KevinG

I am not going to quote Jules article directly, cause of the length, but I would like to say something about it. Obviously this is anti-public mandate. Which assuming would be done away with (or rather left up to the states) if Romney is elected prez. The mandate is there because of the no pre-exisiting conditions. You cannot have one without the other. Otherwise, I would only buy insurance when I am hurt or get sick. Insurance only works when there is a large pool of money to pay for costs. For example if you have insurance company X you pay a monthly premium. That money goes to pay

I am sorry if my posts are too long winded, with to many links in it. I just like to be well thought out and reasoned and show where I got my information. In these days we often start spouting off half cocked theories or information that just isn't true. I think it is important to show your work. By showing where you got information can lend credence to your argument. Or end up discounting the argument if you do not agree with the source, or think the source is biased. And now we are getting into a pissing match about how we should post in this thread. Not a useful way to discuss thi

When I said the campaign needed to stop Mitt Romney from sounding like Mr. Burns, I guess I was right. To be fair I really wish they would have put references for each of the quotes.

Is the poll the problem, or the magazine, or what? Are you discounting the poll? It brings up some interesting things. Do you have anything of substance to offer?

This is interesting and it shows Mitt's biggest problem, people can't relate to him. http://news.yahoo.co...ith-romney.html Not saying that this is something that would affect his ability to be president or whatever, but it seems like an obvious stat. Something that the Romney campaign should have known and maybe they need to keep him from saying dumb shit that makes him sound like Mr. Burns. Also there are some of the other polls are interesting as well. it seems the GOP has lost their edge on National Security. (I can see Tweedling's head exploding now)

And the fact he was released by the Scottish government. And it is funny to compare what is happened in the past? No you have to compare what happened in the past. The violence that is happening now to our is terrible, but is it much worse then what has happened before. It is a convenient thing to say, hey look at the protests, Obama is weak (which the correlation is still beyond me). But then discount that argument when it has happen to previous presidents? Hey you know what the people in the middle east don't like Americans very much, they are pissed off at us for a lot of reasons. A

Romney's campaign was pretty much flawed from the start. I have said it before, but a decent candidate should be crushing PBO. It shows really how far the religious right, the TEA Partiers, and the Grover Norquist types have pushed the GOP. You know what republican would have no problem beating PBO? 2002 Mitt Romney.

You really need to provide some context for all of this. Or at least site some references, cause mostly I have no idea what you are on about. If you are talking about the Lockerbie bomber, he was handed over by the Scottish Government and he died in May. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103 On the Blind Sheik, can you give me a credible source? I looked it up and it seems to be all attributed to the Blaze.com and Glenn Beck. I am sorry those are not credible sources. On the bowing thing, I personal don't see it. At least he didn't kiss him and hold his hand ala GWB http

You didn't build that.

Ok if it is true, show your work. Show me some facts that 47% of Americans are 1) Dependent upon the government 2) Believe they are Victims 3) Who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them 4) believe that they are entitled to health care, 5) to food 6) to housing and 7) the government should give it to them.

In just the video that came out? How about that 47% of Americans are victims, lazy and looking for government handouts. Or the fact that Americans would vote for if he was a Latino. Or just through out the campaign in general? http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/14/13865583-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxiv?lite

So Mitt held a press conference last night to explain his comments. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1892227.html. He doesn't necessarily apologize for them, he just says they weren't "elegantly stated." For all the GOP's harping on PBO about being the "teleprompter and chief" it seems that anytime that Mitt doesn't have one in front of him he is later going back on those statements. He has not shown critical judgement or restraint in his comments, unless they are carefully spelled out. At this point we all can agree that Mitt's candidacy is a mess an

You know what is not a good TV show. Weeds. The ending last night was f'ing ridiculous. That show was so awesome for the first couple of years and then pure shit.

Here is the thing on this. Romney was talking about the election. His job is to win the presidency, so he does not need to worry about these 47% who are never gonna vote for him. With that being said, he did disparage that group. Essentially calling them lazy and looking for government handouts. That is pretty horrible thing to say. This compounded with the previous thing we have been talking about (the 200K middle class), again shows his insensitivity and disregard for the working poor and middle class. I think it is. Obama never said it wasn't his job to worry about those peo

If you make more than 3 times the median income of your geographical location you are considered upper class. Where did I get that number? I made it up. 96% of all Americans make less than 200K. There is no envy, no spite of those who make 200K or more. It is just that this group is not the middle class. This whole argument has never been for me who is rich, who is poor, it is about how Romney views Americans and the middle class. It is an understanding of the most important economic group in the country. Mitt Romney does not have that. Otherwise he wouldn't be bent on increasin

I read this article from the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/mitt-romneys-definition-of-the-middle-class-is-pretty-weird-in-1-graph/262402/ kinda sums it up for me. It argues in essence your point, with the qualification "and less." And it can be seen as a harmless statement. To even consider a level of 200K as middle class to me shows a level of not understanding the majority of Americans. He could have said it much better, he could have skirted around without using a class distinction and still making his point. It is the same as his 10K bet with Rick Perr

It is not class hatred, though it seems to have devolved into that. I originally brought it up to show how out of touch Mitt is. It shows that Mitt does not understand economic situation of the average American (whose median income is around 50K). Regardless if PBO lived a life of privilege on par with Mitt (which IMHO is kinda laughable) is moot point and kinda a silly argument to make (my candidate grew up poorer than yours). But as president you need an understanding of all Americans and how your policies will affect them. to me Mitt's comment showed a simple lack of understanding of

There is a certain charm to the classic Who, but after rewatching the stories don't stand up. And the special effects are terrible. There is a divide now in Who-fandom. Classic Series v New Series (which has its subset of RTD v Moffatt). I am on the NuWho Moffat side personally. But tonight it is A Town Called Mercy. The Doctor in a Stetson and with a gun. Should be interesting. Blogtor Who's Spoiler free review

Obama was middle class, he spent his time growing up in Hawaii here. Mitt grew up rich spending his time here. It is difference circumstances, different life experiences. Both backgrounds make up the rich tapestries that are these people's lives. I don't know the personal finances of Obama growing up, he may have had it good or what not. But there is no account that he had it as well off as Mitt did. (and now I have gotten into the game of who is poorer, ugh.) What I am trying to say the candidates' upbringing add to their level of understanding of economic and social issues. Mitt'

I think Obama has a better understanding of the poor and middle class then Romney does their upbringing alone shows that. I also think you will find many presidents through out history have grown up poor. Why is perspective so unimportant in this case and seems to be so important in the case of business? Romney has mentioned that you shouldn't be able to run for president unless you have business experience. This experience no doubt would give a business perspective to the job of presidency (according to Mitt). Now I am not saying you have to be poor (or have been poor) to be presid

The Middle Class is the true engine of America. It is where the majority of the people are, they are the greatest consumer of goods. This country's success is determined by how well the Middle Class does. I am not sure anywhere in this country people making over 200K is considered middle class. In NY, the most expensive city in the US, has a median income of 60K. Someone in NY who makes 200K is doing pretty well. Anyone who is making 200K is doing pretty well anywhere in this country. I have always used the formula if you are making 4 times the median income of your area you are doin

What does that mean? Mitt said some words, the words he said seem to show that he does not have an understanding of the average American. That is my point. Words yep, understanding of the average American, nope.

I have always thought of myself a middle class. Both me and my wife work full time jobs, have two kids in public school, a mortgage, two cars. I live in a nice neighborhood with good schools, etc. I have a modest savings and a 401k. Also I am in the $75k - $100K income bracket. According to Mitt Romney that does not constitute middle class. Mitt defines middle-income as $200,000 to $250,000 and less. Yes I know there has been some semantics with his statement, having the words "and less" as a qualifier (which begs the question is a family of four who makes 15K a year also middle clas

You can't give up on The Wire. It is a heady show to figure out if you make it through episode 4 you will be hooked.

So over in the Breaking Bad thread I mentioned that I thought Breaking Bad could be (after it ends) the best television show ever (over the Wire). There seemed to be some debate about. I think it is appropriate to discuss this in depth in its own thread. I would however like to set some ground rules (hey it is my thread and I can do what I want). To claim a TV show is the best ever it has meet these requirements: The show has to be and no longer on the air (ie Game of Thrones still on the air does not qualify). You need to take in consideration its beginning middle and end. You cannot