Hate and Conservatism
Dana Milbank wrote this week in the Washington Post that the Family Research Council is not a hate group, even though the Southern Poverty Law Center has concluded, after extensive and meticulous research, that they are. Milbank says the group is simply "a mainstream conservative think tank."
Required reading: John Aravosis' rebuttal on AmericaBlog explains exactly why FRC is a hate group. It is a long post with lots of quotes and links. Only those who are actually motivated -- LGBT people and straight allies, that is -- will read it, but you should follow his reasoning and his references.
OK, there is no doubt that FRC is a hate group. Milbank says "it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church," but it is not absurd. The Family Research Council is just like those groups. Maybe slicker than some of them, but just the same.
But really, that doesn't matter right now, they are what they are. I am interested in the idea that hate has become a "mainstream conservative" value.
There used to be something scary called "conservatism." Barry Goldwater was the figurehead and the spokesman for the movement. Conservatives were brash, outspoken, belligerent, and opposed to mamby-pambyism of any sort. It was the far right of American politics, and reasonable people were alarmed. They tacitly supported segregation (aka "states' rights") and loudly supported war, with nuclear weapons if possible. Scary, dangerous people with wild, un-American, totalitarian ideas.
By 1998, even Goldwater and fellow conservative Bob Dole realized that the right had shifted so far toward the extreme that their views were considered liberal.
By the time GW Bush had become President, elected twice, conservatism had come to stand for a kind of anti-intellectual mashup of any beliefs that would allow the white working class to believe that it was an exceptional and wonderful group of people, compared to everybody else. The core belief was, "This is the way we live and everybody else should, too." Things that made white people uncomfortable were bad, things they liked were good, because God made it that way.
The Family Research Council calls itself a Christian group, but the beliefs they promote are not to be found in any Christian scripture. There's nothing about "traditional marriage" in the Bible, for instance, in fact there are all kinds of living arrangements in the Bible, many of which the FRC would oppose. There is almost no mention at all of homosexuality, certainly Jesus never mentioned it, and the FRC's positions are the direct opposite of the philosophy that was taught by Jesus Christ. The group exists to put a presentable face on the loathsome beliefs of those who now call themselves conservatives, to market conservative beliefs under cover of real-sounding research and statements by real-sounding authorities.
It is a Christian group in the sense that a church can be an authoritarian community that promotes a kind of prudish conformity. There can be something heartwarming and even helpful about a preacher telling his people to get their act together, and I don't blame anybody for attending services and enjoying them, but it is important to distinguish between the sense of community you get from belonging to a group and the actual scriptural teachings of a religion.
The FRC and similar groups take something peripheral to Christianity and put it at the center. Jesus, at the real center of Christianity, would have invited LGBT people into his tent, he would have taken joy in their love and blessed their marriages, but some fire-and-brimstone minister will point a blaming finger at sinners in the pews and that is the part the Family Research Council has adopted, the blaming finger. And they point it at people who do not belong to their congregation.
This is the worst of America. It is not the America that believes in freedom and opportunity for all, it is the opposite of that, and we need to shake ourselves occasionally to wake up and realize how crazy it is to take these guys seriously at all.
Milbank might be right, the Family Research Council might be a mainstream conservative think tank. But Aravosis is right, too, it is a hate group by any reasonable standard.
Required reading: John Aravosis' rebuttal on AmericaBlog explains exactly why FRC is a hate group. It is a long post with lots of quotes and links. Only those who are actually motivated -- LGBT people and straight allies, that is -- will read it, but you should follow his reasoning and his references.
At one point, I had the Congressional Research Service send me a copy of every single document the Family Research Council had written about gays, and then I had CRS get me every single document listed in the FRC doc's footnotes. I.e., all the "original sources" for the Family Research Council's anti-gay claims.Read it. Bookmark it.
And there were a lot of them. At the time, FRC's list of footnotes could be nearly as long as the written part of the document itself.
What did I find when I went through the original sources cited in the footnotes? I found that nearly every single footnote was a lie. Not a lie in the conventional sense - meaning, they didn't make up a source that didn't exist. Rather, they did things like quoting a damning opinion from a judge in a court case without mention that the judge was in the minority, that the gays had actually won the case they were citing.
Or they'd quote a study with a hideous conclusion about gays and lesbians, only for you to realize later that the actual quote in the study was rather benign - instead, FRC "forgot" to put and end-quotation mark on the quote, added an ellipse, and then put their own damning conclusion.
OK, there is no doubt that FRC is a hate group. Milbank says "it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church," but it is not absurd. The Family Research Council is just like those groups. Maybe slicker than some of them, but just the same.
But really, that doesn't matter right now, they are what they are. I am interested in the idea that hate has become a "mainstream conservative" value.
There used to be something scary called "conservatism." Barry Goldwater was the figurehead and the spokesman for the movement. Conservatives were brash, outspoken, belligerent, and opposed to mamby-pambyism of any sort. It was the far right of American politics, and reasonable people were alarmed. They tacitly supported segregation (aka "states' rights") and loudly supported war, with nuclear weapons if possible. Scary, dangerous people with wild, un-American, totalitarian ideas.
By 1998, even Goldwater and fellow conservative Bob Dole realized that the right had shifted so far toward the extreme that their views were considered liberal.
By the time GW Bush had become President, elected twice, conservatism had come to stand for a kind of anti-intellectual mashup of any beliefs that would allow the white working class to believe that it was an exceptional and wonderful group of people, compared to everybody else. The core belief was, "This is the way we live and everybody else should, too." Things that made white people uncomfortable were bad, things they liked were good, because God made it that way.
The Family Research Council calls itself a Christian group, but the beliefs they promote are not to be found in any Christian scripture. There's nothing about "traditional marriage" in the Bible, for instance, in fact there are all kinds of living arrangements in the Bible, many of which the FRC would oppose. There is almost no mention at all of homosexuality, certainly Jesus never mentioned it, and the FRC's positions are the direct opposite of the philosophy that was taught by Jesus Christ. The group exists to put a presentable face on the loathsome beliefs of those who now call themselves conservatives, to market conservative beliefs under cover of real-sounding research and statements by real-sounding authorities.
It is a Christian group in the sense that a church can be an authoritarian community that promotes a kind of prudish conformity. There can be something heartwarming and even helpful about a preacher telling his people to get their act together, and I don't blame anybody for attending services and enjoying them, but it is important to distinguish between the sense of community you get from belonging to a group and the actual scriptural teachings of a religion.
The FRC and similar groups take something peripheral to Christianity and put it at the center. Jesus, at the real center of Christianity, would have invited LGBT people into his tent, he would have taken joy in their love and blessed their marriages, but some fire-and-brimstone minister will point a blaming finger at sinners in the pews and that is the part the Family Research Council has adopted, the blaming finger. And they point it at people who do not belong to their congregation.
This is the worst of America. It is not the America that believes in freedom and opportunity for all, it is the opposite of that, and we need to shake ourselves occasionally to wake up and realize how crazy it is to take these guys seriously at all.
Milbank might be right, the Family Research Council might be a mainstream conservative think tank. But Aravosis is right, too, it is a hate group by any reasonable standard.
posted by JimK at 4:50 PM
90 Comments:
The National Abstinence Education Association has established the Sexual Risk Avoidance Specialist (SRAS) Certification Program so that abstinence educators can stand apart as experts in their field.
In an increasingly specialized world, it is important that professionals in every career maintain the highest level of knowledge and skill in their areas of expertise. The SRAS certification program offers a comprehensive, professional endorsement to individuals, designating them as experts who not only have the passion to make a difference in the lives of teens, but who also have the knowledge and skills to be effective in that pursuit.
The certification is designed to provide in-depth training to those who teach Sexual Risk Avoidance abstinence education. It includes intensive pre-course reading that provides the foundation for the live two-day training seminar. Anyone desiring to increase their professionalism in this area should consider earning the Sexual Risk Avoidance Specialist (SRAS) designation that can be earned through this certification program.
While increasing competencies, certified SRA instructors will distinguish themselves in their field, increase credibility and demonstrate a professional commitment to enhancing their teaching expertise. Certification promotes excellence in the preparation of professionals as SRA educators.
An SRAS certification provides competency, knowledge and performance- based training; encourages uniform levels of professional expertise in SRA methodology; increases the overall quality of school and community sexual health education; provides seasoned SRA educators with continuing education to assure that they have the most current data and research in the SRA field; and offers a quality professional development opportunity for Title V grantees.
Successful completion earns the SRAS designation after one’s name to signify professional training.
The certification is both necessary and beneficial! Every field of expertise sets itself apart by continually expanding the knowledge base of the participants. SRA instructors can gain much by learning the practical application of the latest in behavioral research and cultural trends that affect youth. They can become better equipped to have the kind of positive impact that will empower young people to make the best choices regarding sex.
Certification training topics include defining the SRA approach, the theoretical and public health basis for SRA, content of successful SRA programs, building parent-child connectedness, history of federal SRA policy, building community and school partnerships, the importance of research and program evaluation, implementing an evidence-based approach, sexual health data, research, trends and medical accuracy, effective public messaging and applying an SRA code of ethics to your program.
The NAEA administrative office can guide any group through the process and arrange to set up the live interactive training in their area. Programs benefit from the certification by increasing their knowledge and skills and demonstrating their commitment to continuing education. By achieving the SRAS designation they set themselves apart as the professionals they truly are.
that sounds like a great program!!
"Hank Williams Jr. reprised his fiery anti-Obama role on Friday, telling fans at a concert that the president was Muslim and anti-American.
The statement came near the end of a concert at the Iowa State Fair Grandstand. Williams Jr.'s comments were first reported in a review by Des Moines Register reporter Joe Lawler.
According to Lawler, the show was relatively free of politics until the end, when Williams Jr. made the following claims: "We've got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S. and we hate him!"
The comments were met with applause and loud cheers."
the idea that the Family Research Council is a hate group is, and always has been, really ridiculous
should we worry that TTF and the pro-homosexual crowd disagree when, after this incident, the rest of the world doesn't?
there's a lot to take exception to in the comments of the last two TTF posts but it's hard to see any point arguing when you've already won the argument
your nutty friend won it for us
In another hallucinatory rant, Anon claimed:
“there's a lot to take exception to in the comments of the last two TTF posts but it's hard to see any point arguing when you've already won the argument”
While I’d like to believe this means you will FINALLY shut yourself up, I’m sure this simply isn’t the case.
Have a nice evening,
Cynthia
no, Cinco, I'm not shutting up but TTFers took the opportunity of a homosexual nut committing an act of violence against someone guilty of no crime against him to make a bunch of outrageous comments and extrapolations which I don't plan to respond to
McGaskill opponent Todd Akin On Abortion: 'Legitimate Rape' Victims Have 'Ways To Try To Shut That Whole Thing Down'
"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."
Was the "doctor" who imparted this "understanding" to Mr. Akin a member of the NAEA?
"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote.
Akin later said:
"In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it's clear that I misspoke in this interview, and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped or abused every year," Akin said in a prepared statement.
Akin's campaign declined to specify exactly what the congressman misspoke about, saying the statement would be the only response.
Just last year after sweeping to power, the GOTP, instead of creating jobs decided to pursue The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape and defund Planned Parenthood.
Speaking of Planned Parenthood, "Hoping to make the announcement unnoticed, officials in Kansas announced Friday they were dropping the 100+ criminal charges filed against Planned Parenthood for allegedly performing illegal late term abortion due to a lack of evidence and an acknowledgement that the case was nothing more than ginned-up politics and a way to try and shake out patient information to feed to Operation Rescue. Welcome to Kansas, folks."
Welcome to the GOP idea of small government. It wants to keep close watch of your most private parts.
Anon stated:
“no, Cinco, I'm not shutting up but TTFers took the opportunity of a homosexual nut committing an act of violence against someone guilty of no crime against him to make a
bunch of outrageous comments and extrapolations which I don't plan to respond to”
So yet again you’ve made an assertion and provided no explanation or evidence to back it up. I see nothing has changed in that department at least.
When it comes to extrapolation, I think the most interesting one is this (from: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244331-perkins-media-ignored-frc-shooting-because-it-doesnt-fit-the-story-line “
“Perkins again accused the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil-rights organization that has designated the Family Research Council a "hate group," of being partially to blame for the shooting.
“Clearly, they are inciting this environment of hostility toward religious organizations,” Perkins said. “And it’s dangerous. We’ve now seen this gone beyond the rhetoric and passing of words to actually almost taking the lives of individuals.”
I find it the height of unabashed, bald-faced hypocrisy to claim that someone giving your organization an unflattering moniker led to going “beyond the rhetoric and passing of words to actually almost taking the lives of individuals.”
After all, his very business is PRECISELY that of “inciting (an) environment of hostility” towards gay people. This is why he (and other conservative groups and individuals) persistently and consistently try to conflate gay people with pedophiles, abusive parenting, social disruption, evidence of the coming rapture, the “destruction of marriage,” the “destruction of America,” ripping apart “the fabric of society,” proof that God is punishing America, and a whole laundry list of derogatory, misquoted and unsubstantiated “findings” about gay people.
Peter Sprigg has argued that “gay should be deported” and gay behavior should be “criminalized.” These “family groups” have supported legislation in other countries that call out the death penalty for gay acts. When it comes to a vote for marriage equality, they always argue that it’s about “teaching the children about gay marriage,” but that objective has never been in any of the marriage statutes.
There is a new report of violence or murder of gay people practically every month, very often with evidence of an anti-gay sentiment in the perpetrator of the crime. Yet no evidence that the SPLC naming any group a “hate group” has led to a pattern of violence against any of them.
If Perkins thinks that being labeled the head of a “hate group” has led to violence against him, he should see what it’s like being a labeled a pedophile, “unfit for parenthood,” a “sexual deviant,” or have it propagandized on a daily basis that he’s “out to destroy America” and that allowing him an his ilk to serve openly in the military is going to lead to rapes in the foxholes and “thousands of service members leaving the armed forces.” Oh, and some people should gin up some “studies” to provide some “evidence” to back them up.
Perkins and his ilk make their ad-hominem attacks against gay people while wrapping themselves in the flag and grasping their bibles, and then claim that people who call them out on their bigotry are fighting against “religious freedom” and attacking their “freedom of speech.” But they’ve been making these nasty claims about gay people for decades, and they haven’t been silenced.
It reminds me of a parable in the bible… something about a “speck” and a “plank.” Only in this case, there’s no speck in the story, just a humongous plank sticking out of Perkin’s eye.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Way to go Cynthia ; )
Perkins, by complaining about what people call him, just invites focus on what he says about other people.
[Part I)
This has been going on for years, and was part of the effort by the FRC and its allies (including its parent, Focus on the Family) to prevent MCPS from including factual material on sexual orientation in its health curriculum. I paste here an excerpt from a presentation I made at a conference in November 2005, discussing proceedings before the BOE's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development:
We discovered that much of the material presented by those groups misquoted and misrepresented statements by legitimate health care professionals and often sought to cover up their agenda to lure people into their programs.
A tactic used in the meetings was to present an isolated quote from a seemingly reputable source, and then argue that that supported views that were the opposite of the positions of the mainstream medical and mental health groups. It often took a lot of time and effort to track down the original sources and determine the context. Essentially, I spent hours fact-checking Ms. Brown's and Ms. Rice's sources.
[Part II to follow]
[Part II]
A. Holmes
Here is one example. Ms. Brown presented the following statement:
"Some causes of homosexuality: A paper in the American Medical Association journal that was written in 1998 and is a review of 150 medical reports over 12 years says that abused adolescents that are victimized by males are up to 7 times more likely to identify as gay or bi-sexual. (William Holmes and Gaily Slap, ASexual Abuse of Boys,@ 280 J.Am.Med.Ass'n 1859 (1998)."
This was part of a series of assertions by Ms. Brown that homosexuality was nothing more than the result of predatory actions by male homosexuals and bad parenting generally.
I went to the internet, and found that The Weekly Standard and some right-wing cites had been using that very statement. I wrote to one of the authors, Dr. Holmes of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, and informed him of the use to which his article was being put and asked to speak with him. Dr. Holmes telephoned to tell me that he was very concerned that his article was being used by those asserting that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder and that there were many possibilities for the results cited B notably that predators are more likely to seek out young people who seem to be gay and that gay youth may go to places where they are more likely to be abused. In any event, Dr. Holmes explained, abuse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, could have bad impacts on children. But that was simply not relevant to the proposition the right wing was setting forth: That all homosexuality is the result of abuse or bad parenting. He noted, in particular, that the only study he found that dealt with the self-identified sexual orientation of male perpetrators of same-sex abuse of children revealed that the mast majority of the perpetrators did not identify themselves as homosexual. In other words, it is not the "'out' gays who are doing the abuse. It is healthier for gays to be 'out.'" For "out" gays, the mental health impacts of suppression and being closeted do not manifest themselves in pedophilia, and that this was an aspect of the problem the Catholic Church was dealing with.
I wrote up a summary of the conversation and sent it to Dr. Holmes, who confirmed that I had it right. When Ms. Brown presented her excerpt from Dr. Holmes' article, I responded with Dr. Holmes' response. You could have heard a pin drop. Except for her handful of like-minded allies, no one else on the Committee accepted her argument, and no such material was placed either in the curriculum or in the background teacher resources.
[Part III to follow]
[Part III]
B. Corporate Resource Council
Another resource presented by Ms. Brown was a article from a group called the Corporate Resource Council, entitled The Health Risks of Gay Sex. The article listed dangers of promiscuous same-sex activity, and presented the message that the employment of homosexuals was problematic for business because of disease risk. This was part of a pattern in materials presented by Ms. Brown B stressing health risks of promiscuous same-sex activity, without reference to risks of promiscuous heterosexual activity; and without reference to the proposition that the marginalization of gays makes stable, monogamous relationships more difficult. The article looked to be from a management consultant. I discovered, however, that the Corporate Resource Council was affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, which was founded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family. I explained the connections to the CAC, and quoted the Focus on the Family position on homosexuality: "Are people born gay? Shouldn't we be tolerant of everyone? Can people change? Should they? Amidst the barrage of questions, we must first turn to God's Word -- our ultimate authority --for answers. While the Bible clearly states that homosexuality runs contrary to God=s plan for relationships, those who struggle with homosexual feeling are still God's children, in need of his forgiveness and healing. Therefore, parents, families and churches have a responsibility to love the homosexual while clearly denouncing his lifestyle."
Again, after my explanation -- including the fact that the Health Curriculum already discussed the health risks of all kinds of sexual activity ad nauseum and that singling out health risks from same sex activity in a separate unit discussing only basic information on sexual orientation, was nothing more than an attempt to stigmatize gays. Again, the CAC overwhelmingly rejected the Corporate Resource Council resource.
C. Seligman
Another example -- and there were many -- of attempts by the right-wing members of the CAC to mislead the rest of the CAC came when they presented another group of documents, including the NARTH response to the American Psychological Association’s excellent publication, Just the Facts. The NARTH response was illustrative of the misleading and often flat-out false assertions I had come to expect from them. For example, it cited a book by a Dr. Martin Seligman entitled What You Can Change and What You Can’t, saying that Seligman “is optimistic about change for those who have had fewer homosexual experiences and/or some bisexual feelings.” I tracked down Seligman’s book. First, I discovered that the book was not, as NARTH implied, about reparative therapy. Rather, the subtitle was The Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement. Nothing in the book was remotely like what NARTH attributed to it. Seligman did say a few things about homosexuality, but they were all in OPPOSITION to the views asserted by NARTH, stating specifically that homosexuality is not a “problem.”
"Here is one example. Ms. Brown presented the following statement:
"Some causes of homosexuality: A paper in the American Medical Association journal that was written in 1998 and is a review of 150 medical reports over 12 years says that abused adolescents that are victimized by males are up to 7 times more likely to identify as gay or bi-sexual. (William Holmes and Gaily Slap, ASexual Abuse of Boys,@ 280 J.Am.Med.Ass'n 1859 (1998)."
This was part of a series of assertions by Ms. Brown that homosexuality was nothing more than the result of predatory actions by male homosexuals and bad parenting generally.
I went to the internet, and found that The Weekly Standard and some right-wing cites had been using that very statement. I wrote to one of the authors, Dr. Holmes of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, and informed him of the use to which his article was being put and asked to speak with him. Dr. Holmes telephoned to tell me that he was very concerned that his article was being used by those asserting that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder and that there were many possibilities for the results cited B notably that predators are more likely to seek out young people who seem to be gay and that gay youth may go to places where they are more likely to be abused. In any event, Dr. Holmes explained, abuse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, could have bad impacts on children. But that was simply not relevant to the proposition the right wing was setting forth: That all homosexuality is the result of abuse or bad parenting. He noted, in particular, that the only study he found that dealt with the self-identified sexual orientation of male perpetrators of same-sex abuse of children revealed that the mast majority of the perpetrators did not identify themselves as homosexual. In other words, it is not the "'out' gays who are doing the abuse. It is healthier for gays to be 'out.'" For "out" gays, the mental health impacts of suppression and being closeted do not manifest themselves in pedophilia, and that this was an aspect of the problem the Catholic Church was dealing with.
I wrote up a summary of the conversation and sent it to Dr. Holmes, who confirmed that I had it right. When Ms. Brown presented her excerpt from Dr. Holmes' article, I responded with Dr. Holmes' response. You could have heard a pin drop. Except for her handful of like-minded allies, no one else on the Committee accepted her argument, and no such material was placed either in the curriculum or in the background teacher resources."
nice story, David
unfortunately, however, there is no indication that the idea that homosexuality is caused by abuse was disproven
the original statement was true and while there is some evidence cited that would indicate it is caused by closeted gays (whatever a "mast" majority are), still the fact remains that the statistic can be used to argue that homosexuality is caused by abuse
just because there are other possible explanations for the statistic, doesn't mean those possibilities are correct
having different theories about the causes of a phenomenoma is not hate and not lies
you're wrong and your movement will face an uphill battle as long as you push this inflammatory rhetoric
Newsweek cover story:
Hit the Road, Barack!
Why We Need a New President.
The late Frank Mandelbaum stipulated in his will that none of his son Robert's children would receive any inheritance if Robert "not be married to the child’s mother within six months of the child’s birth," The New York Post reports.
A bit old-fashioned? Sure. Especially when you consider Robert Mendelbaum, a 47-year-old Manhattan Criminal Court judge, is gay.
Frank Mandelbaum, who founded the ID verification company Intelli-Check, died in 2007 at the age of 73.
After New York passed the Marriage Equality Act, Robert married Jonathan O'Donnell in August of 2011, shortly after the couple had a child, Cooper, via a surrogate mother.
And now Robert thinks 16-month-old Cooper deserves a share of the $180,000 trust reserved for Frank's three grandkids.
He and O'Donnell are fighting in court to prove that Frank's will is discriminatory, and in violation of state law.
"Requiring a gay man to marry a woman . . . to ensure his child’s bequest is tantamount to expecting him either to live in celibacy, or to engage in extramarital activity with another man, and is therefore contrary to public policy,” the couple's attorney, Anne Bederka, wrote in court papers. “There is no doubt that what Frank Mandelbaum has sought to do is induce Robert to marry a woman."
yesterday's released polls:
Ramussen likely voters
Romney by 1
Gallup registered voters
Romney by 2
I just wanna bang on that drum all day!
"The fallout over U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin's controversial comments on rape jolted Republicans nationally on Monday and threatened longer-term consequences for them, reviving the "war on women" debate and possibly hurting their campaign to win control of the Senate.
Republican leaders let out a collective groan when Akin claimed in a television interview on Sunday that "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy, saying that "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
A social conservative congressman, Akin apologized repeatedly as the political uproar intensified and sought to clarify his remarks, saying he misspoke.
Democrats skewered him nevertheless and many top Republicans called for Akin to reconsider his decision to stay in the Missouri race a week before they nominate Mitt Romney for president at their Tampa convention.
Abortion moves front and center
In an interview with the National Review Online, Romney said that Akin's comments on rape were "insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong."
So Romney is now trying to etch-a-sketch Ryan, who has long record of endorsing the torture of rape victims by forcing them to bear their rapist's child or to endure medically unnecessary invasive tests if they choose to abort instead.
"The row over the "legitimate rape" comments of a Republican congressman has brought renewed attention on the staunchly pro-life views of the party's vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan.
Mitt Romney's campaign managers moved swiftly to limit the damage from remarks made by Todd Akin, the Republican senate candidate for Missouri, who suggested women could not become pregnant from being raped.
A "Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," the campaign said in a statement.
But commentators on Monday moved to point out that the statement appeared to contradict the Republican vice-presidential candidate's earlier positions on the issue.
Ryan, a staunch pro-lifer, was a co-sponsor of a controversial House bill last year defining life as the moment of fertilization and granting "personhood" rights to embryos. Abortion rights activist say the Sanctity of Human Life Act would have outlawed all abortions, restrict some forms of contraception, in-vitro fertilisation and stem-cell research.
The bill never made it onto the floor of the house. All state attempts to introduce so-called "personhood" amendments into law have failed, even in conservative states. It was rejected in Mississippi in November 2011.
Ryan also voted for and co-sponsored house bill dubbed the "let women die" bill by pro-choice campaigners. The bill would allow hospitals to deny emergency abortions, even when it is necessary to save a woman's life.
He was also a co-sponsor of the ultrasound informed consent act, which requires a women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound even if not medically necessary and forced doctors to provide images and descriptions of the fetus to her."...
turns out that Ryan will leave all Medicare the same for current seniors and give baby boomers a competitive option in ten years
and both Obama and Ryan plan cut Medicare by over 700 billion
but Ryan will funnel any savings actually realized back into the Medicare Trust Fund while Obama will take it from seniors and use it to pay for the Obamacare deficit
which plan do you think seniors will vote for?
now that Republicans have decisively won the Medicare debate, it looks like this election is a wrap
"Two University of Colorado professors, one from Boulder and one from Denver, have put together an Electoral College forecast model to predict who will win the 2012 presidential election and the result is bad news for Barack Obama. The model points to a Mitt Romney victory in 2012.
Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.
"Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," Bickers said in a press statement.
To predict the race's outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, according to The Associated Press. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado."
oh well, you can't win 'em all guys!!
Is this gay mentally ill?
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-threats-pro-marriage-0822-20120821,0,3516957.story
August 21, 2012
Enfield Man Admits Sending Threatening Letters To Family Institute
I watched Dan Savage's "Dinner Table Debate" with Brian Brown, president of the "National Organization for Marriage."
Brian berates Dan for making the statement that the bible was wrong on slavery. He (Brian) makes the amazing statement that slavery in the New Testament was really more like indentured servitude, where someone would hire himself out for 6 or 7 years, and receive payment for that. Huh?
He cites Paul's (and Timothy's) letter to Philemon as a source for that.
I read Philemon. In it, Paul exhorts Philemon to receive his slave Onesimus back, and blame Paul (for what? Onesimus' having run away?), and, although Onesimus may remain Philemon's slave for life, he is also a brother in Christ.
I may not have Brian's education and wisdom, but it seems to me that, while Paul may be asking Philemon to ameliorate slavery, he nevertheless is endorsing it.
This is a truly radical statement on Brian Brown's part.
He also cites Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe as backers of his truly odd interpretation of the history of slavery in Christianity. I couldn't find anything like that when I looked, but it may be that computers in Arlington don't have the same sources Brian does.
Does anyone know what he is talking about?
rrjr
To the various a.k.a. Anonymous frauds: To link the "cause" of homosexuality with childhood abuse (more often than not found in the "wholesome" heterosexual family of "God's creation" is the height of ignorance.
If one were to accept that "cause", the number of homosexual men and women would be millions more than is currently recognized.
Why haven't those millions of heterosexual children who come from abusive heterosexual families become homosexual?
Apparently they "chose" the path of stupidity to make their lives liveable, such as you have.
turns out that Ryan will leave all Medicare the same for current seniors
Surprise, surprise, Anon is telling another GOP lie. Seniors are currently covered under some provisions of Obamacare, which Mr. Ryan wants to repeal.
Repealing Obamacare's provisions for seniors will reinstate the Bush-created and Ryan approved doughnut hole in Medicare prescription coverage and cause seniors to no longer receive free preventative care. Both changes will cause seniors to pay more out of pocket for their healthcare needs.
Ryan will not leave Medicare as it is currently for seniors. Ryan's plan to undo Obamacare will cost current seniors covered by it a few thousand more dollars per year.
Nice selective quote you posted about Bickers and Berry's little study. Don't forget the caveats at the end:
Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says
"...The authors also provided caveats. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and close tallies in certain states. The current data was taken five months in advance of the Nov. 6 election and they plan to update it with more current economic data in September. A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall an unexpected direction.
“As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict,” Berry said.
Election prediction models “suggest that presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy,” Bickers said. “It’s not about gaffes, political commercials or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy.”
