Decision 2012
Is this the beginning of the Ras polls moving towards Obama right before election so he can maintain credibility and call it correctly?
Quote: BuzzardIn the battle for the White House, the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections now show the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 206. This is a tie ? ? ?
The daily tracking poll that Romney supports love to cite has them tied 48-48. Yesterday Romney was +2.
EDIT: Whoops, looks like it hasn't. The swing states all break for Romney except Nevada and Wisconsin, which would give it to Romney 297-253.
I'm glad I didn't make the sucker bet of buying Romney, though. I'd likely be selling it right now, and buying me some Obama to see if it didn't hit ten.
Quote: ams288Rasmussen's daily tracking poll has them tied now.
Is this the beginning of the Ras polls moving towards Obama right before election so he can maintain credibility and call it correctly?
How would switching 4 days before maintain credibility? Rasmussen's credibility came from projecting correcty for over 30 days prior to 2008. Obama has not been at 50% in Rasmussen or anywhere else in some time, bad sign for members of the cult of personality that is his support base.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow would switching 4 days before maintain credibility? Rasmussen's credibility came from projecting correcty for over 30 days prior to 2008. Obama has not been at 50% in Rasmussen or anywhere else in some time, bad sign for members of the cult of personality that is his support base.
Rasmussen's credibility came from 2004 and 2006. He was barely average in 2008, and far below average in 2010.
Quote: rdw4potusIA + NH would add 10 more, what's the line on Romney 260 or more?
Romney EC 260+ today: +150
I think that isn't nearly as good a bet. If he gets over 260, I think he wins (which pays better) as the likely way to get there is with one of the bigger swing states (i.e. OH, before you call climb all over me, I said the likely way he gets there, not that it is likely that he gets there). That is a very tough bet to make right now with fresh funds. I would rather lay the EC 250+ and less and pick the lower hanging fruit (i.e. EC 240+ & 230+).
That being said, I am still hanging on to shares of a Romney victory at +194......it is a free roll for me based on selling half the position on the price bounce from $2.11 to $4.25. As SooPoo says, that long shot comes in every once and I still don't think the odds are that long.....it is going to be close and who turns out to vote next Tuesday is not a lock, particularly with Sandy impact on the East Coast.
CNBC said there are a lot of construction folks heading out from Ohio & PA to be in NY to get work related to re-building. If they didn't ask for absentee voter cards before leaving the state, they may not be back to vote and my guess is the construction industry votes more Blue than Red.
It will be an exciting Tuesday to see where all the prognosticators end up as compared to the results. I am going to pick the underdog and say that Romney wins in a surprise result and the fly in the polls ointment being the voter turnout differential between the Dems and the Reps. We shall see.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html
Not sure if they're a prominent local paper?
Quote: ams288Is there ANYONE who didn't project 2008 correctly over a month beforehand?!
It is not projecting a winner and a loser, it is how close you get the exact number and how stable your projection is over how many days.
Liberals do not like Rasmussen for the same reason they do not like Fox News Channel-they are fair and balanced instead of fawning all over and in the tank for Obama.
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals do not like Rasmussen for the same reason they do not like Fox News Channel-they are fair and balanced instead of fawning all over and in the tank for Obama.
Ugh. I don't know how you can describe a pollster as "fair and balanced." How did Rasmussen perform in 2010? Didn't he have something like a +4% bias towards Republicans on average?
Nate Silver's model was extremely predictive in 2008, and yet conservatives have been shitting all over him all week. Why? Because he says Obama is the favorite to win.
The picking and choosing of which polls to believe is mind boggling to me.
And what the hell does Fox News have to do with anything? I do not hate Fox News. They have a definite conservative slant. Everyone knows this. I do not hate them for it. I just wish they (and their viewers) would admit it. MSNBC has no trouble admitting they're in the tank for Obama, and I respect them for it.
""Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney's closing election argument that he'll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/2/reid-says-he-cant-work-romney/#ixzz2B5fHR136
This is the Senate Majority Leader saying that he won't work with a Romney administration. He isn't saying that he hopes to find common ground or anything...
all about turnout. Whoever has his base the most
fired up will win. Obama has nobody fired up, not
even his base. College kids could care less, most
blacks are for him but they won't vote in nearly the
numbers they did in 08. He has nowhere near the
support among women he had in 08. The huge
crowds and full stadiums are nowhere to be seen
this time.
Romney, on the other hand.. Holy shit.
Quote: EvenBobIf the polls are tied the day before the election, its
all about turnout. Whoever has his base the most
fired up will win. Obama has nobody fired up, not
even his base. College kids could care less, most
blacks are for him but they won't vote in nearly the
numbers they did in 08. He has nowhere near the
support among women he had in 08. The huge
crowds and full stadiums are nowhere to be seen
this time.
Romney, on the other hand.. Holy shit.
The polls are of likely voters, so the odds of turnout are already addressed. But you just go ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to...
Quote: RonCI know the Obama supporters here have in the past lamented the lack of bipartisanship on the part of the Republicans...well, your folks are all in on it now in case Romney should win:
""Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney's closing election argument that he'll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/2/reid-says-he-cant-work-romney/#ixzz2B5fHR136
This is the Senate Majority Leader saying that he won't work with a Romney administration. He isn't saying that he hopes to find common ground or anything...
As a liberal to this I say: GOOD.
Republicans need a taste of their own medicine, and we need filibuster reform.
Todays Ras poll of Ohio has them tied, 49-49%. Earlier in the week it was Romney +2% (and that was like one of only two polls total this week that had Romney up in Ohio).
Quote: rdw4potusThe polls are of likely voters, .
Some are, some aren't. Its not 50/50 anyway,
the majority of pollsters are using the 2008
turnout for their model and thats a fantasy.
They weight far too heavily on the Dem side
and if you adjust for reality, Romney wins by
4-5 points.
This is all becoming like kissing your sister, boring
as hell. In 4 days we'll know, & all the posturing
and quoting will be seen as the massive waste of
time it always is.
Quote: ams288As a liberal to this I say: GOOD.
Republicans need a taste of their own medicine, and we need filibuster reform.
You are 100% right. If a President Romney came in and acted with the same contempt towards the other party as President Obama did, no one should work with him. C'mon...there was not one bit of compormise in Obama on any position. His idea of working together is simple--you pass what I want or else.
If he is re-elected and does the same thing in a second term, both the House and Senate will go strongly Republican and he won't get anything done. Like Romney or not, he has worked out compromises with a majority from the other party. That is a key to getting things done. Hell, Obama couldn't even pass his agenda with a Democrat-controlled Congress...how do any of you think he will be able to pass it with his attitude towards the Republicans and inability to compromise?
Vote for him. Elect him again. Fawn over him. Have thrills running up your legs.
He has not gotten the job done and he won't get it done in the second term.
Quote: EvenBobSome are, some aren't. Its not 50/50 anyway,
the majority of pollsters are using the 2008
turnout for their model and thats a fantasy.
They weight far too heavily on the Dem side
and if you adjust for reality, Romney wins by
4-5 points.
Which aren't? The major pollsters are all LV after the conventions. And, no, the majority of pollsters are not using the 2008 turnout as the primary basis for their models. Especially with new census data out since then, that's just an incredibly foolish thing to say (and moreso to repeat hundreds of time).
Quote: RonCC'mon...there was not one bit of compormise in Obama on any position. His idea of working together is simple--you pass what I want or else.
He ran hard to the right - well past center - on the "grand bargain" in the debt ceiling discussions. the GOP still wouldn't support the plan, and Boehner had to back out.
Quote: RonCYou are 100% right. If a President Romney came in and acted with the same contempt towards the other party as President Obama did, no one should work with him. C'mon...there was not one bit of compormise in Obama on any position. His idea of working together is simple--you pass what I want or else.
