No, although many people do confuse the two. Strictly, an agnostic is someone who believes the question is unknowable - specifically that the odds are something akin to 50/50. If you think it is highly likely there is a god, you're not really agnostic. If you think of it as some great entity in the cosmos or think the religions we have don't explain it, then that's who I'm trying to catch with #14. BTW, many such people might self-identify as agnostic, since in our culture that's a short term to describe the position of "I don't believe in any of your gods, but I think the atheists are wrong too".
Anyways, I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of religion. I am only interested in how people feel about religion as it pertains to this (or any) presidential election. How does it affect your vote, or how would it color your hindsight regarding a previous president if their beliefs were found to differ considerably from what most people assume?
Thanks for the clarification. I've always self-identified as an agnostic but never really thought of the different shades of gray that that encompasses.
To the point, I often wondered if an openly atheist major party presidential candidate would ever have a chance in the modern political climate. I'm fairly certain an openly Muslim candidate would not.
I think 50/50 is pretty strong belief for an agnostic.
Do you believe there is a 50% chance of the flying spaghetti monster actually existing?
Well, 50/50 is overly specific, since what really matters is the mindset that god is unknowable, and hence there is significant doubt about any absolute claims. The primary reason I left it off the list, is because it's a quantifier for most religious claims. Some people are 100% Christians but more agnostic regarding Judaism, for instance.
Rather than deal with these varying degrees of doubt (don't we all have some doubt) I thought it would be more interesting to learn how people react to the more cut & dried religious labels in a political arena.
Is anyone else starting to get a little creeped out by McCain? If you are, I think I can explain why.
Take a gander at a recent McCain photo.
Am I the only one who is faintly reminded of Dick Cheney?
Follow-up question. Who else out there thinks that McCain is starting to regret picking the fake Tina Fey. He would have been better off with the real one. First, her approval rating is much higher. Second, she has more foreign experience. Third, she has more executive experience. Finally, she reads and can speak in coherent sentences.
Final question, with polls narrowing (as they usually do), it's not certain that McCain will lose. If he wins, and then for medical reasons Palin is forced to take over, will that mean that we've finally reached a low regarding caliber of our leadership and we've nowhere to go but up? Or, does it mean we're going to just keep getting worst and worst presidents? I mean, what could be worst? Whoopi and Hasselbeck from the View? A Michael Bay and Mike Tyson ticket? Jose Canseco??
Or, does it mean we're going to just keep getting worst and worst presidents? I mean, what could be worst? Whoopi and Hasselbeck from the View? A Michael Bay and Mike Tyson ticket? Jose Canseco??
Or, does it mean we're going to just keep getting worst and worst presidents? I mean, what could be worst? Whoopi and Hasselbeck from the View? A Michael Bay and Mike Tyson ticket? Jose Canseco??
What's the effect on down ticket races if Obama is called the winner for Virginia (likely) and North Carolina (possible) by 8pm EST? If he wins those two states, there's basically no scenario for McCain to win... would evening voters in the rest of the country show up? If not, would that help or hurt Republicans?
My initial thought was that nobody would vote for a "loser" so it'd possibly push to the left some of the close Senate races, as well as Rossi/Gregoire.
In case you haven't seen it, this is one of the best jabs on Palin yet. The whole thing is great, but skip ahead to 1:40, and you'll learn just what Sarah Palin really did for some $100k a year as mayor Wasilla. Good spot at 4:00 about Todd Palin's ties to AIP.
You know, if I was from NYC, I think I would be pretty pissed at everyone in small town america who talks about 9/11 constantly. People in small towns have ZERO risk from terrorist attacks, but are the most terrified of it.
I'm interested to see how close Gregoire/Rossi is. I'll bet it's a pretty close race again. She's not the most popular governor, but she's not universally hated either.
You know, if I was from NYC, I think I would be pretty pissed at everyone in small town america who talks about 9/11 constantly. People in small towns have ZERO risk from terrorist attacks, but are the most terrified of it.
I'm interested to see how close Gregoire/Rossi is. I'll bet it's a pretty close race again. She's not the most popular governor, but she's not universally hated either.