Contact:
Kenneth Bickers, 303-492-2363
bickers@colorado.edu
Michael Berry, 303-556-6244
michael.berry@ucdenver.edu
Peter Caughey, CU-Boulder media relations, 303-492-4007
David Kelly, CU Denver media relations, 303-315-6374"
RCP today shows all of presidential poll results are either a tie or an Obama lead.
Naturally Anon is not touting the Rasmussen and Gallup daily Presidential tracking poll numbers for today.
Last week both Rasmussen and Gallup polls had Romney-Ryan ahead, but today both polls show a tie.
It looks like the Ryan "bump" has actually turned out to be a Ryan recoil.
Robert said "He also cites Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe as backers of his truly odd interpretation of the history of slavery in Christianity. I couldn't find anything like that when I looked, but it may be that computers in Arlington don't have the same sources Brian does.
Does anyone know what he is talking about?".
He's lying through ommission. There was a type of slavery at that time that was indentured servitude, but there was also the type of slavery that we are familiar with where a person was forced into it, had no rights, and remained a slave for life.
"The Bible condones beating slaves (Exodus 21:20-21), owning slaves indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46) and splitting up families (Exodus 21:4). The enslavement of Noah’s son (Genesis 9:24-27) and of enemies throughout the Bible suggests that slavery was seen as a punishing, humiliating state.I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that Biblical slavery was akin to apprenticeship".
"Not to mention, in Exodus 21:20-21 you could beat your slave to death, as long as he suffered at least one day (as “the slave is his own property”), and
in Exodus 21:2-6 (as an exemption to “free HEBREW slaves after six years”-law that often is mentiod as an exemple on the humanity in the bible) you could extort him into lifelong slavery by making him choose between his whife/children and his freedom…
(so much for “temporary”, just mention what you are going to do to the slaves kids/whife after the sixyears have gone)
(of course, its all for men, women is not included in the sixyear law (there is even a special part about selling your daughters) and neither seems non-hebrews to be included (ie lifelong slavery))
and does this sounds like apprenice?
“You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
This taken from Box Turtle Bulletin readers who know a little more about it than Brian Brown.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/04/44102
Brian Brown is using the standard Christian deception when one points out the bible got morality wrong when it condoned slavery. They mentioned one type of slavery and dishonestly lead people to believe all biblical slavery was of that type.
most slaves were devout Christians
they must not have known the Bible as well as true experts like "surfing the sites that tell me what I wanna hear" Priya
Box Turtle- what else doth one need?
"Last week both Rasmussen and Gallup polls had Romney-Ryan ahead, but today both polls show a tie.
It looks like the Ryan "bump" has actually turned out to be a Ryan recoil."
what a way to hype one or two point movements in polls with error margins of 3.5!
face it: prior to the Ryan pick, about two weeks ago, Obama's lead had jumped to 7 to 9 points
now, polls agree it's too close to call
scarier still for Obama, swing states are moving toward the R-Ryan ticket
the Obama presidency is now history
and his fan- atics don't even know it!
"Seniors are currently covered under some provisions of Obamacare, which Mr. Ryan wants to repeal."
seniors are hurt more than helped by Obamacare
the cancelling of Mecicare advantage and the bankruptcy of the Trust Fund because of the 750 billion dollars shifted to Obamacare will cancel any lollipops Barry is planning to hand out to seniors
just ask seniors: polls show they oppose Obamacare
they've been around the block a few times
"Nice selective quote you posted about Bickers and Berry's little study. Don't forget the caveats at the end:"
oh, yes that "little" study has accurately predicted every election since 1980
without fail
those caveats are obviously true but the authors have always made them
they want to appear non-partisan
face it: unless some miracle occurs like, say, it is discovered that Mitt Romney was helping Jerry Sandusky, the Obama error, oops, I mean era, is over
Americans want more hope than that their President will manage their decline smoothly
"To link the "cause" of homosexuality with childhood abuse is the height of ignorance."
I never said "the"
I pointed out that the study cited by David did indeed show that male victims of abuse were seven times more likely to identify as homosexual
the authors pointed to several things that could explain that but, obviously, one possibility is that abuse could be a "cause" under certain circumstances
"If one were to accept that "cause", the number of homosexual men and women would be millions more than is currently recognized."
not necessarily
if that is a factor, probably other factors also come into play
"If one were to accept that "cause", the number of homosexual men and women would be millions more than is currently recognized."
like this logic
kind of like saying "if smoking really caused cancer, all smokers would have cancer"
that's old-fashioned nonsense, right there!
more liberal nuts coming out:
"WASHINGTON -- U.S. Capitol Police said Thursday that officers are investigating a reported threat against Rep. Todd Akin, the Missouri congressman.
Police spokeswoman Lt. Kimberly Schneider said there was "an active, open investigation" into a reported threat against the Republican, though she declined to detail the threat because it involved security of members of Congress.
The six-term congressman, who is running for the U.S. Senate.
Several threats have been made against the congressman, his family and staff, Akin spokesman Steve Taylor said. Taylor said threats of rape and other violence have been aimed at Akin through phone calls, emails and tweets."
Who are you calling a liberal nut? Liberals aren't the only ones who want Akin to lose.
FOX NEWS reports:
Ann Coulter Calls Akin a “Selfish Swine” Who Is Hurting the Republican Party
"...Coulter called for a write-in campaign in Missouri to win the Senate seat presumably lost by Akin, whom she described as a “selfish swine.” She went on to say that this is the first example that can be lumped into a so-called Republican ‘war on women.’
In terms of how this will impact the race in Missouri and the presidential campaign, Coulter said that Akin is harming the Republican Party. She told Hannity, “We have gone from an easy win to a loss […] What [Akin] cares about is his own ego.”
Coulter is an entertainer and very humorous one
matter of fact, last week, after a liberal nut tried to shoot up the Focus on the Family HQ downtown, one TTFer was drawing a comparison to the shooting of George Tiller (wildly inappropriate comparison, but no need to discuss that) and I remembered Coulter's comments at the time at the time of Tiller's shooting: "personally, I think it's wrong to kill abortionists but I don't want to force my moral beliefs on anyone else"
pretty funny but I wouldn't worry about her comments now
as for Akin, his words were ill-advised but it's a long campaign, it was one comment and he apologized
the media overkill is unbelievable
he should continue
he may lose but I suspect Missouri voters will shrug this minor incident off
btw, Akin's views on abortion are correct and Romney's are illogical
and, yes, liberals are nuts and some of their nuttier friends have been making news lately
Republican week coming up
it's gonna be fun, you betcha
bad Obama:
"American incomes declined more in the three-year expansion that started in June 2009 than during the longest recession since the Great Depression, according an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by Sentier Research LLC.
Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, more than the 2.6 percent drop during the 18-month contraction, the research firm’s Gordon Green and John Coder wrote in a report today. Household income is 7.2 percent below the December 2007 level, the former Census Bureau economic statisticians wrote.
“Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, said in a phone interview today."
"as for Akin, his words were ill-advised but it's a long campaign, it was one comment and he apologized
the media overkill is unbelievable"
Yeah, the media just made it all up, as these headlines prove:
Todd Akin Defies Mitt Romney and Stays in Missouri Senate Race
Sarah Palin: Todd Akin should withdraw or we’ll run a third party for Senate in Missouri
GOP leader McConnell suggests Todd Akin consider his options
Blunt, former senators want Akin to quit race
@Reince Priebus: RNC not giving any money to Akin if he stays in
Poll: McCaskill Leads Akin by 10 Points
On income in the US, the CBO reports:
"The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
-The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
-Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
-All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points."
RomneyRyan want to make this difference even larger, costing the poor and the elderly more so they can give even bigger tax cuts to the richest Americans.
"Yeah, the media just made it all up,"
yes, they made it all up
and, yes, these are a bunch of people over-reacting to media overkill
"On income in the US, the CBO reports:
"The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
-The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
-Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
-All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points."
when? over Obama's term of office?
btw, all groups may be losing out even if the proportion of that loss is spread somewhat differently
in other words, the statistics you cherry-pick out of the CBO report are meaningless
I was watching Rachel Maddow (who, btw, I almost always disagree with, but still find her energetic presentation fun to watch: kind of like the Richard Cohen of the air) on Dave Letterman earlier this week
Letterman, who has sadly become a part of the Democratic propaganda machine, asked her how can people support candidates who want to tax rich people less "of a proportion' than they pay
Maddow, who seemed stumped, paused several long seconds and said "I don't know..."
guys, it's because the "proportion" is meaningless
everyone knows rich people pay vastly more taxes than anyone else and fund most of our way of life while half of our population pay no tax at all
and the money these wealthy people have left is invested, basically funding our job-creating apparatus
taking it away from them takes money from capital markets and gives it to an inefficient government waste apparatus
the difference affects our economy significantly
so now we have perpetual 8% unemployment, much like socialist Western Europe has had for decades
"RomneyRyan want to make this difference even larger, costing the poor and the elderly more so they can give even bigger tax cuts to the richest Americans"
this is a flat-out lie and the American people are catching on to it
RR proposes to lower rates but eliminate deductions, meaning most would have the same taxes as they do now
As the study from Sentier Research clearly shows, median household income, real money not proportions, has fallen almost twice as much since the recovery started than it did during the recession, which was the worst since the Great Depression.
“Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” said Sentier Research's Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program."
Obama has been a very bad steward of our economy
why would anyone want more of that?
how he thought he could get away with stealing over $700 billion from Medicare to fund his lame Obamacare is beyond fathoming
with the opening of the conventions, the campaign conversations begin in earnest this week
this can't end well for the Dumbocrats!!
really rippin' really nailed it
here's more:
don't think unemployment will go down before the election
"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Applications for U.S. jobless benefits rose by 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 372,000 in the week ended Aug. 18, the Labor Department said Thursday."
bad Obama
and what kind of moron can't even get it going if he maxes out the national credit card?
"Prepare for another year of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday that the deficit for 2012 will run $1.1 trillion, the fourth year in a row the shortfall will exceed $1 trillion.
The report also warned that a new recession is likely if the decade-old tax Bush tax rates expire -- "this would lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession."
If that happened, the economy would contract by 0.5 percent -- a gloomier projection than the budget office made earlier this year when it envisioned slight growth under that scenario. Unemployment would rise to around 9 percent by late next year if the tax hikes go into effect, the analysts said."
bad Obama
"and the money these wealthy people have left is invested, basically funding our job-creating apparatus":
After giving "wealthy people" ten years of annual, unfunded Bush tax cuts, which you claimed they "invested, basically funding our job-creating apparatus," unemployment is above 8%. So where are the millions of jobs these Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have created? Not in the real world, that's for sure.
Sorry Anon, but it's time to teach some facts here.
Bush's tax cuts if reenacted, as the CBO pointed out a few days ago, "would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective."
"What Is the Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2022 Under Current Law (CBO’s Baseline)["which incorporates the assumption that current laws generally remain in place"(Bush tax cuts end)]?
Economic Growth from 2014 to 2017: As the economy adjusts to a lower path for budget deficits, real GDP is projected to begin growing again in late 2013. The pace of economic expansion will average 4.3 percent from 2014 through 2017, CBO projects, although the economy will continue to operate below its potential level (when output reflects a high rate of use of labor and capital) until 2018.
Unemployment Rate from 2014 to 2017: As economic growth picks up, the unemployment rate is projected to decline to 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014 and to 5.7 percent by the fourth quarter of 2017.
Inflation and Interest Rates from 2014 to 2017: Inflation (as measured by the PCE price index) is projected to inch up toward 2 percent by 2017. CBO anticipates that, as the economy strengthens, interest rates will return to more-typical levels; the rate on 3-month Treasury bills is projected to be 3.4 percent at the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to be 4.6 percent.
The Outlook for 2018 Through 2022: Beyond 2017, CBO does not attempt to predict the timing or magnitude of fluctuations in business cycles. CBO’s economic projections for the 2018–2022 period are based on trends in the factors that underlie the economy’s potential output, such as the size of the labor force, the stock of productive capital, and productivity. In those projections, the growth of real GDP averages 2.4 percent between 2018 and 2022, and inflation hovers around 2 percent. By late 2022, the unemployment rate declines to 5.3 percent, and interest rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year Treasury notes are 3.8 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively.
What Is the Budget and Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2022 If Many Current Policies Are Continued (As in CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario)["embodies the assumption that many policies that have recently been in effect will be continued."(Bush tax cuts end)]?
Under the alternative fiscal scenario, deficits over the 2014–2022 period would be much higher than those projected in CBO’s baseline, averaging about 5 percent of GDP rather than 1 percent. Revenues would remain below 19 percent of GDP throughout that period, and outlays would rise to more than 24 percent. Debt held by the public would climb to 90 percent of GDP by 2022—higher than at any time since shortly after World War II.
Real GDP would be higher in the first few years of the projection period than in CBO’s baseline economic forecast, and the unemployment rate would be lower. However, the persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt would hinder national saving and investment, thus reducing GDP and income relative to the levels that would occur with smaller deficits. In the later part of the projection period, the economy would grow more slowly than in CBO’s baseline, and interest rates would be higher. Ultimately, the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective."
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday that the deficit for 2012 will run $1.1 trillion, the fourth year in a row the shortfall will exceed $1 trillion. "
And what else did the CBO say about that deficit?''
"For fiscal year 2012 (which ends on September 30), the federal budget deficit will total $1.1 trillion, CBO estimates, marking the fourth year in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion. That projection is down slightly from the $1.2 trillion deficit that CBO projected in March. At 7.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), this year’s deficit will be three-quarters as large as the deficit in 2009 when measured relative to the size of the economy."
So the deficit is going in the right direction (getting smaller) compared to the deficit Bush and his horrible economic policies left us with. After 3 years of Obama's leadership, the annual deficit has shrunk by 25%, "when measured relative to the size of the economy."
You are touting the short-term outcomes cited by CBO and ignoring the long-term outcomes they also spelled out for anyone to read.
The fact that the short-term gain in 2013 of continuing the Bush tax cuts will become "a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable" from 2014-2022, means you can't simply read selective parts of the CBO's reports.
You not only have to read all of the facts found in the CBO reports, but you have to *comprehend* them too.
Big news at the box office: The film pegged as the anti-Obama documentary has outsold all other movies opening this weekend. The earnings also make it the top-grossing documentary of the year.
"2016: Obama's America" is based on Indian-American conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage." (D'Souza also co-directed with John Sullivan, and narrates the majority of the film). A poster for the movie shows a profile of President Obama cast against a hazy gray fog with the tag line, "Love Him, Hate Him, You Don't Know Him."
"study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute"
this supposedly non-partisan institute always favors raising taxes
as a matter of fact, this TPC study has already been thoroughly debunked
you might want to consider a more broad-based selection of reading materials
just a hint: if it has the Brookings Institute listed as a partner in the project, it favors big government and high taxes
"To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers"
note: reducing taxes for the middle income
"the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first"
actually, if you really read the report, you would have seen that the study assumes that several exclusions that benefit primarily the wealthy would not be changed by Romney
big problem: Romney says that two of these exclusions are on the table: the exclusion of municipal interest and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings
these two exclusions mainly benefit the wealthy and repealing them would yield revenues of about 90 billion
"Romney's rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says."
yes, but the portion of that represented by reductions for the wealthy is 87 billion
"To avoid increasing deficits — as Romney has pledged — the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care — all breaks that benefit the middle class..."
only for the part,around 260 billion, caused by cuts to the middle class
the part caused by reductions of rates for the wealthy, 87 billion, could easily be covered by the two breaks for the wealthy mentioned above, which Romney has said are on the table and which the TPC study specifically said in its appendix that Romney would never repeal
so, rather than prove Romney's plan is "mathematically impossible", in the phrase of the TPC study, they simply are saying that Romney is lying about being willing to repeal the two exclusions mentioned
but they make it sound like a conclusion based on careful research, when it is, in fact, a partisan opinion
"Checking the facts on the $700 billion Medicare 'cut'"
here, you counter the fact that Obama stole over 700 billion from Medicare with the fact that Ryan also has a budget including the 700 billion cut
but that isn't a counter
Ryan has included it as a deficit reduction, leaving it available to be used for any future shortfalls in Medicare
Obama uses it instead to plug the deficit in Obamacare, using it up and hastening the day when the Medicare system goes bankrupt
this use simply hides the fact that Obamacare is not self-sustaining and would need to drain Medicare funds to work
I would hope even the most crazed TTFer would see the significant difference
Romney would reform the tax system, bringing back growth, and salvage the Medicare program forever
Obama would continue with low-growth, high unemployment policies, trillion dollar deficits, and ignore the looming bankruptcy of Medicare
Obama's campaign slogan will be used against him this fall:
Forward
oh boy!
after reading that, I know fer sure now
Obama is gonna looooOOOOOoooose!!
great news, everybody!
the Washington Post did its very own poll and now says Romney leads Obama
looks like you guys have your work cut out for you
how to argue the case for someone whose only idea is: let's raise taxes on rich people
I'm gettin' all smiley!!
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Anon.
Your addiction to outlier polls is comparable to your compulsion to verbally attack LGBT people.
While the ABC/Wash Post poll of 857 registered voters shows a 1 point Romney advantage, your usual favorite poll, Rasmussen Reports, shows 1500 likely voters prefer President Obama to Romney by 3 percentage points.
Rasmussen reports:
"Monday, August 27, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
This is the president’s biggest lead since May. His 47% level of support matches his best since March...."
We can all clearly see which candidate the pick of Ryan as the GOP VP candidate has bumped up in the polls in according to your beloved likely voters polled by Rasmussen.
"Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Anon"
you'll have to be more specific than that, Goofy Grape
let us know what you mean by your poorly conceived metaphor
"Your addiction to outlier polls"
there actually aren't any outlier polls right now
within their margin of errors, all polls right now can be reconciled by holding that the race is somewhere between a one point lead for Romney and a one point lead for Obama
they also all agree that a few weeks ago before the stupendous selection of Paul Ryan, Obama had a lead of seven to nine points
WOW!
usually VP nominees don't make this kind of impact
this time, it's different
of course, the scary thing for Obama is that this trend is mirrored in several swing states which are now dead heats
the only reason Obama is still in it at all is that he has a lock on CA, NY and IL
"is comparable to your compulsion to verbally attack LGBT people"
I don't verbally attack LGBT people in general
I verbally respond to lunatic fringe gay advocates who try to attain special privileges for gays and attack preferences for families
not all gays do that
"While the ABC/Wash Post poll of 857 registered voters shows a 1 point Romney advantage, your usual favorite poll, Rasmussen Reports, shows 1500 likely voters prefer President Obama to Romney by 3 percentage points"
that's true
the margin of error is three points though
"We can all clearly see which candidate the pick of Ryan as the GOP VP candidate has bumped up in the polls in according to your beloved likely voters polled by Rasmussen."
actually, Ramussen had Romney up just a couple of days ago while Ryan was chosen a couple of weeks ago
have fun dreaming, kids!!
tonight in Tampa Bay, Americans from a diverse America: rich and poor; black, white and Asian; male and female; all have come together to cheer on Romney and Ryan
and shout: Nobama!!
the restoration of America has begun
no looking back
Too bad Ann Romney isn't running. Like the Obamas, she seems so human and real compared to her husband. Did Ann unzip Mitt last night? I don't know, he seemed pretty stiff out there on that stage.
Last night, Ann talked about their struggling days right after being married "too young," moving into a basement apartment and eating a lot of pasta and tuna fish, trying to show her empathy for the poor.
