Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) Not exactly. Being within the margin of error doesn't mean it's impossible to have any sort of confidence in your outcomes. Here's a helpful chart: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_08/014294.php Polls that show a tightening race are still good for Romney, obviously. But one rounds' worth does not a trend make. Hasn't Rasmussen been closer to reality the past few elections in their polling results?

I had one of those amazing gym days where for some reason, everything you normally press to do, came easy, and I was seemingly way stronger than usual. So, in celebration of one of these rare days, I give you a very simple weightlifting tip that I share with few...and as simple as it is, it WILL increase your weightlifting session productivity... Tip: When you bench press, or do overhead presses, or even back exercises (pullups, rows, etc.), pull/push from your elbow, NOT from your hand/wrist. While this tip seems innocuous, it makes a huge difference in targeting the muscle groups your actually trying to target. Your body will naturally try to push everything from your wrist, so next time your in the gym, visualize pushing or pulling from your elbow instead...and see the difference. It's like magic.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) If I were on Obama's debate prep team, the first thing I would suggest the president should say to Romney right at the opening of the debate would go something like this... "First of all Gov Romney, I would like for you to tell me which version of candidate Romney will I debate tonight, are you the version who was for healthcare for everyone or the version who's against it, will it be the version who pledged to protect a women's right to choose or the version who is against it, the version who was for tough gun laws or the version who's against those laws you supported as Governor, the one who says you'll raise taxes or the one who says you won't"...(the list can go on and on because I don't believe Romney has ever sticked to one side of an issue). I would tell the president to end thise list of flip flops with this line, "finally, tell me which Romney I'm with here tonight, the one who says he'll care about 100% of the country or the one who was recorded behind closed doors telling a bunch of fellow multi-millionaires that you're job isn't to worry about half of the country because they are moochers who'll never take responsibility of their lives regardless of the fact that most of them are children, college students, working single mothers, disabled veterans, retired elderly folks and decent hard working folk who just don't earn enough to pay income taxes, because I gotta tell ya, you're moderate stance on last week's debate threw me off my game so I would really appreciate a heads up"... That would be a killer statement that would put Romney on the defensive and would show Obama is there for a fight. Here's a youtube video of Romney's flip flops, it's a pretty long video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw...be_gdata_player You have to be very careful with this sort of strategy, and it's not one they're likely to use because it has a much larger chance of backfiring than not. As sitting President, you have to maintain a presidential stature during these debates, and this sounds not only disingenuous, but very condescending, and it will make Obama come off as the bully in charge. It's disingenuous in that Obama is also a multi-millionaire, who holds fundraiser after fundraiser for mega rich folks that cost 30k+ to attend, which alienate those same 47% Romney was talking about. If Obama wants to pretend to be the president of the people, he needs to be that. The second Obama says anything about Romney catering to the ultra rich, all Romney has to do is say, "You mean like the folks that attend your 40 thousand dollar per plate dinners?" It's hard to debate as a sitting President, as you MUST maintain a presidential stature throughout, you absolutely CANNOT come off as a condescending bully. And when talking about flip flops, it would be quite easy for Romney to say, "You mean just like how you flip flopped on the gay marriage issue AFTER it became beneficial to your campaign?" These types of 'shots' work both ways, which is why they're dangerous to use in a forum where your opponent can respond. They're often better used in commercials where a response cannot be immediate.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 02:35 AM) I did see one of those Samsung commercials where a group of people pulled a stranger over to take photos for them. All of them wanted the photo, so the stranger ended up taking like 10 pictures, each with a different phone. Then 10 feet away, you had a group of people with Galaxy S IIIs and they just took one photo and shared it to each other instantly. Sharing to everyone around you definitely is easier than emailing/MMSing the picture to everyone, but you're right, it's not a major selling point. ...so in other words, everyone needs a Galaxy Sx? How is that any different from everyone having an iPhone (any version of it) and using shared photo stream via iCloud? These are silly features that require everyone around you to have the same model or brand of phone. These features amount to nothing more than "eye candy" so you can show your friends how cool your device is, whether it be an iPhone, BlackBerry, Android, or Windows Mobile 8...these are the types of features people only use when they want to show off their device, but 99.9% of the time never use them in a real world situation. Like the Samsung "bump to share a playlist"...seriously wtf is that? Thanks for your playlist. Now if I only had those f***ing songs I could actually play it. Useless. I remember the early version of the iPhone had a very similar "bump" tech that nobody ever used, either. These are all what I call "feature creep" additions that do nothing but bloat software.

As a internet security professional, I urge people to stay away from NFC for the next few years, it's a dangerous, infant, unsafe technology in a world where personal identity/credit card theft is skyrocketing. These manufacturers putting it to work are doing so without regard to your personal information or financial security. They don't care so long as it means you'll spend more money because you have less time to think about making a frivolous purchase 10 times a day, because all it requires is the waving of a magic wand near a receiver. NFC essentially transmits, albeit a short distance, all the information necessary to make a purchase, without requiring a password/PIN or any further means of identification to complete said transaction. Is it convenient? Of course. But while a convenience, this is equivalent to having a ATM card that doesn't require a PIN, only the card isn't even necessary as someone merely needs to intercept your transmission which would allow them to retransmit it. NFC can be "harvested" and logged by those that live on the wrong side of the law, and used/tossed...just remember, if it's a convenience for you, it's that much more of a convenience for them. Stay away from this technology until the industry finds the holes/issues and fixes the majority of them before you decide it's worth saving yourself an extra '8 seconds' at the risk of finding a maxed out credit card or empty bank account.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 08:20 PM) If you want to stop outsourcing, you talk to those that outsource. How else do you find out what kinds of things would stop them from doing so? It's kind of simple. If all they say is "billions in tax cuts," well you don't have to listen. This is the nice thing about having an advisory board. These assholes AREN'T the President. I think the reality is that this board was put together to become friendly with some big business leaders that would result in nice campaign contributions. IMO, it was politically driven decision making. I do not, however, believe that this commission of known outsourcers was put together so they could teach him how to not outsource, this is a reach at best, and an excuse for Obama in the least. In other words, contrary to Obamas entire first campaign message, business as usual in Washington.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) Well that's different. I don't think BO is trying to say that every big businessman is like Mitt Romney, necessarily. This is more "Mitt Romney's ideas, as stated by himself, are bad and I believe these bad ideas originate in his business background." This means GE may have different ideas (since this person is from GE and is in fact a human being) or perhaps that incorporating certain nuances that Barack, as a non-businessman, may not have known about can still be useful even if the general plan on the whole sucks. But it is important to make sure we consider Mitt Romney and any particular corporation head as two different people. They may be two different people, but they're both businessmen that look at the bottom line much in the same regard. By and large, Bain was known was a job shipper/outsourcer...which is exactly what GE has become in recent years under Immelt's lead, and he's just one of the many Obama appointed to advise him who are HUGE on outsourcing jobs, because it helps their bottom lines despite the fact it kills American jobs. There are plenty of successful businessmen he could have appointed to advise him that DON'T outsource, but he didn't do that...he played politics and doled out favors to what will result in huge campaign contributions. If he doesn't think Romney was a very sound businessman in what he did with Bain regarding American jobs, then he shouldn't be taking advice from people who do business exactly like Romney does when better alternatives exist and could have just as easily been appointed to said advisory board.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) I'm not ignoring it but it's a profoundly uninteresting point that you're trying to make. Who else are you going to consult for information on job creation if not potential "job creators"? I have to think, even as a sort of fan of Obama, that you could find far more unsettling examples of his dealing with unseemly people than this one that you keep bringing up. This is part of politics. The people that know most about the things you don't like are the people that do them -- the best regulators are the best of the industry. In some cases, you have to evaluate if someone is being consulted/given power to further their own or former interests or if they are in fact just fabulously qualified due to their previous experience. This. We disagree on this entirely. I think it shows Obama is a politician just like the rest of them...say one thing, but do another through your actions. Do as I say, not as I do. That's exactly what this highlights. If you [Obama] dislike the way Romney ran Bain, don't f***ing appoint people just like him to ADVISE YOU ON HOW TO CREATE JOBS. How you don't find that to be an interesting discussion is beyond my understanding. Edit: To make it a finer point -- it's not that he's dealing with unseemly people as part of politics, this is a given -- in this case, it's that he says Romney has no idea how to fix the economy, yet he appoints and takes advice from people exactly like Romney on how to do the same thing. I, for one, find that VERY interesting, even if you don't.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) No one is forcing you to read this thread. Seconded.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) I see Obama's change back and forth on gay marriage in the same light as Romney's change on health care. They were both opportunistic jumps at poll ratings. One guy gets praised for his moves, and the other gets demolished. To me both are BS. It is a fair comparison because both are front burner topics in this election.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) Im not defending either one. You literally said Romney was "great" last night, where I said Obama was terrible and Romney was "not good". To me that looked like you defending Romney. Where have I defended Obama? I just have attacked Romney. I dont defend Obama, I defend my positions. Until Obama has me on the payroll, he doesnt get my services. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Romney in the things he said...I'm defending him only on how he came off in that debate, and regardless of how or why, he came off looking great, even if it was only because Obama was high on depressants the entire time.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) This thread is a sad reflection on the US society. The masses believe that there has to be a winner and a loser, when last night showed quite clearly that we are all going to be losers. Well, there you go...we agree for a change.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) hahahaha Perhaps you should read my posts. Im only a Democrat due to social positions and I dont even like Obama. Once again, quit avoiding the question, we all know Obama was terrible, you said Romney was great, what was so great about his plan last night. I amended my post, as I usually do in order to answer this exact question... I'll paste it here... Exactly this. They're both opportunists in this regard...but what's the point in even discussing it with him, or others like him? He has Obama colored blinders on, and it shows in every post he makes. He tries to cover this by somewhat dismissing Obama as "not very good", but repeatedly attempts to attack Romney's bulls***, while ignoring Obama's bulls*** at the same time. So again, he asks why I won't engage in a conversation about this with him, and that's why. I'm not going to defend Romney's bulls***, or explain his bulls*** made up plan, because it doesn't make any sense. Just like it doesn't make any sense for Obama to ride on Romney's Bain record of laying off people and outsourcing jobs, while instating an advisory board that's full of people that are famous in the business world for doing the same exact thing as Romney did at Bain. Because doing this doesn't make any sense, either. TL;DR: They're both bulls***ters. I refuse to defend either one.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) Romney's an opportunist, which is why people aren't making excuses for his "changes of heart". I don't know why people aren't holding Obama to the same standards. Exactly this. They're both opportunists in this regard...but what's the point in even discussing it with him, or others like him? He has Obama colored blinders on, and it shows in every post he makes. He tries to cover this by somewhat dismissing Obama as "not very good", but repeatedly attempts to attack Romney's bulls***, while ignoring Obama's bulls*** at the same time. So again, he asks why I won't engage in a conversation about this with him, and that's why. I'm not going to defend Romney's bulls***, or explain his bulls*** made up plan, because it doesn't make any sense. Just like it doesn't make any sense for Obama to ride on Romney's Bain record of laying off people and outsourcing jobs, while instating an advisory board that's full of people that are famous in the business world for doing the same exact thing as Romney did at Bain.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) LOL Really? That is the best you got. Explain to me why Romney changed his position and then I can judge on my own whether it was reasonable or not. Until then you are just blindly believing Romney because he is your boy. I hold both Obama and Romney to the same standard. You clearly are just willing to have blind faith in Romney, that is fine, but dont act like I do the same with Obama. I dont like Obama, I think he is terrible at many things. The economy isnt the reason I will be voting for either candidate so to try and show bias on that debate is pretty ridiculous as I am way more against govt interference than either candidate. So if you want to talk seriously about Romney, lets do it. But if you just want to keep arguing about Obama, its wasting both of our time, because I dont think Obama is anything special. Which is why my statements have been, Obama was terrible, but Romney's plan makes no sense. So far not one person has actually tried to defend Romneys, Ill lower taxes, get rid of credits, make the same money and improve the govt scheme. Yes, LOL is all I have for YOU, because there is no point in having this discussion, with you in specific. You've already made up your mind in every conceivable way on this. When Obama does it, it's legit. When Romney does it, it's a lie, and Romney sucks... So again. LOLBIASED. That's all you get, because it's all you shown you deserve at this point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) So did he talk to not-gay people when he changed his mind the first time? He must have, because when Obama does it, it's for perfectly legitimate reasons...it's not at all political maneuvering.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Whether you believe him or not, at least Obama has stated that the reason he has changed his mind is because of his interactions with gay people. Im not sure Romney ever explained why he changed his mind, but Im pretty sure thats because even he doesnt know his plan. Lets be honest, he said that revenue would stay the same, but he would lower taxes and reduce write-offs/deductions. This plan is going to create jobs. How? Its like saying that McDonalds is going to change their menu and that every item will cost $100, but now theyll give each customer a "Thanks for shopping at McDonalds discount" so the amount the customer pays the same as before. Woooooo math magic. That type of smooth talking logic may look good on tv, but should Romney be getting "points" for just making s*** up? I get it...when Obama flip-flops, it's because he had a legitimate change of opinion...he saw the error of his ways...but when Romney does it, it's because it's a better political play at that time. LOL.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) You keep saying that and ignoring the fact that that is an advisory board that has no real legal power. I would want to know, from the outsourcer, what things might cause outsourcers to stop outsourcing. Now say that fives time fast. It's not the same as having a President who had some questionable business practices. I really wouldn't care how much money the guy made if he wasn't so arrogant about it -- the 47% business, etc. is just a confirmation of what makes so many people not trust rich businessmen. It doesn't matter if they "have any real legal power or not", the fact is, he put people EXACTLY like Romney in charge of his jobs creation advisory board. You keep ignoring that, because it fits your agenda, but it's exactly what Obama did.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) Im fine with a politician changing their mind. But that involves admitting that you once had a different plan and now at the last minute decided you are going with a new plan that only you knew about. You may win a debate like that, but in my opinion, it shows you are untrustworthy. How can I trust a word Romney said, when tomorrow when pressed he may come up with a different plan, that is entirely different, but he knows itll work because no one else has tried it before. If I was Obama's camp id be gleeful, way to early for this type of stunt. This was a 3rd debate move, when Obama had no chance of retaliating. By that rational, Ol' "staying the course" GW Bush *was* trustworthy?! I don't care how you or anyone else spins flip-flopping...I think any politician that's never flip flopped, regardless of what reason you have for it, is a blinders wearing douche that's ok with driving into a wall despite seeing it coming...just so they can say, "Hey...at least I'm not a flip-flopper!"

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) What do you call it when Romney implemented Romneycare in MA, then he was against it in the primaries, then he said he would repeal all of Obamacare, then he said he wouldn't repeal all of it then he said last night he would repeal all of it? I don't know about you but I call that a bulls***ter who will tell that particular audience what it wants to hear or do you think Romney finds out something new about Obamacare that makes him change his mind back and forth? I bet he'll say he won't repeal all of Obamacare in his next interview, SMH. I think Romney's point is that it should be up to the individual states to determine if "Romney/Obamacare" is what's good for them, instead of it being a national law. While I disagree with him on this point when it comes to healthcare, his point is that what may be good for one state isn't necessarily good for another...and it's a valid opinion to have, whether I agree with it or not.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 11:58 AM) I disagree, I have plenty of experience in this area. Romney was not very good, Obama was terrible. I wouldnt hire either of them to represent me in a court room. I only give a good rating to someone who I would let speak for me. Neither of these candidates are close. Just because Romney was the best person on the stage, does not mean he is a good at debate. Not to mention, this type of debate is absolutely silly. If you want a real debate, each party should have to tell the other side their plan in advance, so that they can actually talk about it. The "I gotcha thats not my plan" may impress the masses, but that is bush league and I hope you realize it as well. Im not sure how you can say I am biased when Ive said that Obama is not a good speaker multiple times. Pretty much everyone disagrees with you on this...sorry to say. I'm not saying your biased about Obama not being a good speaker...but you are biased about saying Romney wasn't very good, when it's obvious to most everyone that he was. Except you, that is...because your biased. He may not always be that good, but he was yesterday, and the entire political world -- including democrats -- are saying such. Again, except you... It very well may have been a "wow, compared to Obama, Romney looked amazing" type of reaction, simply because of how off his game/bad Obama was...but regardless of the how or why he looked great, he looked great.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 11:00 AM) Flip-flopping almost never refers to a candidate changing their mind because evidence or good arguments led them to a new conclusion. It's a candidate "changing their mind" because the new position is more politically advantageous than the old one. Welcome to politics...you appear to be new here since you stated the obvious. I still think it shows that they're ok with changing their minds, it's not like people aren't taking notice and these flip-flopped positions aren't well documented and mentioned in the media 500 million times a day.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) It will be quite easy to put together commercials juxtaposing what Romney has been saying before the debate and what he said at the debate. Some extremely blatant flip flopping. While true, I personally don't see a problem with flip-flopping...as a matter of fact, I think it's a good trait for a candidate to have, and every politician SHOULD have this trait. It shows that they can/will change their minds if they feel they're wrong, instead of staying the course ala GW Bush and many others. A lot of people have a problem with flip flopping, and I think that's a mistake, it's one of those negatives that isn't really a negative if you look at it objectivly. There is nothing wrong with changing your position/mind on something, especially in politics as different times call for different strategies/measures, and just because it doesn't suit your initial vision doesn't mean you shouldn't change it just so you aren't known as a flip-flopper.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) Romney said he'd create 12 million new jobs, give me the details on how he is going to create those jobs because I somehow missed that part... The only thing I learned last night is that flip flop Romney is really really good at bulls***ting and that he really cares about the working poor (even though he loved firing them when he worked for Bain and he told rich supporters behind closed doors that he didn't give a f**k about them, the 47% moochers). This is so full of crap, it's not even funny. I love how you point to Romney "loving to fire poor people while at Bain", but you have no problem whatsoever with Obama appointing people like Jeffrey Immelt (CEO of GE) to his "US jobs creation council", all the while GE (under the watchful eye of Immelt) is outsourcing jobs to foreign countries for cheap labor and firing "poor people" the same exact f***ing way Bain Capital did. Obama said he'd create 50 billion trillion new jobs, too...and did little to explain how that would happen other than "we're going to spend a bunch of money re-building roads and bridges that we seem to be re-building every f***ing year anyway". Both of them are full of s***...it's just funny how you think only one of them is.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 3, 2012 -> 10:48 PM) Romney isnt good either. He should have been obliterated. His plan is literally to just change the name of things. Youll pay less taxes, but you wont get as many deductions/credits/write offs, so end result, you pay the same to the govt. The hardest part of an actual argument is to know when to shut up and let the other person sink themselves. To beat a guy like Romney, you just simply ask them questions: "So what deductions are you going to get rid of" and then let him explain himself into oblivion. Instead Obama wanted to get into a war of facts, and that is never going to beat "You dont know my plan, because I dont know my plan, thus anything you say I can say isnt right and my plan has never been done before, so no one knows except me." You obviously don't realize how debates work (only I know you do, so you should know this type of strategy doesn't work). You cannot stand there and "ask simple questions" all night... ...as for you saying Romney isn't good, either. Please, be biased more. He was outstanding last night, and anyone that says otherwise need not talk more, because its obvious they're eyes are closed and they're ears are shut. I'm not saying Romney will put on a show like that in the remaining debates, but last night he was very good, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Maybe he played over his head...the remaining debates will show if that's the case, but it still doesn't discount this performance. Debates rarely go into specifics because of time constraints, so asking about specifics doesn't work well in this format, it's mostly generalities, and I believe you know this despite your recent string of posts on the contrary. Even if you do ask about specifics, you'll get generalized talking points in response, from either candidate. You can't go into a debate with the strategy that you're going to ask simple but specific questions to your opponent all night, conceding your speaking time by doing so, in the hopes they bury themselves. This is a terrible passive/aggressive play on a stage where you have to own the time you spend speaking. Experience in watching previous debates of this format would show you that repeatedly conceding your speaking time in the hopes your opponent answers exactly what you asked simply equates to you looking too afraid to speak on your own policies. In a debate, a good offense is a good offense (not a typo), and it's always been that way. Obama needs to drive home his own vision, remind the people that it stopped the economic free fall and, as with anything, remind people that it takes time to heal. It doesn't matter if these points can be argued, either. Furthermore, he should avoid the "Bush blame game" at all costs at this point, too, it makes him appear unsure of his own policies/decision making in the past 4 years. Most people hardly even remember 4 years ago, let alone what they watched on TV 2 nights ago. Yes, these points can be argued by Romney -- but like I said above, he's not going to concede his own talking time to ask Obama questions about how or why -- Romney needs (as Obama needs) to use their time to drive their visions home to the viewer...to connect with them. You don't connect with people by being passive and allowing the other guy in the room to come across as the Alpha.