Convention

[Saint]

What the fuck are you rambling about heckofahandjob?

 

The convention pep rally is over and its yesterdays news, next we get to watch a scripted debate where all the answers will be pre written before the candidates step out on the stage.

 

Maybe you can go recite some bogus polls

 

[Westside Steve]

And back to the conventions: Obama's convention bounce is a few points more than I thought it'd be. I'm pretty surprised there were enough people who hadn't already made up their minds and were also watching the conventions.

 

Still too early to have it mean much, and I suspect the bounce will fade somewhat, but Romney's only got his money advantage and the debates left. And I'd say it's too early to panic, but judging from his comments about liking parts of Obamacare and the stuff about keeping God on our coins (??) leads me to believe they've already hit the panic button.

Yep, I do believe realistically you are pretty close to the mark.

1 reason I believe the unforeseen bounce happened is that 99 percent of Americans hear about this stuff summarized through some media outlet.

With the exception of talk radio and Fox News it's been re packaged, sanitized and bathed in a rose colored light.

But, like I've said before, that's just one dis advantage that Republicans or conservatives will have to live with.

In the end, even if the Republicans try to get around to Obama's left flank,I believe that given a choice liberals will vote for one of their own.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Also, my friend, I doubt you'd have any big love for identity politics if, say, every Christian voted for the Republican. Oh sure they'll get the Lions sure but come on if it was 99 percent?

 

And I've never really been affected by affirmative action so I don't think it's a big deal.

I do think it's a bad prescedent because anyone who's denied anything because of their skin color will rightly be pissed off.

 

As far as looking at the convention crowds how much traction do you think the Republicans would have had if they'd bused in a few 100 more black faces?

Also do you think it's a good idea as the Democrats must have to make your convention seem over represented by minorities? It is if you need to keep those organized groups enthusiastic.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And I fully understand that you are obsessed with black people.

But let me say that of the black people I know, none are on welfare.

None are stupid or lazy and none are criminals, any worse than anybody else I know.

I do know a great many stupid, lazy white welfare recipients mostly in my old homeland in East Ohio.

Many of them are criminals.

And most if not all of them have had their lives ruined by the entitlement system.

 

Besides the rich man or the blanket villain the corporation I don't know what group they could target as being responsible for their woes.

Maybe I should don the mantle of populist hero and run for office?

Power is power right?

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

And I fully understand that you are obsessed with black people.

But let me say that of the black people I know, none are on welfare.

None are stupid or lazy and none are criminals, any worse than anybody else I know.

I do know a great many stupid, lazy white welfare recipients mostly in my old homeland in East Ohio.

Many of them are criminals.

And most if not all of them have had their lives ruined by the entitlement system.

 

Besides the rich man or the blanket villain the corporation I don't know what group they could target as being responsible for their woes.

Maybe I should don the mantle of populist hero and run for office?

Power is power right?

WSS

 

I know a lot of black people on social programs whether it be welfare or ssri. I suppose know them isn't the right word. See them. Go to their homes at places like cmha, and gmha and lmha, Cmha charges $25 a month for rent. How many white people do you think live there take a guess. <1%

 

So ill make up for you not knowing any. They exist. And a fair amount if them are criminals to boot.

 

Plenty of black people are not but let's not clap them on the back, overall, at this point and say "good job buddy"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yep, I do believe realistically you are pretty close to the mark.

1 reason I believe the unforeseen bounce happened is that 99 percent of Americans hear about this stuff summarized through some media outlet.

With the exception of talk radio and Fox News it's been re packaged, sanitized and bathed in a rose colored light.

But, like I've said before, that's just one dis advantage that Republicans or conservatives will have to live with.

In the end, even if the Republicans try to get around to Obama's left flank,I believe that given a choice liberals will vote for one of their own.

WSS

 

Oh Jesus. It couldn't be that they had a far more successful convention, or that there are more former Obama voters who are skeptical of voting for him this time and were persuaded by the convention, and that's showing up in the polls. No, no. We've got to blame it on the idea that David Gergen's post-speech commentary was more convincing than Ari Flescher's.

