We're doing it, POLITICS style

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:52:49

@Werthless: jh's post, by using quotes around the word fact in reference to the 72% stat, certainly implies that he believe it is not, in fact, a fact. More troubling, I thought, was jh's description of her discussion of this as "whining."

And you wonder why liberals think Republicans are a bunch of rich white guys with little to no sympathy for anything but themselves and money.

by **pacino** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:54:20

Werthless wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:#$!&@ hell some of those questions tonight.

Which questions do you think were unfair? For example, I thought that the question asked by the one lady of Governor Romney about the specific loopholes he would cut was indicative of a probable Democratic voter (because no Republican would put Romney on the spot like that, and most independents wouldn't be engaged enough to get to that level of detail).

However, it is an unquestionably fair question to ask.

I thought the back to back questions with the woman whining about the #$!&@ 'fact' of women making 72% of men and then the woman asking how Romney was different when Bush were bad, especially since that seemed to be where Crowley let Obama get an extra turn or two. It was just a rough stretch.

I really liked the Bush question, but again, I don't the guy who asked it was really undecided. On the other hand, it did give Romney a real opportunity that he squandered. The 72% question was sort of silly--the trend is overall the gap is shrinking, though the glass ceiling remains. And if you spend time with college aged students, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that there are lot of really dumb and incompetent bros out there who are going to be living in mom's basement for a long, long time.

Nobody argues that women get paid 72% of men for doing the same work. That's why it's a #$!&@ question. Controlling for all stuff one can control for, education, time off, type of work, education, hours, the pay gap is estimated to be between 7% and 0% for entry level and slightly above entry level workers. The problem is women getting into leadership positions, and the sacrifices that they inevitably need to make if they want to raise their family a certain way. Is it unfair that men feel more of a biological imperative to work 80 hour weeks to be the provider, and that women often feel an imperative to spend more time with their family? Maybe, maybe not.

My wife makes more than me, but I predict that in 10-15 years, I'll earn more than her due to the choices that we'll make in raising a family.

Ann-Marie slaughter article that hits on some of these points. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ll/309020/

someone able to make the choice to leave a job, have maternity leave, etc, does not compare to a lower-income woman who has neither option.

and yes, i read the article you posted earlier, i did not argue that the prez was correct in pinning the deficit on bush, but that he did lower the deficit from 10 to now larger than anyone other than clinton in the past 40 years. if it were me, i wouldnt have cut ANY taxes for anyone, to be honest. i dont see how that helps much in a recession, to be honest.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:54:48

mozartpc27 wrote:@Werthless: jh's post, by using quotes around the word fact in reference to the 72% stat, certainly implies that he believe it is not, in fact, a fact. More troubling, I thought, was jh's description of her discussion of this as "whining."

And you wonder why liberals think Republicans are a bunch of rich white guys with little to no sympathy for anything but themselves and money.

No it's not a fact. It's not even close to being a fact. Which is why citing it as a fact is whining.

by **pacino** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:56:24

at best, FMLA is a wish and a prayer for most single women. women are let go at a higher rate than me for missing work due to having sick children, due to how men tend to not care for the children in a broken family. most all family/work bumps have a negative effect on women, as opposed to men. they'll get CHIP or MA for their children and in PA will get PSF select plan for themselves, while getting paid less due to being put in a lower-paying position as a man for having the exact same resume. it's just how it works.

by **Rev_Beezer** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:56:29

I am so glad that I have to poo.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:57:18

jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:@Werthless: jh's post, by using quotes around the word fact in reference to the 72% stat, certainly implies that he believe it is not, in fact, a fact. More troubling, I thought, was jh's description of her discussion of this as "whining."

And you wonder why liberals think Republicans are a bunch of rich white guys with little to no sympathy for anything but themselves and money.

No it's not a fact. It's not even close to being a fact. Which is why citing it as a fact is whining.

Best number I can find is 78%. Are you quibbling over 6 percentage points, or are you suggesting the wage gap does not exist?

by **Werthless** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:57:28

jerseyhoya wrote:Mark Blumenthal ‏@MysteryPollster
CNN debate viewer poll. Who won? 46% Obama, 39% Romney MoE +/- 4%

So Obama maybe edged it. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

The cheerleading on BSG aside, I think it was a pretty even debate. I actually thought folks on here would be apocolyptic after the debate, but then reading through the 15 pages, it's amusing that y'all thought Obama crushed it. I'm guessing that the polls won't move much in either direction in the days following.

But really, what person hasn't heard Obama speak before. These debates are really about whether independents get comfortable enough with Romney to vote for him. It's like 2004, in that sense. Bush didnt win the debates, but everyone knows him and his policies. People were seeing if they could vote for Kerry, and whether it was worth a change. I am more interested in how Romney's favorables change than how the latest poll numbers look.

by **pacino** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:58:14

mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:@Werthless: jh's post, by using quotes around the word fact in reference to the 72% stat, certainly implies that he believe it is not, in fact, a fact. More troubling, I thought, was jh's description of her discussion of this as "whining."

