Since it's going to be a week-long festival of celebrating Wall Street, veiled racism, austerity hysteria and putting women back in the 19th century where they belong, let's start the fun, shall we?
QuoteRon Paul delegates get nosebleed seats
TAMPA — The GOP is shoving the Ron Paul Revolution to the margins — of the Tampa Bay Times Forum.
The Republican National Convention seating chart, obtained by POLITICO Sunday, shows the delegations from Nevada, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota and Oklahoma all located on the outer fringe of the convention floor. Each are states with significant Paul followings.
The delegation for the Northern Mariana Islands, on the other hand, is right in front behind the gang from Michigan, birth state of Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Other groups with pretty good seats include those from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and American Samoa. None has electoral votes that can impact the outcome of the election.
It's yet another indignity for the party's cantankerous libertarian faction for their revered retiring Rep. Paul, R-Texas, who accumulated 177 delegates during his run for the GOP nomination this year. While he didn't win a single state, his supporters used procedural mechanisms available to them in several states to take a majority of delegates from Nevada, Iowa and Minnesota.
It is customary for vanquished candidates to cede delegates to the presumptive nominee, but Paul has insisted he cannot tell his followers what to do.
Paul supporters rallied in Tampa Sunday.
The GOP has been concerned that rebellious Paul supporters could cause hiccups for Romney's coronation as some have stated they may try to give their delegates to Paul during the roll call. A candidate needs five states to be officially recognized on the floor and Paul supporters have made claims to Louisiana, Oregon, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Maine. Romney's lawyers blocked that from happening in any official way, but there's little to prevent a delegation leader from going a different route.
Originally, the RNC's ceremonial roll call had been slated for Monday to get it over with before the days on which the TV networks would provide prime time coverage. That plan has been scuttled by the weather cancellation of Monday's proceedings; the roll call will now take place late Tuesday afternoon and will easily be included in evening news reports.
RNC spokesman Kyle Downey would not explain the logic of how states are arrayed around the Forum floor and responded to inquiries with an e-mail: "There's not a bad seat in the house."
Paul told The New York Times on Sunday he turned down a speaking slot at the convention because he refused to allow Romney's team to vet his speech. "I don't fully endorse him for president," he told the paper.
Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton declined to speculate about the seating snubs except to quip: "I am glad so many of our delegates get to sit close together."
Yet others freely admitted the arrangement seemed intentional.
"I'm not surprised," said Sue Lowden, a former Nevada GOP chairwoman whose tenure was marred in 2008 by efforts by Paul supporters to control the delegation despite Romney's easy triumph in that year's Nevada caucuses. "Many [Paul delegates] have stated that they are not voting for Romney. We Nevada alternates have great seats."
Indeed, the alternates — in most cases for Nevada, Romney backers who did not get selected at the state convention — sit in a section slightly raised with a perfect view eye-level with the podium.
Of all the Paul states at issue, Iowa and Massachusetts received the best seats. The Bay State is, of course, where Romney lives and was governor, so it will sit in the front of its section. And the Hawkeye State group is near the center; it's a hotly contested swing state with seven delegates.
Nevada, too, is a swing state, but polls show President Barack Obama starting to pull away from Romney.
While the GOP wants to prevent Paul acolytes from disrupting the stage-managed part of the process, the party actually bowed to them in several significant ways in writing the platform document. Only 11 of the 112 platform committee members were Paul supporters but the document calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve and a presidential commission to study metallic basing of the currency, accepted Internet freedom language written by a Paul group and language opposing the use of domestic drones and eminent domain seizures.
The official seating chart:
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/08/rnc_delegate_seating_forum_level_3_8-15-12_alt_del.html
Where will the Log Cabin Republicans (http://vimeo.com/39335675), i.e. garbon, be seated?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100207150657%2Famericandad%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fab%2FRed_and_Gay.jpg&hash=339ca7a460a4262720bac0deaf135a7495c32025)
Quote from: Syt on August 27, 2012, 12:44:29 PM
Where will the Log Cabin Republicans (http://vimeo.com/39335675), i.e. garbon, be seated?
Down the street and out of sight, of course. Finger foods and cocktails. The jokes write themselves.
Quote
TAMPA, Fla. -- Rich Weissmann has been a Republican for many years but had never been to a political convention. That changed when he arrived in Tampa this week.
"Quite frankly, it did not occur to me as a gay person to attend a Republican convention, and today it does," said Mr. Weissman, 58, of Portland, Ore. "Today, I feel it's an important thing to do. The Republican Party has become significantly more open, significantly more accepting."
On Sunday, he attended a convention welcome party sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that advocates equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Americans.
Log Cabin Republicans sponsored the hors d'oeuvres reception. Gay rights groups are hosting other events this week to coincide with the Republican National Convention in Tampa, too. There's a brunch to honor gay delegates, an "Out to Win" party to support gay candidates in down-ticket races, and GOProud's "Homocon," which organizers promise will be a party, not "one of those boring GOP cocktail receptions."
This isn't your father's Republican convention.
It has been a slow transformation for the party as older, more socially conservative stalwarts are being replaced by younger ones who grew up in a society more accepting of homosexuality, where they watched gay characters emerge on TV sitcoms and saw Facebook friends post unabashed status messages declaring their love for someone of the same gender.
"The world is changing," said Sarah Longwell, a member of the leadership committee of Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry. "The majority of young conservatives under the age of 40 believe in marriage equality, and if their party wants to stay relevant -- wants to continue to grow and acquire new members -- it's going to find itself needing to rethink its position on gay marriage pretty soon."
Ms. Longwell also is a member of the national board of directors for Log Cabin Republicans.
"A lot of people think it's an oxymoron, but Log Cabin Republicans think it's important to be at the table and persuade the party we belong to get on the right side of history," she said in a recent telephone interview. "A big part of participating in the convention is being at the convention and working with Republicans on the next frontier: marriage equality."
Polls show a clear generational divide within the Republican Party when it comes to gay rights issues, and gatherings in Tampa this weekend seemed to bear that out.
Just as the Log Cabin Republicans party was starting, another GOP event was winding down a few miles away at the historic Tampa Theater. There, nearly 2,000 Republicans -- most appearing to be over 50 -- applauded socially conservative religious leaders and politicians who spoke against gay marriage during a rally sponsored by the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
They cheered when Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz said marriage should be between one man and one woman, and they clapped when coalition founder Ralph Reed slammed President Barack Obama for supporting gay marriage.
Nine miles away, Log Cabin Republican leaders were preparing to welcome conservative gays and lesbians at the Rusty Pelican, an upscale restaurant with beautiful views of Old Tampa Bay.
Chris Koomer, 30, of Tampa was among the guests. He said the Republican Party is going to have to change as it ages.
Party leaders "are going to have to recognize that the younger generation is socially liberal," he said. "The party is going to have to evolve as gays become more of a force in the party."
Gay Republicans have a bigger presence at the convention than ever.
"For the longest time they've been on the outside looking in, and it's within the past six or seven years that more and more Republican party officials are paying attention to them, listening to them and inviting them to be part of an inclusive Republican coalition," said Dave Lampo of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. "Their visibility has grown."
But some social conservatives say they aren't welcome.
"They have no business being there. Our message is to them is that your home is in the Democratic Party," said Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association, a conservative radio host and a leading anti-gay figure in the GOP.
"These groups are actively working to undermine and subvert the Republican party platform and the principles of the Republican Party," Mr. Fischer said in a telephone interview. "They are undermining the moral foundations of the Republican Party."
It's no matter to him that Log Cabin Republicans support nearly every other party platform from tax policy to gun rights.
"There is no place for the homosexual agenda," he said. "The Republican platform is very clean on the issues of marriage and family and parenting, and these are people that are actively working against the principles of the party."
Ms. Longwell, who grew up in conservative Perry County, Pa., said marriage equality is consistent with party ideology calling for limited government and the formation of stable families.
"Too many Republicans are misunderstanding what being a conservative is all about. It's about keeping the government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible," said Ms. Longwell, who recently became engaged to her longtime girlfriend in Washington, D.C., where gay marriage is legal.
Mr. Fischer said young Republicans like Ms. Longwell misunderstand the premise.
"The reason they are for gay marriage is that it is an issue of liberty for people to have the freedom to do what they want ... but we oppose gay marriage because it threatens liberty," he said.
He offered two examples of businesses whose freedoms were trumped by what he calls the gay agenda. First, he said several mayors are trying to keep Chick-fil-A restaurants out of their cities because the company's devout Christian owners oppose gay marriage. In another example, he said, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission fined Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin for refusing to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
"The gay agenda is a threat to religious liberty. It is a danger to the liberty that the party stands for ... and it's tyranny that's being launched against businesses," Mr. Fischer said.
He said younger members of his party don't see that "because they are young and they are immature and they are unaware of the severe dangers to liberty that is posed by the homosexual agenda."
Mr. Lampo said those views don't reflect the views of most rank-and-file Republicans.
"I think even most people on the religious right, including opponents of same-sex marriage, are appalled by him," Mr. Lampo said. "The cultural change that is leading to support for same-sex marriage has already taken place. Bryan Fisher and people like that are stuck in the culture of the 1950s. They live in an Ozzie and Harriet world where every family was a two-parent family, gay people didn't exist, hopefully there were no African-Americans who lived on their block, and foreigners were something you saw when you went across the seas."
In separate interviews, several attendees at Sunday's party said it's easier to be gay in a Republican crowd than to be Republican in a gay crowd.
"I'm 68 and I've never had any discrimination or anything because I'm gay, but -- inside the gay community and outside the gay community -- people find out I'm a Republican and it can be trouble," said Guy Castagliola of Hillsborough County, Fla. "Some say, 'Do you hate yourself?' I say, 'I happen to be for lower taxes and less government spending. Does that mean I hate myself?' "
Said Ms. Longwell: "You've got to be really, really serious about your conservatism to be a gay Republican. You've got to be willing to take heat from both sides. Gay people think you're a traitor, and Republicans -- at least some portion of them -- are opposed to your basic civil rights," she said. "It can be a lonely place."
But, she says, she won't defect from the party just because of one issue, especially when she's optimistic about being able to change the minds of more socially conservative party mates.
"It's important that the conversation happens from one Republican to another because you need to be able to say, 'Look, I agree with you on most things but I disagree with you on this and let me tell you why,' " she said. "We can work with them and change their opinion over time."
Gay Republicans can't afford to wait, and neither can the party as a whole, said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.
"If one is looking at it from a principled standpoint of equality, the need for the Republican Party to be inclusive that's great, but there's also the pragmatic view that if you want to maintain majorities and win elections you have to be inclusive," he said.
Can't blame them for wanting to keep Ron Paul guys out of site. They really don't want these guys, and their actual voting power is fairly marginal. There's such myriad weirdness in that movement you have no idea what they'll say or do. You could interview them and get nearly anything.
"I'm here to show Ben Bernanke that we the American people won't stand for the Judeo-Bolsheivk plot that is the Federal Reserve."
"I'm here to show the military-industrial complex that they can't keep recovered alien secrets to themselves!"
"I'm here to show the UN that they can't take over our country without a fight!
"I'm so fucked up on acid, i don't know where I am. Legalize it!"
I'm not sure you can call Ron Paul marginal, given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/economy/republican-gold-standard/index.html
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
:bleeding: And half the nation actually take these people seriously.
QuoteRich Weissmann has been a Republican for many years but had never been to a political convention. That changed when he arrived in Tampa this week.
Not attractive :(
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
I'm not sure you can call Ron Paul marginal, given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
There is a very recent case study that can look at. It's called the Euro.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
:bleeding: And half the nation actually take these people seriously.
You do realize it's meaningless, since it only calls for a study. They were throwing the Paulites a bone.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 02:27:39 PM
You do realize it's meaningless, since it only calls for a study. They were throwing the Paulites a bone.
Yeah, like their studies on "legitimate rape".
Some of the biggest mouthpieces on the right still spout it though. Or did you get rid of your Beck University master's degree when FOX got rid of him?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2012, 01:25:43 PM
Can't blame them for wanting to keep Ron Paul guys out of site. They really don't want these guys, and their actual voting power is fairly marginal. There's such myriad weirdness in that movement you have no idea what they'll say or do. You could interview them and get nearly anything.
"I'm here to show Ben Bernanke that we the American people won't stand for the Judeo-Bolsheivk plot that is the Federal Reserve."
"I'm here to show the military-industrial complex that they can't keep recovered alien secrets to themselves!"
"I'm here to show the UN that they can't take over our country without a fight!
"I'm so fucked up on acid, i don't know where I am. Legalize it!"
I'd say that's probably quite a good characterisation of quite a few internet based 'movement'; indeed it's not a bad summing up of much of the occupy movement, I've heard all of that, sometime all from the same individual. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 02:27:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
:bleeding: And half the nation actually take these people seriously.
You do realize it's meaningless, since it only calls for a study. They were throwing the Paulites a bone.
I'm with Derspeiss here. Classic bone throwing. More troubling is individual state parties adopting the Gold Standard as a party plank. Fortunately they can't do anything in state governments, but you may raise a next generation of goof balls who will try to enacted it when they get to Congress.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
I'm not sure you can call Ron Paul marginal, given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/economy/republican-gold-standard/index.html
And Obama studied cutting the deficit. So what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2012, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
I'm not sure you can call Ron Paul marginal, given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/economy/republican-gold-standard/index.html
And Obama studied cutting the deficit. So what?
So you think cutting the deficit is as kooky as the gold standard?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2012, 02:47:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 02:27:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
:bleeding: And half the nation actually take these people seriously.
You do realize it's meaningless, since it only calls for a study. They were throwing the Paulites a bone.
I'm with Derspeiss here. Classic bone throwing. More troubling is individual state parties adopting the Gold Standard as a party plank. Fortunately they can't do anything in state governments, but you may raise a next generation of goof balls who will try to enacted it when they get to Congress.
Indeed. That's the problem with these people. They're all about getting people while they're young, and then imprinting them with Christianity, gold-standardism and gun-nuttery.
Quote from: sbr on August 27, 2012, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2012, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
I'm not sure you can call Ron Paul marginal, given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/economy/republican-gold-standard/index.html
And Obama studied cutting the deficit. So what?
So you think cutting the deficit is as kooky as the gold standard?
Whoosh.
Quote from: sbr on August 27, 2012, 02:54:41 PM
So you think cutting the deficit is as kooky as the gold standard?
I do not.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 02:27:39 PM
You do realize it's meaningless, since it only calls for a study. They were throwing the Paulites a bone.
Eh, on its own this might be true, but the Romney campaign also offered Paul a chance to speak if he would agree to endorse Romney and so long as they could vet his remarks.
Does the GOP usually woo fringe members of the party to speak at the convention?
I'm sure GOP would be happy to have Obama give a speech at their convention if they could vet his speech.
The Republicans appear to need kooks like Ron Paul. Gets people talking about how kooky he is rather than worrying about how kooky the rest of the party is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2012, 04:15:57 PM
The Republicans appear to need kooks like Ron Paul. Gets people talking about how kooky he is rather than worrying about how kooky the rest of the party is.
I think the GOP platform this year includes a resolution to place replica gold medals at every border post to commemorate our well-deserved women's soccer victory over Canada.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 04:20:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2012, 04:15:57 PM
The Republicans appear to need kooks like Ron Paul. Gets people talking about how kooky he is rather than worrying about how kooky the rest of the party is.
I think the GOP platform this year includes a resolution to place replica gold medals at every border post to commemorate our well-deserved women's soccer victory over Canada.
Figures, they seem to represent everything I most loathe about the US.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 03:19:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 02:27:39 PM
You do realize it's meaningless, since it only calls for a study. They were throwing the Paulites a bone.
Eh, on its own this might be true, but the Romney campaign also offered Paul a chance to speak if he would agree to endorse Romney and so long as they could vet his remarks.
Does the GOP usually woo fringe members of the party to speak at the convention?
Yeah, they have been know to do that. They had Pat Buchanan speak in 1992. Cause a bit of a row. George H. W. Bush didn't win that year.
I can't really get behind Romney very much, but part of me wants to see a Romney Presidency just because the internet was a lot more entertaining with everyone bitching about Bush than it has been the last four years. I can already tell CdM would be turning in some high quality entertainment on a regular basis during a Romney presidency.
Seedy would burn out after a while. But yeah, it'd be hilarious while it lasted. Like way back when Berkut was convinced John Ashcroft was trying to convert everyone to Christianity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 27, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
given that the GOP is going to study adopting the gold standard.
:bleeding: And half the nation actually take these people seriously.
I stopped taking them seriously as a party of government when they decided to abdicate that role, in the TARP votes. With a few honourable exceptions like Ryan.
Edit: The same happened over here. It was their opposition to bank recapitalisation that made me realise just how callow and political Osborne and Cameron are.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 27, 2012, 05:37:08 PM
I can't really get behind Romney very much, but part of me wants to see a Romney Presidency just because the internet was a lot more entertaining with everyone bitching about Bush than it has been the last four years. I can already tell CdM would be turning in some high quality entertainment on a regular basis during a Romney presidency.
Oh, the net is pretty livly with various conspiracies about Obama. People saying mean things about Bush must have really hurt your guys feelings. You keep talking about four years after it ended like it was some kind of harrowing ordeal. I guess you guys aren't use to that.
Poor Madcow seems to be having to dig up obscure crap to bitch about, what with nobody speaking today.
Edit: goddamned auto-correct. Have to teach my new phone all my curse words.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 08:41:40 PM
Poor Madcow seems to be having to dig up obscure crape to hitch about, what with nobody speaking today.
WHY ARE YOU WATCHING MSNBC?
QuoteThey have no business being there. Our message is to them is that your home is in the Democratic Party
HEY GARBON
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 08:41:40 PM
Poor Madcow seems to be having to dig up obscure crape to hitch about, what with nobody speaking today.
Stop hating the truth. Stop Leaning Backward.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2012, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 08:41:40 PM
Poor Madcow seems to be having to dig up obscure crape to hitch about, what with nobody speaking today.
WHY ARE YOU WATCHING MSNBC?
It's always sort of been a guilty pleasure. Know your enemy and all that.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2012, 08:53:47 PM
QuoteThey have no business being there. Our message is to them is that your home is in the Democratic Party
HEY GARBON
Quote"Too many Republicans are misunderstanding what being a conservative is all about. It's about keeping the government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible," said Ms. Longwell, who recently became engaged to her longtime girlfriend in Washington, D.C., where gay marriage is legal.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
It's always sort of been a guilty pleasure. Know your enemy and all that.
You know you're all about Big Ed.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2012, 08:53:47 PM
QuoteThey have no business being there. Our message is to them is that your home is in the Democratic Party
HEY GARBON
Is that supposed to phase me? I'm sure the AFA would also say I have no business going to church.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Is that supposed to phase me? I'm sure the AFA would also say I have no business going to church.
A lot of organizations associated with the conservatards would say you have no business doing a lot of things. Like doing your gay thing. Or voting. Or using the same bathroom I do.
But you go ahead, and keep rooting for them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 10:50:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Is that supposed to phase me? I'm sure the AFA would also say I have no business going to church.
A lot of organizations associated with the conservatards would say you have no business doing a lot of things. Like doing your gay thing. Or voting. Or using the same bathroom I do.
But you go ahead, and keep rooting for them.
Do you even listen to yourself sometimes?
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 10:50:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2012, 10:45:07 PM
Is that supposed to phase me? I'm sure the AFA would also say I have no business going to church.
A lot of organizations associated with the conservatards would say you have no business doing a lot of things. Like doing your gay thing. Or voting. Or using the same bathroom I do.
But you go ahead, and keep rooting for them.
Do you even listen to yourself sometimes?
I don't think he does. After all, he might then notice that while he's telling me to go ahead and do my own thing, he's really say that I have no business doing so.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 10:57:06 PM
Do you even listen to yourself sometimes?
Nope. But that's OK, I don't listen to you either.
http://buzzmachine.com/2012/08/25/reporters-why-are-you-in-tampa/
QuoteReporters: Why are you in Tampa?
I challenge every journalist in Tampa for the Republican convention — every one of the 15-16,000 of you — to answer this:
* Why are you there?
* What will we learn from you?
* What actual reporting can you possibly do that delivers anything of value more than the infomercial — light on the info, heavy on the 'mercial — that the conventions have become?
* Would you be better off back at home covering voters and their issues?
* Can we in the strapped news business afford this luxury?
Figure that those 15k journos spend $300 a night each on a hotel room times five nights, plus $500 for transportion. That's $2,000. And I'm figuring they'll be slurping up free meals and drinks. So $2,000 is probably (pardon me) conservative. That's $30,000,000. Now multiply that times two conventions. That's $60,000,000.
Why? For what?
Note that even while newspapers and news organizations have shrunken drastically, we are sending the same number of journalists to the conventions that we sent in 2008 and 2004.
Why? Editorial ego: It's fun to be there, in the pack. It's fun for a paper or station to say, "We have our man/woman in Tampa/Charlotte." Well goody for you.
It's a waste.
Take that $60,000,000 and divide it by a fully loaded labor cost of, say, $100,000 per head and it would pay for 600 reporters for a year. At $50,000 for a hyperlocal reporter, we'd get 1,200 towns covered — more than Patch! What could they do versus what you will do in Tampa and Charlotte transcribing marketing messages and horrid memes?
Or we could pay for Homicide Watch 1,500 times over, instead of just paying attention to a shooting that happens where tourists wander.
Those 15,000 journos will — three-to-one — cover 2,286 delegates (6,000 for those spendthrift Democrats) wearing funny hats, saying nothing new.
At least 3,775 newspaper jobs were lost last year; 39,806 since mid-2007; one in three newsroom jobs have been eliminated since 1989. How's that make you feel, convention press corps?
We can see whatever we want to see on C-SPAN (and I don't begrudge the networks for giving us America's Got Talent instead of the conventions since at least AGT has surprises; the conventions are scripted).
Commentary? There'll be more than we can possibly use this year on Twitter and Google+ and blogs and everywhere. We don't need to pundits' palaver. Citizens will comment this year.
So enjoy yourself, hacks. You're living off the last dollars of your business. And for what? Tradition? Where has that gotten us?
Please prove me wrong. In a week, show me the amazing reporting we couldn't have gotten if you weren't there.
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2012, 04:04:27 AM
Commentary? There'll be more than we can possibly use this year on Twitter and Google+ and blogs and everywhere. We don't need to pundits' palaver. Citizens will comment this year.
Yep. Lots of people talking, not many listening, at least not on a scale to support $300 hotel rooms.
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Probably, considering there may very well be even more journalists there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 09:38:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Probably, considering there may very well be even more journalists there.
And considering that he did criticize it in that article.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Didn't he just do that? The numbers he's using are for both conventions combined.
Besides, the Democratic convention is ever more pointless than the Republican one. At least the Republicans are actually trying to sell their message. The Democrats just have to chant 'Four More Years!' for a few days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 09:38:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Probably, considering there may very well be even more journalists there.
Just seems like the supposedly neutral criticism against conventions in general tends to be timed to coincide more with the GOP convention than with the Dem convention.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 10:09:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 09:38:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Probably, considering there may very well be even more journalists there.
Just seems like the supposedly neutral criticism against conventions in general tends to be timed to coincide more with the GOP convention than with the Dem convention.
Question: Which convention was first?
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 10:11:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 10:09:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 09:38:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Probably, considering there may very well be even more journalists there.
Just seems like the supposedly neutral criticism against conventions in general tends to be timed to coincide more with the GOP convention than with the Dem convention.
Question: Which convention was first?
I'm not just talking about this year.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 10:30:57 AM
I'm not just talking about this year.
It still seems a little like a persecution complex.
I wonder how much of the supposed "Liberal media bias" is just paranoia.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2012, 11:04:04 AM
I wonder how much of the supposed "Liberal media bias" is just paranoia.
Less than you think, more than the people who watch Fox News think.
Then again, the Tea Party isn't a victim of liberal bias. They're victims of fact-based bias.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Great points, but I wonder if this dude will also criticize the Dem convention coverage.
Um that was what he did. Read the article. He was critisizing covering the conventions in general.
Quote"The reason they are for gay marriage is that it is an issue of liberty for people to have the freedom to do what they want ... but we oppose gay marriage because it threatens liberty," he said.
He offered two examples of businesses whose freedoms were trumped by what he calls the gay agenda. First, he said several mayors are trying to keep Chick-fil-A restaurants out of their cities because the company's devout Christian owners oppose gay marriage. In another example, he said, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission fined Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin for refusing to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
"The gay agenda is a threat to religious liberty. It is a danger to the liberty that the party stands for ... and it's tyranny that's being launched against businesses," Mr. Fischer said.
LOL we must use the power of the government to manage the personal lives of millions of people because some Democrats are behaving badly eh? Yeah that is liberty for you. The twisted logic of anti-freedom folks is pretty sad.
John Kasich just said Mittens as President would make "a shinier America".
Haven't figured out what that means just yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
John Kasich just said Mittens as President would make "a shinier America".
Haven't figured out what that means just yet.
Don't forget the bit about Biden being a shitty golfer. That was pertinent :D
Watching PMSNBC again-- just couldn't stay away. Chris Matthews keeps saying he likes Kasich because he's a "blue collar guy" :huh: , Special Ed is frothing over Kasich not deserving Ohio's turnaround, and Rev. "Resist We Much" Sharpton is wandering off on his own. Madcow is a little subdued compared to last night.
QuoteSpecial Ed is frothing over Kasich not deserving Ohio's turnaround
:lol:
I give the bastard credit. After his stumble trying to fuck with the cops and firefighter unions, he's improved quite a bit.
Governor Transvaginal Ultrasound wasn't too bad; "job killing policies from Washington" was a nice touch.
Scott Walker still looks like a mongoloid with Downs Syndrome, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
John Kasich just said Mittens as President would make "a shinier America".
Haven't figured out what that means just yet.
All light bulbs under 60 watt will be outlawed. :bowler:
Jesus, they're still running that "We built this" thing into the ground. Gotta love feeding the groundlings. :bleeding:
Really? You're using South Carolina as premier example of industry? Really?
I wonder how many times Ann's going to address the convention as "you people"?
She started out a little rough but really hit her stride a couple minutes into it.
I had to turn her off, man; the saccharine phoniness was more than I could take, what with Tab being off the market for so long.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 08:59:11 PM
Jesus, they're still running that "We built this" thing into the ground. Gotta love feeding the groundlings. :bleeding:
Really? You're using South Carolina as premier example of industry? Really?
We have a Boeing facility! Nothing cool, I'm afraid. However, my employers are well into the process of stripping jobs away from the North, where people are Actually Paid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 08:59:11 PM
Jesus, they're still running that "We built this" thing into the ground. Gotta love feeding the groundlings. :bleeding:
You're one to talk. :lol:
The Log Cabin Republicans are such a joke. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2012, 04:54:35 AM
You're one to talk. :lol:
I don't drive bad syntax into the ground.
http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/29/republican-convention-attendees-tossed-for-taunting-black-camera-operator/HHx0dvPmujdy3Vdn9jEdbO/story.html (http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/29/republican-convention-attendees-tossed-for-taunting-black-camera-operator/HHx0dvPmujdy3Vdn9jEdbO/story.html)
Police at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday removed two people who threw nuts at a black CNN camerawoman and said, "This is how we feed animals."
"Two attendees tonight exhibited deplorable behavior," the convention said in a statement. "Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated."
CNN said in a statement that it "worked with convention officials to address this matter" but said it would not comment further.
It is unclear whether the people who taunted the camera operator were delegates or were attending the convention in another capacity. The names of the people removed have not been released by police or convention officials.
At last someone takes a stand against the liberal biased mainstream media. Just a conicidence that the camarawoman was black.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2012, 12:08:21 PM
http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/29/republican-convention-attendees-tossed-for-taunting-black-camera-operator/HHx0dvPmujdy3Vdn9jEdbO/story.html (http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/29/republican-convention-attendees-tossed-for-taunting-black-camera-operator/HHx0dvPmujdy3Vdn9jEdbO/story.html)
Police at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday removed two people who threw nuts at a black CNN camerawoman and said, "This is how we feed animals."
"Two attendees tonight exhibited deplorable behavior," the convention said in a statement. "Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated."
CNN said in a statement that it "worked with convention officials to address this matter" but said it would not comment further.
It is unclear whether the people who taunted the camera operator were delegates or were attending the convention in another capacity. The names of the people removed have not been released by police or convention officials.
At last someone takes a stand against the liberal biased mainstream media. Just a conicidence that the camarawoman was black.
I've seen this story floating around the web today, but I fail to see how it is much of a story. Individual members of either party can be racist idiots.
Of course its a story. Whether it says much about the GOP is another matter, depending on the kind of responses we see.
I ain't sayin' nuffin.
Agreed. I can see this just easily happening in the Democratic convention.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2012, 12:18:19 PM
Of course its a story. Whether it says much about the GOP is another matter, depending on the kind of responses we see.
How? Except for possibly a few kooks, what politician would ever not reject such an act?
It's not just politicians who make up a party.
It would be more innocent if the GOP didn't deliberately court these people.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2012, 12:18:19 PM
Of course its a story. Whether it says much about the GOP is another matter, depending on the kind of responses we see.
It's only a story if it says something about the GOP however.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2012, 12:26:22 PM
It's not just politicians who make up a party.
And?
garbon likes having nuts thrown at him.
Quote from: Gups on August 29, 2012, 12:26:22 PM
It's not just politicians who make up a party.
OK? We're hardly going to get news items out of how the base party feels / I don't think Repubs will revolt against their politicians who condemn calling black people nuts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 12:35:36 PM
garbon likes having nuts thrown at him.
Thrown is a bit much.
Yahoo fired the dude who was overheard channeling Seedy.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/yahoo-news-fires-david-chalian-source-133662.html
QuoteYahoo News fires David Chalian
265
Comments () By DYLAN BYERS | 8/29/12 1:26 PM EDT
TAMPA, Fla. -- Yahoo News has fired Washington bureau chief David Chalian after he was caught on a hot-mic during an online video broadcast today saying that Mitt Romney and his wife Ann had no problem with African Americans suffering as a result of Hurricane Isaac, a source familiar with the situation tells POLITICO.
"They're not concerned at all. They're happy to have a party with black people drowning," Chalian said during the ABC News/Yahoo News webcast, in reference to the fact that the GOP convention in Tampa is taking place as Hurricane Isaac makes landfall on the north Gulf coast.
The conservative media watchdog organization NewsBusters first posted audio of Chalian's remarks, but referred to him as an ABC News employee (and offered slightly inaccurate transcription). ABC News spokesperson Julie Townsend informed the organization that Chalian was with Yahoo.
Chalian and Yahoo News spokesperson Kristen Morquecho did not respond to requests for comment; Townsend also did not respond to a request for comment. (ABC News, where Chalian was political director until 2010, has partnered with Yahoo News for 2012 political coverage).
UPDATE (1:30 p.m.): Yahoo News confirms:
"David Chalian's statement was inappropriate and does not represent the views of Yahoo!. He has been terminated effective immediately. We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended."
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 12:31:55 PM
It would be more innocent if the GOP didn't deliberately court these people.
And you'd have a point if that were actually true.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Yahoo fired the dude who was overheard channeling Seedy.
Something called "Yahoo News" shouldn't be in existence, anyway.
Nice try with the attempt to pin it on a real news organization, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Yahoo fired the dude who was overheard channeling Seedy.
Something called "Yahoo News" shouldn't be in existence, anyway.
Nice try with the attempt to pin it on a real news organization, though.
I use it a lot :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 12:31:55 PM
It would be more innocent if the GOP didn't deliberately court these people.
And you'd have a point if that were actually true.
Quote
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.[36]
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger"
Yeah, I can't imagine where I got the impression that the GOP courts these people
I get all my news through Yahoo. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 12:31:55 PM
It would be more innocent if the GOP didn't deliberately court these people.
And you'd have a point if that were actually true.
Quote
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.[36]
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger"
Yeah, I can't imagine where I got the impression that the GOP courts these people
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_g05rcQEz--I%2FR3u4_4x-J3I%2FAAAAAAAAALs%2FFcJYphe79S8%2Fs400%2Fflogging%25252Ba%25252Bdead%25252Bhorse.jpg&hash=f7e50105d715cf48ee0308cb8848867ed41b1f90)
I thought Yahoo was a news aggregator like Google, didn't know they had reporters.
In GOP race relations, Jeb Bush said today that the party needs to stop being silly on immigration. It didn't help that when a delegate was speaking with a Spanish accent last night the crowd drowned them out with chants of USA. Apparently the video's got lots of traction in Spanish language news sites.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:18:52 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_g05rcQEz--I%2FR3u4_4x-J3I%2FAAAAAAAAALs%2FFcJYphe79S8%2Fs400%2Fflogging%25252Ba%25252Bdead%25252Bhorse.jpg&hash=f7e50105d715cf48ee0308cb8848867ed41b1f90)
I'll stop mentioning when the GOPtards recognize it.
It mostly is an aggregator but they also have some staff now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Something called "Yahoo News" shouldn't be in existence, anyway.
I have little use for Yahoo, but the future of news is automated. Assuming Yahoo uses automatic news aggregation they'll probably be one of the ones left standing when all the deadwood falls down.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2012, 01:20:11 PM
I thought Yahoo was a news aggregator like Google, didn't know they had reporters.
They started getting into content creation a few years ago. Some of it has been pretty good.
QuoteIn GOP race relations, Jeb Bush said today that the party needs to stop being silly on immigration. It didn't help that when a delegate was speaking with a Spanish accent last night the crowd drowned them out with chants of USA. Apparently the video's got lots of traction in Spanish language news sites.
They were chanting that the whole day, including during Ann Romney's speech.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 01:12:19 PM
I get all my news through Yahoo. :hug:
I get my news through Tim and Seedy. :unsure:
This one's for CdM and garbon: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/why-and-how-romney-is-playing-the-race-card-20120829?page=1
:lol:
That's really all I have for an article that barely even speaks about Romney till the last half and then just expects you to agree to their translations of the ad.
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2012, 03:02:05 PM
This one's for CdM and garbon: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/why-and-how-romney-is-playing-the-race-card-20120829?page=1
That's pretty much a regurgitation of all the other "dog whistle politics" BS that's been slung around. Lord knows Chris Matthews went off on that last night every chance he got.
So I gather the GOP convention is just cover for a massive Klan rally? 'The solution to our budget woes is...MORE LYNCHINGS'
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 03:19:35 PM
So I gather the GOP convention is just cover for a massive Klan rally? 'The solution to our budget woes is...MORE LYNCHINGS'
Yep, that's the sensible conclusion.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 03:09:23 PM
That's pretty much a regurgitation of all the other "dog whistle politics" BS that's been slung around. Lord knows Chris Matthews went off on that last night every chance he got.
They're simply shoring up their base, the Unhappy White Person.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2012, 03:02:05 PM
This one's for CdM and garbon: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/why-and-how-romney-is-playing-the-race-card-20120829?page=1
That's pretty much a regurgitation of all the other "dog whistle politics" BS that's been slung around. Lord knows Chris Matthews went off on that last night every chance he got.
I suppose if you simply ignore it every time it rears its head it would seem like BS. I'm always amused how conservatives hide behind the shield of "political correctness", and then a breath later damn political correctness.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2012, 03:02:05 PM
This one's for CdM and garbon: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/why-and-how-romney-is-playing-the-race-card-20120829?page=1
That's pretty much a regurgitation of all the other "dog whistle politics" BS that's been slung around. Lord knows Chris Matthews went off on that last night every chance he got.
I suppose if you simply ignore it every time it rears its head it would seem like BS. I'm always amused how conservatives hide behind the shield of "political correctness", and then a breath later damn political correctness.
:huh:
What did I write that in Greek?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 04:30:22 PM
What did I write that in Greek?
Πώς συντηρητικοί κρύβονται πίσω από την πολιτική ορθότητα;
Rand Paul is talking. :bleeding:
Admit it-- you guys fear Rand Paul :menace:
And now, a boring musical number.
Scott Brown named his daughter Ayla. Poor girl.
And now John McCain is speaking, proving that it is possible to be just as stiff as something that's been shoved under your fingernails.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 29, 2012, 07:03:46 PM
And now John McCain is speaking, proving that it is possible to be just as stiff as something that's been shoved under your fingernails.
Shtop being sho dishreshpectful.
Definitely on the plumpy side, but I'd do McCain's daughter in a heartbeat.
McCain is nuts.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F132%2F353466683_b32f39724c.jpg&hash=f8d9e597d5c8df309f8675a657038a8452fd8122)
These party conventions are the Academy Awards for ugly people. Get rid of em.
Just realized who Madcow reminds me of: David Schwimmer.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 29, 2012, 07:12:45 PM
McCain is nuts.
What's nuttier is all the Dubya drumbeaters that Romney's got back in the picture. Only people missing are Cheney and the Wolf Man.
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 06:47:47 PM
Admit it-- you guys fear Rand Paul :menace:
So should anyone.
Pam Bondi had a lobotomy at some point, right?
I really liked the video with the two Bushes.
So, how exactly does not getting militarily involved in Syria at this time translate to the President not believing in American exceptionalism, or that America is leading from behind?
Oh, Johnny Hero...2000 was so long ago, my friend. :( The damage from Victor Charles simply can't be covered up anymore. :(
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 06:47:47 PM
Admit it-- you guys fear Rand Paul :menace:
Supposed that we do, what is that supposed to prove?
Oh Christ, they brought out Jan Brewer. Her face is melting like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark as we speak.
Mike Huckabee. Ugh.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 08:41:52 PM
Mike Huckabee. Ugh.
We can do better... than Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee is starting to look like Dan Rather.
I do support Huckabee's stance on participation trophies in youth sports.
Quote from: Kleves on August 29, 2012, 08:52:21 PM
I do support Huckabee's stance on participation trophies in youth sports.
What was that?
Awesome; we've got Condi Rice picking up right where McCain left off, ready to bomb Syria and Iran, and kowtowing to China and Russia.
Where's Dick Cheney jacking up the Homeland Security threat level over "credible, non-specific" threats?
Yeah, I'd prefer they tone down the neocon shit.
When do we start chanting "Drill baby Drill" ?
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 09:10:08 PM
Yeah, I'd prefer they tone down the neocon shit.
Meh, it gets their juices flowing. At least it's a refreshing change from the We Built It bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
At least it's a refreshing change from the We Built It bullshit.
Yeah. That's one bumper sticker I can't wait to see the end of.
The Republicans should have nominated the ghost of Richard Nixon.
Quote from: Neil on August 29, 2012, 09:25:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
At least it's a refreshing change from the We Built It bullshit.
Yeah. That's one bumper sticker I can't wait to see the end of.
The Republicans should have nominated the ghost of Richard Nixon.
:wub:
You know, as much as I don't like his wacky fiscal plan, I have to admit that Ryan comes off like a real star. When it comes to public speaking, the only person I've heard so far that can stand up to him is Huckabee.
A shame that the guy is a Republican.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 09:10:08 PM
Yeah, I'd prefer they tone down the neocon shit.
Meh, it gets their juices flowing. At least it's a refreshing change from the We Built It bullshit.
Yeah, particularly from people who come from the part of the country that didn't have electricity until TVA.
Quote from: Neil on August 29, 2012, 09:35:08 PM
You know, as much as I don't like his wacky fiscal plan, I have to admit that Ryan comes off like a real star. When it comes to public speaking, the only person I've heard so far that can stand up to him is Huckabee.
Oh, he's a slick one, alright. That's the scary part.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
John Kasich just said Mittens as President would make "a shinier America".
Haven't figured out what that means just yet.
Simple. White colour reflects light while black colour absorbs light. So when things are white, they are shinier.
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2012, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Something called "Yahoo News" shouldn't be in existence, anyway.
I have little use for Yahoo, but the future of news is automated. Assuming Yahoo uses automatic news aggregation they'll probably be one of the ones left standing when all the deadwood falls down.
I don't think so. If the only thing left standing is automatic news aggregation, there will be no news to aggregate as there will be noone actually writing the news.
If anything, media companies will lobby to have news aggregation banned on IP grounds and most of news content will be proprietary.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
John Kasich just said Mittens as President would make "a shinier America".
Haven't figured out what that means just yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjsnkIP4ddo
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2012, 01:20:11 PM
I thought Yahoo was a news aggregator like Google, didn't know they had reporters.
I don't know how good their regular journalists are, but their sports journalism is among the best in the nation.
Quote from: Neil on August 29, 2012, 09:25:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
At least it's a refreshing change from the We Built It bullshit.
Yeah. That's one bumper sticker I can't wait to see the end of.
The Republicans should have nominated the ghost of Richard Nixon.
:w00t:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lmtf74kWXF1qjm3olo1_500.gif&hash=f2bb644b8bd23550d6c69313ac3358708938075d)
John McCain is nuts. He may be an honorable man, I have no way of knowing for myself, but let's assume he is. However, his rhetoric is so contemptible that it doesn't matter much.
Yeah, while last night seemed to center on foreign policy with McCain and Condi, it seemed to be going in the wrong direction.
And Ryan is slick. Dangerously slick. Teflon slick. Gotta love bashing the President on the rejection of Simpson-Bowles that he also rejected while chairing the "bipartisan committee". Hilarity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 08:42:24 AM
And Ryan is slick. Dangerously slick. Teflon slick. Gotta love bashing the President on the rejection of Simpson-Bowles that he also rejected while chairing the "bipartisan committee". Hilarity.
He'll be the GOP nomination for 2016 should Obama win this election, and that's when the Dems will be in serious trouble unless they hold the House and the Senate. The man is as conservative as they come, and he can make it seem viable, fair, and worthy to take away personal rights.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2012, 09:04:46 AM
He'll be the GOP nomination for 2016 should Obama win this election, and that's when the Dems will be in serious trouble unless they hold the House and the Senate. The man is as conservative as they come, and he can make it seem viable, fair, and worthy to take away personal rights.
Nah...I think, after four years of Obama, should he win, despite the enragement that it would ignite within the Teabaggers, the GOP will correct itself for Jeb Bush.
Jeb Bush will be their man in 2016. I think by then the Paul Ryan/Eric Cantor/Bob McDonald flavors will have run their course.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2012, 09:04:46 AM
He'll be the GOP nomination for 2016 should Obama win this election, and that's when the Dems will be in serious trouble unless they hold the House and the Senate. The man is as conservative as they come, and he can make it seem viable, fair, and worthy to take away personal rights.
:lol:
About halfway through his speech last night I looked over & saw one of the "Romney-Ryan" signs, wishing it were actually "Ryan-Romney".
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:10:39 AM
About halfway through his speech last night I looked over & saw one of the "Romney-Ryan" signs, wishing it were actually "Ryan-Romney".
I think a shitload of people in that convention felt the same. Or even better, Rice/Ryan. :lol:
Are my rights worth a balanced budget? :hmm: Not that he would actually balance the budget. But Hans will be around telling us why in fact it doesn't matter if the budget is balanced because it is less of a deficit by percentage of the economy than what Greece runs.
What are you thinking of specifically Meri? Reproductive rights sort of stuff? Because it is not like Obama is going to get some sort of personal rights prize.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 09:12:05 AM
Because it is not like Obama is going to get some sort of personal rights prize.
Compared to the legislative initiatives state and Congressional Republicans have been pushing regarding abortion and contraception for the last 2 years, you're really going to go there?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:21:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 09:12:05 AM
Because it is not like Obama is going to get some sort of personal rights prize.
Compared to the legislative initiatives state and Congressional Republicans have been pushing regarding abortion and contraception for the last 2 years, you're really going to go there?
I want to hear about the contraception ones.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:23:35 AM
I want to hear about the contraception ones.
Blunt Amendment.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:10:07 AM
Nah...I think, after four years of Obama, should he win, despite the enragement that it would ignite within the Teabaggers, the GOP will correct itself for Jeb Bush.
Jeb Bush will be their man in 2016. I think by then the Paul Ryan/Eric Cantor/Bob McDonald flavors will have run their course.
He'll still be W's brother.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
He'll still be W's brother.
They're apples and oranges. Relatively moderate and sensible apples, and pretty fucking stupid oranges.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 09:12:05 AM
Are my rights worth a balanced budget? :hmm: Not that he would actually balance the budget. But Hans will be around telling us why in fact it doesn't matter if the budget is balanced because it is less of a deficit by percentage of the economy than what Greece runs.
What are you thinking of specifically Meri? Reproductive rights sort of stuff? Because it is not like Obama is going to get some sort of personal rights prize.
I'm thinking reproductive rights, immigration rights, equal rights for gay marriage, the right to medical care, etc. I may be a fiscal conservative, but I'm about as liberal as they come on the social side of things. Paul Ryan would turn this country upside down given half a chance and a well-stacked House and Senate.
Though, I am struggling to find anywhere that Obama has done poorly on any of those. He's moving at a snail's pace on some, yes, but I actually think that's the better way to go about it. Better to guide and lead than to push and shove, imo. I know that as a country we'll get there, but it will not be an overnight thing, and I respect Obama's approach.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:38:24 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
He'll still be W's brother.
They're apples and oranges. Relatively moderate and sensible apples, and pretty fucking stupid oranges.
I just think some voters will find a Clinton vs Bush race unsettling. And he won't have nearly as easy a time as Hilary securing the nomination.
BTW, as Jeb is from Florida, he should probably be the oranges. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 09:43:11 AM
I just think some voters will find a Clinton vs Bush race unsettling. And he won't have nearly as easy a time as Hilary securing the nomination.
BTW, as Jeb is from Florida, he should probably be the oranges. ;)
I dunno about Clinton, man. If Chelsea gets knocked up between now and 2014, she's out. She wants to be a grandmother.
Now, if my man O'Malley throws his hat in the ring, look the fuck out.
Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:24:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:23:35 AM
I want to hear about the contraception ones.
Blunt Amendment.
That's all you've got? I was expecting to hear about evil GOPers making contraception illegal & whatnot.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
That's all you've got? I was expecting to hear about evil GOPers making contraception illegal & whatnot.
Well, yeah, how else are you gonna keep up the supply of babies for rich people to eat? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
That's all you've got? I was expecting to hear about evil GOPers making contraception illegal & whatnot.
Nah, slashing funding for women's health in Texas and New Jersey, along with candidates like Santorum getting enough support, and Mittens promising to eliminate Title X is more than enough to mention.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
That's all you've got? I was expecting to hear about evil GOPers making contraception illegal & whatnot.
Nah, slashing funding for women's health in Texas and New Jersey, along with candidates like Santorum getting enough support, and Mittens promising to eliminate Title X is more than enough to mention.
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:38:24 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
He'll still be W's brother.
They're apples and oranges. Relatively moderate and sensible apples, and pretty fucking stupid oranges.
And moderate, sensible Jeb is supposed to win GOP primaries how?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Slashing money from women's health while wanting to spend it on bail outs and invading Syria. :hmm:
Yeah, I've got a small problem with that. Especially since the Virginia and Texas things are small change and intended entirely to shut down abortion in their states. Don't play, derspiess. You know as well as I do that cutting that kind of funding is a drop in the bucket compared to dozens of other options out there, and they only serve one purpose: taking away the rights of women to decide for themselves how to live their lives.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2012, 10:24:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Slashing money from women's health while wanting to spend it on bail outs and invading Syria. :hmm:
I'm against the latter two.
QuoteYeah, I've got a small problem with that. Especially since the Virginia and Texas things are small change and intended entirely to shut down abortion in their states. Don't play, derspiess. You know as well as I do that cutting that kind of funding is a drop in the bucket compared to dozens of other options out there, and they only serve one purpose: taking away the rights of women to decide for themselves how to live their lives.
Women can (and should) decide how to live their lives without cash from the gubmint.
Quote from: Gups on August 30, 2012, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:38:24 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
He'll still be W's brother.
They're apples and oranges. Relatively moderate and sensible apples, and pretty fucking stupid oranges.
And moderate, sensible Jeb is supposed to win GOP primaries how?
Same way Mitt did, I would guess.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:34:09 AM
Same way Mitt did, I would guess.
I'm not sure how likely it is to have the entire field of opposition commit seppuku in mass twice in a row. Could happen, I suppose.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:34:09 AM
Same way Mitt did, I would guess.
By pretending not to be moderate or sensible?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Peanuts in an ocean of peanuts; sorry but that argument wont float, just like it doesnt float with eliminating the couple million a year the government gives to PBS.
The fiscal conservative argument only works with real dollar issues, not with partisan peanuts.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Courageously cutting all the programs they oppose anyway! What courageous deficit warriors they are :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:33:36 AM
Women can (and should) decide how to live their lives without cash from the gubmint.
You're deliberately ignoring the fact that the whole reason for that slash was to eliminate abortion in those two states. It wasn't about cutting funds. It was about cutting availability.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Peanuts in an ocean of peanuts; sorry but that argument wont float, just like it doesnt float with eliminating the couple million a year the government gives to PBS.
The fiscal conservative argument only works with real dollar issues, not with partisan peanuts.
This is why I :wub: you.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Courageously cutting all the programs they oppose anyway! What courageous deficit warriors they are :P
And you. :wub:
It's also why I get so frustrated with the Republican Party. Yes, we need to cut spending, but for fuck's sake, cut it where it counts and not just where the social conservatives have issues. It's complete bullshit, and everyone knows it, yet it continues.
And before you go there, derspiess, I'm no more enamoured of the Democrats when it comes to this stuff, too. Their idea of a good slash is cutting military. That's it. They got nothing else. Damn one-trick ponies, the lot of them.
That doesn't seem accurate. Obama proposed huge spending cuts last year as part of his bargain to raise the debt level last year, and the GOP walked because it would have entailed a tax hike.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2012, 10:47:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:33:36 AM
Women can (and should) decide how to live their lives without cash from the gubmint.
You're deliberately ignoring the fact that the whole reason for that slash was to eliminate abortion in those two states. It wasn't about cutting funds. It was about cutting availability.
Fine with me. I'm against any federal funds for abortion, budget crunch or no.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 11:04:30 AM
Fine with me. I'm against any federal funds for abortion, budget crunch or no.
Ok you are confusing me here. I thought we were talking about the policies of the Texas State government here. In any case I hope in their paranoia they can see the public policy benefit of trying to help poor women in the Rio Grande Valley with family planning just without any abortion.
So I missed much of this. What are the "Hard truths" that Mitt Romney is going to tell? That the GOP base is going to have to suck it up and the only realistic way they can balance the budget is to raise taxes and that we are all in this together? Or is closer to, we can balance the budget by cutting services to people you don't like already.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 11:04:30 AM
Fine with me. I'm against any federal funds for abortion, budget crunch or no.
I was under the impression that federal funds do NOT pay for abortions. What was cut was the funding to the clinic - you know, the part that actually takes care of women's health and provides affordable birth control to help limit abortions in the first place? - which resulted in culling the clinics entirely.
Valmy, yes, it's about Texas state government that's supported, funded, and steamrolled by the GOP. If Romney is elected, expect to see this happening across the nation.
fyi, here is a Canadian take on the voter ID rules in some States.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/29/voting-reforms.html
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 11:04:30 AM
Fine with me. I'm against any federal funds for abortion, budget crunch or no.
Well, we don't do that anyway, so you should be happy as a clam. Here, have a whore pill.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
Valmy, yes, it's about Texas state government that's supported, funded, and steamrolled by the GOP. If Romney is elected, expect to see this happening across the nation.
It would go against their own political ideas for them to do this. Which means they probably will. :P
Sounds like Clint Eastwood will indeed be the surprise speaker tonight.
You know, I admire Derspeiss's enthusiasm on this. :)
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Courageously cutting all the programs they oppose anyway! What courageous deficit warriors they are :P
Isn't that the best place to start cutting? Would you expect a government to cut programs that they feel are a good use of tax dollars?
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Courageously cutting all the programs they oppose anyway! What courageous deficit warriors they are :P
Isn't that the best place to start cutting? Would you expect a government to cut programs that they feel are a good use of tax dollars?
Yes, that would make sense, if they were not also increasing spending on other things like the military. The thing about budget cuts and balancing budgets is the process works best if everyone buys in because everyone shares the pain a bit. But in the US it seems to be a winner take all proposition.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Isn't that the best place to start cutting? Would you expect a government to cut programs that they feel are a good use of tax dollars?
Hey if this is just the start I shall hail the day this first step was taken. But they have been acting a certain way for decades so I need to see a bit more action. And anyway it seems we are talking about state money here anyway and not Federal money. Texas does have deficits from time to time, sometimes it is a big problem, but it is hardly something equivalent to the Federal problem.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2012, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Reducing government spending of money we don't have? The monsters!!
