|
|
On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama?
You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE.
But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win?
Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg.
|
On August 03 2012 09:23 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE. But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win? Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg.
I don't. Two templar forming a union sounds a little too much like gay marriage.
|
On August 03 2012 09:38 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE. But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win? Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg. I don't. Two templar forming a union sounds a little too much like gay marriage.
And zerg has evolution. I guess he's a Terran man.
|
On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist.
"I don't have an actual counterargument, so I'm gonna use ad hominems instead". -HunterX11
|
On August 03 2012 10:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. "I don't have an actual counterargument, so I'm gonna use ad hominems instead". -HunterX11
To be honest, I stopped following the race discussion you guys were having a long time ago ... that shit always goes nowhere.
|
On August 03 2012 10:15 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 10:01 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. "I don't have an actual counterargument, so I'm gonna use ad hominems instead". -HunterX11 To be honest, I stopped following the race discussion you guys were having a long time ago ... that shit always goes nowhere.
Yep, it's one of those topics where you can't go a page without people immediately jumping in and accusing people of racism instead of addressing the actual arguments. Not too different from gun control debates, gender issues, and religious topics.
I was hoping that this thread would be different since heavy moderation should in theory shut people like that down, but apparently since my position is politically incorrect I'm not afforded the same degree of protection from trolls that everyone else gets (though I'm glad that there was at least finally a warn).
|
|
|
On August 03 2012 10:43 Defacer wrote:Y,know, it's not like I support Romney, but maaaan ... this ad by MoveOn is really dickish. http://youtu.be/X7_EJLBU400Way to lower the bar, MoveOn.
We can only expect the dickishness of attack ads on both sides to keep increasing as we get closer to election day.
That's what happens when money is such a huge part of politics.
|
On August 03 2012 10:48 sunprince wrote:We can only expect the dickishness of attack ads on both sides to keep increasing as we get closer to election day. That's what happens when money is such a huge part of politics.
As dickish and stupid as that ad is. I enjoyed the accent and the way they poorly animated the horse's lips. Why not just give the horse some peanut butter like they did with Mister Ed?
|
On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source
Can we talk about Harry Reid some more since he went on the Senate floor today and doubled down on his allegations?
Even Jon Stewart came down hard on Reid. Not only is he not substantiating his claim at all, but we didn't mention that Reid played the dead dad card on Romney, which is fubar. I'll paraphrase Stewart that as someone who has actually embarrassed my still living father, you could do a lot worse than being a JD/MBA from Harvard, a successful finance guy, governor of Massachusetts, father and grandfather to a healthy and happy family, and candidate for president of the United States of America. Even if true, avoiding taxes probably doesn't negate all that on the list of things your parents hope for you.
|
What Reid did is total bullshit. Drop the name of the source or shut the hell up. I'm guessing that Reid is talking out of his ass, and this is all just a calculated maneuver to get Romney to disclose his tax returns. I'm thinking that this is going to backfire.
Edit: Also, didn't Reid say the source was a Bain "investor" as opposed to one of the managing members? How would an investor know anything about Romney's taxes?
|
I know the IRS is pretty shitty but I really have a hard time believing they would be that bad. It's the multi-millionaire CEO of a prominent company ffs.
Reid's talking out of his ass, that or he's getting played hard by some random Bain guy. Even in the off chance Romney does something like that why the hell would he tell a Bain employee?
|
On August 03 2012 09:46 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 09:38 Defacer wrote:On August 03 2012 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? You've never seen Romney play croquet or tie a sweater around his neck. And a robot dance-off? PLEASE. But seriously, if the presidency came down to a bo7 series of StarCraft 2, who would win? Edit: From their social policies, you know Romney plays protoss and Obama plays zerg. I don't. Two templar forming a union sounds a little too much like gay marriage. And zerg has evolution. I guess he's a Terran man.
But Terrans never make it into the finals in a foreign tournament of only foreigners.
|
On August 03 2012 11:35 xDaunt wrote:
What Reid did is total bullshit. Drop the name of the source or shut the hell up. I'm guessing that Reid is talking out of his ass, and this is all just a calculated maneuver to get Romney to disclose his tax returns. I'm thinking that this is going to backfire.
Edit: Also, didn't Reid say the source was a Bain "investor" as opposed to one of the managing members? How would an investor know anything about Romney's taxes?
Reid can peddle whatever rumor he likes about Romney's tax returns uncontradicted.
How can it possibly backfire if Romney will never release them?
|
On August 03 2012 11:35 xDaunt wrote:
What Reid did is total bullshit. Drop the name of the source or shut the hell up. I'm guessing that Reid is talking out of his ass, and this is all just a calculated maneuver to get Romney to disclose his tax returns. I'm thinking that this is going to backfire.
Edit: Also, didn't Reid say the source was a Bain "investor" as opposed to one of the managing members? How would an investor know anything about Romney's taxes?
Because that's a source that would both reveal his identity and want to be revealed.
That's just not something you say publicly.
On August 03 2012 11:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 11:35 xDaunt wrote:
What Reid did is total bullshit. Drop the name of the source or shut the hell up. I'm guessing that Reid is talking out of his ass, and this is all just a calculated maneuver to get Romney to disclose his tax returns. I'm thinking that this is going to backfire.
Edit: Also, didn't Reid say the source was a Bain "investor" as opposed to one of the managing members? How would an investor know anything about Romney's taxes? Reid can peddle whatever rumor he likes about Romney's tax returns uncontradicted. How can it possibly backfire if Romney will never release them?
Until he releases them, I shall assume that he is withholding them because they prove that Romney is a card-carrying Communist.
|
It's rather amusing because the "it's okay to make whatever baseless allegations you want so long as you add a question mark to the end of it" style of smearing is trademark Fox News style. Part of me loves the irony of Republican strategies turned on their head, but part of me is hesitant to cheer on the Democrats taking a page from the dirty playbook.
|
Wow, what a stupid ad...
I like the name of the horse though. I think I'm going to start shouting "RAFALCAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!" in my daily life now.
I think Reid's accusation was absolutely brilliant. At this point it's pretty clear that Romney will not ever release his tax returns, as he's had so much pressure from both sides to do so. Who knows, maybe it's true. We'll never know.
And I've totally lost track of the race conversation thing. My only real response to what you said was "let's just agree to disagree." I do stand my point that if you explain clearly what you're saying, and your science/logic actually is good, you wouldn't be accused of racism. Honestly, at this point, I am confused on what you are actually claiming.
|
On August 03 2012 09:16 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 08:50 Speece wrote:
Obama is a stronger candidate in literally every way. Can someone explain what Romney has going for him other than he is not Obama? Economy seems likely to be the #1 issue and polling on Obama's handling of the economy is upside down. But the other advantage Romney has is fundraising. This is the first Presidential election since Citizen's United and it's related cases paved the way for unlimited corporate spending. And the rich/corporations are backing the more rich/corporate friendly candidate, Mitt Romney. In some ways it makes me glad not to be in a swing state, because the avalanche of campaign ads is going to be like nothing seen before.
We've had political ads running nonstop in Wisconsin for over a year, and it's about to get crazy up in here.
Battleground Presidential state
Battleground Senate state (and a tossup for what is suspected to be control of the Senate)
And oh god, the state races....
The only thing we're not voting on? Governor. At least we got that mess out of the way...
|
On August 02 2012 23:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
And I'm pretty sure illegal drugs are more widely abused than prescription drugs; if there's a common problem regarding prescription drug use, it's more getting people to adhere to their regimens than anything.
I used to work at a shelter that was open to those under the influence.
Alcohol > Prescription > Illicit.
It's not even close. A few years ago I was able to name most prescription painkillers based solely on their color/shape because I confiscated so many of them.
|
On August 03 2012 12:03 Funnytoss wrote:
It's rather amusing because the "it's okay to make whatever baseless allegations you want so long as you add a question mark to the end of it" style of smearing is trademark Fox News style. Part of me loves the irony of Republican strategies turned on their head, but part of me is hesitant to cheer on the Democrats taking a page from the dirty playbook.
Yup, birthers anyone? I think its a pretty brilliant maneuver because it places the burden of proof on Romney. It could backfire really badly though, which leads me to think Reid is reasonably sure he's right and that this is a calculated risk.
On August 03 2012 06:28 Defacer wrote:So, I'm perusing this study by the Tax Policy Center, and it's a reasonably objective and matter-of-fact analysis. It does confirm that it based it projections on the 'progressive' elimination of tax preferences, meaning that it assumes that the loopholes that benefit the wealthiest would be closed first until the plan became revenue neutral. The table on page 16 sums up the impacts of the Romney tax cuts, with and without it being revenue neutral, pretty nicely. PDF of Tax Policy center study.For example, for people making > million, they would see a income increase of 8.3% with existing tax preferences, and an increase of 4.1 % if they were eliminated.
Romney cited the TPC previously for some other thing as well. It's only wrong when it makes him look bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
