beta_hat

Since most people in entertainment are liberals, liberals have a lot of options.

Comedians - Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman, David Letterman, George Carlin, pretty much every black comedian, etc.

Music - Too many to name, Streisand and the Dixie Chicks are most hated by Conservatives but we also have the Beatles, Radiohead, Green Day, pretty much every hip hop artist, etc.

It always strikes me that the conservative musicians and comedians are of inferior quality.

Dennis Miller or Larry the Cable Guy or Andrew Dice Clay just aren't very funny, but maybe that's just because I'm a liberal? And maybe I don't like the music because I'm not into country (Ted Nugent has a few songs I like though)?

So I'm really curious Liberals and Conservatives, who are your favorite musicians and comedians that share your political beliefs? Are there any whose entertainment you enjoy but whose politics you disagree with?

Liberals can always point to the large number of countries that have higher taxes and more government spending than the US, and say "look, these countries get more vacations, work less hours, have universal healthcare (which is more efficient than ours), have better educated students than us (despite having public education), and they have GDP growth rates that are similar to ours."

Canada, Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, etc. the list goes on and on. Sure they don't have as many billionaires but they have less extreme poverty too and lower inequality.

What do conservatives and libertarians have as examples? What do you use?

Certainly there are some developing countries that have grown faster after liberalizing, but they are all much poorer than Western Europe or Canada and are likely to remain so for a very long time. I doubt many conservatives would point to China or India or Indonesia or Chile as their model economy to emulate.

I suppose Hong Kong is a decent candidate, as Milton Friedman and others supported it, but it does have a lot of social welfare spending and while it has no income tax, the government pays for all these social programs by owning all the land in the country and leasing to private users.

The government owning all land doesn't seem like something cons or libertarians would generally support.

So is the booming, prosperous economy (with benefits for all, or most) that you believe would occur with deep cuts in spending and taxes just a utopian ideal? Or are there some actual examples you would use? [Can you do it without using US history? The biggest expansion of government and of the economy happend at the same time from post WWII to the 1950s-1970s (when the top marginal tax rate was very high), and Clinton who raised taxes oversaw the largest expansion in jobs and the stock market and economic growth since then.]

It sure says alot about the effectiveness of McCain-Feingold doesn't it?

Now we hear Republicans complaining about Obama "buying" this election. So which is it? Is Obama "buying" the election, which proves that McCain's most famous legislative accomplishment is effectively useless? Or is he playing fair, and the Maverick(tm)'s legislation is helping to keep the playing field even and keep big money from ruining Washington, DC?

The Democrats always want more people to vote -including some pro-Democratic groups occasionally making up fraudulent voter registrations.

Republicans always want less people to vote -resulting in voter suppression of minorities, purging the voter rolls of legitimate voters, etc.

It is worth asking the more fundamental question, though, because in the end we have to decide how strict the voter registration/voting standards are, and the stricter we make them (to prevent fraud) the more legitimate people may be denied the right to vote. There is no absolute standard - either we make it easier to vote, which makes it easier to vote twice or for a non-person to vote, or we make it harder, which will disenfranchise some people (because they are illiterate, have no ID, etc.)

Which is better? There is a saying that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to kill an innocent man. How should that apply to voter registration and voting in general?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_...

Are Republicans aware of the distinction between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, or that some states actually purge voters from the rolls?

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/92695/?page=enti...

-8 years in the Illinois state legislature

-2 years in the Federal legislature

-successful lawyer

-eloquent speaker, outspoken opponent of a war

Pretty slim resume, no?

And the guy was also tall and skinny.

No, I'm not talking about Barack Obama. I'm talking about

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

So everyone who is knocking Obama's qualifications needs to meditate on that a little. I'm not saying Obama could ever be as great as Lincoln. I'm just saying that before assuming office and becoming great, they had pretty similar qualifications.

More of a rant than a question. So my question is, do those who think Obama is unqualified, what do you think of Lincoln's qualifications? How does 11 years of legislative experience plus a successful lawyer and expert on constitutional law stack up against, say, a five year governor?

I am aware of the national journal rankings that put Obama as most liberal in 2007 (McCain unranked-not enough votes).

link - http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

But the same ranking has Obama as 10th most liberal in 2006 and 16th in 2005. And the methodology is flawed - they already changed it once after 2004 (after calling the Kerry the most liberal before the 2004 election) and they count something like the Obama(dem)-Coburn(republican) ethics reform bill as "liberal" (the bill bans lobbyists from paying for flights or lunches for senators). So Obama is more "liberal" than Hillary because he did a bipartisan bill with a Republican to diminish lobbyist influence. Hmmmm.

How about this site, done by political scientists and published in a peer reviewed journal?

http://voteview.com/sen110.htm

They find that Obama is 10th most liberal in 2007 and in the middle of the pack in 2005-2006. Meanwhile, McCain is 8th most conservative in 2007, 2nd most in 2005 and 2006. Thoughts?

Just curious if there are any conservatives or Republicans (or whatevers) out there who would vote for Bush over McCain if somehow he could run for a third term. After all, there are still 28% of people who approve of him. And some of them must be on Yahoo answers - there are some pretty conservative people on here.

Also, if you state your reasons why I will be more likely to give you the 10 pts.

It would be nice to have an honest and open debate about how the democratic primary should be conducted in the future. I understand the anger now, but like Florida 2000, at some point you have to move on and try to fix the system for next time. So I would like to ask you your opinions on changing the Democratic primary system. Some proposals:

(1)Eliminate caucuses, have only primaries

(2)No open primaries - should we allow independent or republicans to vote?

(3)Should Puerto Rico and other territories be allowed to vote?

(4)Should we change the order each time to give states other than Iowa or New Hampshire a chance? What should be the penalty for going out of order? Or should we have all primaries on the same day?

(6)Or should we go by national popular vote, ignoring states, and no longer giving an advantage to smaller states

(7)Or should there only be a primary in swing states, to determine who is more electable?

Thanks for your considered comments and for elevating the YA debat

The McCain who:

- almost considered caucusing with the democrats in 2001 and met with Kerry to consider a VP slot in 2004

-voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001

-opposed the use of waterboarding

-the one who in 1999 said "“in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

-called Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance” in 2002"

-was against Presidential candidates visiting Bob Jones University?

-supported campaign finance reform legislation?

Or the current version McCain who supports the exact opposite of all of these policies?

If you prefer the old McCain, do you feel like his recent move to the right since 2004 is political pandering to secure the GOP nomination and he is secretly still a moderate, or a sincere change of heart?

I will give McCain points for consistency on supporting the Iraq war initially and staying indefinitely...

If Hillary were the VP choice, would that change your mind?

Is there anything Hillary herself could say to change your mind if she was not VP?

Is there any VP choice that would change your mind (an independent like Bloomberg, a Republican like Hagel, an Edwards or Richardson or Gore or Jim Webb or Wesley Clarke?)

In the constant debate to pull Hillary supporters towards Obama or McCain, I have heard many McCain supporters argue that he is a really moderate Republican, "practically a democrat" in the words of one. If this is really true, can McCain supporters:

Name any significant differences with Bush since 2004

(before you say earmarks, read this http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/0...

If McCain came out and said he'd cut $4billion for the Army Corps of Engineers or military housing or community development or disease researcher I would have more respect for him and maybe count this)

McCain had a few differences with Bush before that - "agents of intolerance," opposing the Bush tax cuts, and campaign finance reform - but since 2004 it seems like he has been in lock step with the Whitehouse. [Or is McCain just faking being a conservative to win the GOP nomination? How do we know if he is really faking it or not, do you have a lie detector?]

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the RNC also stripped Florida and Michigan of half of their delegates (not to mention a few other states - Wyoming, New Hampshire, and South Carolina ) - for violating their rules and holding primaries before February 5th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(Uni...

Granted, you could argue that the RNC rules of stripping half the delegates are better than the DNC rules of stripping all of the delegates. But the DNC has now said they will allow for half of the delegates (or rather, all the delegates but with half a vote each).

So I understand how you could think the primary process is ridiculous and broken - I agree - and how you could be angry at your state parties for breaking the rules and making your vote count for less - I would be angry too - but I don't understand how, at this point, you could vote Republican in protest here given that both parties did the same thing.

