• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
AlteredBeast said:
So the fact that he debated a room full of mental midgets makes him a great debater all of a sudden. That is like. USA v Nigeria in basketball type stuff.
Click to expand...

Well its not like he's going to be debating one of the great minds of our time. I mean bulbo is busy that night :p
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
AlteredBeast said:
So the fact that he debated a room full of mental midgets makes him a great debater all of a sudden. That is like. USA v Nigeria in basketball type stuff.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's not like Romney's much smarter than the GOP caucus. Everyone assumed he'd pivot to the center after the primary but he's just been pushing the same hard-right bs.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Stinkles said:
Dude. I am not allowed to call you a fucking idiot. It says it in the rules. But I am asking your personal permission. May I call you a fucking idiot?
Click to expand...

Here is another possible route

you and me can have a play in one part, I play the role of Bulbo - no relation to anyone alive or dead - and you play the role of yourself.

I will say something and you will respond with whatever, and it's a play so of course we're just acting. You have MY permission to say whatever you want to my totally pretend characters


PART I

Me: AHYUCK, TAKING AN HOUR OFF WORK TO VOTE FOR THE GUY THAT KILLZ UR JOBZ. HOW IRONIC!

Your turn!
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Wilsongt said:
Um... So because Obama is supposedly "limiting" the military vote, there is outrage, but there is no outrage when the republicans are clearly trying to limit the vote of poorer citizens and those who largely vote democrat?


Hypocrisy be damned!
Click to expand...

He is NOT even limiting the military vote. Its fucking ridiculous. The worst part is that the Media, because they want to appear "fair" won't debunk it. It will just be reported on as a story of what one side claims vs what the other side claims.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
He is NOT even limiting the military vote. Its fucking ridiculous. The worst part is that the Media, because they want to appear "fair" won't debunk it. It will just be reported on as a story of what one side claims vs what the other side claims.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know it's a lie and not the truth, but the comment still stands about hypocrisy.
 
T

Thagomizer

Member
Remember about a week ago, where that one analyst was saying it was virtually impossible for Obama to win? What pages was that discussed on?I wanna see the hilarity
 
F

Flying_Phoenix

Banned
Was "The War on Poverty" that successful?

US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Flying_Phoenix said:
Was "The War on Poverty" that successful?

US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif
Click to expand...

This chart is actually pretty revealing. Notice that the poverty rate drops regularly until around 1973, except for an uptick during the recession which returns to dropping right afterwards. In 1973 Nixon abolishes the OEO and another recession moves the line back up, where it stalls out, then begins climbing again right before Reagan takes office and presides over the eradication of all the work accomplished by LBJ. The rate of reduction in poverty before 1973 is notably faster than any point on the chart except the period between 1992 and 2000 -- the Clinton years (and, you know, the rise of the Internet, and the Federal Reserve dropping the unemployment target to 4 percent).
 
F

Flying_Phoenix

Banned
Couldn't one argue that the poverty numbers decline not due to social mobility but more so due to people living off/abusing the handouts?

I mean the more money they gave them the less poverty was but the less they gave them it started falling with not much indication of progress prior to the great aid. I mean if I gave my entire community $3,000 per person a year and by that I'll lower the poverty rate but after ten years of doing it and I start taking some of the money away I assume it should be less due to more people being able to get on their feet and thus progress. Yet its almost the same when they start pulling money out of the program.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Flying_Phoenix said:
Couldn't one argue that the poverty numbers decline not due to social mobility but more so due to people living off/abusing the handouts?

I mean the more money they gave them the less poverty was but the less they gave them it started falling with not much indication of progress prior to the great aid. I mean if I gave my entire community $3,000 per person a year and by that I'll lower the poverty rate but after ten years of doing it and I start taking some of the money away I assume it should be less due to more people being able to get on their feet and thus progress. Yet its almost the same when they start pulling money out of the program.
Click to expand...

Well its a question of what you think "fighting poverty" is meant to accomplish. Handouts and welfare aren't necessarily good for promoting social mobility (although they can be) but they are good at working to ensure that people don't starve.
The way I usually put it is "yes you're always going to have a lower class because the class teirs are fully relative. But its possible to have a lower class that doesn't live in poverty"
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Flying_Phoenix said:
Couldn't one argue that the poverty numbers decline not due to social mobility but more so due to people living off/abusing the handouts?

I mean the more money they gave them the less poverty was but the less they gave them it started falling with not much indication of progress prior to the great aid. I mean if I gave my entire community $3,000 per person a year and by that I'll lower the poverty rate but after ten years of doing it and I start taking some of the money away I assume it should be less due to more people being able to get on their feet and thus progress.
Click to expand...

You're making the questionable assumption here that the people who are poor after 1973 are the same people who are poor before 1973.

Let's suppose that living in a capitalist society is like climbing a mountain. Climbing a mountain is hard -- people lose their grip all the time. Sometimes they manage to get hold again, sometimes they fall. But it's a lot easier to grab somebody's hand before they fall, and get them back in a stable position, than it is to pick them up off the ground and carry them all the way back up to where they were. Not to mention that after falling off a few times you probably won't be climbing very well no matter what.

I'd argue that poverty has the same sort of gravitational effect, because of social structures that make it more expensive to live in poverty than to live in moderate wealth (Nickeled and Dimed talks about this a lot). It's easy to sustain some sort of emergency or unexpected loss that can put you suddenly on the edge of poverty. Once you're there, if there aren't any programs to help you out, you have a good change of ending up more or less permanently impoverished.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
Guys its 5 am over here and I spent half an hour reading about the military vote thing. My mind is just... I just... What the hell is wrong with you, America? I just cannot imagine such a warped and distorted story getting out there here in the Netherlands.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Rocket Scientist said:
Guys its 5 am over here and I spent half an hour reading about the military vote thing. My mind is just... I just... What the hell is wrong with you, America? I just cannot imagine such a warped and distorted story getting out there here in the Netherlands.
Click to expand...

This is actually the first place I've heard this story.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
Is there a study or a chart that shows the United States status of social mobility through the years?
Click to expand...


http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/pursuing-the-american-dream-85899403228


--- /// ---

unrelated:

This info comes from the Philly Fed. Which releases economic data for all 50 states.


ndusa.jpg


http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/coincident/



Also, fairly interesting is that Ohio is only second to N. Dakota in economic improvement over the past 3 months. Which is probably a big reason why Romney is having trouble here.

2012-06.jpg


http://www.philadelphiafed.org/rese...xes/coincident/2012/CoincidentIndexes0612.pdf
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
What is so amazing about this is when the ad came out Media was all like Obama is going back to the gender gap from attacking Romney on taxes and his Bain tenure.

No idiots, they are going to do all 3 at the same time.
Click to expand...
Clearly polling is showing a dead heat between the candidates and voters are punishing Obama for unfairly attacking Romney on his strong record as a businessman and governor of Massachusetts, you can already see it reflected in this new Rasmussen poll that shows Obama down by 107 in Ohio god i'm such a fucking tool give me a raise
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Amir0x said:
Here is another possible route

you and me can have a play in one part, I play the role of Bulbo - no relation to anyone alive or dead - and you play the role of yourself.

I will say something and you will respond with whatever, and it's a play so of course we're just acting. You have MY permission to say whatever you want to my totally pretend characters


PART I

Me: AHYUCK, TAKING AN HOUR OFF WORK TO VOTE FOR THE GUY THAT KILLZ UR JOBZ. HOW IRONIC!

Your turn!
Click to expand...

I think we can win an EGOT with this approach.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
I go out of my way to make sure I listen to right wing politicos on Sunday shows but I refuse to listen to Lindsay graham. . He could be talking about being pro gay marriage and implementing the Buffett tax tomorrow but his voice is too annoying. I can't do it.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Another falsehood for Romney? He has cited previously his time in France as a period when he lived like poor people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-Mormon-missionary-in-France-questioned.html

Although he spent time in other French cities, for most of 1968, Mr Romney lived in the Mission Home, a 19th century neoclassical building in the French capital’s chic 16th arrondissement. “It was a house built by and for rich people,” said Richard Anderson, the son of the mission president at the time of Mr Romney’s stay. “I would describe it as a palace”.
Tearful as he described the house, Mr Anderson, 70, of Kaysville, Utah, said Romney aides had asked him not to speak publicly about their time together there.
Click to expand...

In his remarks this week, Mr Romney said of his French lodgings: “I don’t recall any of them having a refrigerator. We shopped before every meal”. Mr Anderson said that as well as a refrigerator, the mansion had “a Spanish chef called Pardo and a house boy, who prepared lunch and supper five days a week”.
Click to expand...
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
usually he has like eight maids and servents tending to his every need

when you go from that to that, it does seem kind of live he was living off the land doesn't it?
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Honestly--has Romney actually told the truth recently? All I keep seeing is lie after lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom