This evening the president address congress at 9pm (EST?) 2am GMT, anyone going to watch this ?
I'll have it on just to see some republicans squirming in their seats, maybe some of the less classy ones will do something impolite, maybe Ted Nugent will be seen giving the president the V-sign hidden behind his other hand ? :P
Who cares? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 06:04:51 PM
anyone going to watch this ?
You can count garbon out.
:D
Well I'll watch now, just to spite Garbon, I shall imagine him and other closet republicans supping their (damn, what the hell is the expression I'm looking for) :D
I predict the president will say something to "praise˝the market economy, but only as a pretext to criticising it. He'll also tell us he's a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and then go on about how we need to curtail gun rights.
Also what are the odds on Ted Nugent getting on camera?
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
Also what are the odds on Ted Nugent getting on camera?
Very high.
Really he'd be daft to turn up, as it would be easy to play any off facial expression as sneering/impolite and if he's impeccably behaved some one might characterise that as timidity in the face of the presidents gun control proposals.
Personally I think he's a bit of a tool and deserves a bad press.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 06:16:28 PM
Well I'll watch now, just to spite Garbon, I shall imagine him and other closet republicans supping their (damn, what the hell is the expression I'm looking for) :D
Hey if you are looking for a boring way to kill time, can I get you to do my taxes? Just follow the instructions provided in the pdf; mine aren't complicated.
Fucker ruins my TV
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 06:23:13 PM
I predict the president will say something to "praise˝the market economy, but only as a pretext to criticising it. He'll also tell us he's a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and then go on about how we need to curtail gun rights.
I predict Republicans will be bitter that he won the election and has widespread support for both those positions.
In fairness he never campaigned on gun control. I thought the right had entirely won that argument (and they have for the last decade or so), but I think Sandy Hook changed that.
I wonder if any of them will scream names at him during the speech. Again. Also there is going to be two rebuttals. One from the GOP and one from the Tea Party. The one from the GOP will be done twice, once in English and once in Spanish.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 06:46:32 PM
In fairness he never campaigned on gun control. I thought the right had entirely won that argument (and they have for the last decade or so), but I think Sandy Hook changed that.
You'd hope so, huh. Unfortunately for you whatever bounce the gun control crowd got from Sandy Hook isn't as strong as it might appear. Gun control is way down the list in terms of importance in public opinion.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2013, 06:50:21 PM
I wonder if any of them will scream names at him during the speech. Again.
As if inviting Ted Nugent to the State of the Union speech that will highlight Sandy Hook isn't tasteless enough, why not continue playing to type and shout down the illegitimate negro.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 06:30:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
Also what are the odds on Ted Nugent getting on camera?
Very high.
Really he'd be daft to turn up, as it would be easy to play any off facial expression as sneering/impolite and if he's impeccably behaved some one might characterise that as timidity in the face of the presidents gun control proposals.
Personally I think he's a bit of a tool and deserves a bad press.
He risks very little. He's not out to make friends with those who oppose him and any gesture of defiance is going to play well with his fans.
He's silly but I like him. He amuses me.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 07:08:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 06:46:32 PM
In fairness he never campaigned on gun control. I thought the right had entirely won that argument (and they have for the last decade or so), but I think Sandy Hook changed that.
You'd hope so, huh. Unfortunately for you whatever bounce the gun control crowd got from Sandy Hook isn't as strong as it might appear. Gun control is way down the list in terms of importance in public opinion.
Wow, what about me? :blink:
I think you're a little hyped for tonight :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 07:08:23 PM
You'd hope so, huh. Unfortunately for you whatever bounce the gun control crowd got from Sandy Hook isn't as strong as it might appear. Gun control is way down the list in terms of importance in public opinion.
Or, you know, this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/07/171383152/poll-9-in-10-americans-support-background-check-for-all-gun-sales.
Or maybe the GOP can lie about the president's children some more.
But like I said, people don't view gun control as a high priority.
If that Dorner guy really is as much a fan of Obama as he claims to be, then he'll give himself up for execution within the next 90 minutes.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 07:14:35 PM
But like I said, people don't view gun control as a high priority.
Based on what?
Drone strike the mofo.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 06:04:51 PM
maybe Ted Nugent will be seen giving the president the V-sign hidden behind his other hand ? :P
Peace? Victory?
Maybe to make up for the inaugural Barry will give a unifying, a-political speech this time.
Ted and Brak will play Stranglehold.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 07:25:32 PM
Ted and Brak will play Stranglehold.
derspiess is going to air guitar "Cat Scratch Fever" with his AR-15 in his camo tank top.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:26:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 07:25:32 PM
Ted and Brak will play Stranglehold.
derspiess is going to air guitar "Cat Scratch Fever" with his AR-15 in his camo tank top.
Already there, friend. PICS TO FOLLOW
I'VE GOT A SUPERBONER NOW
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F2013%2F02%2F20130212_SOTU1.jpg&hash=8d858ab134b105e57e16afbf726f19e3e7906d3d)
James Madison ftw.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 07:27:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:26:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 07:25:32 PM
Ted and Brak will play Stranglehold.
derspiess is going to air guitar "Cat Scratch Fever" with his AR-15 in his camo tank top.
Already there, friend. PICS TO FOLLOW
I just bet. With authentic beer stains as well, since I'm sure it's tough to drink your brew and breathe through your mouth at the same time.
God damn Woodrow Wilson <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 07:30:35 PM
God damn Woodrow Wilson <_<
No shit.
Although considering the sheer lack of respect of the office this President gets from Congress, I give him kudos for doing anything more than wrapping it around a brick and tossing out the car window on his way to Andrews AFB.
Best Nugent tune to air guitar is Great White Buffalo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:29:35 PM
I just bet. With authentic beer stains as well, since I'm sure it's tough to drink your brew and breathe through your mouth at the same time.
Nah, not drinking tonight. It's still Cincinnati Beer Week, but I gotta pace myself. Imperial Stout tapping tomorrow :cheers:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:33:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 07:30:35 PM
God damn Woodrow Wilson <_<
No shit.
Although considering the sheer lack of respect of the office this President gets from Congress, I give him kudos for doing anything more than wrapping it around a brick and tossing out the car window on his way to Andrews AFB.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheappslab.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Flowered-expectations.jpg&hash=40742daac24223a64908a305d2daf88f16119b80)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 07:28:43 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level
A bit unexpected that W's 2005 was the highest rated since Reagan's 1983, and not beaten unless you go back to Carter in 1981.
Maybe Sandy Hook can be Obama's 9/11. Sure, he didn't campaign on gun control, but it might be a good time to use the time to eliminate some of the more dangerous elements of American society.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 07:28:43 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level
A bit unexpected that W's 2005 was the highest rated since Reagan's 1983, and not beaten unless you go back to Carter in 1981.
And nobody does worse than Lincoln's 1862 until Wilson.
It's not better or worse. Personally I think expressing ideas in simple language is more impressive than indulging in florid prose.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 08:22:27 PM
It's not better or worse. Personally I think expressing ideas in simple language is more impressive than indulging in florid prose.
I definitely disagree. What is this - some sort of gross populist forum?
Would a "reading level" scale be useful if you used it to compare speeches over the course of 200 years?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 08:15:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 07:28:43 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level
A bit unexpected that W's 2005 was the highest rated since Reagan's 1983, and not beaten unless you go back to Carter in 1981.
And nobody does worse than Lincoln's 1862 until Wilson.
Well, Lincoln had to rally the masses to the colors.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 08:24:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 08:22:27 PM
It's not better or worse. Personally I think expressing ideas in simple language is more impressive than indulging in florid prose.
I definitely disagree. What is this - some sort of gross populist forum?
They're politicians operating in a representative republic with universal suffrage, so yes, yes it is.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 08:11:30 PM
Maybe Sandy Hook can be Obama's 9/11. Sure, he didn't campaign on gun control, but it might be a good time to use the time to eliminate some of the more dangerous elements of American society.
MOLON LABIA-- erm, LABE
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 08:29:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 08:24:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 08:22:27 PM
It's not better or worse. Personally I think expressing ideas in simple language is more impressive than indulging in florid prose.
I definitely disagree. What is this - some sort of gross populist forum?
They're politicians operating in a representative republic with universal suffrage, so yes, yes it is.
That's why we have the electoral college. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 08:29:58 PM
They're politicians operating in a representative republic with universal suffrage, so yes, yes it is.
So that means we all have to suffer?
Who are the two older men leading his way down to the floor, are they lawmakers/congressmen or some form of official usher ?
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 09:15:18 PM
Who are the two older men leading his way down to the floor, are they lawmakers/congressmen or some form of official usher ?
