td11 wrote:gotta look at that y-axis

TenuredVulture wrote:It's almost like that got that from the chapter "how graphs deceive."

Also, Fareed Zakaria, probably the only pundit worth reading or watching (though to be honest I don't watch his show on CNN because it's on CNN) weighs in on the culture thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

TenuredVulture wrote:It's almost like that got that from the chapter "how graphs deceive."

Also, Fareed Zakaria, probably the only pundit worth reading or watching (though to be honest I don't watch his show on CNN because it's on CNN) weighs in on the culture thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's almost like that got that from the chapter "how graphs deceive."

Also, Fareed Zakaria, probably the only pundit worth reading or watching (though to be honest I don't watch his show on CNN because it's on CNN) weighs in on the culture thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Dan Drezner rounds up responses from a few other people, including Acemoglu and Robinson. CONCEPTUAL FUZZINESS

in reply Mitt Romney wrote:I'm happy to go back and look but my view is I've footnoted all of my 'culture and success' references that are required by law. From time to time I've been graded as happens I think to other social science students as well and the faculty that have graded my work have done a very thorough and complete job to assign marks as legally due.

I don't study more than is legally due and frankly if I had studied more than is legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the course syllabus and study only as hard as what the syllabus requires

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:It's almost like that got that from the chapter "how graphs deceive."

Also, Fareed Zakaria, probably the only pundit worth reading or watching (though to be honest I don't watch his show on CNN because it's on CNN) weighs in on the culture thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Dan Drezner rounds up responses from a few other people, including Acemoglu and Robinson. CONCEPTUAL FUZZINESS

drsmooth wrote:Mitt's going to be facing this "have you stopped beating your wife?" question from now until november and he simply has to answer it more forthrightly somehow. Why doesn't he get this? Why after 10 years chasing this office isn't he better prepared? And why does is lack of preparation bother you? Do you genuinely feel he has earned the right to pay a lower tax rate than you? And if you feel he has, aren't you the least bit curious why he isn't willing, eager even, to tell you & me & everyone specifically how he managed it, and why that's good for all of us; why it would be good for a guy who has enjoyed that favorable treatment to be in charge of our government?

mozartpc27 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Mitt's going to be facing this "have you stopped beating your wife?" question from now until november and he simply has to answer it more forthrightly somehow. Why doesn't he get this? Why after 10 years chasing this office isn't he better prepared? And why does is lack of preparation bother you? Do you genuinely feel he has earned the right to pay a lower tax rate than you? And if you feel he has, aren't you the least bit curious why he isn't willing, eager even, to tell you & me & everyone specifically how he managed it, and why that's good for all of us; why it would be good for a guy who has enjoyed that favorable treatment to be in charge of our government?

TenuredVulture wrote:There's no doubt Romney is a terrible candidate. It's hard to believe a major party would nominate someone so charisma deficient and politically clumsy to run against a very vulnerable incumbent.

Swiggers wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's no doubt Romney is a terrible candidate. It's hard to believe a major party would nominate someone so charisma deficient and politically clumsy to run against a very vulnerable incumbent.

Well, everyone else who put their hat in the ring for the nomination fell somewhere in between "kooky" and "lunatic."

TenuredVulture wrote:There's no doubt Romney is a terrible candidate. It's hard to believe a major party would nominate someone so charisma deficient and politically clumsy to run against a very vulnerable incumbent.

philliesphhan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's no doubt Romney is a terrible candidate. It's hard to believe a major party would nominate someone so charisma deficient and politically clumsy to run against a very vulnerable incumbent.

philliesphhan wrote: