jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
You do?
Re-read this sentence:
[/background][/font][/color]
OK. I just did. I must be missing something... What am I missing?
Edit: Maybe I don't know what innocuous means? Let me go look it up.
Edit2: Nope. It means exactly what I thought it did.
-
Ummm... do you know how to read?
Yes. Do you?
Why didn't you just post "I'm still a clueless idiot." Would have saved you a bunch of time and key strokes.
Good one. Thanks for your contribution.
-
So an ass whoopin is a reasonable response to being followed? I would say the introduction of violence was the real escalation of an otherwise innocuous situation.
I would love to know where you live that "being followed" by someone you don't know can be construed as an "innocuous situation"
People have lost their minds over this case. Rush to judgment, followed by condemning the rush to judgment, followed by people digging their heels in, ignoring the reality of the situation and desperately trying to be "right" about their stupidly superficial initial thoughts about a kid you never knew or cared about being killed by a guy you never knew or cared about until the 'left' told you it was a racial killing and the 'right' told you that poor George Zimmerman was the real victim.
It's really very easy. George Zimmerman deserves whatever he gets. He shot and killed an unarmed 16 year old. Trayvon Martin didn't get what he deserved, per se -- However, if you're going to go fight someone who's following you, you better damn well understand that that person might have a gun. He gambled, and he lost. I don't feel bad for either of them. Zim is still alive and he killed someone who was unarmed so he gets more share of the blame in my eyes. You can twist and turn words all around, but the end result is the same: The guy with the gun shot the guy who didn't have a gun. I'm supposed to feel bad for him?
-
I don't think there's any deeper meaning here. It's like asking: "Why is that team still playing defense? They're up by 25 points in the 4th quarter?" You've still got to win the game.
-
We have similar jobs in that we both observe many people on a daily basis. I too have found no correlation betwen wealth, happiness, or for that matter, their opposites. Rather, the only truth seems to be that there are people who know their limitations and those that do not. Those that set their own expectations, realistically, and those who let other people do that. And, those that recognize that their current life outcomes are a product of their choices and those that either cannot or will not.
The only correlation I have found is that the former is almost always happier than the latter.
I think this is one of, if not the, best posts you've ever written on this board. Kudos.
-
so we've gone through all the tired, old, lame excuses for not increasing the minimum wage: 1.deny the existence of the working poor 2.put forth that those making minimum wage are not trying to support a family on their wages. it's just kids working for pocket money 3. demonize the working poor. they're all useless workers. don't earn their pay. untrainable. lazy, etc.4. admit that there are some working poor but that a very tiny group of people are affected. 5.ad hominem attacks (but living in a glass house in this thread, i'll keep my stones to myself on this one).6. and finally, taa daaaaa, the good ole strawman of a living wage must equal a middle class wage.
it's important to remember that none of these excuses are remotely true. in fact, they're patently false. but that won't stop you the next time this comes up from spouting them off. maybe you could come up with something of real substance and surprise everyone. i won't hold my breath.
Honest questions:
Do you think that adjusting the minimum wage up to (insert $$ here) has zero effect on the number of people employed?
- If you do, why are you less concerned about those people that this proposal would affect?
Do you think that the vast majority of people earning minimum wage are the primary breadwinners of a family?
- If not, why do you use things like the 'poverty line' or 'living wage' to buttress your arguments? Do you see how that doesn't make sense?
Do you think there's NO legitimate reason for having the 'minimum wage' be something different than a 'living wage'?
- If not -- You honestly believe that high school kids stocking shelves and / or washing dishes 'deserve' this 'living wage', rather than the 'minimum wage'?
-
The funniest part of this whole article is where she admits to voting more than once for Obama and then claims that she in no way committed voter fraud.
Agreed.
But didn't she also vote in her grand-daughter's name as well as by mail in ballot. If she had a photo ID she may have been caught. I didn't go back a read the whole article again so I'm not totally sure.
Nope. Absentee ballots in all cases. No Photo ID requirement is going to catch that!
-
Just wanted to point out that this is another example of voter fraud that 'Photo ID' wouldn't have stopped from happening.
-
Seriously. Are you a dumbass or you do you pretend to be one on this message board? Did we not just have this discussion?
So -- Is your answer "The price should be lower and would be if we weren't 'printing money'" ?
-
What happened to the office of President?
The proliferation of Cable News and the development of the influential blogoshpere, and the hyper-partisanship on display there. It is much easier not to think about an issue from all sides when you can go to the news channel of your persuasion and listen to pundits tell you how "kooky", "mean-spirited", "socialist", and "in the pocket of [insert hated industry of the moment here" the other side is. Thus, your world view is confirmed, while the PEOPLE with the different ideas, more and more, become less and less credible and so you can just dismiss any challenging information coming from them.
Edited to add blogosphere.
