1 | AK-47% Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:18:42pm |
Never had the Sitzfleisch to sit through a TED talk...
2 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:22:06pm |
re: #1 AK-47%
Never had the Sitzfleisch to sit through a TED talk...
I could never figure out which of them was Ted.
/
4 | AK-47% Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:24:23pm |
5 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:24:27pm |
Not sure how I stumbled onto this Twitter feed, but here's some industrial strength lunacy:
Profile:
The Antichrist don't realize that the same Protective God of Blood River is still the same God protecting our Christian Boere Nation today.
6 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:25:36pm |
re: #5 Charles Johnson
Not sure how I stumbled onto this Twitter feed, but here's some industrial strength lunacy:
Profile:
What?
7 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:27:22pm |
Teachers just blindly follow the text books to teach evolution : They don't have to teach that nonsense. Teach creation science instead.— ?? Letichia ? (@Letichiarose) October 17, 2012
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE! READ A NONFICTION BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
8 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:27:40pm |
re: #5 Charles Johnson
Not sure how I stumbled onto this Twitter feed, but here's some industrial strength lunacy:
Profile:
"Boere" "Blood River" It's from an Afrikaaner.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
9 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:28:06pm |
re: #7 Kragar
[Embedded content]
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE! READ A NONFICTION BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
She's got jesus in her eye.
10 | AK-47% Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:28:13pm |
re: #5 Charles Johnson
Not sure how I stumbled onto this Twitter feed, but here's some industrial strength lunacy:
Profile:
This is the kind of shit you could hear most any night of the week if you hung out at the right bar, now it is all over the Intertubes for us to amaze at.
Thanks for reminding me again why i do not Twitter
11 | Hercules Grytpype-Thynne Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:28:37pm |
re: #7 Kragar
[Embedded content]
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE! READ A NONFICTION BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
Because we all know there's no blind book-following behind Creation Science.
12 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:28:53pm |
re: #10 AK-47%
This is the kind of shit you could hear most any night of the week if you hung out at the right bar, now it is all over the Intertubes for us to amaze at.
Thanks for reminding me again why i do not Twitter
The problem with Twitter is its full of twits.
13 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:29:15pm |
re: #8 Decatur Deb
"Boere" "Blood River" It's from an Arfikaaner.
Yes, some kind of bizarre South African racist Christian Identity type.
14 | AK-47% Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:29:37pm |
Science is all about blindly following what we are indocrinated in as children, remember? Religion is about critical thinking and demanding objective proof.
And I am a jelly doughnut...do I not bleed when you squeeze me?
15 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:29:44pm |
Gotta love someone condemning others for blinding teaching from a book while promoting creationism. No cognitive dissonance there whatsoever. None.
16 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:30:19pm |
re: #11 Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
Because we all know there's no blind book-following behind Creation Science.
What is there to teach?
Sky Uncle waves hands, makes Earth and animals and people. End.
Maybe she just wants to go home early.
17 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:31:41pm |
re: #13 Charles Johnson
Yes, some kind of bizarre South African racist Christian Identity type.
Just think of the Internet cults still out there to be discovered...
18 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:31:58pm |
re: #16 erik_t
What is there to teach?
Sky Uncle waves hands, makes Earth and animals and people. End.
Maybe she just wants to go home early.
It would be easier to study you have to admit.
19 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:32:00pm |
Breaking: Dennis Miller endorses Mitt Rom.... zzZZZzzz.....
20 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:32:38pm |
Did Uranium evolve from Hydrogen? Big Bang - lie!— ?? Letichia ? (@Letichiarose) October 17, 2012
I find your lack of understanding basic science disturbing.
21 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:33:19pm |
re: #19 Charles Johnson
Breaking: Dennis Miller endorses Mitt Rom.... zzZZZzzz.....
1. Who?
2. link
He is a regular political commentator on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor in a segment called "Miller Time", and previously appeared on the network's Hannity & Colmes in a segment called "Real Free Speech."
Well, I will attempt to contain my surprise.
22 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:33:39pm |
re: #19 Charles Johnson
Breaking: Dennis Miller endorses Mitt Rom.... zzZZZzzz.....
Well, that will definitely swing that crucial block of undecided Dennis Miller fans.
23 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:35:46pm |
"Hmm, I've sat thru 10 months of primaries, conventions, debates and polls, but I just can't make up my mind... wait, who does Dennis Miller endorse?"
24 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:37:30pm |
re: #22 Kragar
Well, that will definitely swing that crucial block of undecided Dennis Miller fans.
Both of them?
25 | Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:38:09pm |
re: #11 Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
Because we all know there's no blind book-following behind Creation Science.
26 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:39:21pm |
Megyn Kelly scolds ‘focus group’ member who refused to bash Candy Crowley
Fox News host Megyn Kelly became agitated on Wednesday after a member of her “focus group” noted that the panel had only been assembled to criticize debate moderator Candy Crowley because of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s poor performance.
...
But Kelly’s “focus group” hit a snag when Bernard Whitman, a Democratic pollster, pointed out that the premise of the entire panel was to cover for Romney’s “poor performance” at the debate.“Candy Crowley did a great job pushing back against a bully in Mitt Romney,” Whitman noted. “It’s sort of amazing that in the face of a relatively poor performance by Romney, all we’re talking about is the moderator, Candy Crowley. That sort of underscores…”
“Don’t start with me,” Kelly interrupted, scolding Whitman. “This is a two-hour program, this is what this panel is focused on. We got a lot of other things in this show.”
27 | Charleston Chew Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:39:32pm |
re: #5 Charles Johnson
Not sure how I stumbled onto this Twitter feed, but here's some industrial strength lunacy:
Profile:
Whenever I read something like that on the web, in my head I hear an announcer voice saying, "This sentence brought to you by The Internet."
28 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:40:40pm |
re: #26 Kragar
Megyn Kelly scolds ‘focus group’ member who refused to bash Candy Crowley
How dare the mean lady running the show interrupted the man trying to make a point!
Wait, what?
29 | Gretchen G.Tiger Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:40:44pm |
re: #26 Kragar
Megyn Kelly scolds ‘focus group’ member who refused to bash Candy Crowley
because they are all brainwashed liberal drones who refuse to think for themselves and repeat everything they hear on Fox News?
30 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:43:22pm |
re: #26 Kragar
Megyn Kelly scolds ‘focus group’ member who refused to bash Candy Crowley
I swear Fox, just do us and yourselves a fucking favor and declare yourselves a right wing propaganda arm. Stop with even the pretense that you're trying to be impartial. It insults all of our intelligence.
31 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:44:15pm |
Fischer: Getting cut off by CNN host was "Journalistic Terrorism"
Seriously? What a dickweed.
32 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:46:24pm |
re: #31 Kragar
Fischer: Getting cut off by CNN host was "Journalistic Terrorism"
Seriously? What a dickweed.
And the winner of the "utter lack of perspective" award goes to Bryan Fischer. Congratulations Bryan, your prize, a gay marriage Holocaust.//
33 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:47:03pm |
The Crowley outrage affirms republicans dog-like obedience to the talking points they are fed. Brainless really.
34 | dragonfire1981 Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:48:51pm |
re: #31 Kragar
Fischer: Getting cut off by CNN host was "Journalistic Terrorism"
Seriously? What a dickweed.
I'm sure he meant to say "Terror" instead.
35 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:49:16pm |
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Bryan Fischer?
A New York Times story this week highlighted a challenge facing journalists covering the activities of the religious right movement. How do you cover an extremist like the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer?
Fischer is a primary spokesperson for the American Family Association. His radio show is a continuously erupting volcano of bigotry, bile and bullying. He shows the utter lack of concern for the truth that characterizes the Obama-hating right wing. He defines irresponsible extremism in the public arena. Fischer does not deserve to be treated as a credible spokesperson. In a more reasonable world, he would simply be ignored.
Unfortunately, though, in the world we live in, Fischer and the American Family Association sometimes do real harm, in ways that merit news coverage.