It's counter intuitive, but I think if a terrorist wants to stir up the beehive, a rural community is actually ideal. First, the logistics are easier. You can get explosives (dynamite, black powder, or at least fertilizer) without much trouble. Second, it'd be more emotionally damaging. Imagine if one of the WTC planes had instead crashed their plane into a rural Pennsylvania school, and it killed a couple hundred children. Sure, less people would die, but the goal of terrorism is to instill fear. I think my example would rouse an even stronger response than the actual 9/11.
In other related election news, [urlhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]it sounds like Obama is widening his lead[/url]. It's hard to know for sure though, as the polls seem to have a lot of variance right now. I think this "Real America" campaign by McCain is doing his campaign serious harm. I know I'm thoroughly insulted by it. It implies the rest of us are fake Americans and that we hate this country. It is also a stupid stupid stupid strategy to pander to a minority group who is already completely in your corner while dissing the majority. That's right, the majority of Americans live in cities, the minority live in these small rural communities Palin loves to visit.
I feel like this is not much different than if Obama delivered the "Kill Whitey" speech from the movie Black Sheep.
I completely agree with you. I can't recall an election in the recent past that had more devisive speech than what we are seeing right now. Implying that because someone disagrees with you makes them less american than you is a very slippery slope.
As sports fan knows, one of the best ways to really lose (not just lose, but lose horribly and uncontrollably) is to start blaming your own team.
So, here's the question we're faced with : does Palin look like a terrible pick because McCain made a bad choice, or because McCain could get the right people to manage her? Either way, he looks like a doofus. The other question is, does she have any future in 2012?
Spoiler - I think she's as finished on the national stage as Dan Quayle and that in 2 years she'll be vulnerable for governor.
I think she's done nationally. If the GOP had been smart, what they would've done was seen what they had and started grooming her now for a run in 2012 without putting her in the national spotlight right now.
If she had been properly vetted, I think that they would've realized just how grossly underprepared she is for the national stage. But if she had a few years under her belt, she could've killed this election, or 2012.
As it stands, she'll make a run in 2012, but I think she's done nationally. She'll write a few books and make millions on book deals and speaking engagements.
As it stands, she'll make a run in 2012, but I think she's done nationally. She'll write a few books and make millions on book deals and speaking engagements.
Correction, she'll lend her name to a few books written by ghostwriters.
Which brings me to my Robroy question for the day. Robroy, you've made it very clear that you are concerned about Obama's character, not least, because you believe he's Muslim. So, my question is which faith traditions could a president follow that you reject them for. I'll even make a relatively specific list.
1) Catholic
2) Protestant - Pentacostel (speaks in tongues, may handle snakes, etc)
3) Protestant - Other (Baptist, Methodist, etc)
4) Judaism
5) Muslim - Shia
6) Muslim - Sunni
7) Buddhist
8) Shintoist
9) Atheist
10) Hindu
11) Voodooist
12) Wiccan
13) Greek/Roman Paganism
14) Spinozza's God (belief there is a god, we don't know it, and perhaps it's beyond knowing. These people usually refer to themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious")
15) Taoism
I'm running out of steam here, but I'm very curious what is acceptable and what is not.
The answer is easy and is based on what I have been using as my tagline on several sites for several years now: Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's. My omission of the word "radical" is intentional. It comes from the understanding of the phrase "useful idiots".
To be clear, my answer is Muslim. All muslims. Even those who have Islam in their distant past (for reasons regarding the Muslim faith that are to verbose to cover here). All others will be analyzed according to their past performance. To be honest though, a lot of the others would be hard pressed to get the nomination anyway. I think there may be some resistance in this country to a Voodooist, for example.
I just got off the plane two hours ago from a nine day trip to Kentucky. It was my fourth to visit my best friend who moved there three years ago.
I did a "handshake" deal (that is, I bought their property) with a very nice Christian couple in their 20's who will be going back to Africa for their third mission which they expect to be indefinite in length.
It is a spectacular plateau lot (almost perfectly square) on roughly 15 acres and a new house (one year old "hand built" of higher quality than the McMansions in this area) just right for us empty nesters to live in while we build our compound, music studio, etc. It is mostly cleared and the hay grown on it actually pays the property taxes and a thousand or so to spare (the buyers cut and haul off themselves). It has spectacular woods and a view into what looks like a classic "pleasant valley" that you simply have to see to believe. There will be a lot of "porch sitting".
City water
Power
Heat-pump heat and air conditioning
All appliances
High speed internet
Within 15 minutes of two small towns, each with a wal-mart, etc.
1.5 hours from Louisville.
2 hours from Nashville.
The roads are both a motorcyclists and bicyclists dream come true - Smooth, flat, banked curves. Some are literally what the bicycle trails here could only hope to be (and only a foot or two wider). And almost no traffic. To be clear, when I say smooth, I mean like brand new pavement. Potholes are literally non-existent and even the "older" roads are only mildly rough. Most of them feel brand new and VERY quiet. You could literally rollerblade them (and we will) past homes where the grass grows smooth right up to the side of the road. This goes on for miles and miles.
Price - Less than $100k.
Yeah, I was gonna wait 'till 2010 or 2012, but I have the income stream that can be produced there just like here in Seattle and I could almost buy the thing on my credit card. What Seattle offers culturally, other than feeding the Seagulls at Ivar's, we've had our fill of. And the music all day every day in downtown Nashville is far superior to pretty much anything here. And all the bands play for tips! Every night (and somewhat during the day) is like Friday night at Pioneer square except more live clubs and NO COVER.
The people in the area (huge McCain/Palin support and very "family oriented" and friendly as opposed to Seattle's "politeness"), the climate, the roads, the proximity to so much. And all that I seriously dislike about Seattle is missing. Just the ride back from the airport tonight reminded us why we wanted to move.
I had to pull the trigger now.
It was actually a hard decision at first. I've lived here since 1966 and almost my whole family is here, including all my adult kids. But as I "t-charted" and, more importantly, prayed about it, the decision was obvious and easy. And we haven't looked back. We've been inching towards this ever since our first trip but had to really analyze our motives. We've fully reconciled that. The future is quite exciting.
BTW, this is ephemeral, but gas there is $2.23 a gal as I type this.
Oh, and the roads... This picture is the closest I could find on the internet of what I am talking about. Imagine this is brand new pavement and only slightly larger than a bicycle trail here, and it is a public road. (not a driveway). That is LITERALLY what the roads look like: http://terry.kovax.org/archives/front%2 ... 0grass.JPG
My point here:
I've pretty much had it with the whole King County politics/taxes/socialism thing since I was a Commercial real estate agent in the '79 to '82 timeframe. It was hard to make the decision. I feel a little like a Jew leaving Germany in 1934 but, better late than never. I'll try to get my kids to follow but they gotta live their own lives.
The people in the area (huge McCain/Palin support and very "family oriented" and friendly as opposed to Seattle's "politeness")
I wish you luck, but I did want to point out for everyone that this kind of self-segregation is becoming very common in our country. I don't understand it. All the other reasons to move are great ones: costs, livability, local music you enjoy, etc. But I find it disheartening when people claim they could never live someplace because the people are too liberal or too conservative. I don't mean this as picking on you either. I've heard the exact opposite sentiment from people I work with, that they could never imagine living in the deep south, and I say "Why's that, the humidity? The tornados?" and they respond "the republicans".
The evidence of this theft comes from the exits polls, which were quite different from the final results. The exits showed Kerry winning by three percentage points. He didn't, of course—he lost by 2.5 percent in official returns
The primary reason the exit polls in 2004 were screwy was that Republicans didn't want to talk to exit poll workers. Bush supporters especially refused to talk to younger exit poll workers with graduate degrees, according to the final report from Edison/Mitofsky.
So many of our problems as a nation right now stem from an unwillingness to talk to and listen to each other.
Thanks! My wife and I are so excited we can hardly stand it. The sellers have also become close friends already. This thing is weird. It's kinda funny in a way. My sister and her husband bought Mel Gibson's Beartooth Ranch on a handshake as well. It is an amazing way to do things.