And you wonder why liberals think Republicans are a bunch of rich white guys with little to no sympathy for anything but themselves and money.

No it's not a fact. It's not even close to being a fact. Which is why citing it as a fact is whining.

Best number I can find is 78%. Are you quibbling over 6 percentage points, or are you suggesting the wage gap does not exist?

he is suggesting the entire idea is fraudulent.

by **mcare89** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 23:59:51

jerseyhoya wrote:
RT @blakehounshell: Candy Crowley just now on Romney's Libya flub: "He was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word."

Fucking great Candy. Both of them lied a half dozen times tonight, and you chose to weigh in once - prompting crowd applause - on something where he was "right in the main" but chose the wrong word.

And you wonder why Republicans hate the media.

Well, first off, Repubs should be livid with Candy for that one. That was real bad, and she shouldn't have chipped in.

That being said, my god, Romney opened himself up for that one. If you're gonna argue semantics, you had damn well better be right. The entire argument was about the President's word choice, and Romney picked the exact three words that Obama had the out for.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:01:06

mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:@Werthless: jh's post, by using quotes around the word fact in reference to the 72% stat, certainly implies that he believe it is not, in fact, a fact. More troubling, I thought, was jh's description of her discussion of this as "whining."

And you wonder why liberals think Republicans are a bunch of rich white guys with little to no sympathy for anything but themselves and money.

No it's not a fact. It's not even close to being a fact. Which is why citing it as a fact is whining.

Best number I can find is 78%. Are you quibbling over 6 percentage points, or are you suggesting the wage gap does not exist?

Both quibbling over her percentage - like how much effort would it have been to get that right - and the fact that the entire wage gap debate from the left ignores one or two basic factors that eliminate almost all of it when you control for it?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:01:09

jerseyhoya wrote:
RT @blakehounshell: Candy Crowley just now on Romney's Libya flub: "He was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word."

Fucking great Candy. Both of them lied a half dozen times tonight, and you chose to weigh in once - prompting crowd applause - on something where he was "right in the main" but chose the wrong word.

And you wonder why Republicans hate the media

Even the MEDIA hate the media (NYTimes whiffs on debate moderator's name):

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:02:04

pacino wrote:at best, FMLA is a wish and a prayer for most single women. women are let go at a higher rate than me for missing work due to having sick children, due to how men tend to not care for the children in a broken family. most all family/work bumps have a negative effect on women, as opposed to men. they'll get CHIP or MA for their children and in PA will get PSF select plan for themselves, while getting paid less due to being put in a lower-paying position as a man for having the exact same resume. it's just how it works.

Yeah, perhaps we should grant more fathers custody of the kids in divorce. Affirmative action for men, to produce equal numbers of single mothers and single fathers, to even out these child care burdens. Is that what you're suggesting?

by **Bucky** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:02:56

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
RT @blakehounshell: Candy Crowley just now on Romney's Libya flub: "He was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word."

#$!&@ great Candy. Both of them lied a half dozen times tonight, and you chose to weigh in once - prompting crowd applause - on something where he was "right in the main" but chose the wrong word.

And you wonder why Republicans hate the media

Even the MEDIA hate the media (NYTimes whiffs on debate moderator's name):

her friends call her 'monica'

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:03:46

Werthless wrote:
pacino wrote:at best, FMLA is a wish and a prayer for most single women. women are let go at a higher rate than me for missing work due to having sick children, due to how men tend to not care for the children in a broken family. most all family/work bumps have a negative effect on women, as opposed to men. they'll get CHIP or MA for their children and in PA will get PSF select plan for themselves, while getting paid less due to being put in a lower-paying position as a man for having the exact same resume. it's just how it works.

Yeah, perhaps we should grant more fathers custody of the kids in divorce. Affirmative action for men, to produce equal numbers of single mothers and single fathers, to even out these child care burdens. Is that what you're suggesting?

i'm giving facts. suggesting nothing, of course. you act as though there is no burden on so many single women, who have to forego raises, get let go from jobs, etc. due to trying to care for children that MEN walk out on while they go work and have none of these issues.

these are not 'voluntary' factors that women just decided to use to lower their wages or their hours, or whatever.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:03:46

pacino wrote:
Woody wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:I didn't see the debate, but it sounds like it was good for Obama but maybe not goo enough in the face of his atrocious first debate.

Maybe you don't have enough information to form a useful opinion

[ ] Not told
[X] Told
[X] TOLDASAURUS REX
[X] Cash4told.com
[X] No country for told men
[X] Knights of the told Republic
[X] ToldSpice
[x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious
[x] Command & Conquer: Toldberian Sun
[x] GuiTold Hero: World Told
[X] Told King of Boletaria
[x] Countold Strike
[x] Unreal Toldament
[x] Stone-told Steve Austin
[X] Half Life 2: Episode Told
[x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm
[X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon
[x] Assassin’s Creed: Tolderhood
[x] Battletolds
[x] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shatold of Chernobyl
[X] Toldasauraus Rex 2: Electric Toldaloo
[x] Told of Duty 4: Modern Toldfare
[X] Pokemon Told and Silver
[x] The Legend of Eldorado : The Lost City of Told
[X] Rampage: Toldal Destruction
[x] Told Fortress Classic
[x] Toldman: Arkham Told
[X] The Good, The Bad, and The Told
[x] Super Mario SunTold
[x] Legend of Zelda: Toldacarnia of Time
[X] Toldstone creamery
[x] Mario Golf: Toldstool Tour
[X] Super Told Boy
[X] Left 4 Told
[X] Battoldfield: Bad Company 2
[x] Toldman Sachs
[X] Conker’s Bad Fur Day: Live and Retolded
[x] Lead and Told: Gangs of the Wild West
[x] Portold 2
[x] Avatold: The Last Airbender
[X] Dragon Ball Z Toldkaichi Budokai
[x] Toldcraft II: Tolds of Toldberty
[x] Leo Toldstoy
[x] Metal Gear Toldid 3: Snake Eater
[X] 3D Dot Told Heroes
[x] J.R.R Toldkien’s Lord of the Told
[x] Told you that ps3 has no games
[X] LitTOLD Big Planet
[x] Rome: Toldal War
[x] Gran Toldrismo 5
[x] Told Calibur 4
[x] Told Fortress 2
[x] Castlevania: RonTold of Blood
[x] Guilty Gear XX Accent Told
[x] Cyndaquil, Chicorita, and Toldodile
[x] was foretold
[x] demon’s told
[x] http//:www.youtold.com
[x] Tolden Sun: Dark Dawn
[x] Tic-Tac-Told
[X] Biotold 2
[X] Toldbound
[x] icetold
[x] Told of the Rings

cant be bottom-paged

what I like is that Woodrow has an apparently inexhaustible vault-ful of this sort of thing and can access it instantly using only his mind

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:03:47

jerseyhoya wrote:Both quibbling over her percentage - like how much effort would it have been to get that right

Different places have different numbers. I think you could cut her a break.

jerseyhoya wrote:and the fact that the entire wage gap debate from the left ignores one or two basic factors that eliminate almost all of it when you control for it?

And which factors would those be?

by **Rev_Beezer** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:05:02

I always thought she looked like a gender swapped Fred Flintstone.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:05:29

mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Both quibbling over her percentage - like how much effort would it have been to get that right

Different places have different numbers. I think you could cut her a break.

jerseyhoya wrote:and the fact that the entire wage gap debate from the left ignores one or two basic factors that eliminate almost all of it when you control for it?

And which factors would those be?

See Werthless's post on the last page

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:09:35

pacino wrote:and yes, i read the article you posted earlier, i did not argue that the prez was correct in pinning the deficit on bush, but that he did lower the deficit from 10 to now larger than anyone other than clinton in the past 40 years. if it were me, i wouldnt have cut ANY taxes for anyone, to be honest. i dont see how that helps much in a recession, to be honest.

2009 should not be the "pre-Obama" baseline year when he was responsible for between 26% and 38% of the spending increases. This $1T deficit is the baseline to be judged against?

It's about as silly as blaming Obama for gas prices rising from $1.86. It's dishonest.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 00:09:50

jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Both quibbling over her percentage - like how much effort would it have been to get that right

Different places have different numbers. I think you could cut her a break.

jerseyhoya wrote:and the fact that the entire wage gap debate from the left ignores one or two basic factors that eliminate almost all of it when you control for it?

And which factors would those be?

See Werthless's post on the last page

In which he suggests the wage gap is estimated to be between 0-7% in entry-level or near entry-level positions? Meaning the likeliest interpretation is that there is in fact a wage gap at the point of entry of most careers (albeit a modest one)? A gap that almost certainly persists, and grows larger (certainly in dollars if not percentages) as a woman advances through a career? Keep in mind that the greatest single predictor of future earnings is current salary - i.e., the lower your starting number, the lower your finishing number.

I'm sort of serious - you won't get anywhere, in politics or in the dating game, if you run around pissing on the gender gap. Its real, and it hurts real families.

Well, OK, I'm sure you'll find someone in the dating game. But most women I know take that gender gap stuff deadly seriously.

Archived

We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style