Originally Posted by Aramea

I know, right? Why did we get stuck with arts and crafts?

Because we blue boomers are peaceniks. Risk is a war game.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The abject panic on the left is evident from this thread, so it doesn't require much commentary, except to say that it comes from the top down. Obama's attacks on Romney are becoming desperate. Yesterday he actually called him a "disease". Not the kind of thing you see in the last week of the campaign from somebody who's winning. It's very similar to Bush I's behavior at the end in 1992.

Anyway, yesterday the ABC/WP tracking poll had Romney +1. Today it's Romney +3, identical to Rasmussen and Gallup: Romney 50, Obama 47. How many of those 3% of undecideds are going to vote for Obama? Something very close to none.

*Compare to 2004 and 2008.

Thankfully ABC is back down to +1 Romney today; maybe that's a trend. Rasmussen is stuck on +3; Gallup is outlier again at +5. Meanwhile Obama's lead in Iowa and New Hampshire is solidifying, while his lead in WI is narrowing. Ohio holds steady at +2 Obama. All Obama needs to do is either a) win Ohio, or b) win New Hampshire, Iowa AND Colorado. NV, WI, PA and MI will stay Democratic in a close race. If Romney is ahead in national polls on Nov.5 by +3 though, he is likely to upset Obama in some of these states and win the election. But you know my prediction.

New Gallup info on this years electorate. The title is misleading as it says the electorate is like 2008. Unfortunately for Dems the break down in party ID and leaners has changed. In 2008 the makeup was 54% Dem/leaner and 42% Repub. This year its 49% Repub-46%Dem/Leaner. In 2004 it was tied at 48%.
If this is the final result on Nov 6th this will be another wave election for the Repubs with the Senate flipping as well as Romney winning big.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/20...like-2008.aspx

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Because we blue boomers are peaceniks. Risk is a war game.

They can have their arts and crafts, but I will take the Risk game, a rose garden to tend and a kitten (I love puppies but too much maintenance).

But Risk is such a gross oversimplification of a war game, and almost everything is left to chance! Might as well play Yahtzee while watching a war documentary.

Now.. some Xers introduced us to Axis and Allies. That is what I'd call a war game. Even better are some of the more recent titles that followed up on that theme. War! In the Age of Imperialism is great for empire building, but the Civilization board game might be the best around. It follows on the computer game's theme: it starts at the dawn of civilization and the players progress to the modern era by researching new technology, building wonders and armies, and trading resources.

But when you get to the more realistic strategy games, setup and cleanup take forever. The video game version of Civilization also offers a lot more options and subtleties. So by the time we're in the nursing home, it's going to be a giant LAN party... lol

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

But Risk is such a gross oversimplification of a war game, and almost everything is left to chance! Might as well play Yahtzee while watching a war documentary.

Now.. some Xers introduced us to Axis and Allies. That is what I'd call a war game. Even better are some of the more recent titles that followed up on that theme. War! In the Age of Imperialism is great for empire building, but the Civilization board game might be the best around. It follows on the computer game's theme: it starts at the dawn of civilization and the players progress to the modern era by researching new technology, building wonders and armies, and trading resources.

But when you get to the more realistic strategy games, setup and cleanup take forever. The video game version of Civilization also offers a lot more options and subtleties. So by the time we're in the nursing home, it's going to be a giant LAN party... lol

Axis and Allies is great.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I think it was Ross Perot that funneled votes from Bush I. I doubt it was because of some offhand comment. I certainly didn't hear it at the time. Ross Perot provided an alternative to a lukewarm candidate.

Of course the comments didnt have much effect, they were just a symptom of a desperate campaign trying to win in a very negative environment, much like today.

But yes, Perot did huge damage to Bush. In fact, had Perot not have dropped out briefly (and endorse Clinton) and then re-enter he may have threw the election to the House....Perot was leading in some polls.

Originally Posted by Weave

Of course the comments didnt have much effect, they were just a symptom of a desperate campaign trying to win in a very negative environment, much like today.

But yes, Perot did huge damage to Bush. In fact, had Perot not have dropped out briefly (and endorse Clinton) and then re-enter he may have threw the election to the House....Perot was leading in some polls.

Ah, got it. The difference, of course, is that there isn't much talk about alternative parties and candidates. Seems that 'undecideds' in swing states are expected to break for Romney or Obama.

Originally Posted by Odin

Sadly, I have run into a lot of intelligent but emotionally stunted men (and they are all men) who treat her garbage like gospel. I used to post on a site for people on the Autism spectrum called Wrong Planet, I left because of all the teenage Randoids.

Just because some people are intelligent, doesn't mean they have a bit of sense or wisdom.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I wonder if Obama will be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize a la Lance Armstrong.

Would he have to give back his 9 million krona? And does the prize go to the runner-up, then?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Because we blue boomers are peaceniks. Risk is a war game.

I also thought about adding that you'd be making love beads in arts and crafts.

And for the complete joke my friend imagined:

You'll be organized into homes based upon red and blue state divisions, with the color being the roof color. There's a dispute amongst future authorities to organize you in post-90s colors or pre-90s colors (after all some of you will develop Alzheimers and so some of you will revert to the color preferences of: "True Blue" Republicans and "Pinko Commie" Democrats), but that will be determined later (probably after a lot of confused memory losing Boomers enter the wrong home). Nurses will have to deal no longer with WWII or Korean flashbacks, but now have to deal with the dreaded 'Nam flashbacks. Charlie will be in the trees, the medicine cabinets, and the bathroom.

And in honor of your teenage years and mid-life Culture Wars there's talk of organizing "mixers" between Red and Blue homes for debates over current events followed by mock elections (where votes will be miscounted in a different direction each time). And there will be rock 'n' roll cover bands and dances where the punch will be spiked with, Viagra. Perhaps that may trigger a few memories of the '60s for later in the night, but we can't be sure of that. And of course Evangelical Boomers can preach and complain about the amorality to their heart's content.

And remember it'll be Xers organizing all this... so there will be NO escape, NO outside world (except the occasional Millennial son/daughter), and absolutely NO arguing with the man (although a lot of Boomers will try). Xers raising their little Homies is only practice for when they finally get a hold of you guys in an "Old Folks Commune". They'll lock you guys up and probably throw away the key. From that point forward, life in the "Old Folks Commune" turns into a reality show entitled "Prison Break: Elderly Edition". And since Xers will be in control, you can bet that there'll be NO possibility of getting out with them not knowing. It'll be Xer Police State.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

UN to investigate civilian deaths from US drone strikes


ETA:
I wonder if Obama will be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize a la Lance Armstrong.

Obama didn't and doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. He has, as some here have pointed out, expanded the Bush tactics. If Bush had set into place the NDAA, Kill lists, hiding civilian deaths, making decisions without Congressional approval, we liberals would be in the streets. It doesn't seem to matter that these very polices will be handed down to future presidents to do with as they please.

Obama has gotten by with atrocities that a Republican could only dream of.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nope... until I see some justification for the hope that society-at-large really wants to fix things -- and it does happen; kind of often, really, on the historical scale -- I'm gonna have to be motivated to do what Indy correctly identified as best-at-the-individual-level. My great-grandparents did it; Andi's way-way-back ancestors did it. Really, everyone here but Rags (if I've been following closely enough) owes a debt to people in the not-terribly-distant past for having made call C. It's got a good pedigree, that one

That's a really good, and under-appreciated point. If we are indeed "lucky to be Americans," we're really saying that we're lucky our ancestors realized running away was the best choice they could have made in the situations they were faced with.

The proposed D) or changing of the rules of the system, might be more possible than B) or it might actually be related as parts of a multi-focal strategy. I just wanted to emphasize how creative destruction applies specifically to the formation of new American political parties.

It puts a little spin on A) too. Instead of voting for (rewarding) the lesser of two evils, the goal is to attack (punish) the greater of the two evils. That might require some A), though.

Originally Posted by The Rani

UN to investigate civilian deaths from US drone strikes


ETA:
I wonder if Obama will be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize a la Lance Armstrong.

Nah. I know he used weed in the day, and until recently (and perhaps even to this day) used/uses tobacco, but I don't think you can get your prize stripped for that.

Do we really want to elect a man who epitomes the aims and method of the upper class, the 0.1%, who buy companies, fire workers, ship jobs overseas, accumulate and hide wealth, and propagate enchanting slogans of "freedom" to justify and enable their conduct? Why would we elect such a man, at the very time when we suffer from the results of what these guys have done?

Originally Posted by The Rani

UN to investigate civilian deaths from US drone strikes


ETA:
I wonder if Obama will be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize a la Lance Armstrong.

These all sound like good ideas.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I also thought about adding that you'd be making love beads in arts and crafts.

And for the complete joke my friend imagined:

You'll be organized into homes based upon red and blue state divisions, with the color being the roof color. There's a dispute amongst future authorities to organize you in post-90s colors or pre-90s colors (after all some of you will develop Alzheimers and so some of you will revert to the color preferences of: "True Blue" Republicans and "Pinko Commie" Democrats), but that will be determined later (probably after a lot of confused memory losing Boomers enter the wrong home). Nurses will have to deal no longer with WWII or Korean flashbacks, but now have to deal with the dreaded 'Nam flashbacks. Charlie will be in the trees, the medicine cabinets, and the bathroom.

And in honor of your teenage years and mid-life Culture Wars there's talk of organizing "mixers" between Red and Blue homes for debates over current events followed by mock elections (where votes will be miscounted in a different direction each time). And there will be rock 'n' roll cover bands and dances where the punch will be spiked with, Viagra. Perhaps that may trigger a few memories of the '60s for later in the night, but we can't be sure of that. And of course Evangelical Boomers can preach and complain about the amorality to their heart's content.

And remember it'll be Xers organizing all this... so there will be NO escape, NO outside world (except the occasional Millennial son/daughter), and absolutely NO arguing with the man (although a lot of Boomers will try). Xers raising their little Homies is only practice for when they finally get a hold of you guys in an "Old Folks Commune". They'll lock you guys up and probably throw away the key. From that point forward, life in the "Old Folks Commune" turns into a reality show entitled "Prison Break: Elderly Edition". And since Xers will be in control, you can bet that there'll be NO possibility of getting out with them not knowing. It'll be Xer Police State.

~Chas'88

Well, something for us geezers to look forward to. But good luck Xers trying to hold us in like that. It won't happen!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Do we really want to elect a man who epitomes the aims and method of the upper class, the 0.1%, who buy companies, fire workers, ship jobs overseas, accumulate and hide wealth, and propagate enchanting slogans of "freedom" to justify and enable their conduct? Why would we elect such a man, at the very time when we suffer from the results of what these guys have done?

We might want to seriously ponder this:

" As president, Obama replaced all of his reform oriented advisers with technocratic leaders of the banking, finance, and Pentagon establishments. Timothy Geitner and Lawrence Summers had the keys to the family car, and like drunken teenagers taking a joyride when their parents leave town, they crashed it. President Obama followed their advice and continued the Bush policy of bailouts for the commercial banks, but coldly and blindly refused to bail out community banks, students with staggering debt, or families with foreclosed homes. A few of you have defended the President by generously assuming he had no choice. “If he didn’t bail out the too big to fail banks,” you might protest, “our entire economy would have failed.” Seeing as I don’t possess a doctorate in Economics (neither do you), I will concede and assume that you are correct. How then can you justify giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax payer money to the very vultures and vampires responsible for the bloodsucking of the middle class without the slightest supervision of restriction? The Obama administration, in full deference to its friends, former co-workers, and donors on Wall Street, allowed billionaire executives to give themselves bonuses, refurnish their offices, and pile the money around their beds as if they were starring on an episode of “Hoarders.” "

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, something for us geezers to look forward to. But good luck Xers trying to hold us in like that. It won't happen!

Don't worry, the texting Millies (with their earbuds firmly in place) in charge of your bedpan won't notice you're missing.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Don't worry, the texting Millies (with their earbuds firmly in place) in charge of your bedpan won't notice you're missing.

That's true lol

Real Clear averages today:

Ohio (18) 48.0 45.9 Obama +2.1 Toss Up
Florida (29) 47.1 48.9 Romney +1.8 Toss Up
Virginia (13) 46.8 48.0 Romney +1.2 Toss Up
New Hampshire (4) 48.3 47.2 Obama +1.1 Toss Up
Wisconsin (10) 49.3 47.0 Obama +2.3 Toss Up
Michigan (16) 48.8 44.8 Obama +4.0 Toss Up
Pennsylvania (20) 50.0 45.2 Obama +4.8 Toss Up
North Carolina (15) 46.5 50.3 Romney +3.8 Toss Up
Iowa (6) 49.0 46.7 Obama +2.3 Toss Up
Colorado (9) 47.8 47.8 Tie Toss Up
Nevada (6) 49.7 47.2 Obama +2.5 Toss Up

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There's nothing that oppresses women more than not being able to have sex without consequences and kill their own children. That's for sure. Especially when somebody else isn't forced to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Deb C

We might want to seriously ponder this:

" As president, Obama replaced all of his reform oriented advisers with technocratic leaders of the banking, finance, and Pentagon establishments. Timothy Geitner and Lawrence Summers had the keys to the family car, and like drunken teenagers taking a joyride when their parents leave town, they crashed it. President Obama followed their advice and continued the Bush policy of bailouts for the commercial banks, but coldly and blindly refused to bail out community banks, students with staggering debt, or families with foreclosed homes. A few of you have defended the President by generously assuming he had no choice. “If he didn’t bail out the too big to fail banks,” you might protest, “our entire economy would have failed.” Seeing as I don’t possess a doctorate in Economics (neither do you), I will concede and assume that you are correct. How then can you justify giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax payer money to the very vultures and vampires responsible for the bloodsucking of the middle class without the slightest supervision of restriction? The Obama administration, in full deference to its friends, former co-workers, and donors on Wall Street, allowed billionaire executives to give themselves bonuses, refurnish their offices, and pile the money around their beds as if they were starring on an episode of “Hoarders.” "

That doesn't mean we should elect Romney.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Aramea, I saw this joke recently. Thought you might get a laugh.



"What’s the difference between Mother Teresa and a nurse? Mother Teresa only has to serve one God".



You're telling me!

Prince

I did get a laugh ...

Xers got their share of criticism in their early adulthood. Here's an Xer classic: