StrangeSox

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) By the way, it'd take the average American family about 400 years to earn what Romney earned in 1. That's why people talk about percentages instead of dollar amounts. How long would it take Mitt Romney to make what you make?

It's true, people in positions of great power and influence never lose that power and influence in the wake of a scandal. The issue isn't that Paterno used his power to stop an investigation--I don't think anyone's really alleged that. The issue is that he very clearly didn't use his power to force an investigation.

"OZZIE IS SAFELY OUT OF TOWN" What does this mean? That Oz would be a physical threat to him?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) I'd imagine similar numbers appear every year. Last year was 82%, as the article states.

Yes and no, Gingrich still lacks the national campaign infrastructure that Romney has. I know Nate Silver and other pundits are still putting the likelihood of a Gingrich nomination below 50%. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/01/...e_horrible.html

The speech is polling very well:

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) Meh.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-14/tech/bu...ions?_s=PM:TECH (https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS442US442&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+mars+speech)

DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE

Stick to the facts. Paterno didn't "trust the police," he reported to a University official who oversaw the police and then didn't give a s*** about it ever again.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) If you're taking the article as a stand-alone piece and didn't follow any of the previous story, yes. But in reality, the article was most likely written in response to the canonization of Paterno by the media as a whole. bingo. That's where the angry backlash is coming from.

Paterno is a villian, not the villian. But still, f*** Joe Paterno.

Funny facebook post:

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) Politifact, in their endless effort to be non-partisan, rated this statement by Obama as "half true": The problem is that it is entirely true. They rated it as untrue simply because it was a positive political narrative for Obama. Between this and their "lie of the year" actually being a "true statement, though maybe a little polemic," I'm not sure how they maintain any credibility. Politifact is backtracking and now claims that this is "mostly true" because they insist Obama is implicitly trying to take all the credit for every job. Sorry, it's still 100% true. I guess there's no way for Obama to mention these facts and have it rated as true. The same is true for their rating on Obama's statement regarding oil production. Sure, it's 100% accurate, but Politifact believes he may have implied his policies played a larger role than they did, therefore it's only "mostly true". I guess they really want to destroy all of their credibility in a couple of short months.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) I've seen both of them speak in person and Obama (with or without the teleprompter) sounds like a robot churning out lines versus Newt talking like a human. He's a lot like Clinton in that way, and I think it'll appeal to a lot of people that want to compare the two directly. I think the favorability stuff will figure itself out if he gets the nomination. Right now it's up and down: Fair enough. I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I want to argue whether he can or not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) I'd disagree that it was totally empty, as he did mention numerous specific initiatives. The problem is a lot of them won't get done, and THAT is what happens with all SOTU speeches. One thing I liked hearing him say, though, which I want to see get more public debate, is the assinine 60-vote procedural filibuster rule needs to go. He should have specifically mentioned the 60-vote number. But it'll never happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) I do, but only if there isn't some reality TV show styled issue with his wives. That's an issue of his character, I agree. But these are politicians, not saints. I think he's one of the best public speakers in the country. He'd crush Obama in a debate. Whether or not that resonates...I dunno. Why do you believe he'd crush Obama in a debate? He's been very successful at channeling Republican base anger thus far, but he appeared pretty weak when he couldn't do that at the latest one. SC Republicans love when he attacks the moderators and the liberal media, but I don't see that as an effective debate strategy in the general. Obama's not a fantastic debater himself, but he did well in 2008 and showed he has strong potential when he went to that GOP retreat in 2010. I still see a lot of jokes on conservative sites re: TelePrompters; do conservatives really believe he's an idiot who can't speak without one? What about Gingrich's favorability ratings?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) Every SOTU speech is like that. Every. Last. One. In terms of real value you won't get anything out of the SOTU, but in an election year the president's job is to basically kick his election year campaign into gear without sounding too slick about it (they said last year's SOTU was doing this, but that's just the chattering class who doesn't really have s*** else to do than talk about an election that's almost 2 years away). They're sometimes a little more focused, though, instead of trying to appeal to every single voting bloc in a little over an hour. Sometimes they lay out actual policy goals instead of "let's [bring jobs back home/reform taxes/better education/reduce deficit/reform immigration/be awesome]! send me a bill that does this, I'll sign it!"

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) What SOTU speech is any different? Sometimes they get a little more specific than "send me a bill that does a thing, I'll sign it!" and sometimes they're a single issue, more or less, like 2003 and Iraq. It works as a campaign starter, but it won't be remembered as some great speech or for putting forth some bold new initiatives.

Frank Wuterich, the Marine responsible for ordering the Haditha massacre which resulted in the death of 24 civilians within 45 minutes, gets a reduction in rank and no jail time.

After thinking about it a little more, it's a pretty empty speech. Lots of populism, lots of applause lines, but really, it won't go anywhere policy-wise.

Seeing this thread reminded me to pay my water bill! Thanks, SoxTalk!

Politifact, in their endless effort to be non-partisan, rated this statement by Obama as "half true": The problem is that it is entirely true. They rated it as untrue simply because it was a positive political narrative for Obama. Between this and their "lie of the year" actually being a "true statement, though maybe a little polemic," I'm not sure how they maintain any credibility.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:08 AM) Yeah that's kinda the point actually It's pretty ridiculous anyway, unless you actually believe the "they're all dirty, jobless jealous hippies" rhetoric. OWS employment levels were a little lower but close the national levels.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 06:35 AM) Go check out his returns and see what percentage he donated to charity. And then compare that to Obama's percentage donated to charity. Or to any other Democratic politician that wants to be generous with other people's money, but not their own. I'm pretty sure it was around the same in recent years. That he had millions to freely donate to the lds is also sorta the point. It only partially explains his rates, anyway. It is mostly explained by the favorable rates the rich have set up for themselves. Like Romney being able to gift his children 100m and pay zero gift tax. I'm not sure why you are defending a rigged system.