To Hillary supporters and independents"

I have heard many arguments for why you would vote for Hillary in a general election but not Obama. I won't accuse you of racism, ignorance, etc. but there are legitimate reasons to prefer Hillary.

However, one of the reasons I frequently hear for why you would support McCain over Obama is experience. If that is the case, I would like to know:

(1)Does the fact that Obama has 10 years of legislative experience (Illinois senate 1997-2004 US senate 2004-now) which is more than Hillary (US senate 2000-now) mean anything to you? Why do you completely discount his 7 years in the Illinois senate? Bush was only governor for 5 years before taking office - Obama is twice as experienced in politics (and governors have no foreign policy exp.)

(2)If experience is your main criterion, would you vote for Dick Cheney over Obama if he was the Republican nominee? He has the same positions as McCain on all the issues, and more experience.

You people who would vote for one of the democratic candidates in the general election but not the other really confuse me.

You do realize that whoever gets the nomination - Hillary or Barack - the other one will be campaigning to get the winner elected and will definitely be voting for them (and probably even in their cabinet).

How can you trust either one of these candidates to be president, over John McCain, but then turn around and betray the ISSUES they are fighting for and vote for McCain (or not vote at all)? You realize that you would make Hillary/Barack cry if you voted for McCain!

Even if you don't get your first choice, please hold your nose and vote based on the issues! Make your favorite candidate proud.

You people who would vote for one of the democratic candidates in the general election but not the other really confuse me.

You do realize that whoever gets the nomination - Hillary or Barack - the other one will be campaigning to get the winner elected and will definitely be voting for them (and probably even in their cabinet).

How can you trust either one of these candidates to be president, over John McCain, but then turn around and betray the ISSUES they are fighting for and vote for McCain (or not vote at all)? You realize that you would make Hillary/Barack cry if you voted for McCain!

Even if you don't get your first choice, please hold your nose and vote based on the issues! Make your favorite candidate proud.

Mohamed Ali went to jail for refusing to go fight in Vietnam. When asked why he replied "Ain't no Vietcong ever called me [insert N-word here]" In context, what he meant was that no vietnamese person had ever bothered him or done anything to him, while in his own country he had been insulted and demeaned many times because of his race.

If he had said this today about the Iraq war, would he be labeled "unpatriotic" and a "racist hate-monger" like Reverend Jeremiah Wright by Fox news and the right-wing punditry?

People also seem to forget the kind of language MLK used about Vietnam (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sp...

Would he also be considered unpatriotic these days?

Charles Oakley once said 66% of NBA players smoked pot. Josh Howard admitted he did during the off-season today. Is there any evidence that any of the NBA greats smoked pot, or is it only above-average, not quite superstars and below?

The bill, sponsored by former Marine Jim Webb, has broad bipartisan support and provides Iraq and Afghanistan vets with a World War II style GI bill.

www.gibill2008.com

Why won't McCain support the bill? Instead he wants his own less generous bill. I say he does it because he is worried about making life too easy for vets outside of the military - if you make their options outside the military more attractive, they might want to leave, especially if they are staring at tour of duty number #10 in year 7 of McCain's administration (and year 7 of 100 of the occupation).

Is the new Republican policy making life harder for vets outside of the military to increase retention rates and fight the war for longer?

Let's suppose that invading Iraq actually prevented another 9/11. Forget financial costs - 9/11 cost alot and so did Iraq. Let's look at lives.

That's 3,000 American civillians killed in 9/11 (and 19 bad guys).

Versus 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq + about 5x that wounded (and thousands of bad guys).

So Iraq gave us a much better kill ratio (Vietnam did too) - bad guys killed to good guys. But was it worth it?

How do you value the life of a US soldier versus a US civillian? Should the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civillians who died count for anything?

If you can, state your exchange rate of US soldiers to US civillians to Iraqi civillians.

Assume we know everything that we know now (except Saddam had a WMD that would have caused a 9/11 if we hadn't invaded) but that we can't change the course of events (i.e. manage the war better).