His 47% comment and use of the words "my job" was specifically in the context of the election. Only people who are willfully trying to misunderstand him would read that in any other context. Romeny specifically said "There are 47% of the voters who will vote for the president no matter what."
Followed by "These are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesnâ(TM)t connect⦠my job is not to worry about those people. Iâ(TM)ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
He finished the idea with "It is my job to convince the 5 or 10% in the center"
Did you not watch the whole video? There is no confusions that his context was strictly in relationship to getting votes. Unless you think that 47% + 5% or 10% = 100% you can't reasonably come to the conclusion that he was talking about who he would represent as president.
The only stupid and incorrect part of what he was saying was in saying that Democrats, the 47% of the population that don't pay taxes, and the people that are part of the victim society are the same people. All of those groups exist, and he was trying to villainize Democrats by claiming that they were the fake victims and people who don't pay taxes. Those were just attempts at extra jabs while making the very valid point that ~47% of the voters will vote party line no matter what for the Democrat candidate, and ~42% of the voters will vote party line for the Republican candidate. That means that In The Context Of Getting Elected it is not the candidates job to worry about anyone but the ~10% of voters that there is any chance of swaying the vote.
While party line voters (whether Democrat, Republican, or Third Party like you) may not like it, he is 100% correct in his assessment concerning who he needs to be concerned about in the election. Even if he figured out how to power cars with children's laughter and cure cancer with butterfly kisses, 47% of the voters are not going to vote for him. Only an idiot would spend his time futilely trying to get those voters to turn from their position. Likewise, only an idiot would spend his time trying to convince people who are already going to vote for him. He already has those votes. That leaves the 5-10% that he specifically called out as being who he to "worry about".
Your willful misunderstanding of what he said proves his point. As time goes on, I am becoming more and more convinced that Romney will win. The reason is that while he is focusing on the 5-10% that will swing the election one way or the other, the Democrats are spending their time trying to get 'gotcha' quotes from him. So, instead of pointing out actual failings in the guy, they are claiming he said things that he clearly did not say. While this might make them feel good, it also pushes the most valuable votes to Romeny.
Of course, that is one of those fake requests for citation. It is like telling someone that if they don't like how the cars are designed that they should start their own car company, or if they don't like how their ISP is run that they should start their own ISP. Technically possible but in practice producing so large of a cost that no one is going to do it to prove their point on an internet forum.
Even if I pulled a bunch of links to show my point, you would pull a bunch to counter it. You would come up with more because the 'experts' have their canon. It is an industry filled by a self selecting group that act as an echo chamber for supporting their canon. They do studies, and then jump to conclusions with no explanation for how they got their conclusions from their data.
I on the other hand do explain how I come to my conclusions based on their data. Which part is it you think isn't rational? The part where I say that kids who have their information limited get stunted? The part where I say that parents play the same program over and over? The part where I say that playing the same program over and over is limiting the child's exposure to new information? The part where I say that this crosses demographics? Really. Which part do you think is irrational?
Your comment about wrapping lips around an exhaust pipe to go for a drive is what is ridiculous. You don't go wrapping your lips around some guy sitting in the park's cigarette. (I assume) People exposed to second hand smoke don't wake up with smoker's cough either. Do you really know the effects of that car exhaust you breath every day? How about the effects it has on everyone around you? I can sit in a closed room with a smoker and I will come out of it with a sore throat and stinking eyes. How long would you last in that closed garage with the car running?
You are just rationalizing why your shade of gray is so much better than other peoples shade of gray.
The American Academy of Pediatrics are inconsistent. Reading for entertainment IS entertainment media. Of course, reading isn't one of the four horsement of the child development apocalypse. (TV, Video Games, McDonald's, and corporal punishment)
Your description betrays your bias. You listed TV, McDonalds, and Video Games. These combined with corporal punishment are the four horsemen of the child development apocalypse. You have been bombarded with the idea that these things are the root of all childhood ills so heavily, that you just assume that they are the reasons for children's problems.
My experience with kids listening across many dozens of families has lined up 100% with whether the parent is clear on their expectations, and consistent on making sure the child does what the parent tells them. I have seen plenty of kids that watch lots of TV, play plenty of video games and eat McDonalds regularly who are well behaved and generally calm. I have also seen plenty of kids that don't have a TV, don't play video games, and never eat fast food who are holy terrors. The behavior, good or bad has always lined up with the behavior of the parents.
With the ability to solve complex puzzles, I have seen the not surprising correlation with the complexity of the concepts and games they are exposed to. Whether playing video games, or not, the kids that were presented with complex puzzles got better at them. Those that were not presented with complex puzzles did not. We see the same thing with TV programming. Every show that a kid watches presents new information. When a child only sees one program looped over and over, they very quickly learn everything they are going to from that program. Once they have done that, they might as well be staring at a wall. Put a kid staring at wall for 8 hours a day for a few years, and you can bet that they will not be as good at solving complex puzzles as well as a kid that has spent that same amount of time solving a wide range of puzzles on their computer.
Sure, but the parenting that is recommended by the 'experts' is the bad parenting. Even the recommendation that children should have screen time is caused by the 'experts' making conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. The reason that you see a correlation between poorly developed kids and large screen times isn't due to the screens. It is due to the child being exposed to an extremely limited set of information. You see this behavior across almost all demographics. The parents see that their kid likes a particular video and the parent puts the same program in over and over and over. It truly is a case of correlation instead of causation. It just so happens that TV is the witch that child development 'experts' obsess on hunting.
Having the government tell people the 'right' way to raise children is just throwing fuel on the fire.
Lawsuits don't even imply that there is actually a problem. There have been lawsuits, and complaints about WiFi also. That doesn't make it a danger. While I am sure there are exceptions, most apartments are not so poorly insulated that air just blows from one to the next. Also, general nuisance laws are almost never enforced. Noise level laws are almost always a separate law that gets treated separately from any other law.
You have obviously fallen prey to the propaganda. Of course, since you take the anti-tobacco groups word for everything at face value, it isn't surprising that you haven't noticed them lying. Here is a hint. Just cooking in your own home is going to put more foreign particles in your lungs than you could ever hope to get through the cracks in the walls from plumbing.
Yes. Yes it will. One trip? No. Multiple trips? Yes. The same as for smoking. One cigarette isn't going to kill you. It isn't going to have any noticible effect on your health. It is the constant smoking, day after day that will cause you problems. The same as car exhaust.
I am not 1/3 right. I am 3/3 right. Just because Obama did not reform health care in the way that you or I would like it to be reformed does not mean it isn't a reform.
While 'world' may have been a slip of the tongue, I'll stand by my statement of world. I figure, it is just about as likely for me to be elected president of the world as it is for me to be elected president of the USA. After all, all of those people in other countries are just as likely to have an epiphany that they should combine into one large superpower under the banner of the USA and elect me president as it is for all of the people in the US to do it on their own. Besides, I'm pretty confident that the US is not the only country with a president.
Unless you apply the same criteria to smokers, you are a hypocrite. Do you only complain about smokers when you are in an enclosed space all day with them? I didn't think so.
Sure, if you are not putting crap in the air through second hand driving. Do ride public transportation? Do you buy products in stores that were delivered in crap spewing vehicles?
Pointing out that YOU are just as bad as the smokers isn't crying. It is pointing out that you are a hypocrite. But, then that is what hypocrites do. They say that when they do it, it is OK, and when other people do it, it is bad.
The anti-tobacco groups don't have to lie. That is why it is even worse when they do.
The TV ads that show someone smoking in their apartment, and the smoke winding it's way to an apartment three doors down and killing a baby is definitely lying. Most of what the anti-tobacco groups put to the public are lies. They clearly don't believe (and probably rightfully so) that the truth is scary enough to convince most people that smoking is a bad idea.
That is an excuse. If you only drove for necessity, then sure, but every time someone drives and it is not a necessity, they no better than a smoker. The driver who is spewing crap into the air because you want to go watch a movie in a theater is no better than the smoker who is sitting on a park bench puffing away.
Yeah, I'm thinking that we are now in a state of development that if an alien artifact was found on Mars, it wouldn't throw us into total chaos. It would spur us to build more tech to get there to check it out, and see what else was out there.
Romney even acknowledged that undecided or third party voters were the only voters that counted in the election. As much as the Obama supporters wanted to twist his words in the notorious 47% video, Romney was NOT saying that he would not represent 47% of the population, or doesn't care about them. He was specifically making the point that ~47% of the population was going to vote Democrat no matter what. He also said in a little less direct way that ~43% of the population will vote Republican no matter what. His point was that catering to either of those groups was a pointless exercise when it comes to getting elected. Their votes are fixed.
His exact quote was "What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other.
This is the ugly elephant in the room that is still being missed when people watch that video. It is naive to think that Obama is not just as aware of the situation as Romney.
Or you could increase taxes on companies for every onsite employee they have that outnumber their telecommuting employees. Combine that with tax breaks for the employee like getting rid of the absurd rule that says they can only deduct a home office as a business expense if it "is for the benefit of the employer". If we could push 25% of our workforce to telecommuting, we would gain more than by increasing our MPG average up by 25%.
I think the battery problem is only a short term problem. Used cars already frequently need things like new engines. With more electric cars on the road, I would expect that batteries would start being manufactured by third parties at a much lower cost than the OEM.
Obama caved on Guantanamo, ending the wars and ending Bush Administration economic policies, but he did not cave on reforming health care. For good or bad, Obamacare is real.
When everyone in the world has an epiphany and decides to elect me president, my tax plan would reduce oil usage by promoting telecommuting. First on the block would be the law that says that you can only deduct a home office if it is "for the convenience of the employer". That is a ridiculous requirement. I would specifically flip that and make the employer pay extra taxes if the employee was not using a home office. Obviously every job cannot be done remotely, but an awful lot of them could. Increased in telecommuting would decrease our foreign oil dependency, decrease our road maintenance costs, decrease our new road construction costs, reduce the death rate on roads, give families more time together, and stimulate our telecommunications industry.
The solution to getting Americans to switch to micro-cars is to make them the only cars that provisional licenses can legally operate. If the first few years of driving for most people were in micro cars, I believe you would find it increasingly common to continue driving that kind of car. I myself would take it a step further and legalize driving those street legal golf carts at 14.
If you believe that you are an idiot. I propose a challenge to you. You can lock me in a closet and I will smoke two cigarettes (I don't smoke now) and you sit in your car with the engine running and the doors closed. Whoever lives longest is right.
Slashdot Mirror
Strawman fail.
His 47% comment and use of the words "my job" was specifically in the context of the election. Only people who are willfully trying to misunderstand him would read that in any other context. Romeny specifically said "There are 47% of the voters who will vote for the president no matter what."
Followed by "These are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesnâ(TM)t connect⦠my job is not to worry about those people. Iâ(TM)ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
He finished the idea with "It is my job to convince the 5 or 10% in the center"
Did you not watch the whole video? There is no confusions that his context was strictly in relationship to getting votes. Unless you think that 47% + 5% or 10% = 100% you can't reasonably come to the conclusion that he was talking about who he would represent as president.
The only stupid and incorrect part of what he was saying was in saying that Democrats, the 47% of the population that don't pay taxes, and the people that are part of the victim society are the same people. All of those groups exist, and he was trying to villainize Democrats by claiming that they were the fake victims and people who don't pay taxes. Those were just attempts at extra jabs while making the very valid point that ~47% of the voters will vote party line no matter what for the Democrat candidate, and ~42% of the voters will vote party line for the Republican candidate. That means that In The Context Of Getting Elected it is not the candidates job to worry about anyone but the ~10% of voters that there is any chance of swaying the vote.
While party line voters (whether Democrat, Republican, or Third Party like you) may not like it, he is 100% correct in his assessment concerning who he needs to be concerned about in the election. Even if he figured out how to power cars with children's laughter and cure cancer with butterfly kisses, 47% of the voters are not going to vote for him. Only an idiot would spend his time futilely trying to get those voters to turn from their position. Likewise, only an idiot would spend his time trying to convince people who are already going to vote for him. He already has those votes. That leaves the 5-10% that he specifically called out as being who he to "worry about".
Your willful misunderstanding of what he said proves his point. As time goes on, I am becoming more and more convinced that Romney will win. The reason is that while he is focusing on the 5-10% that will swing the election one way or the other, the Democrats are spending their time trying to get 'gotcha' quotes from him. So, instead of pointing out actual failings in the guy, they are claiming he said things that he clearly did not say. While this might make them feel good, it also pushes the most valuable votes to Romeny.
That is some hardcore rationalization you have there....
Of course, that is one of those fake requests for citation. It is like telling someone that if they don't like how the cars are designed that they should start their own car company, or if they don't like how their ISP is run that they should start their own ISP. Technically possible but in practice producing so large of a cost that no one is going to do it to prove their point on an internet forum.
Even if I pulled a bunch of links to show my point, you would pull a bunch to counter it. You would come up with more because the 'experts' have their canon. It is an industry filled by a self selecting group that act as an echo chamber for supporting their canon. They do studies, and then jump to conclusions with no explanation for how they got their conclusions from their data.
I on the other hand do explain how I come to my conclusions based on their data. Which part is it you think isn't rational? The part where I say that kids who have their information limited get stunted? The part where I say that parents play the same program over and over? The part where I say that playing the same program over and over is limiting the child's exposure to new information? The part where I say that this crosses demographics? Really. Which part do you think is irrational?
I interact with people of all ages. Most people I see with smartphones don't have cases. Many models don't even have cases available.
Your comment about wrapping lips around an exhaust pipe to go for a drive is what is ridiculous. You don't go wrapping your lips around some guy sitting in the park's cigarette. (I assume) People exposed to second hand smoke don't wake up with smoker's cough either. Do you really know the effects of that car exhaust you breath every day? How about the effects it has on everyone around you? I can sit in a closed room with a smoker and I will come out of it with a sore throat and stinking eyes. How long would you last in that closed garage with the car running?
You are just rationalizing why your shade of gray is so much better than other peoples shade of gray.
The American Academy of Pediatrics are inconsistent. Reading for entertainment IS entertainment media. Of course, reading isn't one of the four horsement of the child development apocalypse. (TV, Video Games, McDonald's, and corporal punishment)
Your description betrays your bias. You listed TV, McDonalds, and Video Games. These combined with corporal punishment are the four horsemen of the child development apocalypse. You have been bombarded with the idea that these things are the root of all childhood ills so heavily, that you just assume that they are the reasons for children's problems.
My experience with kids listening across many dozens of families has lined up 100% with whether the parent is clear on their expectations, and consistent on making sure the child does what the parent tells them. I have seen plenty of kids that watch lots of TV, play plenty of video games and eat McDonalds regularly who are well behaved and generally calm. I have also seen plenty of kids that don't have a TV, don't play video games, and never eat fast food who are holy terrors. The behavior, good or bad has always lined up with the behavior of the parents.
With the ability to solve complex puzzles, I have seen the not surprising correlation with the complexity of the concepts and games they are exposed to. Whether playing video games, or not, the kids that were presented with complex puzzles got better at them. Those that were not presented with complex puzzles did not. We see the same thing with TV programming. Every show that a kid watches presents new information. When a child only sees one program looped over and over, they very quickly learn everything they are going to from that program. Once they have done that, they might as well be staring at a wall. Put a kid staring at wall for 8 hours a day for a few years, and you can bet that they will not be as good at solving complex puzzles as well as a kid that has spent that same amount of time solving a wide range of puzzles on their computer.
Sure, but the parenting that is recommended by the 'experts' is the bad parenting. Even the recommendation that children should have screen time is caused by the 'experts' making conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. The reason that you see a correlation between poorly developed kids and large screen times isn't due to the screens. It is due to the child being exposed to an extremely limited set of information. You see this behavior across almost all demographics. The parents see that their kid likes a particular video and the parent puts the same program in over and over and over. It truly is a case of correlation instead of causation. It just so happens that TV is the witch that child development 'experts' obsess on hunting.
Having the government tell people the 'right' way to raise children is just throwing fuel on the fire.
Lawsuits don't even imply that there is actually a problem. There have been lawsuits, and complaints about WiFi also. That doesn't make it a danger. While I am sure there are exceptions, most apartments are not so poorly insulated that air just blows from one to the next. Also, general nuisance laws are almost never enforced. Noise level laws are almost always a separate law that gets treated separately from any other law.
You have obviously fallen prey to the propaganda. Of course, since you take the anti-tobacco groups word for everything at face value, it isn't surprising that you haven't noticed them lying. Here is a hint. Just cooking in your own home is going to put more foreign particles in your lungs than you could ever hope to get through the cracks in the walls from plumbing.
Yes. Yes it will. One trip? No. Multiple trips? Yes. The same as for smoking. One cigarette isn't going to kill you. It isn't going to have any noticible effect on your health. It is the constant smoking, day after day that will cause you problems. The same as car exhaust.
I am not 1/3 right. I am 3/3 right. Just because Obama did not reform health care in the way that you or I would like it to be reformed does not mean it isn't a reform.
While 'world' may have been a slip of the tongue, I'll stand by my statement of world. I figure, it is just about as likely for me to be elected president of the world as it is for me to be elected president of the USA. After all, all of those people in other countries are just as likely to have an epiphany that they should combine into one large superpower under the banner of the USA and elect me president as it is for all of the people in the US to do it on their own. Besides, I'm pretty confident that the US is not the only country with a president.
Unless you apply the same criteria to smokers, you are a hypocrite. Do you only complain about smokers when you are in an enclosed space all day with them? I didn't think so.
Sure, if you are not putting crap in the air through second hand driving. Do ride public transportation? Do you buy products in stores that were delivered in crap spewing vehicles?
Pointing out that YOU are just as bad as the smokers isn't crying. It is pointing out that you are a hypocrite. But, then that is what hypocrites do. They say that when they do it, it is OK, and when other people do it, it is bad.
The anti-tobacco groups don't have to lie. That is why it is even worse when they do.
The TV ads that show someone smoking in their apartment, and the smoke winding it's way to an apartment three doors down and killing a baby is definitely lying. Most of what the anti-tobacco groups put to the public are lies. They clearly don't believe (and probably rightfully so) that the truth is scary enough to convince most people that smoking is a bad idea.
That is an excuse. If you only drove for necessity, then sure, but every time someone drives and it is not a necessity, they no better than a smoker. The driver who is spewing crap into the air because you want to go watch a movie in a theater is no better than the smoker who is sitting on a park bench puffing away.
Yeah, I'm thinking that we are now in a state of development that if an alien artifact was found on Mars, it wouldn't throw us into total chaos. It would spur us to build more tech to get there to check it out, and see what else was out there.
I have been telling people this for years.
Romney even acknowledged that undecided or third party voters were the only voters that counted in the election. As much as the Obama supporters wanted to twist his words in the notorious 47% video, Romney was NOT saying that he would not represent 47% of the population, or doesn't care about them. He was specifically making the point that ~47% of the population was going to vote Democrat no matter what. He also said in a little less direct way that ~43% of the population will vote Republican no matter what. His point was that catering to either of those groups was a pointless exercise when it comes to getting elected. Their votes are fixed.
His exact quote was "What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other.
This is the ugly elephant in the room that is still being missed when people watch that video. It is naive to think that Obama is not just as aware of the situation as Romney.
Hardly any IPHONE users go caseless. That is because I phones are notoriously fragile.
Or you could increase taxes on companies for every onsite employee they have that outnumber their telecommuting employees. Combine that with tax breaks for the employee like getting rid of the absurd rule that says they can only deduct a home office as a business expense if it "is for the benefit of the employer". If we could push 25% of our workforce to telecommuting, we would gain more than by increasing our MPG average up by 25%.
I think the battery problem is only a short term problem. Used cars already frequently need things like new engines. With more electric cars on the road, I would expect that batteries would start being manufactured by third parties at a much lower cost than the OEM.
Obama caved on Guantanamo, ending the wars and ending Bush Administration economic policies, but he did not cave on reforming health care. For good or bad, Obamacare is real.
When everyone in the world has an epiphany and decides to elect me president, my tax plan would reduce oil usage by promoting telecommuting. First on the block would be the law that says that you can only deduct a home office if it is "for the convenience of the employer". That is a ridiculous requirement. I would specifically flip that and make the employer pay extra taxes if the employee was not using a home office. Obviously every job cannot be done remotely, but an awful lot of them could. Increased in telecommuting would decrease our foreign oil dependency, decrease our road maintenance costs, decrease our new road construction costs, reduce the death rate on roads, give families more time together, and stimulate our telecommunications industry.
The solution to getting Americans to switch to micro-cars is to make them the only cars that provisional licenses can legally operate. If the first few years of driving for most people were in micro cars, I believe you would find it increasingly common to continue driving that kind of car. I myself would take it a step further and legalize driving those street legal golf carts at 14.
If you believe that you are an idiot. I propose a challenge to you. You can lock me in a closet and I will smoke two cigarettes (I don't smoke now) and you sit in your car with the engine running and the doors closed. Whoever lives longest is right.