Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I'd love to support myself, but with no car and no money (and no one hiring within walking distance) I'm in kind of a weird limbo right now. On the plus side, outside of food stamps, I'm only living off the support of my family so I guess that's not too bad.
Sure wish I could do something with my degree though.
Anyhow, I feel like any chances I might have will get worse under a Romney/GOP presidency so Gobama.
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Ted really is riding that line between being passionate about a subject, and saying something that will get the Secret Service to make the call that gets your ass arrested.
He pretty much threatened violence against the president in that first speech. Wow.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Ted really is riding that line between being passionate about a subject, and saying something that will get the Secret Service to make the call that gets your ass arrested.
He pretty much threatened violence against the president in that first speech. Wow.
The problem with today's Republican party (think Romney and the Dignity of Work and Santorum and the Dignity of Life) is that they want to take decisions for the rest of us instead of equip us with the opportunity and information necessary to make decisions for ourselves.
I don't really think staying at home and living on the dole is a decision you should get to make for yourself. We should definitely be providing opportunity for people to earn a living... and then we should be expecting them to do it.
Supporting yourself and your family is dignifying, especially as opposed to living off the State. Those who can, should. I don't think this is the slightest bit controversial!
Liberals judging women as lesser because they raise kids instead of working outside the home is common enough. I'm not at all surprised she'd be glad to see it getting some mainstream attention because it's a pretty despicable attitude from that slice of the left.
It's another thing she has in common with average SAHMs - dealing with those who agree with Rosen is something you have to do frequently. She's dead right that it's good for the campaign and for her husband.
So in summary - poor SAH mothers don't work, but rich SAH mothers do.
The ones who could afford daycare (and nannies, and servants) are the dignified hard workers. The ones who can't are layabouts.
Unfortunately I can't cite the hundreds of times over the last 15 years this conversation has played out over the phone and in person:
Person: Your employer?
Wife: I'm a stay-at-home mom
Person: So you don't work.
Wife: How dare you! My husband makes enough money that my staying home is a luxury and not a necessity! Thus, my staying home is the hardest work ever instead of living an undignified life!
Ted really is riding that line between being passionate about a subject, and saying something that will get the Secret Service to make the call that gets your ass arrested.
He pretty much threatened violence against the president in that first speech. Wow.
I know that comment seems snarky but I'm serious, the guy has talked like that about democrats for decades. He is a grade-a nutjob asshole. Back when a Republican could still do so he would proudly recount about his genius method of dodging the draft by being so disgusting the recruitment officer declared him unfit for duty. It included not washing, not eating, and various other processes I don't feel like remembering. He took pride in relating the story as "outsmarting the system" up until it became politically untenable, then he changed his tune and explained away his draft-dodging as somehow being taking a stand for America and against all the hippies and liberals that kept America from winning Vietnam, or something. Every democrat he's ever talked about was, at that moment, the worst person in the universe. He plays the guitar, but not well enough to make any money without the gimmick of being rabidly partisan. He glorifies ignorance, hates drugs, fags, women, and possibly minority races (I don't remember) and always gives 110% when it comes to being a loud attention whore.
Unsurprisingly this makes him quite successful at certain kinds of politics with certain demographics of people, and makes him buckets of cash.
Funny part? I learned all this from Republicans.
Boring7 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The Secret Service is aware of Nugent's comments. They said as much today.
As for 2016, I saw a blurb that PPP had polled that. Christie leads for the GOP, Hillary for the Dems, unsurprisingly.
I don't think Hillary will be running again. I don't think she's going to stay as Sec State until the end of Obama's second term. It's time for her to enjoy the lecture circuit that Bill's been going around before too long.
It doesn't surprise me that she'd lead in a poll, though.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The Secret Service is aware of Nugent's comments. They said as much today.
As for 2016, I saw a blurb that PPP had polled that. Christie leads for the GOP, Hillary for the Dems, unsurprisingly.
I don't think Hillary will be running again. I don't think she's going to stay as Sec State until the end of Obama's second term. It's time for her to enjoy the lecture circuit that Bill's been going around before too long.
It doesn't surprise me that she'd lead in a poll, though.
I was almost certain Hil has already said she isn't going to continue as Sec of State in 2013.
It was my guess that she and Obama worked out passing the reins of OFA to her camp for 2016's race... with Obama out there campaigning FOR her.
We will have to wait and see, but that would be a kickass race no matter who the Pubs put out there.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
So based on one poll that disagrees with several others, The Atlantic wrote this silly little piece that is actually pretty accurate about the EC.
This creates an intriguing scenario. What if Obama were to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college? That's not unheard of. George W. Bush famously lost the popular vote in his 2000 win, and three others have done the same: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford Hayes (1876), and Benjamin Harrison (1888). But no sitting president has ever won reelection while losing the popular vote. In terms of historic election firsts, it's not exactly first-black-president material, but it would be fun for political nerds.
Spring is the most boring time for politics sometimes.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The Secret Service is aware of Nugent's comments. They said as much today.
As for 2016, I saw a blurb that PPP had polled that. Christie leads for the GOP, Hillary for the Dems, unsurprisingly.
I don't think Hillary will be running again. I don't think she's going to stay as Sec State until the end of Obama's second term. It's time for her to enjoy the lecture circuit that Bill's been going around before too long.
It doesn't surprise me that she'd lead in a poll, though.
I was almost certain Hil has already said she isn't going to continue as Sec of State in 2013.
It was my guess that she and Obama worked out passing the reins of OFA to her camp for 2016's race... with Obama out there campaigning FOR her.
We will have to wait and see, but that would be a kickass race no matter who the Pubs put out there.
I mean, it's possible, but I think it's unlikely that Clinton will run for president again. The party will want to keep moving on, not hovering over the past and depending on how the next four years go, it may not be the Democrat's year.
The Secret Service is aware of Nugent's comments. They said as much today.
As for 2016, I saw a blurb that PPP had polled that. Christie leads for the GOP, Hillary for the Dems, unsurprisingly.
I don't think Hillary will be running again. I don't think she's going to stay as Sec State until the end of Obama's second term. It's time for her to enjoy the lecture circuit that Bill's been going around before too long.
It doesn't surprise me that she'd lead in a poll, though.
I was almost certain Hil has already said she isn't going to continue as Sec of State in 2013.
It was my guess that she and Obama worked out passing the reins of OFA to her camp for 2016's race... with Obama out there campaigning FOR her.
We will have to wait and see, but that would be a kickass race no matter who the Pubs put out there.
I mean, it's possible, but I think it's unlikely that Clinton will run for president again. The party will want to keep moving on, not hovering over the past and depending on how the next four years go, it may not be the Democrat's year.
The question is will Hilary let it move on? Either way it'll be interesting in the next Democratic primaries.
I can't imagine anyone more likely than Clinton. She had a strong showing last time and depending who the pubs field could have very good odds.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You know, I understand the mind of the Republican Voter pretty well, but one thing I can't wrap my head around is why Romney can't give a straight answer on this Lily Ledbetter thing.
DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?
MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–
DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?
MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I can't imagine anyone more likely than Clinton. She had a strong showing last time and depending who the pubs field could have very good odds.
Obama is the only reason she didn't make it to the White House in 2008. Whether or not this is a good thing I wax and wane on at times, as I think she would have been less likely to try and work with the right in the 2009-2010 congress. We may have gotten single payer.
Then again, we have seen a lot of REALLY GREAT SHIT accomplished under Obama, he can totally run on his record this election and let Mitt double-talk his way into oblivion.
But in 2016, if Organizing for America puts its machinery and contacts behind Hilary (should she choose to run) and Obama pounds pavement for her... no question I'd vote for that.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I can't imagine anyone more likely than Clinton. She had a strong showing last time and depending who the pubs field could have very good odds.
The feeling I had in the primaries was that both Clinton and Obama would probably make perfectly fine presidents and could certainly beat McCain, but Obama was blatantly edging her out on both charisma and coordination. How common was that sentiment?
You know, I understand the mind of the Republican Voter pretty well, but one thing I can't wrap my head around is why Romney can't give a straight answer on this Lily Ledbetter thing.
DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?
MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–
DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?
MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.
It's to early for him to answer IMO. The general election hasn't began yet. He'll hold off revealing his opinion on the issue until he has the perfect moment and has vetted it with the proper research to give him the best response to benefit his campaign.
You know, I understand the mind of the Republican Voter pretty well, but one thing I can't wrap my head around is why Romney can't give a straight answer on this Lily Ledbetter thing.
Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I can't imagine anyone more likely than Clinton. She had a strong showing last time and depending who the pubs field could have very good odds.
Obama is the only reason she didn't make it to the White House in 2008. Whether or not this is a good thing I wax and wane on at times, as I think she would have been less likely to try and work with the right in the 2009-2010 congress. We may have gotten single payer.
I disagree. We didn't get single payer with Obama and he's to Hilary's left politically. We'd also have got the same administration, excluding a few liberals here and there.
You know, I understand the mind of the Republican Voter pretty well, but one thing I can't wrap my head around is why Romney can't give a straight answer on this Lily Ledbetter thing.
DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?
MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–
DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?
MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.
He's not stupid.
If he says he wouldn't have signed it he's against women and equal rights and equal pay and fairness and pro-rape. Which will hurt him with independents.
If he says he would've signed it then he's admitting that Obama did a good thing. Which will hurt him with the base.
He needs time to figure out which is the worse outcome.
I'm reminded of Jed Bartlett being told by his advisors not to refer to John Hoynes by name while running against him.
I'm reminded of Jed Bartlett being told by his advisors not to refer to John Hoynes by name while running against him.
Was that the guy Bartlett called dumb on national TV?
Anyway, that's supposed to be a sound marketing technique when you're the one on top, right? Branding is all about name-recognition; act like you're the only one in the world, picking you is the only natural choice. Then the second-place guy has to define himself by talking about how he's different from you, and to do that he still has to put your name out there as well as his own.
It's why Pepsi futzes around with the "Pepsi Challenge" while Coke just shows commercials of people being happy.
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
You never ever ever name your competition in an advertisement. I am not even a marketer and I know that.
At the end of the day if Company X is talking about how great they are, and company Z talks about how they are better than company X, people walk away only having heard about Company X.
And then they go buy company X's product on name recognition.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I'm reminded of Jed Bartlett being told by his advisors not to refer to John Hoynes by name while running against him.
Was that the guy Bartlett called dumb on national TV?
Anyway, that's supposed to be a sound marketing technique when you're the one on top, right? Branding is all about name-recognition; act like you're the only one in the world, picking you is the only natural choice. Then the second-place guy has to define himself by talking about how he's different from you, and to do that he still has to put your name out there as well as his own.
It's why Pepsi futzes around with the "Pepsi Challenge" while Coke just shows commercials of people being happy.
The Pepsi Challenge is the reason Pepsi is still a company.
I know that comment seems snarky but I'm serious, the guy has talked like that about democrats for decades. He is a grade-a nutjob asshole. Back when a Republican could still do so he would proudly recount about his genius method of dodging the draft by being so disgusting the recruitment officer declared him unfit for duty. It included not washing, not eating, and various other processes I don't feel like remembering. He took pride in relating the story as "outsmarting the system" up until it became politically untenable, then he changed his tune and explained away his draft-dodging as somehow being taking a stand for America and against all the hippies and liberals that kept America from winning Vietnam, or something. Every democrat he's ever talked about was, at that moment, the worst person in the universe. He plays the guitar, but not well enough to make any money without the gimmick of being rabidly partisan. He glorifies ignorance, hates drugs, fags, women, and possibly minority races (I don't remember) and always gives 110% when it comes to being a loud attention whore.
Unsurprisingly this makes him quite successful at certain kinds of politics with certain demographics of people, and makes him buckets of cash.
Funny part? I learned all this from Republicans.
