I have just heard the dumbest question ever asked during a Republican debate...

Wolff Blizter asked of all four candidates: "Whose wife would make the best 1st Lady" :headshake

If Gingrich thought Romney's wife would be the best, is he supposed to say so ?
If Paul thought Santorum's wife would be better because she is younger, is he supposed to say so.

I could get a whole lot nastier about each of the women, but I leave those titillations to the Reader.


Wolff, go sit in the dunce-corner for the next two weeks :dunce:

.. and stay away from the set of jeapordy.

Gingrich's answer should have been: "Mine ... whichever one! and if she isn't, I'll upgrade. Again."

Romney: "Mine ... all of them!"

Oh for pete's sake. No he di'int. Di' he? Bad :wolf:

We've come a long way, baby. Not.

Now get in that kitchen and make me a pie!

:p:

The actual question was more like:
“Why would your wife make the best First Lady?”
Still pointless, IMO, but a lot different than "Whose..." YMMV

Is Laura Bush the only first lady who killed someone?

nah - The Clinton's got way more than that.

No - their hands are clean. They just "made it happen". Laura was driving the car.

Oh, HALE no! I have it on good authority that Michelle used to be a terrorist, Hillary enjoyed slaying the occasional hobo, and Barbara played a mean round of Doom.

lol - kinda funny read on it here

The contractor doing the work on our house listens to conservative talk radio all day - you know, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity. On Thursday, I took off from work. There were a bunch of little, dark-complected, Spanish speaking guys doing the drywall work. After they left, I ask the contractor if he had made sure the workers were citizens. He snickered and said that he hadn't, and for their price, probably weren't. "But the owner must be, because he's insured and bonded".

Principles: It's what's convenient.

If the owner of the house had made a principled stand on that, would there be a few more employed citizens? :bolt:

I don't have principles. Have we met?;)

lol - you got the Romney reference, right?

:lol:

I did find a dog... rabid... but a dog none the less, in this fight...

CBS News
January 29, 2012 2:03 PM

RNC Chair Priebus compares Obama to Captain Schettino
Reince's parents must be so proud. :facepalm:

Michael Steele, where are you in this time of need ?

It's a shame the Republican's can't do any better than this.
Their candidates can't stand one another, so how do they expect
the nation's voting public to elect any one of them.
To boot, they elect this guy" to be Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

If the Republicans keep this up, Merc and UG will be voting for Obama :eek:

And I missed old Bob this weekend! I can just imagine the look on his face. What was his response?

I love Bob.

Yes, I've seen him when he was upset with an interviewee,
but most of the time he's an old-school, courteous reporter.
This time he was just incredulous and asked Priebus to repeat the remark.
The link above has the video

I will watch the link later. Thanks!

I remember Bob, during one more stupid thing by the McCain/Palin campaign, repeating incredulously "WHAT were they THINKING?"

He's awesome!

Oh, my, Lamp.

RNC Chair: What a maroon. What an ignoranamus. :headshake

A rather belated reply, but as I was reading back over this thread, I saw your statement and wondered if it was true. According to Wikipedia, you are incorrect.

Well, I'm glad someone gets a break on the rising rate of inflation. People dependent on Social Security have not seen an adjustment in their benefits until this year, after 3 years of stagnant income because the government claimed there was no inflation during this period. Workers earning minimum wage have not seen an increase since 2009. Does Corporate Congress give a damn about them? Not hardly. Plus, corporations are now paying LESS tax than they did before the Bush tax cuts. Did their capitol gains taxes go up to compensate for the lower taxes big corporations now enjoy? God forbid we tax the "job creators" who are busily creating ever more jobs in China while unemployment in the US remains unacceptably high.

This is basically what I meant - people saving/investing.

Also. how was it belated? I was responding to BigV and Lamp who had posted only minutes before me?

My OWN reply is belated. You had made your post about capitol gains being like saving back on 1-24.

It is my feeling that comparing capitol gains to saving makes it sound like peope just tucking away what they can in their savings accounts down at the local bank. There is simply no comparison between the two.

Actually they are the same thing.
Almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset.
Including your home, household furnishings, stocks and bonds even your personal savings account.

A savings account may be an asset, but unless your savings account is in a foreign currency, it's not going to make any capital gains. Interest is ordinary income.

(and I'm not sure if foreign currency inflation/deflation is counted as capital gains for tax purposes, though I wouldn't be surprised)

(further edit: sometimes)

Classic, where do you find this interpretation ?
It runs counter to what I understand.

I agree about your sale of your home being a capital gain
- after personal exclusion(s), cost of improvements and any losses.

But I believe:
... household furnishings are personal property
... stocks and bonds (gains and losses) are taxed as capital gains
... your personal savings account is taxed as ordinary income

Some, but not all, states do have personal property taxes on things like mobile home, boats, RV's etc.

from the irs.gov website.

The savings accounts, as HM pointed out is only counted sometimes.

Romney and the press are beginning to believe Romney's lead in the Florida
GOP campaign... with no small measure of gloating thrown into the mix.

Dana Milbank has written a scathing article about the demise of the Gingrich campaign.

Washington Post Opinions
Dana Milbank
1/20/12

The end of the road for Newt Gingrich?
And besides all that:

Comment:

I heard Chris Matthews today say that if the newt can hang on till Super Tuesday he'll have a bunch of states that would be more in tune with him. I guess those other southern states are full of Tea Partiers. (shrug)

Then again I never thought he was a serious candidate anyway.
Nor did I think he had a chance in hell of doing anything.

Palin, Limbaugh, and others have endorsed Gingrich. I feel he will go down swinging.

Why they chose him over Santorum is beyond me...

When I eat pâté, that is a capital gain. In the bathroom, it is a capital loss. Can I write that off?

Now I will need receipts. Paperwork.

Cute - tw. By the way does the w stand for whiner?

I guess the next 40,000 words of my post should include a few veiled insults, a mental midget reference,
the 85% problems line, 1/2 dozen mission accomplished's, innovation, some non-emotional thinking reference, :borg:
a couple baseless claims of being a moderate and a few George Jr's thrown in for good measure
Oh my ... I almost forgot the bean counters and MBA's.

Go with Charmin. The bears say it leaves nothing behind.

If bears use Charmin, then what do the bulls use? Or is there no such thing as a bullshitter?

Bulls use pinecones.

Many parts are edible (Bull Gibbons)

TV talking heads are poking fun at Gingrich's failing campaign in FL.

"The trouble with Romney is that he brings out the worst in Gingrich"

I don't have a boob in this fight, but... this is so short=sighted

It's a longer article, but worth reading.

NY Times
By PAM BELLUCK
Published: January 31, 2012
Cancer Group Halts Financing to Planned Parenthood
Once again it is men (and some women) trying to control women's bodies. :mad2:

So, Gingrich is a swinger who goes down, but doesn't have Santorum all over him, but has been turned into a Newt. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.

The news media are pouncing on Romney in his failed
attempt to express his concern for the middle class.
Unfortunately, this stone in the stone soup is having
troubles even getting out of his own troubles.
It's reminiscent of Gerald Ford trying to explain SNL.

NY Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN (Op Ed)
Published: February 2, 2012

Romney Isn’t Concerned
And besides all that:

Yesterday, Romney accepted the endorsement of The Donald.
Why would Mitt do that ? He could have made more points by
rejecting it, or at least ignoring it. Maybe he just wanted to piss off The Newt again.

I remember Chevy Chase used to fall down a lot when impersonating Ford. But I don't remember Ford ever talking about SNL. What are you talking about?

There was probably a video back in the glory days of youtube. :mad:

@Glatt: I have this mental image of Ford on SNL doing a "let me explain myself" skit, and have not found it via Google.
The closest I've come is not the same, but this link is Chevy Chase doing Ford along the same lines.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Friedman before, but this time he has a unique idea !!!

Chron.com
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
February 12, 2012


Friedman: Few answers from today's GOP

Agreed. Those of us in the middle are sure as hell sick of the one sided story.

There is a mix of good and bad in that article. Friedman is desirous of active government, which isn't really conservative. Active "conservatism" is what W gave us with Friedman's full support. I'd rather not see that again. He is right about not being married to hard positions. Those things have won them elections though, so it'll be difficult to shake. My view is that a moderate libertarianism would be workable and good for the country. Don't be afraid to eliminate programs that don't work, don't trash the safety net, and don't create new bureaucracies without very good reason. Do make sure the rules are fair and incentivize savings and work.

Friedman is not the only pundit going down that road.
Paul Krugman discusses each of the candidates in his editorial and concludes with:

NY Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
February 12, 2012

Severe Conservative Syndrome
And besides all that:

Talking heads are substituting their own cliche for Mitt's
"severely conservative, such as: disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.

The one I liked best was "severely mistaken"

This voice from the mid-70's startled me... but it rings true.

The Boston Globe
By Tom Keane
February 25, 2012

A McGovern moment?
And besides all that:
Ibid
2/25/12
Ultrasounds of extremism
One talking head on TV said something like:

I went to the hospital with a pregnant woman, because she was bleeding.
She had already decided on a termination.
She had an emergency appointment, but was kept waiting an extra 50 minutes (meh - NHS).

When we went into the room she was asked if she had recently urinated - she hadn't, so was sent off to do so. I guess the scans where you have to have a full bladder comes much later - she was only three weeks.

Now the lady doing the scan (nurse? technician?) did not seem aware that the person concerned had a termination booked in four days, and so spoke hopefully about seeing the foetus.

I told her of the planned termination and although her demeanour did not change towards the patient, she dropped the positive, excitement level down and talked merely about health.

I had an enormous amount of respect for her for that.
The woman I was there with would not have been swayed in her decision (due to individual circumstances) but would have been too embarrassed and proud to say anything, and instead gone along with the role of prospective mother, and died a bit inside otherwise.

Perhaps seeing a foetal heartbeat would be an excellent means to prevent a termination. But let's face it, if you are evil, selfish and depraved enough to terminate, you might just spawn a child twisted and unloved enough to be a burden on the taxpayer.

