StrangeSox

Writing cover letters sucks

Instead of fostering innovation and marketplace choice, patents are just strangling it now.

Republicans never use racist dog-whistles.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 05:52 PM) Wow it's very long but it's pretty amazing. Hard to pick a part to excerpt but:

Quit your day job to boost unemployment numbers and help defeat Obummer this November

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 05:15 PM) No incumbent President ever has a high probability of losing. Most incumbents win. Romney is the challenger, he has to overcome a lot to win. He may win, but even the most optimistic Romney fan should consider him a coin flip at best. Nate Silver's model has multiple inputs but I don't think "being the incumbent" is one of them. Nationally, the race is tight but state-by-state Obama holds a significant electoral college margin.

Most projections show Obama comfortably ahead right now. 538 has him around 65% to win the election.

go read the ta-nehisi article in the atlantic that bmags mentioned

You have to ignore an awful lot of both history and subtext to miss the racial aspects of "welfare queens" and birtherism.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Watched, that video mentioned nothing of welfare queens, and the throwaway joke about a birth certificate? Really? Obama's made jokes such as that one on his own. This is the problem with all of this rhetoric...people can twist it however they want, or take it however they want. Where you see a race-baiting campaign...I just don't. I see two rather craptastic candidates slinging mud back and forth like children. But I guess that's because that's what you want to see. That video specifically did not mention welfare, but I was commenting on his campaign in general. The "he wants to gut welfare work requirements!" is tinged with racial animus in the same way that Gingrich's "food stamp President" was. This is borne out both historically in how welfare is attacked and in current polls and studies. Many white people, often the benefit of government programs themselves in some form or another, vastly overestimate both welfare benefits and who receives them and rationalize why aid to people like them is ok, but not to the "wrong kind of people." It is one thing for Obama to make jokes about the birther who attempt to label him as a non-American other; it's quite another thing for Mitt Romney to do so and to rile up his crowds with it. It's a continued othering of Obama as not a real American, not like us. There is no way to extract the racism behind birtherism, and Mitt Romney's playing to that with these "throwaway jokes." edit: tweet by Adam Serwer (mother jones writer) :laughing at birthers (Obama) and laughing with birthers (Mittens) are not, in fact, the same thing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) Obviously this is online as well. But I'd encourage you all to buy the most recent Atlantic for Ta-Nehisi Coates' Fear of a Black President article. Much props to the magazine for giving that much space. It was incredible. I thought this was particularly relevant in light of the OUTRAGE! over Chris Rock's 4th of July tweet:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) Willard Mitt Romney, 8/24/12, in Michigan. And the crowd, of course, went wild. Mitt Romney's making birther charges and welfare queen attacks. Sweet, a full-on race-baiting campaign.

This was covered when the story originally happened. He can be held indefinitely. As a whole, their penal system is a whole hell of a lot better than ours, but that's not exactly a high hurdle to clear. It's sort of similar to "21 years to life," except the default position is parole instead of continued detention. Someone who lives in Sweden that posted the story on another board described it this way: The sentence is 21 years (the maximum possible in Norway) followed by "Forvaring" - periodically reassessed, but indefinite, detention

I said that they're in complete agreement on abortion, and they are. No exceptions. Personhood amendments that would effectively outlaw many types of birth control as well as in-vitro. The rest of the Republican party and Ryan in particular are being tied to Akin because they do not differ when it comes to policy.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) Again, what they adopted or believe is NOT the same as what Akin said, at all. Explain the material differences on their abortion policies.

The VP should explain what "forcible rape" is and why he cosponsored a bill with that language. Why shouldn't the media ask him about his legislative history, especially when it's directly related to a current major story?

Anyone engaged in rhetoric needs to be cognizant of what they are saying and what their opposition will say or do in response. You can't predict everything, such as the "he's getting welfare requirements" flat-out fabrication out of thin air, but when you're giving a speech, especially one that is forceful and will be seen as somewhat controversial, you need to be very careful about your phrasing and framing.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 24, 2012 -> 08:27 AM) What Akin said, and what a majority of the GOP (not all of them) believe are completely different things. That's like lumping all Democrats in the same boat as Nancy Pelosi. They're not all the same. The Republican party just adopted a Personhood amendment into their party platform. They're in completely agreement on abortion.

His framing was dumb. Elizabeth Warren made the same exact point but in a way that wasn't so easily quote-mineable.

Remember when some dumb woman carved a "B" on her face and claimed she was assaulted by pro-Obama blacks (probably New Black Panthers!)? Both sides!

He specifically referred to "Todd Akin's statement"

Well it seems pretty clear that lostfan was talking specifically about Todd Akin's statements on abortion, so I'm not sure what he should be stopping.

I still don't get it!

'Paterno': A Relentless, Failed Defense of Penn State's Disgraced Coach

"quadriplegic climber" how does that work