On a side note, I wonder how the regulars here would feel about a get-together at a local Starbucks or something like that. This is a local site, after all. I think it would be fun.
I've met guys around the country on a musician site I used to frequent and often even guys I disagreed with were interesting and we found we had a lot of common ground. It was enlightening for both sides and a lot of fun.
There were a couple of whack jobs though. I mean, it IS a musicians site.
The people in the area (huge McCain/Palin support and very "family oriented" and friendly as opposed to Seattle's "politeness")
I wish you luck, but I did want to point out for everyone that this kind of self-segregation is becoming very common in our country. I don't understand it. All the other reasons to move are great ones: costs, livability, local music you enjoy, etc. But I find it disheartening when people claim they could never live someplace because the people are too liberal or too conservative. I don't mean this as picking on you either. I've heard the exact opposite sentiment from people I work with, that they could never imagine living in the deep south, and I say "Why's that, the humidity? The tornados?" and they respond "the republicans".
It's sad really.
That was a passing comment, and really had nothing to do with why I am moving. At least not directly. I think though that indirectly it is the foundation on which the rest of it rests. The non-political attitudes of the people are part and parcel to their political attitudes.
The humidity is not an issue for us and the tornados are less of an issue than Earthquakes in California. For my wife, the ticks are the biggest concern.
It is also not the deep south.
I will admit that it is a sort of "self segregation" and flight to a "more free" place. We found a place where we would like to live. So did the Pilgrims, those who participated in the great stampede west and others.
I remember the timing (1991) of when I said the following because of where I worked at the time: I feel like a Jew living in early 1930's Germany.
Well, think of me as a German Jew moving to Israel.
It is not a bad thing. Rugged individualism and all that.
We did like the ice cream cones at Dicks on Broadway though. The circus is always in town there. We'll have to get our Market Spice tea mail order too. But sacrifices must be made!
The primary reason the exit polls in 2004 were screwy was that Republicans didn't want to talk to exit poll workers. Bush supporters especially refused to talk to younger exit poll workers with graduate degrees, according to the final report from Edison/Mitofsky.
So many of our problems as a nation right now stem from an unwillingness to talk to and listen to each other.
I'm with you on that. So many people have an agenda. One of the posts a page back walked past and ignored a mountainous pile of stinking excrement produced by their candidate to point out a "potential" rat turd left by the candidate on the other side. It's my old "friend or foe" test in action.
When I was in Kentucky I was talking to one of the conservative professors at the University during lunch and describing the moment I turned on Nixon. I said that my initial feelings about his response to Watergate was that the only thing he did different from the other politicians was get caught. The professor (and the rest at the table) basically said they agreed and he should have been left alone. It was sort of a "yeah, it was no big deal and they all do it" response.
I then told them that I suddenly realized at that moment (contemporanious with Watergate) that I was supporting "my guy" even when he was caught red handed. I then had to ask myself what kind of government I would end up with if I, and other voters, took that attitude. That was the day I turned on Nixon, and any other of "my guys" who are caught lying, etc. The table sort of quieted down at that point.
But their attitude is normal on both sides of the situation and one of the reasons why this country will eventually collapse as a constitutional republic. It's just the way it is. Israel wanted a king like everybody else. We know how that worked for them.
Times change. People don't.
BTW, I don't respond to exit pollers either. It has nothing to do with how well educated they are. My vote is private.
We've had a number of early predictions regarding the election on this thread, so I thought it would be interesting to revisit that with one week remaining.
Notice anything? Even if the Brady Effect comes through, and Obama polls perhaps 5% higher than voters actually cast their ballots, he'll still get 272 EC votes. I.E. Just the "strong democrat" states are enough to cover the election.
If there is no Brady Effect, Obama could take every state on the Atlantic or Pacific oceans except Georgia, and every state bordering Mexico/Canada except Idaho, Texas, Alaska, and (probably) Arizona.
We've had a number of early predictions regarding the election on this thread, so I thought it would be interesting to revisit that with one week remaining.