Of course every life counts. Goodness me, only a monster would murder an unborn child.
Whereas only a pinko commie would want to educate the damn drain on money once it's been squeezed out. Let the 16 year old harlot rhome school it!
It could end up being President after all.

ETA
Sorry. Crossness.

Heh... interesting choice of phrase, there. [/going to hell]

It does convince a fair few to change their minds. Each person can never predict how they'll feel until they're living it. Long ago I got into a heated argument with a friend, because some doctor had written an editorial at the time saying that all female patients should be given basic education on prenatal health and encouraged to take a prenatal vitamin every day, even if they had no intention of ever having children. Because healthier eggs means less chance of birth defects, just in case one happened to meet a rogue sperm even against its creator's wishes.

She was full of righteous anger about how she "shouldn't be defined by her ability to procreate," and that it was "typical patriarchal condescension to assume that a woman who found herself accidentally pregnant would suddenly be changing her mind," as if we're all "controlled by uterine hormones and aren't capable of rational thought."

I didn't bother telling her that yes, I think all of us are controlled by chemical processes far more than we'd like to believe; I just stuck with the insistence that when 50% of the births in this country are unplanned, obviously someone out there is changing their minds. Three years ago, that same friend got accidentally pregnant, and they decided to keep it. I asked her if she remembered our conversation from back in college, and she laughed and said, "Yeah, but this is different now." Uh huh. Sure it is. (Would have been even more ironic if her kid were born with a birth defect, but he wasn't.)


But I do agree that it's a rather abhorrent position, to claim that it is that important to make sure every gamete grows to term, yet cut off any type of support to those children as soon as they've drawn breath.

Yeah, I was on my high horse last night.
I support the right of every woman to choose for herself.
I'm conflicted over the rights of the father, so best not to go there!

Not having children I can't imagine the immediate bond after a baby is born, and how an unplanned pregnancy can become a source of love and joy. I think in terms of unwanted. This is obviously not always the case. I was unplanned, as was my neice.

A complete aside, but what you wrote reminded me, Clod.
I had a friend at school who had racist parents. Openly, old-school racists who thought the Blacks and the Pakis were ruining this country. My friend said she would never even date a black man, not because she was racist but because it wouldn't be fair. Why? Because if you start dating you might get serious. If you got serious you would get married and then have a child (this was the 80s - we still thought in that order).

As far as she was concerned there was nothing crueller than having a mixed race/ dual heritage child. They would be neither black nor white and could never fit in anywhere. That really shocked me.

Fast forward 15 years and she was in an intense relationship with a music producer. Black. I reminded her of the conversation and she flat out denied it. Puzzled, I pushed a bit and she got extermely defensive. I backed off. Okay. I thought she'd shrug it off like your friend, admit her views had changed.

Remind me never to get you pissed.;) But seriously, you are correct. Santorum is a staunch anti-abortionist, although his wife's life may have been saved by a terminated pregnancy. He is against government involvement in schooling, promoting home-schooling, although he requested 'cyber-schooling' for his children.

There is a bit of hypocrisy in many Conservatives arguments about government scope and cost - more of an 'I got mine, but none for you' mentality.

As far as abortion is concerned, people forget that there is reason the position is stated as 'pro-choice'. Supporters will just a vigorously defend a woman's right to take a baby to term if the government were to ever attempt to force an abortion, as China is alleged to have done.

In personal circumstances, I have always backed a woman's right to choose. I would support some kind of informed consent, but not from any biased source and certainly not the kind I have seen proposed.

The Oscars are up for grabs tonight,
and "The Artist" is a contender.

Here is the Romney entry

I just noticed this ad on FB ...

Think this should be done everywhere. Why/why not?

It could potentially get more people to vote.
It would give each vote more weight. It would certainly be a more accurate reflection of "the people"
It'd be a heck of a lot more fun watching the totals on election night.

I've been telling you guys that for years.

Heck, why congressional districts? Put all the votes in a big pile, count em up. Whoever gets the most votes wins.


We'll talk about transferable preference voting some other time.

(snickers... When you're ready for it.)

Was Florida 2000 fun? A switch from winner takes all to splitting it up will make the elections closer, and more likely to be tied up with legal challenges.

But the will of the people would be more accurately reflected.

I don't know. Maybe the benefits outweigh the problems it would cause. The Republicans, who claim a mandate every time they win an election, would finally have to STFU about the alleged mandates they have.

Win.
Win
Win.

C'mon, its a win win win. You in?

I have a better idea...

On election day, everyone brings a $100 dollar bill,
and puts it into the separate ballot box for the candidate of their choice.

Whoever gets the least $ is the winner.
Everyone else takes their $ and goes home.

Saves lots of time, eliminates the poor from voting, government continues to be run by bureaucrats.

Win, win, win... you in ?

States should adopt laws that would move them to proportional representation if all other states had similar laws. Otherwise, all that would happen when one state went proportional is that the remaining winner-take-all states would become even more important.