Might as well kick this off a day early.
Mittens and the Kenyan Secularist Commie Nazi Non-American both agree: Maybe Jim Lehrer wasn't so bad?
QuoteIn a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of this Tuesday's town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.
While an early-October memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns suggests that CNN's Candy Crowley would play a limited role in the Tuesday-night session, Crowley, who is not a party to that agreement, has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested that she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, "Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, 'Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'"
In the view of the two campaigns and the commission, those and other recent comments by Crowley conflict with the language the campaigns agreed to, which delineates a more limited role for the debate moderator. The questioning of the two candidates is supposed to be driven by the audience members — likely voters selected by the Gallup Organization. Crowley's assignment differs from those of the three other debate moderators, who in the more standard format are supposed to lead the questioning and follow up when appropriate. The town-hall debate is planned for Oct. 16 at 9 p.m. E.T. at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
According to the debate-format language in the agreement, after each audience question and two-minute responses from the candidates, Obama and Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by Crowley. Yet her participation is meant to be limited. As stated in the document, "In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic ... The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period." The memo, which has been obtained by TIME, was signed by lawyers for the two campaigns on Oct. 3, the day of the first presidential debate in Denver.
But if the Obama and Romney campaigns agreed to such terms, there is no evidence that Crowley did — or was ever asked to do so.
Instead, the agreement between the campaigns states merely that the commission "shall provide each moderator with a copy of this agreement and shall use its best efforts to ensure that the moderators implement the terms of this agreement."
Which helps explain why the two campaigns are suddenly in league. After Crowley made her "X, Y, Z" remarks to Suzanne Malveaux on Oct. 5, the two campaign counsels, Bob Bauer for President Obama and Ben Ginsberg of the Romney campaign, jointly reached out to the commission to express concern that the moderator's comments seemed to be in direct conflict with the terms of their agreement. The commission sent back word that it would discuss the matter with Crowley and reconfirm her function. It is not known if such a conversation has taken place.
The commission, both campaigns and CNN declined to comment for the record. Crowley referred all questions about the debate format to the commission.
The apparent confusion over the town-hall moderator's role is the latest in a series of moments that point to the unusual and often fraught relationship among the commission, the campaigns and the moderators. Ever since the bipartisan panel took over the staging of the quadrennial debates in 1988, presidential campaigns of both parties have groused that the commission is frustrating to deal with and appears at times to represent bureaucratic and institutional concerns separate from the public interest. In 2004 President Bush's re-election campaign even gave serious consideration to sidestepping the commission's part in the process.
In an unusual departure from the normal hostility that exists between the Obama and Romney campaigns, both parties wholeheartedly agreed with the commission's wish to avoid a repeat of what occurred four years ago. In 2008 NBC News' Tom Brokaw moderated the town-hall session between Obama and Republican nominee John McCain, and the two campaigns and the organizers felt that Brokaw redirected the topics too severely from the audience queries and asked too many of his own questions, limiting the number of citizens who got a chance at the microphone. Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Brokaw said, "[It's] tricky for the moderator. I said that Candy Crowley ought to get combat gear after I went through that four years ago." Brokaw told TIME, "I am satisfied citizens in the hall and online got a fair hearing." Brokaw also said that while there was some media criticism of the job he did, he heard no complaints directly from the campaigns and that a commission official even praised the debate as "good television."
Throughout the long-running talks between Chicago, Boston and the commission this election season, there was unambiguous agreement on their shared goal to limit as much as possible the on-camera role of the moderator in the town-hall debate. In fact, according to one source, the key language from the memo of understanding written by the campaigns ("the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic") was taken directly from words used by a commission official during an early discussion about the debate format. In short, as far as the campaigns are concerned, there should be no new follow-up questions in the debate.
The moderators' role is always complex. Journalists and news organizations jockey to get one of the coveted slots and become, in effect, partners with the commission and the candidates. But they are, of course, also reporters who fiercely guard their independence and bristle at any actual or perceived sense that their function is controlled by the organizers or the campaigns. All parties acknowledge that Crowley's behind-the-scenes role will be influential. She will cull the questions submitted by the voters who are invited to attend the debate, and then decide which ones will be asked and in what order.
Crowley seems unfazed by the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Even after concerns were raised in the wake of the Malveaux interview, Crowley made additional comments that make clear she does not feel bound by any agreement between the commission and the Obama and Romney camps. On Oct. 11, the day of the vice-presidential debate, she told Wolf Blitzer, "I'm always interested in the questions because you don't want to — in a debate, you don't want to go over plowed ground. Now, this is the vice-presidential candidates as opposed to the presidential candidates. So is there room there to come back to a presidential candidate and say, Well, your vice-presidential candidate said this? I'm always kind of looking for the next question ... So there's opportunity for follow-up to kind of get them to drill down on the subjects that these folks want to learn about in the town hall."
Sources say both campaigns are preparing their candidates for the debate under the assumption that Crowley might play a bigger role than either they or the commission want. At the same time, some officials familiar with the deliberations of the campaigns say they hope that by publicizing the expectations for the moderator's role in the town hall and making public the language in the memo, Crowley will be less likely to overstep their interpretation of her role. One key source expressed confidence on Sunday afternoon that, despite Crowley's remarks on CNN, the moderator would perform on Tuesday night according to the rules agreed to by the two campaigns.
And Mark Halperin scoops the MOU for tomorrow night's debate:
QuoteEXCLUSIVE: Here is the full text of the memorandum of understanding agreed to by the Obama and Romney campaigns for their three presidential and one vice presidential debates.
The deal was signed on October 3, the day of the first presidential debate in Denver. The negotiators and signers were veteran Washington campaign lawyers Bob Bauer (for the President) and Ben Ginsberg (for Mitt Romney).
Neither the Commission on Presidential Debates nor the debate moderators are parties to the agreement.
I wrote Sunday about those provisions spelling out the campaigns' conception of the role of the moderator for Tuesday's town hall debate.
Some highlights from the full document:
What would happen if another candidate qualified for the debates.
The candidates agreed not to publicly call for any additional debates beyond the Commission-sponsored events.
Candidates aren't allowed to cite anyone in the audience (besides family members) during the debate.
Candidates aren't allowed to address questions to each other or ask the other candidate to take a pledge.
The moderators can't do "show of hands" questions.
Here's a link to all 21 pages of it:
http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/15/the-2012-debates-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-obama-and-romney-campaigns/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:17:36 PM
Might as well kick this off a day early.
Indeed, that way you get to come up with the cutesy thread title. :P
I'm thinking, the guys the US President, he can just go and tell the jurnos to go fuck themselves and instead agree the terms directly with Romney; call it diplomacy.
I hate jurnos who think they've become the story or can shape it. <_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:17:36 PM
Might as well kick this off a day early.
Indeed, that way you get to come up with the cutesy thread title. :P
You don't think I'd allow someone else to do it, do you?
I'm just glad that we'll be done with the flurry of headline news about how Obama vows to do better.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:34:49 PM
I'm just glad that we'll be done with the flurry of headline news about how Obama vows to do better.
No shit :lol:
Right, like we don't get enough of Mittens' "reinvigorating" his campaign or anything since the debate. IT GOES BOTH WAYS FELLAS
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:59:38 PM
Right, like we don't get enough of Mittens' "reinvigorating" his campaign or anything since the debate. IT GOES BOTH WAYS FELLAS
It may be overcovered, but at least it's actually a newsworthy story.
I wonder how many members of the town hall Mittens will fire.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
I wonder how many members of the town hall Mittens will fire.
I wonder how many Obama will blame for the Libya attack.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
I wonder how many members of the town hall Mittens will fire.
I wonder how many Obama will blame for the Libya attack.
:lol: I wonder how many Teabaggers will drive Libya into the ground.
CdM truly is the Tim of the Presidential Campaign.
Quote from: Syt on October 16, 2012, 01:02:44 AM
CdM truly is the Tim of the Presidential Campaign.
I enjoy his take on the election. CDM and John Stewart are my primary sources when it comes to this election :P
Quote from: Octavian on October 16, 2012, 03:24:35 AM
I enjoy his take on the election. CDM and John Stewart are my primary sources when it comes to this election :P
Reminds me of our terrible America coverage on the news here. Steinmetz is harmful or at best worthless as a journalist. :(
Quote from: Liep on October 16, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
Quote from: Octavian on October 16, 2012, 03:24:35 AM
I enjoy his take on the election. CDM and John Stewart are my primary sources when it comes to this election :P
Reminds me of our terrible America coverage on the news here. Steinmetz is harmful or at best worthless as a journalist. :(
Did you see him and Rasmus Tantholdt in "Who wants to be a millionaire last night? They failed the question: Which of the following are an indian: Buffalo Bill, Crazy Horse, Calamity Jane or Billy the Kid? They answered Buffalo Bill and were out with 0 kr.
This from two correspondents one of them being based in the US.
Sitting Bull steals all the credit for Little Big Horn.
Quote from: Octavian on October 16, 2012, 05:31:44 AM
Did you see him and Rasmus Tantholdt in "Who wants to be a millionaire last night? They failed the question: Which of the following are an indian: Buffalo Bill, Crazy Horse, Calamity Jane or Billy the Kid? They answered Buffalo Bill and were out with 0 kr.
:lmfao:
The state of TV2 these days is just pathetic. They should leave the news to better qualified people and go full reality.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 05:43:48 AM
Sitting Bull steals all the credit for Little Big Horn.
Then why is Crazy Horse the one getting a ginormous statue?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 16, 2012, 06:49:52 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 05:43:48 AM
Sitting Bull steals all the credit for Little Big Horn.
Then why is Crazy Horse the one getting a ginormous statue?
Presumably the people making this statue are locals who know better.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 16, 2012, 06:49:52 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2012, 05:43:48 AM
Sitting Bull steals all the credit for Little Big Horn.
Then why is Crazy Horse the one getting a ginormous statue?
Cause it's the work of one crazy man.
Quote from: Liep on October 16, 2012, 06:11:32 AM
Quote from: Octavian on October 16, 2012, 05:31:44 AM
Did you see him and Rasmus Tantholdt in "Who wants to be a millionaire last night? They failed the question: Which of the following are an indian: Buffalo Bill, Crazy Horse, Calamity Jane or Billy the Kid? They answered Buffalo Bill and were out with 0 kr.
:lmfao:
The state of TV2 these days is just pathetic. They should leave the news to better qualified people and go full reality.
Since they have become a full "pay" channel that's probably what is going to happen :D
I do like TV2 News and the Mogensen and Christiansen programme. Unfortunately I don't have TV2 News anymore.
By the way Liep. Is your user name related or inspired by Ole Sohn whose full name is Ole Christian Liep Sohn?
Stop shitting up our election thread with goddamned Scandinavian game show shit already.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:37:03 AM
Stop shitting up our election thread with goddamned Scandinavian game show shit already.
Any thread is improved by Scandinavian game show shit.
Also, not really Oct, it's an old name I've always used for some reason. It had a J in it on Kapland until some one actually named that contacted me asking if I knew why someone named Jaron had sent him weird emails.
Quote from: Liep on October 16, 2012, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:37:03 AM
Stop shitting up our election thread with goddamned Scandinavian game show shit already.
Any thread is improved by Scandinavian game show shit.
Also, not really Oct, it's an old name I've always used for some reason. It had a J in it on Kapland until some one actually named that contacted me asking if I knew why someone named Jaron had sent him weird emails.
LOL
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 09:07:20 PM
I wonder how many Obama will blame for the Libya attack.
I blame Muslim terrorists myself.
Ross Perot, former independent Presidential candidate who won 20% of the vote in 1992, has decided to endorse Romney today: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/ross-perot-backs-mitt-romney-138550.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/ross-perot-backs-mitt-romney-138550.html)
(https://news.google.com/news/tbn/im5av0kSRIUJ/6.jpg)
As for debates, dunno how that will be. It is a "town hall" style forum with very specific questions from the audience and moderator intervention (supposedly). My gut instinct recommendation for Obama is that he needs to go on the attack, but not on stuff like the 47% comment that Romney can easily backtrack/worm a way around. The first attack that comes to mind is tax returns. IIRC, Romney has only released two years. There's no way for him to try to deny that. And there is high risk of poorly answering why he refuses to release his tax returns.
But if there is no sharp attack from Obama, Romney will win. With no pressure, Romney is smooth and handsome. The more people see him (especially women), the more they like him. Obama is no longer the sexiest guy in the race (compared to when his more youthful self ran against old McCain).
Quote from: Ross PerotIt is for these reasons that I am endorsing Mitt Romney. He has spent most of his career in the private sector. He understands how jobs are created. He understands how government can get in the way of that process. As a president, he would do what this administration has been unable to do, which is reform our federal government, pare it back, and — most critically — keep it from acting as a brake on economic growth.
Equally important, as a governor, Mitt Romney balanced the budget of his state for four straight years without raising taxes. Writing in all caps is called shouting, and that fact is something that deserves to be shouted from the rooftops. I should add that Gov. Romney accomplished this feat while working with a legislature that was overwhelmingly under the control of the Democratic Party in one of the most liberal states in the country. In short, although he is a rock-solid conservative, he knows how to reach across the aisle and make common cause with those with whom he disagrees.
I like the segue of Phil calling Romney the sexiest candidate in the race followed by Perot saying "it is for these reasons that I'm endorsing Romney". :D
Quote from: Phillip V on October 16, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
As for debates, dunno how that will be. It is a "town hall" style forum with very specific questions from the audience and moderator intervention (supposedly). My gut instinct recommendation for Obama is that he needs to go on the attack, but not on stuff like the 47% comment that Romney can easily backtrack/worm a way around. The first attack that comes to mind is tax returns. IIRC, Romney has only released two years. There's no way for him to try to deny that. And there is high risk of poorly answering why he refuses to release his tax returns.
I don't see how you could think he could answer poorly on the issue of his tax returns. He said he wasn't going to release them, and he didn't. Even his wife said that's all "you people" are going to get. Fin.
He's a man of his word. No poor answer to angle for in that one.
I guess it's been out for a while but I just now caught that AFSCME ad with the garbageman complaining that Mitt never hugged him. :huh: :lol:
Electric-car battery maker files for bankruptcyElectric-car battery maker A123 Systems, the recipient of nearly $250 million in government grants, filed for bankruptcy protection today.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443854204578060433271656440.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443854204578060433271656440.html)
QuoteThe U.S. government, in a bid to jump start the electric car battery industry, has provided more than $1.2 billion to battery makers in the past three years. But the industry has been slow to take off. Another battery maker, Ener1 Inc., which also received a government grant, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy earlier this year.
But sales of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in the U.S. remain a fraction of gasoline-powered vehicles because of their high cost, the lengthy recharging times required and limited availability of public charging stations.
The U.S. Department of Energy awarded A123 $249 million in grants, about half of which the company has used so far to pay for some of the costs of building a factory in Livonia, Mich.
The Waltham, Mass., company has suffered losses since inception in 2001 and saw its market capitalization drop to around $162 million from $1.6 billion at the end of 2009, a few months after its public listing of shares.
The company's balance sheet took a hit last year from charges related to its investment in electric-car maker Fisker Automotive, capacity reduction in South Korea and replacement costs of defective batteries. Adding to its troubles, the company in late March disclosed it expects to spend at least $55 million in coming quarters on a recall of defective batteries.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fericsavitz%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2Fa123-battery-300x225.jpg&hash=8e8ad682720c2696c0062b929af26b7218b02b5d)
And this has what to do with the debate tonight? Is ExxonMobil going to bring this up?
Perot actually ran to the left of Clinton on a lot of issues in '92. I guess he's tacked to the right in his senescence. This will move polls at least 0.20%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 10:35:23 AM
And this has what to do with the debate tonight? Is ExxonMobil going to bring this up?
Throwing taxpayer money at "green" companies was one of Romney's main attacks in the first debate.
This is pretty funny: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2012, 12:02:50 PM
This is pretty funny: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
Ha!
Oddly enough the tab called "Obama's Promises Kept" has very little to do with showing that which Obama has kept. Most of it seems to be about Romney lying..which one would have expected inside "Romney's Distortions".
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2012, 08:54:50 AM
I blame Muslim terrorists myself.
How dare you waste those sweet, sweet political points. Chris Stevens paid dearly for them.
As we count down to the second President debate tonight, here are the two main national tracking polls updated to today:
Gallup Tracking: Romney +4
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
Rasmussen Tracking: Romney +2
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
InTrade still favors Obama against Romney 61-39.
With swing states now gone from previously Obama edge to currently toss-up, tonight's debate is as important as the first. Will Obama reverse Mitt's momentum or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
[Senile Ex-GE Exec] Pay no attention to Intrade. The "Chicago guys" have rigged it [/Senile Ex-GE Exec]
If I can't find so anything to watch because of this bullshit( with NCIS being lost), I'm going to be real grumpy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
If I can't find so anything to watch because of this bullshit( with NCIS being lost), I'm going to be real grumpy.
Watch some WWE reruns.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
If I can't find so anything to watch because of this bullshit( with NCIS being lost), I'm going to be real grumpy.
Watch some WWE reruns.
I made the mistake of watching a bit of RAW last night. I lost 15 IQ Points.
Watch Prometheus. Lose 25.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
Watch Prometheus. Lose 25.
Too late. Already lobotomized by that "movie".
Hmm, small crowd, only 82 people, all apparently 'undecided' as ascertained from random blind telephone interviews.
Shit, should've bought ice cream for this thing tonight. A Nutty Buddy would've worked.
Just going to have to settle for the Halloween cake my nieces made for me. All the candy corn is lined up is several perfect rows. The little one said it's a graveyard for "dead people who were once happy". I guess so.
awwwwwwwww
:lol:
All right, hopefully Barrack realizes this time that the fate of America depends on him, and manages to show up.
Quote from: DGuller on October 16, 2012, 07:54:13 PM
All right, hopefully Barrack realizes this time that the fate of America depends on him, and manages to show up.
What the hell are you talking about? You're a Romney man now. WELCOME ABOARD
He's trying to say that if Rmoney wins there will be a thousand years of darkness.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 16, 2012, 07:58:39 PM
He's trying to say that if Rmoney wins there will be a thousand years of darkness.
I'm not optimistic that we'll get that many years.
I wonder if Mittens will maintain his debate discipline, or will he fold back into primary campaign form with his previous town halls, with such winners like "borrow money from your parents", or "shop around for a cheaper school".
He's going to have to think on his feet, and remember all the bullshit he spewed from the first debate.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 16, 2012, 07:54:13 PM
All right, hopefully Barrack realizes this time that the fate of America depends on him, and manages to show up.
What the hell are you talking about? You're a Romney man now. WELCOME ABOARD
:yes:
Ugh, Candy, that suit! :bleeding:
That is one large woman.
That's no moon.
POTUS wins the tie by *this* much. MERLOT
I do like Romney's shade of blue, though. White stripes on white, bold. Very English design.
That kids now going to walk out and top himself this evening.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 08:06:30 PM
That kids now going to walk out and top himself this evening.
No way, man. Mittens just promised him a job. After his mission, no doubt.
College kid wants a manufacturing job? :huh:
This format seems so unnatural.
Presidentail faux pas, he fails to thank anyone like Romney did, he could have least said something like "I'd like to echo senator Romney warm words"
Candy, you pompous bitch, didn't you read the MOU?
Notice how Mittens doesn't get too close, lest she pulls him in with her tractor beam.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 08:08:21 PM
College kid wants a manufacturing job? :huh:
Union gig. Gift that keeps on giving.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:09:33 PM
Candy, you pompous bitch, didn't you read the MOU?
Notice how Mittens doesn't get too close, lest she pulls him in with her tractor beam.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:09:33 PM
Candy, you pompous bitch, didn't you read the MOU?
Notice how Mittens doesn't get too close, lest she pulls him in with her tractor beam.
That is the second of the three allowed Death Star jokes.
Glad to see they answered question on how to help Americans right now...
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2012, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:09:33 PM
Candy, you pompous bitch, didn't you read the MOU?
Notice how Mittens doesn't get too close, lest she pulls him in with her tractor beam.
Do we then move on to the Jabba phase of the debate?
That is the second of the three allowed Death Star jokes.
Better from Obama, but man doesn't his voice sound nervous.
Oh and kill the moderator already, why the fuck does she have to talk so much.
Wasn't the question about gas prices?
These assholes are making my brain hurt. Fuck it. I can't even pretend to give a damn.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 08:14:07 PM
Wasn't the question about gas prices?
I think they both missed that.
Anyone know how they're gauging the undecided voters? Is it from Tweets, or what?
North American energy independence in 8 years. :bleeding:
Romney has a Timmayesque view of the US energy future.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:17:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 08:14:07 PM
Wasn't the question about gas prices?
I think they both missed that.
Anyone know how they're gauging the undecided voters? Is it from Tweets, or what?
Might as well be farts. If you don't have your mind made up now, flip a coin.
Ooo. Obama just called Romney inconsistent!
Licenses and permits. Egads.
Now they're arguing. Good.
Can't wait for FactChecker to find out who really is right.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:20:17 PM
Can't wait for FactChecker to find out who really is right.
Isn't the truth irrelevant?
Good job by the POTUS dropping the Use It or Lose It with the squatter companies.
They should just do a thunderdome instead of spouting all this bullshit.
That was a real 'parliamentary' exchange.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 08:20:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:20:17 PM
Can't wait for FactChecker to find out who really is right.
Isn't the truth irrelevant?
Maybe to them, but not to me.
Nice one, Barack!
"Gasoline prices are based on the price of oil, a fungible commodity traded on a single currency on a common market, subject to increased demand across the globe."
There, answered it for both of you assholes.
Candy ain't no Lehrer. She's definitely in a much larger weight class than he was.
Actually gas cost less because economy was crashing. -Obama
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:22:38 PM
"Gasoline prices are based on the price of oil, a fungible commodity traded on a single currency on a common market, subject to increased demand across the globe."
There, answered it for both of you assholes.
Obama likes high gas prices, though. He said it himself.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 08:23:37 PM
Actually gas cost less because economy was crashing. -Obama
Were they kept artificially low? I honestly don't know.
Did Mittens just base his tax deductions plan on "let me just pull out a number, say $25,000"?
Cheap energy is dead, Americans face up to this global reality, they're are 10s of millions of new Chinese cars competing for that gas you put in your cars.
Would any candidate really risk saying that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:26:45 PM
Did Mittens just base his tax deductions plan on "let me just pull out a number, say $25,000"?
IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS
Damnit. I want numbers, Mitt. "Higher end" and "middle class" doesn't tell me anything.
By the way, it's not the last four years that the middle class has been buried. It's been for the last 12+ years.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:26:45 PM
Did Mittens just base his tax deductions plan on "let me just pull out a number, say $25,000"?
IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS
ITS A FLUID SITUATION
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:26:45 PM
Did Mittens just base his tax deductions plan on "let me just pull out a number, say $25,000"?
I heard "let me just pull out a number out my ass, say $25,000".
First bus runs over Congress at the :29 minute mark.
"We" don't have to live like this? I wish I lived like you, Mitt. :glare:
Obama's face is freaking awesome!
Energy independence in 5 years. :blink:
'War with China' ? :unsure:.
IT'S BORING AGAIN.
Mittens' expression on his face as he's watching Obama is uncomfortably similar to David's in Prometheus. It's very disconcerting.
Oh, snap. "Sketchy deal". STRAIGHT OUTTA SOUS SIDE
Damn, did Mittens just dis his own state?
Obama was not raised by a single mom. He was raised by his mom and Lolo and then his grandparents.
Now I'm on time-delay. :(
Kiddo had to go potty. :mad:
Mitt getting all squishy on hiring women :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:35:56 PM
Damn, did Mittens just dis his own state?
Sounded more like he admitted the truth that governors are not gods.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 08:27:28 PM
Cheap energy is dead, Americans face up to this global reality, they're are 10s of millions of new Chinese cars competing for that gas you put in your cars.
Would any candidate really risk saying that.
I really don't know why they can't level with the American populace about that. I think they could grasp it.
It's interesting that both candidates time and again return to the same old talking points and 'statistics'; are they stale after 1+ years or that focused on the swing demographics and the corresponding stock appeals/promises ?
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 08:40:25 PM
Mitt getting all squishy on hiring women :mellow:
I'm pretty sure whore pills won't be in the new employee orientation packets. ;)
I hate that statistic. From what I understand, that 72% isn't that women are paid $0.72 to the $1 for doing the same job as men. It's that women, on average, make that much less than men. Well, that's because women take lower paying jobs. Who's fault is that??
Did you make those potatoes?
Obama tried to play the Amy Wambach? :D
Holy shit Romney has just moved America to energy independence during the actual debate. :hmm:
Mittens loses major style points for ignoring the question, and answering the last one.
Edit: Damn, Obama dropped "candidate" on the Bishop.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:45:49 PM
Did you make those potatoes?
Nope. Made chili instead. Would make your delicate tummy curdle, my friend. Might want to snuggle up with your soup and stay quiet.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:45:01 PM
I hate that statistic. From what I understand, that 72% isn't that women are paid $0.72 to the $1 for doing the same job as men. It's that women, on average, make that much less than men. Well, that's because women take lower paying jobs. Who's fault is that??
That is almost never pointed out. It's almost like a myth that people desperately want to believe in. Good on ya for realizing the truth :thumbsup:
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 08:49:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:45:01 PM
I hate that statistic. From what I understand, that 72% isn't that women are paid $0.72 to the $1 for doing the same job as men. It's that women, on average, make that much less than men. Well, that's because women take lower paying jobs. Who's fault is that??
That is almost never pointed out. It's almost like a myth that people desperately want to believe in. Good on ya for realizing the truth :thumbsup:
I blame women trying to have it both, careers and rug rats. Can't have both.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
I blame women trying to have it both, careers and rug rats. Can't have both.
They could if the dads would step it up a bit. :contract:
Obama doing a lot better than the first debate (which was pretty much a guarantee) but overall I think it's a draw so far.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
I blame women trying to have it both, careers and rug rats. Can't have both.
They could if the dads would step it up a bit. :contract:
Then jump in Max's shit, not mine. :P
:blink:
"Governor, you're the last person who's going to get tough on China."
Quite a few bored looking faces and restlessness in the audience.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
I blame women trying to have it both, careers and rug rats. Can't have both.
They could if the dads would step it up a bit. :contract:
Childrens is your job.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:56:21 PM
:blink:
"Governor, you're the last person who's going to get tough on China."
Brutha's got a point.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 08:55:02 PM
Obama doing a lot better than the first debate (which was pretty much a guarantee) but overall I think it's a draw so far.
Obama is on his game this time, which makes it look more like he's winning compared to last time. Real or not, that's how it seems.
I wonder if the first debate was thrown. :hmm:
I thought that whole "Obamacare will cost the middle class $2500/year" has been debunked repeatedly? Why does that keep coming up?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2012, 08:57:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
I blame women trying to have it both, careers and rug rats. Can't have both.
They could if the dads would step it up a bit. :contract:
Childrens is your job.
You're doing it wrong. You need to ratchet it up a bit-- and catch her when she's having a bad day at work.
lol, pension.
Oh that sounded weak, "I was licking my wounds from being beaten by John McCain"
So I take it Obama feels moderator isn't doing her job?
Meh. There is a bio of Jim Tressel on BTN right now...
Sooo.. Romney's "plan" is to keep the immigration policy just as it is. Nothing about what he said is any different than what's already in place. It doesn't answer what to do with those who already live here and who do the jobs that white people won't take (remember, I was raised by poor white trash AND working class Mexicans, so I do know what I'm talking about on this). He only addresses educated immigrants.
Attacking Obama is not an answer, Romney.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2012, 08:57:27 PM
Childrens is your job.
You're doing it wrong. You need to ratchet it up a bit-- and catch her when she's having a bad day at work.
You know, it's really romantic to totally jump her when she comes home from a bad day at work and try to hump her from behind on the hallway floor. IT WORKS
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:09:39 PM
So I take it Obama feels moderator isn't doing her job?
That was rude. I kind of wanted to tell him to hush up on that.
Almost over and I'd guess draw as Obama came awake.
Though Obama just took responsibility after he had Hil take it...
Just got the President pissed, and Romney's acting like a douchebag over Libya.
Romney is never going to live that whole Libya thing down. He really fucked that one up, imo.
Congrats Romney. You just got bullshit called by both the POTUS and the moderator. Credibility: gone. :lol:
Bam!
Romney flustered badly.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:16:37 PM
Romney is never going to live that whole Libya thing down. He really fucked that one up, imo.
He did. But Obama managed to fuck up even worse after that.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2012, 09:17:18 PM
Congrats Romney. You just got bullshit called by both the POTUS and the moderator. Credibility: gone. :lol:
And then she backtracked.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2012, 09:17:18 PM
Congrats Romney. You just got bullshit called by both the POTUS and the moderator. Credibility: gone. :lol:
And then she backtracked.
She equivocated.
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
"Automatic weapons" -- oops :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:22:13 PM
"Automatic weapons" -- oops :lol:
I hope somebody uses "clip" in a sentence.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:16:37 PM
Romney is never going to live that whole Libya thing down. He really fucked that one up, imo.
He did. But Obama managed to fuck up even worse after that.
I honestly believe that it was a fluid situation, and people really didn't know what the hell happened for a good while. That being said, I also don't doubt that they delayed putting the information out there in order to mitigate any issue with the election.
It was a politically charged situation, so no surprise that they both played it. I just think Romney played it worse than Obama did.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
I disagree, I think most rational people don't accept gun violence, just that no politicians can say anything that risk alienating the gun lobby.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:24:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
I disagree, I think most rational people don't accept gun violence, just that no politicians can say anything that risk alienated the gun lobby.
Bingo. Though, I don't think Obama really should worry about that. Most of the gun lobby check Republican before they even know who's running.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:24:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
I disagree, I think most rational people don't accept gun violence, just that no politicians can say anything that risk alienated the gun lobby.
Kindle killed me. Wanted to have I wished we had country where one could say we won't accept it.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
Meh, gun control is a loser for both sides. It's a useless topic.
Besides, two parent households are more important in stopping gun violence.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:24:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
I disagree, I think most rational people don't accept gun violence, just that no politicians can say anything that risk alienated the gun lobby.
Kindle killed me. Wanted to have I wished we had country where one could say we won't accept it.
But what does that mean?
Can you name a country a "currency manipulator" if they are not actually manipulating their currency anymore?
Romney wants to lower the middle class taxes and pay for it by closing loopholes. Obama wants to lower business taxes and pay for it by closing loopholes.
Obama always manages to talk at least two minutes more than Romney. How does he do that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
Can you name a country a "currency manipulator" if they are not actually manipulating their currency anymore?
Obama just dropped the 11% currency valuation.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:29:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:24:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Obama is so hesistant on this gun question. Sad we don't have a country where we just so we won't accept gun violence.
I disagree, I think most rational people don't accept gun violence, just that no politicians can say anything that risk alienated the gun lobby.
Kindle killed me. Wanted to have I wished we had country where one could say we won't accept it.
But what does that mean?
What does that mean? A concrete example would be Obama could say I am going to push to get assault weapons banned instead of we'll see if we can try. And then where we wouldn't see Foment say no new gun control.
Romney not foment!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
Can you name a country a "currency manipulator" if they are not actually manipulating their currency anymore?
Obama just dropped the 11% currency valuation.
I am . . . Presidential telepath.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
Can you name a country a "currency manipulator" if they are not actually manipulating their currency anymore?
Of course you can, though it may piss off the people who are also buying your 'national debt'.
:lol: Garbs, you OK, man?
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:33:17 PM
Romney not foment!
:D That thing is kicking your ass tonight.
I feel Garb's pain.
God damned autocorrect.
And there's your 47% mushroom cloud.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
Can you name a country a "currency manipulator" if they are not actually manipulating their currency anymore?
Of course you can, though it may piss off the people who are also buying your 'national debt'.
They already stopped buying but the Treasury auctions didn't miss a beat.
Foment 2012 :D
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:33:17 PM
Romney not foment!
:lol: My biggest Kindle problem is that it seems slow to learn my vocabulary of cuss words.
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Which means that it's a definite Obama win. :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 09:39:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
Can you name a country a "currency manipulator" if they are not actually manipulating their currency anymore?
Of course you can, though it may piss off the people who are also buying your 'national debt'.
They already stopped buying but the Treasury auctions didn't miss a beat.
I missed that, thanks.
So is it now ok to attack the Chinese ?
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Which means that it's a definite Obama win. :lol:
That's what we've come to. Obama is awake so he wins? No wonder our country is in such a state. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:38:45 PM
And there's your 47% mushroom cloud.
:huh:
He dropped it at the end, when Mittens had no ability to respond. That was right in his wheelhouse. The Mets apple went up, the Comisky fireworks went off, etc.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:40:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:33:17 PM
Romney not foment!
:lol: My biggest Kindle problem is that it seems slow to learn my vocabulary of cuss words.
I wouldn't even let me use 'sucks' one day. <_<
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Which means that it's a definite Obama win. :lol:
In the Languish Obamite echo chamber, yes.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Which means that it's a definite Obama win. :lol:
That's what we've come to. Obama is awake so he wins? No wonder our country is in such a state. ;)
Oh, I didn't think Obama won by a landslide, but if derspeiss calls it a tie, then it's probably an Obama win. :P
Who won? Nobody. Who lost? All of us.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:38:45 PM
And there's your 47% mushroom cloud.
:huh:
He dropped it at the end, when Mittens had no ability to respond. That was right in his wheelhouse. The Mets apple went up, the Comisky fireworks went off, etc.
It definitely was the best time but I'm not sure how exciting it was given that he didn't really manage to convince that it was what Romney personally believes. You can't spend the whole time telling us Romney will say whatever it takes and then try to tell us you know what he truly believes. :D
And like I said before, Obama came across a little pissy with all his time checks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:38:45 PM
And there's your 47% mushroom cloud.
:huh:
He dropped it at the end, when Mittens had no ability to respond. That was right in his wheelhouse. The Mets apple went up, the Comisky fireworks went off, etc.
Ah. Missed that part. Had to take delivery of a replacement ironing board here in my hotel room during closing remarks.
CNN calls it a draw.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 09:47:53 PM
It definitely was the best time but I'm not sure how exciting it was given that he didn't really manage to convince that it was what Romney personally believes. You can't spend the whole time telling us Romney will say whatever it takes and then try to tell us you know what he truly believes. :D
Last word matters.
QuoteAnd like I said before, Obama came across a little pissy with all his time checks.
Looked to me like he wasn't going to let Romney bulldoze either him or the moderator like last time. Mittens tried to push things around, and Chicago wasn't having it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:47:20 PM
Oh, I didn't think Obama won by a landslide, but if derspeiss calls it a tie, then it's probably an Obama win. :P
You think I can't be objective? If anything, I tend to be rougher on my guy in debates.
Each got some punches in. Each made some mistakes. I say it was a draw, although it may be called a win for Obama because of the improvement in his performance.
I though the last debate was a push so I obviously am not a good barometer for how the rest of the electorate interprets debate results.
I think both guys got their message out, both guys were very nasty and made extremely vicious and effective attacks.
The one exchange where I felt there was a clear and unequivocal loser was on Libya, Obama used the full majesty of the Presidency in that, took full responsibility for everything (as you have to do in issues of foreign relations--it's one area where the President really does have almost total control) and did not try to dissemble from that at all. In the same swing he mentioned Romney's ill-fated decision to try and make political hay out of it, and Romney's response was weak and ineffective.
https://www.facebook.com/romneybindersfullofwomen
:)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:51:03 PM
Looked to me like he wasn't going to let Romney bulldoze either him or the moderator like last time. Mittens tried to push things around, and Chicago wasn't having it.
Obama spoke a lot too over time. Romney just never got all particular about it.
I want binders full of women. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:51:03 PM
Looked to me like he wasn't going to let Romney bulldoze either him or the moderator like last time. Mittens tried to push things around, and Chicago wasn't having it.
RACISS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BW7nPFR0Oq8
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 09:52:33 PM
I though the last debate was a push so I obviously am not a good barometer for how the rest of the electorate interprets debate results.
I think both guys got their message out, both guys were very nasty and made extremely vicious and effective attacks.
The one exchange where I felt there was a clear and unequivocal loser was on Libya, Obama used the full majesty of the Presidency in that, took full responsibility for everything (as you have to do in issues of foreign relations--it's one area where the President really does have almost total control) and did not try to dissemble from that at all. In the same swing he mentioned Romney's ill-fated decision to try and make political hay out of it, and Romney's response was weak and ineffective.
Yeah that worked well for him, but will it sway the voters more than the bread and butter issues over the economy ?
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:50:48 PM
CNN calls it a draw.
THEN IT'S A WIN FOR ROMNEY!! :P :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:54:26 PM
I want binders full of women. :(
Or spank them with a trapper keeper.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 09:16:37 PM
Romney is never going to live that whole Libya thing down. He really fucked that one up, imo.
That was bad. I think Mitt was right about the substance of his attack - Obama didn't call the attacks a pre-planned terrorist attack (though, really, who cares?) - but he fucked up by trying to insist that Obama didn't even use the word terror.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 09:52:33 PM
The one exchange where I felt there was a clear and unequivocal loser was on Libya, Obama used the full majesty of the Presidency in that, took full responsibility for everything (as you have to do in issues of foreign relations--it's one area where the President really does have almost total control) and did not try to dissemble from that at all. In the same swing he mentioned Romney's ill-fated decision to try and make political hay out of it, and Romney's response was weak and ineffective.
Man, Mittens really stepped in it on that one.
It looks even rougher on replay. :bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 08:26:45 PM
Did Mittens just base his tax deductions plan on "let me just pull out a number, say $25,000"?
Yeah, wasn't a very good argument. When you're being accused of not having specifics on how you're going to find all those deductions, starting the rebuttal with "let me just pull out a number" may not be the most effective tactic. Too bad Obama didn't pounce on it, or wasn't allowed to.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2012, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:54:26 PM
I want binders full of women. :(
Or spank them with a trapper keeper.
It would have a unicorn and rainbows. And moons and stars.
Btw, when looking at d's vid. I saw this. I hate Gingrich but I think he's right here in attacking Seedy...er Chris Matthews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAMLAiYLDS0
I didn't watch the debate and I was still bored by it.
A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html)
Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:01:29 PM
Btw, when looking at d's vid. I saw this. I hate Gingrich but I think he's right here in attacking Seedy...er Chris Matthews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAMLAiYLDS0
:lol: LOL, I love Matthews, though. He just doesn't give a shit anymore.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:01:29 PM
Btw, when looking at d's vid. I saw this. I hate Gingrich but I think he's right here in attacking Seedy...er Chris Matthews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAMLAiYLDS0
Not a fan of him either, but shit does he know how to go after the media.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:02:19 PM
A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html)
Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.
:hmm:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/31/news/economy/gas_price_2008/index.htm
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.l.cnn.net%2Fmoney%2F2008%2F12%2F31%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fgas_price_2008%2Fgas_chart_new.03.jpg&hash=7480dd986fee4efec4bcfc56b998b3f23a384192)
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 10:05:39 PM
Not a fan of him, either but shit does he know how to go after the media.
I was actually a bit of a Newt fan back in the early Clinton years but unfortunately, like so many other prominent GOP leaders, he's gone slowly insane over time. Damned shame.
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 09:45:00 PM
So is it now ok to attack the Chinese ?
I guess but I would propose focusing the attacks on stuff the Chinese actually do that is bad.
To continue Meri:
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/RESOURCES/CAMPAIGNS/2010GASPRICEKIT/Pages/HowDoRetailersGetGasoline.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nacsonline.com%2FNACS%2FResources%2Fcampaigns%2F2010GasPriceKit%2FPublishingImages%2F2009WholesaleandRetailGasPrices.JPG&hash=439f5c2feafcada6b23c127a6d513d1d4b8fe721)
Left or right I hope at least on Languish everyone understands that:
1. The President cannot control gas prices.
2. The President cannot create net jobs.
3. The President cannot directly control China's currency policies.
The closest of those three a President can control would be number three, because the President is our chief diplomat and has wide latitude in how he deals with other countries. Persuasion and belligerence can sometimes cause another country to change their policies, when they have reason to acquiesce. (In the case of China, China itself has long known its currency would have to increase in value relative to the dollar, and as has been stated they've started to change how they behave in regard to their currency.)
The President can impact gas prices in the short term with the SPR and in the long term with oil permits, but that's a small impact. It's a big world out there and places like Russia and Venezuela have a lot more to do with global oil prices than anything the U.S. President is capable of doing.
On the issue of jobs, at best the President can propose policies, which if backed by Congress can create environments fertile for job growth. But a President and a government can no more create jobs than I can create new plants. I can plant seeds, water them, make sure they're in good soil, and make sure it gets adequate sunlight. But I don't have direct control over the growth of the plant. Jobs are the same way.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:06:10 PM
:hmm:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/31/news/economy/gas_price_2008/index.htm
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.l.cnn.net%2Fmoney%2F2008%2F12%2F31%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fgas_price_2008%2Fgas_chart_new.03.jpg&hash=7480dd986fee4efec4bcfc56b998b3f23a384192)
Ah, okay. I said when he took office, but I meant when he was elected. But regardless, gas prices had been ridiculously high before he was elected, there was a dip, and then it bounced back up to ridiculously high. It certainly doesn't lead one to believe that it was Obama's policies that caused the higher rates. It may not have been a lie, but it wasn't completely honest, either.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:02:19 PM
A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html)
Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.
So I just posted some graphs but is there any reason your friend picked October 2008? Seems like a random date.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/12/gas-prices-2.html
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:10:53 PM
Ah, okay. I said when he took office, but I meant when he was elected. But regardless, gas prices had been ridiculously high before he was elected, there was a dip, and then it bounced back up to ridiculously high. It certainly doesn't lead one to believe that it was Obama's policies that caused the higher rates. It may not have been a lie, but it wasn't completely honest, either.
Oh I agreed with the point that it has nothing to do with his policies but just that he wasn't completely off-base on the figures.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:11:16 PM
So I just posted some graphs but is there any reason your friend picked October 2008? Seems like a random date.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/12/gas-prices-2.html
No clue. I'm guessing that he was going with the last full week before the election.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Draw goes to the prez. This is as close as you'll ever come to saying obama rightfully won something. embrace it :P
I agree with all the frustration about gas price bullshit. I wish some politician would admit that US doesn't have the world oil market cornered, and can't manipulate it at will. Instead, we just get bullshit upon bullshit spun, depending on what point needs to be made. Both Obama and Romney are guilty of it, but Romney's bullshit was far more brazen. No, Mitt, gas price movements over a couple of years are not indicative of the effectiveness of the energy policy of one nation out of many.
Gas prices were low around the time of the last election because we were in the depths of a massive recession. People out of work don't drive as much. Factories closed down don't use as much energy. When it includes basically the entire G8 it means demand for petroleum globally is going to be very low. Lower demand means lower prices for petroleum which ultimately would be reflected in lower gas prices.
A big drop in gas prices is correlated generally to bad economic conditions, as a guy invested in oil company stocks I could almost predict what the Dow or the Global economy look like just by checking the current value of my holdings in StatOil, Exxon, and Conoco. Obviously sometimes it's not so simple, natural gas prices used to fluctuate like that but a glut of new supply has meant a long-term downward shift in price that, while it still moves with the economy, has not yet shown any signs of moving dramatically upward anytime soon.
Quote from: HVC on October 16, 2012, 10:15:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
I call it: Obama on a split decision.
I say draw. Both guys landed good punches, both guys looked bad at times.
Draw goes to the prez. This is as close as you'll ever come to saying obama rightfully won something. embrace it :P
Maybe, but if he wants to get Romney off of his coat-tails - he should, you know, try winning one of these things outright. :D
So who thinks the black dude and the hispanic chick were plants for Obama? No way they were undecided voters.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 10:20:46 PM
Maybe, but if he wants to get Romney off of his coat-tails - he should, you know, try winning one of these things outright. :D
One more left. Unfortunately, I doubt many people are going to bother watching the last one given how dull the majority of people find these things.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
So who thinks the black dude and the hispanic chick were plants for Obama? No way they were undecided voters.
The black dude sounded just like a friend of mine who voted for Obama the first time around, and who is now completely disgusted by his first term. She still isn't sure who she's voting for.
didn't watch this one, but after the first one i thought maybe Obama was throwing in the towel. Has a president ever resigned after one term?
Black dude may not be ready to vote Obama again, but I don't think he's a true undecided. He's trying to decide between voting for Obama and staying home, no way he's even considering $250m net worth Mitt Romney.
The Hispanic woman clearly cares about illegals being able to get a green card somehow--unless she's been in a coma for the past 8 months she'd know Mitt and the Republicans are absolutely against giving amnesty to almost any illegals, Obama is for it. Unless the issue isn't important to her, I don't see how she was undecided.
Quote from: HVC on October 16, 2012, 10:27:36 PM
didn't watch this one, but after the first one i thought maybe Obama was throwing in the towel. Has a president ever resigned after one term?
James K. Polk said he was only going to serve one term, then he left office and died a few months later. He did get a song about him by They Might Be Giants.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
So who thinks the black dude and the hispanic chick were plants for Obama? No way they were undecided voters.
Apparently:
Quote from: mongers on October 16, 2012, 07:44:29 PM
Hmm, small crowd, only 82 people, all apparently 'undecided' as ascertained from random blind telephone interviews.
Make of that what you will.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 10:29:28 PM
Black dude may not be ready to vote Obama again, but I don't think he's a true undecided. He's trying to decide between voting for Obama and staying home, no way he's even considering $250m net worth Mitt Romney.
The Hispanic woman clearly cares about illegals being able to get a green card somehow--unless she's been in a coma for the past 8 months she'd know Mitt and the Republicans are absolutely against giving amnesty to almost any illegals, Obama is for it. Unless the issue isn't important to her, I don't see how she was undecided.
I kind of feel like most of those true undecideds now will end up going for Obama, or not voting at all. It seems like those who are going to vote for Romney made that decision after the first debate. If there was any chance of them voting for Romney, that was what would have swayed them.
I don't know. We learned in '48 that despite popular wisdom, people still change their minds in the weeks before the election (prior to that people assumed more than a month prior to the election all the minds had been made up.) In '80 we learned that people actually made decisions as late as election day, I don't have numbers now but I think some number of voters in like the 5-10% range (and in our system that is decision) decide in the last few days.
So while intuitively I'd agree, anyone swinging for Romney would do it after the first debate and not this one. But history shows people just seem to almost "randomly" make up their minds at the very end...considering the last week is usually controversy free and low on major news, your guess is as good as mine what sways those ultra late undecideds.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 10:38:35 PM
I don't know. We learned in '48 that despite popular wisdom, people still change their minds in the weeks before the election (prior to that people assumed more than a month prior to the election all the minds had been made up.) In '80 we learned that people actually made decisions as late as election day, I don't have numbers now but I think some number of voters in like the 5-10% range (and in our system that is decision) decide in the last few days.
So while intuitively I'd agree, anyone swinging for Romney would do it after the first debate and not this one. But history shows people just seem to almost "randomly" make up their minds at the very end...considering the last week is usually controversy free and low on major news, your guess is as good as mine what sways those ultra late undecideds.
History also shows us that electoral maps are very fluid, where in the space of four years you can go from one landslide to another. I'd say that's not exactly applicable today, with more or less the same states being battlegrounds for the fourth straight election.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 16, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
So who thinks the black dude and the hispanic chick were plants for Obama? No way they were undecided voters.
They weren't quite as bad as the "undecideds" that were at the Clinton town hall debates in 92 and 96.
According to the most objective and reliable measure, Obama won the debate. His Intrade price went up 3 points.
A lot of those big landslides were due to things that just wouldn't happen today. Like McGovern giving up 500 EVs to Nixon, that was based on him not being vetted rigorously enough. No way a candidate with that baggage gets out of the primaries.
The other big landslides kind of predate the serious culture war. Once issues like abortion, religion, and gay rights became entrenched it basically locked down large swaths of the country for both parties respectively. In the 80s Reagan could win almost the entire country, but there is no way to be in one of the two parties without picking up enough of the culture war stuff to make you unelectable in some part of the country.
Unfortunate really.
But your point about landslides has nothing to do with undecided voters, the numbers on that are up through recent elections. The undecided voters aren't the ones who locked down various parts of the country for their respective parties.
I saw a good article a few months ago talking about the percentage of voters who made up their minds in 2008 on election day itself, and then the percentage who decided in the last week of the election. I spent a minute or so trying to find it, but couldn't, so that's where I'll leave that point.
Something I think that will be of note in this election is early voting, in some states meaningful early voting has already happened. So for example if 40% of Ohio voted back when Obama had a 10 point lead there, and that lead is representative of the early voters, then late swings in opinion won't matter. (I've never been one to take more than a week or so in the beginning of an election to decide my candidate so I don't know how undecideds think, but I would think if I was unsure I wouldn't want to vote until election day because I'd hate to pull the trigger in early October then find out my guy was banging kids or something on the side.)
Quote from: DGuller on October 16, 2012, 10:48:11 PM
According to the most objective and reliable measure, Obama won the debate. His Intrade price went up 3 points.
That just means trader think it is more likely that Obama
will win the election than he was earlier, it does not mean they think Obama necessarily won the debate. You can't possibly know what the traders were thinking about that, only about Obama's chances of winning the election. They could be thinking that he tied the debate, and that was all that was necessary to avoid losing to Romney.
Garbon kicked it off, but it's officially the Meme of the Night:
(https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0n9qrW4q1rj8amio1_400.jpg)
(https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0ntkc5B01rj8amio1_500.gif)
(https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0mhir1uL1rj8amio1_400.png)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F250x250%2F28484366.jpg&hash=2a51ed91a5e8231b213649a9caa3152c47e8c71a)
any serious fact checker go over the bits where they call each other liars?
isn't Romney's binder full of women just another example of affirmative action?
I'm watching it late :blush:
Quote from: Phillip V on October 16, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
With no pressure, Romney is smooth and handsome.
What kind of twisted reality do you live in? You are seriously a contender for the weirdest poster on Languish these days. Romney is anything but handsome. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2012, 02:25:43 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 16, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
With no pressure, Romney is smooth and handsome.
What kind of twisted reality do you live in? You are seriously a contender for the weirdest poster on Languish these days. Romney is anything but handsome. :huh:
He looks younger than he is, that's worth a lot.
I missed this because I was sleeping off a holiday. My impression is even if it was a draw on points it was a potentially big Obama win. The Libya answer is a debate 'moment' because Romney fucked up. Last time there wasn't a moment because Obama was just bad, he didn't cock up anything. At worst, for Obama, I think this puts a floor under his numbers.
Obama already had a floor on his numbers, it's called blacks, people on welfare, people in unions, and women.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Obama already had a floor on his numbers, it's called blacks, people on welfare, people in unions, and women.
Sounds like he's got the election wrapped up then, seeing he's got 2/3 of the electorate there.
It'd be 2/3rds if he had all the women. There is a gender gap, often guesstimated at 10%, by which women favor Democrats (so 60/40 split.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Obama already had a floor on his numbers, it's called blacks, people on welfare, people in unions, and women.
Wow, all blacks
and women? Romney's fucked.
So while it was silly (and easy to laugh at) - I'm not sure how Romney's binders of women answer translates into sexism. Is it sexist to say that you made you were able to hire women candidates and allowed female staffers with children flex time? I can see it seeming like bullshit rhetoric given that it is a) Romney and b) his stance on reproductive rights but that's about it.
I saw friends posting all over facebook with "I'm a woman and I don't need no flex time." which leads me to believe that people are suggesting that Romney's positing a place where only women stay at home to raise the kids (so if they want to work, they'd better have time to raise kids too). (which is apparently the take in the guardian article below). That makes it seem less about what he said then (as flex time has generally been seen as a positive by feminists) and more about the already negative opinions that Democrat women have for him
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women
I guess the solution to gender inequality in the workforce is to understand that women need to be given some time to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And plenty of affirmative action.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 07:47:40 AM
So while it was silly (and easy to laugh at) - I'm not sure how Romney's binders of women answer translates into sexism. Is it sexist to say that you made you were able to hire women candidates and allowed female staffers with children flex time? I can see it seeming like bullshit rhetoric given that it is a) Romney and b) his stance on reproductive rights but that's about it.
I saw friends posting all over facebook with "I'm a woman and I don't need no flex time." which leads me to believe that people are suggesting that Romney's positing a place where only women stay at home to raise the kids (so if they want to work, they'd better have time to raise kids too). (which is apparently the take in the guardian article below). That makes it seem less about what he said then (as flex time has generally been seen as a positive by feminists) and more about the already negative opinions that Democrat women have for him
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women
What bothered me about the comment was that none of the initial candidates were women, despite the fact that he had "binders full of qualified women". It took him requesting them specifically before they were trotted out to be vetted.
As for the flex time thing, I had to explain to my single, childless female friend why that was so important to parents. She said, "If it's important to parents, why did he only mention it in regards to women? Don't men need it, too?" Which, to me, kind of sums up the problem.
Flex time is important to me! Hell, I have flex time, my gf doesn't.
Also, I took 10 weeks off to take care of my kids while she work.
but is it an issue for one of the parties? Is it even on the agenda?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2012, 06:43:51 AM
The Libya answer is a debate 'moment' because Romney fucked up.
I am not sure that will have a big impact. It looked bad on TV, but the media (maybe not MSNBC) has been pointing out that Romney was substantively right about what the president said (the video caused the attack), even if he was technically wrong about the words the president used.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2012, 08:27:58 AM
Flex time is important to me! Hell, I have flex time, my gf doesn't.
Also, I took 10 weeks off to take care of my kids while she work.
but is it an issue for one of the parties? Is it even on the agenda?
This is the first time I've heard it brought up, so probably not. It was just a way for Mitt to explain how "pro-woman" he is, despite his religion and personal opinion regarding birth control, etc. It sounded, to me, like a way to try to mitigate the "Republicans are anti-women!!" mantra that's been danced out all election season.
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2012, 08:29:48 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2012, 06:43:51 AM
The Libya answer is a debate 'moment' because Romney fucked up.
I am not sure that will have a big impact. It looked bad on TV, but the media (maybe not MSNBC) has been pointing out that Romney was substantively right about what the president said (the video caused the attack), even if he was technically wrong about the words the president used.
What made it bad, in my opinion, was the way it was played out by both candidates. Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going." That, to me, made it look like Obama really had the upper hand during the discourse. On top of that, Obama took absolute responsibility for what happened to the ambassador, while Mitt never acknowledged that he handled the situation poorly.
From beginning to end, that whole vignette went to Obama.
From the POV of a man, it seems to me that the main problem with Mitt's woman response is that he betrayed the gender stereotypes while trying to show how understanding he is. It's almost like he went "Employers have to be flexible enough to not put too much on the women's shoulders during that time of the month."
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
From the POV of a man, it seems to me that the main problem with Mitt's woman response is that he betrayed the gender stereotypes while trying to show how understanding he is. It's almost like he went "Employers have to be flexible enough to not put too much on the women's shoulders during that time of the month."
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but yeah, that's kind of how it felt to me, too. He wasn't responding as though women were as capable, adaptable, and necessary as men. Just that they could be useful if things were made just so for them.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:32:26 AM
From beginning to end, that whole vignette went to Obama.
I think the same, but Obama did have a big advantage in that exchange - Mitt can hardly say that he takes responsbility for what happened, or that he feels terrible when he greets the coffins coming home or when he grieves with the families or whatever. Next to that, any attacks would look fairly petty.
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2012, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:32:26 AM
From beginning to end, that whole vignette went to Obama.
I think the same, but Obama did have a big advantage in that exchange - Mitt can hardly say that he takes responsbility for what happened, or that he feels terrible when he greets the coffins coming home or when he grieves with the families or whatever. Next to that, any attacks would look fairly petty.
I would have thought that saying, "Look, we handled that poorly. We shouldn't have gone on the attack the day after, but we were so frustrated and angry that we lost four good people that we made a misstep" would have been a good thing, but I know plenty of people who don't believe that an apology over something like that is a positive. Besides, as Mitt's wife has said time and again, Mitt never apologizes. Ever.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
From the POV of a man, it seems to me that the main problem with Mitt's woman response is that he betrayed the gender stereotypes while trying to show how understanding he is. It's almost like he went "Employers have to be flexible enough to not put too much on the women's shoulders during that time of the month."
That's the impression I got as well. I think the "binders full of women" was pretty innocuous, and really just shows how desperate some people are for a meme.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:42:42 AM
I would have thought that saying, "Look, we handled that poorly. We shouldn't have gone on the attack the day after, but we were so frustrated and angry that we lost four good people that we made a misstep" would have been a good thing...
I agree that could have been an effective line, but I don't think Mitt knew anyone had died when he made his initial statements. My impression is that he was essentially trying to play politics when he made his statement, thinking that all that had happened was that our embassy had been trashed or something, but that it kind of blew up on him when it turned out that Americans had died.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:23:42 AM
What bothered me about the comment was that none of the initial candidates were women, despite the fact that he had "binders full of qualified women". It took him requesting them specifically before they were trotted out to be vetted.
But isn't that better on him then? He had sexist advisers and said no get me women candidates.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:23:42 AMAs for the flex time thing, I had to explain to my single, childless female friend why that was so important to parents. She said, "If it's important to parents, why did he only mention it in regards to women? Don't men need it, too?" Which, to me, kind of sums up the problem.
Because the question was about equality for women? I thought also at the time that really what we needed to be discussed was gender equality but it really isn't in vogue to talk about issues for men as well.
Meanwhile Obama gets a pass when he spent most of his time talking about his daughters and single working women in his family. Oh and the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2012, 08:29:48 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2012, 06:43:51 AM
The Libya answer is a debate 'moment' because Romney fucked up.
I am not sure that will have a big impact. It looked bad on TV, but the media (maybe not MSNBC) has been pointing out that Romney was substantively right about what the president said (the video caused the attack), even if he was technically wrong about the words the president used.
If that is what the media is saying, then the media is wrong.
If you actually read the transcript of his remarks, Obama said nothing at all about what caused the attack. All he said was that there was an" attack", a "terrbible act" and an "act of terror" and he praised the Libyan security personnel who helped fight to defend the embassy. The perpetrators were simply referred to as "attackers"
He did make a reference during the speech about not wanting to "denigrate the religious beliefs of others" but he made no connection between the video and the attack on the embassy.
Fact is that Obama (unlike perhaps others in the executive branch and unlike Romney himself) did exactly the right thing and did not make any comment on the cause of the attack or the identity of the attackers before the facts were in.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:32:26 AM
Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going."
Exactly.
I thought overall Mitt was mostly very solid, just as good as in the first one. But a couple of times he tried to cross-examine Obama like a trial lawyer in a courtroom, not realizing that this was completely the wrong forum for that kind of tactic, and that there was no judge to force Obama to limit his response to the confines of his question. He did the same thing on the drilling of federal lands issue and on the pension/investments in China issue.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 09:06:06 AM
But isn't that better on him then? He had sexist advisers and said no get me women candidates.
I suppose to a degree, but my gut tells me that it was more of a "I can't have all white men in my cabinet; get me color and heels, stat" than it was "I need different perspectives, how about we get some variation in backgrounds for the cabinet." I think that comes from the way he continued on with his response.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 09:06:06 AM
Because the question was about equality for women? I thought also at the time that really what we needed to be discussed was gender equality but it really isn't in vogue to talk about issues for men as well.
I agree completely. When I heard the question, I was annoyed. If there's inequity, then address that there is inequity, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 09:06:06 AM
Meanwhile Obama gets a pass when he spent most of his time talking about his daughters and single working women in his family. Oh and the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what Obama even said. I tuned him out about 10 seconds into his response since it seemed to have nothing of any real substance. Your comment makes me think that I was right.
I disliked the question, I disliked Romney's response, and I tuned out Obama. That topic, imo, was a wash with neither winning so much as Romney losing it. That being said, it didn't really show him as being this awful sexist pig as it solidified the idea that he is old-fashioned when it comes to his view of women. I doubt that's really news to anyone.
I can dig that.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:02:19 PM
A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html)
Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.
Romney gets his facts wrong? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 07:47:40 AM
So while it was silly (and easy to laugh at) - I'm not sure how Romney's binders of women answer translates into sexism. Is it sexist to say that you made you were able to hire women candidates and allowed female staffers with children flex time? I can see it seeming like bullshit rhetoric given that it is a) Romney and b) his stance on reproductive rights but that's about it.
It doesn't, he wanted to find qualified women for his administration and he sent the call out to potential allies in this. He was sent lots of CVs, he filled binders with those CVs and he staffed his administration with lots of women.
It's not even a gaffe, It's a deliberate misrepresentation of Romney. I don't think it is fair to call Romney a sexist, his entire party in south of the mason-dixon maybe, but not him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2012, 09:16:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:32:26 AM
Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going."
Exactly.
I thought overall Mitt was mostly very solid, just as good as in the first one. But a couple of times he tried to cross-examine Obama like a trial lawyer in a courtroom, not realizing that this was completely the wrong forum for that kind of tactic, and that there was no judge to force Obama to limit his response to the confines of his question. He did the same thing on the drilling of federal lands issue and on the pension/investments in China issue.
Agree. But there was a judge (not a very good one but whatever) and she ruled in favor of Obama on the Benghazi point.
Quote from: Josephus on October 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:02:19 PM
A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html)
Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.
Romney gets his facts wrong? :huh:
Darling, do keep up. We've already note that Meri's fact-checking friend was piss-poor on his hunt. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 09:59:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2012, 09:16:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 08:32:26 AM
Mitt kept trying to "catch" Obama in a lie, and Obama just said, "No, really, just keep going."
Exactly.
I thought overall Mitt was mostly very solid, just as good as in the first one. But a couple of times he tried to cross-examine Obama like a trial lawyer in a courtroom, not realizing that this was completely the wrong forum for that kind of tactic, and that there was no judge to force Obama to limit his response to the confines of his question. He did the same thing on the drilling of federal lands issue and on the pension/investments in China issue.
Agree. But there was a judge (not a very good one but whatever) and she ruled in favor of Obama on the Benghazi point.
Well, technically Romney was right (but not substantively). The rose garden statement condemned the attack without specifying it as terror and then went on to assert that no act of terror will ever (yada yada yada)... It's almost the reverse of a non-denial denial, in this case the non-attributive attribution.
I think Obama was being subtle, possibly trying to prevent the terror label from being stuck on the attack before he knew exactly that label would be stuck on. In any case Romney's challenge was trivial and nonsensical on this issue and while he might technically have been right he was substantively wrong.
Quote from: Viking on October 17, 2012, 09:56:00 AM
It doesn't, he wanted to find qualified women for his administration and he sent the call out to potential allies in this. He was sent lots of CVs, he filled binders with those CVs and he staffed his administration with lots of women.
It's not even a gaffe, It's a deliberate misrepresentation of Romney. I don't think it is fair to call Romney a sexist, his entire party in south of the mason-dixon maybe, but not him.
As has been said, it wasn't that he said that so much as the things that he said around that statement that was... sketchy. I don't consider Romney a sexist, but I don't believe that his view of women in the office is really all that far out of the 1960s or 1970s, either. Harmless, but not really progressive or egalitarian, either.
Back in Rose Garden, was Obama referring to Al Qaeda? A lynch mob killing Americans is also an act of terror, even if it's not as organized as 9/11.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 10:01:43 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2012, 10:02:19 PM
A friend on FB posted this: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html (http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html)
Turns out Romney was way off on the gas prices thing four years ago. Gas prices were $2.66 when Obama took office, which was down from $3.48 the month before that.
Romney gets his facts wrong? :huh:
Darling, do keep up. We've already note that Meri's fact-checking friend was piss-poor on his hunt. ;)
Yes....I know :blush:
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-stumbles-latest-presidential-debate-015330844--election.html
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 10:11:28 AM
Back in Rose Garden, was Obama referring to Al Qaeda? A lynch mob killing Americans is also an act of terror, even if it's not as organized as 9/11.
He wasn't referring to anything. The whole speech boils down to "bad people did something bad".
He didn't know the facts and so didn't characterize what happened with any specificity.
In the new Republican party the reality is only the ~30-40% of women who are soccer mom religious pro-life types will ever consider voting for the GOP. The rest (rightfully) just won't vote for an anti-choice, anti-planned parenthood, pro-barefeet and pregnant kind of guy.
I think Romney is a lot more liberal than he's acted this campaign, but given his Mormon background I think he's genuinely as conservative as he acts on women's issues.
Quote from: Kleves on October 17, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I think the "binders full of women" was pretty innocuous, and really just shows how desperate some people are for a meme.
I dunno, it wasn't wholly insulting, but it was just awkward and an unwieldy example. No qualified women applicants for high positions in Massachusetts government? You had to ask for candidates, and flip through binders like you're a casting agent? You're going to use that as an example? Very poor imagery, and it was a poor exercise of thinking on his feet.
It wasn't as insulting as something that Rick Santorum would knowingly say, or how Newt would start banging an intern by the end of the question, but it just didn't look good, either.
You combine that with the Lily Ledbetter tatooing all campaign long, the issues of choice and contraception concerns that have been in play, and the overall perception of Mormonism as not exactly the most progressive of cults, it was just another shade of Mittens as someone who's either 1) at the most, clumsy or 2) at the least indifferent when it comes to addressing women's issues.
Came across to me as awkward pandering so I didn't like it, but the binders thing is really reaching as far as memes go.
Yeah, there were three separate problems with Mitt's response. First of all, he offered no systemic solution. If you're a woman trying to get a cabinet position in Romney's administration, you're in luck. However, most women aren't going to be in that binder. Secondly, he implied that you need affirmative action to get women hired, because naturally they aren't going to make it to that first binder with the most qualified candidates. And, lastly, the whole "women need flexibility to have more time where they really belong: at home" that we've already covered.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
Came across to me as awkward pandering so I didn't like it, but the binders thing is really reaching as far as memes go.
The binder thing is nothing in isolation, but adds a nice touch when the rest of the answer is a tone-deaf disaster.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 11:28:58 AM
Yeah, there were three separate problems with Mitt's response. First of all, he offered no systemic solution. If you're a woman trying to get a cabinet position in Romney's administration, you're in luck. However, most women aren't going to be in that binder. Secondly, he implied that you need affirmative action to get women hired, because naturally they aren't going to make it to that first binder with the most qualified candidates. And, lastly, the whole "women need flexibility to have more time where they really belong: at home" that we've already covered.
Whereas the systemic solution by Obama was a story about his single working mother and his grandmother, a bit about statue of limitations on equal pay cases (Lily Ledbetter) and then a discussion of helping kids pay for college. :hmm:
Also your paraphrase on flex time gets at what I thought. It had nothing to do with what Romney said but the perception from already skpetical Dems that he must be saying women should be at home.
QuoteWell, Katherine, that's a great question. And, you know,
I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school
while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made
a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we needed. My
grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got
a college education, even though she was smart as a whip. And she
worked her way up to become a vice president of a local bank, but she
hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming
her bosses during the course of her career.
She didn't complain. That's not what you did in that generation.
And this is one of the reasons why one of the first - the first bill
I signed was something called the Lily Ledbetter bill. And it's named
after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for
years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court
said that she couldn't bring suit because she should have found about
it earlier, whereas she had no way of finding out about it. So we
fixed that. And that's an example of the kind of advocacy that we
need, because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family.
This is not just a women's issue, this is a family issue, this is a
middle-class issue, and that's why we've got to fight for it.
It also means that we've got to make sure that young people like
yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier, Governor
Romney talked about he wants to make Pell Grants and other education
accessible for young people.
Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that's exactly what
we've done. We've expanded Pell Grants for millions of people,
including millions of young women, all across the country.
We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and
lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, and we said, let's
just cut out the middleman. Let's give the money directly to
students.
And as a consequence, we've seen millions of young people be able
to afford college, and that's going to make sure that young women are
going to be able to compete in that marketplace.
But we've got to enforce the laws, which is what we are doing,
and we've also got to make sure that in every walk of life we do not
tolerate discrimination.
That's been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I'm going
to continue to push on this issue for the next four years.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 11:41:33 AM
Whereas the systemic solution by Obama was a story about his single working mother and his grandmother, a bit about statue of limitations on equal pay cases (Lily Ledbetter) and then a discussion of helping kids pay for college. :hmm:
Also your paraphrase on flex time gets at what I thought. It had nothing to do with what Romney said but the perception from already skpetical Dems that he must be saying women should be at home.
*SNIP QUOTE*
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
Reading over Obama's answer, I actually kind of like his answer. He does the exact opposite of Romney and says, "It's not about women, it's about families." Well, that's true. It is. And the Lily Ledbottom thing was talking about a bill that he signed that allowed women an opportunity to sue if they've been paid unfairly even if it was a long time ago or over a long period. He talks about enforcing the laws already in place, which, well, yeah.
I think he baubled over the crap with his mother and his grandmother, though. Enough so that many - myself included - just tuned him out. Yeah, yeah, we know that you admire strong women. There's really no need to beat that dead horse anymore. Go Mom! Go Granny! :rolleyes:
The college thing, well, that's been my point from the beginning. Obama was answering the real reason for the disparity, that women tend to take lower-paying jobs. An affordable education will give women the opportunity to start taking more of the higher-paying position, which is the only real way to make a real difference in that pay disparity.
I mean, when you take the two answers together, you have to admit that Romney looks pretty out-of-touch with the situation whereas Obama actually gets it, even if his answers are mere platitudes.
I don't think I'll ever be able to get into the mindset - as far as Obama largely ignored the question and went to one of his strength education instead and somehow that's a good answer. :mellow:
Oh and I left out Obama's piece after Romney spoke which was focused on women's healthcare. Also irrelevant much? :D
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
The college thing, well, that's been my point from the beginning. Obama was answering the real reason for the disparity, that women tend to take lower-paying jobs. An affordable education will give women the opportunity to start taking more of the higher-paying position, which is the only real way to make a real difference in that pay disparity.
This also doesn't make sense to me insofar as while our economy is fucked (which is what Romney eventually went onto as his strength), even if we had more people entering colleges - they wouldn't have good jobs to take afterward. If anything it seems like we need to re-think our strategy of having everyone go to college. Even if it was affordable, having everyone go to college just means that employers set the bar higher.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
Came across to me as awkward pandering so I didn't like it, but the binders thing is really reaching as far as memes go.
The binder thing is nothing in isolation, but adds a nice touch when the rest of the answer is a tone-deaf disaster.
Well, in isolation it's just an odd statement. It's difficult to find women who fit into binders, and the inside of office supplies is not the woman's natural habitat.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2012, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
Came across to me as awkward pandering so I didn't like it, but the binders thing is really reaching as far as memes go.
The binder thing is nothing in isolation, but adds a nice touch when the rest of the answer is a tone-deaf disaster.
Well, in isolation it's just an odd statement. It's difficult to find women who fit into binders, and the inside of office supplies is not the woman's natural habitat.
Yeah, "truck full of women" would make more sense, but everyone is allowed to misspeak once in a while.
Romney has reached his greatest lead against Obama at +6 in Gallup polling. However, polling was done up thru yesterday, so we will see starting tomorrow if Obama's stronger debate performance arrests the momentum.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
The college thing, well, that's been my point from the beginning. Obama was answering the real reason for the disparity, that women tend to take lower-paying jobs. An affordable education will give women the opportunity to start taking more of the higher-paying position, which is the only real way to make a real difference in that pay disparity.
This also doesn't make sense to me insofar as while our economy is fucked (which is what Romney eventually went onto as his strength), even if we had more people entering colleges - they wouldn't have good jobs to take afterward. If anything it seems like we need to re-think our strategy of having everyone go to college. Even if it was affordable, having everyone go to college just means that employers set the bar higher.
Yeah, but I think the point was made that low-skilled jobs are out of the picture for good. We'll never get those back from China, which is why we need to focus on high-skilled (educated) labourers. There's not going to be much hope for people without a college education, at a bare minimum.
Quote from: Josephus on October 17, 2012, 12:55:59 PM
Yeah, but I think the point was made that low-skilled jobs are out of the picture for good. We'll never get those back from China, which is why we need to focus on high-skilled (educated) labourers. There's not going to be much hope for people without a college education, at a bare minimum.
Two things - 1 - Obama's focus for skilled jobs as he mentioned several times was manufacturing. While lovely for well rounding - not sure that a liberal education is good for that.
2 - disagree. Though we've had degree creep, there isn't a real reason for jobs like admins to need college degrees. Similarly, there are plenty of ample opportunities for things like plumbers and electricians that can't be outsourced. While there's definitely training needed for those positions (and thus highly skilled) - a sociology degree from Framingham State isn't going to be particularly useful.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
This also doesn't make sense to me insofar as while our economy is fucked (which is what Romney eventually went onto as his strength), even if we had more people entering colleges - they wouldn't have good jobs to take afterward. If anything it seems like we need to re-think our strategy of having everyone go to college. Even if it was affordable, having everyone go to college just means that employers set the bar higher.
Well, and it's kind of a silly thing to say, when you think about it. Didn't the latest numbers come out saying that there are more women in college than men? I thought it was something like 60/40, but I could be way off on that. The truth is that the disparity is being taken care of, but it's going to take time, not policy to get there. They can't say that in a debate, of course, but it's nonetheless true.
Sure, women are still going into the "traditionally" female programs, but there are more women in the more traditionally masculine fields than ever. I believe that that is the real answer to fixing that disparity. Of course, flexibility in the workplace for everyone is always good, too, but ultimately, it comes down to women choosing higher-paying careers, and that's just not a policy issue.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
Two things - 1 - Obama's focus for skilled jobs as he mentioned several times was manufacturing. While lovely for well rounding - not sure that a liberal education is good for that.
2 - disagree. Though we've had degree creep, there isn't a real reason for jobs like admins to need college degrees. Similarly, there are plenty of ample opportunities for things like plumbers and electricians that can't be outsourced. While there's definitely training needed for those positions (and thus highly skilled) - a sociology degree from Framingham State isn't going to be particularly useful.
I absolutely agree on both points.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
This also doesn't make sense to me insofar as while our economy is fucked (which is what Romney eventually went onto as his strength), even if we had more people entering colleges - they wouldn't have good jobs to take afterward. If anything it seems like we need to re-think our strategy of having everyone go to college. Even if it was affordable, having everyone go to college just means that employers set the bar higher.
Well, and it's kind of a silly thing to say, when you think about it. Didn't the latest numbers come out saying that there are more women in college than men? I thought it was something like 60/40, but I could be way off on that. The truth is that the disparity is being taken care of, but it's going to take time, not policy to get there. They can't say that in a debate, of course, but it's nonetheless true.
Sure, women are still going into the "traditionally" female programs, but there are more women in the more traditionally masculine fields than ever. I believe that that is the real answer to fixing that disparity. Of course, flexibility in the workplace for everyone is always good, too, but ultimately, it comes down to women choosing higher-paying careers, and that's just not a policy issue.
Yeah it would be political suicide to suggest that the majority of problems faced on that front have already been addressed about as well as they can from a policy standpoint.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
This also doesn't make sense to me insofar as while our economy is fucked (which is what Romney eventually went onto as his strength), even if we had more people entering colleges - they wouldn't have good jobs to take afterward. If anything it seems like we need to re-think our strategy of having everyone go to college. Even if it was affordable, having everyone go to college just means that employers set the bar higher.
Well, and it's kind of a silly thing to say, when you think about it. Didn't the latest numbers come out saying that there are more women in college than men? I thought it was something like 60/40, but I could be way off on that. The truth is that the disparity is being taken care of, but it's going to take time, not policy to get there. They can't say that in a debate, of course, but it's nonetheless true.
Sure, women are still going into the "traditionally" female programs, but there are more women in the more traditionally masculine fields than ever. I believe that that is the real answer to fixing that disparity. Of course, flexibility in the workplace for everyone is always good, too, but ultimately, it comes down to women choosing higher-paying careers, and that's just not a policy issue.
Yeah it would be political suicide to suggest that the majority of problems faced on that front have already been addressed about as well as they can from a policy standpoint.
In other words, Obama had no choice but to spout bullshit. He just did it better than Romney did. :D
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 12:08:53 PM
This also doesn't make sense to me insofar as while our economy is fucked (which is what Romney eventually went onto as his strength), even if we had more people entering colleges - they wouldn't have good jobs to take afterward. If anything it seems like we need to re-think our strategy of having everyone go to college. Even if it was affordable, having everyone go to college just means that employers set the bar higher.
Well, and it's kind of a silly thing to say, when you think about it. Didn't the latest numbers come out saying that there are more women in college than men? I thought it was something like 60/40, but I could be way off on that. The truth is that the disparity is being taken care of, but it's going to take time, not policy to get there. They can't say that in a debate, of course, but it's nonetheless true.
Sure, women are still going into the "traditionally" female programs, but there are more women in the more traditionally masculine fields than ever. I believe that that is the real answer to fixing that disparity. Of course, flexibility in the workplace for everyone is always good, too, but ultimately, it comes down to women choosing higher-paying careers, and that's just not a policy issue.
Yeah it would be political suicide to suggest that the majority of problems faced on that front have already been addressed about as well as they can from a policy standpoint.
In other words, Obama had no choice but to spout bullshit. He just did it better than Romney did. :D
He was better at deflecting the question as it isn't a sore spot for him. On the flip side, Romney had to address it as to shy from it would just play into Seedy/Jacob's Republican War on Women.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
Similarly, there are plenty of ample opportunities for things like plumbers and electricians that can't be outsourced. While there's definitely training needed for those positions (and thus highly skilled) - a sociology degree from Framingham State isn't going to be particularly useful.
Guest workers from the Third World.
It's the Religious Right's Republican War on women. Got nothing to do with me.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 01:31:24 PM
It's the Religious Right's Republican War on women. Got nothing to do with me.
Those who sell a canard get identified with it.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2012, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
Similarly, there are plenty of ample opportunities for things like plumbers and electricians that can't be outsourced. While there's definitely training needed for those positions (and thus highly skilled) - a sociology degree from Framingham State isn't going to be particularly useful.
Guest workers from the Third World.
I don't see how that'd be viable. We already decry it when Dubai does it.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:32:36 PMThose who sell a canard get identified with it.
You're the one who brought it up, you canard-monger you.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:33:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2012, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
Similarly, there are plenty of ample opportunities for things like plumbers and electricians that can't be outsourced. While there's definitely training needed for those positions (and thus highly skilled) - a sociology degree from Framingham State isn't going to be particularly useful.
Guest workers from the Third World.
I don't see how that'd be viable. We already decry it when Dubai does it.
In Sweden we use Slavs. Works reasonably well.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 01:35:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:32:36 PMThose who sell a canard get identified with it.
You're the one who brought it up, you canard-monger you.
Weren't you the one who started a thread about it? ;)
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Yes, and men. There have been some of both genders that have required special accomodations for a variety of reasons.
And now that you've managed to troll me (Anger and Seedy are going to be annoyed that you got to me before they did), I'm done. :P
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Yes, my boss is a woman.
Never had a problem working with or for women before (except for the long-forgotten Cpl. Reuters, if you long timers remember), but women that have to work with other women have my sincerest sympathies.
Wisconsin continues to look like a toss-up. Should Romney visit the state?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html
The binders thing has taken off because it just sounds a little weird - the very idea of a "catalog" of women just doesn't call the right imagery to mind. Every now and then Romney has a habit of expressing himself in a way that while not exactly wrong, sounds "off" - like the heights of the trees comment.
Mitt seems to be the kind of person that works hard to be master of his brief, in part because he does best when he can rely on his meticulous preparation, and isn't as comfortable talking off the cuff. I get the impression he wasn't 100% prepared for that question. Because the right way to deliver that answer would be something like: When I was elected Governor of Massachusetts, I made it an immediate priority to identify the best and most qualified women in the State for appointment to senior cabinet positions. Then cite to the UNY-Albany study.
Instead he starts off by saying:
Quotehad the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men?
Which if you think about it, is bizarre. Senior cabinet positions aren't usually filled by solicitation of applications. An incoming administration usually generates its own short list. The idea of Romney just sitting back passively and waiting for applications to roll in doesn't make a lot of sense. What really happened is that his staff had a short list and the short list had men on it because those were the people his staff put on the list.
I just want to point out that when i was responsible for hiring interns, I always hired women.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Yes, my boss is a woman.
:console:
Quote from: Josephus on October 17, 2012, 02:13:16 PM
I just want to point out that when i was responsible for hiring interns, I always hired women.
young attractive women need experience too, I agree :D
Quote from: HVC on October 17, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Yes, my boss is a woman.
:console:
He's gay, so his boss is in a worse position than he is.
Quote from: HVC on October 17, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Yes, my boss is a woman.
:console:
I've no problem with it. She's pretty good. :)
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 17, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 01:41:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I didn't read Romney as saying that women should be at home. What I read it as was that women needed special treatment in order to be able to work at the level as men.
...
Hush, you. <_<
I'm just saying, have you ever worked with a woman?
Yes, my boss is a woman.
:console:
I've no problem with it. She's pretty good. :)
you wouldn't settle for pretty good if she were a dude. See, Romney was right, we must coddle female employees.
I have officially entered the race to get a rise out of meri :P
Quote from: HVC on October 17, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
you wouldn't settle for pretty good if she were a dude. See, Romney was right, we must coddle female employees.
I have officially entered the race to get a rise out of meri :P
My first boss was a man and we saw how well that worked out.
I wish Herman Cain was running. He is a hoot. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:56:25 PMWeren't you the one who started a thread about it? ;)
That's a pretty weak standard to employ.
http://www.caintv.com/ObamaMorefeistyperhapsbutjusta-584
QuoteBarack Obama knew he had to do something different last night than he did in the first debate, and he did. He acted indignant. He interrupted. He gave us the whole feisty routine that we had been told we would see.
But there's one thing he didn't do any better than he did in the first debate, and that was defend his record. His record is no better now than it was two weeks ago, so no matter how much differently he comports himself, the facts are still the facts.
For me, though, the defining moment was one of the last. After Mitt Romney talked about the need to change policies so we can attract more jobs and build businesses, President Obama railed against the notion of cutting government spending, or "investments" as he calls it, because this spending is what will lead to the founding of the next Apple or the next other great American company.
This was astounding! Barack Obama really believes that great American businesses are created because of government spending! My friends, this man's ignorance about business and job creation is unbelievable!
Mitt Romney had a simple but powerful rejoinder: Government doesn't create jobs. And moments later, Obama claimed to believe the same thing. But he has demonstrated for the past four years that he doesn't, because everything he does favors the heavy hand of government and treats the private-sector business community as if it's a bunch of criminals stealing from the poor.
Obama may have been more feisty this time, but he was just as wrong last night as he was in Denver, and as he's been for the past four years.
Quote from: HVC on October 17, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
I have officially entered the race to get a rise out of meri :P
:mad:
There. You win!
That said it was pretty cute Cain's comment about welcoming Hillary under the bus.
QuoteNow they're throwing Hillary under the bus. It's pretty crowded under that bus, because Obama does not take responsibility when he messes up – and he messes up a lot.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 01:56:25 PMWeren't you the one who started a thread about it? ;)
That's a pretty weak standard to employ.
In honest, I only put you on as I didn't want to give the appearance of picking on Seedy. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 02:34:45 PMIn honest, I only put you on as I didn't want to give the appearance of picking on Seedy. :hug:
:lol:
I don't mind the company; Seedy's good people.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 02:34:45 PMIn honest, I only put you on as I didn't want to give the appearance of picking on Seedy. :hug:
:lol:
I don't mind the company; Seedy's good people.
The man is a waste of cat.
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2012, 02:37:11 PM
The man is a waste of cat.
Cat can't reach the fireplace switch; I can. In return, she keeps my nuts warm at night. We have a relationship of utility.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2012, 02:40:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 17, 2012, 02:37:11 PM
The man is a waste of cat.
Cat can't reach the fireplace switch; I can. In return, she keeps my nuts warm at night. We have a relationship of utility.
:o Not too warm I hope. I haven't given up on you.
Don't you think about my cat that way. :mad:
:lol:
Only Seedy can think of his cat that way.
Romney has expanded his Gallup lead to 6 (51 to 45). From the debate, I expect Obama to eat into that lead by a at least a couple points. But if Romney manages to stick around at 51 or 50 for the next week or so then Obama's got problems.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
I'm going to call bullshit on that 6 point lead for Romney. More crap polls being cherrypicked. Putting many different polls together isn't going to reduce the margin of error if you're going to take the most extreme result as representative; it's actually going to increase it past the stated 3% or whatever it is.
Not sure how Gallup is a crap poll. They have the largest sample size of all the polls (2700).
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
Not sure how Gallup is a crap poll. They have the largest sample size of all the polls (2700).
Sample size is one of the many considerations when considering the quality of the poll, and by far the easiest to quantify. Sample size won't help you one bit if your sampling methodology is flawed. You can sample 100,000 people and still be off if all your respondents are in Utah.
Hasn't Gallup been the most accurate one?
I think D has been on edge since that quiz told him to vote for Romney.
And in any case, the cherry-picking point applies much more strongly. Any poll is going to have some margin of error, even the most well-designed, consistent, and unbiased ones. If you're going to go with the most jaw-dropping one each time, citing Pew Research one week, Gallup the next, and then whichever one looks the most ominous for Obama the week after, you're going to be off by a lot.
Your strategy of picking a poll to cite is going to always find a poll whose house effect combined with random error swings the most from the true number, and that combined effect may be much higher than the stated margin of error. Margin of error, apart from assuming perfect sampling, also assumes that the poll result is picked at random. By picking the most favorable poll for Romney, no matter how reputable it is, you're blowing that assumption out of the water.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2012, 04:15:26 PM
Hasn't Gallup been the most accurate one?
Actually, it's the one most tilted towards Republicans, at least according to 538.
It's a conspiracy. Romney's winning because of internet quizzes telling susceptible Democrat leaners they like Romney. :ph34r:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2012, 04:21:55 PM
It's a conspiracy. Romney's winning because of internet quizzes telling susceptible Democrat leaners they like Romney. :ph34r:
Damn Christian Science Monitor and their dastardly plot!
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 04:21:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 17, 2012, 04:15:26 PM
Hasn't Gallup been the most accurate one?
Actually, it's the one most tilted towards Republicans, at least according to 538.
There is no evidence of an ideological bent in Gallup's organization, unlike with say, Rasmussen. Polling isn't exactly as simple as just calling a few thousand random people and asking them questions. You have to try to create a "representative sample."
Every pollster has a different technique for determining what is a "representative sample" some polls might do this to intentionally make one candidate look stronger, but most of the "big polls" like Reuters, WaPo/ABC, WSJ/NBC, Gallup, NyTimes/CBS I don't think have any intentional biases along party lines. They have different ways of constructing their sample which, in different elections will be more or less favorable to different parties and candidates.
I'm not a Karl Rove fan per se, but he made a good point in the Wall Street Journal the other day, that people ascribe a certain aura of scientific accuracy to polls that just aren't real. When individuals look at a poll they often ignore the margin of error, assuming it's just a "hedge" and the poll result is all that matters. In fact the margin of error is extremely important, as are the questions asked, how they were asked etc.
That is why things like RCP's Poll of Polls and Nate Silver's 538 are a good way to look at the big picture, because they look incorporate polls from many agencies throughout the election.
Something I find interesting, we all know Nate Silver is a lefty, but some people actually think his "percent" means something other than it does. I've met people who think his current 65% chance to win for Obama is akin to Obama "polling 65%." Nothing could be further from the truth, what it actually means is that under Silver's model on election day he's saying there is a 65%
chance that the election goes to Obama. That's not the same as Obama polling 65%--if he was polling that there would be a 100% chance of him winning election.
Within the context of Silver's own model, he considers anything less than 60/40 for one candidate to be "up in the air." So he's projecting an Obama victory, but under his model if Obama's chance to win hit 60% or lower he'd consider the election "up in the air."
Here's the breakdown of yesterday's debate viewers:
NBC: 13.8 million total viewers
ABC: 12.5 million total viewers
Fox News: 11.1 million total viewers/3.460m adults 25-54
CBS: 8.9 million total viewers
CNN: 5.8 million total viewers/2.581m adults 25-54
MSNBC: 4.9 million total viewers/1.920m adults 25-54
FOX: 4.6 million total viewers
So Fox News viewers kicked MSNBC viewers in the chin. What to make of that?
Msnbc sucks, and continues to suck in the ratings.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2012, 04:21:55 PM
It's a conspiracy. Romney's winning because of internet quizzes telling susceptible Democrat leaners they like Romney. :ph34r:
He needs to chill out a bit and stop with the stalking.
But as to the polls, I said several months ago that the two I mainly follow are Rasmussen and Gallup. I cited the Pew poll the other day with a bit of skepticism, but apparently it still offended him that I dared mention it.
I know it makes him uncomfortable to even think of the possibility of Obama losing, but it might be wise for him to grow up a bit and confront that fear.
FWIW, I'm still sticking with my prediction from a while back of Romney winning the popular vote and Obama winning EC.
Quote from: Josephus on October 17, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
Here's the breakdown of yesterday's debate viewers:
NBC: 13.8 million total viewers
ABC: 12.5 million total viewers
Fox News: 11.1 million total viewers/3.460m adults 25-54
CBS: 8.9 million total viewers
CNN: 5.8 million total viewers/2.581m adults 25-54
MSNBC: 4.9 million total viewers/1.920m adults 25-54
FOX: 4.6 million total viewers
So Fox News viewers kicked MSNBC viewers in the chin. What to make of that?
That's pretty representative of cable news network viewership.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 06:36:29 PM
He needs to chill out a bit and stop with the stalking.
You seriously need to chill out with the accusations of stalking. It was amusing at first, but now it's getting personal. It's a very dirty tactic to discredit someone and de-legitimize their posts, so I would ask you kindly to fuck off and take it like a man if someone disagrees with you.
Quote from: Josephus on October 17, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
So Fox News viewers kicked MSNBC viewers in the chin. What to make of that?
That most lefties consider CNN and the networks to be "fair" and so don't need a channel to explicitly reaffirm their own biases.
Which is more dirty: Accusations of stalking or bringing up your opponent's race to show his inferiority?
Accusations of stalking are lamer, dunno about dirty.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 06:41:42 PMYou seriously need to chill out with the accusations of stalking. It was amusing at first, but now it's getting personal. It's a very dirty tactic to discredit someone and de-legitimize their posts, so I would ask you kindly to fuck off and take it like a man if someone disagrees with you.
Why are you letting yourself get trolled with such a lame line?
Somebody's tiny Slavic fists are balled in fury. Too bad about the blueberries he was holding at the time.
The funny thing is that it's Spicy who's stalking Deagol in the first place.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 17, 2012, 06:23:15 PM
Msnbc sucks, and continues to suck in the ratings.
It's an acquired taste.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 06:41:42 PMYou seriously need to chill out with the accusations of stalking. It was amusing at first, but now it's getting personal. It's a very dirty tactic to discredit someone and de-legitimize their posts, so I would ask you kindly to fuck off and take it like a man if someone disagrees with you.
Why are you letting yourself get trolled with such a lame line?
Because it's not a troll, it's a genuine personal attack. Just because the accusation is a bit out there doesn't mean that it's a deliberate provocation. I tend to react strongly (some may say over-react) to genuine attacks on my character.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 07:12:56 PMBecause it's not a troll, it's a genuine personal attack. Just because the accusation is a bit out there doesn't mean that it's a deliberate provocation. I tend to react strongly (some may say over-react) to genuine attacks on my character.
That's a weakness, especially in a place like this.
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, DG. I just think you could stand to be a bit more respectful when you do. I'd like to think I've been pretty respectful to you as well as to most other posters here.
Your responses come across as stalking because you seem to jump out of nowhere and start bitching at me at full froth, as if we had been in a heated discussion. Nobody else here does that (save for maybe Marty). It's unseemly and frankly indicates poor social skills.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 07:14:23 PM
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, DG. I just think you could stand to be a bit more respectful when you do. I'd like to think I've been pretty respectful to you as well as to most other posters here.
Your responses come across as stalking because you seem to jump out of nowhere and start bitching at me at full froth, as if we had been in a heated discussion. Nobody else here does that (save for maybe Marty). It's unseemly and frankly indicates poor social skills.
It's a Ukrainian thing. When he's upset, the jumpsuit chafes.
I think we all should unite against the real enemy, Tim.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 07:06:54 PM
The funny thing is that it's Spicy who's stalking Deagol in the first place.
How's that? I rarely respond to any of his posts.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 17, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
I think we all should unite against the real enemy, Tim.
Nah, I like space threads.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 17, 2012, 07:04:04 PM
Somebody's tiny Slavic fists are balled in fury. Too bad about the blueberries he was holding at the time.
I'm 6'2", my fists are big enough.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 17, 2012, 07:04:04 PM
Somebody's tiny Slavic fists are balled in fury. Too bad about the blueberries he was holding at the time.
I'm 6'2", my fists are big enough.
No blueberry denial though.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
I'm 6'2", my fists are big enough.
Do the blueberries stain your pillows when you punch them?
That turns me on.
Sorry to ruin your fantasies, guys, but I eat blueberries with a teaspoon. :(
Gay.
I like frozen blueberries with sugar. It's a lovely summertime treat.
But a teaspoon, though? Whiskey Teaspoon Foxtrot, man. Pinky raised, too?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2012, 07:25:44 PM
I like frozen blueberries with sugar. It's a lovely summertime treat.
But a teaspoon, though? Whiskey Teaspoon Foxtrot, man. Pinky raised, too?
How exactly are you supposed to eat them? Pick them up with your fingers one by one?
He's aping civilized westerners.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 07:27:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2012, 07:25:44 PM
I like frozen blueberries with sugar. It's a lovely summertime treat.
But a teaspoon, though? Whiskey Teaspoon Foxtrot, man. Pinky raised, too?
How exactly are you supposed to eat them? Pick them up with your fingers one by one?
Like their the blueberries of your vanquished opponents, you stab 'em with a fork until they scream.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 07:14:23 PM
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, DG. I just think you could stand to be a bit more respectful when you do. I'd like to think I've been pretty respectful to you as well as to most other posters here.
Your responses come across as stalking because you seem to jump out of nowhere and start bitching at me at full froth, as if we had been in a heated discussion. Nobody else here does that (save for maybe Marty). It's unseemly and frankly indicates poor social skills.
Fair enough, I'll try to suffer you a little more gladly in the future.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2012, 07:29:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 07:27:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2012, 07:25:44 PM
I like frozen blueberries with sugar. It's a lovely summertime treat.
But a teaspoon, though? Whiskey Teaspoon Foxtrot, man. Pinky raised, too?
How exactly are you supposed to eat them? Pick them up with your fingers one by one?
Like their the blueberries of your vanquished opponents, you stab 'em with a fork until they scream.
Then wipe their remains on the curtains.
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 07:27:04 PM
How exactly are you supposed to eat them?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_AbImehj4LiA%2FR-LjTFsUpdI%2FAAAAAAAAC6E%2FFjw4G1fwjRQ%2Fs400%2Fblueberry%2Bcobbler.jpg&hash=c89dea1f2b015c49507d3b527377daff42084aa2)
:licklips:
Pour the blueberries in your hand and chew them by the mouthful. Then swill a nice glass of white wine and orange juice.
Quote from: PDH on October 17, 2012, 07:39:13 PM
Pour the blueberries in your hand and chew them by the mouthful. Then swill a nice glass of white wine and orange juice.
Ah, going "Polish"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 17, 2012, 07:25:44 PM
I like frozen blueberries with sugar. It's a lovely summertime treat.
But a teaspoon, though? Whiskey Teaspoon Foxtrot, man. Pinky raised, too?
Seriously. Who eats with a teaspoon?
:huh: Do you people eat Snickers bars with your hands too?
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
:huh: Do you people eat Snickers bars with your hands too?
That would make sense.
I think a normal person could eat blueberries with a spoon but not a teaspoon.
Is there something wrong with eating blueberries by the handful? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
:huh: Do you people eat Snickers bars with your hands too?
Of course not! Don't be gauche. We use our feet for those. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 10:34:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 17, 2012, 10:31:17 PM
:huh: Do you people eat Snickers bars with your hands too?
That would make sense.
I think a normal person could eat blueberries with a spoon but not a teaspoon.
Wait. What? What's the difference? :unsure:
This is what I call a teaspoon:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F00%2FTeaspoon.jpg%2F150px-Teaspoon.jpg&hash=82888c3a6f9560ada91fc06221a3528f9101f659)
How is that different from the spoon that you're talking about?
I've only ever used it to describe the measuring spoon. If that's the case though then I back DGul as blueberries in cream are best with a spoon not one's hands.
Yeah, I don't get the distinction. They just seem like spoons of different sizes to me. Spoon will do just fine as well, but I usually have a lot more clean teaspoons lying around than clean spoons. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 10:41:42 PM
I've only ever used it to describe the measuring spoon. If that's the case though then I back DGul as blueberries in cream are best with a spoon not one's hands.
OK, well a teaspoon is not just a unit of measurement, it's also the smaller spoon that you will get in a cutlery set.
Quote from: Neil on October 17, 2012, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 10:41:42 PM
I've only ever used it to describe the measuring spoon. If that's the case though then I back DGul as blueberries in cream are best with a spoon not one's hands.
OK, well a teaspoon is not just a unit of measurement, it's also the smaller spoon that you will get in a cutlery set.
For pouring sugar into your tea and stirring with (but not putting back into the sugar after you've stirred), in fact.
Hence the name.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
For pouring sugar into your tea and stirring with (but not putting back into the sugar after you've stirred), in fact.
Hence the name.
That's the way I was taught. Not for any other uses.
Now, grapefruit spoons, those are cool. Got teeth.
For that I'd use a smaller, atypical spoon. Not the regular size spoon.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 11:08:48 PM
For that I'd use a smaller, atypical spoon.
Proper teaspoons have longer stems, because iced tea glasses are traditionally taller, thinner. Think Tom Collins glasses.
So to kind of get back on topic, I just found this tidbit about the "binders full of women" that Romney allegedly requested:
Link (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/17/romney-lied-about-binders-full-of-women-anecdote-surprised/)
QuoteBefore the end of the debate, the 'binders full of women' comment had gone viral, spawning a Twitter storm, graphics on Tumblr, and a Facebook page with almost 260,000 fans at time of press. The phrase was also the third-fastest rising search on Google during the debate.
Here's what actually happened: A group of Massachusetts women's advocates called MassGAP collaborated on identifying women qualified to assume senior government positions before Romney even took office, according to David Bernstein and others familiar with the binders Romney is describing. The women's group took the initiative to deliver the data to Romney; he did not request it as he indicated in the debate. Bernstein writes:
"[MassGAP] did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected. I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct – and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false."
Now, you can't really blame Mitt if they're handing him stuff before he gets a chance to ask. At the same time, he doesn't get to claim credit for it as proof that he's all about equality in the workplace, either.
The same article (on a very liberal website and with other, spurious claims attached), it mentioned that under Romney, the number of women in high-ranking positions actually went down from the previous administration, from 30% women to 27.6%. That's a pretty small amount, in my opinion, to quibble over, and seems hardly worth mentioning. This next part, though, does seem a bit more telling:
QuoteBain Capital, the company Romney headed for more than 15 years, counts only 8% women among its 87 managing directors and senior executives — meaning the company appoints males to senior positions 92% of the time.
I guess he didn't have the MassGAP chicks to do his work for him there. :(
Mitt could have been stretching the truth a little. But I don't trust this MassGAP group, either.
So you won't highlight the fact that binders of women actually existed?
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2012, 11:23:25 PM
Mitt could have been stretching the truth a little. But I don't trust this MassGAP group, either.
I'm not sure why one shouldn't trust them as they do talk about Romney on their own site - in a positive light.
As to Meri's claim about Bain...so she spends a lot of time talking about women not pushing for higher paying positions but then suddenly its on Romney when they aren't in those higher paying positions? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2012, 11:16:56 PM
So to kind of get back on topic, I just found this tidbit about the "binders full of women" that Romney allegedly requested:
Link (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/17/romney-lied-about-binders-full-of-women-anecdote-surprised/)
QuoteBefore the end of the debate, the 'binders full of women' comment had gone viral, spawning a Twitter storm, graphics on Tumblr, and a Facebook page with almost 260,000 fans at time of press. The phrase was also the third-fastest rising search on Google during the debate.
Here's what actually happened: A group of Massachusetts women's advocates called MassGAP collaborated on identifying women qualified to assume senior government positions before Romney even took office, according to David Bernstein and others familiar with the binders Romney is describing. The women's group took the initiative to deliver the data to Romney; he did not request it as he indicated in the debate. Bernstein writes:
"[MassGAP] did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected. I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct – and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false."
Now, you can't really blame Mitt if they're handing him stuff before he gets a chance to ask. At the same time, he doesn't get to claim credit for it as proof that he's all about equality in the workplace, either.
The same article (on a very liberal website and with other, spurious claims attached), it mentioned that under Romney, the number of women in high-ranking positions actually went down from the previous administration, from 30% women to 27.6%. That's a pretty small amount, in my opinion, to quibble over, and seems hardly worth mentioning. This next part, though, does seem a bit more telling:
QuoteBain Capital, the company Romney headed for more than 15 years, counts only 8% women among its 87 managing directors and senior executives — meaning the company appoints males to senior positions 92% of the time.
I guess he didn't have the MassGAP chicks to do his work for him there. :(
Woman, we are talking about spoons! This can wait.
I thought that Tea Spoons were the long ones, used for stirring.
From Wiki
A teaspoon, an item of cutlery, is a small spoon, commonly part of a silverware (usually silver plated, German silver or now, stainless steel) place setting, suitable for stirring and sipping the contents of a cup of tea or coffee. Utilitarian versions are used for measuring.
Teaspoons with longer handles, such as iced tea spoons, are commonly used also for ice cream desserts or floats. Similar spoons include the tablespoon and the dessert spoon, the latter intermediate in size between a teaspoon and a tablespoon, used in eating dessert and sometimes soup or cereals. Much less common is the coffee spoon, which is a smaller version of the teaspoon. Another teaspoon, called an orange spoon (in American English: grapefruit spoon), tapers to a sharp point or teeth, and is used to separate citrus fruits from their membranes. A bar spoon, equivalent to a teaspoon, is used in measuring ingredients for mixed drinks.
A container designed to hold extra teaspoons, called a spooner, usually in a set with a covered sugar container, formed a part of Victorian table service.
The teaspoon is first mentioned in an advertisement in an 1686 edition of the London Gazette.[1][2]
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 11:25:33 PM
So you won't highlight the fact that binders of women actually existed?
You can't put women in binders, only small chunks of them will fit!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldrecordacademy.com%2Fbiggest%2Fimg%2F112134-1_largest_ring_binder_Impact_Enterprises.jpg&hash=2ee498c21507bfec807f6a75547b666f1532e4f0)
Quote from: Josephus on October 18, 2012, 08:45:46 AM
From Wiki
A teaspoon, an item of cutlery, is a small spoon, commonly part of a silverware (usually silver plated, German silver or now, stainless steel) place setting, suitable for stirring and sipping the contents of a cup of tea or coffee. Utilitarian versions are used for measuring.
Teaspoons with longer handles, such as iced tea spoons, are commonly used also for ice cream desserts or floats. Similar spoons include the tablespoon and the dessert spoon, the latter intermediate in size between a teaspoon and a tablespoon, used in eating dessert and sometimes soup or cereals. Much less common is the coffee spoon, which is a smaller version of the teaspoon. Another teaspoon, called an orange spoon (in American English: grapefruit spoon), tapers to a sharp point or teeth, and is used to separate citrus fruits from their membranes. A bar spoon, equivalent to a teaspoon, is used in measuring ingredients for mixed drinks.
A container designed to hold extra teaspoons, called a spooner, usually in a set with a covered sugar container, formed a part of Victorian table service.
The teaspoon is first mentioned in an advertisement in an 1686 edition of the London Gazette.[1][2]
Sounds like nearly everything is a teaspoon, except when it is not.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldrecordacademy.com%2Fbiggest%2Fimg%2F112134-1_largest_ring_binder_Impact_Enterprises.jpg&hash=2ee498c21507bfec807f6a75547b666f1532e4f0)
That is a big binder.
It's supposed to be Obama's Binder for the next four years. With nothing in it, of course.
Notice how it's black? I did.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 18, 2012, 08:45:46 AM
From Wiki
A teaspoon, an item of cutlery, is a small spoon, commonly part of a silverware (usually silver plated, German silver or now, stainless steel) place setting, suitable for stirring and sipping the contents of a cup of tea or coffee. Utilitarian versions are used for measuring.
Teaspoons with longer handles, such as iced tea spoons, are commonly used also for ice cream desserts or floats. Similar spoons include the tablespoon and the dessert spoon, the latter intermediate in size between a teaspoon and a tablespoon, used in eating dessert and sometimes soup or cereals. Much less common is the coffee spoon, which is a smaller version of the teaspoon. Another teaspoon, called an orange spoon (in American English: grapefruit spoon), tapers to a sharp point or teeth, and is used to separate citrus fruits from their membranes. A bar spoon, equivalent to a teaspoon, is used in measuring ingredients for mixed drinks.
A container designed to hold extra teaspoons, called a spooner, usually in a set with a covered sugar container, formed a part of Victorian table service.
The teaspoon is first mentioned in an advertisement in an 1686 edition of the London Gazette.[1][2]
Sounds like nearly everything is a teaspoon, except when it is not.
Yeah..basically any spoon that's not your basic large soup spoon
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 18, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
It's supposed to be Obama's Binder for the next four years. With nothing in it, of course.
Notice how it's black? I did.
I remember reading a book as a child that when on about why is it that pages are always white.
I think it was this: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Snowman-Blue-Ribbon-Book/dp/0590448730
Pages are white with dark print because that's easier to read.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 18, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Pages are white with dark print because that's easier to read.
No. Because the white devils made it so.
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 18, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Pages are white with dark print because that's easier to read.
No. Because the white devils made it so.
"Don't hate me 'cause I've found the truth. And now that my eyes are open, ha, you can't have me, 'cause, see, I was had, I was took. I been hoodwinked, bamboozled. Y'all have run amok!"
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 09:47:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 18, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Pages are white with dark print because that's easier to read.
No. Because the white devils made it so.
"Don't hate me 'cause I've found the truth. And now that my eyes are open, ha, you can't have me, 'cause, see, I was had, I was took. I been hoodwinked, bamboozled. Y'all have run amok!"
You did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on you.
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 11:25:33 PM
So you won't highlight the fact that binders of women actually existed?
I'm not sure what you mean. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2012, 11:29:04 PM
As to Meri's claim about Bain...so she spends a lot of time talking about women not pushing for higher paying positions but then suddenly its on Romney when they aren't in those higher paying positions? :huh:
No. I said that women who only train for lowering-paying positions are a large part of the reason for the payment disparity. That doesn't mean that there aren't women fully trained and capable of taking on top positions. See: binders full of women. :contract:
You're a woman meri, have you ever been in a binder?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2012, 10:01:30 AM
You're a woman meri, have you ever been in a binder?
That's not an image I'm willing to provide for the denizens of Languish. :sleep:
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 09:47:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 18, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Pages are white with dark print because that's easier to read.
No. Because the white devils made it so.
"Don't hate me 'cause I've found the truth. And now that my eyes are open, ha, you can't have me, 'cause, see, I was had, I was took. I been hoodwinked, bamboozled. Y'all have run amok!"
You did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on you.
It's a pretty tiny and unimpressive rock.
Quote from: merithyn on October 18, 2012, 09:59:31 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. :unsure:
Actual binders existed. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 18, 2012, 09:59:31 AM
No. I said that women who only train for lowering-paying positions are a large part of the reason for the payment disparity. That doesn't mean that there aren't women fully trained and capable of taking on top positions. See: binders full of women. :contract:
Alright well it still doesn't mean that Romney was remiss in then not presiding over a company with lots of women in upper management. It could also be that said women didn't fight to take those top positions.
QuoteTeaspoons with longer handles, such as iced tea spoons, are commonly used also for ice cream desserts or floats
I love these, I use them for deserts, ice cream, cereal, and to reach the bottom of the peanut butter jar easier. :licklips:
I use my longest appendage.
Obama making an ad buy in Minnesota and sending Jill Biden there to campaign tomorrow.(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fchin_scratch.gif&hash=ac5059ddf510ab9c11da83a418f0b098d3e7853f)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/an-obama-buy-in-minnesota-138858.html
He is only ahead in that state my mid-single digits, but it seems safe: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mn/minnesota_romney_vs_obama-1823.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/tagg-romney-wanted-swing-obama-article-1.1186354
QuoteSome of the verbal punches thrown by President Obama during Tuesday night's debate made Mitt Romney's son want to throw one of his own.
During an interview with a North Carolina radio station, Tagg Romney was asked how he feels when Obama accuses his father of being "a liar."
"Jump out of your seat and you want to rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him," he responded with a laugh, according to a recording obtained by BuzzFeed.
"But you know you can't do that because, well, first because there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is the nature of the process. They're gonna try to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he's not."
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 10:28:54 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/tagg-romney-wanted-swing-obama-article-1.1186354
QuoteSome of the verbal punches thrown by President Obama during Tuesday night's debate made Mitt Romney's son want to throw one of his own.
During an interview with a North Carolina radio station, Tagg Romney was asked how he feels when Obama accuses his father of being "a liar."
"Jump out of your seat and you want to rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him," he responded with a laugh, according to a recording obtained by BuzzFeed.
"But you know you can't do that because, well, first because there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is the nature of the process. They're gonna try to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he's not."
I hope he gets arrested for conspiring to harm the POTUS.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Alright well it still doesn't mean that Romney was remiss in then not presiding over a company with lots of women in upper management. It could also be that said women didn't fight to take those top positions.
What an odd way to look at it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2012, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Alright well it still doesn't mean that Romney was remiss in then not presiding over a company with lots of women in upper management. It could also be that said women didn't fight to take those top positions.
What an odd way to look at it.
Not really. Unless you are suggesting he should have implemented affirmative action programs, people are going to tend to promote who they like and part of that is the assertive factor - especially for women who likely would have faced a lot of blatant sexism during many of Romney's years at Bain (70s and 80s).
It was left out but that article on Romney had this:
QuoteIn case it's still not clear where Mitt Romney stands on the matter, the Boston Globe fact-checked his record at Bain. "Romney, however, did not have a history of appointing women to high-level positions in the private sector. Romney did not have any women partners as CEO of Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990s." Yes, the field was dominated by men back then, but even today, just 4 of 49 managers in the buyout field at Bain are women.
The even today bit seems odd as what does Romney have to do with Bain today?
Btw, Raz, MassGAP was started because though there were plenty of capable women out there - many state officials at the time said they had difficulty finding said women for high-ranking positions.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Alright well it still doesn't mean that Romney was remiss in then not presiding over a company with lots of women in upper management. It could also be that said women didn't fight to take those top positions.
His entire point was that he was dedicated to diversity and getting women into top positions. If that's the case, then the disparity in his former company wouldn't have happened. He would have sought out the top women to fill in those upper-management jobs. It's what he claimed to do as governor, after all.
Quote from: merithyn on October 18, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Alright well it still doesn't mean that Romney was remiss in then not presiding over a company with lots of women in upper management. It could also be that said women didn't fight to take those top positions.
His entire point was that he was dedicated to diversity and getting women into top positions. If that's the case, then the disparity in his former company wouldn't have happened. He would have sought out the top women to fill in those upper-management jobs. It's what he claimed to do as governor, after all.
Actually he talked about being committed to diversity as governor. I don't recall him referencing his years at Bain. Also as we all know his answer to that silly question was pandering - it seems odd to then critique policies at Bain.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Actually he talked about being committed to diversity as governor. I don't recall him referencing his years at Bain. Also as we all know his answer to that silly question was pandering - it seems odd to then critique policies at Bain.
I took it as a "company you keep" (pun not intended) critique, but it's still a shaky connection, yeah. It does seem that he's embellished the amount of direct influence he had on Bain when he was there, too, so it makes it that much less likely that he's got anything to do with current HR practices at the company.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Actually he talked about being committed to diversity as governor. I don't recall him referencing his years at Bain. Also as we all know his answer to that silly question was pandering - it seems odd to then critique policies at Bain.
I don't know. It seems like it's just more proof that he doesn't really give a shit about women. But yeah, makes no sense to discuss the Bain of today.
Quote from: merithyn on October 18, 2012, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Actually he talked about being committed to diversity as governor. I don't recall him referencing his years at Bain. Also as we all know his answer to that silly question was pandering - it seems odd to then critique policies at Bain.
I don't know. It seems like it's just more proof that he doesn't really give a shit about women. But yeah, makes no sense to discuss the Bain of today.
I don't see how that's fair. You can say that he's not truly committed to making sure women are represented in top positions but then we'd already agreed on that. I'm not sure though that you can stretch that do he doesn't care about women at all. That's too far.
Quote from: merithyn on October 18, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Alright well it still doesn't mean that Romney was remiss in then not presiding over a company with lots of women in upper management. It could also be that said women didn't fight to take those top positions.
His entire point was that he was dedicated to diversity and getting women into top positions. If that's the case, then the disparity in his former company wouldn't have happened. He would have sought out the top women to fill in those upper-management jobs. It's what he claimed to do as governor, after all.
Doesn't the fact that he was specifically looking for women rather than simply the best people for the job prove that he's a sexist?
Now including post-debate polling, Gallup increases Romney's lead to +7 over Obama.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
Another gem that I didn't catch at the time was Romney saying that under his leadership, the economy would grow so strong that employers would be desperate to hire women. So are women the bottom of the barrel when it comes to applicant pool, and are hired only out of desperation?
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2012, 12:15:29 PM
Another gem that I didn't catch at the time was Romney saying that under his leadership, the economy would grow so strong that employers would be desperate to hire women. So are women the bottom of the barrel when it comes to applicant pool, and are hired only out of desperation?
Yeah, I remember that stumble when he was talking.
He was so flustered at that point that pretty much everything coming out of his mouth was nonsense. :P
Quote from: Phillip V on October 18, 2012, 12:15:04 PM
Now including post-debate polling, Gallup increases Romney's lead to +7 over Obama.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
Hmm, Gallup's poll on sexuality had that non-whites are more likely to self-identify as gay than whites.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2012, 09:06:37 AM
You can't put women in binders, only small chunks of them will fit!
If the woman is a trapper you could keep them in a "trapper keeper".
Probably the only situation ever where the term "trapper keeper" makes sense, sort of.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 18, 2012, 12:15:04 PM
Now including post-debate polling, Gallup increases Romney's lead to +7 over Obama.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
This poll is total crap. Wanna make a bet that election numbers are going to be nothing like this? I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is.
Trying to make up for that money you're going to lose to Yi? :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 18, 2012, 12:48:35 PM
Trying to make up for that money you're going to lose to Yi? :(
Just trying to prove a point. Subconsciously Philip V has to know that Gallup numbers are crap, and that putting your money on them is foolish. And I'm fully confident that I made a good bet with Yi, but because I'm nice, just today I'm going to let Yi cancel it for no charge.
Can you explain to us how Gallup is crap? Be specific.
And if you can't be too specific, at least get it between 2-3 per cent margin of error.
I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that in any given job the ratio of men and women should be 1:1 for it not to be sexist. Even with the most diversity-based hiring policies, I don''t think a private equity fund such as Bain would have the equal number of men and women - simply because jobs like this do not exactly appeal to women (hell, they do not even appeal to most men, as they require a rather cutthroat mentality etc.)
A lot of my clients are private equity funds and I don't think I would like to work in a job like this (even if it pays a lot).
I have a lot of silver teaspoons, old family hand me downs, I use for all sorts of things; a mate of mine notice this the other day and was was like "woah, these spoons are made of silver", they must be worth all of $2-3 each by weight of metal. :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 02:40:30 PM
Can you explain to us how Gallup is crap? Be specific.
It's not 538.
Quote from: mongers on October 18, 2012, 02:51:32 PM
I have a lot of silver teaspoons, old family hand me downs, I use for all sorts of things; a mate of mine notice this the other day and was was like "woah, these spoons are made of silver", they must be worth all of $2-3 each by weight of metal. :D
Sounds like you have some intelligent mates.
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 02:40:30 PM
Can you explain to us how Gallup is crap? Be specific.
The volatility is a big indicator. Just a month ago it showed the biggest bump for Obama, and now it's showing the biggest bump for Romney. If the poll with that many people in the sample size appears to be so volatile, then it's an indication that it's just badly designed. It also has the biggest house effect as calculated by 538, which by itself doesn't mean much as long as it's a consistent bias, but in practice a rifle that appears to shoot way off target is also a rifle that shoots unpredictably off target.
It's a rifle now?
Quote from: The Brain on October 18, 2012, 03:35:46 PM
It's a rifle now?
He's trying to speak Derspeiss' language.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 18, 2012, 02:51:32 PM
I have a lot of silver teaspoons, old family hand me downs, I use for all sorts of things; a mate of mine notice this the other day and was was like "woah, these spoons are made of silver", they must be worth all of $2-3 each by weight of metal. :D
Sounds like you have some intelligent mates.
:hmm:
I checked the hallmarks and apparently they were made during the Napoleonic wars, no real value, but nice that I'm routinely using something about 200 years old.
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2012, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 02:40:30 PM
Can you explain to us how Gallup is crap? Be specific.
The volatility is a big indicator. Just a month ago it showed the biggest bump for Obama, and now it's showing the biggest bump for Romney. If the poll with that many people in the sample size appears to be so volatile, then it's an indication that it's just badly designed. It also has the biggest house effect as calculated by 538, which by itself doesn't mean much as long as it's a consistent bias, but in practice a rifle that appears to shoot way off target is also a rifle that shoots unpredictably off target.
You do realize they switched from registered to likely voters a couple weeks ago, right? Registered skewed toward Obama while Likely (which is more relevant this close to the election) favors Romney.
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
You do realize they switched from registered to likely voters a couple weeks ago, right? Registered skewed toward Obama while Likely (which is more relevant this close to the election) favors Romney.
No, I did not. However, the difference is only supposed to be about 1.5 points, so it can't explain such a wild swing. If switching causes that much difference, then it's just a further indication that the sampling or the processing of the sample is off.
Quote from: mongers on October 18, 2012, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 18, 2012, 02:51:32 PM
I have a lot of silver teaspoons, old family hand me downs, I use for all sorts of things; a mate of mine notice this the other day and was was like "woah, these spoons are made of silver", they must be worth all of $2-3 each by weight of metal. :D
Sounds like you have some intelligent mates.
:hmm:
I checked the hallmarks and apparently they were made during the Napoleonic wars, no real value, but nice that I'm routinely using something about 200 years old.
I was looking at "woah, these spoons are made of silver". :P
Romney is pulling staff out of North Carolina as RealClearPolitics colors the state pink: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
Associated Press now says that Romney is considering shifting resources to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-women-taxes-hispanics-romney-primary-message-shifts-as-election-day-nears/2012/10/17/ebfb2bae-18ba-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-women-taxes-hispanics-romney-primary-message-shifts-as-election-day-nears/2012/10/17/ebfb2bae-18ba-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html)
Susquehanna Polling just published a new poll showing Romney with a 4-point lead in Pennsylvania: http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UIB508XMiSo (http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UIB508XMiSo)
Haven't watched Obama's yet but Mitt's speech at the Al Smith dinner had a couple zingers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QsSzkCgcBtU#!
Nate Silver weighs in on the Gallup crap: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/#more-36284. He pretty much says that I said, but backs it up with much more evidence. My monetary offer still stands to those who believe that Gallup isn't full of shit.
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2012, 11:42:38 PM
Nate Silver weighs in on the Gallup crap: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/#more-36284. He pretty much says that I said, but backs it up with much more evidence. My monetary offer still stands to those who believe that Gallup isn't full of shit.
I zoned out about halfway through. Will give it another go after I've had my coffee in the morning. I'm sure Mr. Silver makes some solid points. But be honest: isn't part of your anti-Gallup rage due to the simple fact that you hate the idea of Romney winning?
Obama and Romney each had some good lines tonight:
QuotePresident Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took a break from their often rancorous campaigns to poke fun at each other and themselves at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York, Thursday night.
Romney told the formal white tie and gown crowd that, "it's nice to finally relax and wear what Anne and I wear around the house."
Through much of the evening, the two candidates sat just one chair down from each other. Only host Cardinal Timothy Dolan separated them, the Associated Press reported.
Romney told the crowd, "I was actually hoping the president would bring Joe Biden along this evening, because he'll laugh at anything."
In discussing how he prepares for the debates, Romney said his strategy was to "find the biggest available straw man and mercilessly attack it; Big Bird didn't even see it coming."
Romney playfully jabbed at Obama, saying both candidates rely on crucial people. As Romney put it, "I have my beautiful wife, Ann; he's got Bill Clinton."
After his introduction, Obama asked the crowd to "please take your seats, otherwise Clint Eastwood will yell at them."
Obama talked about his performance in Tuesday night's debate, saying he "felt really well rested after the nice long nap I had in the first debate."
He added, "I particularly want to apologize to (MSNBC's) Chris Matthews. Four years ago I gave him a thrill up his leg; this time around I gave him a stroke."
Poking fun at his opponent, Obama talked about being attacked after his overseas trip in 2008 for being "a celebrity because I was so popular with our allies overseas. And I have to say I'm impressed with how Governor Romney has avoided that problem."
The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is an annual fundraiser for the charity named after the former governor of New York. The dinner has become a regular stop for presidential candidates dating back to 1960, according to the foundation's Web page.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2012, 11:48:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2012, 11:42:38 PM
Nate Silver weighs in on the Gallup crap: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/#more-36284. He pretty much says that I said, but backs it up with much more evidence. My monetary offer still stands to those who believe that Gallup isn't full of shit.
I zoned out about halfway through. Will give it another go after I've had my coffee in the morning. I'm sure Mr. Silver makes some solid points. But be honest: isn't part of your anti-Gallup rage due to the simple fact that you hate the idea of Romney winning?
No. I'm a much more passionate statistician than I am a Democrat. People misusing numbers is about the biggest pet peeve I have. And let's turn it around: aren't you defending Gallup because it tells you what you want to hear (at least until it shows a 15 point lead for Obama next week)?
Quote from: Phillip V on October 18, 2012, 04:56:26 PM
Romney is pulling staff out of North Carolina as RealClearPolitics colors the state pink: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
Associated Press now says that Romney is considering shifting resources to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-women-taxes-hispanics-romney-primary-message-shifts-as-election-day-nears/2012/10/17/ebfb2bae-18ba-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-women-taxes-hispanics-romney-primary-message-shifts-as-election-day-nears/2012/10/17/ebfb2bae-18ba-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html)
Susquehanna Polling just published a new poll showing Romney with a 4-point lead in Pennsylvania: http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UIB508XMiSo (http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UIB508XMiSo)
More examples of cherrypicking. Cite a poll a that shows a 4 point lead for Romney, but ignore the fact that even a dumb RCP average shows a 5 point lead for Obama in Pennsylvania.
If someone posted a poll that shows an implausible Obama surge, I'd call bullshit just the same. However, no one on the Democratic side here is silly enough to cherrypick polls when in this day and age there are dozens of them. That ironically results in looking like I'm cherrypicking in my own criticism of polls.
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2012, 11:54:00 PM
And let's turn it around: aren't you defending Gallup because it tells you what you want to hear (at least until it shows a 15 point lead for Obama next week)?
Fair question. But go back through my posts and you'll find that months ago I mentioned Gallup as one of the two main polls I follow. That was back when Gallup had Obama ahead.
It's not as if I'm watching only Gallup and ignoring all the other polls. But I do happen to think that Mitt's lead in Gallup indicates that he has a good shot at this point of winning the popular vote. And as I keep saying, my prediction is that Mitt wins popular and your guy wins the EC.
So stop acting like I'm some delusional Mitt fanboy. I'm a lot more objective than you think.
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 12:05:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2012, 11:54:00 PM
And let's turn it around: aren't you defending Gallup because it tells you what you want to hear (at least until it shows a 15 point lead for Obama next week)?
Fair question. But go back through my posts and you'll find that months ago I mentioned Gallup as one of the two main polls I follow. That was back when Gallup had Obama ahead.
It's not as if I'm watching only Gallup and ignoring all the other polls. But I do happen to think that Mitt's lead in Gallup indicates that he has a good shot at this point of winning the popular vote. And as I keep saying, my prediction is that Mitt wins popular and your guy wins the EC.
So stop acting like I'm some delusional Mitt fanboy. I'm a lot more objective than you think.
Ok, I guess you're just guilty of suboptimal choice in polls to follow. In this day and age, following individual tracking polls is fraught with danger. Even an RCP average, as unsophisticated as it is, is still a better choice than any one individual tracking poll. This election is going to have a margin of victory of at most 3 percentage points; that way too thin for even a well-designed single poll (which tracking polls are generally not).
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:04:01 AM
More examples of cherrypicking. Cite a poll a that shows a 4 point lead for Romney, but ignore the fact that even a dumb RCP average shows a 5 point lead for Obama in Pennsylvania.
You can call that cherrypicking if you want, but if it's the most recent poll for that state (particularly if it's been a while since there was a 'fresh' one), I think it's relevant and worth mentioning. It could be indicative of a trend, or just an outlier. But it's still newsworthy IMO.
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 12:14:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:04:01 AM
More examples of cherrypicking. Cite a poll a that shows a 4 point lead for Romney, but ignore the fact that even a dumb RCP average shows a 5 point lead for Obama in Pennsylvania.
You can call that cherrypicking if you want, but if it's the most recent poll for that state (particularly if it's been a while since there was a 'fresh' one), I think it's relevant and worth mentioning. It could be indicative of a trend, or just an outlier. But it's still newsworthy IMO.
Even taking that statistical reasoning at face value (with great reservation, as you may guess), it's still noteworthy only in context, which Philip as always failed to provide.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:12:37 AM
Even an RCP average, as unsophisticated as it is, is still a better choice than any one individual tracking poll.
Yeah, and I check RCP every day. I check 538 every couple of days. We will see in a few short weeks if the two polls I pay particular attention to are suboptimal choices. I know one of them was dead on in 2008.
Question for you: What do you say to the accusations from the right that some of the polls are sampling democrats too heavily? From what I understand, some of them were supposing even greater enthusiasm (i.e., likelihood to get out and vote) for Obama than in 2008, and I have a hard time believing he can match the enthusiasm his supporters had for him 4 years ago.
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 12:22:22 AM
Question for you: What do you say to the accusations from the right that some of the polls are sampling democrats too heavily? From what I understand, some of them were supposing even greater enthusiasm (i.e., likelihood to get out and vote) for Obama than in 2008, and I have a hard time believing he can match the enthusiasm his supporters had for him 4 years ago.
I'm not equipped to answer that question. Sample weighting is the black art of polling, because you won't know how right you are until election is over. You have to do it, because without it, you're going to have too much error. But, if you do it poorly, you're also going to have too much error (which is what I suspect the problem with Gallup is).
This is one reason why I put a lot of weight on 538. I don't know exactly what Nate Silver does to account for that, but whatever it is has to mitigate the overall effect of some pollsters not getting their weights right.
Oh look, Romney made money from government bailouts while outsourcing jobs and denying healthcare and pensions to American workers: http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#
The Nation? Should I start posting anti-Obama articles from NRO??
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 09:35:06 AM
The Nation? Should I start posting anti-Obama articles from NRO??
At any rate, I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't this further ammunition that the bailout didn't really help those that it should have?
It isn't like Romney championed a bailout in order to profit from it, is it?
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:26:45 AM
I'm not equipped to answer that question. Sample weighting is the black art of polling, because you won't know how right you are until election is over. You have to do it, because without it, you're going to have too much error. But, if you do it poorly, you're also going to have too much error (which is what I suspect the problem with Gallup is).
This is one reason why I put a lot of weight on 538. I don't know exactly what Nate Silver does to account for that, but whatever it is has to mitigate the overall effect of some pollsters not getting their weights right.
Silver aggregates the polls. That's why he's good. He takes all of them and does his own analysis. FWIW, Gallup has been closest to the actual election results the last several times so I wouldn't discount them easily. Pew either.
It stands to reason that since Silver is making use of an aggregate of a bunch of polls, the most accurate single poll in the group will necessarily be more accurate than 538's average. It just has to be the case mathematically.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 19, 2012, 12:12:05 PM
Silver aggregates the polls. That's why he's good. He takes all of them and does his own analysis.
Aggregating the polls is easy. Figuring out how to extract the most information and the least noise out of the whole bunch is the very hard part. That's what Silver does, and he does it pretty well.
QuoteFWIW, Gallup has been closest to the actual election results the last several times so I wouldn't discount them easily. Pew either.
I don't keep track of such stuff on my own, but my impression was that this wasn't the case.
QuoteIt stands to reason that since Silver is making use of an aggregate of a bunch of polls, the most accurate single poll in the group will necessarily be more accurate than 538's average. It just has to be the case mathematically.
:hmm: I don't think that's true. And even if that were true, that's kind of pointless to know, because there is zero predictive power in knowing that one of the points that make up the averages will get it pretty close in hindsight.
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 09:35:06 AM
The Nation? Should I start posting anti-Obama articles from NRO??
Is that what the Nation is equivalent to? I'm not familiar with all American media, alas :(
Anyone invested in stocks, bonds or just about financial instrument would have money from the bailouts.
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2012, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 09:35:06 AM
The Nation? Should I start posting anti-Obama articles from NRO??
Is that what the Nation is equivalent to? I'm not familiar with all American media, alas :(
The Nation does some good work on occasion, just like NRO, but they are a very biased source, yes.
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2012, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 09:35:06 AM
The Nation? Should I start posting anti-Obama articles from NRO??
Is that what the Nation is equivalent to? I'm not familiar with all American media, alas :(
I would say so. It has called itself "the flagship of the left".
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2012, 09:30:19 AM
Oh look, Romney made money from government bailouts while outsourcing jobs and denying healthcare and pensions to American workers: http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#
This is a pretty silly article. Romney's investment was in the hedge fund Elliott Associates. Elliott had a total return of just over 4% in 2011, which is not terrible but not really lucrative either.
I trust your judgement in this, Minsky :bowler:
I think the whole attack on Mitt's investments and his tax rate misses the point. What matters is the policies he would push for. The problem isn't that Mitt is taxed at 14%; the problem is that Mitt supports a tax system that taxes work (wages and ordinary income) at a much higher rate than taxes on asset returns, as a result of which people like him are taxed at much lower rates than ordinary workers.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
I don't keep track of such stuff on my own, but my impression was that this wasn't the case.
538 posted an article yesterday that actually said the opposite for Gallup in that it wasn't good at predicting election results.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
I don't keep track of such stuff on my own, but my impression was that this wasn't the case.
538 posted an article yesterday that actually said the opposite for Gallup in that it wasn't good at predicting election results.
Actually DG posted that article last night :D
Anyway, Gallup is better in some years than others:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx
Quote from: derspiess on October 19, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 02:18:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
I don't keep track of such stuff on my own, but my impression was that this wasn't the case.
538 posted an article yesterday that actually said the opposite for Gallup in that it wasn't good at predicting election results.
Actually DG posted that article last night :D
Anyway, Gallup is better in some years than others:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx
Oh it is odd then that he forgot it...?
I didn't completely forget it. I recalled Nate Silver describing in that article how Gallup has a history of bouncing around wildly and missing the mark, but I skimmed through that portion the first time, and didn't bother going back to get the details. That's why I hedged so much in making that statement. On top of that, I generally dislike quoting details from other people's blogs, because you're just regurgitating what may be selectively chosen data.
:hmm: You posted an article you didn't read?
What Tim is only one allowed to do that?
Posting an article you've read is like wiping before taking a dump.
Quote from: katmai on October 19, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
What Tim is only one allowed to do that?
He paid a high social and emotionial cost for that right, yes, only Tim as the right to do that.
Quote from: katmai on October 19, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
What Tim is only one allowed to do that?
Because 1 Tim is enough.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 19, 2012, 02:44:41 PM
:hmm: You posted an article you didn't read?
Where did I say that?
With little more than 2 weeks left, let's look at the RCP map with no toss-ups, ie the state is given to the candidate with a lead using the average of state polls.
Even if we give Romney the benefit of the doubt that the heretofore momentum putting him barely ahead in some swing states will continue, he still needs to win over states that Obama keeps a narrow, but stubborn lead in: Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada.
Even with the first post-debate surge, only a few polls in Ohio had Romney leading with maybe +1. Most still show Obama ahead by a few points (+2.5). Within striking distance, but Ohio is a big state and there is little time left.
Alternatively, Romney can win by snagging Nevada and Iowa. However, there has never been any poll in Nevada this year showing a Romney lead. Iowa polling is mixed, but Obama still averages a 2.4-point lead.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/2012electionmap1019.png)
So boring how we keep getting that same map election cycle after election cycle with very minor adjustments.
SURPRISE: Romney could lose all three states I mention above and still win the election by turning Wisconsin red. Obama only has a 2.8-point lead there, but I am still skeptical that it is a toss-up state.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 08:47:10 PM
So boring how we keep getting that same map election cycle after election cycle with very minor adjustments.
It's almost like there's a legitimate urban-rural divide in our society.
Quote from: ulmont on October 19, 2012, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 08:47:10 PM
So boring how we keep getting that same map election cycle after election cycle with very minor adjustments.
It's almost like there's a legitimate urban-rural divide in our society.
Wouldn't explain Vermont or Maine.
Quote from: ulmont on October 19, 2012, 09:14:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 08:47:10 PM
So boring how we keep getting that same map election cycle after election cycle with very minor adjustments.
It's almost like there's a legitimate urban-rural divide in our society.
It is, there is a very deep and at the moment seemingly irreconcilable cultural divide. And when you have two evenly matched sides at each other's throats, a minor third player can play the kingmaker. That's how you get a situations where crony capitalists convinced some of the poorest strata of society to fight for the creation of the New Gilded Age. Of course, it's also in the interest of the kingmaker to keep the divisive status quo.
The kingmaker? :hmm:
I dunno, Protestantism and capitalism have been pretty closely entwined for centuries, can't give too much of the credit to opportunistic robber barons.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 09:26:46 PM
The kingmaker? :hmm:
:huh: The small faction that tips the scales.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 09:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 09:26:46 PM
The kingmaker? :hmm:
:huh: The small faction that tips the scales.
Can you elaborate on who or what is this small faction?
I think Vermont and Maine get explained on the "rolls up state by state basis."
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 09:35:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 09:31:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 09:26:46 PM
The kingmaker? :hmm:
:huh: The small faction that tips the scales.
Can you elaborate on who or what is this small faction?
Letterman, at least according to Letterman last week. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 09:28:29 PM
I dunno, Protestantism and capitalism have been pretty closely entwined for centuries, can't give too much of the credit to opportunistic robber barons.
But the thing is that plutocrats weren't always aligned with the rural faction. It used to be that the urban Northeast was the power base of the plutocrats, which made a lot more sense in historic context.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2012, 09:19:30 PM
Wouldn't explain Vermont or Maine.
They're refugee states, their populaces driven from their former homes in New Hampshire.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 09:28:29 PM
I dunno, Protestantism and capitalism have been pretty closely entwined for centuries, can't give too much of the credit to opportunistic robber barons.
But the thing is that plutocrats weren't always aligned with the rural faction. It used to be that the urban Northeast was the power base of the plutocrats, which made a lot more sense in historic context.
Well when the urbanites are happily voting them tax rates up to 90% it makes sense they'd part ways. Though calling one faction "rural" seems off as the country's population is over 80% urbanized.
Another thing, the South isn't nearly as destitute now as back in TVA days. If it was, they'd be supporting Democrats, culture war or no.
QuoteThe Onion Endorses John Edwards For President
Choosing who should be entrusted to lead our nation's government is not a responsibility that should be taken lightly, and never has that maxim been truer than in this current election cycle. Our economy is stagnant, our culture is dangerously stratified, and our way of life is threatened by a host of dangers both foreign and domestic. In this newspaper's more than two centuries of covering the national scene, few moments in history have felt more crucial or, indeed, perilous.
And so the time has come to decide who is best equipped to lead our country through this era of great crisis and great opportunity. America needs a leader who offers a coherent vision and who appeals to the better angels of our nature. We need a leader who is well-versed in the moral and legal foundations of our freedom and will work to uphold them. In short, this country needs the best man for the job.
And so it is without ambivalence or hesitation that The Onion endorses former U.S. senator John Edwards for president.
Mr. Edwards' career has not been without its missteps. He has, like all of us at one time or another, made his share of mistakes. His opposition to a nationwide military draft, for instance. In addition, his support for the expansion of immigrants' rights has angered this newspaper's editorial board. And yet at each turn, Mr. Edwards has recovered in full, with two feet planted firmly on the ground and his dignity and political acumen intact. He is a man who has learned from adversity, knowing, as any former attorney does, that the strongest individuals are forged through trials by fire.