If he is re-elected and does the same thing in a second term, both the House and Senate will go strongly Republican and he won't get anything done. Like Romney or not, he has worked out compromises with a majority from the other party. That is a key to getting things done. Hell, Obama couldn't even pass his agenda with a Democrat-controlled Congress...how do any of you think he will be able to pass it with his attitude towards the Republicans and inability to compromise?
Vote for him. Elect him again. Fawn over him. Have thrills running up your legs.
He has not gotten the job done and he won't get it done in the second term.
For someone who claims to not have strong feelings either way, you seem to have all the conservative talking points down.
Obama never compromises. Check. (Wrong) See: debt ceiling grand bargain that was shit on by the teabaggers.
Obama couldn't accomplish anything even with a super majority in Congress. Check. (Wrong) See: Senate filibuster nonsense and wackos like Lieberman being counted as Democrats.
We all have thrills running up our legs/fawn over Obama/worship him. Check. (Wrong) See: this one is just stupid.
Quote: ams288As a liberal to this I say: GOOD.
Republicans need a taste of their own medicine, and we need filibuster reform.
Not sure what you are getting at here. He GOP has given Obama exactly the same respect and cooperation the democrats gave Bush for eight years. And why would you cooperate with a guy who said to just go sit in back of the bus?
The filibuster is needed to foster cooperation and protect from a narrow majority ramming through an extremist agenda, as Obama did before 2010.
Quote: ams288For someone who claims to not have strong feelings either way, you seem to have all the conservative talking points down.
Obama never compromises. Check. (Wrong) See: debt ceiling grand bargain that was shit on by the teabaggers.
Obama couldn't accomplish anything even with a super majority in Congress. Check. (Wrong) See: Senate filibuster nonsense and wackos like Lieberman being counted as Democrats.
We all have thrills running up our legs/fawn over Obama/worship him. Check. (Wrong) See: this one is just stupid.
I have strong feelings--I don't particularly like Romney but I like Obama less.
There is no sense arguing with you; you may not fawn over him like some do, but it is clear that you don't see his general inability to work towards compromise. If he was halfway good at it, he would have come in with positions that forced the Republicans to either compromise or look (to everyone; not just to the left) like idiots. I don't think he'll get any better at it and it is clear he won't have a "mandate" even if he wins.
Even when you have a majority, as he did for a while, you still have to compromise with some members in your own party and the ones you can get from the other party. I think he could have gotten a lot more done if he was better at the art of compromise--and what he could have gotten done in those first years would have been a lot closer to his agenda that what he will be able to do now.
As the "fawning" issue, you can select your own level. Some fawn, some have thrills/chills, some don't see anything wrong with him, and others see flaws and think he is better. I did not choose one for you...
Quote: RonCI have strong feelings--I don't particularly like Romney but I like Obama less.
There is no sense arguing with you; you may not fawn over him like some do, but it is clear that you don't see his general inability to work towards compromise. If he was halfway good at it, he would have come in with positions that forced the Republicans to either compromise or look (to everyone; not just to the left) like idiots. I don't think he'll get any better at it and it is clear he won't have a "mandate" even if he wins.
Even when you have a majority, as he did for a while, you still have to compromise with some members in your own party and the ones you can get from the other party. I think he could have gotten a lot more done if he was better at the art of compromise--and what he could have gotten done in those first years would have been a lot closer to his agenda that what he will be able to do now.
As the "fawning" issue, you can select your own level. Some fawn, some have thrills/chills, some don't see anything wrong with him, and others see flaws and think he is better. I did not choose one for you...
You make valid points.
I would just argue that when you have the majority, you should not be the one making most of the compromises. I basically view Obamacare as essentially one giant compromise. Single payer healthcare would have been Obama not working towards compromise. What we got is essentially Bob Dole's plan for health care from the 90s. Individual mandate? That's a Republican idea that turned toxic when Obama began supporting it! And it's the same damn thing Romney implemented in Massachusetts.
I don't want to turn this into an Obamacare argument. I just think that Republicans FAR AND AWAY are less willing to compromise than Obama (just go back to the Republican debate where none were willing to make a 10-1 cuts to new revenue bargain). They don't want him to succeed so they can win elections. That plan worked in 2010, but now seems like it's about to fail for them.
Quote: ams288You make valid points.
I would just argue that when you have the majority, you should not be the one making most of the compromises. I basically view Obamacare as essentially one giant compromise. Single payer healthcare would have been Obama not working towards compromise. What we got is essentially Bob Dole's plan for health care from the 90s. Individual mandate? That's a Republican idea that turned toxic when Obama began supporting it! And it's the same damn thing Romney implemented in Massachusetts.
I don't want to turn this into an Obamacare argument. I just think that Republicans FAR AND AWAY are less willing to compromise than Obama (just go back to the Republican debate where none were willing to make a 10-1 cuts to new revenue bargain). They don't want him to succeed so they can win elections. That plan worked in 2010, but now seems like it's about to fail for them.
The reason they refused a 10-1 cut to revenue deal is they know history shows the cuts never really happen or soon get "restored" while the tax hikes stay forever. Good for them. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe reason they refused a 10-1 cut to revenue deal is they know history shows the cuts never really happen or soon get "restored" while the tax hikes stay forever. Good for them. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.
Tax hikes stay forever? Rates aren't lower now than they were 10 years ago? 25 years ago? Let's stick to reality.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-theres-never-been-day-last-four-years-ive-been-proud-be-his-vice-president_660130.html
This guy makes Dan Quayle look good!
Quote: RonCBiden is out in full force this week...this may be his best:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-theres-never-been-day-last-four-years-ive-been-proud-be-his-vice-president_660130.html
This guy makes Dan Quayle look good!
Lol! that's awesome! My cousin and I were talking today: What would happen if Biden and Corey Booker somehow debated? Or maybe they could play truth or dare or something. That'd fill MSG, right? Maybe as a storm relief charity thing?
Quote: rdw4potusTax hikes stay forever? Rates aren't lower now than they were 10 years ago? 25 years ago? Let's stick to reality.
And look at the fight it took to lower them. And it is still just a "temporary" cut. They go up again next year. When was he last spending program to expire like that
In any case why are lower taxes a bad thing? Do YOU want to pay more?
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd look at the fight it took to lower them. And it is still just a "temporary" cut. They go up again next year. When was he last spending program to expire like that
In any case why are lower taxes a bad thing? Do YOU want to pay more?
Nobody wants to pay more. Sometimes adults have to do things they don't want to do.
Even when if taxes go up next year, they'll still be markedly lower than they were in the early and mid '80s.
To answer the spending question: TARP, the Stimulus, Iraq war spending, Afghanistan war spending...
Quote: rdw4potusTax hikes stay forever? Rates aren't lower now than they were 10 years ago? 25 years ago? Let's stick to reality.
And look at the fight it took to lower them. And it is still just a "temporary" cut. They go up again next year. When was he last spending program to expire like that
In any case why are lower taxes a bad thing? Do YOU want to pay more?
Quote: rdw4potusNobody wants to pay more. Sometimes adults have to do things they don't want to do.
Even when if taxes go up next year, they'll still be markedly lower than they were in the early and mid '80s.
To answer the spending question: TARP, the Stimulus, Iraq war spending, Afghanistan war spending...
Again why is a lower rate a bad thing
Lower taxes are good for the economy. This has been proven in 1961, 1982, and 2002 in the USA and other years in other places.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rdw4potusNobody wants to pay more. Sometimes adults have to do things they don't want to do.
Even when if taxes go up next year, they'll still be markedly lower than they were in the early and mid '80s.
To answer the spending question: TARP, the Stimulus, Iraq war spending, Afghanistan war spending...