Contest winners, I believe.
It almost sounded like he was promising to raise the Social Security age :wub:
Eh I shouldn't get my hopes up.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:32:42 PM
It almost sounded like he was promising to raise the Social Security age :wub:
Eh I shouldn't get my hopes up.
I think that's a more negotiable point for him than people believe.
Good to see him emphasising climate change and this science behind it, then throwing down the gauntlet on the issue.
Wow, this is the most outwardly arrogant president in my lifetime.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:37:51 PM
Wow, this is the most outwardly arrogant president in my lifetime.
I guess he does not hide it behind modesty like Bill Clinton always did.
Yes I am being very very sarcastic and wondering if you were in a coma from 1992 until 2000.
"ribbon cuttins" :bleeding:
The stuff about repairing and improving the nations infrastructure seems common sense, something a modern economy needs.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 09:41:12 PM
The stuff about repairing and improving the nations infrastructure seems common sense, something a modern economy needs.
That is the kind of thing every President promises to do and never does. Like helping the Middle Class.
Oh FFS does he want to *expand* Head Start?? Wow.
Okay, telling colleges to keep costs down. Finally something good.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Oh FFS does he want to *expand* Head Start?? Wow.
Didn't help your dumb ass out, might as well give your kids the chance. :P
I am so tired of the 'wealthiest nation on earth stuff'. If you are carrying massive debts you are not rich.
A very Keynesian take on the minimum wage. :)
I didn't get the memo that it was pastel tie day.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 09:50:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Oh FFS does he want to *expand* Head Start?? Wow.
Didn't help your dumb ass out, might as well give your kids the chance. :P
I'm paying for their pre-school myself. Crazy concept, I know.
He look what no pre-school did for Ed Anger.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:54:32 PM
I'm paying for their pre-school myself. Crazy concept, I know.
Not really...is there another way to do it? :hmm:
Wait did he say we are leaving Afghanistan soon?
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
I am so tired of the 'wealthiest nation on earth stuff'. If you are carrying massive debts you are not rich.
Government <> nation, at least not our nation.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2013, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
I am so tired of the 'wealthiest nation on earth stuff'. If you are carrying massive debts you are not rich.
Government <> nation, at least not our nation.
THe problem is this is usually brought up as a justification to expand entitlements or government assistance of some sort so the Government's position is the problem.
When did Obama suddenly go hardcore centrist? Not that I'm complaining- I'm actually hoping it lasts longer than the news channels' coverage after the speech. There was a lot of "private sector needs to pick up the slack" in the economy parts of the speech. Companies refusing to pay more than fed. min. wage, lenders denying credible borrowers... definitely paints a bleak picture.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:55:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:54:32 PM
I'm paying for their pre-school myself. Crazy concept, I know.
Not really...is there another way to do it? :hmm:
Wait did he say we are leaving Afghanistan soon?
HEAD START
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
Afghanistan "defeating the core of Al Qeada" ie not the Taliban, so time for talks ? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2013, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
I am so tired of the 'wealthiest nation on earth stuff'. If you are carrying massive debts you are not rich.
Government <> nation, at least not our nation.
When quantifying total wealth it does. Some of our assets and liabilities by necessity are held by the government.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
HEAD START
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
Oh, those wily niggers and their procreating, whatever will they think of next to screw you over?
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
You get what you pay for though amiright?
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:57:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2013, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
I am so tired of the 'wealthiest nation on earth stuff'. If you are carrying massive debts you are not rich.
Government <> nation, at least not our nation.
THe problem is this is usually brought up as a justification to expand entitlements or government assistance of some sort so the Government's position is the problem.
Even then that doesn't hold for nations. The wealth of nations is measured by GDP, not by your balance sheet. Equating personal finances with national finances is one of the basic rhetorical fallacies politicians make.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
You get what you pay for though amiright?
But see, that's not enough for The Great White Forehead; base services provided by the taxes he kicks in for low income minority types provided is simply unaKKKeptable.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 10:03:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2013, 09:55:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
I am so tired of the 'wealthiest nation on earth stuff'. If you are carrying massive debts you are not rich.
Government <> nation, at least not our nation.
When quantifying total wealth it does. Some of our assets and liabilities by necessity are held by the government.
By those standards Imperial Russia was a much wealthier country than British Empire for many decades.
GDP measures economic output, not wealth, Mr. Actuary.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 10:04:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
HEAD START
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
Oh, those wily niggers and their procreating, whatever will they think of next to screw you over?
