[Obdigore]

Anyone see Silver on the daily show on Wednesday? The entire thing is on 538.

Also, my new favorite website -> http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[Terez]

This is a discussion forum; stupid pictures are for the Inn. There was a specific reason why I neg-repped your post; you just neg-repped mine for revenge.

[Defiance]

Obdigore, on 19 October 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Anyone see Silver on the daily show on Wednesday? The entire thing is on 538.

Also, my new favorite website -> http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Yeah, that was a very interesting interview. Even though he didn't go into much detail, it was pretty enlightening and I really recommend watching it.

And Terez, have some rep.

[Terez]

I also watched it, on TV and a few hours later again online, partly to catch the rest of the interview, and partly just because the debate recap earlier in the show (full ep) was so good. He's been getting a lot of TV gigs lately, and to be honest, Jon Stewart didn't do too good of a job of selling his book. (i.e., "I loved the bits of it I could understand, which was not much of it...")

I have to read 538 via proxy, because of NYT's stupid article limit. Did you know they got a 'loan' from the guy who owns Mexico? I read about that in Cornered by Barry C. Lynn; I mentioned that on the Global Economy thread.

[Obdigore]

Terez, on 19 October 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

This is a discussion forum; stupid pictures are for the Inn. There was a specific reason why I neg-repped your post; you just neg-repped mine for revenge.

You didn't put anything in why you negrepped me. I had no idea why you negrepped me, so I negrepped you for no fucking reason as well.

Repception!

[Terez]

The reason should have been obvious; it's only part of the long-standing rules of the Discussion Forum and a recurring topic in this very thread.

On topic, today Silver tackled the increasingly-bizarre Gallup numbers.

[HoosierDaddy]

Normally, my opinions towards conservatives lay solely in the matter of disliking their policy positions. I have many conservative friends. Bush and McCain were people I disagreed with, but I didn't think ill of them. (Cheney and Rumsfeld and others who I think were in cahoots to purposefully mislead the American public not so much.) That being said:

I really dislike Mitt Romney as a person. He's smug and arrogant. A bully who wears his privilege so proudly and blatantly that I don't respect him as a person. Rather, he's his own corporation who will do and say anything to sell his brand to the American public.

Just needed to get that off my chest.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 19 October 2012 - 04:54 AM

[Obdigore]

Terez, on 19 October 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

The reason should have been obvious; it's only part of the long-standing rules of the Discussion Forum and a recurring topic in this very thread.

On topic, today Silver tackled the increasingly-bizarre Gallup numbers.

I couldn't even tell what post you did it on since you most likely only did it because someone else pos repped me.

But if you can't be bothered to tell someone why you are neg-repping or pos-repping them you have no room to complain when they do it back.

[Obdigore]

HoosierDaddy, on 19 October 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

Normally, my opinions towards conservatives lay solely in the matter of disliking their policy positions. I have many conservative friends. Bush and McCain were people I disagreed with, but I didn't think ill of them. (Cheney and Rumsfeld and others who I think were in cahoots to purposefully mislead the American public not so much.) That being said:

I really dislike Mitt Romney as a person. He's smug and arrogant. A bully who wears his privilege so proudly and blatantly that I don't respect him as a person. Rather, he's his own corporation who will do and say anything to sell his brand to the American public.

Just needed to get that off my chest.

Correct. I've seen lots of people saying hes got some crusade against the middle class. I don't agree with that. Romney is exhibiting what is seen in most of corporate America as a good trait, the 'I'm going to get mine, fuck everyone else' attitude.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore, on 19 October 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Terez, on 19 October 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

The reason should have been obvious; it's only part of the long-standing rules of the Discussion Forum and a recurring topic in this very thread.

On topic, today Silver tackled the increasingly-bizarre Gallup numbers.

I couldn't even tell what post you did it on since you most likely only did it because someone else pos repped me.

But if you can't be bothered to tell someone why you are neg-repping or pos-repping them you have no room to complain when they do it back.

