About the debates

     I wondered, and still do, if Obama’s first (very poor) debate performance was deliberate.  Consider:  Before that debate, Romney was coming off as a no-chance candidate.  And there was a real likelihood of money being diverted from his campaign to focus on the House and Senate races instead.  Obama could have been looking at the real possibility of winning a second term but facing a hostile Congress — like the one that has been roadblocking anything he proposes to fix the economy and then saying he isn’t doing anything.

     Now, if that performance was strategic, it carried a risk.  Obama may really have given Romney a chance.  That’s not an encouraging thought.  I like having a job and an income.  Romney is known for giving out pink slips.  Granted, I don’t work directly for the government.  But a Romney administration would put people out of work across the nation.  And it doesn’t matter whether you think Romney can handle the economy or not.  That is a result he desires.

     I have heard some people predicting a Romney landslide.  That, of course, is preposterous.  There are so many states that are rigidly for one party or the other, that neither candidate could hope to achieve a landslide.  I will grant 350+ electoral votes as a landslide, in case anyone wants to assert that I am wrong.  I’ve got a previous prediction sitting there that could turn out to be wrong.  At the time, it was safe.

Oh, this is rich

     Norman came along (pretending to be someone else) to tell me that Norman backs his stuff up.  I am not impressed.  And I have warned Norman that after his shenanigans, his comments would not be allowed to stand.  Also, his language gets a little foul when he pretends to be someone else.

I saw something that made me think of extreme christians (slightly edited)

Aside

     Blaming. Their problems are the fault of others.
     Playing the victim card. Not only will they blame other for their problems, but they tend to have an “Oh, poor me!” attitude — especially when someone stands up to their attacks.
     Weak-minded and unstable people are more interested in attacking a person because they cannot defeat them with reason. So what if I’m “going to hell”? You still haven’t supported your claims. Norman lashes out with libelous diatribes that even other christians find to be beyond the pale, but does not back up his childish rants with documentation (unless you count links to his own site.)
     Exceptional narcissism. “It’s all about me!” Norman will write about someone, identifying some recognizable trait and then adding some lies to talk about how “hateful” he is. Then, when his target rightfully objects, he claims it was a “hypothetical situation” or a “joke.” After all, as the centerpiece of the universe, Norman couldn’t possibly do anything wrong himself.
     Liars hiding in lairs. This is so cute, it’s precious. They have forums, boards, special Weblogs and whatever else you want to call their places to congregate. It’s like a religious gathering. Here, they combine all kinds of nonsense: Character assassination (since they cannot overcome the opposition’s ideas with reason), libel, blaming, protecting their christian and creationist religious “principles” and heroes, organizing trolling raids, getting other weak-minded people to side with them, ridiculing straw men, assigning motives to people (appeal to motive fallacy), justifying their behavior and basically just whining. If anyone tries to inject truth to counter the nonsense, he is blocked and/or deleted. Many are just plain stupid. That’s right, I said it! Are people like this employable? They spend a great deal of time doing nonsense, so probably not. This kind of evil never sleeps. One thing I am certain about for types like this: They keep building up their bloated egos with fellow reprobates, but they will never gain the respect of intelligent people.

I have read that rural areas tend to vote Republican and urban areas tend to vote Democrat.

     It makes sense, actually.  If you have a plot of farmland and you work it, you know where your next meal is coming from.  For the most part, if you control your means of production, you can be sure your efforts will be rewarded.  In a condition like that, the Republican claim that people suffer from hunger only because they are not willing to put forth an effort makes sense.

     In the city, there is a different dynamic.  Workers don’t have a resource that, if they put the effort in, they will reap rewards.  They have to rely on jobs controlled by an elite group of people that are actually adverse to their interests.  They know that you can work hard looking for a job, not find one, and still have no paycheck.  They know that you can be loyal to a company for 20 years and get a pink slip for no obvious reason.

     Some people seem to think that poor people voting for Republicans are voting against their own interests.  As long as these people are under the impression that their work will be rewarded with their next meal, that is simply not true.  If they have no reason to think their efforts will be futile (or, indeed, if they won’t be futile) the Republicans are not against their interests.  It’s when someone else controls whether you will be allowed to eat that there is a problem.