Notice anything? Even if the Brady Effect comes through, and Obama polls perhaps 5% higher than voters actually cast their ballots, he'll still get 272 EC votes. I.E. Just the "strong democrat" states are enough to cover the election.
If there is no Brady Effect, Obama could take every state on the Atlantic or Pacific oceans except Georgia, and every state bordering Mexico/Canada except Idaho, Texas, Alaska, and (probably) Arizona.
I still strongly believe that McCain will win, but I am no longer strongly believing he will have a landslide. I do think it is possible though.
I still strongly believe that McCain will win, but I am no longer strongly believing he will have a landslide. I do think it is possible though.
Well, we don't have long to wait now.
Precisely!
I have said I have never enjoyed an election cycle as much as this one, and it is still true. However, I have to ignore just how high the stakes are. It is like watching a car or plane crash video on Youtube and simply ignoring the fact that someone is being killed. This is serious.
It is why I decided, last summer, I would actually vote in this election. I DO NOT like McCain, but as I read up on Obama he scared the living daylights out of me. Even moreso today. If I am wrong and he DOES somehow get elected, I expect things to get very "tough" very fast.
But again, I don't expect it. Heck, I just doubled my bet with one guy two weeks ago.
You seem like a well read guy, so I'll assume you're familiar with Occam's Razor.
So, consider the following options:
A) An intelligent, charismatic man from an atypical American upbringing goes to college and law school, teaches law while also doing community organizing, and eventually runs for some low level political posts. He catches a few eyes, makes a good speech in front of a few million people, then runs for president 4 years later, BARELY beats his primary challengers, and goes on to run an election based on... hope and change (which is basically the platform of any non-incumbant).
or
A guy with no traceable background, but with a good personality and dark skin, is identified and groomed by a bunch of people with dubious pasts to rewrite the world order, with blacks taking over from whites, and Socialists replacing whatever it is we have now. These same Socialists, working behind the scenes in one of the most capitalist oriented countries, pull strings and create a global economic disaster, timed perfectly to ensure the "messiah" will get elected. They then convince several VERY high ranking anti-government elected officials to undertake the privatizing of banks, just to provide some cover. Once the "messiah" is elected, the string pullers will then socialize the country, while killing all the capitalists.
... or something like that.
Option B requires some interesting assumptions, in this case:
1) William Ayers decided blowing up buildings wouldn't work, and instead the way to achieve his goals was to... lay low in Chicago, get a bunch of degrees, become an education advocate, and patiently wait 25 years until the right black man with an electable personality came along.
2) ACORN managed to find 1.3 million bogus voters... and will get them all to vote... for their guy... (Bit of an aside: 1.3 million bogus voters would only represent about 1/3 of Obama's estimated current margin of victory)
3) "Activist" judges were allowing millions of said bogus voters to vote, despite challenges by the GOP to disallow as many poor/minority voters to vote as possible.
Anyway... the point is that believing B is a *huge* leap of faith and requires belief in some really far fetched stories. Soem of these are tin-hat paranoia domain. Honestly, the theories that the US Government perpetuated 9/11 have more substance.
Comments
No, although many people do confuse the two. Strictly, an agnostic is someone who believes the question is unknowable - specifically that the odds are something akin to 50/50. If you think it is highly likely there is a god, you're not really agnostic. If you think of it as some great entity in the cosmos or think the religions we have don't explain it, then that's who I'm trying to catch with #14. BTW, many such people might self-identify as agnostic, since in our culture that's a short term to describe the position of "I don't believe in any of your gods, but I think the atheists are wrong too".
Anyways, I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of religion. I am only interested in how people feel about religion as it pertains to this (or any) presidential election. How does it affect your vote, or how would it color your hindsight regarding a previous president if their beliefs were found to differ considerably from what most people assume?
To the point, I often wondered if an openly atheist major party presidential candidate would ever have a chance in the modern political climate. I'm fairly certain an openly Muslim candidate would not.
Do you believe there is a 50% chance of the flying spaghetti monster actually existing?