Courageously cutting all the programs they oppose anyway! What courageous deficit warriors they are :P
Isn't that the best place to start cutting? Would you expect a government to cut programs that they feel are a good use of tax dollars?
It's all so the place to start (and stop) for a person who isn't actually interested in cutting deficit and only wants the use the issue as a means of getting rid of things he doesn't likes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 12:50:08 PM
Yes, that would make sense, if they were not also increasing spending on other things like the military. The thing about budget cuts and balancing budgets is the process works best if everyone buys in because everyone shares the pain a bit. But in the US it seems to be a winner take all proposition.
Quite agree. There is at least a vocal minority in the GOP that does not consider military spending such a sacred cow. Hopefully their numbers grow.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2012, 12:44:05 PM
You know, I admire Derspeiss's enthusiasm on this. :)
Thanks.
Fact check on Ryan's speech last night.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took some factual shortcuts during the Republican convention when he attacked President Barack Obama's policies on Medicare, the economic stimulus and the budget deficit. His running mate, Mitt Romney, was expected to speak later Thursday in the convention's culmination.
A closer look at some of Ryan's remarks Wednesday at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla.:
___
RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."
THE FACTS: Ryan's claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.
In addition, Ryan's own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program's spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.
___
RYAN: "The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal."
THE FACTS: Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies.
One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build "sustainable demand for green jobs." Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.
___
RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."
THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.
___
RYAN: Obama "created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing."
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama hasn't heeded his commission's recommendations, but Ryan's not the best one to complain. He was a member of the commission and voted against its final report.
___
Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Andrew Taylor, Henry C. Jackson and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at claims made in political campaigns and how they adhere to the facts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 30, 2012, 12:50:08 PM
Yes, that would make sense, if they were not also increasing spending on other things like the military. The thing about budget cuts and balancing budgets is the process works best if everyone buys in because everyone shares the pain a bit. But in the US it seems to be a winner take all proposition.
And they won't be cutting that. They spent all last night beating the 'heroes' drum.
A guy who would cut spending by folding the USAF back into the Army, that'd be my hero.
Ryan's plan was a joke. It took 30 years to balance the budget and only added twenty years of life to Medicare.
Quote from: sbr on August 30, 2012, 01:10:30 PM
RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."
THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.
Wrong. The Janesville plant stayed in operation through most of 2009. Even CNN grudgingly gives Ryan this one.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/pol-fact-check-ryan-gm/index.html
That Factcheck thing is pointing out Ryan's hypocracy, not refuting his assertions. Hey Factcheck--check facts, don't debate.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 10:36:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 10:34:09 AM
Same way Mitt did, I would guess.
I'm not sure how likely it is to have the entire field of opposition commit seppuku in mass twice in a row. Could happen, I suppose.
Most of them aren't even Catholic
Quote from: Maximus on August 30, 2012, 01:59:02 PM
Most of them aren't even Catholic
I groaned, I laughed, I cried, I hurled.
I am wondering if the Republicans these days are more histrionic and full of shit than in the past, or whether they've always been like this and I am just less tolerant in my old age.
The "We Built It!" chants just made me want to throw up. Cognitive dissonance is bad enough, but embracing stupid with that much will and enthusiasm is just plain distasteful.
I am surprised that the voter registration crap isn't trotted out as the prime example of current Republican stomping on basic liberty. It is, IMO, significantly more reprehensible than abortion. I can understand the position on abortion.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PMI am surprised that the voter registration crap isn't trotted out as the prime example of current Republican stomping on basic liberty. It is, IMO, significantly more reprehensible than abortion. I can understand the position on abortion.
I'm led to understand that the voter registration thing is about combatting fraud, and is thus uncontroversial.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
I am surprised that the voter registration crap isn't trotted out as the prime example of current Republican stomping on basic liberty.
I tried, but nobody's listening. Reverend Al and I are inconsolable.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
The "We Built It!" chants just made me want to throw up. Cognitive dissonance is bad enough, but embracing stupid with that much will and enthusiasm is just plain distasteful.
What's wrong with it, specifically? Other than being repetitive.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
I am surprised that the voter registration crap isn't trotted out as the prime example of current Republican stomping on basic liberty.
I tried, but nobody's listening. Reverend Al and I are inconsolable.
RESIST YOU MUCH!
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
The "We Built It!" chants just made me want to throw up. Cognitive dissonance is bad enough, but embracing stupid with that much will and enthusiasm is just plain distasteful.
What's wrong with it, specifically? Other than being repetitive.
I think its pretty obvious the flaws in it and a quick google search reveals them - but I kinda see it as similar to "Yes We Can"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
I am surprised that the voter registration crap isn't trotted out as the prime example of current Republican stomping on basic liberty.
I tried, but nobody's listening. Reverend Al and I are inconsolable.
Quoteanother thing, let me take my glasses off
cause I wanna see the reaction on their faces when I say this
uhh Mr Al Sharpton, this is why I don't respect you and nobody like ya
see you're the type that gets off on getting on other people
...
but I also don't respect you and I don't care if that's good or bad
you see you are no MLK you are no Jesse Jackson, you are nobody, to me, your just another don king, with a perm, hahah just a little more political, and that just means you're a little unhuman
than us humans, and now let me be human and say, f**k Al Sharpton and anyone like him
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
The "We Built It!" chants just made me want to throw up. Cognitive dissonance is bad enough, but embracing stupid with that much will and enthusiasm is just plain distasteful.
What's wrong with it, specifically? Other than being repetitive.
It is based in intentionally distorting something the President said in order to create a mythology that is at the same time stupid and ignorant (the idea that individuals in modern society had zero help from the society they exist in to be successful) and populist and shallowly arrogant.
As populist slogans go, I can't imagine something more offensive to anyone with an actual brain that isn't actively racist.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 03:37:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 03:16:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 02:33:47 PM
The "We Built It!" chants just made me want to throw up. Cognitive dissonance is bad enough, but embracing stupid with that much will and enthusiasm is just plain distasteful.
What's wrong with it, specifically? Other than being repetitive.
It is based in intentionally distorting something the President said in order to create a mythology that is at the same time stupid and ignorant (the idea that individuals in modern society had zero help from the society they exist in to be successful) and populist and shallowly arrogant.
As populist slogans go, I can't imagine something more offensive to anyone with an actual brain that isn't actively racist.
I still don't quite understand your outrage. The President made statements diminishing the accomplishments of small business owners ("You didn't build that" was IMO actually worse in the full context of his remarks) and the GOP is taking exception to it.
Blame Obama for giving them the ammo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 29, 2012, 03:09:23 PM
That's pretty much a regurgitation of all the other "dog whistle politics" BS that's been slung around. Lord knows Chris Matthews went off on that last night every chance he got.
They're simply shoring up their base, the Unhappy White Person.
Isn't that... us? :unsure:
In other news, and I'm not reading this whole thread to see if it's been reported, but this is fucked up: Journey is playing the RNC. NO JON CAIN NO. Steve Perry's voice is rolling in its grave.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 30, 2012, 04:17:36 PM
Isn't that... us? :unsure:
I'm quite happy. Maybe you're not, but I told you not to go to law school.
QuoteIn other news, and I'm not reading this whole thread to see if it's been reported, but this is fucked up: Journey is playing the RNC.
That just mean it's couples skate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
I'm quite happy.
Is this a new development, or have you been mostly happy since the beginning of the forum?
Since I guess this has taken over as the general election thread, DGuller, have you been watching the Intrade odds for Romney/Obama?
They are about 43-55 in favor of Obama. I tend to think that is too close to even--the polling is typically within the margin of error but with Obama in the lead, but the last "no toss up" state map I saw had Obama with over 300 electoral votes. It seems Romney is going to win by several points nationally to win the electoral college, and the polling hasn't shown he can get that kind of lead.
I think I'd handicap it closer to 30-70.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2012, 04:51:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
I'm quite happy.
Is this a new development, or have you been mostly happy since the beginning of the forum?
What, all this time you couldn't fucking tell?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 03:57:16 PM
I still don't quite understand your outrage. The President made statements diminishing the accomplishments of small business owners ("You didn't build that" was IMO actually worse in the full context of his remarks)
:huh:
QuoteThere are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I don't think it "denigrates" small business owners to point out that they benefit from their country's strong institutions and infrastructure. There is no shortage of entrepreneurial energy in Nigeria yet small businesses struggle. I will give you a hint: it is not because of high capital gains taxes (only 10% in Nigeria).
I have come round to teh view that the single biggest danger the US faces domestically is the fundamental lack of popular understanding about the true sources of wealth and economic success on a national level. Eisenhower understood it, Nixon understood it, Reagan understood, the Bushes did too. And Romney definitely understands it but like so much in this campaign, hides from it out of some demented political calculation that victory demands abject pandering to the most staggeringly ignorant and atavistic qualities of his base.
This whole flap is one of the best demonstrations of the mental defects of the TP crowd and the politicians who should know better but facilitate them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
That just mean it's couples skate.
There's a man in SF who is known for biking up this hilly street near one of the parks, with large speakers blasting Journey. He just got married in the middle of a street on the day that it was closed for some unrelated reason. :wub:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2012, 04:51:44 PM
Since I guess this has taken over as the general election thread, DGuller, have you been watching the Intrade odds for Romney/Obama?
They are about 43-55 in favor of Obama. I tend to think that is too close to even--the polling is typically within the margin of error but with Obama in the lead, but the last "no toss up" state map I saw had Obama with over 300 electoral votes. It seems Romney is going to win by several points nationally to win the electoral college, and the polling hasn't shown he can get that kind of lead.
I think I'd handicap it closer to 30-70.
It's been consistently about 40-60 on Intrade when I checked it. I guess the odds tightened a little.
When in doubt, I go with Nate Silver's odds. His statistical analysis is very good at sifting through shit to get nuggets of information (unlike poll aggregators like RCP, which are just garbage). At this moment Silver's odds are indeed 70% for Obama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
That just mean it's couples skate.
lol "LADIES CHOICE... LADIES CHOICE"
For some reason, the song that reminds me the most of the roller rink is "Another One Bites the Dust". That was definitely an ALL SKATE song.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
I don't think it "denigrates" small business owners to point out that they benefit from their country's strong institutions and infrastructure. There is no shortage of entrepreneurial energy in Nigeria yet small businesses struggle. I will give you a hint: it is not because of high capital gains taxes (only 10% in Nigeria).
I have come round to teh view that the single biggest danger the US faces domestically is the fundamental lack of popular understanding about the true sources of wealth and economic success on a national level. Eisenhower understood it, Nixon understood it, Reagan understood, the Bushes did too. And Romney definitely understands it but like so much in this campaign, hides from it out of some demented political calculation that victory demands abject pandering to the most staggeringly ignorant and atavistic qualities of his base.
This whole flap is one of the best demonstrations of the mental defects of the TP crowd and the politicians who should know better but facilitate them.
Agreed. Every time I hear an idiot trot out the tired "The government that governs least is the government that govern best" dogma, I regret the sorry state of our mental health system that obviously failed such people.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 01:27:48 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 30, 2012, 01:10:30 PM
RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."
THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.
Wrong. The Janesville plant stayed in operation through most of 2009. Even CNN grudgingly gives Ryan this one.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/pol-fact-check-ryan-gm/index.html
Wrong. The last vehicle rolled off the line on December 23, 2008.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fezra-klein%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F08%2FLastGMBannerPose_t715.jpg&hash=6a0a5c878fce0f77ccfce6b1f0c5a89accbd67a9)
It was idled and contractors worked for a bit, but when the last vehicle rolls off the line and the 2,000+ UAW employees disperse, that's the end of a factory. The fact that there was some clean-up in idle time with 57 contractors really doesn't count.
Like so many things that seem to come out of Ryan's mouth or pen, the question isn't so much true or false as what is he trying to say.
In the Janesville example, he quoted Obama making a conditional statement: i.e. the form "If . . . then" In the specific case, the conditional was government support for the Janesville plant. That support did not occur, and thus the condition was not satisfied.
So from the standpoint of a purely logical reading, it appears that Ryan is chastising the government for failing to support Janesville in 2008.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 05:21:20 PM
Wrong. The last vehicle rolled off the line on December 23, 2008.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fezra-klein%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F08%2FLastGMBannerPose_t715.jpg&hash=6a0a5c878fce0f77ccfce6b1f0c5a89accbd67a9)
It was idled and contractors worked for a bit, but when the last vehicle rolls off the line and the 2,000+ UAW employees disperse, that's the end of a factory. The fact that there was some clean-up in idle time with 57 contractors really doesn't count.
That was the last day that SUV were produced which is what D's link said:
http://gazettextra.com/photos/galleries/last-day-gm/3119/
QuotePhotos of workers during GM's last day of SUV production.
Isuzu is a separate company. The used to have a JV operation in the US with GM that produced those trucks. But the decision to close all Isuzu operations in the US was made before Obama's speech.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:34:21 PM
That was the last day that SUV were produced which is what D's link said:
Big difference between the 2,000 plant workers that left after that vehicle was done, and the 57 contractors that stuck around to finish some Isuzu stuff.
But in the end, the decision to put the plant to sleep was before Obama was sworn in.
Considering that we're discussing a President who won a Nobel before he'd done anything, I expect better. :yes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 05:46:55 PM
But in the end, the decision to put the plant to sleep was before Obama was sworn in.
You can have that point.
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:47:58 PM
Considering that we're discussing a President who won a Nobel before he'd done anything, I expect better. :yes:
Why? He's earned it after all. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
:huh:
I stand by my earlier comment. Obama was preaching collectivism over individualism, and it's no secret he views the private sector with contempt.
Quote
I don't think it "denigrates" small business owners to point out that they benefit from their country's strong institutions and infrastructure. There is no shortage of entrepreneurial energy in Nigeria yet small businesses struggle. I will give you a hint: it is not because of high capital gains taxes (only 10% in Nigeria).
I have come round to teh view that the single biggest danger the US faces domestically is the fundamental lack of popular understanding about the true sources of wealth and economic success on a national level. Eisenhower understood it, Nixon understood it, Reagan understood, the Bushes did too. And Romney definitely understands it but like so much in this campaign, hides from it out of some demented political calculation that victory demands abject pandering to the most staggeringly ignorant and atavistic qualities of his base.
This whole flap is one of the best demonstrations of the mental defects of the TP crowd and the politicians who should know better but facilitate them.
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc. But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you. Why stop now.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc. But by all means continue
He's just claiming that "you didn't build that" :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
I stand by my earlier comment. Obama was preaching collectivism over individualism, and it's no secret he views the private sector with contempt.
Contempt? Nah. Suspicion, maybe. And fucking rightfully so. But I wouldn't go so far as contempt. That's what Republicans have towards women.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 05:46:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2012, 05:34:21 PM
That was the last day that SUV were produced which is what D's link said:
Big difference between the 2,000 plant workers that left after that vehicle was done, and the 57 contractors that stuck around to finish some Isuzu stuff.
But in the end, the decision to put the plant to sleep was before Obama was sworn in.
It remains that the factory was still in operation in 2009, and that Obama was giving the Janesville workers false hope.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
It remains that the factory was still in operation in 2009, and that Obama was giving the Janesville workers false hope.
Nope. And nope.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 06:22:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
It remains that the factory was still in operation in 2009, and that Obama was giving the Janesville workers false hope.
Nope. And nope.
I wonder who you'll slavishly cling to once Obama is out of office, whenever that happens.
If only I could use the roads and bridges, I could be a successful business owner too.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 03:57:16 PM
I still don't quite understand your outrage. The President made statements diminishing the accomplishments of small business owners ("You didn't build that" was IMO actually worse in the full context of his remarks) and the GOP is taking exception to it.
They didn't build that infrastructure. If they think they did perhaps they need to be diminished some more.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:26:05 PM
I wonder who you'll slavishly cling to once Obama is out of office, whenever that happens.
That's easy: until the GOP returns to its roots, circa 1972, then whoever opposes this vile modern incarnation of it.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PMNobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.
As long as you don't have to pay for it, evidently. It seems you also want to take credit for building it.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2012, 09:39:29 AM
I'm thinking reproductive rights, immigration rights, equal rights for gay marriage, the right to medical care, etc.
Immigration rights? The right to medical care?
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2012, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PMNobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.
As long as you don't have to pay for it, evidently. It seems you also want to take credit for building it.
Right, because we're all advocating a zero percent tax rate?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 07:18:07 PMRight, because we're all advocating a zero percent tax rate?
Seems right since you're the one who's building it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 03:57:16 PM
I still don't quite understand your outrage. The President made statements diminishing the accomplishments of small business owners ("You didn't build that" was IMO actually worse in the full context of his remarks)
:huh:
QuoteThere are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I don't think it "denigrates" small business owners to point out that they benefit from their country's strong institutions and infrastructure. There is no shortage of entrepreneurial energy in Nigeria yet small businesses struggle. I will give you a hint: it is not because of high capital gains taxes (only 10% in Nigeria).
I have come round to teh view that the single biggest danger the US faces domestically is the fundamental lack of popular understanding about the true sources of wealth and economic success on a national level. Eisenhower understood it, Nixon understood it, Reagan understood, the Bushes did too. And Romney definitely understands it but like so much in this campaign, hides from it out of some demented political calculation that victory demands abject pandering to the most staggeringly ignorant and atavistic qualities of his base.
This whole flap is one of the best demonstrations of the mental defects of the TP crowd and the politicians who should know better but facilitate them.
