Worlds Worse Gambler's

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics there's a chapter called the "World's Worse Gamblers." I'm starting to wonder if John Kerry doesn't qualify for a future edition.

His gamble was that he could run against Bush as a Vietnam war hero, not ever mention his senate record of being anti-military, think that his anti-war efforts of many years ago would never be mentioned, and that the old divisions and animosities that occurred during the Vietnam years would not resurface.

For example, I just watched a news excerpt of him criticizing Dick Cheney for getting deferments to avoid the military. But isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Kerry was advocating back then? That is wouldn't he had supported anyone to get out of serving in any way?

Kerry reminds me of the poker player who just thinks he can always get the last bet or raise in and that everyone else will fold. It seems like it never occurred to him that sometimes your opponents will call or even raise you back.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics there's a chapter called the "World's Worse Gamblers." I'm starting to wonder if John Kerry doesn't qualify for a future edition.


[/ QUOTE ]

The gamblers are the DNC and the RNC. The cards are the tickets. Its 83o vs 72o.

Stu

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like it never occurred to him that sometimes your opponents will call or even raise you back.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can't even fold to the raise. He's gotta call and then look like a tard with the 9 high that he tried to buy the pot with, and THEN foolishly called with.

Like, I think he's required to see a showdown in this circumstance.

~D

[GWB]

The pot is so big for him, raising is mandatory. Unfortunately for him, I am not going to fold, because the pot is big for me too, so I will raise back.

He expects people to only pay attention to what he is saying Now. It never occurs to him that if he discusses Cheney's service, that we might just go back and see what he said about Clinton's service in 1992.

He is destined to fall into the same trap Gore did in 2000. Every statement he makes in the debates will be studied within hours for inconsistencies with his past statements, and there will be plenty of inconsistencies.

Being inconsistent or stretching the truth (Kerrry's problem) is worse than making gaffes (my problem).

[eLROY]

Kerry's operating at a crippling disadvantage. Bush is running right about where Bush is. His convention was all about preaching to the choir, and assuming the choir is 51%. Kerry's choir is only about 33%, so he has to sell himself to strangers. But every time he tries to move towards that additional 18%, he comes across as phony. Kerry is willing to give up his ideas so he can be President, rather than be President so he can promote his ideas. John Edwards started out trying to sell where he really was, but scrapped it in two weeks. You can see a sharp contrast when you compare these people to Howard Dean, who sells what he actually believes, and Bill Clinton, who doesn't believe anything. So I don't blame Kerry, I blame the hand which he can't win with and can't lay down, so he has to misrepresent. George Bush is not some genius campaigner, his ideas just happen to be more popular than Kerry's.

[andyfox]

Well he's been in the Senate for 19 years, and now he's made the final table at the Big One, so I don't think he's among the world's worst gamblers.

But he's sure made a big mistake with his approach thus far. Plus I agree with what elROY points out. (I can't believe I just typed that sentence. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) He's to the left of center so he needs to sell himself further to the right. Combine that with the fact of his general woodenness, and he comes across as a salesman.

But he's still got $45,000,000 worth of chips. Let's see if he plays them more wisely than those he's already lost.

[Toro]

Agreed that Kerry's not looking too good right now but there is a long way to go. He may have stumbled and bumbled a bit so far but he's no Al Gore. He's a very good campaigner and I predict he'll get it together before it's too late.

He had similiar problems when challenged by Bill Weld an enormously popular Governor here in Mass. I think the debates will be key. Everyone said that last time but Gore fell flat on his face. I don't think that happens this time.

[GWB]

I think the Weld example is overused. Massachusetts is a liberal state, they were predisposed to electing a Democrat, and he could win even if a majority of independents went for Weld. In the swing states this year, he does not have that built in advantage, he has to win a majority of the independents in the MidWest who don't really trust New Englanders.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif nobody can win a national election running as a liberal...from here on out the battle begins: dubya keeps pointing out lurch's obvious far left attitudes; while lurch presents as all-american middle-of-the road...it will be this perception than makes the difference....

dubya must win ohio...

gl

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Weld example is overused. Massachusetts is a liberal state, they were predisposed to electing a Democrat, and he could win even if a majority of independents went for Weld. In the swing states this year, he does not have that built in advantage, he has to win a majority of the independents in the MidWest who don't really trust New Englanders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay W, underestimate him at your peril. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the debates will be key. Everyone said that last time but Gore fell flat on his face. I don't think that happens this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read a book on Kerry (by Boston Globe reporters, anyone else read it?) and apparently Kerry used to be a great debater for the Yale debate team as well as a great lawyer/prosecutor. He should be able to crush Bush in the debates. Although, Gore was supposed to do the same to Bush, yeah?