-
JFK told them, "why don't you go get your shoe shine box"
Maybe he didn't hear. He's been gone down to DC for a long time, but they don't shine shoes no more.
-
Seriously? No one here has heard of Football Outsiders?
-
It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.
Juror#8: I agree with your thoughts about the 'weird responses'. It's almost like a bizarro universe in here.
In general, to me, it seems silly to think that this election will have a turnout that looks like it did in 2008 when you had an historical election, with extreme enthusiasm on the D side. It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to predict a turnout that is similar to that. At the same time, people who (theoretically, at least) get paid to be right are telling me that my 'feeling' about that point is wrong. It's a weird spot to be in -- things that don't seem possible to me are, according to the experts, not only possible, but likely. I'm fascinated by what the turnout numbers are, and am extremely excited to find out.
I will be very impressed with people who got it right, when it didn't seem to make sense.
Needless to say, I'm impressed. They got it right and that's why they get paid and I don't!
-
You ignore the fact of lots of Rs and Is that were disenchanted with the mealy old man candidate (albeit a war hero) and his MILF running mate's seeming less-than-prepared for prime time (of course we didn't know the real Jokin' Joe then either) and either didn't vote and/or didn't get others to vote or contribute to the campaign. Lots of people voted for BO because they were enthralled with the concept of racial equality and were impressed that the country was at a place where they could actually vote for a black man for President. A similar phenomenon will occur when the first woman is nominated by her party as candidate for that office.
Obama's been a disappointment on too many levels to deserve a second term as the most powerful man in the world. He held the baton and the country diminished under his watch. We have to let him go.
I was thinking fundraising for his Presidential library.
It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.
Juror#8: I agree with your thoughts about the 'weird responses'. It's almost like a bizarro universe in here.
In general, to me, it seems silly to think that this election will have a turnout that looks like it did in 2008 when you had an historical election, with extreme enthusiasm on the D side. It doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to predict a turnout that is similar to that. At the same time, people who (theoretically, at least) get paid to be right are telling me that my 'feeling' about that point is wrong. It's a weird spot to be in -- things that don't seem possible to me are, according to the experts, not only possible, but likely. I'm fascinated by what the turnout numbers are, and am extremely excited to find out.
I will be very impressed with people who got it right, when it didn't seem to make sense.
-
Hold on....I'm looking up the "5 reasons why this Rs are actually Is theory is horseshit" analyses I have.
From memory...the first theory breaker is that even if that were true...then why do these polls routinely have not enough Inds then?
Edit: here you go: http://www.redstate....ed-republicans/
They can discount the source all they like...but the math...is the math. Or, in this case...90% of the people...is not 100% of the people.
To wit:
The idea is that R's have turned I because they're frustrated with the Republican party (and would, presumably, be less likely to vote in the election). That's why you would poetentially see this type of turnout.
As an example --
Last election there are 200 people:
D - 80
R - 60
I - 60
They all vote -- so D +10
They switch to (20 R's move to I):
D - 80
R - 40
I - 100
and the I's (who are are disillusioned with R's, but more conservative than before) and D's are less enthusiastic about the vote.
Now the vote would go something like:
D - 60
R - 40
I - 70
In this model you still have a D + 10 or so turnout. Even if there is a 10+ % vote for Romney among I's (so something like 40-30 votes in the I for Romney) that's not enough votes there for him to overcome the loss of all the R's from last election. Result would be 90 votes for D, 80 votes for R.
So. All the remaining R's voted -- Higher enthusiasm than last election. 75% of the D's voted -- Lower enthusiasm than last election. 70% of I's voted -- Lower enthusiasm (as the result of a lot of I's being disillusioned R's). This would explain how the models could still be correct, even when accounting for all the things that we're seeing in the underlying data being 'suspect'.
I'm not saying that's right -- I'm merely pointing out how it *could* be right. This is the only thing that is keeping me from thinking that this election is in the bag for Romney. I have no basis for having an opinion on whether or not that shift from R to I happened, or whether or not (even if it did happen) create the effect that the models seem to be predicting. In short -- I will be fascinated to see what the turnout numbers are going to be on Wednesday. I'll probably spend way more time than I should looking at these things because either 1) Professional pollsters are really, really bad at their job. or 2) They are actually really, really good at their jobs. I can't wait to find out which.
-
2. Only a moron doesn't know D+11 is wrong...unless you are push polling Greenwich Village, and your first question is "Do you support protecting the civil rights of Americans to marry whomever they wish"?
I want to know what he has...is it D+5...or D+2? What?The only thing I've seen that gives me pause is that there is a theory that there has been a shift from R's to Independents in the past few years, which *could* (I haven't thought that much about this yet, but on its face seems somewhat reasonable) explain why a D+8 turnout could happen again, even with the enthusiasm gap you've described. It would also explain the inconsistencies that you've seen in the underlying numbers -- namely, that Romney is crushing it with Independents (which, under this theory, would be naturally more conservative than in '08) and could still lose the election because the turnout would still be D+8 or whatever. It's a theory I've heard that makes sense. I have no reason to believe that the 'average' Independent is more conservative this time around, but I ALSO have no reason to believe that they aren't.
Anyway. It's a theory I've heard that seems to explain what I would consider to be irregularities in the polling. We'll see tomorrow (or Wednesday) I suppose.
-
I'd be curious to learn more on industry standard. Do others forgive for death? Doesn't change much in this case but still curious to learn.
In the end she signed it and I won't be upset if they tell her to pay it.
You don't forgive the co-signer in the event of death of the borrower. Generally, by definition, the borrower would not have been able to take out the loan unless there was someone else taking on the responsibility of paying back the loan as well.
For those of you who are advocating for the bank to 'just forgive the loan', you do realize that you're advocating for higher rates for everyone (in order to protect themselves for all of these 'stories' that they'll need to forgive now -- why stop at death? What about a really bad accident? What about a recession? What about any number of other issues that people have?) or just have them stop lending in this space altogether? Is that what you want? For it to be harder to get loans for college?
-
Close election, Obama needs to win less swing states. That's it. When you look at 538 that is basically all that is presented. And when you look at the electoral college you see it is true. Also, we'll know in a week. So who cares.
Well in any event he uses a million polls but ultimately the issue is simple and you don't really have to understand anything to get it.....there are a lot of close battle ground states and Obama needs to win less of them. While Ohio could go Romney, if most people had to bet their saving on it they would choose Obama, which would makes things even worse for Romney. That's it. That's all you need to know.
That's not it, and that's NOT all you 'need to know'. 538 aggregates polls and polling data then does simulations based off of that data to try to arrive at the 'most likely' course of events. No one really disputes that. What people have been trying to point out (apparently to no effect) is that the *underlying data* for 538 (the polls it uses to aggregate into its simulator) might be wrong. The reason that the might be wrong is because almost all of those underlying polls are using turnout models (different models, to be sure, but generally triangulating in the same direction) that look remarkably like the actual turnout of the 2008 General Election. In other words, D+ 6 or more. Some people are pointing out that this doesn't really 'feel' right.
Is turnout going to be like it was in '08? That's "it". *That's* "all you need to know".
What about you? Do you think that turnout in 2012 is going to be roughly the same as turnout was in 2008?
-
I spend alot of time reading the articles, only because I want to learn/ know more about the polling and electoral process. Since OC seems to know quite a bit about polling and weighting and what not, I think he would find Silver's explanations compelling, even if he disagrees...
Silver's analysis has been pretty conistent, and has not been biased at least from my view. I do think he works for the Obama campaign as a polling consultant, but I don't see him being a shill for the left.
I find it as more of a 'smell-test' than anything else. He can write and reason and tell me all sorts of stuff -- Ultimately it comes down to: Will this election (I suppose mostly in the key battleground states) have a turnout that is D + 5 or 6 or 7 or whatever, OR will it have a much lower D+ turnout? It's hard to conceive that turnout for D's (as it relates to R's) will be as strong as it was in 2008. Most of the polling relies on that 2008 model, where turnout is D+ 6+. If it IS D + 6+ President Obama will win going away. If it isn't, well -- since those D+ 6+ polls show toss-ups -- you're probably looking at a Mitt Romney Presidency.
I don't think anyone (intelligent) is saying there's some vast conspiracy -- People (the intelligent ones, at least) are saying that D+6 or more doesn't feel like the right turnout numbers to use. In other words, expecting a 2008 style turnout even when we see more R engagement and less D engagement doesn't seem real compelling from a common sense view. I'm sure people can construct a very detailed story where that appears plausible and even likely. However. Stepping back and looking at this thing from 10,000 feet, it sure doesn't feel like we're going to see a D+6 or more turnout. It's very possible I'm wrong -- ask my wife; I'm wrong all the time -- but from a big picture perspective, it would seem D+6 polls are too high on the D side and, thus, inflate the current numbers for the President.
-
Sounds like Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan, lol.
PTR is right and you are wrong, Romney has not said, and won't say what tax breaks he will make the middle class pay more with by eliminating because he thinks he can fool people like you by not saying anything. I mean Duh!
Mitt Romney, very clearly, has said that the 'details' of how to get where he wants to lead to are going to be up to bi-partisan negotiations. He's said, very clearly, that he doesn't want to 'spell out the details' because that puts people in a position, prior to the bi-partisan negotiation, of defending positions in that negotiation,that may or may not make sense. See, he's a real leader. A person with experience who understands that saying: These are my specific decuctions that we'll cap or eliminate boxes people in. He understands that you need a bi-partisan negotiation and that the most effective way of getting there is to state the goal and let the negotiations make there way there. In fact, we might even get a better tax reform by putting all ideas on the table rather than trying to cram Gov. Romney's details down everyone's throat. I know we're not used to leadership like that but maybe we should give it a shot?