 

That's pretty weak.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, my friend, I doubt you'd have any big love for identity politics if, say, every Christian voted for the Republican. Oh sure they'll get the Lions sure but come on if it was 99 percent?

 

And I've never really been affected by affirmative action so I don't think it's a big deal.

I do think it's a bad prescedent because anyone who's denied anything because of their skin color will rightly be pissed off.

 

As far as looking at the convention crowds how much traction do you think the Republicans would have had if they'd bused in a few 100 more black faces?

Also do you think it's a good idea as the Democrats must have to make your convention seem over represented by minorities? It is if you need to keep those organized groups enthusiastic.

WSS

 

Now you're one step away from the point again. You were making the case that the Democratic Party - the Party that includes blacks, has the overwhelming number of Hispanics, almost the entire gay community, plus a slightly smaller percentage of whites -- is the Party of balkanization, while the Party that is overwhelmingly made up of white people and has no substantial minority presence is the inclusive one.

 

It's just up-is-downism. What you're saying is simply not true. It's the exact opposite of an easily observed reality.

 

Also, I don't judge policy on whether or not it's affected me personally. That's sort of myopic, don't you think?

[Westside Steve]

Now you're one step away from the point again. You were making the case that the Democratic Party - the Party that includes blacks, has the overwhelming number of Hispanics, almost the entire gay community, plus a slightly smaller percentage of whites -- is the Party of balkanization, while the Party that is overwhelmingly made up of white people and has no substantial minority presence is the inclusive one.

 

It's just up-is-downism. What you're saying is simply not true. It's the exact opposite of an easily observed reality.

 

Also, I don't judge policy on whether or not it's affected me personally. That's sort of myopic, don't you think?

Not at all.

it seems to me you defend your positions against the ones you assume I have made by using personal experience.

If you are talking about affirmative action, no it hasn't really affected me nor has it affected very many people I would guess.

Especially in light of the amout of attention it gets.

I wouldn't imagine that it is allowing illiterates to get into Harvard.

Still in the case that a 1 or 2. shift will take away a position from a person from race a and give it to a slightly less qualified person of race b someone will greatly be upset add that story will get a great deal of press.

 

Are you blind to that, or just being argumentative with me?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm just saying that I disagree with you. Certainly we're all swayed by our personal experience, but my views on, say, affirmative action, shouldn't change because I had a personal run-in with affirmative action policies.

 

Hell, I got into a better college than I deserved to get into because I was an athlete. That's not a great reason to admit me over someone with better grades, is it?

 

Plus, affirmative action policies in college admissions are very "narrowly tailored" now anyway. It's not really a major issue anymore. Of course, we never get to my actual opinion on this issue, which is that race-based programs should be phased out soon.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's the math:

 

In a new poll out today, Romney is down five in Ohio. And here's how the electoral college shapes up if he can't get Ohio:

 

"Romney has some serious problems in some key states, notably Ohio. If he can’t win there, he basically has to win all of the following swing states to hit 273 electoral votes: Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire."

 

Now I'll take those states and bold the ones where Obama is winning:

 

Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

[Westside Steve]

I'm just saying that I disagree with you. Certainly we're all swayed by our personal experience, but my views on, say, affirmative action, shouldn't change because I had a personal run-in with affirmative action policies.

 

Hell, I got into a better college than I deserved to get into because I was an athlete. That's not a great reason to admit me over someone with better grades, is it?

 

Plus, affirmative action policies in college admissions are very "narrowly tailored" now anyway. It's not really a major issue anymore. Of course, we never get to my actual opinion on this issue, which is that race-based programs should be phased out soon.

I guess you are just being stubborn because it's me you're talking to.

That's nearly exactly my point, that affirmative action isn't a big deal.

But the issue gets a lot of attention.

 

To the other point, I guess athletes add something to a profitable section of the schools revenue stream?

 

Of course, and I have no idea about this, you weren't very good but they bumped a better black athlete from the team to include more white faces I'd say the black guy had a legitimate beef.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I guess you are just being stubborn because it's me you're talking to.

That's nearly exactly my point, that affirmative action isn't a big deal.

But the issue gets a lot of attention.

 

To the other point, I guess athletes add something to a profitable section of the schools revenue stream?

 

Of course, and I have no idea about this, you weren't very good but they bumped a better black athlete from the team to include more white faces I'd say the black guy had a legitimate beef.

 

WSS

 

Athletes do add to a schools revenue stream. (Not in my case, but D-1 athletes in major sports do.) You know what else adds to revenue streams? The children of alumni. As well as rich kids who can pay their own way without the need for scholarships and financial aid. Those are also decisions that go into college admissions that have nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with money. But you don't hear conservatives complain much about those, do you? Nope. When those people get a leg up, like the rich white kid from Westchester I knew at school who had triple digit SATs but whose Dad was rich as could be, no one makes a peep.

 

Black kid from shitty school who is a high achiever but might have slightly lower SAT scores than a suburban white counterpart? That's a big problem.

[calfoxwc]

no, the folks who buy the tickets add to the revenue of schools' sports.

[Westside Steve]

Athletes do add to a schools revenue stream. (Not in my case, but D-1 athletes in major sports do.) You know what else adds to revenue streams? The children of alumni. As well as rich kids who can pay their own way without the need for scholarships and financial aid. Those are also decisions that go into college admissions that have nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with money. But you don't hear conservatives complain much about those, do you? Nope. When those people get a leg up, like the rich white kid from Westchester I knew at school who had triple digit SATs but whose Dad was rich as could be, no one makes a peep.

 

Black kid from shitty school who is a high achiever but might have slightly lower SAT scores than a suburban white counterpart? That's a big problem.

Or possibly a hillbilly kid from some rural school?

 

Actually I think it's even less of a problem then what you stated.

Too bad colleges have decided they have to be priced sky high. I think handing out grants and loans to anybody that wants them probably bumps that price higher.

but, as I see it, the only problem would arise if, and only if, there is one slot open and that slot is awarded to someone with lesser qualifications but the proper skin color.

I doubt that happens very often.

 

If, however, you decide to knock down the S A T requirements by a substantial amount you realize you are diminishing the elite factor of which ever high end University you choose.

 

These days it seems to me most colleges or find some shit a kid can pass if he can afford the price of admission. Or somebody can.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Michigan pimps the word "diversity" every chance they get

[heckofajobbrownie]

Gallup has Obama up by seven now.

 

I still think it's going to end up being fairly close. I also think it's becoming increasingly clear that, barring some sort of major event, Obama's going to win.

[Westside Steve]

Gallup has Obama up by seven now.

 

I still think it's going to end up being fairly close. I also think it's becoming increasingly clear that, barring some sort of major event, Obama's going to win.

And, unfortunately for the country, They worsening job situation and economy probably won't hurt Obama that badly. His voters are by and large on the lower end of the scale and don't expect much improvement anyway.

It's kind of like our Browns.

Having a s***** season? The teams going nowhere, no playoffs no Superbowl no nothing.

so what brings us joy?

Watching the Steelers lose.

You have a crappy job if you have one at all so you just live for seeing the rich man taken down a peg or 2.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Last time Obama won among the wealthy and the poor, and split the voters in the middle. So to suggest that this time it's going to be markedly different, and that "by and large" they're from the lower end of the income scale is almost certainly not accurate.

[Westside Steve]

Last time Obama won among the wealthy and the poor, and split the voters in the middle. So to suggest that this time it's going to be markedly different, and that "by and large" they're from the lower end of the income scale is almost certainly not accurate.

aha editing the quote.

Nice touch.

Anyway that was 4 years ago.

Now we've just gone through 48 months of failure, OWS, class warfare and faux populism.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's you: "His voters are by and large on the lower end of the scale."

 

Here's me: "So to suggest that ... "by and large" they're from the lower end of the income scale..."

 

So what's the problem? That's me capturing exactly what you said.

 

Congrats on turning into a talking point machine, though.

[Westside Steve]

Here's you: "His voters are by and large on the lower end of the scale."

 

Here's me: "So to suggest that ... "by and large" they're from the lower end of the income scale..."

 

So what's the problem? That's me capturing exactly what you said.

 

Congrats on turning into a talking point machine, though.

Sorry mister " obama's going to win!"

So you say that Obama is equally popular among all voting blocks this time around?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I was referring to your "48 months of failure." Hannity couldn't have said it better. If you're going to keep this up it's probably not worth doing.

 

As for the income breakdown, I suspect he'll trounce Romney among people who make under $50,000, he'll be about even with middle income voters, and lose by a 2-4 point margin with voters over $200,000.

[Saint]

As for the income breakdown, I suspect he'll trounce Romney among people who make under $50,000, he'll be about even with middle income voters, and lose by a 2-4 point margin with voters over $200,000.<br />

 

What the hell are you smoking heckofahandjob? The only people who will vote for Obama are those who are milking the system for all of the welfare dollars, union workers and diehard commies. People who want a JOB will vote for Romney.

 

Heckof=a-handjob. you have to be smoking crack to make some of the claims you state.

[Westside Steve]

I was referring to your "48 months of failure." Hannity couldn't have said it better. If you're going to keep this up it's probably not worth doing.

So after 4 years of Axelrod speeches and the Dem convention that's the phrase that bothers you?

 

As for the income breakdown, I suspect he'll trounce Romney among people who make under $50,000, he'll be about even with middle income voters, and lose by a 2-4 point margin with voters over $200,000.

In other words," yes, Steve, you are correct."

You should try that more often.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

LOL, ROF,L...

 

sorry. I shouldn't laugh at Heckbunker, who probly' needs a walker to get around, only because

 

Steve has kicked his rear so many times......

[MLD Woody]

no, the folks who buy the tickets add to the revenue of schools' sports.

 

And if the product on the field sucks, I'm not buying.

[MLD Woody]

And, unfortunately for the country, They worsening job situation and economy probably won't hurt Obama that badly. His voters are by and large on the lower end of the scale and don't expect much improvement anyway.

It's kind of like our Browns.

Having a s***** season? The teams going nowhere, no playoffs no Superbowl no nothing.

so what brings us joy?

Watching the Steelers lose.

You have a crappy job if you have one at all so you just live for seeing the rich man taken down a peg or 2.

WSS

 

That's Retarded Steve

[Westside Steve]

That's Retarded Steve

Well that's about as salient is anything you've had to say woody.

Do you have any ideas or thoughts beyond that?

 

Now that the Democrats main position is f*** the rich nobody, not even the left, thinks that will change much in the economy.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

And this is why I don't think you're correct, and why I don't type, "Yes, Steve, you're correct." Your interpretations of what motivates voters on the left (spite and hatred of rich people) couldn't be more simplistic and laughable. You go from the idea that Romney might (possibly) slightly outperform Obama among wealthy voters, even though Obama won these voters last time, and that he's sure to win with middle income and lower income voters to 'Democrats just want to take a chunk out of the rich.'

 

Plus some Fox News catch phrases like "class warfare" and "48 months of failure."

 

These aren't posts that get me excited to agree with you. It's your typical right wing cant, which you've increasingly fallen prey to in the last year or so.

 

PS - The majority of Romney's votes are also going to come from middle and lower income people, too. Because that's what most of the country is.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So after 4 years of Axelrod speeches and the Dem convention that's the phrase that bothers you?

 

That's David Axelrod's job! Same with people who speak at conventions. You're neither, so why are you going full Hannity?

 

"the Democrats main position is f*** the rich!"

 

You fucking hack. Hahaha.