36 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:50:48pm |
re: #31 Kragar
Fischer: Getting cut off by CNN host was "Journalistic Terrorism"
Seriously? What a dickweed.
It wasn't Journalistic Terrorism, but it was an Act of Journalistic Terror.
38 | sagehen Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:53:34pm |
Tomorrow night is the Al Smith dinner, Obama and Romney keynote speakers. They both have to try to be funny...
(on C-Span)
39 | Kragar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:55:49pm |
re: #38 sagehen
Tomorrow night is the Al Smith dinner, Obama and Romney keynote speakers. They both have to try to be funny...
(on C-Span)
Romney: "And he said rectum, damn near killed him, but the President didn't call it an act of terror for another 2 weeks!"
41 | William Barnett-Lewis Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:58:51pm |
42 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 2:59:14pm |
Just hit me that I won't be watching Monday night's debate since I do trivia that night. I think Obama will do really well at that one. Foreign policy is I think where he's able to show the difference between him and Romney the most effectively. Romney when he's talking foreign policy just sounds so eager to sound tough rather than to add actual substance. But I guess that's not shocking if you look at the fact that Bolton's advising him.Bollton, who pals around with Pam Geller.
43 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:02:25pm |
re: #41 William Barnett-Lewis
This. Oh, so very much this.
I was in that camp, but it really is good for getting breaking news (especially about the election), also good for the jokes. I was really trying not to join, and was just manually following a few accounts, and now I'm sadly hooked.
44 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:06:04pm |
45 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:07:01pm |
Voter Fraud Billboards Targeting Minorities?
I've seen these around Milwaukee as well. Same thing 4 years ago.
46 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:07:23pm |
re: #44 darthstar
Hugh Hefner...
Image: 420383_10151124680549317_1520202286_n.jpg
Yes, indeed he does.
Heh more like C Drives.
47 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:07:55pm |
re: #45 Amory Blaine
Voter Fraud Billboards Targeting Minorities?
I've seen these around Milwaukee as well. Same thing 4 years ago.
So fuckin' typical.
48 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:09:42pm |
Bzzt...
Will a Mitt #Romney Fundraiser be Held Alongside Former Members of the Young Socialist Alliance?
49 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:12:50pm |
re: #48 Gus
Bzzt...
Will a Mitt #Romney Fundraiser be Held Alongside Former Members of the Young Socialist Alliance?
Oh that's different. Now if they were Obama fundraisers, there'd be holy hell being raised.
50 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:13:17pm |
More wingnuttery from their epicenter, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Man Who Put Up ‘Hang Obama’ Sign Swears He’s a Huge Fan of the President
A controversial sign posted on Highway 21 near Redgranite, Wisconsin, has drivers wondering if they made a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in the past.
With the words "hang" and "Obama" in red, and the words "in there" written in black next to a drawing of a noose, many have concluded the obvious: That a sign that ostensibly reads "hang in there Obama" is meant to be a less-than-covert death threat aimed at the President.
But signmaker Thomas Savka claims he had no idea why people think his sign is anything but a message of love and support.
"It's my attitude for it," he told Fox 11 News. "Everybody's picking on Obama. It's the attitude of 'hang in there, buddy!' It isn't over ‘til you're done kicking."
Savka says the noose was merely thrown in to grab people's attention. "That got your attention," said Savka. "It got you to look at the sign."
True enough, but what about the sign's apparent allusions to the racist practice of lynching? "This has nothing to do with color," Savka insists. "It's to get people's attention. If they're taking that direction from it, they're not reading the sign."
Yeah. He's so fucking clever.
51 | The Mongoose Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:14:17pm |
re: #42 HappyWarrior
Just hit me that I won't be watching Monday night's debate since I do trivia that night. I think Obama will do really well at that one. Foreign policy is I think where he's able to show the difference between him and Romney the most effectively. Romney when he's talking foreign policy just sounds so eager to sound tough rather than to add actual substance. But I guess that's not shocking if you look at the fact that Bolton's advising him.Bollton, who pals around with Pam Geller.
The more I look at it the more I think Romney needs to drop the tough guy persona on foreign policy. If I were him I'd go out there, disagree with the President respectfully where needed, but generally just act presidential and try to ensure the debate bores everyone to death. So far in this campaign, Romney has picked up ground every time jobs and the economy are the focus. When it's anything else, he loses. He can't win by picking fights on foreign policy...a subject that can't win him this election anyways.
52 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:14:48pm |
re: #49 HappyWarrior
Oh that's different. Now if they were Obama fundraisers, there'd be holy hell being raised.
I'm morphing into a lefty Gus Breitbart.
//
53 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:14:52pm |
re: #50 Amory Blaine
More wingnuttery from their epicenter, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Man Who Put Up ‘Hang Obama’ Sign Swears He’s a Huge Fan of the PresidentYeah. He's so fucking clever.
Not the Onion? Who does this dummy think he's fooling?
54 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:15:10pm |
55 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:15:44pm |
Has anyone actually done the math on how much money will be "saved" by capping deductions at $25,000 (or $15,000, or $20,000, depending on which day you're talking to Mitt), and whether or not that even comes remotely close to the $5 trillion he's planning on cutting? (I'm guessing it probably winds up being off by...oh....only a few trillion or so)
56 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:16:24pm |
re: #51 The Mongoose
The more I look at it the more I think Romney needs to drop the tough guy persona on foreign policy. If I were him I'd go out there, disagree with the President respectfully where needed, but generally just act presidential and try to ensure the debate bores everyone to death. So far in this campaign, Romney has picked up ground every time jobs and the economy are the focus. When it's anything else, he loses. He can't win by picking fights on foreign policy...a subject that can't win him this election anyways.
Thing is he's been doing this tough guy act since his first run for president. I don't see him changing that in the last three weeks.
57 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:16:42pm |
58 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:17:10pm |
re: #51 The Mongoose
The more I look at it the more I think Romney needs to drop the tough guy persona on foreign policy. If I were him I'd go out there, disagree with the President respectfully where needed, but generally just act presidential and try to ensure the debate bores everyone to death. So far in this campaign, Romney has picked up ground every time jobs and the economy are the focus. When it's anything else, he loses. He can't win by picking fights on foreign policy...a subject that can't win him this election anyways.
This intelligent strategy will not be adopted because Romney's campaign does not frequently act in an intelligent manner.
59 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:17:25pm |
Obama's speaking in Ohio - streaming
[Link: www.c-span.org...]
After talking about voting and what not, got right into the "He doesn't have a five point plan......" Now he's talking about the tax cut.
He's focused.
60 | The Mongoose Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:18:26pm |
re: #56 HappyWarrior
Thing is he's been doing this tough guy act since his first run for president. I don't see him changing that in the last three weeks.
I don't either, but I think it's a mistake. Chirping the President on foreign policy comes off as disrespectful and borderline unpatriotic. State your case, sure, but stay out of the President's face on this stuff. I have no idea who's advising him otherwise, but it feels more like riling the base than trying to win the election.
61 | dragonfire1981 Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:18:59pm |
re: #35 Kragar
That story on Fischer linked to a great, in depth piece about resistance to anti-bullying laws/policies by religious groups.
62 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:19:57pm |
I wonder what the last time was when a candidate said "Actually, [SITTING PRESIDENT] and I agree on this and that issue, so let's talk about something else".
I'm sure it happened back in the bad old days of actual uncanned debate.
63 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:20:24pm |
"And the people looking through his jobs plan found out it was (just as phony) as his tax plan!"
"He's got a tax plan that doesn't lower taxes, a jobs plan that doesn't create jobs, and a deficit plan that doesn't lower the deficit"
64 | Randall Gross Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:20:56pm |
re: #5 Charles Johnson
Not sure how I stumbled onto this Twitter feed, but here's some industrial strength lunacy:
Profile:
Quick skim reveals fundamentalist / creationist / White nationalist maybe from South Africa, but definitely Dutch influenced if not.
