Also feel like this gem must survive:

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

Onto a more substantive post, the emotion regarding Libya shown by the POTUS was amazing. I wish, however, he would have been a bit more assertive with it being his fault, but him not hesitating on that in the debate was great.

If somehow the government could just get everyone to marry before having kids we'd be set.

jerseyhoya wrote:Economics is really complicated and not straightforward, but just trust us, government can pass a well meaning law to fix this societal problem and anyone who opposes it or questions its need or practicality is probably a sexist. Please ignore that we just told you we have no clear answer since economics isn't like physics.

you doubtless are unaware of it, but you're helping me make my point

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:In this case, what I meant my wife would eat you for lunch on was the premise 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," not the existence or non-existence of a gender gap. Although I am sure she would be quite happy to take you up on that as well.

Surveys lie? I'm talking about averages, not your wife. I'd laugh if your wife tried to use herself as an example to argue against a statistical average. "Men are usually taller than women? Well, how come I'm taller than you? Ha, you're wrong!"

Thanks dog, you've insulted my wife's intelligence without having spoken to her. And speaking of laughing at somebody, you've wilfully missed, for the second time, the main thrust of my point: your assertion 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" is based in nothing but your own emotional opinion of how gender roles work, and in no research whatsoever.

But while you can set up a strawman argument that my wife has not (and would not) present and "laugh" at her for it, you refuse to acknowledge that or take ownership of it.

Very manly, actually. Sad to say.

slugsrbad wrote:Onto a more substantive post, the emotion regarding Libya shown by the POTUS was amazing. I wish, however, he would have been a bit more assertive with it being his fault, but him not hesitating on that in the debate was great.

He was obviously practicing that one and it worked perfectly.

the economist broke down some time ago how income inequality depended on what industry, and also how certain industries that have come to be fielded by women are in general simply undervalued and compensated.

moz, how did he insult your wife's intelligence? His point is "on average", so one anecdote doesn't change how right he is.

I thought Obama was a little too hyper for the first half before hitting his stride. The "you're right, you're not like Bush," Libya, and 47 percent moments were real strong.

Romney came across petulant, I thought. Much less collected than last time.

Also

And the thing is, I will acknowledge, for the record, that I think the left has a problem with white men the way Republicans have a problem with women. I think a little evidence of that is right here in this post by Werthless:

Werthless wrote:"President Obama, education is the gateway to future success. In recent years, women are 60% more likely to have earned an undergrad degree by age 23 than men, and single, childless women make 8% more money in their 20s than their male counterparts. What policies will you support to help men close this education gap?"

Can you imagine if some 25 year old guy asked this at the town hall, the outcry from liberals. This would be an absurd question, even though both facts are true. And now suppose they exaggerated the statistic to make it look like a bigger issue. Oh boy.

Now, my initial reaction to this post was that it was just white man butt-hurt (it's not fair - liberals care about everyone but me!!!!), and to a degree I think it is about that (not sure it is fair to compare what education level one attains - over which one has a great degree of autonomous control - to what salary an employer elects to pay you, over which one has much, much less control).

But let me acknowledge, for the record, that liberals have a problem with white men that is in some ways similar to the one that Republicans have with women. A lot of white men perceive that what "liberals" are trying to say to them is:

1. You have all the privilege in the world by virtue of your birth as a white man, and thus are in no need of help and have no right to complain about anything.

2. Everyone else has suffered directly at your hands, and all their problems are attributable directly to you.

Again, I don't think this is what is being said, but it's clearly what a huge number of white men hear from our side (no doubt egged on by conservative commentators and Republican politicians). This isn't a great message to begin with, of course, and it's all the more problematic when the vast majority of white men perceive a huge "gap" between all the privileges that they think the left is telling them they have, and what they actually possess. A guy working a construction site, some middle-management paper pusher, a coal miner: all these guys don't feel especially "privileged," they've seen their incomes stagnate (like the rest of the middle class) in real dollars for years and years, they've seen their retirement benefits cut, they've lost jobs and spent months and sometimes years looking for new ones, etc. The fact is that a lot of these guys have privileges they don't necessarily see or recognize, but lecturing folks on how lucky they are and how good they have it when they look around and see themselves as having pretty difficult lives is not going to win you a lot of votes.

Not sure what the left should do to try to change this narrative (other than nominate me for president!), but there it is.

In another matter:

jerseyhoya wrote:One more thread like the last two, and Romney should be the president of the United States in 95 days.

If the Republican party takes its lead from yourself and Werthless, and treats the wage gap issue with a sort of sneering condescension, let me assure you that we will be celebrating Obama's 2nd inaugural in 95 days. Fortunately for you guys, you'll notice that Romney was much less contemptuous of the question than either of you.

The Dude wrote:moz, how did he insult your wife's intelligence? His point is "on average", so one anecdote doesn't change how right he is.

He suggested that she would make that ridiculous argument he set up, and he would "laugh" at her for it.

he's saying you're wrong, ffs, for suggesting the argument for her. good lord, he's not saying anyhting about her intelligence

The Dude wrote:for suggesting the argument for her.

I did no such thing. I suggested that she would take him up on the gender gap issue. In the same post as the one he quoted, I offered some nuance to that question, which I am sure is where my wife would begin a discussion:

mozartpc27 wrote:I think there might be a bit of slippage here, on the gender gap, between the question of equal pay for equal work - which is becoming more and more the standard, I suppose (although I am sure, as the Lilly Ledbetter case certainly demonstrated, that there are many exceptions still out there) - and the question of the overall wage gap. It cannot be denied that among boards of directors and CEOs of corporations, there continues to be an overwhelming bias towards men, which in turn produces the overall effect of men making more than women (because they dominate the top-of-the-foodchain jobs). Why that is, and what's to be done about it, is a bit of a separate question from "equal pay for equal work."

Of course, this was ignored, because it didn't fit the little joke he wanted to make, and it didn't fit in with the narrative about how presumably he is so much smarter than my wife, me, etc., about statistics (what "people" do you suppose he meant when he said people don't understand statitistics, regression analysis, etc.?).

And regardless of whether YOU think he insulted my wife's intelligence (which I am not sure is relevant), it doesn't invalidate the main thrust of my point, which is, again, that he has asserted as fact and justification for wage differences something that he has absolutely no research for whatsoever.

Unless she typed for you, yes, you suggested she would argue that. He said one anecdote doesn't invalidate an average and listed another example of how that is true. That's the only point I'm arguing, b/c to say he insulted your wife's intelligence is asinine

The Dude wrote:Unless she typed for you, yes, you suggested she would argue that. He said one anecdote doesn't invalidate an average and listed another example of how that is true. That's the only point I'm arguing, b/c to say he insulted your wife's intelligence is asinine

Where did I suggest that? He (and now you) are assuming some offering of anecodtal evidence that she would definitely not make, and I in no place made.

My hard working, professional spouse was fairly offended that her natural candidate would need shorter work days and weeks to be able to manage her household duties. She has moved to a position of either not voting for president or crossing the line to Obama.

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Dude wrote:Unless she typed for you, yes, you suggested she would argue that. He said one anecdote doesn't invalidate an average and listed another example of how that is true. That's the only point I'm arguing, b/c to say he insulted your wife's intelligence is asinine

Where did I suggest that? He (and now you) are assuming some offering of anecodtal evidence that she would definitely not make, and I in no place made.

That's why he said "surveys lie?".

It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

Don't know if it was posted in the old thread last night but