I always loved the fact that he's staunchly anti-drug even though he was an integral part of the 60's psychedelic band the Amboy Dukes and their album Journey to the Center of the Mind, of which he claimed for years that he had no idea the lyrics of the titular title track might be about drugs. So either he's incredibly stupid, or a loudmouth ass; I choose to believe the latter.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
The problem with today's Republican party (think Romney and the Dignity of Work and Santorum and the Dignity of Life) is that they want to take decisions for the rest of us instead of equip us with the opportunity and information necessary to make decisions for ourselves.
I don't really think staying at home and living on the dole is a decision you should get to make for yourself. We should definitely be providing opportunity for people to earn a living... and then we should be expecting them to do it.
Supporting yourself and your family is dignifying, especially as opposed to living off the State. Those who can, should. I don't think this is the slightest bit controversial!
I thought that being a mother was the hardest job, and thus the most dignifying?
You know, I understand the mind of the Republican Voter pretty well, but one thing I can't wrap my head around is why Romney can't give a straight answer on this Lily Ledbetter thing.
DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?
MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–
DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?
MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.
It's to early for him to answer IMO. The general election hasn't began yet. He'll hold off revealing his opinion on the issue until he has the perfect moment and has vetted it with the proper research to give him the best response to benefit his campaign.
I don't know, the Republicans want to seem like they're not attack women's rights. They should have a better line on this than "I'm not going to talk about that."
You know, I understand the mind of the Republican Voter pretty well, but one thing I can't wrap my head around is why Romney can't give a straight answer on this Lily Ledbetter thing.
DIANE SAWYER: I want to talk about a couple of issues relating to women. This 19 point difference between you and the president on women. Here are some specific questions. If you were president– you had been president– would you have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Law?
MITT ROMNEY: It’s certainly a piece of legislation I have no intend– intention of changing. I wasn’t there three years ago–
DIANE SAWYER: But would you have signed it?
MITT ROMNEY: –so I– I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed, but I certainly support equal pay for women and– and have no intention of changing that law, don’t think there’s a reason to.
It's to early for him to answer IMO. The general election hasn't began yet. He'll hold off revealing his opinion on the issue until he has the perfect moment and has vetted it with the proper research to give him the best response to benefit his campaign.
I don't know, the Republicans want to seem like they're not attack women's rights. They should have a better line on this than "I'm not going to talk about that."
It's just bad politicking. Primary's over.
Agreed. That's what he gets for keeping yes men on his staff.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
Doing that will only alienate the base further away. He needs a response that will soothe the independents and the base, which is not easy. I'm not sure it can even be done on an issue like women's rights.
Posts
Sure wish I could do something with my degree though.
Anyhow, I feel like any chances I might have will get worse under a Romney/GOP presidency so Gobama.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
:rotate:
He pretty much threatened violence against the president in that first speech. Wow.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
He has said worse.
*actually listens to the comments*
Yeah, he has said worse.
The ones who could afford daycare (and nannies, and servants) are the dignified hard workers. The ones who can't are layabouts.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As for 2016, I saw a blurb that PPP had polled that. Christie leads for the GOP, Hillary for the Dems, unsurprisingly.
Who says those kinds of things?
A troll. Ted Nugent is trolling for attention.
Ted Nugent says those things.
I know that comment seems snarky but I'm serious, the guy has talked like that about democrats for decades. He is a grade-a nutjob asshole. Back when a Republican could still do so he would proudly recount about his genius method of dodging the draft by being so disgusting the recruitment officer declared him unfit for duty. It included not washing, not eating, and various other processes I don't feel like remembering. He took pride in relating the story as "outsmarting the system" up until it became politically untenable, then he changed his tune and explained away his draft-dodging as somehow being taking a stand for America and against all the hippies and liberals that kept America from winning Vietnam, or something. Every democrat he's ever talked about was, at that moment, the worst person in the universe. He plays the guitar, but not well enough to make any money without the gimmick of being rabidly partisan. He glorifies ignorance, hates drugs, fags, women, and possibly minority races (I don't remember) and always gives 110% when it comes to being a loud attention whore.
Unsurprisingly this makes him quite successful at certain kinds of politics with certain demographics of people, and makes him buckets of cash.
Funny part? I learned all this from Republicans.