65 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:20:58pm |
re: #60 The Mongoose
I don't either, but I think it's a mistake. Chirping the President on foreign policy comes off as disrespectful and borderline unpatriotic. State your case, sure, but stay out of the President's face on this stuff. I have no idea who's advising him otherwise, but it feels more like riling the base than trying to win the election.
I just wish he would stop with the goddamn apology tour lie. That's the line one I resent the most. Anyhow, I think his advisers are part of his problem. Mtit still acts somewhat as if this is a primary and he has to convince the GOP voters that he's one of them, a "severe conservative" as he called himself at one of their debates.
67 | The Mongoose Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:23:08pm |
re: #62 erik_t
I wonder what the last time was when a candidate said "Actually, [SITTING PRESIDENT] and I agree on this and that issue, so let's talk about something else".
I'm sure it happened back in the bad old days of actual uncanned debate.
This is part of what I'd do on Monday if I were Romney. Start with that, then filibuster for as long as possible on small points of disagreement. "The President and I agree on this, but I feel America should more forcefully state our case on blah blah blah."
Honestly, where would President Obama have to run with it? He'd get sucked into debating foreign policy minutiae while Romney gets to look like he's reasonable and presidential.
Fortunately for the president's supporters, I don't think there's much chance Romney's advisers will go that route.
68 | Digital Display Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:23:48pm |
Geez Lizards.. I've past 40,000 upding mark.
We don't agree on everything but I have always shown great respect for people here and consider it an honor how you have shown respect for me.
Thanks!
69 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:25:02pm |
Shoe meets other foot... The Communists Behind Kerry's Anti-War Protests - JTF.org
70 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:25:37pm |
re: #55 JamesWI
Has anyone actually done the math on how much money will be "saved" by capping deductions at $25,000 (or $15,000, or $20,000, depending on which day you're talking to Mitt), and whether or not that even comes remotely close to the $5 trillion he's planning on cutting? (I'm guessing it probably winds up being off by...oh....only a few trillion or so)
Somebody needs to ask him if he considers capital loss write offs as deductions for the purposes of this cap. I guarantee he doesn't.
71 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:26:25pm |
re: #69 Gus
Shoe meets other foot... The Communists Behind Kerry's Anti-War Protests - JTF.org
...
YSA was - and still is - the youth group of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. Devoted to the hideously evil philosophy of Communist terrorist Leon Trotsky, YSA openly called for a Communist takeover of America while it was co-sponsoring anti-war rallies with Kerry and the VVAW.
YSA also openly called for the extermination of Israel - and still does to this day. "We call for the abolition of Israel," YSA proclaims on its current web site.
72 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:27:13pm |
In Conference Call, Romney Urged Businesses To Tell Their Employees How to Vote (You might have trouble accessing the link, it gave me "Server reset" the first few times I tried)
Romney was addressing a group of self-described "small-business owners." Twenty-six minutes into the call, after making a lengthy case that President Obama's first term has been bad for business, Romney said:
"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections. And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees."......
......In the June call, Romney went on to reassure his audience that it is perfectly legal for them to talk to their employees about how to vote:
"Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well. "
He's correct that such speech is now legal for the first time ever, thanks to the Citizen United ruling, which overturned previous Federal Election Commission laws that prohibited employers from political campaigning among employees.
73 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:27:49pm |
re: #71 Gus
...
"YSA was - and still is - the youth group of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party."
The YSA formally dissolved in 1992.
Derp.
74 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:29:00pm |
RT @jimacostacnn: Country music singer at Romney event says difference with Obama is... We "know which God Romney prays to"
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) October 17, 2012
75 | The Mongoose Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:29:01pm |
re: #70 goddamnedfrank
Somebody needs to ask him if he considers capital loss write offs as deductions for the purposes of this cap. I guarantee he doesn't.
Are they currently treated as straight deductions, or can they only be written off against previous gains?
76 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:29:40pm |
MT @realdonaldtrump "My twitter is so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth." / Still can't revive dead badger on head— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) October 17, 2012
77 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:30:11pm |
re: #74 JamesWI
[Embedded content]
And I bet Romney the cowardly dickhead said nothing to that because he knows he'd get booed like McCain did when McCain to his credit called out that nonsense four years ago.
78 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:31:02pm |
RT @mikeelk We've obtained audio of a conference call where Romney tells employers to tell employees how to vote. bit.ly/QsLJXE— Kari22 (@KKoz22) October 17, 2012
79 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:31:03pm |
"We don't need to order up binders to find talented qualified, (etc.) women"
80 | Artist Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:34:18pm |
re: #7 Kragar
[Embedded content]
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE! READ A NONFICTION BOOK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
Creation Science is an oxymoron, moron.
81 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:34:40pm |
Okay...this is what I hoped. The second debate did have fewer viewers than the first, but only by about two million.
[Link: mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...]
The second debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney reached nearly as many people as the first debate, according to Nielsen, reflecting robust and sustained interest in the presidential election three weeks before Election Day.
Nielsen said 65.6 million viewers watched the Tuesday night town hall format event on television at home, down just 2.4 percent from the debate on Oct. 3. Untold millions more watched the two debates on TV sets in public places and watched on computers, phones and tablets, but those viewers are not counted in Nielsen’s totals.
82 | Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:35:49pm |
re: #78 darthstar
Why am I not surprised?
83 | blueraven Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:38:31pm |
re: #51 The Mongoose
The more I look at it the more I think Romney needs to drop the tough guy persona on foreign policy. If I were him I'd go out there, disagree with the President respectfully where needed, but generally just act presidential and try to ensure the debate bores everyone to death. So far in this campaign, Romney has picked up ground every time jobs and the economy are the focus. When it's anything else, he loses. He can't win by picking fights on foreign policy...a subject that can't win him this election anyways.
That wont happen. It is not in Romney's nature.
84 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:39:50pm |
re: #75 The Mongoose
Are they currently treated as straight deductions, or can they only be written off against previous gains?
You can write off all capital gains plus another $3000 in losses that exceed current gains against other forms of income, and also carry over any excess into future years.
85 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:41:12pm |
re: #78 darthstar
[Embedded content]
Another fake story to manufacture phony outrageous outrage. Did you actually listen to the audio? I did.
86 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:41:39pm |
re: #81 darthstar
Okay...this is what I hoped. The second debate did have fewer viewers than the first, but only by about two million.
Fox had 11.1 million viewers. That's 11.1 million Mitt Romney supporters who saw that their candidate is a petty asshole who doesn't believe women deserve fair pay, is afraid to commit on immigration, blames unwed mothers for gun violence, politicizes the deaths of Americans for personal gain, and doesn't give a shit about 47% of the population.
87 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:41:50pm |
LO fucking L
MT @garrettnbcnews: Rough night 4 singer at Romney's rally. Off-message line questioning Obama's religion, then forgets line in natl anthem
— GottaLaff (@GottaLaff) October 17, 2012
88 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:43:24pm |
re: #85 Killgore Trout
Another fake story to manufacture phony outrageous outrage. Did you actually listen to the audio? I did.
What did you learn Dorothy?
"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections."
He's telling employers to issue thinly veiled threats.
89 | HappyWarrior Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:43:29pm |
90 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:43:43pm |
Found this in Google groups:
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky › ex trot celebs
A couple more "ex-trot Celebs": MIKE & IRENE MILIN. These two bounced around several leftist groups including Progressive Labor until they signed up with the YSA/SWP in 1971. They soon developed political differences & founded the "Revolutionary Internationalist Tendency" in 1973, which was a Spart Fifth column in the SWP. They were expelled shortly after the 1973 convention. the last time I saw them, they were selling "Workers Vanguard" outside of South Hall at the 1974 SWP conference in Oberlin, Ohio.
Several years later I was flipping channels late at night when I came across one of those half-hour "infomercials" on TV. I told my wife, "Hey, that guy looks familiar," and then I realized it was MIKE MILIN! He and Irene had remade themselves as real estate moguls and went around the country giving seminars on "How You Too Can Be a Millionaire." They were promoting a number of other get-rich-schemes as well. The Milins, David Thorstad, Lyndon LaRouche - who says SWP grads don't go places?
BTW, the prominent folk singer who was a member of the Workers Leage was Dave Van Ronk.
David Altman
91 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:47:03pm |
re: #87 JamesWI
Country singer opening for Romney: "I know what god Romney prays to, it's the same god I pray to. Can't necessarily say that about..."
— Molly Ball (@mollyesque) October 17, 2012
Andy Griggs, Romney's country-singer warmup act, flubs words to nat'l anthem: "...bright stars, thru the rampa- lous fight..."
— Molly Ball (@mollyesque) October 17, 2012
92 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:48:02pm |
re: #88 goddamnedfrank
What did you learn Dorothy?
He's telling employers to issue thinly veiled threats.
interesting you left this part out. "and whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view"
93 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:48:51pm |
re: #92 Killgore Trout
interesting you left this part out. "and whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view"
.....Man, you really are pathetic.
94 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:49:32pm |
95 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:49:37pm |
Update 2:
The Revolutionary Internationalist Tendency was basically a front for the Spartacist League. It was composed of exactly four people: Mike Milin and Irene Gorgosz in Detroit and Gerry Clark and another guy in Berkeley.
Mike & Irene were expelled after the Political Committee sent people to skulk around with telephoto lenses outside a Spartacist League summer camp, where they were photographed. After a couple of years with the Sparts they dropped out of politics until they resurfaced in 1986 in a late-night infomercial with the English toady Robin Leach pimping one of those get-rich-quick real-estate schemes. Every now and then they will pop up on late-night TV with some racket or another.
I recruited Mike & Irene to the YSA at Arizona State in 1971. What a mistake that was! Some day I'll post some more stuff about them.
96 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:51:04pm |
Deleting as it violates our phone number policy...sorry about that.
97 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:51:26pm |
re: #94 Killgore Trout
[Embedded content]
About 26:40 for the "outrageous" part.
He's talking to AN ANTI-UNION GROUP. You honestly think that Romney believes any of them are going to go out and tell their employees that they need to vote for Obama?
Jesus fucking Christ, every time I think you can't dig any deeper, you surprise me.
98 | blueraven Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:51:33pm |
re: #94 Killgore Trout
[Embedded content]
About 26:40 for the "outrageous" part.
Looks like the only one outraged here is you KT.
99 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:52:19pm |
re: #92 Killgore Trout
interesting you left this part out. "and whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view"
Right, he's telling employers on both sides to issue thinly veiled threats. Of course the fact that he believes small business owners are automatically on his side never entered his mind. It's the kind of advice only a complete asshole would either give or act upon.
100 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:53:27pm |
The group Romney is speaking to:
On its website, the National Federation of Independent Business states that it is a "nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded in 1943" and "represents the consensus views of its members in Washington and all 50 state capitals."[2] Its PAC is called Save America's Free Enterprise Trust (SAFE).[3] The organization's donations tend to strongly favor Republicans.[4]
In 2010, 25 of its members, all Republican, were elected to the 112th Congress.[5] A number of them, such as Rand Paul, Jeff Duncan, Paul Gosar and Kristi Noem, are affiliated with or endorsed by the Tea Party movement. The same year, the NFIB opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health care reform legislation while some other small business advocates supported the measure.[6] The organization joined 26 states in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The case was picked up by the Supreme Court, which issued its ruling on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius on June 28, 2012, upholding most provisions of the Act.
Yep, I'm sure there were a lot of Obama supporters there, Killgore, you desperate hack.
101 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:53:45pm |
re: #93 JamesWI
.....Man, you really are pathetic.
It's a fake story, it seems the moonbats edited his remarks to manufacture a fake outrage. If you listen to the tape there's nothing outrageous about it.
102 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:54:00pm |
Big crowd for Obama on Ohio University's College Green. via Reuters twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew...— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) October 17, 2012
103 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:54:19pm |
re: #85 Killgore Trout
Another fake story to manufacture phony outrageous outrage. Did you actually listen to the audio? I did.
Why do you hate America?
104 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:54:49pm |
I'm concerned I'm going to pull a muscle from laughing so hard.
106 | SidewaysQuark Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:57:27pm |
The polls are beginning to concern me.
America seems to be inclined that since its damaged Ferrari isn't running well (and it's not), that the proper course of action is turn the keys back over to the drunks who wrecked it in the first place.
107 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:58:08pm |
re: #106 SidewaysQuark
The polls are beginning to concern me.
America seems to be inclined that since its damaged Ferrari isn't running well (and it's not), that the proper course of action is turn the keys back over to the drunks who wrecked it in the first place.
Are you posting this from two weeks in the past or two weeks in the future? Posting it today doesn't make very much sense.
108 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:58:33pm |
Romney tells group of anti-union, anti-Obamacare, pro-Tea Party small business owners to go out and tell their employees that their job depends on which way they vote......
But since he said something about how they could say it about Obama too, that makes it a fake story!
Fucking idiot.
109 | blueraven Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:58:57pm |
Speaking of polls and polling
I'll be on @thedailyshow tonight to talk about my book (amzn.to/Tvbxk6) and just generally be a nerd.— Nate Silver (@fivethirtyeight) October 17, 2012
110 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:59:09pm |
Sounds like Romney is encouraging voter intimidation by employers.
111 | SidewaysQuark Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:59:19pm |
re: #107 erik_t
Are you posting this from two weeks in the past or two weeks in the future? Posting it today doesn't make very much sense.
Call me a nervous nelly, but I'm not optimistic about current numbers. I've said before, Romney is a formidable opponent (one I want to see beaten). This election will be close, IMO.
112 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:59:45pm |
re: #106 SidewaysQuark
The polls are beginning to concern me.
America seems to be inclined that since its damaged Ferrari isn't running well (and it's not), that the proper course of action is turn the keys back over to the drunks who wrecked it in the first place.
What polls? You mean A poll (Gallup)? Every other poll is starting to move to Obama, and we haven't even got into the polling from after this debate.
113 | sagehen Wed, Oct 17, 2012 3:59:46pm |
re: #81 darthstar
Okay...this is what I hoped. The second debate did have fewer viewers than the first, but only by about two million.
George Will and Josh Marshall are in agreement that it was the best presidential candidates debate ever ever ever.
114 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:00:15pm |
re: #108 JamesWI
Romney tells group of anti-union, anti-Obamacare, pro-Tea Party small business owners to go out and tell their employees that their job depends on which way they vote......
Fucking idiot.
Exactly...it was a CYA add-on so he could say he wasn't telling his Republican supporters to tell their employees to vote for him.
115 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:01:12pm |
“If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade,” read a cover letter signed by Koch Industries President Dave Robertson, “then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and other ills.”The letter was careful to note that the employees’ political decisions are “yours and yours alone.”
The obvious implication is that if Koch's investigators find you've been donating to Obama's campaing or the DNC you won't be getting that promotion, and might just find yourself fired on some flimsy pretext. The political decisions are the employee's, and so are the consequences. This kind of naked political coercion is completely unethical and doesn't belong in the workplace.
116 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:01:38pm |
You know what employers should do every other November? Give their employees voting day off and otherwise butt the fuck out.
But but both sides... criminy.
117 | sagehen Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:03:33pm |
re: #92 Killgore Trout
interesting you left this part out. "and whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view"
Right. 'Cause there's just all kinds of Obama supporters on a Mitt Romney donors conference call.
118 | SidewaysQuark Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:03:48pm |
re: #112 JamesWI
What polls? You mean A poll (Gallup)? Every other poll is starting to move to Obama, and we haven't even got into the polling from after this debate.
I'm saying given the lunacy of Republicans right now, the overall numbers are too close for comfort for my tastes. Obama did well last night, but I think he missed a few key opportunities. One that stood out was his opportunity to proclaim the outrage and uprising of Libyan citizens against the militants (likely) responsible for the murder of our diplomat, who represented, in his life, a stroke of huge success of American foreign policy. (Just one example)
I'm on your side - I want Obama to win, but I'm not honestly confident about it now. I think he'll barely eke it out, in the end.
119 | blueraven Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:05:19pm |
re: #118 SidewaysQuark
I'm saying given the lunacy of Republicans right now, the overall numbers are too close for comfort for my tastes. Obama did well last night, but I think he missed a few key opportunities. One that stood out was his opportunity to proclaim the outrage and uprising of Libyan citizens against the militants (likely) responsible for the murder of our diplomat, who represented, in his life, a stroke of huge success of American foreign policy. (Just one example)
I'm on your side - I want Obama to win, but I'm not honestly confident about it now. I think he'll barely eke it out, in the end.
Monday is the FP debate. There will be another opportunity to talk about this.
120 | Obdicut Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:05:41pm |
Remember guys, calling up a business to tell them you're not going to buy their product because they advertise with Rush Limbaugh is economic extortion and terrible and horrible.
But telling your employees that you really want them to vote for Romney obviously carries no economic threat at all. In a business like that, feel free to display your pro-Obama stuff. I'm sure you won't wind up getting fired. And since most states these days are 'right-to-work' states, your employer doesn't have to present a reason.
121 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:06:39pm |
re: #101 Killgore Trout
It's a fake story, it seems the moonbats edited his remarks to manufacture a fake outrage. If you listen to the tape there's nothing outrageous about it.
I listened to it, and the fact is that doing what Mitt Romney is urging employers to do used to be illegal, until the Citizens United ruling. So no, it's not illegal, but it sure is another instance of the incredible damage Citizens United has done to the electoral process.
And I didn't hear any edits at all in the recording. What's your source for that claim?
122 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:06:42pm |
re: #118 SidewaysQuark
I'm saying given the lunacy of Republicans right now, the overall numbers are too close for comfort for my tastes. Obama did well last night, but I think he missed a few key opportunities. One that stood out was his opportunity to proclaim the outrage and uprising of Libyan citizens against the militants (likely) responsible for the murder of our diplomat, who represented, in his life, a stroke of huge success of American foreign policy. (Just one example)
I'm on your side - I want Obama to win, but I'm not honestly confident about it now. I think he'll barely eke it out, in the end.
Every scientific poll after the debate had Obama winning beyond the margin of error, and winning even bigger among independents. Even CNN's poll, which even they acknowledged had about a +8% Republican bias, had Obama winning by 7%.
It was a clean victory for Obama. The only reason why it didn't look bigger in those polls is because, unlike liberals, the conservatives aren't willing to admit a loss. At worst, they call it a tie.
123 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:07:57pm |
SWP Uses Watergate Methods Against Trotskyists
[First printed in Workers Vanguard #29, 28 September 1973]
DETROIT~Taking time out from their international faction fight and legal suit against Nixon for his Watergate-type harassment of them, the leadership of the Socialist Workers Partj recently expelled three of its members using evidence gathered with its own (rather inept) brand of "dirty tricks." Among other things, the SWP had four of its members hiding in the bushes around the Spartacist League summer camp in August and instructed a YSA member to act like a Spartacist sympathizer in the time-honored agent-provocateur manner, The victims, Irene Gorgosz and Michael Milin, both of the Detroit branch, and Gerald Clark of the Oakland-Berkeley branch, were the three signers of the "Declaration of Revolutionary Internationalist Tendency" submitted to the SWP preconvention discussion. The charges brought against these comrades were "collaboration with the Spartacist League" and double recruiting. At the three sham "trials," the charges against these comrades were patently only pretexts for a political expulsion, exposing the hypocrisy and intriguing of the SWP majority.
124 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:07:57pm |
re: #122 JamesWI
Every scientific poll after the debate had Obama winning beyond the margin of error, and winning even bigger among independents. Even CNN's poll, which even they acknowledged had about a +88 Republican bias, had Obama winning by 7%.
It was a clean victory for Obama. The only reason why it didn't look bigger in those polls is because, unlike liberals, the conservatives aren't willing to admit a loss. At worst, they call it a tie.
Oops, that should say +8%...not 88%....THAT would be a story!
125 | SidewaysQuark Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:08:38pm |
re: #122 JamesWI
Every scientific poll after the debate had Obama winning beyond the margin of error, and winning even bigger among independents. Even CNN's poll, which even they acknowledged had about a +88 Republican bias, had Obama winning by 7%.
It was a clean victory for Obama. The only reason why it didn't look bigger in those polls is because, unlike liberals, the conservatives aren't willing to admit a loss. At worst, they call it a tie.
I'm aware of that - but forgive me if I don't trust the "science of polls" 100%. Human society is a tough cookie to parametrize - it can make last minute turns. Forgive my tendency to play devils' advocate - I guess I'm a "glass half empty" kind of guy....
126 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:10:05pm |
127 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:10:07pm |
If you feel like getting the urge to claw your eyes out in horror at possibly the lamest wingnut humor ever witnessed by mankind, search YouTube for Steven Crowder's latest video in which he puts on makeup and does the worst David Bowie impression you've ever seen.
128 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:10:33pm |
Obama is already raking in an almost 2 to 1 fundraising advantage from active duty military and defense department employees because in general they can see what's in their best interest. Now imagine if the President went out and said as head of the US government that government employees had better vote for him because Romney wants to fire a bunch of them and send the rest to die in Iran.
It's true but people would rightly shit bricks because it would be seen as coercive abuse of employees by management.
129 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:11:18pm |
re: #125 SidewaysQuark
I'm aware of that - but forgive me if I don't trust the "science of polls" 100%. Human society is a tough cookie to parametrize - it can make last minute turns. Forgive my tendency to play devils' advocate - I guess I'm a "glass half empty" kind of guy....
I'm usually pessimistic too, but when you have this many polls, all saying it was a clean win, I take it seriously.
Cherry-picking one or two polls that favor your side is always a recipe for disaster, but when all of them have good news, that's good news.
130 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:11:35pm |
re: #121 Charles Johnson
#88 left out crucial context. The audio is in tact but the excepted quote is not complete. I'm not sure if this is related to citizens united. I think it's always been legal for employers to discuss political issues with employees.
131 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:11:47pm |
re: #110 Gus
Sounds like Romney is encouraging voter intimidation by employers.
Only Republican ones.
132 | SidewaysQuark Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:11:48pm |
re: #129 JamesWI
I'm usually pessimistic too, but when you have this many polls, all saying it was a clean win, I take it seriously.
Cherry-picking one or two polls that favor your side is always a recipe for disaster, but when all of them have good news, that's good news.
I sincerely hope you're correct :-)
133 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:11:57pm |
re: #126 darthstar
Obama's 24 hour slide on Intrade.
Image: chart135047743085131027.png
Make that an electric slide.
Intrade's pictures don't show up. They block hotlinking (I've tried it a few times before)
134 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:12:25pm |
re: #133 JamesWI
Intrade's pictures don't show up. They block hotlinking (I've tried it a few times before)
Ah...I see. Damn.
135 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:12:51pm |
re: #130 Killgore Trout
#88 left out crucial context. The audio is in tact but the excepted quote is not complete. I'm not sure if this is related to citizens united. I think it's always been legal for employers to discuss political issues with employees.
It's right there in the article. You read it, right?
He's correct that such speech is now legal for the first time ever, thanks to the Citizen United ruling, which overturned previous Federal Election Commission laws that prohibited employers from political campaigning among employees.
136 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:12:54pm |
re: #130 Killgore Trout
#88 left out crucial context. The audio is in tact but the excepted quote is not complete. I'm not sure if this is related to citizens united. I think it's always been legal for employers to discuss political issues with employees.
Whether or not it's legal, it's reprehensible and slimy as fuck, in the absolute worst traditions of our political system.
137 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:13:45pm |
re: #130 Killgore Trout
#88 left out crucial context. The audio is in tact but the excepted quote is not complete. I'm not sure if this is related to citizens united. I think it's always been legal for employers to discuss political issues with employees.
The story has the full quote, including the "even if you're an Obama supporter" BS you're desperately clinging to. You're just making up shit now. PA-THE-TIC.
138 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:14:50pm |
re: #126 darthstar
Obama's 24 hour slide on Intrade.
Image: chart135047743085131027.png
Make that an electric slide.
Those Intrade market graph images live in a temp folder and are immediately deleted after they're generated for your viewing pleasure. You've got to save the image to a service like tinypic to share with others.
139 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:15:04pm |
Remember people.....Outing a pedophile's real name is WORST THING EVER!!!!!!!!
But telling a group of your supporters that they should tell their employees their job depends on who they vote for....FAKE STORY!!!!!
You're not fooling anyone.
140 | darthstar Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:15:31pm |
re: #130 Killgore Trout
#88 left out crucial context. The audio is in tact but the excepted quote is not complete. I'm not sure if this is related to citizens united. I think it's always been legal for employers to discuss political issues with employees.
Legal, yes. Ethical, No.
[Link: www.cnbc.com...]
It's always been frowned upon because employers can abuse such power. But nobody ever accused Republicans of being ethical.
142 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:16:44pm |
HuffPo poll tracker has it dead even: 47-47.
[Link: elections.huffingtonpost.com...]
143 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:17:29pm |
Defense of a candidate saying that employers should pressure their employees on how to vote.
What. fucking. planet. am. I. on.
144 | Sheila Broflovski Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:18:02pm |
I keep getting a shit ton of postal spam from some org calling itself LetThePeopleDecide.org which is actually a front group for "Americans For Prosperity" and Matty Moroun the Bridge Troll. Apparently Matty got a ballot proposal that requires a general election in order to build another bridge to Canada (a general election where voters have to vote on whether to allow anybody to compete with Matty Moroun!)
These assholes fill up my mailbox with crap spam but I will grant them this: every proposal they are against, I will VOTE FOR and every proposal they endorse I WILL VOTE AGAINST.
They send out separate mailings for the "VOTE YES" and the "VOTE NO" proposals, so as not to confuse the stupid people they think they are dealing with.
145 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:19:37pm |
re: #135 Charles Johnson
It's right there in the article. You read it, right?
Some moonbat put that on a web page, no links or verifying information. I have no idea if it's true or not. I suspect it's not true.
146 | Sheila Broflovski Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:19:47pm |
re: #142 Charles Johnson
HuffPo poll tracker has it dead even: 47-47.
[Link: elections.huffingtonpost.com...]
But the electoral map shows Obama ahead 277-206.
I just hope we don't have a Gore/Bush election situation. That would totally suck.
147 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:20:01pm |
re: #143 erik_t
Defense of a candidate saying that employers should pressure their employees on how to vote.
What. fucking. planet. am. I. on.
But we should totally believe him when he says he's an Obama supporter....that is, if he can be bothered to vote this time.
148 | MittDoesNotCompute Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:21:34pm |
re: #121 Charles Johnson
I listened to it, and the fact is that doing what Mitt Romney is urging employers to do used to be illegal, until the Citizens United ruling. So no, it's not illegal, but it sure is another instance of the incredible damage Citizens United has done to the electoral process.
And I didn't hear any edits at all in the recording. What's your source for that claim?
Because shut up, that's why...
149 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:21:54pm |
re: #145 Killgore Trout
Some moonbat put that on a web page, no links or verifying information. I have no idea if it's true or not. I suspect it's not true.
Bust out a 'Donk'. You know you want to.
150 | Sheila Broflovski Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:22:16pm |
UAW employees where I work get Election Day off, but because I am a salaried contractor I don't get the day off. :(
151 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:22:36pm |
re: #140 darthstar
Legal, yes. Ethical, No.
[Link: www.cnbc.com...]
It's always been frowned upon because employers can abuse such power. But nobody ever accused Republicans of being ethical.
Ah, thanks...
Legal experts say there is no law that expressly forbids company executives from giving their political views or even threatening lay-offs if a certain candidate is elected. (Read more: Calfornia Squeezed By a 'Munger Sandwich')
A spokesperson for Federal Elections Commission also said there are laws that restrict employers from inducing employees to give money or fundraise for a certain candidate
But there are no federal election laws relating to voting recommendations or even implied threats.
“There is no specific federal law for this kind of communication, as far as I know” said Stacey Mark, an employment lawyer at Ater Wynne in Oregon who mostly represents companies.
So it looks like this is completely unrelated to Citizen's united.
152 | Page 3 in the Binder of Women Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:22:47pm |
Jimmah! you still here? im behind in thread, but want to ask, i read one of the old lgf threads and there was a poster aye pod. do tell!
153 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:23:25pm |
re: #152 Page 3 in the Binder of Women
Jimmah! you still here? im behind in thread, but want to ask, i read one of the old lgf threads and there was a poster aye pod. do tell!
Aye pod? Is that some kind of old-timey MP3 player?
154 | MittDoesNotCompute Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:23:55pm |
re: #140 darthstar
Legal, yes. Ethical, No.
[Link: www.cnbc.com...]
It's always been frowned upon because employers can abuse such power. But nobody ever accused Republicans of being ethical.
Took the words right out of my mouth...
155 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:24:01pm |
Something tells me if this was Obama talking to group of union bosses, just throwing in a "or you could tell them to support Romney!" wouldn't be enough to make the story fake for our resident concern troll.....
156 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:27:42pm |
re: #151 Killgore Trout
Ah, thanks...
So it looks like this is completely unrelated to Citizen's united.
The Citizens United court ruling did more than unleash the wealthy when it comes to spending unlimited sums on elections. It also gave them the legal authority to badger their employees about whom they should vote for.
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned longstanding limits on contributions, it nullified as well rules by the Federal Election Commission that strictly limited how employers could directly express their opinions on campaigns and candidates.
Prior to the 2010 Citizens United ruling, employers could only solicit campaign donations from rank-and-file employees twice a year and such contributions could remain anonymous. In addition, partisan communications with rank-and-file employees was prohibited. All that changed with the Citizens United ruling. Federal law still does not allow employers to threaten employees if they support the "wrong" candidate.
However, in the words of Paul Secunda of the Yale Law Journal, no "federal law exists that prevents corporations from requiring, on pain of termination, that employees attend one-sided partisan speeches, rallies, videos, or other events that advocate the election of specific candidates or parties. Nor is there any law that prohibits corporations from requiring that supervisors engage their subordinates in express advocacy conversations during work time and requiring that employees participate in such conversations.... nothing prohibits employers from requiring employees to participate in one-sided political propaganda events. There is no requirement that opposing candidates be offered equal time, or even that employees themselves be permitted to ask questions or voice their own opinions."
157 | allegro Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:29:42pm |
re: #145 Killgore Trout
Some moonbat put that on a web page, no links or verifying information. I have no idea if it's true or not. I suspect it's not true.
So we know the GOP has been purging legitimate voters from rolls, trying to limit minority accessibility to voting, sending out fake voting instructions and intimidating minority voters with billboards and other shenaningans... but you suspect this particular ploy isn't true?
It is to laugh.
158 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:30:52pm |
re: #145 Killgore Trout
Some moonbat put that on a web page, no links or verifying information. I have no idea if it's true or not. I suspect it's not true.
Here's confirmation that it's true, from the Yale Law Journal:
Prior to Citizens United, the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), as amended in 1976, provided that corporations were permitted unlimited communication with and solicitation of shareholders and executive and administrative personnel (the corporation’s “restricted class”). Rank-and-file employees, on the other hand, could be solicited for corporate Political Action Committees (PACs) only twice a year (originally pegged to primary and general election seasons), only by mail sent to their home addresses, and only through an accounting system that made it impossible for management to know which employees did or did not contribute. Partisan political communication to rank-and-file employees, moreover, was completely prohibited.
Now, post-Citizens United, express advocacy outside a corporation’s restricted class is no longer restricted. Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, held: “We return to the principle . . . that the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.” Most commentary has focused on what this might mean for corporate and union campaign contributions during future federal elections. But when Citizens United invalidated 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2)(A), it also permitted corporations to freely use their treasury funds to advocate for candidates and political parties to their rank-and-file employees.
In the absence of the FECA prohibition, no other federal law exists that prevents corporations from requiring, on pain of termination, that employees attend one-sided partisan speeches, rallies, videos, or other events that advocate the election of specific candidates or parties. Nor is there any law that prohibits corporations from requiring that supervisors engage their subordinates in express advocacy conversations during work time and requiring that employees participate in such conversations. Although federal law does still prevent employers from issuing explicit or implicit threats against employees who vote for the “wrong” candidate, short of that, nothing prohibits employers from requiring employees to participate in one-sided political propaganda events. There is no requirement that opposing candidates be offered equal time, or even that employees themselves be permitted to ask questions or voice their own opinions.
I'd like to take this opportunity to call you a complete ponce.
159 | dragonath Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:31:00pm |
Holy cow, I'd forgotten the insane lie where Romney accused Obama of having overseas investments in China and the Cayman islands.
Totally fake.
160 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:31:03pm |
re: #157 allegro
So we know the GOP has been purging legitimate voters from rolls, trying to limit minority accessibility to voting, sending out fake voting instructions and intimidating minority voters with billboards and other shenaningans... but you suspect this particular ploy isn't true?
It is to laugh.
Nevermind that we've already seen numerous stories about CEOs and bosses DOING EXACTLY WHAT MITT IS TALKING ABOUT HERE.
Fake story.
161 | Sheila Broflovski Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:32:15pm |
And, regarding the video that is at the top of this post:
1. Steal underwear!
2.
3. Profit!
162 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:35:13pm |
re: #140 darthstar
Legal, yes. Ethical, No.
[Link: www.cnbc.com...]
It's always been frowned upon because employers can abuse such power. But nobody ever accused Republicans of being ethical.
It wasn't even legal before CU. See my re: #158
163 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:36:15pm |
164 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:38:28pm |
Town Hall Debate Songified: youtu.be/DSbxBQhzk3M via @youtube— Gus (@Gus_802) October 17, 2012
165 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:39:30pm |
166 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:39:38pm |
re: #156 Charles Johnson
It was legal for employers to discuss politics before citezens united so Mitt's recommendations are nothing new and would not have been illegal before the decision.
167 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:41:48pm |
re: #166 Killgore Trout
It was legal for employers to discuss politics before citezens united so Mitt's recommendations are nothing new and would not have been illegal before the decision.
Shorter Killgore - "I'll just ignore the evidence showing that I was completely wrong, and continue to argue as if it didn't exist."
168 | researchok Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:43:22pm |
I for one will be very happy when this election cycle is over and things return to normal.
169 | Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:43:50pm |
re: #167 JamesWI
Shorter Killgore - "I'll just ignore the evidence showing that I was completely wrong, and continue to argue as if it didn't exist."
Take it up with lawyers from the FEC
A spokesperson for Federal Elections Commission also said there are laws that restrict employers from inducing employees to give money or fundraise for a certain candidate
But there are no federal election laws relating to voting recommendations or even implied threats.
170 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:44:03pm |
I'll post this excerpt in bold, in case his eye sight is going
Prior to Citizens United, the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), as amended in 1976, provided that corporations were permitted unlimited communication with and solicitation of shareholders and executive and administrative personnel (the corporation’s “restricted class”). Rank-and-file employees, on the other hand, could be solicited for corporate Political Action Committees (PACs) only twice a year (originally pegged to primary and general election seasons), only by mail sent to their home addresses, and only through an accounting system that made it impossible for management to know which employees did or did not contribute. Partisan political communication to rank-and-file employees, moreover, was completely prohibited.
171 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:45:01pm |
re: #169 Killgore Trout
Take it up with lawyers from the FEC
Yes, an article written two years after Citizens United says there aren't any laws against it......BECAUSE OF CITIZENS UNITED.
Jesus Christ, you can't really be this dense, right? This is just an act?
173 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:51:09pm |
Let's recap.....We have a Yale Law Journal piece saying partisan communications from boss-to-employees were prohibited until Citizens United.
And we have a CNBC article written 2 years after Citizens United saying there currently aren't any laws against partisan communications from boss-to-employees.
KT says this is proof that partisan communications from boss-to-employees were never prohibited.
(fucking facepalm)
174 | erik_t Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:54:20pm |
We've gone from people defending the context of Romney's 47% words to people nitpicking whether or not Romney was actively encouraging people to break the law.
I kinda like the direction this is going.
176 | goddamnedfrank Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:55:21pm |
I get all my legal analysis from random contrarian luthiers.
177 | Gus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:56:19pm |
The NFL Season: Speaking out - #NFL Videos nfl.com/videos/nfl-the... #p2 #tlot #Football #LGBT— Gus (@Gus_802) October 17, 2012
178 | b_sharp Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:56:39pm |
re: #159 dragonath
Holy cow, I'd forgotten the insane lie where Romney accused Obama of having overseas investments in China and the Cayman islands.
Totally fake.
I think Romneybot was claiming that the fund backing Obama's pension had those investments.
179 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:57:31pm |
re: #168 researchok
I for one will be very happy when this election cycle is over and things return to normal.
If this cycle ends badly we might not ever regain old normal. "New Normal", you won't like.
180 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:59:06pm |
re: #127 Charles Johnson
Now I feel like punching myself in the face.
181 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:59:18pm |
re: #178 Gangnam Style
I think Romneybot was claiming that the fund backing Obama's pension had those investments.
Something pensioners have virtually no control over.
182 | kirkspencer Wed, Oct 17, 2012 4:59:37pm |
OK, a brief explanation as to why I'm not concerned about who will win the presidential election. The simple is that the polling averages have never, barring the use of nonrandom selection of polls averaged, put Romney ahead.
Look, any poll can be off. That's the basic point of the margin of error. (Simplifying, statisticians.) But as you use more and more polls, the cluster that develops is more and more reflective of the population being sampled.
If you've zeroed a firearm you've seen this same principle in action. Aim at the target point and fire several (three is sufficient, more just prove the point) bullets. The center of the grouping of bullet holes is the 'real' place where the barrel points when the sights are aimed at the center.
Even with Mitt's bump, the center mass never climbed enough. And Biden's debate stopped (and to some extent reversed) the bump.
Barring something catastrophic, the presidential election isn't really in doubt. For that matter we are very close to being almost as certain that the Dems will keep the Senate.
Me, I'm still watching the house. The Republicans should keep control despite losing seats, but it's still possible for that to change. Not likely, but more possible than Romney becoming president of the US.
183 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:01:21pm |
re: #146 Sheila Broflovski
But the electoral map shows Obama ahead 277-206.
I just hope we don't have a Gore/Bush election situation. That would totally suck.
Brooks Brothers riot. With binders.
185 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:04:08pm |
Is there any doubt if not for federal laws, discrimination against minorities, women, gays etc. would be at least 10x worse than it is now?
186 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:04:25pm |
re: #182 kirkspencer
OK, a brief explanation as to why I'm not concerned about who will win the presidential election. The simple is that the polling averages have never, barring the use of nonrandom selection of polls averaged, put Romney ahead.
Look, any poll can be off. That's the basic point of the margin of error. (Simplifying, statisticians.) But as you use more and more polls, the cluster that develops is more and more reflective of the population being sampled.
If you've zeroed a firearm you've seen this same principle in action. Aim at the target point and fire several (three is sufficient, more just prove the point) bullets. The center of the grouping of bullet holes is the 'real' place where the barrel points when the sights are aimed at the center.
Even with Mitt's bump, the center mass never climbed enough. And Biden's debate stopped (and to some extent reversed) the bump.
Barring something catastrophic, the presidential election isn't really in doubt. For that matter we are very close to being almost as certain that the Dems will keep the Senate.
Me, I'm still watching the house. The Republicans should keep control despite losing seats, but it's still possible for that to change. Not likely, but more possible than Romney becoming president of the US.
Voter suppression (yeah fading)
Last minute media avalanche
Anti-gay action from some black churches
RC Bishops willing to blow their tax-exempt status
Felony disenfranchisement
"Normal" dirty tricks
Solid South
We need to fight this thing to the limits of our strength.
187 | dragonath Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:04:54pm |
re: #178 Gangnam Style
I think Romneybot was claiming that the fund backing Obama's pension had those investments.
Which was found inconclusive by ABC. I'm sure that the Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly couldn't be moved either way, which makes the charge even more hypocritical.
188 | nemus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:05:12pm |
Not sure if you all have seen this yet Supposed October Surprise to be revealed Oct 21 or 22 the date has fluctuated)
The fark.com digital detective squad is working diligently on figuring out who runs the site , where it comes from, what the blurred docs might be, etc - here's a thread over on fark to read the digital digging that's going on in regards to it. At this point, I'm 1/2 tempted to dismiss it as a viral stunt from someone, but, you never know.
189 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:05:49pm |
Now at T minus 56 minutes for the new web server installation to begin.
I'll be putting the site in maintenance mode while we copy things over and test to make sure everything's there, at about 6 pm Pacific if we start as planned. Hopefully it won't take too long - the database server took all night because we had to re-import 9 gigabytes of data. This should be a much quicker process.
190 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:06:18pm |
re: #183 Amory Blaine
Brooks Brothers riot. With binders.
Eh, I don't think it will be close enough in any state to get anything as bad as that recount.
Obama just needs Wisconsin, Ohio, and one other toss-up. Right now he has them. If this debate (and next week's) provides any bump, he'll have them safely. If the debate does nothing and he continues to slide (or, more plausible, if something big happens to hurt Obama), at least one will probably be safely Romney's.
191 | b_sharp Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:06:20pm |
re: #171 JamesWI
Yes, an article written years after Citizens United says there aren't any laws against it......BECAUSE OF CITIZENS UNITED.
Jesus Christ, you can't really be this dense, right? This is just an act?
You haven't done the math.
2010 - 1971 = 39
3 + 9 = 12
1 + 2 = 3
3 is a magic number in the Aztec calendar.
Taking the current year, 2012;
2 + 0 + 1 + 2 = 5
Divide 3 by 5 = 3/5
3/5 is the value of nonwhites for tax purposes pre-1865.
Therefore paid and unpaid employees can be abused in every month greater than 27 days.
192 | Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:07:30pm |
In fact, I should start a new thread with this notice so it's on the front page.
193 | dragonath Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:09:59pm |
re: #188 nemus
I see someone on that thread posted this:
Modmins, I don't think this is a FarQ violation, especially since I've munged the data a bit:
OctSurprise is registered to:
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC ([Link: www.godaddy.com)...]
Domain Name: OCTSURPRISE.COM
Created on: 15-Oct-12
Expires on: 15-Oct-13
Last Updated on: 15-Oct-12Registrant:
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
xxxxx N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United StatesAdministrative Contact:
Private, Registration
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) xx4-2599 Fax -- (480) xx4-2598Why is this interesting? Because look at how MittRomney.com sites is registered:
mittromney.com
Registrant
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
xxxxx N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United StatesRegistered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC ([Link: www.godaddy.com)...]
Domain Name: MITTROMNEY.COM
Created on: 08-Feb-02
Expires on: 08-Feb-13
Last Updated on: 30-May-12Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration MITTROMNEYCOMyxorpybsniamodcom
Domains By Proxy, LLC
DomainsByProxy.com
xxxxx N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) xx4-2599 Fax - (480) xx4-2598
194 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:11:12pm |
re: #190 JamesWI
Eh, I don't think it will be close enough in any state to get anything as bad as that recall.
Obama just needs Wisconsin, Ohio, and one other toss-up. Right now he has them. If this debate (and next week's) provides any bump, he'll have them safely. If the debate does nothing and he continues to slide (or, more plausible, if something big happens to hurt Obama), at least one will probably be safely Romney's.
Nate Silver is keeping me away from the gaspipe. Even he only carries Obama at 2:1. That's far too close for a chance that these medieval motherfuckers might get the presidency, the house, and 3 more SC justices.
195 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:11:47pm |
Informed voters:
About 15% of New Hampshire voters have an opinion on Panetta/Burns, which I made up
— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) October 18, 2012
Panetta/Burns is the lesser known ex-Clinton Chief of State/retired mountain state GOP Senator collaboration
— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) October 18, 2012
196 | William Barnett-Lewis Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:11:48pm |
Please stop playing KT's game people. It's time to stop feeding the troll.
197 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:12:15pm |
re: #190 JamesWI
Marquette's latest poll has Obama +1 in Wisconsin.
198 | nemus Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:12:46pm |
re: #193 dragonath
Yep, if you dig down deeper in the thread (around 300 - 400 replies in or so) they actually manage to nail down the name of the guy who more than likely runs the site amongst other things. I'll give the fark crowd credit for this much - the 'hivemind' over there can be quite resourceful. Heck, they're currently responsible for trying to buy Joe Biden a Trans Am.. lol.
One thing to be aware of re: the Registrar info there.. thats the default 'private domain name registration' service used by GoDaddy - which means that if you register a site through GoDaddy and want to hide your registrar info, by default, that's the info that gets put in there / the company who handles it.
199 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:12:56pm |
re: #194 Decatur Deb
Nate Silver is keeping me away from the gaspipe. Even he only carries Obama at 2:1. That's far to close for a chance that these medieval motherfuckers might get the presidency, the house, and 3 more SC justices.
If Romney wins, I expect the Senate Dems to do everything they can to block any SC appointees. I'd bet we'd have a short-staffed Court for a while.
200 | JamesWI Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:14:08pm |
re: #197 Amory Blaine
Marquette's latest poll has Obama +1 in Wisconsin.
One poll. Average of reputable polls would put it around 2 or maybe even three. Not safe right now, but like I said, if Obama gets a bump from the debate (and avoids any major fuckups), it should get pretty safe.
201 | Decatur Deb Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:17:17pm |
re: #199 JamesWI
If Romney wins, I expect the Senate Dems to do everything they can to block any SC appointees. I'd bet we'd have a short-staffed Court for a while.
The future of the country could rest on Harry Reid's ability to be a resourceful pain in the ass.
202 | Amory Blaine Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:19:34pm |
Marquette's polls of the senate race has had wild swings in it. One poll had Thompson up by 14 then the next poll had Baldwin up by 14.
203 | MittDoesNotCompute Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:23:09pm |
re: #166 Killgore Trout
It was legal for employers to discuss politics before citezens united so Mitt's recommendations are nothing new and would not have been illegal before the decision.
re: #173 JamesWI
Let's recap.....We have a Yale Law Journal piece saying partisan communications from boss-to-employees were prohibited until Citizens United.
And we have a CNBC article written 2 years after Citizens United saying there currently aren't any laws against partisan communications from boss-to-employees.
KT says this is proof that partisan communications from boss-to-employees were never prohibited.
(fucking facepalm)
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
204 | MittDoesNotCompute Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:26:20pm |
re: #181 Decatur Deb
Something pensioners have virtually no control over.
And something that wealthy financial-industry sharks like Romney have complete control over (their own investments, that is).
205 | CuriousLurker Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:28:59pm |
*opens door, walks over to KT, kicks him, walks back out and goes upstairs to sit with wrenchwench* // Just for good measure.
206 | b_sharp Wed, Oct 17, 2012 5:35:11pm |
re: #205 CuriousLurker
*opens door, walks over to KT, kicks him, walks back out and goes upstairs to sit with wrenchwench* // Just for good measure.
Hey, wait.
Can you take this wrench upstairs with you?
It used to be embedded in KT's backside.