[dog77_1999]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Hey I'm not blaming the individual just stating the statistics. Frankly if your coming out to vote then your helping to change that. Frankly I salute you. It would be fantastic if everyone voted.

Sadly there are demographics just more likely to vote. That's all I'm saying.

Hmm, I think your analysis is a little off.

Obama has:

Younger people
African Americans
Non-technical college graduates
Anti-Bush

McCain has:
Older people
Hispanics
Blue Collar
Rural people

Obama does have an inherent problem. Younger people and African Americans generally due not vote as much as others. However, alot of people are fed up with the Republicans which will work in his favor.

McCain basically has to invigorate his base to go vote for him. Personally, I don't know of many people who are really gun-ho about voting for him. I can see alot of people staying home in protest. His blue collar support could easily switch back to Obama if Obama manages to stop his stumbling.

[Les-R]

The sweeping generalizations about rural people get very trying at times, it sounds like people accustomed to urban life resent people who don't embrace that lifestyle... that is, when they even remember we exist.

And no, voting in and of itself dosn't help, not when your choices are between Douche and Turd-Sandwich. If anything NOT voting is not as much a symbol of apathy as it is a sign of dissatisfaction with the status-quo of electoral choice, going out and voting just to vote only gives the lesser of two evils (which is still evil) a false-mandate.

[CanadianJeff]

I think you both just proved my point. Mainly that Rural people for McCain have to be charged up to go out and vote and are thus less likely to do so without pressure and Les I frankly do agree but for once your chocies arn't between Douche and Turd-Sandwhich.

Both McCain and Obama are pretty good candidates this time around. They both seem to understand the issues very clearly and have plainly laid out stands on most everything without too many political bullcrap plans like Hillary had. (Just refering to her "no tax on gas!" It will save people money plan. Right becuase the gas companies won't just gouge them later on to make more)

[Kjorteo]

McCain supported and still supports the gas tax holiday.

[CanadianJeff]

your kidding...oh man. well that's one point not in anyones favour. I just don't understand how anyone could support that peice of grabage idea.

[Kjorteo]

I wouldn't say it's not in anyone's favor, since Obama has been one of its strongest critics.

[Les-R]

Eh? You do know that out of a $3-4 US gallon of gas the big-oil companies only make about 30-40 cents profit, right? Most of the price of gas is actually partly gratuities to the countries that sell oil to us (like Saudi Arabia), and gas-taxes. So how is dropping gas-taxes Not in anyone's favor? I can see how it would favor annoyed big-city liberals who feel offended by yuppies with big SUVs in their commuter-lanes, but what about people in small town and rural areas? What about the family struggling to keep one of the few true family-farms not burried by agri-buisness and federal farming regulations who can only afford one vehicle, and the 3/4 ton truck they use for work is the same vehicle they drive 20-miles to town in to pick-up gorceries.... the same hike in gas-prices that would inconvinience Mr. smug SUV-lovin' yuppie also means somebody's dad is gonna have to look into a career at Wal-Mart.


People who don't live in big cities have different perspectives on issues than those In the big cities, lots of people forget that, and to us neither McCain nor Obama are even close to ideal candidates

[Kjorteo]

Les-R, you seem to be confusing "thinking the gas tax holiday is a bad idea" with "specifically wanting farmers and the like to pay more at the pump to make some sort of environmental point and/or because it's funny."

[Les-R]

They are, more or less. I know that's not the intention, such is never the intention when federal power is exercised 'for the good of all'. The concerns of citizens in one part of the country are not the same as the concerns of citizens in another part and that's often forgotten when someone makes law on the federal level.

As for gas-tax, I'd personally prefer to see all federal taxes on gas scrapped and let states take-over responsibility for funding and maintinence of highways. As it stands now it's mostly used as an end-run around the Constitution anyway.

[Tiler]

AAAAAAND now for something completely different. Asinine nitpicking on the actual 'Chessmaster' comic.

First off, it's a great comic. Both funny, and shows the pointless futility of Hilary's last days as a candidate. The expressions on the canidate's faces is also worth 1000 words. One of the better comics on the site for sure.

But as someone who actually plays Chess and as someone with too much free time...

Aside from the obvious fact that Hillary has already lost at this point, Obama has two bishops on the same color space (black). Which is impossible as the board is, since he hasn't lost or promoted any peices, and Bishops are locked into playing on a single color tile. Both sides start with one bishop on black tiles, and one bishop on white tiles.

I'm assuming the board is meant to be from Barack's perspective, since Row 8 is on the bottom of the screen. But in that case, the pawn at D-8 is at an impossible position, since that would require it moving backwards, which is impossible. If the notation is simply wrong, the pawn is still at an impossible position, since it should have been promoted at that point.

Of course, this is all pointless, as the point of the comic was to make a political point... but everyones already got all the political stuff covered, so I felt the need to fill in the gap. >_>

[Pseudonym]

Heresy! Talking about the actual topic!

[Kjorteo]

Tiler wrote:

But as someone who actually plays Chess and as someone with too much free time...

I can't believe I'm about to jump in to a debate about this of all things, but....

Technically speaking, there is no position in which Obama could be offering forfeits and Hillary could be refusing them except if the game were still going strong and Hillary had perfectly legal moves she could do. If her king were threatened and she had no legal moves that could remove the threat, that would of course be Checkmate and the game would be over. If her king weren't directly threatened but she had no valid moves that wouldn't result in placing her king under threat, that would be a Stalemate and the game would also be over.

Anyway, I'll agree that putting pawns on the eighth row was a little strange, but other than that, this is very acceptable artistic license, as portraying a situation where Hillary was actually still legitimately in the game (so the offer forfeit thing would be valid) would run directly contrary to the point he was trying to make, and it doesn't have even close to the same visual impact as having Hillary's king literally surrounded two or three spaces deep on all sides by Obama's pieces. Besides, the fact that the game is clearly over as she has very obviously been Checkmated, yet she still isn't giving up for some reason, was precisely the point J.J. was trying to make.

Also, clearly some piece promotion took place, as Obama seems to have three rooks.

[Tiler]

Oh hell. I didn't even notice the rook.

...but there are still seven pawns on Obama's side, which only accounts for the rook or the two black-space bishops, but not for both of them.

Is this supposed to be a really subtle conspiratorial note by JJ claiming that Obama cheated and stole the election?

[JJ]

I actually saw this nitpicking coming a mile away.

[Tiler]

Even the conspiracy theory? Man, way to ruin my fun.