right.Originally Posted by Classic-X'er
the female body is vomit-inducing.
good god.
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 220
right.
the female body is vomit-inducing.
good god.
The idea behind Sesame Street is a non-commercial program that kids between 4 and 8 could watch... and learn something. Much of it is derivative of the old Captain Kangaroo, which had its faults. (Captain Kangaroo had ads with the star as a pitchman and plenty of obsolete pop culture).
PBS is a nice alternative to the blatant commercialism of broadcast TV. It can offer programming of cultural merit directed at limited audiences. There was no broadcast network other than PBS that would have ever shown the spectacular performance of Turandot literally set in the Forbidden City of Beijing. PBS does far better at news coverage (because of in-depth coverage that can avoid predictable cliche than does network news). It's relatively cheap because much of what it has is imported.
..."Teen Mom" is reprehensible programming, by the way.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
You are apparently unaware of the stereotype that African-American men do not like to give oral sex. I can certainly understand thinking/feeling that the joke was offensive/not funny, but your interpretation was way off.
Mitt Romney went for broke and violated the usual scruples of behavior in a debate. He lied with impunity and bullied the moderator.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Must be the dog in me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngu9yhBpHCI
What kind of mentality calls liberals "effete?" Are you channeling Spiro Agnew? And what you say about your students makes the point of why better TV is needed than what commerce gives us. And PBS is mostly not government supported anymore anyway, so the savings would be miniscule. Rmoney mentioning this underscores that he has NO way to pay for his huge tax cuts that he now denies proposing. And YOU have "students"? Shudder shudder Who are the deceived taxpayers that let this happen??
Yes, you have to have 3 years in the black out of 5. That's strictly to prevent people from having hobby businesses that produce no income, or very little, but can be used to write-off damn near anything.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
So, your video was tasteless but funny. Why is that a problem? We're all adults (I think), so have at it ... figuratively or otherwise.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Okay, time to do balancing act yet again (balancing out inequalities that is).
According to Gallup, today Obama's presidential approval rating hit 54%... an all time high not seen since 2009.
And this is after Romney's "victory"* in the debate last night. Make of this what you will.
*I say "victory" because while "officials" say he won the debate, I, as an Independent, didn't come away with any knowledge of what Romney would do for the country besides passing the buck to the States (make them do all the dirty work) & being the "anti-Obama". And when he was trying to make points, he sped through them so fast that he came across as nearly unintelligible. I'm sorry, I didn't vote for such blind trust last election ("Hope" and "Change" for what?) I'm not going to be voting for equally blind trust in this election. I came away not knowing what Romney stood for besides being an "anti-Obama".
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are looking quite good to me at this moment. At least I know what they stand for.
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 10-04-2012 at 11:06 PM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Well I wouldn't say it's tasteless.
The thing about dog whistles is that only dogs can hear them. It is strange that so many people on the left can hear racist "dog whistles", isn't it?
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987
Also from that website:The dates of that poll are Oct 1-3, i.e. before the debate.
Updates at 1 PM ET; reflects one-day change.
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
I always knew this place was magic pony land, but some of the posts above are a step beyond the usual. Obama lost on purpose? That is some serious desperation.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987
If Romney does recover after the debate, and continues to pull even, then he has to win at least all the states now designated by RCP as toss-ups. He has a small lead in two (MO and NC), while Obama leads in five (CO NV FL VA IA). Then he would tie Obama. If Obama still wins all the states leaning to him now, it might come down to Omaha. In other words, Obama needs to win Omaha. He won it in 2008 by just over 1%, 49.97% to 48.75%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Nebraska,_2008
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120923/NEWS/709239923.....the president again has a chance of winning an electoral vote in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District, with the district split at 44 percent each for Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
The poll was conducted Sept. 17-20 by Wiese Research Associates of Omaha. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Of course, if Romney wins all the swing states Obama is now leading by 2-5%, it might be easy for him to win in a district that is now tied.
Unfortunately, Obama is not campaigning there. His strategy on that score may be as faulty as his debate strategy so far, or his strategy of not campaigning against congress. Obama has done some good things, but overall the public might be justified in thinking he doesn't put enough energy into the job, a view that would be confirmed by his debate performance.
On the other hand, the pundits are all focused on style over substance. Obama and Clinton did a good job at the convention in showing how wrong Romney's policies are and how much he lies. The voters responded to that, giving him a lead in the polls. He can do that again.
Obama in fact needs to pull ahead sharply in order to have any chance to win the House, without which his 2nd term is effectively over before it starts.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-05-2012 at 01:22 AM.
Are you in love with Obama?
If I were debating you and I resorted to some scurrilous accusation of horrible behavior not relevant to the debate (let us say that you m----- ch------ or that you d--- d-----, which I have in dashes because I don't believe them applicable to you), it would prove nothing about the topic but it could hurt you. Even a chat line has its rules if it is not to become a free-for-all in which someone gets to accuse others of criminal behavior. Some rules exist, like prohibitions of hate speech. One other poster and I got someone to lose his posting privileges for telling a fellow poster to commit suicide.
What if people draw the conclusion that Mitt Romney won the debate, but by less-than-honorable means? What if he lied and cheated? Sure, he might have won, but by methods that few of us like. He lied and he cheated. He won with debating techniques that would never be tolerated in a high school debate -- namely, he showed aggression toward the moderator. Fault Jim Lehrer if you wish, but I can't think of any high-profile TV or radio journalist of the TV era who could have prevented the debate from becoming a travesty. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Howard K. Smith, Edward R. Murrow, and Peter Jennings would have wilted in that spectacle. Mitt Romney bullied the moderator. If he would do so in something not a life-and-death situation in which such is appropriate, what does that say about him in diplomacy or dealing with Congress?
The President is not a dictator, and Michelle Bachmann has no obligation to obey the President with her vote. I might despise her, but I would consider a threat by the President or one of his subordinates to take away her children if she voted 'wrong' a cause for impeachment of the President. In dealings with foreign leaders he has no right to resort to diplomatic bullying to wring out some concession of territory or treasure from a foreign head of state. Mitt Romney just showed that if he were to be elected that he would violate norms that every prior President has never threatened to violate. That trumps his stands on issues, which explains why I consider someone like Fidel Castro a monstrosity even if I agree with some of his domestic policies.
Vilify President Obama all you wish, but he has shown himself a civilized leader. Mitt Romney has shown himself a savage jungle fighter. Whether Romney won the debate matters far less than does the questionable character that he showed. It is possible to be tough (like the elder Bush toward Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait) by developing domestic and international consensus. It is also possible to let testosterone overpower reasonable expectations as Mitt Romney did. We do not need a verbal brawler as President.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I just consider him the right person for the job. He has done everything that anyone could want of the President except to sponsor an economic boom likely to bring quick profits to a few but ruin to far more people (which I don't think desirable in view of how the last such boom worked).
Does he have his flaws? Sure. He might be the wrong person to challenge America on the widespread poverty that degrades so much of America. LBJ may have been a crude, vile person, but he could wage a war on poverty. Maybe the 45th President, who will not be a black male, might succeed at that. (Mitt Romney, I am satisfied, would be a disaster.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
You are reading the posts on a somewhat superficial level. Obama underestimated Romney's debate preparation and his strategy backfired performance-wise. Do you really think that the guy on the stage next to Mitt looked like any Obama we have seen to date? I could obviously be incorrect that he deliberately downplayed it, but something was off. He was back to his old self by yesterday afternoon. The presence of a teleprompter could explain part of that, but Obama is capable of talking normally without it.
He was:
A) Very very tired
B) Medicated
C) Hungover
D) Up to something
Fact checkers are already hard at work on Mitt's economic "plan". Meanwhile all they are saying about Obama is that he looked "arrogant". Which one could cause a long-term problem for a candidate?
Voters are looking for different things in a President. Some have no concern at all about policies, even some who understand all the wonk-talk. Their benchmark is leadership skills and presence. Romney won that by a mile. Others care about policy, though that's a lot harder to judge and requires more effort on the part of the voter. The post-mortum on the debate may be swaying those voters toward Obama, simply due to the stunning degree to which truthfulness was ignored by Romney. Again, Obama is not the deciding factor.
This is not good for Obama. Being the candidate with the least negatives is not an endorsement.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I agree that looking for racism in every nook and cranny is misguided. I HAVE had more than one person look into my eyes and say "I am a racist". Those people are probably racists. Sometimes it isn't a dog whistle; it is a klaxon horn. I seems that some people can't hear those either.
I agree with you here. The polls should start to reflect the debate information by Monday or so. Obama did not look presidential Wednesday night and he put Mitt back in the ring. He can't afford to do that again.
meh.
if that's the case, then i stand by my original reaction.
perhaps you did not intend to give offense, but that's what happened.
i do agree with prince that dave chappelle (and others) have done a better job with humour in this area.
so i'll just leave it at that.
Unemployment has dropped to 7.8%. Romney is finished.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
In the meantime, he's trying to backtrack from his 47% remarks: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...mpletely-wrong
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didnīt replace it with nothing but lost faith."
Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY
have you stopped beating your wife?
