jay pettitt on 27/9/2008 at 21:27
Quote Posted by Thief13x
it actually might not be a bad idea (besides prices of everything skyrocketing:p
Free money whahey!!!!
Ok, so if one hundred people all club together and each give one dollar to a pool, to be received by a single person then one person is likely to think omgthisissocool. If one hundred people club together to give one dollar to to a pool to be redistributed to one hundred people they're gonna think coo, one dollar, thanks. If it's the same one hundred people who gave the dollar in the first place... Of course, not everyone pays the same amount of taxes.
Fragmented thoughts on the Debate.
If I'm being kind I'd say McCain did enough to not write himself off completely and I think a lot of people will be relieved, but it was down to McCain to impress; he's trailing in the poles - staying afloat probably won't be enough.
Iraq is a mess. Withdrawing will likely be messy, staying will likely be messy. There is no great victory scenario. My gut sides with McCain - It's your mess, you stay behind at great cost to life, limb and economy *indefinitely* because, frankly, that's what the consequence of your actions demand. My head sides with Obama. That said McCain is comfortable appealing to heart strings and other sleight of hand, Obama isn't, which probably gives McCain the advantage.
McCain is weak on economy. A desire to cut frivolous Washington spending may be admirable (assuming that you are also smart enough to recognise where Washinton is providing value for money), but it is not a cogent economic policy, not even nearly. Obama is too nice, the sword could have gone in at this point and been twisted, then the guts spilled while he was still semi conscious and fed to hungry dogs.
Obama just doesn't understand. I've gone to the dogs, I know how to be fed to dogs.
Fave moment followed the Russia question. Obama commented that Russia policy required more than 'looking into the eyes of Putin.' McCain replied - "I've looked into the eyes of Putin..." It's like one of those dolls where you pull a chord and they blurt out one of 4 prerecorded phrases. "I've looked into the eyes of Putin" "I will make them famous" "I'm a maverick" "I'm not known as miss congeniality ya know". I hope the democrats picked up on this and use it and use it and use it. ...And I saw three letters: K, G, B; oh puhleease. Palin is even worse.
And then there's the whole lack of substance. McCain keps saying he's done stuff, he knows how to done stuff. Well, do tell; it's important. Obama wants to kill puppies (this really happen?). I don't want to kill puppies. I've done not killing puppies. I know how not to kill puppies, McCain for president. Am I rite?
I thought McCain finished well. Obama probably had the edge on him during the meat and bones of the debate, but finish is important, McCain trumped the finish.
Credit where it's due. Truth is McCain did considerably better than I was expecting. But then he went and released and new (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc&eurl=http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=5df2d740-ce2b-4fb6-922d-4dde3b974cd9) ad and it went back to the same ol' shit. Wow, selective editing, that'll wash - John McCain; Bent Talk Express.
Gryzemuis on 27/9/2008 at 23:09
Another way to look at McCain:
I've read McCain likes to gamble. If it weren't for his wife, he might been bankrupt. :) He's known to have stayed in casinos for 14 hours straight, rolling the same dice, hoping that the next time he would get lucky. Staff members have commented on how they had difficulties keeping McCain away from the craps tables.
(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/mccains-mostly-ignored-ga_b_119535.html)
I've seen McCain say "yes, I am a gambling man".
McCain prefers to play craps. Some forms of gambling require some skills. Craps is a game of pure luck.
Now look at his behaviour in politics. The most outspoken thing he's done lately is appoint Palin as his running mate. Now that move is a huge gambling move. It revived the interest of the evangelicals, of the ultra-right wing voters. He got media attention. I bet he was hoping he might catch some Clinton-voters. But the downside is that if Palin gets exposed, he might lose the election. If he dies during the presidency, Palin as a president could be a huge failure. McCain took a huge risk. He gambled all or nothing.
How does he do on other issues ? He seems very black&white. No middle ground, no greys exist in his world. You fight a war with everything you got, till the end, till you drop dead. You don't negotiate, you don't talk. You don't adjust strategy. You keep a straight face, and hope you are the winner in the end. That resembles a gambling attitude, imho.
McCain seems to be a real gambler.
Do you want to place the future of your country in the hands of a gambler ?
Thief13x on 28/9/2008 at 00:02
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
If one hundred people club together to give one dollar to to a pool to be redistributed to one hundred people they're gonna think coo, one dollar, thanks. If it's the same one hundred people who gave the dollar in the first place... Of course, not everyone pays the same amount of taxes.
I couldn't agree more, I think resdistributing it to the people is pointless, since that's where it came from in the first place. But itsn't it better than distributing it to the banks who fucked up in the first place?
D'Juhn Keep on 28/9/2008 at 00:12
I wanted to watch the debate but didn't get round to it but if that's the kind of shit McCain is trying to pull then I'm glad I was offering 3-1 for him winning the election tonight
jay pettitt on 28/9/2008 at 01:03
The thing is, his debate performance was probably good enough to win back some of the people he has turned off with his barrel scraping campaign tactics. The very next day he sets about alienating them all over again.
theBlackman on 28/9/2008 at 01:34
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
[...] My worries are about letting a guy who like to gamble run a country.
:wot:
Of course, John F. Kennedy's bluff during the Cuban/Russia missle confrontations does not count as Gambling.
:tsktsk:
Then again, with minor exceptions we all "Gamble". Do you have insurance (of any kind)? That's a wager with the man who issued it.
When you cross a street you are gambling you'll make it. When you eat dinner at a restaurant, you are gambling that you won't get food poisoning.
Hell, a gambler is not a big deal. It's the idiots who don't understand the game, the odds, or the rules. And as far as I can tell, rolling dice for 14 hours clearly indicates a lack of discipline, understanding of the game, the behaviour of dice and the accumen to know when to cut your losses.
I'd love to see a "chart" of those hours, the bets he made, and the starting buy-in and final "Walk" total.
With odds at 1.414 % against you on the Pass/Come line, and 1.404 on the Dont Pass/Don't Come at the lowest (unless you take odds, which you should), and up to 30% for some of the one-hoppers, Mac was almost guaranteed to lose his ass over that time.
That kind of "intelligence" scares the crap out of me.
Gryzemuis on 28/9/2008 at 01:52
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Then again, with minor exceptions we all "Gamble".
I don't want to go into semantics. But there is a difference between gambling and taking risks. For me, gambling means doing things while hoping you benefit from it, while other people, science, math, statistics tell you that you will lose. You hope for a "good roll". Taking risk is judging the benefits, drawbacks and the odds, and try to do something sensible that won't have too big an impact if it goes wrong.
Quote:
Do you have insurance (of any kind)? That's a wager with the man who issued it.
It all depends on how you look at it. In my country we actually have insurance companies that are owned by the cooperation of the insurance-takers. Insurance is a way to cover against the odds. Not to gamble with the odds.
Quote:
Hell, a gambler is not a big deal. It's the idiots who don't understand the game, the odds, or the rules.
I agree with you there.
Most forms of (commercial) gambling are set up in such a way that the gamblers will lose in the long run. The house takes a percentage. You pay taxes of profits, but don't get to deduct loses. Etc. But people keep gambling. And they keep losing. Someone once said that gambling was just "a tax for people who are bad at math".
Quote:
That kind of "intelligence" scares the crap out of me.
Yep, that was what I meant. Obama plays poker. But he plays for very small stakes. And supposedly he plays very conservative and defensive. It's a matter of personality. And I believe that that might have an impact on taking bigger decisions. Just look at the Palin pick by McCain. I think that was a big all-or-nothing gamble.
The scary problem is again that oen can not discuss this issue in the media honestly. Because it isn't important to reveal the truth, or point at a different angle regarding who is suited to take important decisions. The only thing that matters is: how do voters perceive this ? They might think "I like to gamble once in a while, so I like McCain better". Just like they might think "I rather drink a beer with Palin than with that boring Obama dude". Just like some voters must have thought 8 years ago "I like that dumbass Bush a lot better than that smartass Gore. Bush is more like me".
I watched the debate yesterday live. Middle of the night here. It was the first debate I watched start to finish, live. I was a bit disappointed by the level of discussion. Everything was kept very simple. But I guess that's the way it has to be done. If one of the candidates says too many smart things, he will alienate too many potential voters. Pretty sad actually.
theBlackman on 28/9/2008 at 02:09
Just to play a little "devils advocate". Any "Risk" is a gamble. One hopes the "Risk" will justify the "reward".
Gamble and Risk are basically the same, semantics being in the mind of the observer.
The risk in a session at a controlled game of wagering is that you will lose it all. The hope is that you will profit.
The risk in skiing is that you may break a leg -or worse- the reward is schussing down that new run successfully.
No matter how you slice it both are GAMBLES.
In the first, you are merely wagering (betting), time and money, with a commenserate reward or lose.
In the second, you are wagering (betting), your life.
Having been in a position to do both. And having done both successfully, I know that betting your life is more subject to the vagarities of "the Fates" than sitting gambling in a Casino. You can get up and leave a Casino at anytime. You have complete control.
In life, you don't have control once you have made the choice to take that "Risk". Cross the street, ski down that hill, or whatever.
I'm sure you have heard of, or seen the collapse of the special racing bike on the volcano as the "althlete" tried for a new downhill speed record. Or the Rally driver who missed a turn and hit a photographer.
All three, Bike rider, driver, photographer, accepted (took), a risk. Once they had done so, the result was out of thier control and completely in the "Hands of the Gods".
Turtle on 28/9/2008 at 03:10
It's amazing how you get harder and harder to take seriously with every single post.