Sadly, it is just one of many examples of how completely ridiculous the TP has become.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:26:05 PM
I wonder who you'll slavishly cling to once Obama is out of office, whenever that happens.
That's easy: until the GOP returns to its roots, circa 1972, then whoever opposes this vile modern incarnation of it.
I approve of what you're selling here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.com.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim%2F2011%2F11%2F10%2FRichard_Nixon_111110_620x350.jpg&hash=d13e3b474abb4e8d69fa6cd427168816df5b469e)
Fuck the Tea Party.
Quote from: Jacob on August 30, 2012, 07:20:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 07:18:07 PMRight, because we're all advocating a zero percent tax rate?
Seems right since you're the one who's building it.
:huh:
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 07:28:14 PM
Fuck the Tea Party.
The only people Nixon hated more than over-educated elitists were under-educated idiots. Welcome to today's GOP.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
It remains that the factory was still in operation in 2009, and that Obama was giving the Janesville workers false hope.
It wasn't a false hope. He did give GM and its plants lots and lots of money. Not his fault he was not sworn in in time to get that sweet borrowed federal money to them in time.
This is an idiotic thing to fault Obama for. If he is going to promise to give out massive bailouts he needs to do it faster?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 07:38:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 07:28:14 PM
Fuck the Tea Party.
The only people Nixon hated more than over-educated elitists were under-educated idiots. Welcome to today's GOP.
Then again, he also hated people who were given all the breaks. The last President that he wouldn't have hated would have been Clinton. Obama would be like the reincarnation of Reagan or JFK to him.
An ill omen for the Dems
http://www.slate.com/blogs/victory_lab/2012/08/30/three_fifths_of_milwaukee_s_black_voters_have_vanished_without_a_trace_.html
QuoteSixty percent of Milwaukee's black voters have disappeared.
Democrats have feared for years that one of the particular challenges of running campaigns in 2012 would be simply locating their voters. The party's constituencies (young people, immigrants, minorities) tend to be among the most mobile demographic groups. And as NPR speculated this week in an analysis of battleground-state foreclosure figures, the housing crisis will likely only have made things more difficult for Democrats looking for their supporters.
New data from Milwaukee give an indication of how dire the Democrats' disappearing-voter problem already is. This spring, the League of Young Voters, which was created to mobilize young minority communities, collaborated with the liberal Wisconsin Voices coalition to dispatch teams of young canvassers. Starting in April, they spent eight weeks knocking on 120,882 doors across 208 of Milwaukee's 317 wards to raise awareness of the gubernatorial recall election scheduled for June. The doors had one thing in common: the voter file said they were all home to a registered voter whom a commercial data vendor had flagged as likely to be African-American.
But the voter file represented a fiction, or at least a reality that had rapidly become out of date. During those eight weeks, canvassers were able to successfully find and interact with only 31 percent of their targets. Twice that number were confirmed to no longer live at the address on file — either because a structure was abandoned or condemned, or if a current resident reported that the targeted voter no longer lived there.
Based on those results, the New Organizing Institute, a Washington-based best-practices lab for lefty field operations, extrapolated that nearly 160,000 African-American voters in Milwaukee were no longer reachable at their last documented address — representing 41 percent of the city's 2008 electorate. It is a staggering figure in a battleground state where Democratic prospects rely on turning out Milwaukee's urban population, an ever more urgent cause since Paul Ryan's presence on the ticket could help mobilize core Republican constituencies in the city's suburbs. Over half of those identified as displaced were under the age of 35, and thus also less likely to be reachable through traditional landline phones.
The Milwaukee data will certainly be sobering to Democrats who rely on existing voter-file records when organizing walk sheets and call lists for get-out-the-vote canvasses. Now, those working in Wisconsin realize, they'll have to begin the process earlier to pinpoint residents and make sure that those who have been relocated are registered to vote at new addresses.
"That scraps any traditional GOTV planning — if six in ten people that you planned on talking to are not there," says Biko Baker, executive director of the League of Young Voters
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 30, 2012, 04:17:36 PM
Isn't that... us? :unsure:
I'm quite happy. Maybe you're not, but I told you not to go to law school.
Well, good. I'm happy too. :blurgh:
Quote from: NeilI approve of what you're selling here.
Yeah, I was talking to a dude at work yesterday, that the Teatards who think Obama is a socialist would think Nixon, or Eisenhower, were some kinds of antichrist. Well, if they were black.
Jeez, Clint Eastwood is more Alzheimerish than McCain.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:08:23 PM
Jeez, Clint Eastwood is more Alzheimerish than McCain.
He let Gary Busey write his speech.
Dude, that was surreal. Just surreal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:15:32 PM
Dude, that was surreal. Just surreal.
Yeah. I'm still laughing about the implied "fuck yourself" joke, though.
Really, Marco? You're blasting a government that spends more than it takes in? What's wrong with that equation?
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:15:32 PM
Dude, that was surreal. Just surreal.
Yeah. I'm still laughing about the implied "fuck yourself" joke, though.
Yeah, that made me laugh.
Wow, Marco pretty much told the entire Obama life story. Good job, Marco!
lol, Mittens made a funny. The church pension fund was good.
The Democrats should counter by giving a primetime spot at their convention to a hollywood a lister.
No wait, they shouldn't, because they would be ridiculed as the party of the out of touch hollywood elitists.
"Guarantee the First Amendment promise of freedom of religion"? What's that all about? Where'd religion go the last four years?
Oh wow, Mittens going whole hog on foreign policy, circa 1955.
Kinda nice wrap-up at the end. Liked how that ended, well written.
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 07:51:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 07:38:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 30, 2012, 07:28:14 PM
Fuck the Tea Party.
The only people Nixon hated more than over-educated elitists were under-educated idiots. Welcome to today's GOP.
Then again, he also hated people who were given all the breaks. The last President that he wouldn't have hated would have been Clinton. Obama would be like the reincarnation of Reagan or JFK to him.
That reminds me of something I heard during the 2008 Presidential campaign, at the time that John McCain had the Republican nomination sewed up but Hilary Clinton was still trying to overtake Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Someone had made a comment about how the race for President somehow showed that a priviliged background was becoming less important in politics, and someone else replied, roughly, "Yeah, a guy whose father and grandfather were both admirals in the US Navy, the wife of a former President, and a graduate of Harvard Law--no indication of any priviliged background there!".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 10:10:39 PM
Oh wow, Mittens going whole hog on foreign policy, circa 1955.
No support for colonialist allies or anti-Soviet insurgents, but more roads and faster bombers? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 10:07:59 PM
"Guarantee the First Amendment promise of freedom of religion"? What's that all about? Where'd religion go the last four years?
I think that was code for more Mosques at Ground Zero.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2012, 10:07:24 PM
The Democrats should counter by giving a primetime spot at their convention to a hollywood a lister.
No wait, they shouldn't, because they would be ridiculed as the party of the out of touch hollywood elitists.
Eastwood was at least a mayor though. Can't they find a Democratic A lister mayor?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2012, 10:07:24 PM
No wait, they shouldn't, because they would be ridiculed as the party of the out of touch hollywood elitists.
They are the party of Hollywood elitists, and it just kills Republicans to think about it. Hence any time a famous actor mentions he's right of center, he gets a horde of people asking him to run for office, campaign for Presidential hopefuls, and appear on Fox News to spout off.
Commentators over here say it's been a "meh" speech. Not much in terms of goal setting and even less about how those goals should be achieved (e.g. creating 12 million jobs). One commenter said that it was rather anti-climactic and after the very good build up to it, and said that Romney rather played it safe than taking any chances.
Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2012, 02:51:50 AM
Commentators over here say it's been a "meh" speech. Not much in terms of goal setting and even less about how those goals should be achieved (e.g. creating 12 million jobs). One commenter said that it was rather anti-climactic and after the very good build up to it, and said that Romney rather played it safe than taking any chances.
Well, sweeping policy initiatives wasn't the goal; the goal was to show that he actually had a heartbeat and not a warranty card. In that vein, it sorta worked, what with all his family stuff.
Some of his message was a bit off. His foreign policy stuff was off the mark, accusing the Administration about "throwing Israel under the bus", not doing anything about Iran, and I'm not sure where the circa 1982 anti-Russian stuff is coming from. Then again, Psycho John Bolton is practically guaranteed to be his Secretary of State, so there ya go. While he and Ryan tinker with the economy like it's an Ayn Rand living lab, they're going to hand off foreign policy to the Dubya neocons. Yikes.
But, as usual, the people running his campaign managed to get their candidate lost in the mix; only this time, it wasn't a gaffe or the message of a bad commercial. Today, people are talking about the Clint Eastwood meltdown, not their candidate. That last night was almost a disaster.
But, it was just another a variation on a theme, more pandering, less policy.
He may get a bounce, but only for a few days: Big Barry's got the stage starting Tuesday.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 05:42:56 AMBut, as usual, the people running his campaign managed to get their candidate lost in the mix; only this time, it wasn't a gaffe or the message of a bad commercial. Today, people are talking about the Clint Eastwood meltdown, not their candidate. That last night was almost a disaster.
Yeah, so I read. That he was a) difficult to understand and b) coming across rather senile.
What's with all the Eastwood speech hate? People keep saying 'bizarre', but it was a pretty standard speech. The delivery was a little bit broken, but the guy is over 80 years old.
All of the sudden, I'm starting to think that speiss might have a point with the whole media bias thing.
I love Clint, but he struck me as drunk. I was afraid he was going to overshadow Mittenses' speech, but it turned out he did: for all the wrong reasons.
I was expecting something more like Chuck Heston's "my cold dead fingers" speech from years ago, an impassioned plea for conservatism and Americana.
It just went bad, and really screwed up the tempo of the evening. Dirty Harry is old. :( Should've called in Arnold.
Arnold is good. I remember him campaigning for someone years ago:
"(Candidate B) says they are tougher on crime? I thought I was the star of True Lies!"
I think Eastwood did a good job of lightening up the mood after a bunch of Mormons bored everybody out of their fucking minds.
It seems to me that most of the people hating on Eastwood are die-hard Obama fans, and most of them think that Eastwood is some kind of racist.
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2012, 07:58:18 AM
It seems to me that most of the people hating on Eastwood are die-hard Obama fans, and most of them think that Eastwood is some kind of racist.
I thought it was rather amusing that a convention hall full of people slathering over Eastwood last night were exactly the same people screaming about him endorsing Obama in code with his Super Bowl commercial.
ITS HALFTIME IN AMERICA OMG 4 MORE YEARS OF OBAMA
Didn't Karl Rove say that he was some kind of traitor?
Pretty much, yeah.
They should've booked Arnold. Hell, Nancy Reagan would've been more lucid, and would've brought the fucking house down just standing there.
Romney called out Obama for hurting Medicare...so he plans to maintain Medicare and the massive defense budget while balancing the budget?
:hmm:
Glad to know he is going to stop Iran somehow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 08:13:46 AM
They should've booked Arnold.
Arnold's GOP star ain't nearly as bright now. I still like him personally, but politically I don't really see him as much different from a Democrat, even in the context of California politics.
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc. But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you. Why stop now.
That's not really an answer.
If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas. But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.
OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge. It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them. Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision? The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 05:42:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2012, 02:51:50 AM
Commentators over here say it's been a "meh" speech. Not much in terms of goal setting and even less about how those goals should be achieved (e.g. creating 12 million jobs). One commenter said that it was rather anti-climactic and after the very good build up to it, and said that Romney rather played it safe than taking any chances.
Well, sweeping policy initiatives wasn't the goal; the goal was to show that he actually had a heartbeat and not a warranty card. In that vein, it sorta worked, what with all his family stuff.
Some of his message was a bit off. His foreign policy stuff was off the mark, accusing the Administration about "throwing Israel under the bus", not doing anything about Iran, and I'm not sure where the circa 1982 anti-Russian stuff is coming from. Then again, Psycho John Bolton is practically guaranteed to be his Secretary of State, so there ya go. While he and Ryan tinker with the economy like it's an Ayn Rand living lab, they're going to hand off foreign policy to the Dubya neocons. Yikes.
But, as usual, the people running his campaign managed to get their candidate lost in the mix; only this time, it wasn't a gaffe or the message of a bad commercial. Today, people are talking about the Clint Eastwood meltdown, not their candidate. That last night was almost a disaster.
But, it was just another a variation on a theme, more pandering, less policy.
He may get a bounce, but only for a few days: Big Barry's got the stage starting Tuesday.
I think that the last time policy instead of pandering featured at either party's convention was the 1948 Democratic convention.
And Syt, Romney is the ultimate play-it-safe-don't-take-any-chances candidate, so him playing it safe here should hardly be a surprise. Don't take that the wrong way--I don't think you were surprised.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc. But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you. Why stop now.
That's not really an answer.
If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas. But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.
OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge. It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them. Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision? The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.
I guess you & I are just seeing different things in his speech. Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 10:34:51 AM
And Syt, Romney is the ultimate play-it-safe-don't-take-any-chances candidate, so him playing it safe here should hardly be a surprise. Don't take that the wrong way--I don't think you were surprised.
And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals. Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals. Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.
And usually not even then. And yes this is why I wonder why conventions are newsworthy events at all. We learn a whole lot of nothing.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals. Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.
Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges. Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges. Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.
Well that used to be the case but the debates had their teeth removed for awhile.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc. But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you. Why stop now.
That's not really an answer.
If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas. But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.
OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge. It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them. Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision? The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.
I guess you & I are just seeing different things in his speech. Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".
So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2012, 10:58:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges. Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.
Well that used to be the case but the debates had their teeth removed for awhile.
They do at least like to use it to drop policy proposals. How many times have you heard "...and that is why I am proposing..." at a debate?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 11:01:04 AM
So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?
Leave it to you to only focus on literal meaning. The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. Which in a sense I'm fine with him saying-- I just don't understand why you deny he's saying it.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special.
Well, you heard wrong. :console:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special.
Well, you heard wrong. :console:
Given the big reaction he got from his crowd with those words, I don't think so. He was playing up to his crowd, off-teleprompter, and I think just got carried away with himself.
He got carried away?
He didn't say *anything* that was remotely controversial. It was all perfectly standard barely left of center moderate stuff.
There was nothing there to be offended or outraged about.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 11:29:43 AM
He got carried away?
He didn't say *anything* that was remotely controversial. It was all perfectly standard barely left of center moderate stuff.
There was nothing there to be offended or outraged about.
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 11:01:04 AM
So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?
Like Scrooge's McPappy used to say, "Work smarter,
not harder.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 11:29:43 AM
He got carried away?
He didn't say *anything* that was remotely controversial. It was all perfectly standard barely left of center moderate stuff.
There was nothing there to be offended or outraged about.
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Wow, pointing out that everyone depends on the services of government is solidly left wing populist meat?
Is that another way of saying the Republicans should just cut all that stuff away because they dont really need any of that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 11:29:43 AM
He got carried away?
He didn't say *anything* that was remotely controversial. It was all perfectly standard barely left of center moderate stuff.
There was nothing there to be offended or outraged about.
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Wow, pointing out that everyone depends on the services of government is solidly left wing populist meat?
Is that another way of saying the Republicans should just cut all that stuff away because they dont really need any of that?
:yawn:
Ok, I assume I hit the mark.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 11:57:13 AM
Ok, I assume I hit the mark.
Nah. Just getting tired of debating you goofballs on the same thing over & over.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:58:47 AM
Nah. Just getting tired of debating you goofballs on the same thing over & over.
Same here. Election years are so fatiguing sometimes.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 11:57:13 AM
Ok, I assume I hit the mark.
Nah. Just getting tired of debating you goofballs on the same thing over & over.
It's a lot less exhausting if you don't have to come up with some bullshit every time you respond. Just take this one on faith right now, in time you'll see that I'm right.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".
I don't read it that way but clearly there is a political motivation in the speech and I suppose that he could be criticized for unfairly characterizing his detractors and simplifying their arguments. But that isn't the criticism levied against him. Instead his detractors are playing right into the caricature.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".
I don't read it that way but clearly there is a political motivation in the speech and I suppose that he could be criticized for unfairly characterizing his detractors and simplifying their arguments. But that isn't the criticism levied against him. Instead his detractors are playing right into the caricature.
You're assuming that his detractors are actually anything other than caricatures.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Obama:
QuoteThe point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
That's not even left of center. It's from de Tocqueville:
QuoteI have already shown, in several parts of this work, by what means the inhabitants of the United States almost always manage to combine their own advantage with that of their fellow citizens; my present purpose is to point out the general rule that enables them to do so. In the United States hardly anybody talks of the beauty of virtue, but they maintain that virtue is useful and prove it every day. The American moralists do not profess that men ought to sacrifice themselves for their fellow creatures because it is noble to make such sacrifices, but they boldly aver that such sacrifices are as necessary to him who imposes them upon himself as to him for whose sake they are made.
. . . .
The Americans . . . are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state. In this respect I think they frequently fail to do themselves justice, for in the United States as well as elsewhere people are sometimes seen to give way to those disinterested and spontaneous impulses that are natural to man; but the Americans seldom admit that they yield to emotions of this kind; they are more anxious to do honor to their philosophy than to themselves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge. It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them. Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision? The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.
Yes. His point was a good one, but his delivery sucked. He said it in a way that could be taken badly, and many people did just that. Now, the GOP are taking advantage of the opening, as you'd expect they would. It was a mistake, and his opponents are getting whatever advantage they can out of it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Obama:
QuoteThe point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
That's not even left of center. It's from de Tocqueville:
Yeah, see, you just lost 98.5% of the Tea Party right there.
"de Towhat? COMMUNIST!"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960;
I thought that was part of the reason that Agnew got the nod.