I rarely tag mine with any comment. That is a level of lazy that I'm prepared to deal with but feel sad about.

[Obdigore]

HoosierDaddy, on 19 October 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 October 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Terez, on 19 October 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

The reason should have been obvious; it's only part of the long-standing rules of the Discussion Forum and a recurring topic in this very thread.

On topic, today Silver tackled the increasingly-bizarre Gallup numbers.

I couldn't even tell what post you did it on since you most likely only did it because someone else pos repped me.

But if you can't be bothered to tell someone why you are neg-repping or pos-repping them you have no room to complain when they do it back.

I rarely tag mine with any comment. That is a level of lazy that I'm prepared to deal with but feel sad about.

Hahahah. Then I'll neg rep you back if I have no idea why you neg repped me, if only to get you to tell me why you neg repped me.

Anyway, apparently Tagg Romney (Mittens' son) wanted to swing at Obama when Obama said Romney was lying: http://www.youtube.c...d&v=wBSAQ2BcZhM

[Terez]

Obdigore, on 19 October 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Terez, on 19 October 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

The reason should have been obvious; it's only part of the long-standing rules of the Discussion Forum and a recurring topic in this very thread.

I couldn't even tell what post you did it on since you most likely only did it because someone else pos repped me.

It doesn't really matter, since your only other recent contribution to the thread was something about "Eagle!" and an equally-stupid rap video. I'm guessing that's why you decided to make a post with something resembling substance, though Illy already posted the romneytaxplan site just before the debate began on Tuesday. It's cute, but no one responded to it because this is not the Inn.

HoosierDaddy, on 19 October 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

Normally, my opinions towards conservatives lay solely in the matter of disliking their policy positions. I have many conservative friends. Bush and McCain were people I disagreed with, but I didn't think ill of them. (Cheney and Rumsfeld and others who I think were in cahoots to purposefully mislead the American public not so much.) That being said:

I really dislike Mitt Romney as a person. He's smug and arrogant. A bully who wears his privilege so proudly and blatantly that I don't respect him as a person. Rather, he's his own corporation who will do and say anything to sell his brand to the American public.

Just needed to get that off my chest.

I think the comedy routine tonight reinforced that opinion for me. He took what is usually an opportunity to make fun of yourself and turned it into a particularly hard-edged stump speech.

[Terez]

Vengeance, on 18 October 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

A great oped article by Richard Clark.

Romney on Libya.

His book Against All Enemies (Clarke rather than Clark, btw) is definitely worth a read. There's a bit of spin in it, but the careful reader can recognize it for what it is.

Also, this was my favorite election cycle moment of the day:

http://www.rawstory....es-are-too-low/

Which is saying something, because it was a pretty exciting day.

[worry]

I just wish neo-cons would stop pretending their ideology is a "lift all boats" ideology. It's not. It's fundamentally Darwinian, and it's supposed to be. The core principle is that we prepare ourselves for an adulthood within the marketplace; winners win, losers lose; and the public safety net -- in all its facets -- is artificially (and wrongly) shifting winnings to the losers. It's not even capitalism, since "Labor" has no voice and "Capital" has it all. But (somewhat ironically) that very idea doesn't sell to most folks, so it's necessarily obfuscated.

CA Prop 32 for example, currently on the ballot, claims to curb political spending from both unions and corporations. However (and this is from the Silicon Valley Mercury News, not my words):

“It is a deceptive sham that would magnify the influence of wealthy interests while shutting out many middle-class voters. Here's how the scam works: It does ban corporations as well as unions from using paycheck deductions for political purposes, but corporations don't do that. Their political donations come straight from the treasury or executives. By contrast, paycheck deductions are the primary method California's 2.5 million union members use to fund political spending.”

Not surprisingly, you'll find the Koch brothers behind it, among a few other robber barons and so-called taxpayer associations. I puke a million pukes as a result.

