38%
                        Perot:19%

                        1996
                        Bill Clinton 45,628,667
                        Bob Dole 37,869,435
                        H. Ross Perot 7,874,283

                        Percent of popular vote:

                        Clinton: 49%
                        Dole: 41%
                        Perot: 9%

                        So Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote in 1992. Does that mean his presidency was invalid too? And for all you Nader haters who say he ruined the election for Gore: Tough. Same thing happened with Perot in 1992 and possibly 1996 to Bush Sr. and Dole so get over it.

                        The US has an electoral college system and is not won on popular vote. I hope we always keep this system in place. If we didn't have this system then the candidates would only address voters in Texas, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York and would ignore everyone else because those states hold most of the voting population. So stop crying about the electoral college too.

                        I hate this argument. The top 5% earners in the US pay over 50% of the ENTIRE US tax revenue. Further, over 40 million Americans in this country pay essentially no federal tax at all once all exemptions and credits are taken.

                        So what does this mean? Well if your in the top 5%, and you pay most of the taxes, you're going to get a bigger tax cut. Go figure. What about the people who essentially pay almost no federal tax? Should they get a big fat check at the end of the year instead? What about all of the baby boomers with their retirement plans that are subject to 50% estate tax? Do you think that's fair that they give up half of what they've earned to the government instead of to their heirs?

                        Liberals just don't get it: Taxes kill taxes. You don't improve an economy by taxing people more. It's retarded. It's like running a business and raising prices on all of your goods in order to attract new customers.

                        There are ALL SORTS of ways for Kerry to tax you and still stick to his pledge of not increasing your Federal income tax. He could raise social security and say that's social security tax and not income tax. He could put new fees on goods and services to raise your prices invisibly (have you checked your cable and phone bill lately. You can thank Gore for some of those taxes.). The list is endless.

                        The above is so full of basic mis-understanding of how markets work that I don't know where to start....sigh...

                        Economic forecasts are horribly unreliable. The recession had begun in March of 2000 with a plunge in the Nasdaq market and general US equity market. The "surplus" was a crafty juggling of numbers from various sources that included ongoing projected revenue from an unrealistic economic expansion rate (over 15% a year which is unheard of historically), a steady supply of capital gains and dividend taxes, a reduction in the US military resulting in a "peace dividend", and of course income taxes.

                        So what happened when the Nasdaq dropped almost 80% and the S&P index by 40% during 2000-2001? Well taxes dried up. Yes that's right, when you are losing money in the market you don't pay capital gains, you also are probably getting fired from your job so you aren't paying income taxes either. The great economy of Bill Clinton was built like a house of cards. You had an Internet bubble, financial scandals, and many other maladies mostly unrelated to Bush's relatively short term in office. Bush inherited one of the biggest stock market declines since the great crash of 1929 (There some markets plunged by 90%).

                        So the budget deficit was caused not just by Bush's own spending (which even I'll admit surprised most conservatives), but also by circumstance. The same circumstances that screwed over other tax-happy states such as California and Oregon.

                        So what course do you take? You can keep taxes the same and hope things recover or you can put more money in people's pockets. Preferably putting money in the pockets of the top 5% earners because these people are usually the ones who run the companies that hire people.

                        Bush's tax cuts quite possibly helped avert an extended Depression such as the one that lasted from 1929-1939 in the US because Bush realized something important: It's not the McDonald's fry operator that makes things tick. It's the guy who owns the franchise that you really care about. That's the guy you want to make sure has all the working capital they can get their hands on. Liberals just don't get this point.


                        The President promises, in a second term, to expand tax-free savings accounts, cut taxes further on dividends and capital gains, and permanently abolish the estate tax - all of which will widen the widening gap between the richest and the rest.
                        The US has one of the (if not the) lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. This is what makes this country such a great place to start a business and invest. I hope he kiills the income tax entirely and implements a nationwide sales tax. This way everyone will have to chip in to pay (even illegals).

                        As far as "widening the gap" goes. This is a typical scare tactic. Inflation has moved most salaries way up over the years. If you are married and both working you could quite possibly be considered "rich" going forward. If you own stock options you are considered "rich". If you save your whole life to retire early you are considered "rich." Be careful who's setting the definition of "rich." You may think it's a great idea until you get your tax bill.