Why is it that Tea Party types insist on making the Democrats sound like mid-30s Stalinists? Central Planning, Communism, Socialism.....it's all weirdly archaic. Kind of like railing against sans-culottes in the 1920s.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Obama:
QuoteThe point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
That's not even left of center. It's from de Tocqueville:
I'm cool with that point, but that was just typical politician double-speak thrown in for cover. His main applause lines were the populist red meat.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
I don't see how you can call that barely left of center. It was solidly left-wing populist red meat.
Obama:
QuoteThe point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
That's not even left of center. It's from de Tocqueville:
Yeah, see, you just lost 98.5% of the Tea Party right there.
"de Towhat? COMMUNIST!"
Shows how well-informed you are about the Tea Party/Right. They quote de Tocqueville all the time.
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2012, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960;
I thought that was part of the reason that Agnew got the nod.
Meh, I think it was more because he was one of the less-crazy "southern" Rockefellerian Republicans with name recognition on the east coast. And he had a combat personality only Nixon would like.
But nobody picks a Veep from Maryland to secure the south.
It's funny, though: as far as Carolinians, Georgians and the rest are concerned, Maryland is Yanquistani. But you talk to a New Yorker or Bostonian, we're knee deep in Dixie.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 31, 2012, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960;
I thought that was part of the reason that Agnew got the nod.
Meh, I think it was more because he was one of the less-crazy "southern" Rockefellerian Republicans with name recognition on the east coast. And he had a combat personality only Nixon would like.
But nobody picks a Veep from Maryland to secure the south.
It's funny, though: as far as Carolinians, Georgians and the rest are concerned, Maryland is Yanquistani. But you talk to a New Yorker or Bostonian, we're knee deep in Dixie.
I think that was the point though. He picks a guy that says 'Southern concens will have a voice in my administration', which was important to the Southern Strategy, but at the same time he avoids picking someone like Strom Thurmond who would have made half the country lose their shit. Thurmond's power was more informal.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2012, 09:44:16 AM
Romney called out Obama for hurting Medicare...so he plans to maintain Medicare and the massive defense budget while balancing the budget?
:hmm:
Glad to know he is going to stop Iran somehow.
Can't we just cut Planned Parenthood to solve all 3?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 01:33:04 PM
But you talk to a New Yorker or Bostonian, we're knee deep in Dixie.
Some of those dipshits even think Pennsylvania is southern.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 01:49:52 PM
Some of those dipshits even think Pennsylvania is southern.
Really New York and Boston only acknowledge California as also being important. The three pillars of American Elitism.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 01:49:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 01:33:04 PM
But you talk to a New Yorker or Bostonian, we're knee deep in Dixie.
Some of those dipshits even think Pennsylvania is southern.
Well, in all honesty, everything between Pittsburgh and Philly is pretty fucking rebeltard. And their state legislature's been acting the part.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 01:58:20 PM
Well, in all honesty, everything between Pittsburgh and Philly is pretty fucking rebeltard. And their state legislature's been acting the part.
How can good Pennsylvania men be pro rebel?
What would George Meade say?
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 01:58:20 PM
Well, in all honesty, everything between Pittsburgh and Philly is pretty fucking rebeltard. And their state legislature's been acting the part.
How can good Pennsylvania men be pro rebel?
What would George Meade say?
Right now? Nothing. He's dead.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/31/occupy-rnc-ends-in-tears-frustration/
A feel good story. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2012, 02:37:47 PM
Right now? Nothing. He's dead.
Oh, I'm sure there's an animatronic Meade in a museum somewhere making excuses for why he didn't pursue Lee after Gettysburg.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2012, 02:37:47 PM
Right now? Nothing. He's dead.
Oh, I'm sure there's an animatronic Meade in a museum somewhere making excuses for why he didn't pursue Lee after Gettysburg.
Squee
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2012, 02:37:47 PM
Right now? Nothing. He's dead.
Oh, I'm sure there's an animatronic Meade in a museum somewhere making excuses for why he didn't pursue Lee after Gettysburg.
SON OF A
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 11:01:04 AM
So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?
Leave it to you to only focus on literal meaning. The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. Which in a sense I'm fine with him saying-- I just don't understand why you deny he's saying it.
I deny nothing. Are you saying they are special?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.houstonpress.com%2Fhairballs%2Ffuturama-203-nixon.jpg&hash=777d9b47c73be65f2b3fa6ddcf9550e6130d91ed)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 11:01:04 AM
So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?
Leave it to you to only focus on literal meaning. The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. Which in a sense I'm fine with him saying-- I just don't understand why you deny he's saying it.
I deny nothing. Are you saying they are special?
Goddamn right I'm special.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 03:02:29 PM
I deny nothing. Are you saying they are special?
I think you're special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Hy7uAb_eU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Hy7uAb_eU)
So hey, what's the deal with Mitt Romney getting a bunch of bailout money for Bain Capital?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829#ixzz254A9JLia
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
QuoteThere are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
I don't think it "denigrates" small business owners to point out that they benefit from their country's strong institutions and infrastructure.
Neither do I. Unfortunately for Obama, the tag line gives zero credit to the business owner.
Quote from: Jacob on August 31, 2012, 07:58:53 PM
So hey, what's the deal with Mitt Romney getting a bunch of bailout money for Bain Capital?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829#ixzz254A9JLia
Wow, that would be a pretty damning article if anyone that was going to vote for Romney actually cared about ethics, or white collar crime, or real fiscal policy.
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Wow, that would be a pretty damning article if anyone that was going to vote for Romney actually cared about ethics, or white collar crime, or real fiscal policy.
Did you read it? The link doesn't work for me but I saw it was Rolling Stone and assumed it was a HuffPo style spin job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2012, 08:21:46 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Wow, that would be a pretty damning article if anyone that was going to vote for Romney actually cared about ethics, or white collar crime, or real fiscal policy.
Did you read it? The link doesn't work for me but I saw it was Rolling Stone and assumed it was a HuffPo style spin job.
Yea I read it. I will post it here for you.
QuoteThe Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney
Government documents prove the candidate's mythology is just that
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829#ixzz25B1x0Ipf
By Tim Dickinson
August 29, 2012 7:00 AM ET
Mitt Romney likes to say he won't "apologize" for his success in business. But what he never says is "thank you" – to the American people – for the federal bailout of Bain & Company that made so much of his outsize wealth possible.
According to the candidate's mythology, Romney took leave of his duties at the private equity firm Bain Capital in 1990 and rode in on a white horse to lead a swift restructuring of Bain & Company, preventing the collapse of the consulting firm where his career began. When The Boston Globe reported on the rescue at the time of his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, campaign aides spun Romney as the wizard behind a "long-shot miracle," bragging that he had "saved bank depositors all over the country $30 million when he saved Bain & Company."
In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC – the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers – out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.
With his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has made fiscal stewardship the centerpiece of his campaign. A banner at MittRomney.com declared, "We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in." Romney also opposed the federal bailout for Detroit automakers, famously arguing that the industry should be forced into bankruptcy. Government bailouts, he insists, are "the wrong way to go."
More: Romney Is Lying. Again.
But the FDIC documents on the Bain deal – which were heavily redacted by the firm prior to release – show that as a wealthy businessman, Romney was willing to go to extremes to secure a federal bailout to serve his own interests. He had a lot at stake, both financially and politically. Had Bain & Company collapsed, insiders say, it would have dealt a grave setback to Bain Capital, where Romney went on to build a personal fortune valued at as much as $250 million. It would also have short-circuited his political career before it began, tagging Romney as a failed businessman unable to rescue his own firm.
"None of us wanted to see Bain be the laughingstock of the business world," recalls a longtime Romney lieutenant who asked not to be identified. "But Mitt's reputation was on the line."
Mitt Romney's Federal Bailout: The Documents
The trouble began in 1984, when Bain & Company spun off Bain Capital to engage in leveraged buyouts and put Romney in charge of the new operation. To free up money to invest in the new business, founder Bill Bain and his partners cashed out much of their stock in the consulting firm – leaving it saddled with about $200 million in debt. (Romney, though not a founder, reportedly profited from the deal.) "People will tell you that Bill raped the place clean, was greedy, didn't know when to stop," a former Bain consultant later conceded. "Did they take too much out of the firm? You bet."
The FDIC documents make clear what happened next: "Soon after the founders sold their equity," analysts reported, "business began to drop off." First came scandal: In the late 1980s, a Bain consultant became a key figure in an illegal stock manipulation scheme in London. The firm's reputation took a hit, and it fired 10 percent of its consulting force. By the time the 1989 recession began, Bain & Company found itself going broke fast. Cash flows weren't enough to service the debt imposed by the founders, and the firm could barely make payroll. In a panic, Bill Bain tapped Romney, his longtime protégé, to take the reins.
In Romney's own retelling, he casts himself as a selfless and loyal company man. "There was no upside," he told his cheerleading biographer Hugh Hewitt in 2007. "There was no particular reason to do it other than a sense of obligation and duty to an organization that had done great things for me."
In fact, Romney had a direct stake in the survival of Bain & Company: He had been working to build the Bain brand his entire career, and felt he had to save the firm at all costs. After all, Bain sold top-dollar strategic advice to big businesses about how to protect themselves from going bust. If Bain & Company went bankrupt, recalls the Romney deputy, "anyone associated with them would have looked clownish." Indeed, when a banker from Goldman Sachs urged Bain to consider bankruptcy as the obvious solution to the firm's woes, Romney's desperation began to show. He flatly refused to discuss it – and in the ensuing argument, one witness says, Romney almost ended up in a brawl when the Goldman banker advised him to "go fuck yourself." For the sake of Romney's career and fortune, bankruptcy was simply not an option – no matter who got screwed in the process.
According to the government records obtained by Rolling Stone, Bain & Company "defaulted on its debt obligations" at nearly the same time that "W. Mitt Romney . . . stepped in as managing director (and later chief executive) in 1990 and led the financial restructuring intended to get the firm back on track."
Romney moved decisively, and his early efforts appeared promising. He persuaded the founders to return $25 million of the cash they had raided from Bain & Company and forgive $75 million in debt, in return for protection from most future liabilities. Romney then consolidated Bain's massive debts into a single, binding loan agreement with four banks, which received liens on Bain's assets and agreed to delay repayments on the firm's debts for two years. The federal government also signed off on the deal, since the FDIC had recently taken control of a bank that was owed $30.6 million by Bain. Romney assured creditors that the restructuring would enable Bain to "operate normally, compensate its professionals competitively" and, ultimately, pay off its debts.
Almost as soon as the FDIC agreed to the loan restructuring, however, Romney's rescue plan began to fall apart. "The company realized early on that it would be unable to hit its revenue targets or manage the debt structure," the documents reveal. By the spring of 1992, Bain's decline was perilous: "If Bain goes into default," one analyst warned the FDIC, "the bank group will need to decide whether to force Bain into bankruptcy."
With his rescue plan a bust, Romney was forced to slink back to the banks to negotiate a new round of debt relief. There was only one catch: Even though Bain & Company was deep in debt and sinking fast, the firm was actually flush with cash – most of it from the looted money that Bill Bain and other partners had given back. "Liquidity is strong based on the significant cash balance which Bain is carrying," one federal document reads.
Under normal circumstances, such ample reserves would have made liquidating Bain an attractive option: Creditors could simply divvy up the stockpiled cash and be done with the troubled firm. But Bain had inserted a poison pill in its loan agreement with the banks: Instead of being required to use its cash to pay back the firm's creditors, the money could be pocketed by Bain executives in the form of fat bonuses – starting with VPs making $200,000 and up. "The company can deplete its cash balances by making officer-bonus payments," the FDIC lamented, "and still be in compliance with the loan documents."
What's more, the bonus loophole gave Romney a perverse form of leverage: If the banks and the FDIC didn't give in to his demands and forgive much of Bain's debts, Romney would raid the firm's coffers, pushing it into the very bankruptcy that the loan agreement had been intended to avert. The losers in this game would not only be Bain's creditors – including the federal government – but the firm's nearly 1,000 employees worldwide.
In March 1992, according to the FDIC documents, Romney approached the banks and played the bonus card. Allow Bain to pay off its debt at a deep discount, he demanded – just 35 cents on the dollar. Otherwise, the "majority" of the firm's "excess cash" would "be available for the bonus pool to its officers at a vice president level and above."
The next month, when the banks balked at the deal, Romney decided to prove he wasn't bluffing. "As the bank group did not accept the proposal from Bain," the records show, "Bain's senior management has decided to go forth with the distribution of bonuses." (Bain's lawyers redacted the amount of the executive payouts, and the Romney campaign refused to comment on whether Romney himself received a bonus.)
Romney's decision to place executive compensation over fiscal responsibility immediately put Bain on the ropes. By that July, FDIC analysts reported, Bain had so little money left that "the company will actually run out of cash and default on the existing debt structure" as early as 1995. If that happened, Bain employees and American consumers would take the hit – an alternative that analysts considered "catastrophic."
But Romney didn't dole out all of Bain's cash as bonuses right away. According to a record from May 1992, he set aside some of the money to put one last squeeze on the firm's creditors. Romney now demanded that the banks and the government agree to a deal that was even less favorable than the last – to retire Bain's debts "at a price up to but not exceeding 30 cents on the dollar."
The FDIC considered finding a buyer to take over its loans to Bain, but analysts concluded that "Bain has no value as a going concern." And the government wasn't likely to get much out of Bain if it allowed the firm to go bankrupt: The loan agreement engineered by Romney had left the FDIC "virtually unsecured" on the $30.6 million it was owed by Bain. "Once bonuses are paid," the analysts warned, "all members of the bank group believe this company will dissolve during 1993."
About the only assets left would be Bain's office equipment. The records show FDIC analysts pathetically attempting to assess the value of such items, including an HP LaserJet printer, before concluding that most of the gear was so old that the government's "portion of any liquidation proceeds would be negligible."
How had Romney scored such a favorable deal at the FDIC's expense? It didn't hurt that he had close ties to the agency – the kind of "crony capitalism" he now decries. A month before he closed the 1991 loan agreement, Romney promoted a former FDIC bank examiner to become a senior executive at Bain. He also had pull at the top: FDIC chairman Bill Seidman, who had served as finance chair for Romney's father when he ran for president in 1968.
The federal documents also reveal that, contrary to Romney's claim that he returned full time to Bain Capital in 1992, he remained involved in bailout negotiations to the very end. In a letter dated March 23rd, 1993, Romney reassured creditors that his latest scheme would return Bain & Company to "long-term financial stability." That same month, Romney once again threatened to "pay out maximum bonus distributions" to top executives unless much of Bain's debt was erased.
In the end, the government surrendered. At the time, The Boston Globe cited bankers dismissing the bailout as "relatively routine" – but the federal documents reveal it was anything but. The FDIC agreed to accept nearly $5 million in cash to retire $15 million in Bain's debt – an immediate government bailout of $10 million. All told, the FDIC estimated it would recoup just $14 million of the $30 million that Romney's firm owed the government.
It was a raw deal – but Romney's threat to loot his own firm had left the government with no other choice. If the FDIC had pushed Bain into bankruptcy, the records reveal, the agency would have recouped just $3.56 million from the firm.
The Romney campaign refused to respond to questions for this article; a spokeswoman said only that "Mitt Romney turned around Bain & Company by getting all parties to come to the table and make difficult decisions." But while taxpayers did not finance the bailout, the debt forgiven by the government was booked as a loss to the FDIC – and then recouped through higher insurance premiums from banks. And banks, of course, are notorious for finding ways to pass their costs along to customers, usually in the form of higher fees. Thanks to the nature of the market, in other words, the bailout negotiated by Romney ultimately wound up being paid by the American people.
Even as consumers took a loss, however, a small group of investors wound up getting a good deal in the bailout. Bain Capital – the very firm that had triggered the crisis in the first place – walked away with $4 million. That was the fee it charged Bain & Company for loaning the consulting firm the services of its chief executive – one Willard Mitt Romney.
This story is from the September 13, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 03:12:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 03:02:29 PM
I deny nothing. Are you saying they are special?
I think you're special.
That's not really answering my question...
Oh yeah. I forgot to link to this piece from Fox News that rips Paul Ryan a new one for his Dazzling, Deceiving and Distracting speech at the convention.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
Quote1. Dazzling
At least a quarter of Americans still don't know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably.
So, Ryan's primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that's what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign.
To anyone watching Ryan's speech who hasn't been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn't what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it's personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.
2. Deceiving
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan's speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan's mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States' credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan's speech but sadly, there were many.
3. Distracting
And then there's what Ryan didn't talk about.
Ryan didn't mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters.
Ryan didn't mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.
Ryan didn't mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.
Ryan didn't mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit.
These aspects of Ryan's resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.
At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, ""Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution."
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan's speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz25B4tkkf8
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
One might also ask why Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls, given the economy. But then again, this is Languish, where Obama is infallible & Republicans are evil.
Well, Dem Convention won't exactly be a bastion of honestly either.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
One might also ask why Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls, given the economy. But then again, this is Languish, where Obama is infallible & Republicans are evil.
There's that persecution complex again.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 09:34:51 PMBut then again, this is Languish, where Obama is infallible & Republicans are evil.
Seriously?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
The easy answer is that there is a culture war, and the electorate is very polarized. That also leads to insanity that makes people interpret reality in a way that fits their preconceived notions.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2012, 09:58:40 PMThe easy answer is that there is a culture war, and the electorate is very polarized. That also leads to insanity that makes people interpret reality in a way that fits their preconceived notions.
It's pretty disconcerting.
The economy sucks. The challenger will always have an advantage when that's the case.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 31, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
The economy sucks. The challenger will always have an advantage when that's the case.
And a black man in the White House, that gives the challeneger an edge too. /CdM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
But seriously, this is question I have been asking myself. I have been meaning to start a thread on it, have a large part of the OP already written somewhere, but just haven't hit send yet for some reason.
My working hypothesis has been that the Republican party as configured cannot last and as time passes and the Baby Boomers die off and my kid's generation come of age this party will become obsolete. The problem is I see young and intelligent people (mostly here, but I avoid political conversation everywhere) that are die hard conservatives and Republicans and they don't fit my theory.
Maybe I will start that thread this weekend.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
I've been saying for a long time that the Republicans have no chance at all. It won't be close.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 11:21:39 PM
I've been saying for a long time that the Republicans have no chance at all. It won't be close.
Meh, I dunno; Obama's campaign is having trouble motivating its base, and the GOP isn't, and they're rolling in cash now that the convention's over.
I think a lot of swing voters--however many are even left at this point--in swing states ride on the debates, voter suppression notwithstanding.
I think this one's coming down to the wire; but I can actually see a very real possibility where Obama could lose the popular vote, and still win the electoral college. 2000 VINDICTUS
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 11:32:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 11:21:39 PM
I've been saying for a long time that the Republicans have no chance at all. It won't be close.
Meh, I dunno; Obama's campaign is having trouble motivating its base, and the GOP isn't, and they're rolling in cash now that the convention's over.
I think a lot of swing voters--however many are even left at this point--in swing states ride on the debates, voter suppression notwithstanding.
I think this one's coming down to the wire; but I can actually see a very real possibility where Obama could lose the popular vote, and still win the electoral college. 2000 VINDICTUS
I think it'll be 2004 all over again. Dems had a motivated base, fat lot of good it did. In an attempt to cater to everyone they chose Kerry and ended up pleasing nobody. Romney is the same thing. I imagine the Obama campaign still had some attacks on Romney in reserve they'll unleash a little later in the year. Every attack on Obama has all ready been tried.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 11:32:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2012, 11:21:39 PM
I've been saying for a long time that the Republicans have no chance at all. It won't be close.
Meh, I dunno; Obama's campaign is having trouble motivating its base,
that's what I don't get.
I assume that base doesn't want a Romney/Ryan or any other republican in the white house due to it being worse than someone of their own party being there.
Then how is remaining on one's lazy ass going to achieve that? Cause it makes that part of the base that does't vote the objective allies of the republicans (and vice versa for the republican base obviously)
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2012, 10:37:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 31, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
The economy sucks. The challenger will always have an advantage when that's the case.
And a black man in the White House, that gives the challeneger an edge too. /CdM
I would say that the incumbent being an empty suit gives the challenger an edge, too. But the Republicans have thrown that advantage away because they've nominated an even emptier suit.
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2012, 03:57:03 AM
I would say that the incumbent being an empty suit gives the challenger an edge, too.
I don't think that statement's true regarding matters of policy and question the characterization if it regards to personality.
Also, I wouldn't characterize Romney as an "empty suit" in regards to personality, as he's pretty clearly an asshole and a bully.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2012, 04:23:20 AM
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2012, 03:57:03 AM
I would say that the incumbent being an empty suit gives the challenger an edge, too.
I don't think that statement's true regarding matters of policy and question the characterization if it regards to personality.
Also, I wouldn't characterize Romney as an "empty suit" in regards to personality, as he's pretty clearly an asshole and a bully.
I meant it mostly in regards to policy with Obama, and in regards to both with Romney.
As far as policy is concerned, I'm not saying that they don't have some ideas, but IMO Obama is mostly just a windbag who's way more style than substance, and Romney pretty clearly will say whatever he thinks will get someone's vote.
I don't think floating in the wind in policy matters disadvantages an incumbent. Certainly Bill Clinton's numbers picked up after he dropped the agenda-driven focus of his first two years.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 09:34:51 PM
One might also ask why Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls, given the economy.
That part seems obvious to this outside observer.
1) Your economy was in total meltdown when he took over.
2) The alternative is terrible - hence my question.
National poll average is pretty much tied now at Obama +0.3, and that is pre-RNC convention: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Now that Romney has access to his general election fund, Obama's cash-spending advantage through the primaries is over. If the economy continues to stagnate, then Romney might start to finally show a lead. Let's see how the debates go and if anybody will actually watch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2012, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 09:34:51 PM
One might also ask why Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls, given the economy.
That part seems obvious to this outside observer.
1) Your economy was in total meltdown when he took over.
2) The alternative is terrible - hence my question.
I don't disagree with you on #1, but the sitting president usually gets the blame for a sagging economy, whether rightfully or wrongfully. Plus, Obama has made a lot of economic promises on which that he failed to deliver.
For #2 that's obviously your opinion, and thankfully close to 50% of likely voters do not share it.
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Wow, that would be a pretty damning article if anyone that was going to vote for Romney actually cared about ethics, or white collar crime, or real fiscal policy.
Thanks for posting the article.
I disagree with your assessment. Calling it a bailout is silly. There were three privately owned banks in the creditor consortium. They took the same haircut the FDIC owned one did, not because of crony capitalism or any other silliness but because they thought it was the best deal they could get. Saying it "saved Mitt Romney" takes a number of logical leaps, either debateable or dubious.
The poison pill bonuses are a debate-worthy topic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2012, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2012, 08:18:14 PM
Wow, that would be a pretty damning article if anyone that was going to vote for Romney actually cared about ethics, or white collar crime, or real fiscal policy.
Thanks for posting the article.
No problem.:)
QuoteI disagree with your assessment. Calling it a bailout is silly. There were three privately owned banks in the creditor consortium. They took the same haircut the FDIC owned one did, not because of crony capitalism or any other silliness but because they thought it was the best deal they could get. Saying it "saved Mitt Romney" takes a number of logical leaps, either debateable or dubious.
The poison pill bonuses are a debate-worthy topic.
I never used the word bailout and agree that the use of it in the article is silly; taxpayers lost money in the deal but it wasnt a bailout. I think most everything this article says Mitt did is unethical, if some of those things aren't crimes they should be and this is another time that Mitt's business savvy appears to be questionable.
If I was an undecided voter and was considering Romney because of his past business experience, which is what Romney is running on, this article would cause me a lot of concern. Of course a lot of people who are going to vote for Romney aren't very worried about those sorts of things, so I don't think the article means much.
Actually it didn't cost taxpayers anything. As the article says, FDIC is paid for by premiums on deposits.
When you mean everything Mitt did was unethical, do you mean absolutely everything? Asking his old boss for a clawback was unethical? Taking the leave from Bain Capital?
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2012, 05:36:06 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2012, 04:23:20 AM
Quote from: dps on September 01, 2012, 03:57:03 AM
I would say that the incumbent being an empty suit gives the challenger an edge, too.
I don't think that statement's true regarding matters of policy and question the characterization if it regards to personality.
Also, I wouldn't characterize Romney as an "empty suit" in regards to personality, as he's pretty clearly an asshole and a bully.
I meant it mostly in regards to policy with Obama, and in regards to both with Romney.
As far as policy is concerned, I'm not saying that they don't have some ideas, but IMO Obama is mostly just a windbag who's way more style than substance, and Romney pretty clearly will say whatever he thinks will get someone's vote.
The moderate Romney that passed a health care law or the conservative Romney that tells the GOP what they want to hear?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2012, 03:06:03 PM
Actually it didn't cost taxpayers anything. As the article says, FDIC is paid for by premiums on deposits.
When you mean everything Mitt did was unethical, do you mean absolutely everything? Asking his old boss for a clawback was unethical? Taking the leave from Bain Capital?
Right about the first point. The banks did pass the costs on, and anyone that pays bank fees likely also pays taxes so I was technically correct, but not really. :p
And no not everything, I would have to re-read the article which I am not going to do atm, but will later.
I finally watched Clint Eastwood's performance, or at least tried to. After a couple of minutes, I started feeling very sorry for the old man, and couldn't bear to finish watching.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 01, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
National poll average is pretty much tied now at Obama +0.3, and that is pre-RNC convention: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
The convention doesn't seem to have helped Romney, although maybe money will. But this race has been so stable for months that I'd be surprised.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/01/two_polls_show_no_bounce_for_romney.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2012, 07:28:33 PM
I finally watched Clint Eastwood's performance, or at least tried to. After a couple of minutes, I started feeling very sorry for the old man, and couldn't bear to finish watching.
yeah, I couldnt help wondering if anyone in that audience understood how bad it looked.
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2012, 07:28:33 PM
I finally watched Clint Eastwood's performance, or at least tried to. After a couple of minutes, I started feeling very sorry for the old man, and couldn't bear to finish watching.
I tried to as well, but the whole "wait 30 seconds, play 10 seconds of clip" thing going on with my internet connection meant I also gave up after a couple of minutes, feeling sorry for myself. :lol:
The middle decides elections. And the middle, no matter what the polls say now, will at the end of the day refuse to vote for a bunch of douchebags who are genuflecting and kowtowing to the most willfully ignorant voting bloc since the Know Nothings.
It won't be close, barring some catastrophe.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 05:45:43 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2012, 07:28:33 PM
I finally watched Clint Eastwood's performance, or at least tried to. After a couple of minutes, I started feeling very sorry for the old man, and couldn't bear to finish watching.
I tried to as well, but the whole "wait 30 seconds, play 10 seconds of clip" thing going on with my internet connection meant I also gave up after a couple of minutes, feeling sorry for myself. :lol:
That wasn't your Internet connection, that was Clint Eastwood's delivery.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 01, 2012, 07:50:56 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 01, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
National poll average is pretty much tied now at Obama +0.3, and that is pre-RNC convention: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
The convention doesn't seem to have helped Romney, although maybe money will. But this race has been so stable for months that I'd be surprised.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/01/two_polls_show_no_bounce_for_romney.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29
I'd wait a week before you get a decent idea.
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
Someone explain to me why the Republicans have a chance of winning this election. Is It because people vote along party lines no matter what? That might explain it but I also read that there is a growing number of independant voters.
So what is going on here.
When I read US political threads I usually look to Berkut as a kind of Bellweather voter but that might not be the case this election.
One might also ask why Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls, given the economy. But then again, this is Languish, where Obama is infallible & Republicans are evil.
I think Obama is an incompetent liar. It is just a tribute to the the political establishment these days that those qualities do not make him stand out that much.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
I think Obama is an incompetent liar. It is just a tribute to the the political establishment these days that those qualities do not make him stand out that much.
Incompetent liar? I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything.. but what lies has he been caught in?
This is Languish, where most posters were natural Republicans, until the party abandoned them over a period from the mid-90s to the emergence of the Tea Party.
The New York Attorney General has launched an investigation of private equity firm tax treatment of management fees. :lol:
Maybe I was a little too quick in withdrawing my joke about Democrats imitating Argentina.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 03:59:57 PMI think Obama is an incompetent liar. It is just a tribute to the the political establishment these days that those qualities do not make him stand out that much.
Really? As in he's incompetent and a liar (as opposed to being incompetent at lying)?
Where has he been incompetent?
What has he lied about?
I dunno about incompetent, but he's been ineffectual at getting much through congress.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 05:55:10 PM
but he's been ineffectual at getting much through congress.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2012, 05:19:18 PM
The New York Attorney General has launched an investigation of private equity firm tax treatment of management fees. :lol:
Maybe I was a little too quick in withdrawing my joke about Democrats imitating Argentina.
??? So you can't investigate tax fraud?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:19:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 05:55:10 PM
but he's been ineffectual at getting much through congress.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know the Republicans block everything, but stronger Presidents have been able to browbeat/intimidate/perhaps even blackmail the opposition into getting what they wanted.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 02, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
??? So you can't investigate tax fraud?
I can investigate anything I want to. So can you.
But when a newly minted Democratic Attorney General launches an investigation two months before the general election into a tax issue that his office has *zero* jurisdiction over (it concerns federal tax liability), and which issue the IRS has been aware of for 20 years, and one of the targets is the former employer of the opposition candidate, at least the possibility of political motivation has to creep into the discussion.
Hopefully Joan will show up soon and restore my faith in rule of law Democrats.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:19:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 05:55:10 PM
but he's been ineffectual at getting much through congress.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know the Republicans block everything, but stronger Presidents have been able to browbeat/intimidate/perhaps even blackmail the opposition into getting what they wanted.
Stronger Presidents have never had to deal with the House class of '10. I sincerely doubt LBJ himself would've had much success with that crowd of amateur night assclowns. You can't get anything done in the House without House leadership, and Boehner has proving to be completely incompetent in controlling a caucus that doesn't want to be controlled.
Hopefully a lot of them will get kicked, but I don't think it'll happen.
2014, CDM. 2014.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:19:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2012, 05:55:10 PM
but he's been ineffectual at getting much through congress.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know the Republicans block everything, but stronger Presidents have been able to browbeat/intimidate/perhaps even blackmail the opposition into getting what they wanted.
Stronger Presidents have never had to deal with the House class of '10. I sincerely doubt LBJ himself would've had much success with that crowd of amateur night assclowns. You can't get anything done in the House without House leadership, and Boehner has proving to be completely incompetent in controlling a caucus that doesn't want to be controlled.
Hopefully a lot of them will get kicked, but I don't think it'll happen.
Bill Clinton had many of the same problems. Of course, we know how that ended up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Stronger Presidents have never had to deal with the House class of '10. I sincerely doubt LBJ himself would've had much success with that crowd of amateur night assclowns. You can't get anything done in the House without House leadership, and Boehner has proving to be completely incompetent in controlling a caucus that doesn't want to be controlled.
Hopefully a lot of them will get kicked, but I don't think it'll happen.
Whereas we witnessed miracles occurring during the Pelosi-Reid Connection of '08.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
Bill Clinton had many of the same problems. Of course, we know how that ended up.
With a budget that was sorta balanced?
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2012, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Stronger Presidents have never had to deal with the House class of '10. I sincerely doubt LBJ himself would've had much success with that crowd of amateur night assclowns. You can't get anything done in the House without House leadership, and Boehner has proving to be completely incompetent in controlling a caucus that doesn't want to be controlled.
Hopefully a lot of them will get kicked, but I don't think it'll happen.
Whereas we witnessed miracles occurring during the Pelosi-Reid Connection of '08.
That, as Oprah would say, is for another show. Totally different set of problems there.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 07:01:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
Bill Clinton had many of the same problems. Of course, we know how that ended up.
With a budget that was sorta balanced?
With an impeachment. If I recall correctly, the GOP controlled congresses did a lot of obstruction during Clinton Presidency.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 07:04:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2012, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Stronger Presidents have never had to deal with the House class of '10. I sincerely doubt LBJ himself would've had much success with that crowd of amateur night assclowns. You can't get anything done in the House without House leadership, and Boehner has proving to be completely incompetent in controlling a caucus that doesn't want to be controlled.
Hopefully a lot of them will get kicked, but I don't think it'll happen.
Whereas we witnessed miracles occurring during the Pelosi-Reid Connection of '08.
That, as Oprah would say, is for another show. Totally different set of problems there.
I don't know. I mean apart from the bailouts (which can be judged depending on one's point of view), we didn't see a lot of great legislation that Obama could at all claim credit for. Seems to suggest that even without the Repubs, he wouldn't be doing so hot.
He would have done much better if he hadn't let Nancy drive.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 07:01:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
Bill Clinton had many of the same problems. Of course, we know how that ended up.
With a budget that was sorta balanced?
With an impeachment. If I recall correctly, the GOP controlled congresses did a lot of obstruction during Clinton Presidency.
Oh they did that was when I stopped being a Republican partisan because I thought they clearly fell off the sanity wagon in their hatred of Clinton. But compared to what has followed that was a glorious era, when our biggest problems were OJ Simpson and Figure Skaters.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 02, 2012, 09:01:53 PM
He would have done much better if he hadn't let Nancy drive.
I'm not sure he had a choice. I don't think he had enough cachet with his party to do otherwise.
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2012, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
I think Obama is an incompetent liar. It is just a tribute to the the political establishment these days that those qualities do not make him stand out that much.
Incompetent liar? I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything.. but what lies has he been caught in?
He said he was going to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration and not only has he not done it he doubled down. Now those things are pretty much established procedure thanks to Obama. As far as incompetent he cannot manage Congress even when the Democrats controlled it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
He said he was going to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration and not only has he not done it he doubled down.
You make Gitmo and drone Whack-A-Mole sound like a bad thing.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 07:01:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
Bill Clinton had many of the same problems. Of course, we know how that ended up.
With a budget that was sorta balanced?
With an impeachment. If I recall correctly, the GOP controlled congresses did a lot of obstruction during Clinton Presidency.
Oh they did that was when I stopped being a Republican partisan because I thought they clearly fell off the sanity wagon in their hatred of Clinton. But compared to what has followed that was a glorious era, when our biggest problems were OJ Simpson and Figure Skaters.
Eh, they never really accepted defeat in 1992. I recall bigger problems like terrorists attacking the Olympics and Abortion Clinics and Federal buildings.
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2012, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
I think Obama is an incompetent liar. It is just a tribute to the the political establishment these days that those qualities do not make him stand out that much.
Incompetent liar? I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything.. but what lies has he been caught in?
He said he was going to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration and not only has he not done it he doubled down. Now those things are pretty much established procedure thanks to Obama. As far as incompetent he cannot manage Congress even when the Democrats controlled it.
Wait, lets back up. Are the original Bush policies still going on? I was under the impression that Bush policies regarding Gitmo back in 2003 are quite different then they were in 2008.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2012, 10:56:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2012, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
I think Obama is an incompetent liar. It is just a tribute to the the political establishment these days that those qualities do not make him stand out that much.