Well, 50/50 is overly specific, since what really matters is the mindset that god is unknowable, and hence there is significant doubt about any absolute claims. The primary reason I left it off the list, is because it's a quantifier for most religious claims. Some people are 100% Christians but more agnostic regarding Judaism, for instance.
Rather than deal with these varying degrees of doubt (don't we all have some doubt) I thought it would be more interesting to learn how people react to the more cut & dried religious labels in a political arena.
Take a gander at a recent McCain photo.
Am I the only one who is faintly reminded of Dick Cheney?
Follow-up question. Who else out there thinks that McCain is starting to regret picking the fake Tina Fey. He would have been better off with the real one. First, her approval rating is much higher. Second, she has more foreign experience. Third, she has more executive experience. Finally, she reads and can speak in coherent sentences.
Final question, with polls narrowing (as they usually do), it's not certain that McCain will lose. If he wins, and then for medical reasons Palin is forced to take over, will that mean that we've finally reached a low regarding caliber of our leadership and we've nowhere to go but up? Or, does it mean we're going to just keep getting worst and worst presidents? I mean, what could be worst? Whoopi and Hasselbeck from the View? A Michael Bay and Mike Tyson ticket? Jose Canseco??
I've been thinking this for years.
What's the effect on down ticket races if Obama is called the winner for Virginia (likely) and North Carolina (possible) by 8pm EST? If he wins those two states, there's basically no scenario for McCain to win... would evening voters in the rest of the country show up? If not, would that help or hurt Republicans?
My initial thought was that nobody would vote for a "loser" so it'd possibly push to the left some of the close Senate races, as well as Rossi/Gregoire.
You know, if I was from NYC, I think I would be pretty pissed at everyone in small town america who talks about 9/11 constantly. People in small towns have ZERO risk from terrorist attacks, but are the most terrified of it.
I'm interested to see how close Gregoire/Rossi is. I'll bet it's a pretty close race again. She's not the most popular governor, but she's not universally hated either.
It's counter intuitive, but I think if a terrorist wants to stir up the beehive, a rural community is actually ideal. First, the logistics are easier. You can get explosives (dynamite, black powder, or at least fertilizer) without much trouble. Second, it'd be more emotionally damaging. Imagine if one of the WTC planes had instead crashed their plane into a rural Pennsylvania school, and it killed a couple hundred children. Sure, less people would die, but the goal of terrorism is to instill fear. I think my example would rouse an even stronger response than the actual 9/11.
In other related election news, [urlhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]it sounds like Obama is widening his lead[/url]. It's hard to know for sure though, as the polls seem to have a lot of variance right now. I think this "Real America" campaign by McCain is doing his campaign serious harm. I know I'm thoroughly insulted by it. It implies the rest of us are fake Americans and that we hate this country. It is also a stupid stupid stupid strategy to pander to a minority group who is already completely in your corner while dissing the majority. That's right, the majority of Americans live in cities, the minority live in these small rural communities Palin loves to visit.
I feel like this is not much different than if Obama delivered the "Kill Whitey" speech from the movie Black Sheep.
So, here's the question we're faced with : does Palin look like a terrible pick because McCain made a bad choice, or because McCain could get the right people to manage her? Either way, he looks like a doofus. The other question is, does she have any future in 2012?
Spoiler - I think she's as finished on the national stage as Dan Quayle and that in 2 years she'll be vulnerable for governor.
If she had been properly vetted, I think that they would've realized just how grossly underprepared she is for the national stage. But if she had a few years under her belt, she could've killed this election, or 2012.
As it stands, she'll make a run in 2012, but I think she's done nationally. She'll write a few books and make millions on book deals and speaking engagements.
Correction, she'll lend her name to a few books written by ghostwriters.
To be clear, my answer is Muslim. All muslims. Even those who have Islam in their distant past (for reasons regarding the Muslim faith that are to verbose to cover here). All others will be analyzed according to their past performance. To be honest though, a lot of the others would be hard pressed to get the nomination anyway. I think there may be some resistance in this country to a Voodooist, for example.