BTW, are the debates this year really going to be debates? Or are they just going to be a lot of stupid 2 minute speeche that aren't at all like a debate and don't go into any depth?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay W, underestimate him at your peril. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying we should underestimate him, rather that his audience is different than he has ever had to deal with before.

Have you noticed that he keeps pulling in more Boston campaign handlers to run his campaign. What do they know about Ohio and Pennsylvania?

[Dominic]

Mason, as a fellow writer I think you should make a correction in any future editions of your book that include the chapter heading: "worlds worse gamblers"...don't you mean "world's WORST gamblers?"

[Wahoo91]

The pot is so big for him, raising is mandatory. Unfortunately for him, I am not going to fold, because the pot is big for me too, so I will raise back.

Does anyone else think it is odd that you continuously pretend like you are the president?

[ACPlayer]

Hi MM,

Given that one can make this sort of statement for the words of just about any politician (specially given the reckless gambling presently underway in the WH), I would venture to guess that you are republican.

[J_V]

Hey ElRoy,

Big fan of your posts. I like your angle. Good to see you're still floating around these parts.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
His gamble was that he could run against Bush as a Vietnam war hero..... think that his anti-war efforts of many years ago would never be mentioned, and that the old divisions and animosities that occurred during the Vietnam years would not resurface.


[/ QUOTE ]

A large tactical error and very easily foreseeable. Or at least should have been, especially by Kerry for obvious reasons. And yet Kerry, apparently, could not restrain himself. He appears bound to skewer himself on his own imbecilities. Shows just what type of shyster Kerry really is.

Heard today that Kerry is getting advice from Billy Bob Clinton. It's a little late as Pandora’s box has already been opened and half emptied.

But it is still a long way to go and perhaps Kerry the Chameleon can still pull it out.

-Zeno

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
...and now he's made the final table at the Big One, so I don't think he's among the world's worst gamblers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then since Nader has been at the final table several times that must make him a world champion. All it takes is money to reach the final table but it takes talent and actual policies to win it.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The pot is so big for him, raising is mandatory. Unfortunately for him, I am not going to fold, because the pot is big for me too, so I will raise back.

Does anyone else think it is odd that you continuously pretend like you are the president?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather that I speak of myself in the third person, as my friend Bob Dole does?

[Wahoo91]

Would you rather that I speak of myself in the third person, as my friend Bob Dole does?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
But isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Kerry was advocating back then? That is wouldn't he had supported anyone to get out of serving in any way?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he did!! Do you blame him? I’m a vet and I would have begged and pleaded that NO join the military at that time. I think he did a service trying to keep people out of Vietnam.

EDIT: Unless of course it was during that time frame, which I doubt as Cheney is old as dirt.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you noticed that he keeps pulling in more Boston campaign handlers to run his campaign. What do they know about Ohio and Pennsylvania?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point! If I were Kerry I would pick up the telephone and call James Carville and George Stephanopolous and offer them both a blank check.

When Bush Sr. crushed Mike Dukakis a large part was Dukakis being slow to respond to attacks. Clinton vowed not to make the same mistake. He had his two pit bulls, Carville and Stephanopolous at the ready to respond immediately to any and all attacks. Responses were quick and deadly. Usually within the hour, never waiting until even the next day. And the more we saw of them the more effective and credible they became.

Sadly, Kerry is making the same mistakes with the slow responses. An un-answered attack becomes the truth and the late responses tend to look lame. Plus he doesn't have the attack dogs to respond. He and Edwards are doing it. He needs strong vicious surrogates to handle this.

