Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Its the old Rovian strategy. Don't attack an opponent's weakness. Attack his strength.
Its the old Rovian strategy. Don't attack an opponent's weakness. Attack his strength.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Seriously. He is a fool for running away from Bain. Great company. I know and have worked with a couple guys there and they are solid people. In fact when I see a resume from a person who works there my first thought isnt "great, let's get a guy from there"... It's "why would they want to leave there".
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Silver wrote an article about the national impact of the Bain stuff without looking at his own blog. Right below it is a post about Obama going from 3 down in an Ohio poll to 3 up. The Rust Belt is where you'll see impact from these attacks if anywhere.
Silver wrote an article about the national impact of the Bain stuff without looking at his own blog. Right below it is a post about Obama going from 3 down in an Ohio poll to 3 up. The Rust Belt is where you'll see impact from these attacks if anywhere.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Of course they couldn't explain whether those numbers changed because more/less people are working or if the ridiculous model for reporting unemployment just stopped counting people. Other than that, I believe you are right.
I was thinking happiness doesn't correlate with altitude when you're falling.
I would like to see the correlation against the delta in unemployment rate. It makes intuitive sense that people are more comfortable with an unemployment rate of 7% that just decreased from 8% than 6% which just increased from 5%.
Of course they couldn't explain whether those numbers changed because more/less people are working or if the ridiculous model for reporting unemployment just stopped counting people. Other than that, I believe you are right.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
I used to be a firm believer that U3's severe underreporting of unemployment was hiding something, and it is of course (absolute number of unemployed and underemployed), but it seems as good a relative indicator of unemployment as any other, because they all track pretty much exactly against each:
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported on Wikipedia.
What I would really love to see would be comparative LOE data, for example:
(total number of compensated hours worked of all persons 18-65) / (number of person-hours of all persons 18-65)
That would be an interesting figure to track over time. Prior to the recession I'll bet "background normal" was pretty stable over time: the percentage of people in "prolonged adolescence" (18+ not working while in school) has climbed but the percentage of "unemployed" women (Betty Draper housewives) has plummeted. That may actually be the macro-story of employment over the last 50 years: women over 30 replacing men under 30 in the workforce, with a net change of zero hours worked.
Yup, I thought of that.Of course they couldn't explain whether those numbers changed because more/less people are working or if the ridiculous model for reporting unemployment just stopped counting people. Other than that, I believe you are right.
I used to be a firm believer that U3's severe underreporting of unemployment was hiding something, and it is of course (absolute number of unemployed and underemployed), but it seems as good a relative indicator of unemployment as any other, because they all track pretty much exactly against each:
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported on Wikipedia.
What I would really love to see would be comparative LOE data, for example:
(total number of compensated hours worked of all persons 18-65) / (number of person-hours of all persons 18-65)
That would be an interesting figure to track over time. Prior to the recession I'll bet "background normal" was pretty stable over time: the percentage of people in "prolonged adolescence" (18+ not working while in school) has climbed but the percentage of "unemployed" women (Betty Draper housewives) has plummeted. That may actually be the macro-story of employment over the last 50 years: women over 30 replacing men under 30 in the workforce, with a net change of zero hours worked.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
There's still a fighting chance! His foot is in the door. http://digitaljournal.com/article/324280
RON PAUL 2012
There's still a fighting chance! His foot is in the door. http://digitaljournal.com/article/324280
RON PAUL 2012
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
I'll have to check that link later...I would think that the relative tracking against each other would not be a wash going into and out of a recession in which large volumes of unemployed are not only far offsetting new entrants and new hires but they are in there long enough to also fall off the tracking during the same recession.
Steady state, the 'wash factor' makes sense; like I said, don't have time for the link now...will take a look later.
Yup, I thought of that.
I used to be a firm believer that U3's severe underreporting of unemployment was hiding something, and it is of course (absolute number of unemployed and underemployed), but it seems as good a relative indicator of unemployment as any other, because they all track pretty much exactly against each:
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported on Wikipedia.
What I would really love to see would be comparative LOE data, for example:
(total number of compensated hours worked of all persons 18-65) / (number of person-hours of all persons 18-65)
That would be an interesting figure to track over time. Prior to the recession I'll bet "background normal" was pretty stable over time: the percentage of people in "prolonged adolescence" (18+ not working while in school) has climbed but the percentage of "unemployed" women (Betty Draper housewives) has plummeted. That may actually be the macro-story of employment over the last 50 years: women over 30 replacing men under 30 in the workforce, with a net change of zero hours worked.
I'll have to check that link later...I would think that the relative tracking against each other would not be a wash going into and out of a recession in which large volumes of unemployed are not only far offsetting new entrants and new hires but they are in there long enough to also fall off the tracking during the same recession.
Steady state, the 'wash factor' makes sense; like I said, don't have time for the link now...will take a look later.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
So I was in my workshop the other day, putting together some custom-built shelves, when there was a knock on the door. I was surprised to see it was someone from Obama's re-election campaign. He pointed to the shelves and said, "you didn't built that. Someone else provided the electricity that ran your tools, someone else made your tools. You didn't build that."
I love the one where they splice Obama's quip together with Kevin Costner's character from Field of Dreams: "if you build it, we'll say you didn't build it."
Man, whenever he goes off-script, he reveals what he truly thinks, and it's not the dandified edifice he tries to pretend it is when the teleprompter is running.
again, a reminder against committing a logical fallacy all too common around these parts, if a person says, "I don't like A," it does not logically follow that the person likes B!
So I was in my workshop the other day, putting together some custom-built shelves, when there was a knock on the door. I was surprised to see it was someone from Obama's re-election campaign. He pointed to the shelves and said, "you didn't built that. Someone else provided the electricity that ran your tools, someone else made your tools. You didn't build that."
I love the one where they splice Obama's quip together with Kevin Costner's character from Field of Dreams: "if you build it, we'll say you didn't build it."
Man, whenever he goes off-script, he reveals what he truly thinks, and it's not the dandified edifice he tries to pretend it is when the teleprompter is running.
again, a reminder against committing a logical fallacy all too common around these parts, if a person says, "I don't like A," it does not logically follow that the person likes B!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
BTW, if anybody here actually has experience as a convention delegate I'm sure many would love to hear your stories.
The RNC is famously highly disciplined and buttoned-down at its conventions. Nothing spontaneous happens there; even the sneezes are choreographed. In addition, the Romney campaign is run by control freaks who don't want a scintilla of improvisation.
I did think of one way for Mitt to shake up the election, though. Offer Paul the VP.
I heard a report detailing that he is primarily fighting for background parliamentarian arcana that helps decide who gets to add what to the platform. Paul's people are more experienced in this than the other delegations, so the RNC is a little scared they might be able to "hijack" (read: use for democratic purposes) the democratic conference process.
BTW, if anybody here actually has experience as a convention delegate I'm sure many would love to hear your stories.
The RNC is famously highly disciplined and buttoned-down at its conventions. Nothing spontaneous happens there; even the sneezes are choreographed. In addition, the Romney campaign is run by control freaks who don't want a scintilla of improvisation.
I did think of one way for Mitt to shake up the election, though. Offer Paul the VP.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
The "you didn't make that" Echo Chamber crying point is being regurgitated everywhere this morning. This is an intelligent piece about its context from that leftist bastion Bloomberg News.
And that's what this is about. It's not about my local plumber who started his company from scratch (and is voting for Obama). It's about the vultures who have exploited capitalism for their own ends, privatizing gain and socializing risk. I don't think Romney is lying when he says he thinks that's good for America. I think he simply doesn't understand how much damage his crowd has done and how much Main Street needs the rein them back in in self-defense.
The "you didn't make that" Echo Chamber crying point is being regurgitated everywhere this morning. This is an intelligent piece about its context from that leftist bastion Bloomberg News.
And that's what this is about. It's not about my local plumber who started his company from scratch (and is voting for Obama). It's about the vultures who have exploited capitalism for their own ends, privatizing gain and socializing risk. I don't think Romney is lying when he says he thinks that's good for America. I think he simply doesn't understand how much damage his crowd has done and how much Main Street needs the rein them back in in self-defense.
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
There is something tragically pitiable about this election.....
You ask any medical doctor, they'll tell you that arteroschlerosis is unhealthy and should be treated....yet one party is touting arteroschlerosis as a campaign slogan and half the electorate seems to want to go along.
What a sad, sad, state of affairs we've devolved to, where cheerleading about who's going to win an election takes precedence so much more highly over what is good for this country's health.
Neither party seems to represent a healthy lifestyle choice. It's crony capitalism Team D vs crony capitalism Team R. yuck.
There is something tragically pitiable about this election.....
You ask any medical doctor, they'll tell you that arteroschlerosis is unhealthy and should be treated....yet one party is touting arteroschlerosis as a campaign slogan and half the electorate seems to want to go along.
What a sad, sad, state of affairs we've devolved to, where cheerleading about who's going to win an election takes precedence so much more highly over what is good for this country's health.
Neither party seems to represent a healthy lifestyle choice. It's crony capitalism Team D vs crony capitalism Team R. yuck.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
This is my number one issue and what I consider the number one problem facing our country. It's why the tax return issue is important to me.
This is my number one issue and what I consider the number one problem facing our country. It's why the tax return issue is important to me.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
How is it that so many on the right totally misunderstood what the president said? Is it that they didn't take ten seconds to read more or the point of the passage, that they truly don't read/understand well period or that its all down to dishonesty and politics as usual?
How is it that so many on the right totally misunderstood what the president said? Is it that they didn't take ten seconds to read more or the point of the passage, that they truly don't read/understand well period or that its all down to dishonesty and politics as usual?
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Once upon a time, companies went bankrupt and their shareholders took it in the shorts.
Now it seems that everything is "too big to fail" (I imagine this coincides with massive political donations), so the taxpayers take it in the shorts rather than the investors.
Whatever this country is these days, it isn't capitalist.
So was the auto industry bailout okay with you then?
Once upon a time, companies went bankrupt and their shareholders took it in the shorts.
Now it seems that everything is "too big to fail" (I imagine this coincides with massive political donations), so the taxpayers take it in the shorts rather than the investors.
Whatever this country is these days, it isn't capitalist.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
I think use of the word "whenever" means it's a widespread problem for Obama.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
No, no it wasn't. It only became "ok" for me for the government to bail out the banks and the auto industry because it was obvious that if they didn't the entire system would collapse. There is a fundamental flaw in the regulation area, government, and private industry that has created the "privatizing gain and socializing risk" era and it's in my mind the number one issue that needs to be fixed. We need to get to a point where there is no too big to fail anymore and everyone can go through normal bankruptcy like they're supposed to.
And, just to clarify, I've read many articles on the auto-bailout and it is my belief that Mitt Romney is wrong and if the government hadn't stepped in when they did the auto industry in this country would have been all but finished with just Ford standing.
No, no it wasn't. It only became "ok" for me for the government to bail out the banks and the auto industry because it was obvious that if they didn't the entire system would collapse. There is a fundamental flaw in the regulation area, government, and private industry that has created the "privatizing gain and socializing risk" era and it's in my mind the number one issue that needs to be fixed. We need to get to a point where there is no too big to fail anymore and everyone can go through normal bankruptcy like they're supposed to.
And, just to clarify, I've read many articles on the auto-bailout and it is my belief that Mitt Romney is wrong and if the government hadn't stepped in when they did the auto industry in this country would have been all but finished with just Ford standing.
GopherBigGuy911
The one you hate to love
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/ Really not sure how no one has posted this yet... Not that it REALLY matters considering that damage is already done, but.... The most troubling fact of the story is this - Hawaii provides easy access to a birth certificate, even if the child wasn’t born in the state.
Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, not necessarily a U.S. citizen, and pay taxes there for one year to be able to register an out-of-state or foreign-born person with an official Hawaii birth certificate.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/ Really not sure how no one has posted this yet... Not that it REALLY matters considering that damage is already done, but.... The most troubling fact of the story is this - Hawaii provides easy access to a birth certificate, even if the child wasn’t born in the state.
Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, a person only has to be an established resident of Hawaii, not necessarily a U.S. citizen, and pay taxes there for one year to be able to register an out-of-state or foreign-born person with an official Hawaii birth certificate.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Let's say the same thing happens in the energy sector. Let's say that all but one of the American majors make massive blunders and are in danger of going under. Should the government intervene and prop them up too? Or how about big pharm? Where does the line get drawn?
Don't you see the inherent problem with this line of logic that we "have" to prop companies up?
Just because GM and Chrysler would have been flushed down the toilet doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The American auto market is still there, and other companies would certainly step in to snap up the market share. Foreign auto makers already have many plants in this country, so the line between foreign and domestic has already been blurred considerably. What difference does it make in the end if the big three are doing it or if somebody like Toyota or Honda or Mercedes is? A company is a company regardless of its parent country. Perhaps some die, but the industry still exists.
Let's say the same thing happens in the energy sector. Let's say that all but one of the American majors make massive blunders and are in danger of going under. Should the government intervene and prop them up too? Or how about big pharm? Where does the line get drawn?
Don't you see the inherent problem with this line of logic that we "have" to prop companies up?
Just because GM and Chrysler would have been flushed down the toilet doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. The American auto market is still there, and other companies would certainly step in to snap up the market share. Foreign auto makers already have many plants in this country, so the line between foreign and domestic has already been blurred considerably. What difference does it make in the end if the big three are doing it or if somebody like Toyota or Honda or Mercedes is? A company is a company regardless of its parent country. Perhaps some die, but the industry still exists.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
What was the event where Obama made that comment?
Dollars to donuts it was an attempt to play to his audience, nothing more. That's where I disagree about the "how he really thinks" interpretation. To me, he's just a politician. And he's good at it. His rhetoric is at its best when he's sure of his audience. The cynicism comes naturally. The times when he stumbles more, and seems to rely more heavily on the 'prompter, are when he's down in the weeds, in ClintonWonk mode.
What was the event where Obama made that comment?
Dollars to donuts it was an attempt to play to his audience, nothing more. That's where I disagree about the "how he really thinks" interpretation. To me, he's just a politician. And he's good at it. His rhetoric is at its best when he's sure of his audience. The cynicism comes naturally. The times when he stumbles more, and seems to rely more heavily on the 'prompter, are when he's down in the weeds, in ClintonWonk mode.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the end result would have been devastating. As devastating as not doing the bank bailouts. I also find it disingenuous that Mitt has come out against the car bailout but for the bank bailout.
Either way we need to put some structure in place where we never bail out anyone again.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the end result would have been devastating. As devastating as not doing the bank bailouts. I also find it disingenuous that Mitt has come out against the car bailout but for the bank bailout.
Either way we need to put some structure in place where we never bail out anyone again.
- Status