StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) They said Mitt Romney got a guy fired which caused him to lose health insurance which resulted in the death of his cancer-stricken wife because she couldnt' get medical treatment. So they didn't LITERALLY claim that Romney gave her cancer. I don't know why you said that. So there's distortion or misstatements or obfuscation, I'll grant that for the sake of argument. But the core message, that this man lost his job and his health insurance because of Bain, is arguably true. It may not be a completely honest portrayal, but the message is built around some factual claim. No, this is different. There is literally nothing to back up Romney's claim that Obama is gutting welfare rules. It is the exact opposite of reality. edit: I'm not defending the P-USA ad. It's not accurate and they should have (and likely easily could have) found someone with a better story that they didn't have to twist for this sort of commercial. The Obama campaign looks silly with their flailing away from it as well. But it's still not comparable to LITERALLY pulling something out of their ass and calling it Obama's position. It would be no more justified for Obama's campaign (remember, that terrible welfare ad is directly from the Romney campaign) to come out and claim that Romney wants to gut child labor laws and it'd have exactly the same factual basis.

No, not like that, because they did not LITERALLY claim that Romney gave someone cancer. I don't know why you said that. They may have exaggerated or distorted (don't know), but that's typical for campaign commercials. The man says that he lost his insurance thanks to Romney, and shortly after that his wife contracted cancer and then eventually died without adequate care. That's different from just completely making something up like with this welfare rule thing. Romney's campaign is flat-out lying over and over again. Not exaggerations, not s***ty reasoning, not misrepresentations, but things that they've completely made up.

We are in the post-truth campaign era:

They hold them off, US Gold.

2 minutes of stoppage time to go, 2-1 US

japan scores, 2-1

Fantastic shot by Llyod from the arc into the corner of the net, US 2-0.

Japan keeping up the pressure, keeping control of the ball in the Us end.

Exciting finish to the Canada-France Bronze medal match

the refs also blew a really obvious handball by the US on a free kick near the goal.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) It's on NBCSN in the US, but I can't get it here at work so please keep up the commentary. After the first goal, Japan kept up constant pressure for the rest of the half. Had some great opportunities, but couldn't convert. Not much offense for the US after their first goal.

I'm watching a BBC feed so I wasn't sure if it was on NBC or not. US up 1-0 early.

is the soccer game being broadcast live?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) I simply meant having grandkids by nature, not by adopting. Only way a gay couple can have kids is by adopting. That's all I meant there. While both partners could not be the biological parent, many gay couples have surrogates or artificial insemination. I don't doubt that, and I wasn't trying to say that their attitudes are because of CFA. It's all part of the same culture of hatred.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) You think so? I just think there's a lot of blue collar people on the south side who would disown their own kids over this issue and it has nothing to do with CFA or anything like that. They are just opinionated beer drinkers who want grandkids the natural way and don't want their kids to be gay. I could be mistaken, but there are some badasses on the south side who simply will not tolerate their kids being gay. They don't hate their gay kids because of CFA. But their hatred and CFA's hatred is part of the same problem.

It's all part of the same culture of hate.

Well SF is an easy win for starters

It takes a special kind of asshole to reframe challenging a law that restricted early voting for everyone but military members as trying to take away the military's right to vote.

It could have been colorized

The NBA does have revenue-sharing.

The working poor cannot afford to take unpaid leave to vote during the middle of the day. Of course, these rules have been modified to limit early voting only to weekday working hours in heavily Democratic areas.

This Annie Hall clip is getting a lot of play this last week: this is because the people Mitt Romney (and his campaign) have been citing to make their arguments keep coming out and saying that they've read their work completely backwards, if they've bothered to read it at all.

More examples of Republicans changing voting laws to disenfranchise Democratic voting demographics

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) Schools have used that acronym as long as I can remember. IIRC Brian Bosworth had it put on a t-shirt after he got suspended from a bowl game like 25 years ago. Yeah, that wasn't an honest question, just more pointing and laughing.

That 'joke' is at least four years old.