I'm surprised that Democrats just don't follow the Clinton blueprint for election. If ever there were a flawed candidate in so many ways, it was slick Willy, but he got himself elected to 2 terms something no Democrat going back to FDR can't claim.

[riverflush]

Great post Mason...

I've been saying this on here for the past 3 weeks. Kerry and the Democrats had a golden opportunity this year with Bush's controversial Iraq war...and they're blowing it. Kerry pushed all his chips in on Vietnam, the most controversial war in U.S. history, and now he's stuck in the 70s mud. It's ugly.

If Bush didn't have Iraq on the table, he'd win this election by 12 points easily. Iraq opened up an opportunity, and the Dems blew it with the Kerry selection.

[Knockwurst]

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to agree with Stu Pidasso more or less on this one.

Kerry is one of the worst gamblers, because he won't take a gamble. He's hedging his bets when he's get the worst of it. As Pidasso said, he's got a hand that can't even beat a bluff, and he's check calling the whole way. W.'s bluffing but Kerry can't beat a bluff, so grow a pair and raise, Man. Christ on a f*cking cracker!

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Very good point! If I were Kerry I would pick up the telephone and call James Carville and George Stephanopolous and offer them both a blank check.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just heard last night that Paul Begala and James Carville are now officially working for the Kerry campaign. I suppose they will need to find some new Crossfire hosts.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post Mason...

I've been saying this on here for the past 3 weeks. Kerry and the Democrats had a golden opportunity this year with Bush's controversial Iraq war...and they're blowing it. Kerry pushed all his chips in on Vietnam, the most controversial war in U.S. history, and now he's stuck in the 70s mud. It's ugly.

If Bush didn't have Iraq on the table, he'd win this election by 12 points easily. Iraq opened up an opportunity, and the Dems blew it with the Kerry selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to admit that my timing of the turnover of control to the Iraqi government was perfect. I am hearing less and less fuss about Iraq - it is fast becoming ancient history and people can see that it will soon be over as a major issue.

The Democrats big issue is disappearing. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

W

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to admit that my timing of the turnover of control to the Iraqi government was perfect. I am hearing less and less fuss about Iraq - it is fast becoming ancient history and people can see that it will soon be over as a major issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
35 dead today, including 4 US soldiers. Over 150 wounded in heavy fighting in Sadr City. Yeah, not to much fuss over there right now.

[andyfox]

Nader is not at the final table. He has as much chance to be elected as I do. He's not even on the ballot in a lot of states.

Kerry was floundering in the early going and ended up virtually sweeping the primaries. While I think he's in trouble now (short-stacked?), it would be a mistake on Bush's part to under-estimate him (which I don't think they are).

[adios]

Let me take a crack at underestimating Kerry. Kerry gained a great deal from Clinton's coattails in 1996. I believe that Clinton took Massachusettes by a 33% margin in 1996. Weld stated that be was hurt by the Democrats making the Mass senate race "national" by brining in Clinton to campaign for Kerry in the final weeks. Nothing wrong with that of course. Now Kerry's at the top of the ticket but I agree that he's been a resourceful pol through the years so we'll see what happens.

[Smokey98]

Exactly! This whole Iraq war is BS anyway. That's why I'm not voting for Bush and the only reason, plus the fact that he's an idiot.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Weld example is overused. Massachusetts is a liberal state, they were predisposed to electing a Democrat, and he could win even if a majority of independents went for Weld.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Massachusetts really a liberal state? I'm living there right now and I really have to wonder. Sure gays are more accepted here, but everything else isn't.

The bars close at 1 P.M., you can't have a campfire on the beach. If you talk to loud on a public beach at night in Falmouth people call the cops a they kick you off. Emergency vehicles on the Cape don't even use sirens unless they have to because of the "noise". The alcohol laws blow. You can't smoke in any bar. Every building on the Cape has to be cedar shake, even the Walmart has cedar siding and looks Colonial. There are enough rules and restrictions to drive you crazy in Mass. Don't get me wrong, besides the laws, I like it here, but is that liberal? I always thought liberal meant being free to do what you wanted to do as long as you weren't hurting anyone else. You know that unconditional love thing. In my eyes, California is liberal, unless your gay, Mass. is anything but liberal. They sure do love the Dem's though.