                        My last word on this. To everyone who thinks you don't pay enough in taxes. This includes the Babra Streisands, the Michael Moore's, the George Soros's of the world. Take out a check from your brokerage account. Put the words: "US Treasury" in the "To" line. In the amount line write out as large a number as you think you should be paying. In the memo section write out the word "Donation to the national debt" and include a letter that states they aren't to credit your tax account and that it is a gift. There. Do you feel better now? I'd feel better if every rich celebrity and defender of higher taxes did this every year. Perhaps they can sell their nice Malibu home or Swiss vacation chalet to contribute even more.

                        During the fevered period immediately after September 11th, the Administration rushed what it was pleased to call the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a compliant Congress. Some of the reaction to that law has been excessive. Many of its provisions, such as allowing broader information-sharing among investigative agencies, are sensible. About others there are legitimate concerns. Section 215 of the law, for example, permits government investigators to obtain - without a subpoena or a search warrant based on probable cause - a court order entitling them to records from libraries, bookstores, doctors, universities, and Internet service providers, among other public and private entities. Officials of the Department of Justice say that they have used Section 215 with restraint, and that they have not, so far, sought information from libraries or bookstores. Their avowals of good faith would be more reassuring if their record were not otherwise so troubling.
                        I don't like the Patriot act either, but Congress approved it 98-1!! That includes Kerry:

                        http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00313



                        Secrecy and arrogance have been the touchstones of the Justice Department under Bush and his attorney general, John Ashcroft. Seven weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the Administration announced that its investigation had resulted in nearly twelve hundred arrests. The arrests have continued, but eventually the Administration simply stopped saying how many people were and are being held. In any event, not one of the detainees has been convicted of anything resembling a terrorist act. At least as reprehensible is the way that foreign nationals living in the United States have been treated. Since September 11th, some five thousand have been rounded up and more than five hundred have been deported, all for immigration infractions, after hearings that, in line with a novel doctrine asserted by Ashcroft, were held in secret. Since it is official policy not to deport terrorism suspects, it is unclear what legitimate anti-terror purpose these secret hearings serve.
                        FDR did a lot worse with the Japanese, Germans, and Italians in this country and he's loved by liberals.


                        Affirmative action is institutionalized racism. As for the "Mentally Retarded" issue. I haven't researched that one in a while, but didn't it actually refer to a case with a person who tested with a low IQ? A test that is easy to score low on if you think it will get you out of being sentenced to death (if you know what I mean).

                        Well this article is too long to hit on each point. I could go on and on, but honestly this is just another liberal hatchet job.
                        Last edited by katana; 11/01/2004 11:38pm, .

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I don't consider republicans to be conservatives. I know that makes no sense here, but it came to mind. Bush's judicial picks are like every other decision. They are made by the Republican party. The primary interests are not necessarily in the best interests of the people, but in the best interest of the party. Political favors, jobs, contracts and a whole world of insider bullshit are the focus. I don't view Bush as a leader. I view him as a figure head.

                          Federal judges, since they are appointed for life, need to have judicial temperment, intelligence and open-mindedness. Not who has the most money to throw up at a campaign, or other financial support.

                          I am afraid of what Bush could do to the Supreme Court, esp now that Renquist is sick, I hope he holds on.

                          Ashcroft in the AG seat has been a nightmare for many people. So much that I believe it was a major factor in the ABA coming out to try and get a movement going to get rid of the sentancing guides.
                          “We are surrounded by warships and don’t have time to talk. Please pray for us.” — One Somali Pirate.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            We are in bad shape either way, but I think we are "less fucked" with Kerry. Let him implement some ideas to fix the problems. The Republican Congress will hopefully stop any radical legislation he may dream up.

                            Too bad this wasn't the case for our current congress with it's patriot act. I know that's sort of unfair, since after 911 if you were against one of these "protective" laws you were a traitor or something. Well what the fuck, no body read the partiot act before passing it!

                            I'm tellin' ya Politicians = Assholes
                            “We are surrounded by warships and don’t have time to talk. Please pray for us.” — One Somali Pirate.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by katana
                              Well this article is too long to hit on each point. I could go on and on, but honestly this is just another liberal hatchet job.
                              Umm Okay...
                              :bduh:
                              “We are surrounded by warships and don’t have time to talk. Please pray for us.” — One Somali Pirate.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X