Again why is a lower rate a bad thing
Lower taxes are good for the economy. This has been proven in 1961, 1982, and 2002 in the USA and other years in other places.
I'm not sure "proven" is the right word. The economy was pretty good in the late '90s. Taxes were cut in '88 and the economy faltered a year later. How did tax cuts in 2002 help the economy? The recession had already ended at the time of the tax cuts, and there's a pretty good argument to be made that war spending was responsible for most if not all of the economic boost there.
I'm not sure that lower rates are a bad thing. We just need to find the point that results in the maximum government revenues. Then we need to severely limit discretionary spending, and pay down debt. If the optimal point is lower than current tax levels, then we should lower taxes. But I'm not convinced that cherry-picked history is a good enough reason to test that theory.
By far my favorite part of the electoral process is the part we've just entered. It's the part where campaign senior staff can say or do anything, and it has almost no effect. Case in point. David Axelrod just said (about Obama's personal enthusiasm) "you can see it in the speech he's giving. This is coming straight from his loins...I just wanted to say loins. I wanted to see if I could get that into the story. You're writing that, right? Loins."
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rdw4potusNobody wants to pay more. Sometimes adults have to do things they don't want to do.
Even when if taxes go up next year, they'll still be markedly lower than they were in the early and mid '80s.
To answer the spending question: TARP, the Stimulus, Iraq war spending, Afghanistan war spending...
Again why is a lower rate a bad thing
Lower taxes are good for the economy. This has been proven in 1961, 1982, and 2002 in the USA and other years in other places.
I'm not sure "proven" is the right word. The economy was pretty good in the late '90s. Taxes were cut in '88 and the economy faltered a year later. How did tax cuts in 2002 help the economy? The recession had already ended at the time of the tax cuts, and there's a pretty good argument to be made that war spending was responsible for most if not all of the economic boost there.
I'm not sure that lower rates are a bad thing. We just need to find the point that results in the maximum government revenues. Then we need to severely limit discretionary spending, and pay down debt. If the optimal point is lower than current tax levels, then we should lower taxes. But I'm not convinced that cherry-picked history is a good enough reason to test that theory.
Not sure where you must have been in 2002 but the economy had slowed much in 2000 and the terror attacks made things worse. And the boom of the late 1990s only happened after a compromise to cut the capital gains tax rate. Before that we were stumbling around 1990 to 1995. People think all of the 1990s was the same boom as 1997 to 1999. It was not.
Quote: AZDuffmanPeople think all of the 1990s was the same boom as 1997 to 1999. It was not.
Exactly right. I bought my first computer in 92,
but it wasn't till 95 that semi fast machines became
available and the .com thing took off. I had a friend
who sold his sports drink factory for a couple mil in 96
and invested all of it in the Nasdaq. When the .com
crash came, he lost millions. I think he eventually
recovered but it took years and years.
Quote: AZDuffman
Not sure where you must have been in 2002 but the economy had slowed much in 2000 and the terror attacks made things worse. And the boom of the late 1990s only happened after a compromise to cut the capital gains tax rate. Before that we were stumbling around 1990 to 1995. People think all of the 1990s was the same boom as 1997 to 1999. It was not.
I have an issue with how you describe stumbling around. After the recession ended in 1992, real GDP growth averaged 4%/year from 1992-1995. The DJIA increased from 3199 to 5116 between January of 1992 and December of 1995. You think a 60% increase in the stock market is "stumbling around?" Really?
his last article before the election:
"Every four years we are told that the coming
election is the most important of one’s life.
This time it might actually be true. At stake
is the relation between citizen and state, the
very nature of the American social contract."
Everybody I talk to feels stronger about this
election than any of my lifetime. I don't know
anybody thats not taking this very seriously.
Thank god we live in a country where we can
correct mistakes every four years. Obama
fooled us once, he won't get a second chance.
Quote: rdw4potusI have an issue with how you describe stumbling around. After the recession ended in 1992, real GDP growth averaged 4%/year from 1992-1995. The DJIA increased from 3199 to 5116 between January of 1992 and December of 1995. You think a 60% increase in the stock market is "stumbling around?" Really?
0.7 in mid 1993
5.6 in late 1994
0.9 in early 1995
Yeah, I call it stumbling around.
Again, I know you are sure it's an impossibility, but what will your response be if Obama wins Tuesday?
I'll go first. If Romney wins, I'll be devastated. I will also feel like a fool for putting such confidence in the polls and betting markets.
Oscar
Quote: oscar33Bob,
Again, I know you are sure it's an impossibility,
Geez, you must live in a cave and get your
info by Left wing mailers..
Quote: oscar33Bob,
Again, I know you are sure it's an impossibility, but what will your response be if Obama wins Tuesday?
My guess is: "Buy more vodka."
Quote: FarFromVegasMy guess is: "Buy more vodka."
Romney is getting crowds of 10's of thousands
in Ohio. Obama is drawing 10's of hundreds to
his. Romney got 30,000 at an event yesterday,
Obama got 2500 at his.
Quote: EvenBobRomney is getting crowds of 10's of thousands
in Ohio. Obama is drawing 10's of hundreds to
his. Romney got 30,000 at an event yesterday,
Obama got 2500 at his.
Romney did a stadium with Kid Rock. Obama did a high school gym. Tonight in Milwaukee will be with Katy Perry, and other events will have other celebs, and you can compare apples to apples.
Quote: FarFromVegasRomney did a stadium with Kid Rock. Obama did a high school gym. Tonight in Milwaukee will be with Katy Perry, and other events will have other celebs, and you can compare apples to apples.
Using facts to argue with Bob is not fair! He would never resort to such a tactic!
Quote: SOOPOOUsing facts to argue with Bob is not fair! He would never resort to such a tactic!
I just want to know his brand of choice so I can beef up my stock portfolio...
A MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except North Dakota, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
-----------------------
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
------------------------
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'
-------------------
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
-----------------
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
----------------------
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
----------------------
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
--------------------
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
-------------------
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
-------------------
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
---------------------
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialect in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
---------------------
11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
---------------------
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
--------------------
13.. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
-----------------
14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
---------------
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
Quote: estebanreyA MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
-----------------------
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
In addition, the last letter of the alphabet will be pronounced "zed."
Quote:3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
Sure it will - but it will be called "The Queen's Birthday." For some reason, every Commonwealth country celebrates this on a different day, none of which are her actual birthday. Or maybe it just seems that way.
Quote:4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
In addition, to ease up on lawsuits, every state will be required to implement a law that seems to be in force in pretty much every Commonwealth country - if you sue somebody and lose, no matter how legitimate your claim, you pay their lawyer's fees. Or did you ever wonder why the USA seems to be the only one with frivolous lawsuits?
Quote:12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
Only if you let us hire West Indies coaches to teach us proper fast bowling. Then we'll see who stings who.
Quote:14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
Just take it out of the blood we lost on Omaha Beach or in the wreckage of B-17s and B-24s. In addition, a bill will be presented for the damage the British did to Washington in 1812.
You also left out:
16. December 26 will be a national holiday. Don't ask us why it's called Boxing Day until you get back to us with that JFK information.
17. Memorial Day will be renamed Remembrance Day and moved to November. As a consolation, we will allow it to be on the second Monday in November, rather than on the 11th, since you are so keen on those Monday holidays. Also, we will allow you to keep Veterans Day, but you have to move it, either to February in place of Washington's Birthday (even we know that the name of the Federal holiday is not "Presidents Day") or late May.
18. There is no such song as "Pomp & Circumstance." We don't care what the credits of Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted say. It is called "Land of Hope and Glory" (or, if the whole thing is played, "Pomp & Circumstance March #1", as there are five of the things), and on top of that, it has lyrics.