Furthermore, Mr. Edwards conducted a protracted extramarital affair with a younger woman while his wife was dying of cancer, and we like that he did this. Our reasons for liking that he did this are tenfold:
1. It was a brave thing to do, given the possible consequences
2. The woman in question was more attractive than Mr. Edwards' wife
3. He did what he did without compromising his ideals, at least not to any illegal extent
4. He enjoyed himself, and good for him
5. The Onion believes sex is a natural and healthy biological function
6. Women have a weakness for men in powerful positions, and Mr. Edwards expertly exploited that weakness
7. Mr. Edwards' "Two Americas" premise is very appealing
8. Again, his wife was dying of cancer, and thus was not an ideal partner for sexual intercourse
9. Mr. Edwards is attractive, and it is pleasing to imagine him having sexual intercourse with another attractive person
10. Every employee of this newspaper would have done the exact same thing, given the opportunity
Those who oppose John Edwards' rightful ascent to our nation's highest office are, in no uncertain terms, cowards and hypocrites.
They are also fools.
Those who disagree with our editorial board on this issue have neither our respect nor our tolerance. Furthermore, let it be known that the political endorsement of The Onion is not a thing to be taken lightly. On the contrary, it should be viewed as a sort of line in the proverbial sand, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of that line will henceforth be marked as enemies of this newspaper, and will be taken out with the most extreme forms of violence.
Now, consider for a moment what you, the reader, would be up against should you decide to defy The Onion. You would be pitting yourself against a multinational conglomerate whose yearly earnings exceed $200 billion. On top of that, you would also be taking on a media organization with nearly limitless control over information and public opinion. Pretend, if you must, that we live in a representative democracy, but the reality is that the planet is controlled by the makers of money and the makers of taste, and The Onion is both.
The Onion has had its fair share of political enemies in the past, but rest assured few have survived to tell the tale.
And so the editorial board of The Onion asks you to keep these points in mind as you enter the voting booth on Election Day. We urge you to elect John Edwards the next president of the United States. The consequences of doing otherwise are simply too dire.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 09:28:29 PM
I dunno, Protestantism and capitalism have been pretty closely entwined for centuries, can't give too much of the credit to opportunistic robber barons.
Protestantism is the road to Marxism as well.
Marx was an atheist and his father was a Jew who "converted" so he could keep practicing law. Engels was also an atheist.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 10:28:35 PM
Though calling one faction "rural" seems off as the country's population is over 80% urbanized.
In this context, rural includes the population of smaller towns and cities whose economy are mainly supported by the rural areas around them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2012, 10:57:13 AM
Marx was an atheist and his father was a Jew who "converted" so he could keep practicing law. Engels was also an atheist.
They operated from Protestant countries. Marxism and Atheism are the final steps in the road that Luther started.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2012, 02:54:13 PM
They operated from Protestant countries. Marxism and Atheism are the final steps in the road that Luther started.
Care to develop this line of reasoning further?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 20, 2012, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2012, 02:54:13 PM
They operated from Protestant countries. Marxism and Atheism are the final steps in the road that Luther started.
Care to develop this line of reasoning further?
Luther started a revolt against the church this kicked off the age of revolutions each one tearing down authority. Eventually you reach world revolution and a revolt against God. Who gained from his revolutions? Who backed him? The petty princes and Kings of Europe, who wanted to consolidate power. That all power would be brokered by the the state. That the state would be supreme. That all life controlled through the state. The Communist dictatorships are the most pure example of that.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2012, 03:12:11 PM
The Communist dictatorships are the most pure example of that.
That's not optimal :(
Hey spicy, you'll be happy to know I decided to vote for Mittens. Obama was in the running, but his ugly ass wife was a deciding factor.
Better Ann than Urko.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2012, 06:12:46 PM
Hey spicy, you'll be happy to know I decided to vote for Mittens. Obama was in the running, but his ugly ass wife was a deciding factor.
Better Ann than Urko.
:lol: For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of you.
I still might write in Franco. Or franko from the dirty dozen.
I'm really uninspired by both assholes.
As good a reason as any, I suppose.
Plus, I want to oppress Meri.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2012, 07:10:41 PM
Plus, I want to oppress Meri.
She's voting with her lady parts. Or something.
Those kegel exercises sure do work.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2012, 07:10:41 PM
Plus, I want to oppress Meri.
I'm sorry. I thought I heard something, but then I realized that I must have just farted.
Damn, Meri, that was a stinker. PU. :x
Women should not be allowed to fart.
-Romney '12
Quote from: derspiess on October 20, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 20, 2012, 07:10:41 PM
Plus, I want to oppress Meri.
She's voting with her lady parts. Or something.
Is that like driving with your man parts, cause that is totally possible. Well steering is.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2012, 11:17:40 PM
Is that like driving with your man parts, cause that is totally possible. Well steering is.
Speak for yourself. I use mine for the gas pedal. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 21, 2012, 10:38:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2012, 11:17:40 PM
Is that like driving with your man parts, cause that is totally possible. Well steering is.
Speak for yourself. I use mine for the gas pedal. :P
Elephantiasis is curable. :console:
As of today, Gallup continues to show Romney with a +7 lead over Obama. Rasmussen at +2
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
Gallup Editor in Chief assures that polling methodology is "extremely solid."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/gallup-editor-in-chief-methodology-is-extremely-solid-139109.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/gallup-editor-in-chief-methodology-is-extremely-solid-139109.html)
Wow.
I've gotta say, I can see a +7 lead, I just can't see a +7 lead in Gallup when it's not showing up in Rasmussen.
The nation has spoken: it wants to hire the CEO that fires them.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 21, 2012, 12:38:12 PM
Wow.
I've gotta say, I can see a +7 lead, I just can't see a +7 lead in Gallup when it's not showing up in Rasmussen.
I bet the people at Gallup are a bit on edge. Either everyone else is wrong, or they are about to lose a lot of credibility.
I just use Nate Silver. Good track record, explains his methodology. He has Obama as a slight favorite.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:03:06 PM
I just use Nate Silver.
Guy's a freaking stats wunderkind. Should've gone to work for Elias Sports Bureau, but the Times probably pays more.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:03:06 PM
I just use Nate Silver.
Guy's a freaking stats wunderkind. Should've gone to work for Elias Sports Bureau, but the Times probably pays more.
He made his bones with Baseball Prospectus, which is (or at least was- haven't read it in a couple of years) way more legit than Elias. Old man. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
The nation has spoken: it wants to hire the CEO that fires them.
WTF happened? Wasn't it like, shit, last week, that we had this in the bag? That I was all but assured my fifty dollars? WHAT HAPPENED.
I don't wanna owe Yi $250. I'll need it when the economy collapses after President Romney takes power. :(
Quote from: Count on October 21, 2012, 01:13:17 PM
He made his bones with Baseball Prospectus, which is (or at least was- haven't read it in a couple of years) way more legit than Elias. Old man. ;)
:angry:
What are the predictions based on the internet? The net warns about coming epidemics and predicts Eurovision Song Contest winners.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 21, 2012, 01:14:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
The nation has spoken: it wants to hire the CEO that fires them.
WTF happened? Wasn't it like, shit, last week, that we had this in the bag? That I was all but assured my fifty dollars? WHAT HAPPENED.
I don't wanna owe Yi $250. I'll need it when the economy collapses after President Romney takes power. :(
I might loan it to you. At extremely high rates. And I WILL be repaid.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 17, 2012, 07:15:36 PM
I think we all should unite against the real enemy, Tim.
Agreed.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2012, 11:05:56 PM
For pouring sugar into your tea and stirring with (but not putting back into the sugar after you've stirred), in fact.
If someone does that when I'm around I will go fully American Beauty <_<
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2012, 09:09:23 AM
Sounds like nearly everything is a teaspoon, except when it is not.
Not really. A teaspoons small and holds around 5g. Then you've got a tablespoon which is larger, around 15g. In between there's a dessert spoon which is around 10g and soup spoons which are a different shape.
The rest is just about shape or length of handle (or forked :blink:).
Now it seems the threads moved back to the debate so I'll bow out.
I don't think Gallup has any institutional bias, and they have an extremely strong track record historically. (I don't think any candidate who they've shown with more than 50% in a poll in October or later has ever lost election--so they aren't generally wrong.) I've read some news articles where Gallup's head of polling for this has said they obviously have some concerns about being an outliier, and are evaluating their model.
These models tend to be proprietary and guarded secrets, so if I had to put myself in the room at Gallup I'd imagine they're trying to figure out what they've gotten wrong this election. (Aside from guys like Zogby most pollsters don't want to be big outliers.)
I don't know why the pessimism from the Obamiacs. Romney is looking strong nationally but even after the surge Romney trails in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa. He has to win Ohio or Wisconsin and Iowa, if he doesn't then he can't win the Presidency, doesn't matter what a national poll says.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 21, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
I don't think Gallup has any institutional bias, and they have an extremely strong track record historically. (I don't think any candidate who they've shown with more than 50% in a poll in October or later has ever lost election--so they aren't generally wrong.) I've read some news articles where Gallup's head of polling for this has said they obviously have some concerns about being an outliier, and are evaluating their model.
These models tend to be proprietary and guarded secrets, so if I had to put myself in the room at Gallup I'd imagine they're trying to figure out what they've gotten wrong this election. (Aside from guys like Zogby most pollsters don't want to be big outliers.)
I don't know why the pessimism from the Obamiacs. Romney is looking strong nationally but even after the surge Romney trails in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa. He has to win Ohio or Wisconsin and Iowa, if he doesn't then he can't win the Presidency, doesn't matter what a national poll says.
Very true regarding the additional states that Romney needs to win. However, state polls lag national polling movements since they are not tracked daily. Thus, there is the fear that national momentum will eventually show up in updated snapshot state polls.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 21, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
I don't know why the pessimism from the Obamiacs. Romney is looking strong nationally but even after the surge Romney trails in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa. He has to win Ohio or Wisconsin and Iowa, if he doesn't then he can't win the Presidency, doesn't matter what a national poll says.
It could very well come down to a popular v electoral ending.
One thing's for sure, it's not going to be called early. Lawyers will be warmed up in the bullpen all across the battlefield states, ready to go the next day.
It will not be close.
If Romney wins, he really should send a thank you note to the guys who killed the ambassador in Libya.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 21, 2012, 08:21:24 PM
If Romney wins, he really should send a thank you note to the guys who killed the ambassador in Libya.
An exploding bundt cake.
I for one look forward to the intriguing possibilities of a Romney presidency's foreign policy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 08:30:02 PM
I for one look forward to the intriguing possibilities of a Romney presidency's foreign policy.
Meet the new President. Just like the old President.
No apologies ever, and missiles in Poland for everyone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 08:33:31 PM
No apologies ever, and missiles in Poland for everyone.
And hundreds of new tanks that the Army doesn't want. WELL YOU'RE GETTING EM ANYWAY
More work for the Lima tank plant!
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 21, 2012, 08:32:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 08:30:02 PM
I for one look forward to the intriguing possibilities of a Romney presidency's foreign policy.
Meet the new President. Just like the old President.
True and he'll never get anywhere. Dems will be butt hurt and will block everything he tries to do.
We need to work on a New Romney's Army joke about Siegy and outsourcing to China. There's gotta be one in there somewhere.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 21, 2012, 08:39:24 PM
True and he'll never get anywhere. Dems will be butt hurt and will block everything he tries to do.
Nuh uh. Mittens has promised us that won't happen. He's such a people person. :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 08:33:31 PM
No apologies ever, and missiles in Poland for everyone.
:hmm: Which end of the missiles? :unsure:
Mart is hoping feet first.
Quote from: DGuller on October 21, 2012, 08:43:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 08:33:31 PM
No apologies ever, and missiles in Poland for everyone.
:hmm: Which end of the missiles? :unsure:
Richard Williamson wants most of them pointed at the Soviet Union.
The rest will be pointing at Wiktor. LOL "WIKTOR"
I'm tempted to vote for Romney. :blush:
I think Obama will still win.
Quote from: Fate on October 21, 2012, 08:54:29 PM
I'm tempted to vote for Romney. :blush:
I think Obama will still win.
I already did.
For Obamination
I got my vote by mail ballot yesterday. Haven't filled it out yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2012, 08:40:34 PM
We need to work on a New Romney's Army joke about Siegy and outsourcing to China. There's gotta be one in there somewhere.
That's a good idea. Outsource the military to China and hell India too. We could cut military pay by 2/3 and still be paying more than the chink soldiers get now. Win-Win
Quote from: sbr on October 21, 2012, 08:56:56 PM
I got my vote by mail ballot yesterday. Haven't filled it out yet.
Yeah, got my info packet, too. Will probably knock out early voting at one of the centers next week to avoid the Christmas rush.
Interesting ballot initiatives this year: big ones for gambling, and for same sex marriage.
Gonna vote for the gays, despite the gay assholes on Languish not named Sheilbh, and will probably ixnay the gambling. It's such bullshit.
Of course, I will proudly vote for my man in the House: Dutch Ruppersberger.
First I heard of this was in a Facebook meme, so I looked it up. Now, reading through CNN's fact check, it kind of sounds like it's true, but not because the presidents actually did anything specific to cause it. If that's the case, then basically, it doesn't matter what the president does. So why are we hammering them on the economy?
Clinton: Over Last 50 Years, Two-Thirds Of Private Sector Job Growth Came Under Democratic Presidents
Quote(CNN) -- It was a big applause line, one of many for former President Bill Clinton Wednesday night.
Speaking to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Clinton -- whose presidency unfolded during a boom era for the U.S. economy -- told delegates that Democratic administrations had a nearly 2-to-1 advantage over Republicans in creating jobs.
"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42."
Since Clinton repeatedly invoked "arithmetic" as the secret to his administration's success, we thought we'd check his.
The facts:
Clinton's math is a bit off, but not substantially.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures examined by CNN, he understated the net number of private jobs created under Democratic administrations and overstated the number of jobs created in GOP eras. But the ratio is basically correct: A net increase of 44.7 million jobs created during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations, compared to a 23.3 million figure during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush administrations.
Republican numbers were crimped by recessions that occurred more frequently during their administrations -- in 1969 and 1973, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The only recession to occur during a Democratic presidency was in early 1980, during the Carter administration, while the 2007 recession lasted nearly six months into the Obama administration. Democrats, meanwhile, were also helped by population growth: A bigger country should produce more jobs, and Democrats have held office for nearly 12 of the past 20 years.
Conclusion:
Economists constantly argue over which presidents get the credit or the blame for what happened on their watches, of course. But in terms of the numbers Clinton cited, his claim is remarkably close, and the discrepancy doesn't contradict his argument.
Quote from: merithyn on October 21, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
First I heard of this was in a Facebook meme, so I looked it up. Now, reading through CNN's fact check, it kind of sounds like it's true, but not because the presidents actually did anything specific to cause it. If that's the case, then basically, it doesn't matter what the president does. So why are we hammering them on the economy?
Cause there's a lot of voters who can't think(as far as politics goes at least) beyond how fat their wallets are.
HEY NOW
Quote from: merithyn on October 21, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
First I heard of this was in a Facebook meme, so I looked it up. Now, reading through CNN's fact check, it kind of sounds like it's true, but not because the presidents actually did anything specific to cause it. If that's the case, then basically, it doesn't matter what the president does. So why are we hammering them on the economy?
Clinton: Over Last 50 Years, Two-Thirds Of Private Sector Job Growth Came Under Democratic Presidents
Quote(CNN) -- It was a big applause line, one of many for former President Bill Clinton Wednesday night.
Speaking to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Clinton -- whose presidency unfolded during a boom era for the U.S. economy -- told delegates that Democratic administrations had a nearly 2-to-1 advantage over Republicans in creating jobs.
"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42."
Since Clinton repeatedly invoked "arithmetic" as the secret to his administration's success, we thought we'd check his.
The facts:
Clinton's math is a bit off, but not substantially.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures examined by CNN, he understated the net number of private jobs created under Democratic administrations and overstated the number of jobs created in GOP eras. But the ratio is basically correct: A net increase of 44.7 million jobs created during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations, compared to a 23.3 million figure during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush administrations.
Republican numbers were crimped by recessions that occurred more frequently during their administrations -- in 1969 and 1973, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The only recession to occur during a Democratic presidency was in early 1980, during the Carter administration, while the 2007 recession lasted nearly six months into the Obama administration. Democrats, meanwhile, were also helped by population growth: A bigger country should produce more jobs, and Democrats have held office for nearly 12 of the past 20 years.
Conclusion:
Economists constantly argue over which presidents get the credit or the blame for what happened on their watches, of course. But in terms of the numbers Clinton cited, his claim is remarkably close, and the discrepancy doesn't contradict his argument.
There is an article in the Atlantic addressing a similar claim (related to stock market performance, not job creation.) It's true that the economy has done better under Democrat Presidents, but the specifics show that it's mostly the result of the fact that Hoover was President when the Great Depression began and FDR / Truman were Presidents when the economy got better, and Bush was the President when the Great Recession began and Obama was President when the stock market came back. The Clinton economic bump helped (as did the Reagan bump for the Republicans.) The size of the swing relating to the Great Depression however is so large that all those other minor recessions had very little if any impact on the overall picture.
Link (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/stock-market-performance-under-democratic-presidents-totally-crushes-gop-but-does-it-matter/263657/)
Some key points:
QuoteDoes this video show that Republican presidents are bad for the stock market? Or that Democratic presidents are the magic elixir of growth? Not even. The executive branch isn't the entire government, government isn't the entire U.S. economy, and even the entire U.S. economy can't explain global forces that move equity prices.
QuoteBut this statistic is really an indication of Black Swans rather than planned policies. To the extent that Democrats are marshaling this video to make a point about the president, it bears reminding that the major differences between Obama and Romney -- tax policy and welfare spending -- played small if non-existent roles in the crises that depressed stock market performance under Republicans. As the video shows, the difference is almost entirely explained by the fact that both the Great Recession and the Great Depression began under a Republican administration and were resolved under the next administration, which was Democratic.
Now we can argue all day about Republican economic policies, but there is little evidence to suggest Herbert Hoover deserves any specific blame for the Great Depression. He
may deserve some blame for his response to it, but no serious economist blames Hoover for it happening. Hoover deserves blame for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that he passed. With the Great Recession, Bush also deserves little blame. It's pretty simple what happened, there was a massive housing bubble. When it burst, it took out a lot of associated industries including home building and insurers and banks that were heavily exposed. (For some reason on the left people rail on about the Bush tax cuts and his wars as if they are related to the Great Recession--they really aren't, and I don't understand how people can perpetuate blatantly false economic theory/history like that.)
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 21, 2012, 08:36:14 PM
And hundreds of new tanks that the Army doesn't want. WELL YOU'RE GETTING EM ANYWAY
Hey, when the Taliban knocks out 2,000 Abrams tanks, you'll be glad we had the spares.
Looks like Sandra Fluke's fifteen minutes are about up:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20121020/NEWS19/310200053/Fluke-takes-center-stage-Reno
She drew just 10 people to her rally :D
She must have forgotten her whore pills.
Ugh, Reno.
Quote from: derspiess on October 22, 2012, 09:15:32 AM
Looks like Sandra Fluke's fifteen minutes are about up:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20121020/NEWS19/310200053/Fluke-takes-center-stage-Reno
She drew just 10 people to her rally :D
Well, I'm glad you feel vindicated.
Hell, I didn't even know the thing was going to happen. I had heard Rick Perry was in town the other day though.
She isn't even that good looking. I think she swapped her whore pills with a box of Ding Dong's one month.