I don't think Hillary will be running again. I don't think she's going to stay as Sec State until the end of Obama's second term. It's time for her to enjoy the lecture circuit that Bill's been going around before too long.
It doesn't surprise me that she'd lead in a poll, though.
It was my guess that she and Obama worked out passing the reins of OFA to her camp for 2016's race... with Obama out there campaigning FOR her.
We will have to wait and see, but that would be a kickass race no matter who the Pubs put out there.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/could-obama-lose-the-popular-vote-but-win-the-electoral-college/255974/
Spring is the most boring time for politics sometimes.
I mean, it's possible, but I think it's unlikely that Clinton will run for president again. The party will want to keep moving on, not hovering over the past and depending on how the next four years go, it may not be the Democrat's year.
The question is will Hilary let it move on? Either way it'll be interesting in the next Democratic primaries.
http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/16/465470/romney-refuses-to-say-whether-he-would-have-voted-for-lilly-ledbetter-pay-equity-law/
Obama is the only reason she didn't make it to the White House in 2008. Whether or not this is a good thing I wax and wane on at times, as I think she would have been less likely to try and work with the right in the 2009-2010 congress. We may have gotten single payer.
Then again, we have seen a lot of REALLY GREAT SHIT accomplished under Obama, he can totally run on his record this election and let Mitt double-talk his way into oblivion.
But in 2016, if Organizing for America puts its machinery and contacts behind Hilary (should she choose to run) and Obama pounds pavement for her... no question I'd vote for that.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The feeling I had in the primaries was that both Clinton and Obama would probably make perfectly fine presidents and could certainly beat McCain, but Obama was blatantly edging her out on both charisma and coordination. How common was that sentiment?
It's to early for him to answer IMO. The general election hasn't began yet. He'll hold off revealing his opinion on the issue until he has the perfect moment and has vetted it with the proper research to give him the best response to benefit his campaign.
Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.
FREE MARKET DECIDING WOMEN'S PAY GOOD!
I disagree. We didn't get single payer with Obama and he's to Hilary's left politically. We'd also have got the same administration, excluding a few liberals here and there.
He's not stupid.
If he says he wouldn't have signed it he's against women and equal rights and equal pay and fairness and pro-rape. Which will hurt him with independents.
If he says he would've signed it then he's admitting that Obama did a good thing. Which will hurt him with the base.
He needs time to figure out which is the worse outcome.
I'm reminded of Jed Bartlett being told by his advisors not to refer to John Hoynes by name while running against him.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Was that the guy Bartlett called dumb on national TV?
Anyway, that's supposed to be a sound marketing technique when you're the one on top, right? Branding is all about name-recognition; act like you're the only one in the world, picking you is the only natural choice. Then the second-place guy has to define himself by talking about how he's different from you, and to do that he still has to put your name out there as well as his own.
It's why Pepsi futzes around with the "Pepsi Challenge" while Coke just shows commercials of people being happy.
I want Elizabeth Warren to run.
At the end of the day if Company X is talking about how great they are, and company Z talks about how they are better than company X, people walk away only having heard about Company X.
And then they go buy company X's product on name recognition.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The Pepsi Challenge is the reason Pepsi is still a company.
It worked out amazingly well for them.
I always loved the fact that he's staunchly anti-drug even though he was an integral part of the 60's psychedelic band the Amboy Dukes and their album Journey to the Center of the Mind, of which he claimed for years that he had no idea the lyrics of the titular title track might be about drugs. So either he's incredibly stupid, or a loudmouth ass; I choose to believe the latter.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I thought that being a mother was the hardest job, and thus the most dignifying?
:^:
I don't know, the Republicans want to seem like they're not attack women's rights. They should have a better line on this than "I'm not going to talk about that."
It's just bad politicking. Primary's over.
I generally hate cracked lists but this, well I still hate it but only because it's true and that sucks.
Agreed. That's what he gets for keeping yes men on his staff.
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
She is, for Senator. Remember where Obama was in 2004? Oh, that's right, running for Senator.
Doing that will only alienate the base further away. He needs a response that will soothe the independents and the base, which is not easy. I'm not sure it can even be done on an issue like women's rights.