Sherwood

How about this?

Hear Hear! Or, rather, Here! Here! (right here, in my house).

I agree, though I understand the rationale behind it. It all boils down to the fact that you can't do anything if you don't win. Sad state, though, when playing dumb gets you votes. I give Obama credit for that. I don't recall him ever dumbing down to appeal to votes, though I do find some of his policies "dumb" in and of themselves. Kinda like a modern Adlai Stevenson, except for the winning part.

Exit polling has about a 10% margin of error even in the best cases, so I'll be anxious to see more substantiated results in the months ahead

I would disagree here. McCain ended up with about 48% of the popular vote, which encompasses the vast majority of registered Republicans and some independents. That is, unless there were Democrats that voted for him too, which I find unlikely. You may well have a handful of examples to the contrary, and I've no doubt that you do, but the general trend seems pretty set in stone to me.

I'm in a similar position as Grawk here. I voted for Bush last election, and stand by that vote. I legitimately do not feel that Kerry would have done a better job, given the circumstances. I also voted for McCain over Bob Barr, though I do regret that vote. Nonetheless, I like talking about it with you, Tyrion. Most people's political beliefs are set in stone by the time they get their undergraduate degree, but that doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

Where do I apply for my MOT?

I spent some time with the Shanling, albeit with inferior headphones. It was good enough that I felt I could reastically identify a recabled KSC-75 from a stock KSC-75. I also spent about 10 minutes with the -==- and the Shanling, and it was really a nice combination. For the size and the flexibility, I really think it's a great amp.

Then I can expect to reasonably complete an egmont by the third try.

Justin, you clearly overestimate the "I fucked up 3 CMOYs" crowd...

Until they saw how much better we were than the British, that is.

The bailout was implemented in such a way as to mitigate itself, if the markets improve. It might take four years to do so, but it will happen with or without the executive officer's oversight. The bailout was not a blank check, and it will not likely cost as much as projected. The market tanked, in part, because it expected Obama to win. Now that he has, things can return to (kind of) normal.

TT = TurnTable

That I cannot argue with.

I'm of the understanding that, according to federal law, you are not compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance. Shudder to think what it will do to your kid in West Virginia to not say it, but you can hardly blame the feds.

I still argue with the use of religious in this sense, though, since forbidding gay people to marry does not require anyone's belief in a god. In fact, I can't think of a single piece of legislation which compels anyone to practice or subscribe to a religion in this country, though I surely can in other countries.

Religion is already kept out of politics in the way you're describing. There are no laws forcing anyone to practice or not practice any religion, regardless of who they are. The debate on this thread is substituting "religion" for "morality". Religious individuals are entitled to a vote, as is everyone. It is only natural that their vote line up with their beliefs, which in theory should be the guiding principle behind their every decision. The issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue, it is just an issue where opinions are strongly influenced by religion. There are certainly religious people who aren't inclined to allow the government to make decisions on marriage. What you seem to want is for religious people not to participate in politics whenever their views don't coincide with yours.

I do see them trying to start it, though. That could certainly be construed as forcing views.

Despite my political voting history, including this election, and my churchy ways, I sincerely hope Obama can get some sort of nationwide pproval on gay marriage in the next two years, and that we can put it behind us as a nation. It is inconsequential to all but the people it directly affects, and I can see no reason to prohibit them from enjoying the full social and economic benefits associated with marriage. That's one issue I would rather just get out of the way so we can focus on things that actually matter to this country. They're adults. Let 'em do what makes 'em happy within the traditional boundaries of law.

Ah, my bad then.

Those laws already exist, and more than one church has lost their tax-free status as a result of direct electioneering from the pulpit. Enforcement is the problem. Edit: I'm looking for harder facts on this than just my word. Stay tuned...

Q effing T.

I heard almost the exact same thing said last night about why CO voted blue. Except omit the word "intolerant".

That kinda comes out of left field (right field?)