[Obdigore]

worrywort, on 19 October 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

I just wish neo-cons would stop pretending their ideology is a "lift all boats" ideology. It's not. It's fundamentally Darwinian, and it's supposed to be. The core principle is that we prepare ourselves for an adulthood within the marketplace; winners win, losers lose; and the public safety net -- in all its facets -- is artificially (and wrongly) shifting winnings to the losers. It's not even capitalism, since "Labor" has no voice and "Capital" has it all. But (somewhat ironically) that very idea doesn't sell to most folks, so it's necessarily obfuscated.

CA Prop 32 for example, currently on the ballot, claims to curb political spending from both unions and corporations. However (and this is from the Silicon Valley Mercury News, not my words):

“It is a deceptive sham that would magnify the influence of wealthy interests while shutting out many middle-class voters. Here's how the scam works: It does ban corporations as well as unions from using paycheck deductions for political purposes, but corporations don't do that. Their political donations come straight from the treasury or executives. By contrast, paycheck deductions are the primary method California's 2.5 million union members use to fund political spending.”

Not surprisingly, you'll find the Koch brothers behind it, among a few other robber barons and so-called taxpayer associations. I puke a million pukes as a result.

Why wouldn't they pretend it is good for everyone. You won't get votes unless you prove you are doing something for someone. They find something that works and hold on to it, at least the phrases, even if they are lies, because it is what people are comfortable with. That is why a huge swatch of the country grabs their pitchforks when they hear the word 'socialism'

[amphibian]

Terez, on 19 October 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

The reason should have been obvious; it's only part of the long-standing rules of the Discussion Forum and a recurring topic in this very thread.

On topic, today Silver tackled the increasingly-bizarre Gallup numbers.

Silver just delivered an enormous body blow to the Gallup methodology right there by noting that pretty much every time Gallup veers from the consensus, it's wrong. Boom. Liver shot.

It's not a knockout blow by any means, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some new math whizzes being hired in the coming weeks over there to go over the models again.

[worry]

Point being, Obdi -- just as with the maxim "Republicans run on the idea that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it." -- there's something diabolical to the fact that neo-cons have to resort to false advertising to sell their awful ideas and rigged systems to make them work.

[Obdigore]

worrywort, on 19 October 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Point being, Obdi -- just as with the maxim "Republicans run on the idea that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it." -- there's something diabolical to the fact that neo-cons have to resort to false advertising to sell their awful ideas and rigged systems to make them work.

Yes I know that easy line, but it is directed much more at the Tea Party Tardies than the normal Republicans, who think a small but strong (how?) government is the way to go. I'm not sure why you don't think nearly any large corporation/government isn't going to lie to its people if it can get away with it. Republicans lie to the people who cant be bothered to investigate for themselves and those people eat it up. It is why the republican party is close to splintering, because the libertarians are breaking off from the crazy-religious who are breaking off from the small but strong government people. As more and more people realize the lies, they get disenfranchised and wish for a different candidate or group of people in power. Meanwhile these same people who have been indoctrinated from birth that socialism=bad come right back and vote against their own interests every four years when money-hungry jackasses cry socialism.

It is why a system without any checks but run by humans never works, because eventually someone with greed will get in a position of power and start abusing it. Constant Vigilence is too hard for most of the citizens of today, they embrace the 'i want mine, fuck everyone else' mentality, which is precisely why they buy into shams like Romney and vote for him.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdi: Mad-Eye Moody Democracy. Ha!

[Obdigore]

Meh. I'd love a monarchy made up of well educated people who understand that a strong economy and strong middle class is vital for any nation to thrive unless you rule with an iron fist. Perhaps a governing council group made up of people appointed due to a meritocrical(meritocracy) system, with split power between the monarchy and the council, with term limits on the council.

But then I think its a giant fucking joke that we would ever vote for someone for POTUS that doesn't have a masters in political science, but hey, theres lots of shit wrong with this country that wont get fixed unless you vote me in as emperor of the world