jerseyhoya wrote:Indeed. Studiously avoiding 2Q GDP being revised down to 1.3% on top of the awful durable goods numbers out heightening fears of a double dip recession. That's what the VRWC is doing.

SK790 wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Breweries per square mile? What a dumb way to measure it.

tis, but i couldnt find one about per capita. alaska is top 10 in that due to how small their population is, but one could argue that NJ has easier access to PA microbrews than Alaska has to ANY other micros, so land size makes some more sense in that respect.

http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages ... per-capita

you have to go to the link and open the pdf.

Bucky wrote:still doesn't trump the inherent racism of those who will vote against obama no matter who his opponent is, as long as they're caucasian

Worse still, the comments destroy Romney’s fundamental credibility. Here America sees what he says behind closed doors. Nothing he can say in public can possibly overcome the damage of these comments, because voters will quite correctly assume that he is telling them what they want to hear. George W. Bush’s campaign figured out how to do this to both Al Gore and John Kerry — by painting them as liars, Bush destroyed them as a message delivery platform. Romney has, essentially, done it to himself.

The size of the political damage Romney has incurred is beside the point. He was trailing narrowly, but in a polarized electorate with a tiny number of undecided voters. Not only has he turned some of those undecided voters against him, but he’s blown up his bridge to reach them.

“Ninety percent of ‘game-changing’ gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment,” I wrote.

But was this one of the exceptional cases? A week and a half has passed since Mr. Romney’s remarks became known to the public — meaning that there’s been enough time to evaluate their effect on the polls.There’s a case to be made that they did damage Mr. Romney’s standing some.

(snip)

By Sept. 17, the date when the video of Mr. Romney’s remarks was released and received widespread attention, the momentum from Mr. Obama’s convention appeared to have stalled (although not necessarily reversed itself). Mr. Obama led in the popular vote by 4.1 percentage points on that date, according to the “now-cast.”

Since then, however, Mr. Obama has gained further ground in the polls. As of Thursday, he led in the popular vote by 5.7 percentage points in the “now-cast,” a gain of 1.6 percentage points since Mr. Romney’s remarks became known to the public.

It’s hard to tell whether this recent gain for Mr. Obama reflects the effect of the “47 percent” comments specifically. But the most typical pattern after a party convention is that a candidate who gains ground in the polls cedes at least some of it back.

pacino wrote: just as we've seen cash on hand being essentially meaningless. companies just hold it because they are 'uncertain'. they're uncertain because they haven't hired enough workers to buy their own goods. it's a catch-22.

jerseyhoya wrote:
Don't think West will get reelected, but this is one of my favorite ads of the cycle

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:They said if I voted for McCain/Palin, there'd be increased warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans, and they were right.

so you should be happy?

and so i should vote, what, romney?, cause he'll fix it. this is why i say we dont have a true liberal party.

On that, yeah. Government needs to be aggressive in performing its primary responsibility. Keeping its citizens safe.

Wish we were still trying to catch terrorists and sending them to third world hell holes or Guantanamo rather than humanely blowing them up with their travelling parties or families with the drones though.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's only a good thing to kill terrorists when there is an R next to your name. Got it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:It's only a good thing to kill terrorists when there is an R next to your name. Got it.

I'll take it over doing nothing. I don't understand the morality behind Guantanamo=evil/anti-American/must be closed, blowing up people (often many to get at a specific bad guy)=just fine.