The handful of black parents at our preschool are not the offenders.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2013, 10:08:13 PM
GDP measures economic output, not wealth, Mr. Actuary.
Income stream is an asset of its own.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2013, 10:06:34 PM
Even then that doesn't hold for nations. The wealth of nations is measured by GDP, not by your balance sheet.
I think that is garbage. Hundreds of nations since the beginning of time have been ruined by sustained deficits and I cannot think of one that prospered through sustained deficits for decades on end. But even if you are right in some sort of technical sense the deficit does stop the government from making sure nobody lives in poverty or has health care or whatever noble cause compels us to solve because of our great wealth.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 10:04:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
HEAD START
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
Oh, those wily niggers and their procreating, whatever will they think of next to screw you over?
The handful of black parents at our preschool are not the offenders.
I'm sure they're very articulate.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
You get what you pay for though amiright?
We pay a lot but I'm satisfied with what we get. Unfortunately there are some freeloading parents that drive much nicer cars than we do yet get most of their tuition subsidized by the state. And if you guys think I'm bitter, ask the wife her opinion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 10:15:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:11:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 10:04:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
HEAD START
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
Oh, those wily niggers and their procreating, whatever will they think of next to screw you over?
The handful of black parents at our preschool are not the offenders.
I'm sure they're very articulate.
Quite.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
We pay a lot but I'm satisfied with what we get. Unfortunately there are some freeloading parents that drive much nicer cars than we do yet get most of their tuition subsidized by the state. And if you guys think I'm bitter, ask the wife her opinion.
Huh. I guess this means I had no idea what exactly Head Start was. I thought they were actual schools for poor kids not a kind of voucher system.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:02:08 PM
And whatever state program we have that gives those lazy-ass parents a card to swipe at the place where I pay full price.
You get what you pay for though amiright?
We pay a lot but I'm satisfied with what we get. Unfortunately there are some freeloading parents that drive much nicer cars than we do yet get most of their tuition subsidized by the state. And if you guys think I'm bitter, ask the wife her opinion.
Why? She'd just recite what you told her.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 10:18:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
We pay a lot but I'm satisfied with what we get. Unfortunately there are some freeloading parents that drive much nicer cars than we do yet get most of their tuition subsidized by the state. And if you guys think I'm bitter, ask the wife her opinion.
Huh. I guess this means I had no idea what exactly Head Start was. I thought they were actual schools for poor kids not a kind of voucher system.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 10:18:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:16:12 PM
We pay a lot but I'm satisfied with what we get. Unfortunately there are some freeloading parents that drive much nicer cars than we do yet get most of their tuition subsidized by the state. And if you guys think I'm bitter, ask the wife her opinion.
Huh. I guess this means I had no idea what exactly Head Start was. I thought they were actual schools for poor kids not a kind of voucher system.
I wasn't talking about Head Start.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 10:19:04 PM
Why? She'd just recite what you told her.
From the back seat.
When it comes to subjects like this, it's all I can do to hold her back. She's selectively independent-minded.
Off-topic, but I never realized Obama's a southpaw. :ph34r:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 12, 2013, 10:23:58 PM
Off-topic, but I never realized Obama's a southpaw. :ph34r:
Yeah it was mentioned in another thread. We have had a run of sinister Presidents.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2013, 10:06:34 PM
Even then that doesn't hold for nations. The wealth of nations is measured by GDP, not by your balance sheet.
I think that is garbage. Hundreds of nations since the beginning of time have been ruined by sustained deficits and I cannot think of one that prospered through sustained deficits for decades on end. But even if you are right in some sort of technical sense the deficit does stop the government from making sure nobody lives in poverty or has health care or whatever noble cause compels us to solve because of our great wealth.
Let's agree to disagree then. But for the record, I'm right and you're not.
My initial impression is that that's the best SoTU I've seen. It's still by nature underwhelming, but I think that was very strong indeed.
Secondly I had no idea button-down was acceptable formal-wear :o
Epic strawman from the republican rebuttal, did he not listen to the SoTU address.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 10:33:27 PM
Epic strawman from the republican rebuttal, did he not listen to the SoTU address.
The rebuttals are usually ready to go before the President even gives his speech....so it rarely actually addresses what he said only what they think he was going to say.
Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2013, 10:33:27 PM
Epic strawman from the republican rebuttal, did he not listen to the SoTU address.
Quiet, he's positioning himself.
I do like his solution to the college loan problem: "students need to know what they're getting themselves into." :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 10:42:08 PM
I do like his solution to the college loan problem: "students need to know what they're getting themselves into." :lol:
Brutal honesty with detailed knowledge of the job market for every career is a trait common among High School advisor staff.
Why didn't Rubio have a glass of water in front of him? If it's good enough for any corporate speaker :blink:
The cameraman here is dreadful as well. Also the Republicans need to look up their tapes of Reagan again. Optimism wins, this downcast tone (and they had it at the convention too) doesn't. But still better than many responses, horrifically cheesy grin though.
Also purely on images I was very struck at Boehner not applauding the line about extending benefits to gay military families and not ovating the 102 African-American woman who waited 6 hours to vote. That stuff just looks bad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 10:44:57 PM
Why didn't Rubio have a glass of water in front of him? If it's good enough for any corporate speaker :blink:
That was a bit off-kilter.
Why should he applaud a policy he disagrees with and an Obama voter?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 10:44:57 PM
Why didn't Rubio have a glass of water in front of him? If it's good enough for any corporate speaker :blink:
The cameraman here is dreadful as well. Also the Republicans need to look up their tapes of Reagan again. Optimism wins, this downcast tone (and they had it at the convention too) doesn't. But still better than many responses, horrifically cheesy grin though.
Also purely on images I was very struck at Boehner not applauding the line about extending benefits to gay military families and not ovating the 102 African-American woman who waited 6 hours to vote. That stuff just looks bad.
Yeah, I was especifically watching him and him not applauding the fair voting notion seemed telling, maybe he really doesn't want too many 'ethnic' to vote ?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 10:44:57 PM
Optimism wins, this downcast tone (and they had it at the convention too) doesn't.
It's important to position yourself for the long term. Because things are going to get substantially worse in the years ahead, the optiists will end up looking stupid, whereas those grim prophets will looks wise and forward-thinking.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
Why should he applaud a policy he disagrees with and an Obama voter?
Hey! She could have been amongst the erm....5%?....of African-American women who voted for Romney. Also generally allying yourself with the KKK policywise is a loser.
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
Why should he applaud a policy he disagrees with
Fair point. But I'd argue that gay rights are an area the GOP should probably just go neutral on nationally, because their view losing and it will lose. Also it didn't explicitly mention the gays and sitting out the applause on benefits for military families probably never looks good.
Quoteand an Obama voter?
Because she's a 102 year old woman who stood for six hours to fulfil her civic duty. Who cares how she voted? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 11:01:13 PM
Because she's a 102 year old woman who stood for six hours to fulfil her civic duty. Who cares how she voted? :blink:
Pfft, somebody who's seen the worst of Jim Crow, witnessed the entirety of the civil rights movement, and the election of the first black US President in her lifetime? If she wants to vote, waiting six hours is so not worth the applause. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 11:06:45 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2013, 11:01:13 PM
Because she's a 102 year old woman who stood for six hours to fulfil her civic duty. Who cares how she voted? :blink:
Pfft, somebody who's seen the worst of Jim Crow, witnessed the entirety of the civil rights movement, and the election of the first black US President in her lifetime? If she wants to vote, waiting six hours is so not worth the applause. :rolleyes:
Well the fight will always continue, perhaps that's what Boehner was signalling, they're never going to give up on the bias that the elections process should be politicised and not impartial.
didn't watch it. played world of tanks, instead. but i didn't need to see it. obama has been a fantastic president thus far, and so i don't need to hear his pandering
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 03:25:51 AM
didn't watch it. played world of tanks, instead. but i didn't need to see it. obama has been a fantastic president thus far, and so i don't need to hear his pandering
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Oh FFS does he want to *expand* Head Start?? Wow.
You're becoming a caricature of yourself.
Head Start made up 00.0022% of the Federal Budget in 2011. It's a miniscule drop in the bucket and it has obvious benefits to society. There are literally a hundred other programs to get upset about and slash their spending, before Head Start even comes on the radar.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Oh FFS does he want to *expand* Head Start?? Wow.
You're becoming a caricature of yourself.
Head Start made up 00.0022% of the Federal Budget in 2011. It's a miniscule drop in the bucket and it has obvious benefits to society. There are literally a hundred other programs to get upset about and slash their spending, before Head Start even comes on the radar.
