I have already said that part of the ad is wrong. Will you not admit that it is sex education?
It's semantics. The fact it was enclosed in a sexual education bill would make you say it was sexual education but I view it as anti-abuse education as much as telling a kid if someone is physically abusing you (I.E. Punching) then they should tell someone as well as if they "touch" them.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the ratio of qualified men is much higher than qualified women - which you have to assume to defend Obama. McCain has more women in top positions. Given the ratio, that speaks even more highly of McCain.
No it doesn't. If that is the case, then it means McCain hired people on the basis of their gender, and NOT based on who could do the job better. That's sexism. It benefits the "underdog," but is still sexism. Not speaking very highly in my book. Women should be given equal opportunity...not preferential treatment. Just like all the minorities out there. The only way I see Obama coming out a loser in this area is if the ratio of qualified applicants was even, or if there were more qualified women.
I did a research paper on it in college. Affirmative action was designed to help people with a disadvantage have a fair chance. It has done a lot of good, but it has created a feeling of entitlement among some minorities that they really shouldn't have. If a red woman (majority) and a blue woman (minority) are competing for the same space, and the red woman is overall more qualified, then the red woman should get the job. Yet, because of diversity quotas, often the blue woman will get the job. That's stupid. The opportunity should be available, and discrimination based on race or gender shouldn't affect it. AT ALL. It shouldn't affect it positively or negatively. In our current culture with affirmative action, often being a minority affects your chances in a positive way.
So no, I wouldn't exactly call it "quick." I've been following this particular issue for the last 4 years. People confuse fair opportunity with entitlement, and it completely fucks the affirmative action system. Just because a woman is available to put in a political office does not mean she is the best choice. We should be looking at issues independent of gender/race if we are REALLY going to not be sexist/racist.
I think the NFL has the best way of dealing with discrimination in hiring, that's the Rooney Rule. You can hire whoever you want. There are no quotas or anything. But when you are interviewing for a head coaching position, you have to interview minority candidates. The best person for the job gets hired, but other people have a shot. This gives everyone a chance at the job, but its up to the job applicant to actually impress the owners enough to get hired.
I think a similar system would work in may other instances. As long as you grant interviews minority candidates, you can hire whoever you want. Some people might think this will make way for discrimination as people will grant BS interviews and then pick a WASP every time. Well, some places might do that, but you would be surprised at how much influence you can have over someone if you get time to sit in their office and talk to them. Looking at the increased number of minority head coaches in the NFL, it definitely works. And in such a competetive workplace, with such pressure from fans to win, you know that no team would dare to hire someone who wasn't the best for the job.
You realize when you make a politician donation you have to list the company you work for. So Individual donations is Employees from that company that have donated to the campaign....
See this comment from that page
"Typically a corporation has a PAC, and it is funded by corporate funds AND individual employee contributions.
Employees have the option to let the company decide how to disburse the money, or can "earmark" the money to their preferred candidates.
Officers, Executives, and managers have varying degrees of pressure to cough up money. But the lower you are, the more latitude you have to earmark.
I would question the validity of the inclusion of the individual contributions. Individual employees can 'earmark' their contributions to their own candidate choices.
So there should be a correlation in the individual amounts between candidates who were successful in getting a lot of private individual donations and individual earmarks.
Look more to the PAC column and keep in mind the duration of the time period, but this is chump change compared to their overall lobbying expenditures."
You realize when you make a politician donation you have to list the company you work for. So Individual donations is Employees from that company that have donated to the campaign....
Yup. And do you think for a second that the campaigns are not keeping track of where that money is coming from?
You realize when you make a politician donation you have to list the company you work for. So Individual donations is Employees from that company that have donated to the campaign....
Yup. And do you think for a second that the campaigns are not keeping track of where that money is coming from?
Another thing to keep in mind is that Obma has only been a Senator for a few years yet he is at the top of the list. Above Senators who have been in Washington for decades!
How can there be such a change in the electoral map from day to day? Shouldn't it be much more stable?
Polling methods are unreliable and extremely error-prone.
Not serious question: Wouldn't it be sweet if Texas didn't count?
From the adversarial perspective, gods yes. Obama would be the default winner, and he could furthermore generate one hell of a stockhold of future goodwill for the Democratic Party by campaigning extensively in Texas DESPITE the lack of a vote. If he played it right, I'll bet Texas would swing Democratic in future elections.
How can there be such a change in the electoral map from day to day? Shouldn't it be much more stable?
Polling methods are unreliable and extremely error-prone.
Yes, but the volatility of these last few polls is like a shaken bottle of champagne. They seem like they're going back and forth on an hourly basis. Is there something else going on? Besides, the link was not to a popular poll but to an electoral map. I'd expect that to be a little more stable.
Would it be too self referential to do a poll on the volatility of polls?
Not serious question: Wouldn't it be sweet if Texas didn't count?
If alienating the rights of millions of people to have their vote counted for the candidate of their choice because of a technicality is "sweet", then sure... I guess it would be great.
If Obama took the presidency, and would have lost had Texas been counted, the backlash against the Democratic party would be felt for years to come. The battle would be won, but the war would be lost. Way too many moderates would be outraged.
And Rym is correct. None of this will happen. I suppose it would be nice if aliens showed me their home planet, but I don't spend all day thinking about it.
Besides, Joe... isn't this a picture of you from 2000?
Not serious question: Wouldn't it be sweet if Texas didn't count?
If alienating the rights of millions of people to have their vote counted for the candidate of their choice because of a technicality is "sweet", then sure... I guess it would be great.
If by "technicality" you mean "failure to comply with the state's laws governing eligibility of a candidate," then yes, I'm all for that. The states, within certain limits, are allowed to set the guidelines by which the election process occurs. If the state has a problem with the way their system is set up, the proper thing to do is change the law, not outright ignore it when it's convenient to do so.
You make it sound like he forgot to dot an "i" on the paperwork. He flat out missed a deadline. There's a difference there.
You make it sound like he forgot to dot an "i" on the paperwork. He flat out missed a deadline. There's a difference there.
Okay... let's think this through. Everyone knew that Obama and McCain would be the nominees chosen at their conventions. There was no surprise whatsoever. The article went on to say that "sufficient steps were taken to satisfy the secretary of state to place the names on the ballot." Even the State itself argues that the Secretary of State had been given notice.
So if notice was given, but in an incorrect manner, the appropriate remedy is to alienate the votes of 23 million people? You guys have a really perverted sense of justice.
Like I said... If I was a Republican, I'd be rooting for the Dems on this one. (I know that the Libertarians are behind this, but if Obama steals the election this way, nobody will care.) They'd pay the price for years to come. The race is close, but Obama ought to be able to win this one. If he does having sat idly while the right of Texans to vote is denied, I can only wait to see the fallout. This isn't like Florida where there was actually a vote.
In any event, the fact that people actually think that something is going to come of this is hilarious. Surely you guys are more politically astute than that.
McCain didn't file at all. Obama, as far as I have read, filed incorrectly, and possibly in a manner that allows for an extension to re-file.
There may be different factual basis, but they are both subjects of the lawsuit. I just thought it was funny that theWhaleShark forgot that in his moment of glee.
McCain didn't file at all. Obama, as far as I have read, filed incorrectly, and possibly in a manner that allows for an extension to re-file.
There may be different factual basis, but they are both subjects of the lawsuit. I just thought it was funny that theWhaleShark forgot that in his moment of glee.
I didn't forget it, thank you. As Rym pointed out, Obama's discrepancy allows for a possible extension; McCain's does not. If Obama's discrepancy does not allow for extension, he should also be removed from the ballot, as per the state's rules.
I'm also well aware that nothing will happen as a result of this. The fact that that is true should enrage everyone here equally, irrespective of political leanings; no party has the right to ignore the rules of a presidential election, no matter how "important" they may be.
no party has the right to ignore the rules of a presidential election, no matter how "important" they may be.
Agreed. The problem here is that the remedy of alienating the votes of over 23 million people would cause a worse harm than the original offense. Justice would not be met by doing this. The parties should be punished, but the punishment must fit the crime.
Comments
Steve's credibility really is shot now (what little of it was there to begin with).
So no, I wouldn't exactly call it "quick." I've been following this particular issue for the last 4 years. People confuse fair opportunity with entitlement, and it completely fucks the affirmative action system. Just because a woman is available to put in a political office does not mean she is the best choice. We should be looking at issues independent of gender/race if we are REALLY going to not be sexist/racist.
I think a similar system would work in may other instances. As long as you grant interviews minority candidates, you can hire whoever you want. Some people might think this will make way for discrimination as people will grant BS interviews and then pick a WASP every time. Well, some places might do that, but you would be surprised at how much influence you can have over someone if you get time to sit in their office and talk to them. Looking at the increased number of minority head coaches in the NFL, it definitely works. And in such a competetive workplace, with such pressure from fans to win, you know that no team would dare to hire someone who wasn't the best for the job.
Edit: Wow, that video above is perfect in every sense of the word.
Wow. What change.
This is one reason why neither candidate does anything for me.
You realize when you make a politician donation you have to list the company you work for. So Individual donations is Employees from that company that have donated to the campaign....
See this comment from that page
"Typically a corporation has a PAC, and it is funded by corporate funds AND individual employee contributions.
Employees have the option to let the company decide how to disburse the money, or can "earmark" the money to their preferred candidates.
Officers, Executives, and managers have varying degrees of pressure to cough up money. But the lower you are, the more latitude you have to earmark.
I would question the validity of the inclusion of the individual contributions. Individual employees can 'earmark' their contributions to their own candidate choices.
So there should be a correlation in the individual amounts between candidates who were successful in getting a lot of private individual donations and individual earmarks.
Look more to the PAC column and keep in mind the duration of the time period, but this is chump change compared to their overall lobbying expenditures."
Serious question: How can there be such a change in the electoral map from day to day? Shouldn't it be much more stable?
Not serious question: Wouldn't it be sweet if Texas didn't count?
Of course, none of this will happen... -_-
Would it be too self referential to do a poll on the volatility of polls?
If Obama took the presidency, and would have lost had Texas been counted, the backlash against the Democratic party would be felt for years to come. The battle would be won, but the war would be lost. Way too many moderates would be outraged.
And Rym is correct. None of this will happen. I suppose it would be nice if aliens showed me their home planet, but I don't spend all day thinking about it.
Besides, Joe... isn't this a picture of you from 2000?
You make it sound like he forgot to dot an "i" on the paperwork. He flat out missed a deadline. There's a difference there.
So if notice was given, but in an incorrect manner, the appropriate remedy is to alienate the votes of 23 million people? You guys have a really perverted sense of justice.
Like I said... If I was a Republican, I'd be rooting for the Dems on this one. (I know that the Libertarians are behind this, but if Obama steals the election this way, nobody will care.) They'd pay the price for years to come. The race is close, but Obama ought to be able to win this one. If he does having sat idly while the right of Texans to vote is denied, I can only wait to see the fallout. This isn't like Florida where there was actually a vote.
In any event, the fact that people actually think that something is going to come of this is hilarious. Surely you guys are more politically astute than that.
Watching you guys salivating over this one is too funny.
I'm also well aware that nothing will happen as a result of this. The fact that that is true should enrage everyone here equally, irrespective of political leanings; no party has the right to ignore the rules of a presidential election, no matter how "important" they may be.