StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) There are hundreds of hedge funds and proprietary trading funds out there that make those kind of returns pretty consistently. Some VC firms can do even better on select investments. And if you balance between funds well enough, you can do even better. These are fully legal vehicles. Mitt Romney isn't picking stocks himself anyway, and probably his investment advisors aren't either. They are investing in hedge funds, VC firms, and possibly they have partnership in a prop unit or two. FWIW there was a recent study that found hedge funds and private equity provide fantastic returns for managers but, on aggregate, mediocre returns for investors. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/0..._investors.html This isn't commentary on Romney's investments, and I don't expect that he's doing something illegal or dishonest to earn those returns.

Barry Soetoro gets to stay on the Georgia ballot after bithers score an own-goal: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/0...l-born-citizen/

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 08:48 AM) Wow, it's that low? I doubt he gets that number anywhere near 50%, a cardboard box has more personality than Mittens.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 08:17 AM) Violated election laws while running to be the arbiter of election law? Yeah, that's what he did. I'm cool with looking the other way if Republicans agree to never whine about the fake cause of VOTER FRAUD!!! as a cover for disenfranchising poor voters ever again.

A more strongly-worded reply: http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/Eco...nomic-ignorance

QUOTE (SuperSteve @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) Not seasonally adjusted, we have lost 3 million jobs the past two months. The 1.2 number I provided is not seasonally adjusted for January. This is the adjustment that BLS makes to the labor market for the 2010 census, which they do entirely in January 2012 and don't revise 2010 or 2011. There were not actually 1.2 million jobs lost. "Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010. In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates for December 2011 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2011 labor force series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B. The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population."

Here's a better one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...5U5tQ_blog.html

couldn't find one that also had u6

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 12:55 PM) I disagree. I think you can make some sort of right/wrong assessments about the skill needed or used to create it, but the exprience is entirely about the beholder. And even the skill arguments aren't as possible as a lot of people state, at least in my view. If you're talking about realistic paintings, I think it's easy to make claims on skill. One reason Da Vinci is hailed as such a master was his deep understanding of human anatomy that allowed him to draw and paint the human form more accurately than someone who lacks that knowledge. NOVA recently had an episode dedicated to a piece that may be a "lost" Da Vinci that described some of the skill apparent in the work: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/mystery-masterpiece.html A couple of examples were eyelashes that were as thin as a human eyelash and not very discernible without magnification and how the eyes were drawn correctly, set higher in the sockets and primarily showing the bottom 1/3 of the eye. You can't ever take away someone's subjective, personal enjoyment of any piece of art, literature, film, photography etc. But you can discuss the various technical and artistic merits of a piece in a somewhat objective way.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:55 AM) Ford's was blatant and direct about the topic, so not the same. But, for the record, I thought it was BS that ObamaCo made an issue of it (if they even did). They didn't! The only source for this claim is one article in the Detroit News that makes this claim completely unattributed, not even to the usual "anonymous sources." The Chrysler ad was explicitly non-partisan, but it allowed the viewers to project onto it with little effort.

The ad had been up for months and Ford has said it was part of the normal rotation. After the OUTRAGE!, it was promptly restored.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) They DID make an ad stating that they didn't take a bailout, and were pressured by the Obama Admin to take it down. How's that for a level playing field. I'd clarify that the Ford ad wasn't made for the Superbowl, that both the White House and Ford denied the WH exerting any pressure to have Ford take down the youtube ad and that the ad was put back up shortly after it was taken down. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/...E78T54E20110930 I can't really find anything past the September blog OUTRAGE! over this issue to see if there was ever anything more than an unattributed claim in the Detroit News article.

I'm projecting the political background behind the auto bailouts and Chrysler in particular to come away with that projection. Apparently some conservative pundits had some faux outrage over the ad.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) <!--quoteo(post=2545589:date=Feb 6, 2012 -> 10:20 AM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) <!--quotec-->I didn't see it, but as I understand it, Eastwood is a libertarian of sorts. So that would surprise me. Now that I watch it thinking about that, the "Halftime" part... Well that combined with it being how awesomely Detriot is coming back post-bailouts... He is a Republican but appears to be at least mixed if not center-left on social issues. He supported McCain in 2008.

Did anyone else see Eastwood's Chrysler commercial as intimidatingly pro-Obama last night?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 11:46 PM) Educating special needs children in the same settings as non-special needs children is even more expensive. And when you have 3 or 4 at each school, instead of having several at ONE school, is even more expensive. Nobody ever said they didn't deserve an education, so no idea why you even brought that up, except to insinuate that somehow I thought they didn't. I brought it up to reiterate that public schools do not have the option to turn kids away like private schools. And mainstreaming isn't done to "protect peoples feelings" or some other nonsense, it is done to best-educate them and not ostracize them from society. It isn't just severely disabled that are more costly and that charters are free to deny.

I don't know the first thing about art, but I really enjoyed the modern art Smithsonian museum. Some pieces made me think "wft? this isn't 'art'" while others were really impressive.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) This part is true. but then that can open the debate over whether it is good public policy to 'mainstream' kids that don't have the mental capacity to tie their shoes just because you are afraid of hurting some feelings or self esteem. Should there be other alternatives? They are entitled to an education regardless of it being mainstreamed or not, and educating special-needs children is always more expensive.

You know who doesn't have to do the same or more with less? The people who stand to gain the most from the continuing erosion of wages and benefits the people who have done very well these last few decades.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Really, I'd love to see data on that one. Charter schools overall are just as hit and miss as public schools from everything I've seen. They can also choose who they admit, which lets them avoid educating the expensive ones.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 10:59 PM) I love this thread already you're welcome.

One idea: make state taxes progressive instead of heavily regressive.

It's pretty sad that the right-wing response to teachers earning a decent living isn't to fight for everyone to raise up, but to drag teachers down. But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the election!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 2, 2012 -> 10:10 PM) Hey, you man Obama says everyone needs some skins in the game, and the top people should contribute more. Turns out Wisconsin teachers make mroe than the average Wisconsin resident. Average resident pay is $37,398. Average teacher salary is in the mid $40's. Not including benefits. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/33534649.html http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/21/wisconsi...yre-letting-on/ Another report that ignores education levels, awesome!

Their attempted backpedaling is hilarious. I will be intentionally avoiding any and all products and promotions they're associated with and have let them know.