-
The idea that just Mitt Romney being elected will help the economy is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in history. And Romney had the balls to tell that to people as if he some sort of...should I say...messiah??
There is this idea that cutting taxes on the top 5% will somehow create strong economic or employment growth. Truth is there is NO EVIDENCE for that idea.
Another article of the effectiveness of tax reform with historical evidence: http://economix.blog...th/#more-156823
Cutting taxes on the middle class is okay but then to add to it with cuts for the rich/wealthy is only not necessary, it hurts our deficit problem. And Mitt promised a balanced budget within 6 years?? LOLOLOLL
Schooling is not the same as a television set, or a regular good. It is the basic tools necessary for children to succeed. If you want to treat it that way, then only the kids with the most money get to the best schools. Poverty is a huge issue when it comes to children's success already because they don't get the same great education as other kids.
I don't Obama's plan is to just throw money at the problem. Race to the Top is a start and hiring 100,000 new teachers is good for economic growth, adding jobs to the economy, and hopefully bettering education all together. Remember that many teachers have been losing jobs as the rest of the economy was adding them. Let's just get back to the old level. Unemployment will drop and we can work even more on getting the economy jump started more from new demand.
At the same time, hopefully states and unions can come together to get teacher contracts under control a little bit. It's not a problem everywhere however. In some places in the south, anybody can teach! That should probably change too. But most of you probably think education should be a state thing only. But, I believe there are plenty of benefits of setting the same standards across the countries for not only students, but teachers too. We need to recruit teachers who really care about their profession and are dedicated to teaching.
Mitt Romney has NOT proposed to extend the "Bush tax cuts for the top two percent".
Honestly. Just THINK for a minute so, at the very least, you're making an argument that has basis in reality.
-
Then again, neither Romney nor Ryan have actually revealed any details from their plan so who can really tell?
PTR
As for 'details': How much more detailed can the Governor be?
1- He has said that he wants to lower marginal tax RATES by 20% across the board.
2- He has said that the 'wealthy' won't pay any less a share of the income tax as they do now.
3- He has said that he wants to close tax 'loopholes' to 'pay' for that 20% across the board cut.
Rightly, he has said that there are any number of ways to close the loopholes (from capping deductions at a certain, different, levels, to eliminating any number of deductions) and that there would be bi-partisan negotiation about how the legislation would be crafted in order to make it work.
He very clearly said that he would veto any legislation that came across his desk that didn't adhere to the three principles above.
That is a more detailed plan than anyone running in this race has given, so I'm not sure what else you're asking for? Or maybe you don't *really* care, you're just searching for reasons to vote for the President... Which is fine -- you don't have to be silly about it, though.
Is this what you are referring to??
That's a real glowing endorsement there.
He's basically saying it might work if he raises taxes on people making $100K +, which Romney said he won't do...or if there is a big enough "jolt" to the economy, though he doesn't say how big. Two guys saying "maybe" against many others saying "no way". Again, find a link to a credible non-partisan study of Romney's tax plan that says it will work.PTR
Keep reading your own link, PTR... you know, like ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just the headlines that you want to post.
Edit: I'll do it for you. "Scott A. Hodge, President of The Tax Foundation, a non-profit research group in Washington... believes that it was possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue neutral tax reform that cuts rates in the way that Mr. Romney described."
-
2.0% and trending upward, along with unemployment trending downward? Yeah, I can cheer for that. As for Romney's non-partisan experts, how about putting a link up? I'd like to read what they say. In the meantime...
US News: 6 Independent groups say Romney tax plan can't work.
Then again, neither Romney nor Ryan have actually revealed any details from their plan so who can really tell?
PTR
Your own original link had an 'expert' who said it could work.
-
That isn't a policy, that's an opinion. Romney himself said, in that infamous 47% speech, that he believes the economy will soar just because he's president with no other action necessary. Sure.
You do realize that there are other 'non-partisan' 'experts' who say that the Governor's plan works great, don't you?
Is that what the President's supporters are left with? Cheering for 2.0% GDP growth? Really? We're supposed to be HAPPY with that?
Trayvon Martin Case
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Pretty sure you've got it twisted.
I don't think I commented on whether or not following someone was "grounds to get an ass whoopin". If you'll take a look at the very large fonted quote of mine from your post, you'll see that it was a reaction to the idea that 'being followed' is an innocuous situation. I would suggest that 'being followed' is anything BUT harmless.
After that, I explained my thoughts on why anyone defending either of these two was mental, as well as my thoughts on why I think that defending either one of them was silly.