I did a "handshake" deal (that is, I bought their property) with a very nice Christian couple in their 20's who will be going back to Africa for their third mission which they expect to be indefinite in length.
It is a spectacular plateau lot (almost perfectly square) on roughly 15 acres and a new house (one year old "hand built" of higher quality than the McMansions in this area) just right for us empty nesters to live in while we build our compound, music studio, etc. It is mostly cleared and the hay grown on it actually pays the property taxes and a thousand or so to spare (the buyers cut and haul off themselves). It has spectacular woods and a view into what looks like a classic "pleasant valley" that you simply have to see to believe. There will be a lot of "porch sitting".
City water
Power
Heat-pump heat and air conditioning
All appliances
High speed internet
Within 15 minutes of two small towns, each with a wal-mart, etc.
1.5 hours from Louisville.
2 hours from Nashville.
The roads are both a motorcyclists and bicyclists dream come true - Smooth, flat, banked curves. Some are literally what the bicycle trails here could only hope to be (and only a foot or two wider). And almost no traffic. To be clear, when I say smooth, I mean like brand new pavement. Potholes are literally non-existent and even the "older" roads are only mildly rough. Most of them feel brand new and VERY quiet. You could literally rollerblade them (and we will) past homes where the grass grows smooth right up to the side of the road. This goes on for miles and miles.
Price - Less than $100k.
Yeah, I was gonna wait 'till 2010 or 2012, but I have the income stream that can be produced there just like here in Seattle and I could almost buy the thing on my credit card. What Seattle offers culturally, other than feeding the Seagulls at Ivar's, we've had our fill of. And the music all day every day in downtown Nashville is far superior to pretty much anything here. And all the bands play for tips! Every night (and somewhat during the day) is like Friday night at Pioneer square except more live clubs and NO COVER.
The people in the area (huge McCain/Palin support and very "family oriented" and friendly as opposed to Seattle's "politeness"), the climate, the roads, the proximity to so much. And all that I seriously dislike about Seattle is missing. Just the ride back from the airport tonight reminded us why we wanted to move.
I had to pull the trigger now.
It was actually a hard decision at first. I've lived here since 1966 and almost my whole family is here, including all my adult kids. But as I "t-charted" and, more importantly, prayed about it, the decision was obvious and easy. And we haven't looked back. We've been inching towards this ever since our first trip but had to really analyze our motives. We've fully reconciled that. The future is quite exciting.
BTW, this is ephemeral, but gas there is $2.23 a gal as I type this.
Oh, and the roads... This picture is the closest I could find on the internet of what I am talking about. Imagine this is brand new pavement and only slightly larger than a bicycle trail here, and it is a public road. (not a driveway). That is LITERALLY what the roads look like: http://terry.kovax.org/archives/front%2 ... 0grass.JPG
My point here:
I've pretty much had it with the whole King County politics/taxes/socialism thing since I was a Commercial real estate agent in the '79 to '82 timeframe. It was hard to make the decision. I feel a little like a Jew leaving Germany in 1934 but, better late than never. I'll try to get my kids to follow but they gotta live their own lives.
I wish you luck, but I did want to point out for everyone that this kind of self-segregation is becoming very common in our country. I don't understand it. All the other reasons to move are great ones: costs, livability, local music you enjoy, etc. But I find it disheartening when people claim they could never live someplace because the people are too liberal or too conservative. I don't mean this as picking on you either. I've heard the exact opposite sentiment from people I work with, that they could never imagine living in the deep south, and I say "Why's that, the humidity? The tornados?" and they respond "the republicans".
It's sad really.
So many of our problems as a nation right now stem from an unwillingness to talk to and listen to each other.
On a side note, I wonder how the regulars here would feel about a get-together at a local Starbucks or something like that. This is a local site, after all. I think it would be fun.
I've met guys around the country on a musician site I used to frequent and often even guys I disagreed with were interesting and we found we had a lot of common ground. It was enlightening for both sides and a lot of fun.
There were a couple of whack jobs though. I mean, it IS a musicians site.
The humidity is not an issue for us and the tornados are less of an issue than Earthquakes in California. For my wife, the ticks are the biggest concern.
