Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:02 AM) Please keep the politics out of it, I don't want to have to move this thread to the Buster. No political posts after this point. Saying it's a joke that the issue became political so quickly is political?

Sigh, it didn't even take a half a day for it to become political too: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/20...-Batman-Tragedy f*** you, Piers Morgan.

Does anyone know why this story got so much play recently? I thought their position on homosexuality has been known for years?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) Would people change their stance if they were actively trying to boycott interracial marriage? Nope.

Just awful. RIP to those 12.

Unfortunately i'm in the middle of a 2 year contract, so they know that's an empty threat. Once I have to start paying "full price" for the package i'm sure i'll be calling them

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 05:02 PM) They are not free for most people in most states. A national ID (passport card) costs over $30. In Texas, a state ID costs $16. You can argue that this is not a seriously high cost, but its still a barrier to voting - and one that costs money to overcome. Paying money to be able to vote sounds an awful lot like a poll tax to me. You have to drive or take public transportation to vote right? What's the difference?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) There's no requirement that someone possess a photo ID. Getting one would otherwise be useless for hundreds of thousands and represents an unnecessary expense and burden. Of course, it'd primarily hit Democrat-voting demographics and it's pushed by Republicans to fight a non-existent problem. Some have explicitly said that these laws will win elections for Republicans and other studies show a strong correlation between support for these laws and racial animosity. Unnecessary regulations to fight non-existent problems that have real, measurable impact on eligible voters. Unnecessary expense and burden? Really? For a photo ID?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) The fact that there are still people without a valid state ID?

Can't believe Girls got nominated ...as a Comedy...for the pilot episode. That show sucked hard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) There was one guy who actually served with Kerry but IIRC wasn't actually present for any of the incidents Kerry received medals for. The rest had zero first-hand knowledge of the incidents. No independent source has ever corroborated their claims. It was a complete smear campaign from start to finish. You were saying in several posts that you didn't think it was fair that it was a synonym for "smear campaign," that they were honest and legitimate ads, etc. They weren't. They would have made Lee Atwater proud. I recall at least one guy was in the boat with Kerry and another officer was leading a group of boats on the night Kerry was shot. The point remains that they think one thing, other people disagree. Whether that's because they don't like Kerry or they think Kerry is anti-American is irrelevant. Clearly they didn't like his politics and they were rebutting his credibility. That's political ads 101. They were hardly the first group to do that, and they clearly haven't been the last.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) IIRC, the document was bogus, but that doesn't mean that the story was wrong. Just because one piece of corroborating evidence was false, doesn't mean the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. So some of, but not all, of the Swift Boat guys can't really back up what they allege because they didn't witness what they say they witnessed. That doesn't mean their claim that Kerry received medals without earning them, thanks to his social background, and general anti-American views as expressed after the war, are wrong. I don't think that argument works, does it?

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) True...here's my question: Every corporation can donate to any charity/group/anything they want (that's legal). But doesn't this open up a discriminatory slippery slope? Is Chick-Fil-A not indirectly discriminating? Aren't CEO Dan Cathy's comments basically segregating the LGBT community KNOWING they are going to boycott? I understand the idea of choice. But that works for anyone who ISN'T gay. Is this borderline discriminatory? No I don't think they are.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) It was totally a smear campaign. "I served with John Kerry* and those medals he got were BS**" * We were both in Vietnam on boats ** I'm guessing, since I wasn't actually there Swift Boat Vets for Truth should have been called Bitter Republican Vets for Bush. Go read the wiki page SS linked and there are people in the group that were there or in the same area at the time of some of those claims of heroism. Yes, other people piled on and the whole thing got discredited, but not all of them. I'm not suggesting it wasn't shady and that it wasn't a smear campaign. But that's politics baby. In reality Swiftboating should have been "Dan Rathering," when you lose all journalistic integrity and promote a completely fake document to establish your point. Oh, but that was against Bush and he won so it didn't stick.

They have every right to think that way, you have every right not to consume their products. That's the way I look at it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 08:31 PM) That's not what happened with the Swift Boating. It was a completely dishonest campaign led by the now-birther Jerome Corsi. It was not "the men he went to war with" and he did not lie. I can't believe anyone outside of freerepublic regulars would still believe that garbage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_an..._of_allegations The message in the beginning was legit. Kerry ran his entire campaign on his war experience and patriotism. His fellow soldiers - and officers- thought that was bulls***, so they spoke out, especially given Kerry's heavy involvement with Vets Against Vietnam. Did it become more political? Sure. But that's the nature of the beast. I HATE the fact that "swiftboating" has become an adjective for smear campaigns. It was a credibility ad which is no different than the ad Obama just put out against Romney that you think is so amazing. "Hey, this guy says he's awesome, here's why he's not!" Oh, it was started by a guy that dislikes the other side and opposes their views? Shocker.

My office goes here all the time: http://www.siamricethai.com/ Great pad thai, and really good curry dishes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) I think I should clarify that I'm still talking about effective political messaging here, not whether its a strong claim. I don't think that this can work when you're already on the defensive as Romney is now. It makes it look like you're trying to avoid the questions about Bain and the tax returns. Dishonest but repetitive campaigning can be effective (Swift Boating) but not always in every case. How is it dishonest to react to someone spreading lies about themselves being a war hero when the men he went to war with completely disagreed? Come on now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) 4.4M over 28 months versus less than 4.4M over 144 months for the Bushes is the thrust of the argument. With the unemployment % at what? And the workforce having increased by ~10 million. It's a marginal increase in the grand scheme of things, despite the cost.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) "Romney made hundreds of millions which he's stashed in foreign countries to avoid taxes from outsourcing American jobs" isn't very complicated. For whatever it's worth, Nate Silver is essentially agreeing with you that this shouldn't move polls all that much, but he believes that Romney's response has only made things worse and that he'll be watching the polls for the next several weeks to see if anything shows up. I find a little bit of irony in labeling Obama as an out-of-touch rich guy considering that many on the fever-swamp right still lambaste him for being a community organizer and never having a "real job." The sitting President is definitely not in touch with the 'average Joe' once they're in office, but Obama does have a background of working directly with low-income Americans. Even when he was a community organizer he was out of touch. Dude went to Harvard and made bank at a major law firm in his mid-20's.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) How much control of that he has is, of course, debatable. However, the private sector has been growing jobs for over 2 years consecutively, adding over 4 million jobs since the moment where job growth bottomed out. That's more than the private sector job growth seen during both Bush 41 and Bush 43 combined. Sounds impressive until you remember it's 4.4 million over 28 months. In a country that has how many tens of millions out of work?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) I don't think that response would really address the issue either from a practical standpoint or a politics standpoint. Let's start with the politics side because that's an easier case for me to make. As you've agreed, that's a powerful ad. Romney's role at Bain, Bain's role in outsourcing American jobs and Romney's continued refusal to release his tax returns coupled with his offshore banking accounts are all tied into this short ad. Responding with "but Obama has foreign investments too!" isn't going to counter that; sure, it'll give something for the pundit class to write and talk about, but that sort of response is usually received as petty whining (the Democrats are pros at these sorts of terrible responses and constantly being on the defensive). The political response needed to be quick and effective burying the concerns or effectively deflecting them back on Obama, and tu quoque rarely works for that. Pointing out that the stimulus had some funds going to non-American companies might work a little better and in a stand-alone context could be a minor point, but it still doesn't get to the heart of the issue, which leads me to the practical point. Romney's primary positive attribute in this campaign is his business experience. He knows how to create jobs because he did it in the private sector, or so the rhetoric goes. And in the process of creating these jobs he touts in his speeches and on his website, he made himself and a few others incredibly wealthy. In that process, Bain also closed a lot of companies and put a lot of people out of work; their business model is premised on generating returns for investors, not on creating jobs. What his role was at Bain and how he made money is certainly a legitimate question given what Romney is running on. For a while now, Romney has distanced himself from Bain after '99 because that it when the outsourcing and the acquire-and-close really started to pick up. But now we know different. He remained CEO and sole owner until 2002. He was paid well, twice the income of the average family, for essentially nothing if his claims are accurate; he already has "wealthy banker" image problems, and that will not help. It also fails to address the inconsistency in his statements and the filings. However, even if he truly was CEO "in name only," he still bears responsibility for the actions of Bain. He still maintained control, he still could hire and fire as he pleased, he still profited immensely. Romney had still created the culture at Bain and picked the replacements who took over for him. Pointing out that Obama has some foreign investments or foreign income completely misses the point. Obama is not running as Investor-in-Chief. Whatever foreign companies he may be invested in are not central to his platform or his message. He's never been in direct control of a company that was actively outsourcing American jobs. If the message is "jobs jobs jobs" this year, then Romney needs to answer directly for what happened to companies under Bain through 2002 until he was no longer the sole shareholder, CEO and President. Responding by pointing to Obama's foreign income from book sales looks like a weak flail. eta: crosspost with Y2HH but it's essentially the same thing. Pointing out that Obama appointed the guy from GE still doesn't address Romney's role at Bain or why he won't release his tax returns. Politically, if Romney wants "job creator" to be the headline on his resume, he needs to be able to explain the profits generated by outsourcing under his watch. No, he's just been in charge of the country that isn't creating jobs. That's the counter Romney's campaign has hit pretty well. Instead of relying on his community activist experience as a reason why he'd be a good President, we've now had 3 years of him as President as a reason why he's not a good President. I guess I don't see some great advantage to this Romney/Bain thing. It's too complicated for the average voter to care about, so they're not going to care. We're talking about two very rich guys acting as though they understand the plight of an average American.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) Regardless of whether you agree with him politically or not, from a technical standpoint (for lack of a better word), that ad is several notches above your typical political ad. You can appreciate a skilled polemicist even if you ultimately disagree with their message. As for the merit, "I was a Successful Business Man" is Romney's entire campaign. Of course his tenure at Bain is going to be brought up as it is his main qualification. Romney really was incredibly successful at Bain; he made an awful lot of money for himself and investors, which isn't inherently wrong or evil. But this ad is a response to his ongoing refusal to release his tax returns and then the discrepancies between what he told elections officials in Mass in 2002, what SEC filings said and what he's told the public for the last several years. For some reason, his campaign had no plan at all on how to address this, so they've been left reeling since, demanding apologies and retroactively retiring. As I see it (and this is borrowed from a compilation of others' thoughts), Romney doesn't exactly have a good way out of this. Even if he left Bain and was CEO in name only, he was still receiving a $100k salary for doing nothing which won't sit well and he was still President and sole stockholder. He still retained as much control over the company as he wanted and profited immensely from the work Bain did between '99 and '02. He still is responsible for the people he picked to run his company and for the culture that existed prior to his departure that enabled those deals to continue. He cannot simultaneously claim to have the Business Man experience while shirking all responsibility for what that experience entailed. The buck still stopped in Romney's bank accounts at the end of the day. Now, an ideologically consistent way out of this would be to mount a robust defense of the 'destructive capitalism' that Bain and other companies engaged in. But so far they aren't doing that, and the deeper they keep digging the hole they're in, the faster they close off that line of defense. Who knows if a strong defense of financial capitalism would really resonate with a public who's still suffering from the financial collapse and is seeing more and more banking scandals, but at least it would give them a shot and wouldn't look as weak as they do now. They needed to have a strong answer for this in place months ago, and its baffling that they seem caught so unprepared. No, I agree, it's an effective ad. And it's well done. But i think the GOP could respond to it pretty easily by pointing out the investments the Obamas have made overseas, or even his administration's bailout of non-American companies as part of the stimulus (i'm sure that'll be brought up later as well). You can't on the one hand praise globalization and then fault a guy for utilizing the benefits of globalization. And yes, Romney is in a tough spot and i've been less than satisfied with his "answer" about his involvement with Bain in 2002. But if he was CEO in name only, even drawing a decent salary, who cares? I see nothing wrong with that. At least he was the guy that started the company and took the risk of opening the doors.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 11:53 AM) FWIW the WS doesn't exactly give a completely accurate picture of Box's objections. If you click through to the original story, Box seems to be expressing the sentiment that Obama hasn't been liberal enough, a sentiment shared by myself and BS. On another note, by the Obama campaign is exceptionally well-done. Because I'm sure the Obama's invest only in American companies...

I was kind of pissed at DirecTV this morning. I called back in May to cancel the Sunday Ticket package for this upcoming season (I got it free as a new customer promotion last year, but they automatically subscribe you for the following years). So I look today and they charged me for, guess what? Sunday Ticket. I called, complained, they credited my account (I had already paid the bill) and they knocked $5 bucks off my base package for the next 6 months as an apology. So....i'm ok with them now.