So my question is, what is liberal? And besides the gay marriage thing, are democrats liberal?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Massachusetts really a liberal state?

[/ QUOTE ]

Massachusetts 2000 Presidential Election:
Gore 1,616,487 -- 60%
Bush 878,502 -- 33%
Nader 173,564 -- 6%

Only state giving Gore a bigger % margin: Rhode Island (also DC)

A 27% margin for Gore when it was close nationwide is a sign of a pretty liberal state.

[Wahoo91]

A 27% margin for Gore when it was close nationwide is a sign of a pretty liberal state.

I don't really know the answer to this but becuase we all know how good GWB is at countin' and stuff... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

wouldn't this be a much higher margin of victory mathematically speaking?

[felson]

If Massachusetts is liberal, then Cambridge, MA is communist.

Gore 28,609 - 72%
Bush 5,140 - 13%
Nader 5,426 - 14%

http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/county/county_maop-0.html

[Toro]

You're definitely onto soemthing there Sir. Massachusetts has the reputation of being a liberal State but I'm not so sure. It's definitely a Democrat State in that its hard to get elected if you're not a Democrat. But we've had quite a few Republican Governors in a row, Weld, Cellucci and now Romney.

I know a few State reps that are very conservatives but they are registered Democrats because that's the easiest way to get elected here. In a lot of ways it's like what they used to call the "solid" South. All those southern States that would vote solidly for Democrats. They were conservative as hell but probably because of Lincoln, a Republican and the Civil War they were going to vote Deocrat come hell or high water. Of course in recent years this has changed and they are voting Republican now particularly in national elections.

[SossMan]

The pot is so big for him, raising is mandatory. Unfortunately for him, I am not going to fold, because the pot is big for me too, so I will raise back.


who knew? he plays poker

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Weld example is overused. Massachusetts is a liberal state, they were predisposed to electing a Democrat, and he could win even if a majority of independents went for Weld.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Massachusetts really a liberal state? I'm living there right now and I really have to wonder. Sure gays are more accepted here, but everything else isn't.

The bars close at 1 P.M., you can't have a campfire on the beach. If you talk to loud on a public beach at night in Falmouth people call the cops a they kick you off. Emergency vehicles on the Cape don't even use sirens unless they have to because of the "noise". The alcohol laws blow. You can't smoke in any bar. Every building on the Cape has to be cedar shake, even the Walmart has cedar siding and looks Colonial. There are enough rules and restrictions to drive you crazy in Mass. Don't get me wrong, besides the laws, I like it here, but is that liberal? I always thought liberal meant being free to do what you wanted to do as long as you weren't hurting anyone else. You know that unconditional love thing. In my eyes, California is liberal, unless your gay, Mass. is anything but liberal. They sure do love the Dem's though.

So my question is, what is liberal? And besides the gay marriage thing, are democrats liberal?

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow. Maybe you guys are finally getting it. Liberal has no meaning today. Today's "liberals" are for strict governmental regulations, not less... They are the activists fighting for anti-smoking laws, tighter land-use and emminent domain restrictions, strict building codes, restrictive seat belt laws, sobriety check-points, "smart" development projects, "low-flow" shower heads, etc. etc. etc.

Come on, guys! The term "liberal" has been hijacked away from Libertarians who have always supported freedom in both economic and social matters - and morphed into some meaningless strategic political term by those who use "social" issues like gay marriage and drugs to seize and hold power...power that runs contrary to the very freedom that true liberals espouse.

Democrats dangle the carrot of a free society with gay rights, relaxed drug laws, etc. etc...but in practice they are the restrictive "parental society" party. They are so busy protecting everybody from the ills of others...freedom doesn't really enter into the equation. Want proof? Just try to build something in California or Mass. Try to smoke in a bar. Go through a sobriety checkpoint without your seatbelt on. Try to install a high-powered toilet in Cali...build a porch with no railing, etc.

Google: Classical Liberal, Libertarianism, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Emminent Domain, Land-use laws, Anti-smoking initiative, Ted Kennedy...just have fun with it. It's all there.

[Cyrus]

Hi everyone:

I think mason Malmuth is exaggerating here when he claims this:

"Kerry reminds me of the poker player who just thinks he can always get the last bet or raise in and that everyone else will fold. It seems like it never occurred to him that sometimes your opponents will call or even raise you back."

There are some problems with this claim. First, we do not know, as Mason assumes, if Kerry uses such a tactic "always" or it is just the game plan for this particular game only. Since Mason claims that Kerry is possibly the "World's Worse [sic] Gambler" (he means Worst), he should be in a position to know. After all, one mistake in one game does not characterize a player, even if it's a mistake committed with a pair of 4s in your hand.

Second, why is that tactic a mistake of "world" proportions?? Betting instead of Checking or Raising instead of Calling are not so big mistakes, and, in any case, an error that costs you the pot is "nearly always much worse" than an error that costs you one or more bets ["Sklansky On Poker", p.18]. Does Mason believe that Kerry's mistake (if it is indeed a mistake) of inciting focus on his anti-Vietnam stance will cost him the election?? I hope he at least believes that canard, otherwise he is showing some expert bias on this.

But since Mason brought the poker metaphors into the political discussion, let me tell you about A Serious Flaw In Players' Thinking. It's the results-oriented thinking, as they call it. And we are witnessing, right now, from the Republican camp, a prime example of such thinking!

To wit: The war in Iraq was conducted with a specific cause and a specific objective in mind. The cause was the existence of WMDs and the objective was removing a serious threat to American national security. That's what the record says. Well, we now know that there were no WMDs and that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. And yet, and yet, we are still "in the pot", sending good money after bad (the 1000th American was killed in Iraq a few days ago), because, in our results-oriented-thinking mode, we assure ourselves that Saddam was "a bad guy" so the outcome was worth it anyway! Since the result was "good", our gamble was "good"! (Note, please, that the result itself is also a fantasy, something that places us squarely into compulsive gambler territory. With gamblers who are in denial of reality.)

Accordingly, correct & incisive thinking about issues such as cost-versus-benefit, risk-aversion, pot commitment, distractions from the game, etcetera, is suspended.

But our poker teachers are not pointing that out.

...Best wishes.

--Cyrus

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
But since Mason brought the poker metaphors into the political discussion, let me tell you about A Serious Flaw In Players' Thinking. It's the results-oriented thinking, as they call it. And we are witnessing, right now, from the Republican camp, a prime example of such thinking!


[/ QUOTE ]

But Cyrus in politics the result is all that matters, remember you will never reach the "long run" during the short life of ones political career. It appears you need to brush-up on your political theory as well as your poker.

[Abednego]

What do you mean that there were no WMDs? Please explain. That there were WMDs isn't even debatable. Or would you say because Osama hasn't been captured that there is no Osama? So you are simply wrong about the reason we went to war being invalid. Everybody knew he had them, the whole world knew it because he had used them. The whole world was united in doing all it could to get Saddam to prove he had destroyed them. If this isn't so what were all those UN resolutions about? What was the vote authorizing the use of force about? Please explain.

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the response but you did not address any single point - except for the goddamn WMDs.

"What do you mean that there were no WMDs? Please explain."

Uhh. There were no WMDs.

"That there were WMDs isn't even debatable."

If they were, the American army would have found them. If they were, all those on the American side, who have already admitted that no WMDs exist and probably have been destroyed a long time ago, would not say so. A lot of explanations have been offered as to what happened but WMDs have not been found. So what do you want to debate? Fantasies?

"Would you say because Osama hasn't been captured that there is no Osama?"

I could refer you to a certain cat here /images/graemlins/cool.gif, but I will only say that, yes, Osama could be dead - or he could be alive /images/graemlins/cool.gif. Seriously, he probably is alive, IMO. But if you know either way for sure, please notify the Pentagon.

"The whole world was united in doing all it could to get Saddam to prove he had destroyed [his WMDs]. If this isn't so what were all those UN resolutions about? What was the vote authorizing the use of force about?"

The UN SC Resolution 1441 authorised the use of force but (and this is the gist of it) not automatically! A new Resolution was required for war. The diplomats of all other members, except the UK's, were very careful in their wording of that Resolution. The US, as soon as it saw it didn't have the votes to get a new Resolution authorising war, positioned itself to go it alone. And it did.

The other powers wanted to give the UN more time. The US wanted to invade right away. Turned out the other powers were right.

The results are in from Iraq, Wake UP : Neither WMDs, nor a threat to US security. (A threat to Israel, hmmm maybe. Possibly. Maybe. But not to the United States!) Those who have gotten the United States into the mess that is Iraq (worse may be yet to come (http://www.riia.org/index.php?id=189&pid=168)) have a lot of explaining to do about the way they played their hand.

They are reckless gamblers. There's no other way to describe their play.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

"The whole world was united in doing all it could to get Saddam to prove he had destroyed [his WMDs]. If this isn't so what were all those UN resolutions about? What was the vote authorizing the use of force about?"

The UN SC Resolution 1441 authorised the use of force but (and this is the gist of it) not automatically! A new Resolution was required for war. The diplomats of all other members, except the UK's, were very careful in their wording of that Resolution. The US, as soon as it saw it didn't have the votes to get a new Resolution authorising war, positioned itself to go it alone. And it did.

The other powers wanted to give the UN more time. The US wanted to invade right away. Turned out the other powers were right.

The results are in from Iraq, Wake UP : Neither WMDs, nor a threat to US security. (A threat to Israel, hmmm maybe. Possibly. Maybe. But not to the United States!) Those who have gotten the United States into the mess that is Iraq (worse may be yet to come (http://www.riia.org/index.php?id=189&pid=168)) have a lot of explaining to do about the way they played their hand.

They are reckless gamblers. There's no other way to describe their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically we were still at war from the first gulf war. Also, isn't an act of force on another country an act of war?

Do you really think Saddam wouldn't of built up his WMD program, especially after everything he told Putin?

Also the other powers were right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what powers are you talking about. The as far as I know even the russians and the germans were agreeing that there were WMD's unaccounted for.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]



Wow. Maybe you guys are finally getting it. Liberal has no meaning today. Today's "liberals" are for strict governmental regulations, not less... They are the activists fighting for anti-smoking laws, tighter land-use and emminent domain restrictions, strict building codes, restrictive seat belt laws, sobriety check-points, "smart" development projects, "low-flow" shower heads, etc. etc. etc.

Come on, guys! The term "liberal" has been hijacked away from Libertarians who have always supported freedom in both economic and social matters - and morphed into some meaningless strategic political term by those who use "social" issues like gay marriage and drugs to seize and hold power...power that runs contrary to the very freedom that true liberals espouse.

Democrats dangle the carrot of a free society with gay rights, relaxed drug laws, etc. etc...but in practice they are the restrictive "parental society" party. They are so busy protecting everybody from the ills of others...freedom doesn't really enter into the equation. Want proof? Just try to build something in California or Mass. Try to smoke in a bar. Go through a sobriety checkpoint without your seatbelt on. Try to install a high-powered toilet in Cali...build a porch with no railing, etc.

Google: Classical Liberal, Libertarianism, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Emminent Domain, Land-use laws, Anti-smoking initiative, Ted Kennedy...just have fun with it. It's all there.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly. I've lived in numeous spots around the world, interacted with alot of cultures, and seen alot of strange places. Ironically enough, I have not been shocked by a culture(in the US, and rarely outside the US) as much as I have in Mass. Republicans and conservatives are very dirty words and I have never seen as much hatred for a political party as I do out here. It's funny even my room-mate hates Bush, and conservatives, and says the smartest people are all liberal. In the same conversation he will say that small local governments are better that big governments, and starts preaching many philosophies on the republican platform. He also preaches democratic philosophies when it comes to the impotent UN and the environment, but he refuses to believe that republicans are capable of doing good. It's kind of sad, because he a very bright man getting doing his post doc at Brown, yet he is a liberal bigot that agrees with the republican platform on numerous platforms. (I love him to death, but he is a bigot) It's so hard for him to accept that both parties have good/bad ideas, and liberals aren't always perfect. He is starting to realize that Democrats and liberals aren't the same thing tho.

I see this everywhere out here. It really is pretty bad. You should get married to a philosophy/idea, not a political party. To give you an idea of how thick it is, one of my co-workers never met a non-democrat till he went to college, and he grew up in Boston!

It's no wonder that they are the only state to go to McGovern.


[ QUOTE ]
I know a few State reps that are very conservatives but they are registered Democrats because that's the easiest way to get elected here. In a lot of ways it's like what they used to call the "solid" South. All those southern States that would vote solidly for Democrats. They were conservative as hell but probably because of Lincoln, a Republican and the Civil War they were going to vote Deocrat come hell or high water. Of course in recent years this has changed and they are voting Republican now particularly in national elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to wonder if something like this is causing the hatred of conservatives/republicans in Mass. Does anybody know?

P.S. In Mass.'s defense, I really like it on the Cape, and in Boston. I hate the laws (bars close at 1 AM), but I like the city/state.

[Cyrus]

"Technically we were still at war from the first gulf war."

This argument has no legs to stand on, and this is why even the shysters in the American administration are not using it. (They prefer to pretend that 1441 gave the mandate for war!)

Please also note that the United States was not "at war" with Iraq, in the first Gulf War, "technically" or otherwise. It's the UN that went in, again. "Technically", of course, because it's always and will always be the United States.

"Isn't an act of force on another country an act of war?"

Of course not. Not necessarily. (If it were like that, all frontier incidents between countries that have differences, eg India & Pakistan, would be "acts of war".)

Did China "declare war" against the United States when it forced down/downed that military airplane and held its pilots prisoners?

The UN Resolution 1441 threatened Iraq with the use of force, and not "war", because the UN explicitly forbids war as a means of solivng differences between nations. Some call this blatant stupidity. Other call it civilisation. All agree that it is still make-believe.

"Do you really think Saddam wouldn't built up his WMD program, especially after everything he told Putin?"

You mean RE-build -- because as we all found out, there were no WMDs left.

First of all, the Putin allegation is a fabrication. Putin retracted and there is the matter of saying to the Americans what they want to hear. (Remember the secret services of Macedonia who murdered seven hapless Pakistani immigrant workers and presented their bodies to the international press as "terrorists" who dies in a gun battle with the heroic Macedonian services? All done "to please the Americans", as the Macedonian minister admitted.)

But the important matter is the supreme fantasy that was built around Saddam. To cut to the chase: Saddam Hussein’s regime was never a clear and present threat to the security of the United States! He might have been an outside threat to the interests of Israel, yes, but to the US? Hah.

"Even the Russians and the Germans were agreeing that there were WMD's unaccounted for."

It's one thing to suspect that not all WMDs have been accounted for and to press for more UN inspections (turned out, they were working) and it's another thing to go ahead and invade -- and find yourself in the predictably total mess that is Iraq. Turn on your TV and watch for yourself.

Hans Blix, now that he is no longer obliged to be diplomatic and restrained, is furious with American undermining of his work! He has gone public numerous times, detailing how the Americans were only interested to hear what they wanted to hear and nothing else. Are you gonna tell me that Blix, a staunch conservative, was at Saddam's payroll?

[wacki]

First of all, the Putin allegation is a fabrication. Putin retracted and there is the matter of saying to the Americans what they want to hear.

Do you have proof Putin fabricated/retracted his statements?


It's one thing to suspect that not all WMDs have been accounted for and to press for more UN inspections (turned out, they were working) and it's another thing to go ahead and invade -- and find yourself in the predictably total mess that is Iraq. Turn on your TV and watch for yourself.

I do, every day. Gen. Tommy Franks made some really good points in an interview on CNN. France was in the middle of a 10 year oily love affair with Saddam, and other people were starting to follow. The sanctions would of eventually been lifted or ignored and Saddam would of been right back where he was. If you watch the interview with Gen. Tommy Franks he makes alot of really good points on why we couldn't wait and find out.

[Matt Flynn]

felson,

cambridge has an average IQ 25 points above the american norm. not a good place to point if you're trying to support the conservative cause.

matt