Incompetent liar? I know the absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything.. but what lies has he been caught in?
He said he was going to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration and not only has he not done it he doubled down. Now those things are pretty much established procedure thanks to Obama. As far as incompetent he cannot manage Congress even when the Democrats controlled it.
Wait, lets back up. Are the original Bush policies still going on? I was under the impression that Bush policies regarding Gitmo back in 2003 are quite different then they were in 2008.
I'm fairly sure there were some policy chages between 2003 and 2008, but Senator Obama in 2008 pretty explicitly ran against the policies in place at the time, not those of 5 years earlier.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2012, 04:27:43 PM
This is Languish, where most posters were natural Republicans, until the party abandoned them over a period from the mid-90s to the emergence of the Tea Party.
Languish posters are like Jeff Daniels. They started as "Dumb and Dumber" and now are doing "Newsroom".
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/527998_10151039198471121_373055465_n.jpg)
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?
No, it wouldn't. There may have been some questioning of W's legitimacy at first, but that's on Supreme Court's conscience.
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?
No, as that's never been the case, except perhaps for the closing days of Watergate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 08:01:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?
No, as that's never been the case, except perhaps for the closing days of Watergate.
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2012, 08:01:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers: they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president. This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.
Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?
No, it wouldn't. There may have been some questioning of W's legitimacy at first, but that's on Supreme Court's conscience.
That's quite a rosy picture your painting. Pretty sure there are many people who would still say W didn't really win the election.
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all. You know this.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all. You know this.
Obstructionism is different from not accepting a President's legitimacy. The Republicans obstructed the shit out of Clinton, but they never tried to tell people that he wasn't legitimately the President.
And even after Gore did the right thing, there were still Democrats who were beating the 'stolen election' drums.
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2012, 08:25:28 PM
That's quite a rosy picture your painting. Pretty sure there are many people who would still say W didn't really win the election.
Same reason as before. When unelected judges take it upon themselves to short-circuit the election process and declare the winner, legitimacy of the winner will suffer (rightly so, even if unfairly so, as legitimacy comes precisely from the election process). This was also one in a million accident of history that such a historically monumental election came down to a very small number of votes, which was very unfortunate.
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 09:04:27 PM
And even after Gore did the right thing, there were still Democrats who were beating the 'stolen election' drums.
I think that was understandable under the circumstances. They accepted their defeat in 2004 though. Mostly because not even they really wanted John Kerry as President.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2012, 11:00:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 09:04:27 PM
And even after Gore did the right thing, there were still Democrats who were beating the 'stolen election' drums.
I think that was understandable under the circumstances. They accepted their defeat in 2004 though. Mostly because not even they really wanted John Kerry as President.
Not all of them. But granted, it was a much much smaller number who didn't accept the legitimacy of the 2004 election than didn't accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election.
2000 was a disaster for which we will continue to be punished for decades to come.
A lot of people wailed and gnashed their teeth about 2000 and 2004, but there weren't any organized efforts to impeach Bush or remove him from office for that reason. Most of the opposition to Bush later on was related to the war, not the election.
With Obama it has been 'birth certificate' and the momentum behind the criticism of his policies as president has been that he isn't even legitimately allowed to run. Democrats felt Bush stole the elections through the court system, but they never denied he was eligible to run. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all. You know this.
So that's why Clinton staffers removed all the Ws from their keyboards in 2000?
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 01:11:26 AMSo that's why Clinton staffers removed all the Ws from their keyboards in 2000?
While that was a petty act, it's also rather petty to use it as an example of "concerted effort to obstruct the incoming administration".
Ok, I just watched Clint Eastwood's footage. Wtfux? :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on September 04, 2012, 01:14:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 01:11:26 AMSo that's why Clinton staffers removed all the Ws from their keyboards in 2000?
While that was a petty act, it's also rather petty to use it as an example of "concerted effort to obstruct the incoming administration".
It was also an over-reported myth. Only about a dozen Ws were reported missing.
Quote from: Jaron on September 04, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
A lot of people wailed and gnashed their teeth about 2000 and 2004, but there weren't any organized efforts to impeach Bush or remove him from office for that reason. Most of the opposition to Bush later on was related to the war, not the election.
With Obama it has been 'birth certificate' and the momentum behind the criticism of his policies as president has been that he isn't even legitimately allowed to run. Democrats felt Bush stole the elections through the court system, but they never denied he was eligible to run. ;)
While you've explained some differences, I don't see how your clarifications make what the Dems did any better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all. You know this.
Other than the Congressional Black Caucus attempting to keep him from being sworn in. "And are any Senators willing to support your motion?" "No, but..." :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 01:11:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all. You know this.
So that's why Clinton staffers removed all the Ws from their keyboards in 2000?
That was one of those things that didn't actually happen. A few keys were removed, but not all of them. Most of the story was a GOP lie.
QuoteWASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.
The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted.
Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred.
"The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," according to a GSA statement.
No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive.
Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on Bush.
But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page.
"I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of fertile ground for believing anything bad."
Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister."
He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware, porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy.
"It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down," Snow fumed.
Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged the same a few days later.
And now GSA has made it official.
"They told me that there were papers that were not organized lying on the floor and on desks; there were some scratches here and there, but the bottom line was they didn't see anything really in their view that was significant and that would appear to some as real extensive damage," said Bernard Unger, director for physical infrastructure for the General Accounting Office, which asked GSA to look into the allegations.
Mark Lindsay, who oversaw the transition as Clinton's assistant for management and administration, said he was pleased that the record has been set straight.
"Because of President Clinton, this was one of the smoothest transitions in the history of the presidency," he said. "This was nothing more than just lies."
As for the critics, Barr's office didn't return calls about the GSA findings. Snow was somewhat contrite. "I'm perfectly willing to admit my error on the aircraft," he said, but added that he still believed his sources who told him about damage at the White House.
"What often happens in Washington is gossip becomes news. That's not a good thing."
From the Kansas City Star. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines.shtml?/headlines01/0518-04.htm
I'm surprised you got suckered into a lie like that.
Quote from: dps on September 04, 2012, 12:34:14 AM
Not all of them. But granted, it was a much much smaller number who didn't accept the legitimacy of the 2004 election than didn't accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election.
Well yes I forgot to consider the mentally ill. I am just saying that in 2000 the loser was going to have a legitimate beef.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 07:43:48 AM
I'm surprised you got suckered into a lie like that.
I'm old. My memory fades at times. So fuck you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 08:26:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 07:43:48 AM
I'm surprised you got suckered into a lie like that.
I'm old. My memory fades at times. So fuck you.
I was talking to BB. I recall he believed the old "Pig fucker" story about LBJ.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 09:35:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 08:26:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 07:43:48 AM
I'm surprised you got suckered into a lie like that.
I'm old. My memory fades at times. So fuck you.
I was talking to BB. I recall he believed the old "Pig fucker" story about LBJ.
See? Told you it's fading.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 07:43:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 01:11:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.
Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all. You know this.
So that's why Clinton staffers removed all the Ws from their keyboards in 2000?
That was one of those things that didn't actually happen. A few keys were removed, but not all of them. Most of the story was a GOP lie.
<snip>
I'm surprised you got suckered into a lie like that.
Except I didn't mention Air Force One being vandalized - I mentioned missing Ws. Which your article confirms did happen (okay, not "all" the Ws). It was still a petty and childish act.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 09:55:27 AM
Except I didn't mention Air Force One being vandalized - I mentioned missing Ws. Which your article confirms did happen (okay, not "all" the Ws). It was still a petty and childish act.
There was a GAO investigation that totaled damages around $15,000 during the transition, some of it isolated vandalism but a lot of it was damages incurred simply by moving out.
Hell, we did worse with our dorm room.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 09:55:27 AM
Except I didn't mention Air Force One being vandalized - I mentioned missing Ws. Which your article confirms did happen (okay, not "all" the Ws). It was still a petty and childish act.
There was a GAO investigation that totaled damages around $15,000 during the transition, some of it isolated vandalism but a lot of it was damages incurred simply by moving out.
Hell, we did worse with our dorm room.
It was $20,000, but what's $5k among friends. The $ amount was insignificant either way. Hundreds of missing "W" keys don't add up to a lot of money. The sophomoric pranks in the Eisenhower building were pretty shameful, nonetheless.
At government procurement rates, $20,000 is the cost of 10 keyboards.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
It was $20,000, but what's $5k among friends. The $ amount was insignificant either way.
Wrong, fiscal fetus.
Page 15.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
QuoteHundreds of missing "W" keys don't add up to a lot of money.
It wasn't "hundreds".
Page 44.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
QuoteThe sophomoric pranks in the Eisenhower building were pretty shameful, nonetheless.
Pranks dismissed due to lack of evidence, and staff taking souvenirs is nothing new with previous Administration transitions.
Page 79.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 10:44:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
It was $20,000, but what's $5k among friends. The $ amount was insignificant either way.
Wrong, fiscal fetus.
Page 15.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
That didn't take into account the work that needed to be done on the phones, but whatever. If it means that much to you, I'll concede this one.
QuoteQuoteHundreds of missing "W" keys don't add up to a lot of money.
It wasn't "hundreds".
Page 44.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Okay, I was exaggerating a little. So 64 keys, then :rolleyes:
QuoteQuoteThe sophomoric pranks in the Eisenhower building were pretty shameful, nonetheless.
Pranks dismissed due to lack of evidence, and staff taking souvenirs is nothing new with previous Administration transitions.
Page 79.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Uh, I think you missed the Conclusions on page 19:
QuoteDamage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 09:55:27 AM
Except I didn't mention Air Force One being vandalized - I mentioned missing Ws. Which your article confirms did happen (okay, not "all" the Ws). It was still a petty and childish act.
There was a GAO investigation that totaled damages around $15,000 during the transition, some of it isolated vandalism but a lot of it was damages incurred simply by moving out.
Hell, we did worse with our dorm room.
It was $20,000, but what's $5k among friends. The $ amount was insignificant either way. Hundreds of missing "W" keys don't add up to a lot of money. The sophomoric pranks in the Eisenhower building were pretty shameful, nonetheless.
You know what is even more shameful, creating a story of the Clinton people trashing the White house.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:06:08 AM
You know what is even more shameful, creating a story of the Clinton people trashing the White house.
In case you missed it right above your post:
QuoteDamage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House
complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the
removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the
leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and
the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts
It still didn't amount to a "trashing". There were few pranks, and GOP made up a story on how the White house was trashed by the evil Clintons. I bet the GAO investigation cost more then the damage. Also, why did they spend nearly 5K to buy 62 keyboards?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:19:03 AM
It still didn't amount to a "trashing". There were few pranks, and GOP made up a story on how the White house was trashed by the evil Clintons.
Then go take that up with "GOP". I never used the word "trashing".
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:04:04 AM
That didn't take into account the work that needed to be done on the phones, but whatever. If it means that much to you, I'll concede this one.
Verizon overcharges for business accounts. You know that.
Quote
Uh, I think you missed the Conclusions on page 19:
QuoteDamage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts.
Read the rest of the report. I DID.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2012, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:04:04 AM
That didn't take into account the work that needed to be done on the phones, but whatever. If it means that much to you, I'll concede this one.
Verizon overcharges for business accounts. You know that.
Quote
Uh, I think you missed the Conclusions on page 19:
QuoteDamage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts.
Read the rest of the report. I DID.
Okay, I'll add it to my Kindle reading list. I did at least read the conclusion, which I would imagine would be one of the more important parts of the report.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:19:03 AM
It still didn't amount to a "trashing". There were few pranks, and GOP made up a story on how the White house was trashed by the evil Clintons. I bet the GAO investigation cost more then the damage. Also, why did they spend nearly 5K to buy 62 keyboards?
62 keyboards that WH administrative personnel stated that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 were to be replaced due to age anyway. But that sort of thing doesn't look good on The No Spin Zone.
If anything, I think it shows that Administrations shouldn't hire interns from the Ivy League.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 11:22:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 11:19:03 AM
It still didn't amount to a "trashing". There were few pranks, and GOP made up a story on how the White house was trashed by the evil Clintons.
Then go take that up with "GOP". I never used the word "trashing".
They don't return my calls anymore. Besides the big instigator in this was Bob Barr, who went off to be a Libertarian.
alexmassie @alexmassie
One day someone will give a convention speech in which they say "Dad was a loser and I hated my mom as much as she hated me". But not yet.
:)
Clint Eastwood explains his speech to the Carmel Pine Cone:
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
Apparently he really did come up with it on the fly, there was no written speech, and the total "vetting" that happened was that they made sure "to reassure them that everything I would say would be nice about Mitt Romney."
I'm guessing the Pine Cone's website is seeing a nice little jump in traffic :D
I haven't made up my mind whether Clint's speech was a good thing or bad thing for the GOP. I guess maybe the balance was very entertainingly neutral.
This should dispel any doubts where Romney stands on social issues: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/romney-endorses-ultraconservative-congressman
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 03:18:11 PM
This should dispel any doubts where Romney stands on social issues: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/romney-endorses-ultraconservative-congressman
You mean he endorsed the Republican candidate in a close House race? Insanity.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:27:14 PM
You mean he endorsed the Republican candidate in a close House race? Insanity.
It means he hates gays.
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 03:18:11 PM
This should dispel any doubts where Romney stands on social issues:
Romney stands wherever his audience does.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2012, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 03:18:11 PM
This should dispel any doubts where Romney stands on social issues:
Romney stands wherever his audience does.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Give that man a cigar!
Quote from: merithyn on September 07, 2012, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2012, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 07, 2012, 03:18:11 PM
This should dispel any doubts where Romney stands on social issues:
Romney stands wherever his audience does.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Give that man a cigar!
As opposed to every other politician?
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
As opposed to every other politician?
Not all of them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
As opposed to every other politician?
Not all of them.
the rarity puts them in the same category as big foot. People claim to see them, but the evidence is unconvincing at best :D
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2012, 03:55:25 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
As opposed to every other politician?
Not all of them.
the rarity puts them in the same category as big foot. People claim to see them, but the evidence is unconvincing at best :D
And sometimes they get hit by cars.
Only if they wear costumes and scare teenage girl drivers.
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
As opposed to every other politician?
Romney if like more evil about it or something. And he hates gays.
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2012, 03:29:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2012, 03:27:14 PM
You mean he endorsed the Republican candidate in a close House race? Insanity.
It means he hates gays.
And women's rights and health care.
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2012, 05:04:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 07, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
As opposed to every other politician?
Romney if like more evil about it or something. And he hates gays.
he doesn't hate them. He just wants to deny them basic rights and ostracize them... Ya, ok he hates them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2012, 06:30:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 02, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
??? So you can't investigate tax fraud?
I can investigate anything I want to. So can you.
But when a newly minted Democratic Attorney General launches an investigation two months before the general election into a tax issue that his office has *zero* jurisdiction over (it concerns federal tax liability), and which issue the IRS has been aware of for 20 years, and one of the targets is the former employer of the opposition candidate, at least the possibility of political motivation has to creep into the discussion.
Hopefully Joan will show up soon and restore my faith in rule of law Democrats.
I think the key adjective here is not "Democratic" but "New York Attorney General"
Now that the old state Banking Department made such a big splash NYAG doesn't want to be outdone.
I agree it's a real headscratcher.
:cheers:
Meh, I can't get excited over big bad NYAGs anymore. I think history has vindicated Spitzer to a large extent. He may have been a bully, but he bullied the worst dregs of 1% society.
Senator Heller spent the entire day in our office on Wednesday. He's kind of a nice guy. Seems to be squeaky clean, but then he's not been in Congress very long. I'm sure the corruption will set in soon enough. We grilled him on lots of stuff. Oh, and the gay couple who work here had a long chat with him. I don't know what they talked about, but I'm sure it was interesting. He was hanging out here for at least five hours. My boss must have donated a ton of cash or something.
He might have been robbing your vending machines.
Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2012, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 30, 2012, 04:51:44 PM
Since I guess this has taken over as the general election thread, DGuller, have you been watching the Intrade odds for Romney/Obama?
They are about 43-55 in favor of Obama. I tend to think that is too close to even--the polling is typically within the margin of error but with Obama in the lead, but the last "no toss up" state map I saw had Obama with over 300 electoral votes. It seems Romney is going to win by several points nationally to win the electoral college, and the polling hasn't shown he can get that kind of lead.
I think I'd handicap it closer to 30-70.
It's been consistently about 40-60 on Intrade when I checked it. I guess the odds tightened a little.
When in doubt, I go with Nate Silver's odds. His statistical analysis is very good at sifting through shit to get nuggets of information (unlike poll aggregators like RCP, which are just garbage). At this moment Silver's odds are indeed 70% for Obama.
Nate Silver now has 78% chance for Obama victory, I assume due to lack of Republican convention bounce and small Democratic bounce. Intrade is at 57% chance for Obama, which is where it's been since forever. That's a whopping differential between the model and the market. In this case, I'd go with the model. If Intrade were easy to trade on, I'd put down a $1,000 on Obama, the profit margin is that good.
You know, when Romney fails to win, the Republicans are going to blame him being a moderate and get even crazier.
Let's take it one thing at a time.
Mitt now supports keeping parts of Obamacare that would be disastrous without other parts. http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-keep-parts-obama-healthcare-law-155146420.html He managed to change his stance to one that is both less principled, and worse. Oh, boy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2012, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
He said he was going to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration and not only has he not done it he doubled down.
You make Gitmo and drone Whack-A-Mole sound like a bad thing.
Drones good, Gitmo bad.
See, it's okay to kill people from the air; that makes it sacred. Caging people, however, is a different animal. At least he put a stop to torture as SOP (afaik).