Derspeiss is a firm supporter of Forehead Start.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Oh FFS does he want to *expand* Head Start?? Wow.
You're becoming a caricature of yourself.
You've always been a caricature. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
You're becoming a caricature of yourself.
Do you even know what that means?
QuoteHead Start made up 00.0022% of the Federal Budget in 2011. It's a miniscule drop in the bucket and it has obvious benefits to society. There are literally a hundred other programs to get upset about and slash their spending, before Head Start even comes on the radar.
It's a wasteful program that needs to be cut. It has been shown to have zero long-term benefits to kids' educational development.
I do enjoy the screeching from you types whenever someone suggests it be cut or eliminated.
Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
It's a wasteful program that needs to be cut. It has been shown to have zero long-term benefits to kids' educational development.
Really? Please show me these stats that show it is better to have had no education at all than Head Start. That would be hilarious if true.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
It's a wasteful program that needs to be cut. It has been shown to have zero long-term benefits to kids' educational development.
Really? Please show me these stats that show it is better to have had no education at all than Head Start. That would be hilarious if true.
Well I didn't say Head Start makes them worse off. Just that it doesn't really show any benefits once kids reach third grade.
Let's see what HHS has to say...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/head_start_executive_summary.pdf
QuoteLooking across the full study period, from the beginning of Head Start through 3rd grade, the evidence is clear that access to Head Start improved children's preschool outcomes across developmental domains, but had few impacts on children in kindergarten through 3rd grade. Providing access to Head Start was found to have a positive impact on the types and quality of preschool programs that children attended, with the study finding statistically significant differences between the Head Start group and the control group on every measure of children's preschool experiences in the first year of the study. In contrast, there was little evidence of systematic differences in children's elementary school experiences through 3rd grade, between children provided access to Head Start and their counterparts in the control group.
If they were all aborted, you wouldn't have to worry about Head Start. You can't have it both ways, derfetuss.
I thought it was common knowledge that the positive impact of Head Start disappears in a few years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that the positive impact of Head Start disappears in a few years.
It's one of those "inconvenient truths", if you will.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2013, 10:40:52 AM
If they were all aborted, you wouldn't have to worry about Head Start. You can't have it both ways, derfetuss.
Why not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that the positive impact of Head Start disappears in a few years.
Just Head Start or preschools in general? Anyway I am happily surprised to hear the impact of obscure preschool programs is common knowledge.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 10:46:29 AM
Just Head Start or preschools in general? Anyway I am happily surprised to hear the impact of obscure preschool programs is common knowledge.
As I am surprised to hear that Head Start is obscure.
The results are for Head Start only.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 10:49:32 AM
As I am surprised to hear that Head Start is obscure.
Um it is a program that only impacts families in poverty that comprises a miniscule portion of the federal budget. So...a program that impacts very few people with a tiny budget? How is that not obscure? If I were to poll random people on the street a huge number of them are going to be familiar with the program and be well informed about its impact or lack thereof? I mean I just assume these programs have low impact because of the population involved and the massive organization responsible but also:
QuoteThe results are for Head Start only.
I think preschool is just glorified day care in my mind anyway so it would not surprise me if it had pretty little long term impact overall. The kids brains just cannot do things until they are developementally ready.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 10:57:58 AM
If I were to poll random people on the street a huge number of them are going to be familiar with the program and be well informed about its impact or lack thereof?
Is that what you consider to be the antithesis of obscure?
By that definition virtually all government programs are obscure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 11:02:09 AM
Is that what you consider to be the antithesis of obscure?
By that definition virtually all government programs are obscure.
Social Security and medicare are not obcure. Americorps? Yes.
But anyway I didn't know so I asked about it, clearly the common knowledge never got to me.
Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
Head Start made up 00.0022% of the Federal Budget in 2011. It's a miniscule drop in the bucket and it has obvious benefits to society. There are literally a hundred other programs to get upset about and slash their spending, before Head Start even comes on the radar.
It's a wasteful program that needs to be cut. It has been shown to have zero long-term benefits to kids' educational development.
I do enjoy the screeching from you types whenever someone suggests it be cut or eliminated.
Teachers? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 10:46:29 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that the positive impact of Head Start disappears in a few years.
Just Head Start or preschools in general? Anyway I am happily surprised to hear the impact of obscure preschool programs is common knowledge.
Pre-schools in general. At least for your typical middle-class family.