speculawyer
Member
I don't have one . . . I hope someone puts it up. He got booed at least twice, maybe 3 times during that question.Link to clip?
I don't have one . . . I hope someone puts it up. He got booed at least twice, maybe 3 times during that question.Link to clip?
Its called the Kosmo wormhole. Its always the evil unions fault. No matter what!
Video hereI thought it was amazing to see a crowd full of Christians boo The Golden Rule, which is attributed to Jesus Christ himself, when Ron Paul brought it up.
Not sure if its a wormhole, just like talking to a robot that parrots the same shit over again.
We can actually make this happen. It wouldn't be an official Obama campaign ad, but we could make this video and put it on youtube.
If you're interested in putting something like that together, PM me.
I'm shocked Juan didn't make the obvious points: more whites use food stamps than blacks, and a challenge on the point that blacks are not already "demanding" jobs over food stamps. Some people legitimately need food stamps, and they provide stimulus to the economy. But it's ridiculous to insinuate most black people would rather use food stamps than get a job. Especially when arguing at the same time that there are few jobs because of Obama's Economy. If people can't find jobs what are they supposed to do?
I absolutely lost it at the ultra slow-mo Cain grin at the end. :lol
Here’s the paper’s estimates of the share of personal consumption expenditure (PCE) spent on imports in general and imports from China
KrugmanSo we’re still a country where about 85 cents of your consumer dollar is spent at home, one way or another. And this means, among other things, that the rules of macroeconomics haven’t changed nearly as much as people imagine.
PerryAs much as we continually hear about China's currency manipulation to artificially increase its exports to the U.S., the chart above shows something very interesting. When: a) monthly U.S. exports to China, and b) monthly imports from China, are both normalized to equal 100 in January 2005, we can see that U.S. exports to China have actually grown much faster (about 21% per year) than imports from China (about 11% per year). Over the 7-year period from January 2005 to November 2011, U.S. exports to China have increased almost four times while imports from China have only doubled.
Another way to describe the trend: in 2005, there were about $6 of imports from China for every $1 of exports to China, and by 2011 the ratio of Chinese imports-to-U.S. exports to China had fallen to less than 4. Conversely, the ratio of U.S. exports-to-Chinese imports has risen from 17% to 26% since 2005.
4 months old article from WSJ:Couple recent graphs that illustrate why China is not the enemy and our trade imbalance is not as bad as you think.
On average, of every dollar spent on an item labeled Made in China, 55 cents go for services produced in the U.S., Ms. Hale and Mr. Hobijn write. In other words, the U.S. content of Made in China is about 55%. The fact that the U.S. content of Chinese goods is much higher than for imports as a whole is mainly due to higher retail and wholesale margins on consumer electronics and clothing than on most other goods and services.
What does it all mean? Theres good news and theres bad news. The good news is that the China threat that looms so large in U.S. political debate is overstated. Chinas exports as a share of U.S. consumption might have grown quickly, but they are still a small fraction of the total. U.S. workers and companies are also taking a fair chunk of change from the process.
Jesus.
He clearly enjoys being the semi-liberal guy on Fox News, but he's still a journalist and serious commentator. Some of the questions he asked were pretty good, I just felt the food stamp one deserved better context.
Hey, what's your opinion on Michelle Obama "buying" Lysol wipes?
Counting Twitter mentions would have you believe that Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate in the ongoing U.S. primaries. Umm, right.
But some social media analysis of politics is going beyond that. A partnership between Facebook and Politico announced today is one of the more far-reaching efforts. It will consist of sentiment analysis reports and voting-age user surveys, accompanied by stories by Politico reporters.
Most notably, the Facebook-Politico data set will include Facebook users’ private status messages and comments. While that may alarm some people, Facebook and Politico say the entire process is automated and no Facebook employees read the posts.
Rather, every post and comment — both public and private — by a U.S. user that mentions a presidential candidate’s name will be fed through a sentiment analysis tool that spits out anonymized measures of the general U.S. Facebook population.
This is similar to the way Google offers reports on search trends based on its users’ aggregate search activities.
He pretty much hates all women.
I caught about 30min of the debate last night. Good stuff. I thought Romney did about the minimum he needed to do to stay on top. Gingrich is a skilled debator, and would be a perfect attack dog as a VP pick. And Paul was just the same old irrelevant Paul. :lol
Also, it still amazes me how the "Christian" party in AMerica is eager to cut domestic social service programs, but God forbid one cent of the Defense budget gets cut. It's as if they don't read, or understand, the Bible they claim to live by.
The Media False Equivalency and stupidness continues (of course it is POLITICO):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71511.html
Partisan DC Still? Obama's fault.
On the final night of this year's Democratic National Convention, President Obama will deliver his acceptance speech at Bank of America stadium, the Charlotte Observer reports.
I think he pretty much blew that chance out of the water when he started his Presidency by saying "I won. I don't have to take your ideas" and similar rhetoric.
I'm not saying partisanship in Washington is in any way his fault, but he certainly has not done much to really try to move things to be post-partisan. I don't even think that Washington is that much more partisan than it has ever been, but there is 1000X the coverage of every little piece of minutiae that goes on.
Fitting?
Get them swing state votes!
I know it's absolutely meaningless to respond to you, but Obama tried numerous times to court Republican votes on his biggest ticket items – the stimulus, the health care bill, and Wall Street reform – but his hand was slapped away each time.
Especially health care reform. It's the largely the Republican plan adopted by Congressional Republicans in response to what Clinton was proposing.
How many Republican votes did it receive? 0. The basis of his presidency was to be post-partisan, and he tried numerous times, up until the debt ceiling deal blew up in his face. Just because you refuse to acknowledge what he has tried to do, does not mean it hasn't happened.
"Republicans had been driving the car for eight years. It went into the ditch. And now that Democrats have dug the car out., the Republicans want back the keys."
I think he pretty much blew that chance out of the water when he started his Presidency by saying "I won. I don't have to take your ideas" and similar rhetoric.
Top White House officials are warning liberal and labor leaders to brace themselves for President Obamas budget proposal.
Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, sought in meetings last week to lift the lefts gloom about Washingtons crackdown on spending by promising that the president this year will focus on job creation rather than deficit cutting.
Obama staffers sought to present their budget plan as a glass half full. According to sources familiar with the briefings, they promised that the president will focus on jobs and the economy, instead of deficit-cutting, which dominated last years debate on Capitol Hill.
Obama has signaled in recent weeks that he plans to run a populist reelection campaign. He will need to keep liberal activist and labor groups important parts of the Democratic base energized for his strategy to work.
In his first three years, Obama had a free hand to suggest spending levels for government programs in his annual budget blueprint. But that is not the case this year because the administration is constrained by the budget deal reached in August to raise the debt limit.
He must stick to the $1.047 trillion spending cap he agreed to with GOP leaders, which means he will call for less discretionary spending than he did last year.
Senior administration officials fear a backlash from the left and are trying to prepare their allies to expect a disappointing budget, sources say.
A senior White House person said we werent going to be happy with the budget, but theyre doing the best they can given the spending caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act, said one source.
I think he pretty much blew that chance out of the water when he started his Presidency by saying "I won. I don't have to take your ideas" and similar rhetoric.
Obama's election year budget going to piss off the troops?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204435-obama-warns-left-you-will-not-like-my-budget
Obama's election year budget going to piss off the troops?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/204435-obama-warns-left-you-will-not-like-my-budget
Do you mean...?I don't deny that he tried to get Republicans on board with HIS plan, but true post-partisanship is also adopting ideas from the other side. Shit, it would be easy if all you had to do was get people to agree to YOUR ideas. What did he say when Republicans made proposals?
Assuming you are sincerely this interested in politics and remotely intelligent, to get even the basics wrong to this extent just has to be intentional.
I think I have to disagree with you there.Your divergence from reality continues to be remarkable. Obama's adoption of GOP ideas have been legion - and they rejected them as soon as Obama embraced them.
You make it sound as if the changes to the budget are politically motivated, as opposed to legally mandated.Obama's election year budget going to piss off the troops?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...like-my-budget
My favorite part of the debate (paraphrased):
Newt: Mitt, you have no control of your super PAC! What terrible leadership skills for a possible president, am I right? * crowd goes nuts *
Mitt: You do realize that contacting/interacting with/leading a super PAC is against federal law, right?
Newt: *sheepishly* Yes.
* tepid applause *
Who's ready to hear the words "Warren Buffet's secretary" ad nauseam?!?Mitt reluctantly reveals his effective tax rate: 15%.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry released a statement that "condemned" the remarks of the U.S. Republican presidential candidate.
"It is expected of people aiming for a responsible position like the United States presidency to know more about the world and to be careful about what they say," the statement read. "Turkey became a member of NATO when the governor was 2 years old. Turkey is an important member who has contributed immensely to the Transatlantic Organization's struggle and shall remain as one."
The statement also described the Turkish political leadership as "globally respected."
"It's been shown by the low support he received ahead of the presidential race that Perry's unfortunate remarks are not taken on by the Republican voters," the statement ended by saying. "The United States has no time to lose for names who fail its allies."
Mitt reluctantly reveals his effective tax rate: 15%.
Mitt reluctantly reveals his effective tax rate: 15%.
Obama, Sept. 26: "I shouldn’t be paying a lower effective rate than a teacher, or a firefighter, or a construction worker. And they sure shouldn’t be paying a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 million a year. It’s not fair, and it’s not right. And it’s got to change."
1) You're wrong, (effective rate of 26%)This is ridiculous. I don't understand why this is news. Obama himself claimed to pay less tax than a teacher.
This is ridiculous. I don't understand why this is news. Obama himself claimed to pay less tax than a teacher.
1) You're wrong, (effective rate of 26%)
and 2) do people not understand how counterfactual statements work?
Obama, Sept. 26: "Somebody whos making $50,000 a year as a teacher shouldnt be paying a higher effective tax rate than somebody like myself or Jeff [Weiner, CEO of Linkdin], whove been incredibly blessed."
This is ridiculous. I don't understand why this is news. Obama himself claimed to pay less tax than a teacher.
Oh yeah. Let's ignore that one of them is trying to change the tax code so someone as wealthy as Mitt doesn't pay the same tax rate as a teacher while the other wants to exacerbate the problem further.
Nope! Same thing.
This is ridiculous. I don't understand why this is news. Obama himself claimed to pay less tax than a teacher.
A single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid 11.9 percent in federal income taxes for 2010.