But let's check a fact of two: Here's how Ann Romney described that apartment and their college years in a 1994 interview:
"They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income. It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.
We were happy, studying hard. ***Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father.*** When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year—it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.
Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.
Poor Ann, having to live in a basement apartment after having been raised in a "lovely neighborhood" must have been so difficult for her. Not having to work and living with "no income" while you rent an apartment and go to college because generate income from selling off Daddy's stock to pay your bills is not how most Americans define being poor and living through difficult times.
"tonight in Tampa Bay, Americans from a diverse America: rich and poor; black, white and Asian; male and female; all have come together to cheer on Romney and Ryan "
Keep drinking the kool-aid and imagining the RNC is a multicultural lovefest. Here are 2 examples of how some attendees actually feel.
Talkingpointsmemo reports RNC Attendee Allegedly Threw Nuts At Black CNN Camerawoman, Said ‘This Is How We Feed Animals’
"An attendee at the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday allegedly threw nuts at a black camerawoman working for CNN and said “This is how we feed animals” before being removed from the convention, a network official confirmed to TPM.
The CNN official declined to confirm specific details of the incident to TPM but generally confirmed an account posted on Twitter by former MSNBC and Current anchor David Shuster: “GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying ‘This is how we feed animals.’”
It is not clear whether the alleged culprit was a delegate or attending the convention in some other capacity.
In a written statement, CNN addressed the matter but divulged few details: “CNN can confirm there was an incident directed at an employee inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum earlier this afternoon. CNN worked with convention officials to address this matter and will have no further comment.”
TPM’s calls to RNC and convention officials were not immediately returned.
Here is the original tweet from Shuster:
David Shuster@DavidShuster
GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals." @TakeActionNews #TAN
Tonight we get to hear Gov. Martinez speak even after "Pat Rogers, a Republican National Committee (RNC) leader, [told] the staff of Gov. Susana Martinez, R-N.M., that because she agreed to meet with American Indian tribes in the state, she disrespected the memory of Col. George Armstrong Custer."
Were Romney donors partying on a mega-yacht registered — for tax avoidance reasons — in the Cayman islands… during the Republican convention? Come on — simply as metaphor, the very notion reeks so egregiously of entitlement and elitism that one can’t imagine Romney’s campaign managers allowing such a thing to happen. Right?
But ABC News has the scoop, and it’s a good one:
"Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign toasted its top donors Wednesday aboard a 150-foot yacht flying the flag of the Cayman Islands…. The event, attended by no more than 50 people, along with Romney relatives, including older brother Scott, appeared on no public calendars…. The Cracker Bay is owned by Gary Morse, developer of the Villages retirement community. Companies controlled by Morse gave nearly $1 million to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future superPAC. Registered in the Caymans, the Cracker Bay has an impressive art collection and can seat 30 for dinner."
There’s only one reason why millionaires register their mega-yachts in the Cayman Islands — and it’s the very same reason why Mitt Romney has offshore accounts registered there. Taxes — or, more accurately, the lack thereof. It makes a perfect kind of sense. Millionaires want to help Romney get elected because not only will that prevent Obama from raising their taxes, but it could well result in their current tax burden falling even further.
you know the right is winning when TTFers stop resorting to racism and resentment of the rich to desperately try to rile
just finished watching the stupendous Paul Ryan's speech
Barack Obama's presidency is...
toast
"just finished watching the stupendous Paul Ryan's speech"
Ryan's speech was full of lies, misrepresentations and omissions:
-GM plant — Ryan: blamed Obama for the closing of GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wis. Truth: One of the biggest whoppers of the night, the plant closed before Obama was even sworn into office. His position also contradicts the Republicans’ position of opPposing President Obama’s auto rescue.
-Stimulus — Ryan: “The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.” Truth: The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus created 3.3 million jobs. Four out of five economists agree. Ryan himself wrote letters requesting stimulus money, then lied about it.
-Medicare — Ryan: “Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.” Truth: As we’ve pointed out many times, Obamacare doesn’t raid Medicare and Ryan’s plan would do a lot more to ruin Medicare. One of the biggest lies of the campaign.
-Obamacare — Ryan: “You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover…” Truth: Politifact called the “government takeover” of healthcare meme their “lie of the year” in 2010.
-Jobs — Ryan: “We have a plan for a stronger middle class, with the goal of generating 12 million new jobs over the next four years.” Truth: An almost impossible goal.
-Debt — Ryan: “ The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government.” Truth: A false choice. There is no evidence suggesting that decreasing the size of government would grow the economy, in fact, it may hurt by killing government and contractor jobs. And much of the debt is due to Bush policies that Ryan voted for, like the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-Simpson-Bowles commission — Ryan: “He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.” Truth: Ryan sat on that commission, and, as chairman of the Budget Committee was a leader on it. He voted against the commission’s recommendations, bringing all the other Republicans along with him.
-Credit downgrade — Ryan: Obama “began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.” When Standard & Poors downgraded the country’s sovereign debt rating in 2011, they said that it was because Republican lawmakers had taken the nation’s debt ceiling hostage (something Ryan supported doing) and because “the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues” (another position Ryan maintains).
-Poor — Ryan: “We have responsibilities, one to another — we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak.” Truth: About two-thirds of the cuts in Ryan’s budget proposal come from programs the benefit poor people, such as food stamps. Meanwhile, he calls for tax cuts for the wealthy.
Everyone lies. Ryan takes it to stupendous levels.
I'm not the only one who found Ann Romney's speech about years of "struggle" with no income -- but the ability to cash in stocks from Daddy -- to be a stretch. It only shows her to be as out of touch with middle class women as her husband is.
Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to actually struggle with money like so many of us do.
Here's what Juan Williams at FOX NEWS had to say about Ann's claim of "struggle."
..."My reaction was to the political speech. It was intended to help the presidential candidate with women voters. The goal was to let the audience know he is a caring person and not a hardened businessman lacking a heart.
Where the speech lost me was in her representation that the Romneys could understand the struggle of the average American family because they, too, had struggled. Those comments felt to me as if this was something she had often expressed in formal settings while representing her husband. This representation was not at all persuasive to me because their “struggle” is vastly different than the economic struggle of most Americans.
My criticism is about the economic angle of the speech.
The most effective political approach to me -- as a political analyst— would have been for Mrs. Romney to say that she knows she is fortunate, knows she blessed and she wants the best for others too.
That message is the perfect counter to any thoughts that her husband is out of touch with the lives of average Americans. It would have put the issue of their wealth in proper perspective as the American Dream and conveyed that they feel blessed to be in position to help others.
The wonderful reality is that both Ann and Mitt are scions of wealthy families. They were born to lives of privilege -- she, the daughter of a wealthy industrialist and he, the son of an automobile company CEO and governor of Michigan.
They may have started out in a small apartment but she was married to a young man studying for a Harvard business and law degree. Their parents could afford to send them to elite universities like Stanford and Harvard without needing scholarships or financial aid. And then her talented husband had monumental success in the corporate world.
It does not make sense to me to talk about that couple having struggles similar to most Americans. They never had to live with economic fear of being laid off from a job or losing their health insurance.
My thinking is that the audience knows this. Her husband’s critics have used it to portray him as out of touch. That is why I think the speech’s most effective approach would have been to quickly acknowledge the blessing of wealth and move on, spending most of the time talking about the family’s generosity and history of helping others."
FOX NEWS reports:
Paul Ryan's speech in three words
Word 2 - Deceiving
..."Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many...."
Milbank says "it’s absurd to put the [Family Research Council], as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan…
Hoods.
Crosses.
improv, for something new, your comment makes no sense
Milbank was right
labeling FRC a hate group was a serious error by gay advocates
btw, a liberal advocacy group calling themselves "Politifact" was making claims that Ryan lied in his speech last night
one of the few specific "lies" they alleged was this:
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush.
turns out Politifact lied:
Last night Politifact Wisconsin issued one of the least factual and most skewed "fact checks" I've ever seen. Not only do they bend over backwards to provide cover to one of the most impotent promises President Obama ever made, they also simply lie about the key facts they use to label Paul Ryan's claim false. Here is Politifact's ruling:
"Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office.
We rate Ryan's statement False."
Let's start with what Obama said and see if any reasonable human being who isn't simply shilling for the President could possibly reach the same conclusion as Politifact:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President."
So, President Obama went to the Janesville GM plant and told them that if the policies he supports were enacted, the plant would "be here for another hundred years". If a presidential candidate comes to your plant and tells you the execution of his policies will keep it open for another hundred years that's a promise or a guarentee or whatever you want. However, it most certainly isn't meaningless as Politifact would like us all to believe.
And, of course, President Obama's policies were enacted but the Janesville GM plant didn't even survive through all of 2009. Instead, it shut down on April 23rd 2009. Which brings me to the next point. Politifact is just plain lying about when the Jainsville plant closed.
They claim it "effectively" closed in December of 2008. That's simply false. While the SUV line in the plant was shut down in December of 2008 the plant's truck line remained up and running until April 23rd 2009.
There's just no way around that. Throwing in a weasel word like "effectively" doesn't change anything. The simple fact is that closed factories don't build trucks.
So, there you have it. President Obama promised the Janesville GM plant would go on building for a hundred years but even after the government bought GM and Obama came into office the plant shut down. That's the reality of the situation whether the liberals at Politifact like it or not.
The fact is the Janesville plant was considered closed in December of 2008. On December 23, the last day of SUV procuction there was a ceremony with pictures and a huge banner stating "Last vehicle off the Janesville assembly line - December 23, 2008". The end of production was the way the media covered it, UAW workers walked off the line and that's when all the goodbyes took place. The plant was idled after that. There was some contract work that went on after that until April in the following year but from the local perspective the plant was closed December 23, 2008. The contract work that went on after December 23, 2008 was to build some other vehicles that weren't GM products and a limited number of workers had to fill out that contract but the majority of workers had left the plant in December 2008 and the union considered the plant closed.
Obviously it is a lie for Ryan to have claimed Obama's actions were responsible for the plant closing, the decision and timing to shut it down were done during Bush's term and major production ended a month before Obama took office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/obama-could-not-have-saved-janesville-gm-plant-it-closed-before-he-took-office/
You know you screwed up royally when you're a Republican and even Fox news calls you a liar.
Regarding Politifacts statment that the plant was effectively closed December 23 2008, at that time 2000 workers were laid off. 57 stayed on until April 2009 to handle the contract work but in bad anonymouses fevered delusions it isn't true to say the plant was effectively closed December 23, 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/paul-ryan-address_n_1841819.html
"improv, for something new, your comment makes no sense"
Same bull *hit different decade.
thanks, to Priya and all her multiple personalities, who all like to have a chance to comment
next from in the civil rights movement: all the various personalities residing in a split personality should have the same right to speech and to marry the one they love
it could be a loophole allowing bigamy
lousy Priya, if this plant was still running, producing trucks, why couldn't Obama stop it from shutting down and get it running to full capacity again?
at that point, he controlled more stock in GM than anyone else because he was the head comrade in a socialist government that bought the company
Bain Capital would have saved it
but Obama has always been more about redisributing prosperity than creating it
is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has presided over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression
Politifact is right, Obama made no promise the factory would stay open in this 2008 campaign statement:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President."
Anyone who thinks this statement promises
that factory will stay open fails at reading comprehension.
Let's not forget, Congress pared down the size of the stimulus President Obama asked for, which he signed into law in Feb 2009. Had Congress granted him the full stimulus he asked for, the Janesville plant might have been able to "re-tool and make this transition." But instead of working to help Obama save the economy, the GOP became the Grand Obstructionist Party, not because they care about Americans who are suffering, but because they cared only about fulfilling Mitch McConnell's "top political priority."
But by all means, follow your newest GOP leader and keep lying:
LYIN' RYAN: ALL THE MEDIA PUSHBACK "25 journalists and pundits call out Paul Ryan for lying" and they point out he lied about a whole lot more than just one plant.
Day 4 GOP Convention bounce
Ipsos/Reuters Poll:
"-Romney is now on 44%, compared to 42% for Obama among Likely Voters. This shows slow-but-steady improvement for Romney over the Convention period so far
-However, candidate favorability ratings have not changed at all over this time period: the Registered Voter electorate is split almost perfectly (50/50) on both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates – much of this along party lines-Romney’s scores on ‘likeability’ and ‘is a good person’ have been trending upwards over the course of the Convention
-While he still trails Obama by almost 20 points, Romney is now on 30% for ‘likeable’, up from 26% on Monday
-Romney is on 32% for ‘is a good person’, up from 29% on Monday (although Obama still leads by 10 points on 42%)"
"Obama made no promise the factory would stay open in this 2008 campaign statement:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President."
Anyone who thinks this statement promises
that factory will stay open fails at reading comprehension."
well, most people would fail the liberal "reading comprehension" test
he said if the government took certain steps, the plant wouldn't close and he would fight for a government that would take those steps as President
as a matter of fact, he became President and back when he had a filibuster-proof Congress, he was able secure approval for every idea had to bail-out the auto industry, from government takeover of GM to cash-for-clunkers
the plant finally closed at a time when Obama controlled more stock of GM than anyone else and could have easily used that influence to keep it open and operating at full capacity
"Let's not forget, Congress pared down the size of the stimulus President Obama asked for, which he signed into law in Feb 2009. Had Congress granted him the full stimulus he asked for, the Janesville plant might have been able to "re-tool and make this transition.""
let's not forget, Democrats had a fillibuster-proof majority so that's who "Congress" is
and Obama didn't ask for anything
in the first sign he had no leadership ability, he out-sourced all policy creation to Pelosi and Reid and played their ra-ra guy whenever he wasn't jetting around the world, a little out of control in his first year when he found he had unlimited travel as a perk and should take advantage while he can
once he got the money, however, he preferred to pour it into losing venture like Solyndra rather than save American jobs
to him, the liberal agenda always comes before the welfare of working Americans
just wait until he gets "flexibility" if re-elected
"But instead of working to help Obama save the economy, the GOP became the Grand Obstructionist Party, not because they care about Americans who are suffering, but because they cared only about fulfilling Mitch McConnell's "top political priority."
Obama didn't have any worthwhile ideas to create jobs then and he has none at all now
you see, Obama has spent his whole life in government so, to him, creating jobs means expanding government
that never works
compare the job creation records of Reagan and Obama, who both inherited horrible economies, and you can contrast the choice we now have
"But by all means, follow your newest GOP leader and keep lying:
LYIN' RYAN: ALL THE MEDIA PUSHBACK "25 journalists and pundits call out Paul Ryan for lying" and they point out he lied about a whole lot more than just one plant"
as is often true, they are all quoting the same Politifact source which has now been debunked
that's the way the media works
they feed off each other
""-Romney is now on 44%, compared to 42% for Obama among Likely Voters."
yada-yada-yada
guys, the race is a dead heat
Obama had a slight lead of 5-7 points until Ryan got into the picture
this has changed Romney's image from cautious businessman to bold entrepreneur
rarely do VP selections make this kind of impact
by November, Obama will wish he never met Joe Biden
btw, Michael Moore yesterday predicted Romney will win
why?
Obama squandered so much money this summer on attack ads while Romney saved his money for the fall campaign
Obama will never be able to catch up and Romney will be able to run ads where he wants and, more importantly, fund an extensive network of workers to make sure his voters get to the polls in swing states
Obama's mismanagement of his re-election campaign is a microcosm of his mismanagement of the Presidency
a nice guy, a nice family
a bad President
Ryan's speech wasn't just stunning for this lie about the janesville plant, the hypocrisy of their criticism is off the chart. The republicans including Ryan opposed the auto bailout and railed about how the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy and here they are criticizing Obama for not doing just that. A more blatant bunch of two-faced liars can't be found anywhere.
"Ryan's speech wasn't just stunning for this lie about the janesville plant,"
Ryan didn't lie about the plant
he said "we were ABOUT to lose this plant"
it closed in April 2009
moreover, Obama made more promises in October 2008 about Janesville:
"As President, I will lead an effort to retool plants like Janesville so we can create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America"
so Obama also promised to retool Janesville after it's eventual closing was announced
Obama didn't do that
"the hypocrisy of their criticism is off the chart. The republicans including Ryan opposed the auto bailout and railed about how the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy and here they are criticizing Obama for not doing just that. A more blatant bunch of two-faced liars can't be found anywhere."
you miss the point (for something new and different)
they weren't criticizing Obama for not personally intervening
they were criticizing him for promising to create the conditions that would reopen the plant
he didn't do that
as a matter of fact, the reason the factory can't make cars anymore is because the type they were producing won't sell because of Obama's high gas prices
January 2013: the end of an error
the first post convention poll of LIKELY voters is out
Romney leads
August 2012: the collapse of the Obama re-election effort
you all knew it was coming
it's here!!
LOL, as usual reality leaves bad anonymous desperately trying to polish a turd.
what a disgusting thing to say
you're not exactly a credit to your ungender
is one of your split personalities invisible Obama?
and, while I have the opportunity, let me say that Romney now leads the race
and he didn't before he selected the stupendous Paul Ryan
oh yeah!!!
"let me say that Romney now leads the race"
Not according to the RCP average of all polls. Obama's still ahead of Romney because the Ryan "bump" fell flat thanks to the too many lies "Lyin' Ryan" felt obliged to include in his RNC speech.
hey, stoooopid!
as discussed before, the RCP averages weeks of polls, most if which survey all REGISTERED voters
Romney leads the only poll taken of LIKELY voters taken SINCE THE CONVENTION ENDED
and much to the chagrin of liberals Democrats and despite the best efforts of the mainstream media, the stupendous Ryan selection is responsible for the Romney resurgence
facts are facts
and TTFers should know that better than anyone
but they never have
Clint Eastwood on Thursday: when somebody does not do the job, we got to let 'em go
Ben Bernanke on Friday: economic growth is far from satisfactory
no, invisible obama, we won't shut up
something tells me, in November, Oprah will be crying again:
"CINCINNATI – A crowd of thousands cheered Mitt Romney at a rally here during the opening leg of a cross-country campaign swing on Saturday, testing for the first time whether he can sustain political momentum coming out of the Republican National Convention.
A line of people that stretched for five city blocks awaited Mr. Romney as his motorcade pulled into the Union Terminal. Inside there were so many people that the campaign had to redirect a few hundred of them into a small overflow room, where they crammed in shoulder to shoulder.
Inside a soaring Art Deco-styled rotunda here, the candidate, joined by Senator Rob Portman and Representative John Boehner, the House speaker, delivered a vigorous and sharply focused speech that sent the audience into ear-splitting roars.
Mr. Romney added new punch lines to his denunciation of President Obama’s first term as a betrayal of the promises he made and a failure to lead.
“One of the promises he made was he was going to create more jobs. And today, 23 million people are out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed,” Mr Romney said. “Let me tell you, if you have a coach that’s 0 and 23 million, you say it’s time to get a new coach. It’s time for America to see a winning season again, and we’re going to bring it to them.”"
Obama is leading Romney 231 electoral votes to 191:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map
This election is going exactly like the Obama Mccain campaign in 2008. The Democrat leads throughout the summer, the Republican gets a brief (very brief) bounce from the announcement of his running mate and the Republican convention and as people find out more about what a loser the Republican VP nominee is the shift back to the Democrats for good.
The Republican bounce from their convention was even shorter lived than Mccain/Palin in 2008. Polling has Obama back in the lead again:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romneys-bounce-convention-looks-short-lived-201257488.html
The Clint Eastwood debacle and record setting number of lies in the Republican convention are catching up to them sooner than one would have expected. When you're a Republican and you lie so much even Fox news calls you a liar it puts you in a hole you're still digging ever deeper.
Gallup has Obama ahead as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/obama-romney.aspx
Only the biased conservative organization Rasmussen has Romney ahead which is obviously an outlier.
"Obama is leading Romney 231 electoral votes to 191"
completely meaningless
state polls are taken less frequently, the swing states are tied up, and polls of ALL registered voters, regardless of whether they intend to vote, are mixed in to the averages
"This election is going exactly like the Obama Mccain campaign in 2008."
not exactly
if the economy makes a sudden downturn, the Dems won't be exagerating it publicly and making it worse
btw, Sarah Palin was instrumental in flipping the House of Representatives two years later so it's doubtful she was anything but a plus
"Polling has Obama back in the lead again"
the only poll of LIKELY voters since the convention has Romney up 4 points this morning
"The Clint Eastwood debacle"
debacle?
ha-ha
you must get your news, like much of the world outside the U.S., from CNN
Eastwood has changed everything by making it safe to mock Obama
Obama's received special treatment not afforded other Presidents from the late night comics and satirists
that ended Thursday night
I went to see a film last night at the AFI and before the movie a promo for the Institute came on with Eastwood onscreen
the crowd went wild
here in Montgomery County, the bastion of liberalism
they went wild over the sight of Eastwood
you see, Priya, outside the circle of taking heads on cable TV, who spend most of their time swapping thoughts with one another at Georgetown cocktail parties, Eastwood wasn't a debacle but a direct hit on the collapsing Obama campaign
"and record setting number of lies in the Republican convention"
no lies were told
LOL, keep clinging to that outlier Rasmussen poll bad anonymous, they're the only polling organization that consistently shows bias and always towards the Republicans. Many organizations won't even quote a Rasmussen poll. They almost always word their polls to elicit a response favourable to the Republicans. Rasmussen is a former Bush administration employee and studies show his polls typicall favour republicans by 4 to 6 percentage points, in one race in Hawaii Rasmussen had the democrat up by 11 points but he actually won by 53 percent. The only two reliable polls out show Obama in the lead and they're consistent with other polls througout the year.
The republicans reached their highwater point on Friday just as Mccain reached his after the Republican convention in 2008, its all downhill for the Republicans from here just like it was in 2008.
And as far as Clint Eastwood goes even the Republican organizaters at the convention described his performance as "bizarre", and "a disaster". They all blamed each other for putting Eastwood in the lineup and no one would take responsibility for him being on state. Eastwood totally overshadowed Romney's speech and now instead of people talking about what Romeny had to say their talking about the Republicans drunk uncle Harry embarrasing them.
"[Eastwood's speech]also startled and unsettled Mr. Romney’s top advisers and prompted a blame game among them. “Not me,” an exasperated-looking senior adviser said when asked who was responsible for Mr. Eastwood’s speech. In interviews, aides called the speech “strange” and “weird.” One described it as “theater of the absurd.”".
Republicans "liked" Eastwood's speech so much they cut it out of a video of the convention:
"I personally think Clint Eastwood was a mistake before he came out," former California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said today on "Meet the Press."
http://news.yahoo.com/clint-eastwood-gets-cut-romney-rnc-video-203935058--abc-news-politics.html
Meanwhile even a former Bush strategist has called out Ryan for his speech full of lies:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/02/fmr-bush-strategist-calls-out-paul-ryan-over-convention-speech-lies/
Ryan can't even tell the truth about his personal life. Last week he claimed to have run a marathon in under 3 hours - “Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.”
A spokesman confirmed late Friday that the Republican vice presidential candidate has run one marathon. That was the 1990 Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, where Ryan, then 20, is listed as having finished in 4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/09/29083/
As Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”
pretty sure Rasmussen was far closer to predicting the outcome of the last national election... closer than anyone else...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports
yep, even wikipedia thinks so... they have all of sudden swung to the right, really ?
2008
According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[40]
LOL, funny you should bring up Wikepedia which also said "After the 2010 midterm elections, Nate Silver of the New York Times concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.".
The error rate of Rasmussen this year is less but they are still on average the most inaccurate of all pollsters by a long shot.
Further from Wikipedia:
"TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[69] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[70] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[50]
The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[71] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions or assisted Republicans.[48]
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[72][73] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[74] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'""
There is much to criticize about Rasmussen's methods. All polls are conducted within a 4-hour window, the person who answers the phone (even a child) is sampled, phones that are not answered are not called back, and much more. All of Rasmussen's polls are done by computer; live interviewers are never used. However, other firms that do robopolling such as SurveyUSA and PPP get much more accurate results with no bias, so the problem is not the robopolling per se.
Just to look at one methodological issue, if no one answers the phone, Rasmussen picks a different random phone number instead of calling back two, three, four or more times as other pollsters do. Why does this matter? Because 20-somethings (who skew Democratic) are often out, whereas 60-somethings (who skew Republican) are often in. By not being persistent in finally getting through to a randomly chosen phone number, the sample is inherently biased towards Republicans because they are easier to reach. This may not have been intentional but it is understandable if you want to finish your survey in 4 hours. Nevertheless, cutting corners in the name of speed and cost don't improve accuracy.
as the other anon said, Ramussen was the most accurate pollster in the last Presdiential election
no reason to think that won't be so again
btw, as of today, the RCP average of all polls for the last several weeks, including those that don't try to ascertain how likely those polled are to vote, has the race deadlocked
all those Priyas are worried now
"as the other anon said, Ramussen was the most accurate pollster in the last Presdiential election".
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The statistics show Rasmussen has been consistently biased towards Republicans in most elections, one outlier doesn't mean much. Rasmussen has appeared at a number of Republican fundraisers and gone with Republicans on party cruises. Its well known Rasmussen is biased towards republicans and in particular has departed most drastically from what other pollsters have shown at the time of the Republican convention.
This is exactly what happened in 2008. Mccain rose in the polls after announcing Palin and during the Republican convention. Shortly after the Republican bounce disappeared and Obama took the lead for good. History is repeating itself.
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day"
so you're saying Ramussen just figures out what the polls will be on election day and leaves them there?
that's pretty clever of him
"The statistics show Rasmussen has been consistently biased towards Republicans in most elections,"
actually, evidence is that many polls overestimate Democratic support
"one outlier doesn't mean much"
calling the Presidential election correctly is an "outlier"
ho-ho-ho
if you say so
what does your therapist say?
"Rasmussen has appeared at a number of Republican fundraisers and gone with Republicans on party cruises"
this is America
everyone is entitled to an opinion
"Its well known Rasmussen is biased towards republicans and in particular has departed most drastically from what other pollsters have shown at the time of the Republican convention"
yes, well-known propaganda
"This is exactly what happened in 2008"
not really
"Mccain rose in the polls after announcing Palin"
well, sure, that would give anyone a boost
Obama should try it this week
"and during the Republican convention. Shortly after the Republican bounce disappeared and Obama took the lead for good. History is repeating itself."
history will repeat itself if an economic downturn hits between now and the election and then the Republicans try to make it worse by hyping it as the second Great Depression, fulfilling self-prophecy by destroying consumer and business confidence
but, as we know, Republicans wouldn't do that
Bad anonymous said "so you're saying Ramussen just figures out what the polls will be on election day and leaves them there?".
No, I'm saying that just like a stopped clock is right twice a day by coincidence Rasmussen was right in 2008. More recent analysis shows Rasmussen has an average polling error of 5.8 percent and an average bias towards Republicans of 3.9 percent. Rasmussen is wrong far more often then he's right.
Bad anonymous said "actually, evidence is that many polls overestimate Democratic support".
LOL, and that's why you posted all those links backing up your baseless claim. Is the sky purple in your imaginary reality?
Even the average of all polls you posted shows the Rasmussen numbers are inconsistent with all the other polls and if you remove the rasmussen outlier its clear the reality is Obama is ahead.
In 2008 the Republican convention bounce lasted quite a bit longer than this year, history is going to repeat itself with the exception that the Republican loss is going to be even bigger this time around.
"LOL, and that's why you posted all those links backing up your baseless claim"
Priya, you are so stupid. Googling will result in myriad studies showing Democratic bias in polling.
here's a link:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/
this study in the NY Times attempts to quantify the "house" bias of various major polls
note that Ramussen is middle of the road for bias, whereas certain liberal pollsters are much worse
the Ipsos poll, which I believe you often quote, is more than twice as biased toward Dems as Ramussen is toward Repubs
"Is the sky purple in your imaginary reality?"
in my imaginary reality?
marmalade skies, of course
"Even the average of all polls you posted shows the Rasmussen numbers are inconsistent with all the other polls and if you remove the rasmussen outlier its clear the reality is Obama is ahead"
your mistake here is to not realize that all polls have bias and that liberal ones are twice as common as conservative ones, and more shamelessly biased
you may remember how polls a few weeks ago showed overwhelming support for gay marriage and then hordes showed up Chik-fil-A Day and a few random miscreants came out for Kiss-in Day
the polling industry has been taking a hit recently
"In 2008 the Republican convention bounce lasted quite a bit longer than this year, history is going to repeat itself with the exception that the Republican loss is going to be even bigger this time around"
you very sadly forget the economic events that were central to the last election
and are oblivious to the economic circumstances that will determine this election
all you Priyas come back in November and let's compare results with the last poll and see who got it right
maybe that broken clock will take the cake again
"Even the average of all polls you posted shows the Rasmussen numbers are inconsistent with all the other polls and if you remove the rasmussen outlier its clear the reality is Obama is ahead"
the RCP average of major polls today show Obama ahead three-tenths of a percent
when the margin of error of these polls is generally 3 points and events happening daily, what's so clear about that?
Post a Comment
<< Home