It is also not the deep south.
I will admit that it is a sort of "self segregation" and flight to a "more free" place. We found a place where we would like to live. So did the Pilgrims, those who participated in the great stampede west and others.
I remember the timing (1991) of when I said the following because of where I worked at the time: I feel like a Jew living in early 1930's Germany.
Well, think of me as a German Jew moving to Israel.
It is not a bad thing. Rugged individualism and all that.
We did like the ice cream cones at Dicks on Broadway though. The circus is always in town there. We'll have to get our Market Spice tea mail order too. But sacrifices must be made!
When I was in Kentucky I was talking to one of the conservative professors at the University during lunch and describing the moment I turned on Nixon. I said that my initial feelings about his response to Watergate was that the only thing he did different from the other politicians was get caught. The professor (and the rest at the table) basically said they agreed and he should have been left alone. It was sort of a "yeah, it was no big deal and they all do it" response.
I then told them that I suddenly realized at that moment (contemporanious with Watergate) that I was supporting "my guy" even when he was caught red handed. I then had to ask myself what kind of government I would end up with if I, and other voters, took that attitude. That was the day I turned on Nixon, and any other of "my guys" who are caught lying, etc. The table sort of quieted down at that point.
But their attitude is normal on both sides of the situation and one of the reasons why this country will eventually collapse as a constitutional republic. It's just the way it is. Israel wanted a king like everybody else. We know how that worked for them.
Times change. People don't.
BTW, I don't respond to exit pollers either. It has nothing to do with how well educated they are. My vote is private.
Here's the pollster site.
Notice anything? Even if the Brady Effect comes through, and Obama polls perhaps 5% higher than voters actually cast their ballots, he'll still get 272 EC votes. I.E. Just the "strong democrat" states are enough to cover the election.
If there is no Brady Effect, Obama could take every state on the Atlantic or Pacific oceans except Georgia, and every state bordering Mexico/Canada except Idaho, Texas, Alaska, and (probably) Arizona.
Well, we don't have long to wait now.
I have said I have never enjoyed an election cycle as much as this one, and it is still true. However, I have to ignore just how high the stakes are. It is like watching a car or plane crash video on Youtube and simply ignoring the fact that someone is being killed. This is serious.
I do not agree with everything this guy says, but at a high level, this touches on what I think is going on: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/wil ... 282008.htm
It is why I decided, last summer, I would actually vote in this election. I DO NOT like McCain, but as I read up on Obama he scared the living daylights out of me. Even moreso today. If I am wrong and he DOES somehow get elected, I expect things to get very "tough" very fast.
But again, I don't expect it. Heck, I just doubled my bet with one guy two weeks ago.
You seem like a well read guy, so I'll assume you're familiar with Occam's Razor.
So, consider the following options:
A) An intelligent, charismatic man from an atypical American upbringing goes to college and law school, teaches law while also doing community organizing, and eventually runs for some low level political posts. He catches a few eyes, makes a good speech in front of a few million people, then runs for president 4 years later, BARELY beats his primary challengers, and goes on to run an election based on... hope and change (which is basically the platform of any non-incumbant).
or
... or something like that.
Option B requires some interesting assumptions, in this case:
1) William Ayers decided blowing up buildings wouldn't work, and instead the way to achieve his goals was to... lay low in Chicago, get a bunch of degrees, become an education advocate, and patiently wait 25 years until the right black man with an electable personality came along.
2) ACORN managed to find 1.3 million bogus voters... and will get them all to vote... for their guy... (Bit of an aside: 1.3 million bogus voters would only represent about 1/3 of Obama's estimated current margin of victory)
3) "Activist" judges were allowing millions of said bogus voters to vote, despite challenges by the GOP to disallow as many poor/minority voters to vote as possible.
Anyway... the point is that believing B is a *huge* leap of faith and requires belief in some really far fetched stories. Soem of these are tin-hat paranoia domain. Honestly, the theories that the US Government perpetuated 9/11 have more substance.
Machosauce hits another grand slam!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA