– Looks like there was some speechifying last night.
– Also, while Sandra Fluke is mass rad, it’s important to note the people who speak up, and nobody listens to them.
– Dear Obama, gimme your socialist health care money. Signed Paul Ryan.
– Cascade Bikes has a new Director of Policy, Planning and Government Affairs.
– I’ve been oddly fascinated with the progress of the Iron Bridge project as covered by Shallow Cogitations. Glad it looks like it’s close to completion.
Clinton was the King Clown last night droning on & on in front of Clown-lovers and fellow Clowns. Making a 28-minute nomination speech into a 48-minute spewing of questionable claims. Sure the idiots loved the guy. But the bottom-line is Clinton is not running for President.
The biggest joke was Clinton overselling ObamaCare. Fact Check busted him good for trying to tie the past 2 years Medical inflation to ObamaCare WHICH HASN’T EVEN TAKEN EFFECT!!
Here is the bust from Fact Check.org
Even the leftist NY Times reported earlier this year-
So it had absolutely nothing to do with Obama or ObamaCare and everything to do with the horrible economy Obama is responsible for.
So out of this Clownvention, we see..
1) Billy bullshittin’
2) Democrats BOO’ing God 3 times.
3) Lack of organization
4) Endless pointless speeches trying to cast blame on others.
Can’t wait for Obama’s bullshit tonite.
@1,2
Awwwww….some wingnut’s got a sad. :(
Hmm… I’ve ridden the Centennial Trail at least 100 times and for some reason I’m drawing a complete blank on where that bridge is.
@1 The stock market liked it so much I’m making $4,000 this morning. Sure beats working for Republican wages! I can’t wait for Obama’s speech! (jingle jingle)
@1 It’s not like Republicans never take credit they don’t deserve or blame their mistakes on others.
@3 Yeah. Pathetic, isn’t it?
My 16-year-old asked me last night, as we were watching the masterful Clinton speech, “What do you do after you’re President?”
I answered, “It depends, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican.”
Kid: “?”
Me: “Well, if you’re a Democrat, like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, you go off and keep working to make peoples’ lives better. You start a foundation and travel the world helping poor or homeless or sick people live better lives.
“If you’re a Republican, you slink off in shame to your walled compound in Maine and drive around in your speedboat, or slink off to Texas and keep your head down so as to not remind anyone, anywhere of your existence so that you don’t absolutely sink the chances of your teammates today. Or you slip off into the twilight of Alzheimer’s dementia on a ranch in California, never to be seen again.”
Kid: “Oh, OK. That makes sense.”
@1
Dude, you’re new here so I’ll be nice.
When you have to use an excerpt that starts with, “The worst we can fault him for,” you’ve already lost. Let’s translate to idiot speak. “in a 48 minute speech we found a metric crap ton of true statements and on this little itty bitty thing here, we think he overstated a fact.”
Where’s the last Republican President this campaign season? Oh right, everyone knows a bonobo has a better grasp of economics so well keep him hidden.
The Klynical Klown @1 and 2 seems to have experienced a head explosion in the last 24 hours. I wonder what could have caused that to happen? Heh. The Big Dog.
I don’t think he’s really new – I think just a new nom de idiocy.
And yeah, as you say, the straw-grasping is really painful to watch.
Does anyone remember seeing Dick Cheney and his new heart at the RNC last week?
No, me neither.
“Dude, you’re new here so I’ll be nice.”
It’s the same old dumbfuck Klynical Klown hiding behind yet another screen name. He can change screen names all he wants but he’ll never be able to hide teh stupid.
No sign of puddle?
I was hoping he’d remind us of how game-changingly-awesome Artur Davis speech was last week at the RNC.
Perspective ,
Bill Clinton delivers a smack down while Secretary of State Clinton makes an official visit to Asia’s newest Democracy.
George W. Bush hides because the mere sight of him fills his party and American voters with fear of economic collapse while Laura wasws last seen shilling for a failed investment scheme.
Hmm, Bob must have jumped out a window last night or something. Or maybe he’s fumbling and stumbling, trying to open up a new can of smarm. A great Bubba speech will do that. We’ve seen it happen many times before.
Obama May Get Boost From Jobs Report
Tomorrow’s nonfarm payroll report is shaping up to be a blowout:
“The nation’s businesses hired more people than expected last month, according to a survey released Thursday that could augur well for Friday’s crucial employment report. Payrolls processor ADP reported that the private sector added 201,000 jobs in August, versus economists’ expectations of 140,000 new jobs. August’s figure was the highest since March, when the economy’s job creating engine was moving at a faster pace before dropping into lower gear in the summer.”
http://economywatch.nbcnews.co.....-says?lite
Roger Rabbit Commentary: To put these figures in perspective, economists expected August’s nonfarm payroll to be about 120K and Fed watchers predicted a drop below 100K would trigger QE3. But ADP’s data suggests the number could come in above 180K — 50% more than expected. That would take the wind out of GOP claims that the economy isn’t improving and boost Obama’s re-election chances.
In the vein of posts 1,2 above, here are some shrill tweets from Republican luminaries:
hahahahahaaaaa!!!
@16
Yeah, where is ol’ bob?
He is notoriously absent at times like this.
Bob is only about FUD, and FUD only works when there’s fertile ground for it, and now is NOT that time.
The judge IS NOT HAPPY that the Ohio SOS is defying his order.
As my grandfather used to say, “Stinkin’ Republicans.”
I vote for Democrats because equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do. Women are not second class citizens. Conservatives, when will your party support equal pay?
@17
And in other solid Mitt-mentum news, how is the market going? So when middle class white collar types get their 401k Q3 statements a little before election day, they’re not going to notice nice gains? Sure Mitt, you can convince them everything is wrong.
Tweet of the Day
“@AnnCoulter … Bill Clinton just impregnated Sandra Fluke backstage …”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....59677.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: No big deal. She’s just being funny in her own tasteless way. Remember what she said about rounding up liberals, putting us in concentration camps, and executing us? She didn’t mean it. If she did, she would have disappeared down a rabbit hole by now.
When equal pay means no pay, for anybody.
@ 16
Hi Doctor Steve.
Understaffed at work today so don’t expect much from me.
Clinton was masterful. No one like him in American politics. The worst criticism I can offer is that he was speaking to the choir and the economic numbers still do not work in Obama’s favor.
Serious question: Do people still think Todd Akin is toast? I hestitate to believe what I’m reading. But Romney’s numbers aren’t tanking in MO and McCaskill’s still incredibly weak.
Have a good day, all.
From TPM,
This exchange between Romney and Kennedy is so typical of Romney. Romney offers to show Kennedy his “position paper” on health care, which leads to the following exchange:
KENNEDY: Mr. Romney, it isn’t a question of showing me your paper. It’s a question of showing all of the people in here that are watching this program the paper.
ROMNEY: Yeah, I think it’s a wonderful idea to take it through piece-by-piece…
KENNEDY: That’s what you have to do as a legislator.
Romney’s policy proposals are grossly lacking in any form of specificity. If we want to find out what he’ll actually do, we have to elect him first.
Romney’s like the guy who shows up for a white board interview, and says, “I can solve that problem for you, but I won’t show you how until you hire me.”
No hire.
We never do, I assure you.
@1,2…
Isn’t there a goat somewhere that Mr. Cyniklown, the Montana goat fucker needs to, well….
…fuck?
@26
Well, that’s HUGE. Abandoning both Michigan and Pennsylvania?
Last time around, IIRC, when I heard that McCain/Palin were abandoning Michigan, that’s when I knew it was all over.
Romney’s Tax Returns Stolen?
Another story making the rounds this morning is,
“The Secret Service said Wednesday it is investigating the reported theft of copies of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s federal tax records during a break-in at an accounting office in Franklin [TN]. Someone claiming responsibility demanded $1 million not to make them public. …
“Romney’s accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, said there was no evidence that any Romney tax files were stolen. …
“Franklin police said there were no recent alarms or break-ins reported at the site. ‘We’ve had nothing from that address in August,’ Police Lt. Charles J. Warner said. There was no sign of forced entry at the five-story building that housed the accounting firm’s local office ….
“In Washington, Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan confirmed the agency was investigating. The Romney campaign declined to comment, referring all questions to the accounting firm.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....d%3D201783
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Superficially, this looks like some low-life trying to extort money from a rich guy. But Mrs. Rabbit says, “This is bullshit. I smell Karl Rove. Why did this come out now, during the Democratic convention? It’s a Republican operative fabricating a crime to blame on the Democrats to steal thunder from Obama’s acceptance speech.”
Without Michigan or Pennsylvania, and consistently trailing in Ohio, and Virginia not looking good…
…Mitt’s path to 270 is looking harder and harder by the day.
Heh.
Willard, how are you today? I ask because I’m concerned. Has a candidate ever had such a shitty 24 hours?
Giving up already?
If Mitt the Twitt’s home state is rejecting him who are we to argue any different?
Aren’t there substantial penalties for early withdrawal?
@25 We’ve never expected anything from you, so your work problems change nothing.
Mitt the Twitt is not panicking.
He still has his suppress the vote campaign.
Mr. NOT Cynical @ 1,
Here is the preamble to FactChecker.org on the speech:
Oops.
The same organization finds plenty of lies in Paul Ryan’s RNC address.
But thanks for playing….
I vote for Democrats because equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do. Women are not second class citizens. Conservatives, when will your party support equal pay?
Regarding this equal pay/Ledbetter thing:
1. The Ledbetter court case was NOT about equal pay. It was about whether the time period during which she could file a claim had expired. It was a technical question, not a social issue. Since Dems periodically benefit from an expired statute of limitations, Dems should be able to understand that sometimes a time limit is a time limit, even if it’s an inconvenient one.
2. Regarding the entire equal pay concept, it would be useful if the White House led by example. The pay disparity by gender in the Obama administration is greater than that in the private sector.
3. Regarding the demographics (and feel free to provide data to the contrary), some of the disparity is due to an incomplete transition from a male-dominated work force to a more evenly distributed work force. The top of the hierarchy is still male-dominated, in part because men have the most experience because they’ve been working for 40 years, whereas there are comparatively far fewer women with that length of tenure. Just as the demographics are changing to gradually support gay marriage, demographic will gradually shift toward a more equal distribution of gender at all levels of the workforce, and the pay disparity will decrease and possibly will even normalize. Does anyone think the CEOs of HP and Yahoo are underpaid?
This is not to say that pay disparity is not an issue. It’s to say that it is an issue that will become less of an issue simply through demographic shifts in gender composition of the workforce.
I’m in my early 50s. Most people at the top of my profession, in their 50s and 60s, are men. In about 15 years most of them will be women, because the gender shift has already occurred at the entry level.
Serious question: Do people still think Todd Akin is toast?
I would like them to elect a democrat because I think it would be better for their state and the nation, but it’s up to the voters. If enough people think Akin better reflects their values, then he should win. I hope it’s a clean election free of fraud and suppression.
@39(1) Look up “Lily Ledbetter Act” and then try again.
Boner Bob’s Serious Question:
Do people still think Todd Akin is toast?
Oh I hope not.
Todd “legitimate rape” Akin is the gift that keeps on giving.
@1 You should place your bets on Mitt now. After Bill Clinton’s speech the odds got longer.
http://www.oddschecker.com/spe.....ion/winner
@39 Nice try at explaining away pay disparities as “demographics.” But how does this explain away the mountains of data showing countless companies paying women less than men doing the same job?
@ 41
Be a little less obtuse and tell me how the case was about anything other than whether she was still eligible to file a claim based upon the amount of elapsed time since the discriminatory event.
It was nothing more than a technical decision.
@ 44
But how does this explain away the mountains of data showing countless companies paying women less than men doing the same job?
Which data?
Are the data controlled for age?
@ 32
Regarding OH, see:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1860.html
In three of the five most recent polls, Romney’s either tied or ahead. Obama’s the incumbent and won OH four years ago. Romney’s not the one in trouble in OH, Lib Despair.
@4
Found it. Google maps to the rescue!
That’s going a be a great bike/ped connector.
@39.
Your last paragraph is interesting. You advocate doing nothing, because demographics will solve the problem.
This does nothing for the women working now, doing the same work but being paid 72% of a man. They should just shrug and not try to make the system fair?
Does anyone think the CEOs of HP and Yahoo are underpaid?
Do you think it’s a logical argument to say because a couple of female CEOs get paid fabulous well, that the problem is solved for the other 99% of women being paid less than men for the same work?
Interesting, you argue that your party will do NOTHING now to make women who are doing equal work get equal pay, the women should just wait, in 40 years it will be solved.
In more “Liberal Media” adventures…
The AP trying to assert that, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” is somewhere Bill Clinton shouldn’t go…
Shorter AP. uh…we know Willard and Paul are liars but…but…but…LEWINSKI!
Liberal media indeed.
@ 49
Interesting, you argue that your party will do NOTHING now to make women who are doing equal work get equal pay.
I did nothing of the sort. Your reading comprehension needs work.
(Update: Actually, I did not say that at all. I don’t know where you got your cut-and-paste but it wasn’t from @39 and it wasn’t from me. Please acknowledge.)
I did not advocate doing nothing. I merely pointed out that part of the disparity is a demographic one, and YES, I advocate doing nothing in those cases. If a 40 year old woman is at the bottom of the pay range in the same job as a 55 year old man at the top of the pay range but who has been in the job 15 years longer, I say do nothing. There’s a REASON for the pay range, rather than just a fixed salary for all. Let the woman earn her way to a higher level within that range, just like the guy had to do.
OTOH, find me two people (one of each gender), same age, same experience, doing the same job, and a pay disparity, and I agree that we should look at the reasons for that, and make changes if the only explanation is gender.
Understand now?
@45 “Be a little less obtuse and tell me …”
What the hell is “obtuse” about explaining to you that the convention speakers were talking about the federal statute, not the court case?
Bob,
“1. The Ledbetter court case was NOT about equal pay. It was about whether the time period during which she could file a claim had expired. “
Not quite. The COURT case WAS about equal pay. The appeal to the Supreme Court was argued on (and decided on) the statute of limitations. That fact doesn’t change the nature of the COURT case.
“Since Dems periodically benefit from an expired statute of limitations, Dems should be able to understand that sometimes a time limit is a time limit, even if it’s an inconvenient one.”
What the fuck are you babbling about?
“2. Regarding the entire equal pay concept, it would be useful if the White House led by example. The pay disparity by gender in the Obama administration is greater than that in the private sector.”
Bob, will you PLEASE STOP WITH YOUR BULLSHIT LIES?
The White House “gender pay disparity” is a raw figure, and not based on proper comparisons between gender of similar jobs, qualifications, and job tenure.
You know you are being misleading in making this statement or you are really gullible to right-wing propaganda, but since you clearly recognize the core issue (your “demographics” comment), I can only presume you are being a motherfucking LIAR.
Stop it.
“3. Regarding the demographics (and feel free to provide data to the contrary), some of the disparity is due to an incomplete transition from a male-dominated work force to a more evenly distributed work force.”
Yes…people who work in the gender parity/discrimination business are fully aware of this. You spew this as if you just had an epiphany or something.
So what was your point?
@47
“In three of the five most recent polls, Romney’s either tied or ahead.”
Uhhh…In three of the last five most recent polls Obama is tied or ahead. In three of the last four most recent polls Obama is tied or ahead. In four of the last six most recent polls Obama is tied or ahead. #arithmatic
(2+2+1 = five. Every single time five. If one guy got 2 and there’s a tie, the other guy got two with a tie also.)
@50 Even brilliant and talented people can be sexual assholes and lie about it to save their marriages. Geez, haven’t we seen this story line a hundred million times on afternoon soap operas? This kind of behavior is as prevalent at the common cold. It’s not like Republican pols don’t do it, too …
Bob,
“Be a little less obtuse and tell me how the case was about anything other than whether she was still eligible to file a claim based upon the amount of elapsed time since the discriminatory event.”
It is your misunderstanding. You are confusing the “case” with the grounds on which the appeal was decided.
Stupid much?
Bob @ 46,
“Are the data controlled for age?”
Yes. When professionals do this research they control for lots of factors like age, education, experience. There is a rich, technical academic and applied policy literature on this topic.
Again…it looks to me like you just has an epiphany on this. Pretty funny!
@45
“[The Lilly Ledbetter decision] was nothing more than a technical decision.”
Yes, a “technical” decision that effectively quashed any reasonable possibility of successfully presenting any fair pay case under real-world circumstances. The issue wasn’t the length of the statute of limitations, as was implied by your comment about the existence of time limits, but about the point in time at which the statute of limitations should start.
The statute of limitations is 180 days–a length of time that was not altered by the Lilly Ledbetter act. In the Ledbetter case, the Court ruled that the starting date of the statute of limitations was the first paycheck that was discriminatory. The Ledbetter act altered the law to specifically state that the statute of limitations begins at the most recent paycheck that was discriminatory.
Darryl @ 53
I believe the appeal, as well, to the Supreme Court level was based on the technical SOL issue. I apologize for not having the time today to look further.
Regarding
The White House “gender pay disparity” is a raw figure, and not based on proper comparisons between gender of similar jobs, qualifications, and job tenure.
was the 72% number quoted @ 21 something other than a similarly raw figure? I’m not even sure 72% is correct since HuffPo says this:
It’s inherently unfair that the average woman in America makes, on average, just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....36113.html
So, HuffPo is talking averages, @ 21 may have used an incorrect figure that probably also is talking averages, and you call me out for not being specific? Why not point out that the @21 number 1. might be incorrect and 2. might not be a clean comparison such as you apparently expect from me?
The factcheckers are having a field day with Clinton’s bullshit.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-che.....ction.html
And they are only getting started.
Michelle Obama’s speech sounded like she was talking about Paul Ryan, not her prep school, lying bastard husband who lied on his college applications claiming he was a foreign student to get preferences.
Clinton sounded like a fisherman who’s fish keeps growing over time. Clinton got re-elected only because he kept signing Republican Legislation.o
@53 The court case is beside the point. Ledbetter lost in court, but won in Congress, and there’s now a law named after her. Bob seems unaware of this.
@51 Here is Tulsi Gabbard the next Congresswoman from Hawaii a two tour Iraq War Veteran in a blue dress telling CBS how this generation of war veterans is planning on taking care of business.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7420544n
No Time for Fascists @ 49
“Do you think it’s a logical argument to say because a couple of female CEOs get paid fabulous well, that the problem is solved for the other 99% of women being paid less than men for the same work?”
Indeed. Bob has a fairly severe case of Anecdotal Idiocy Syndrome. If he can find one or a handful of counterexamples of a point, it makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside.
The warm fuzzy feeling (sometimes assisted by peeing his pants in glee) convinces him that he has “analyzed” the situation and therefore must have “demonstrated” something “conclusively”.
@ 57
I asked which study of the ‘mountains’ of studies RR mentioned he was referring to. Glad you were able to inform me that his study was controlled without him telling either of us which one it was.
What color is my underwear?
@ 61
Ledbetter lost in court, but won in Congress, and there’s now a law named after her. Bob seems unaware of this.
No, quite aware. Consider Kelo. Same thing. Court decided based on its Constitutional limitations, and gave clear instructions on how to remedy the situation via legislation. One could argue that Roberts did the same thing in his ACA decision. On the latter point, we’ll see.
@ 53 59
Looks like it was appealed on BOTH grounds.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a Title VII pay discrimination claim cannot be based on allegedly discriminatory events that occurred before the last pay decision that affected the employee’s pay during the EEOC charging period, and concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Goodyear had acted with discriminatory intent in making the only two pay decisions during that period, denials of raises in 1997 and 1998.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....74.ZS.html
It looks like it was appealed for both reasons but decided merely on the SOL issue.
Gotta run. Fire away.
Chance of rain in Charlotte tonite:
Zero.
http://www.weather.com/weather.....inIndex=24
Bob,
“I asked which study of the ‘mountains’ of studies RR mentioned he was referring to. Glad you were able to inform me that his study was controlled without him telling either of us which one it was.”
There are hundreds of studies of gender pay disparity. But, here’s the deal. I have a Ph.D. in Demography, and I keep a pretty strong firewall between my hobby and my work. But, I am available for consulting (for a few more weeks anyway), if you really want me to do your research for you. But it will not be cheap.
“What color is my underwear?”
What the fuck?
@60 You claim Clinton fibbed when he said Obama is a “compromiser.” To back up your claim, you link us to a Yahoo News fact-check article. Here’s what it says:
Example 1: ” … [T]he inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. … One of the more high-profile examples of a deal that fell apart was the … proposed “grand bargain” budget agreement between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011. The deal would have required compromise from both sides. … Boehner couldn’t sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Yahoo equates Obama being “accused of going too far” by some members of his own party with Boehner’s inability to deliver the votes of his caucus? Are they kidding?
Example 2: “In another instance, Obama appointed … the Simpsons-Bowles Commission, to recommend ways to fix major fiscal problems like Social Security and Medicare. The commission issued its recommendations but fell three votes short of formally endorsing them. And Obama mostly walked away from the report. He later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported. But that ensured the tough compromises would not get made.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What? Incorporating proposals from the report into his legislative proposals is a refusal to compromise? And sabotaged negotiation of the remaining issues? Are they kidding?
I think you need a new fact-checker.
@ 69
I’ll settle for an answer to the question of whether the 77% figure (or 72%, or whatever) was based on the criteria you expected from me. I asked this question @ 59.
Where did that number come from ? Was it vetted the way you expected me to vet the comment I made about White House compensation disparity ?
Or is it just some sort of ‘average’, essentially the same type of ‘average’ as I read about regarding White House employee compensation?
I don’t have a Ph.D. But I also don’t have Ph.D. envy.
Darryl @ 69
If you’re looking to make something off the web site, consider:
1. Tip jar. I’ll hit it.
2. Amazon link. I’ll use it.
3. Publish a PO Box number and tell us your favorite beer.
@71, 72 Any reason why you can’t look it up yourself? Do you need a research assistant to find out anything?
Bob @ 72,
“If you’re looking to make something off the web site, consider:”
You misunderstand. I am NOT trying to make something off the web. My point is, if you want me to do your research for you, that is a whole other world. And it costs.
Any reason why you can’t look it up yourself?
I’l give you a Bidenesque four-letter reason:
J-O-B.
Here, start with this, and follow up on your own.
“The 77 cent figure comes from a Census Bureau report, which is based on annual wages.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html
Bob @ 71,
“I’ll settle for an answer to the question of whether the 77% figure (or 72%, or whatever) was based on the criteria you expected from me. I asked this question @ 59.”
I have no idea what you are babbling about now.
“Where did that number come from ?”
It looks like some number you just typed.
“Was it vetted the way you expected me to vet the comment I made about White House compensation disparity ?”
How, the fuck, should I know. You seem to be having a private conversation.
“I don’t have a Ph.D.”
That’s pretty fucking clear.
“But I also don’t have Ph.D. envy.”
Yes…you also seem to lack and envy of facts, logic and truth!
@ 74
I don’t mind being called if my data is suspect (by the way, I didn’t provide any in this case). However, if I’m responding to someone else’s equally suspect data, it’s reasonable to expect you to call them on it as well.
Even if you, by intent, are preferentially pounding on me to get me to improve the quality of my arguments.
My suspicion is that the quality of that 77% figure rather sucks. If only there were a qualified demographer around to weigh in on the accuracy of what was being discussed on his website……………………
@75 Oh for God’s sake, you’ve had time to post 13 comments in the last hour, job or no job. How much time did you spend writing your detailed comment @39? Did J-O-B prevent you from doing that? That’s just an excuse for your laziness. It took me 15 seconds to find the Washington Post article (which contains a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data) and another 15 seconds to post it. That’s half a minute, which probably is less time than you spent posting your snarky comment @75. Get off your lazy ass and do your own research. Don’t expect us to do it for you.
As if bob is the only one with one of those.
*eye roll*
And bob, I thought you were going to be too busy to post today?
Things must be pretty chaotic in the wingnut bunker this morning. Hope your uncle is OK.
Bob,
“I don’t mind being called if my data is suspect (by the way, I didn’t provide any in this case).”
The data were not the issue—they are what they are. It was your using the data in a misleading way.
You appear have a inclination that the data must be analyzed by proper “demographic” categories. Therefore, you would know that using raw gender-specific means is the very misuse of data that you were pointing out later in the SAME COMMENT.
To me, that suggests that you value bullshit propaganda over truth. That is unacceptable.
“However, if I’m responding to someone else’s equally suspect data, it’s reasonable to expect you to call them on it as well.”
No. I call out who I want, when I want. But, given that you have been getting lazy in these threads by leaving Wingnut bullshit propaganda droppings, I’m enjoying going after you.
And I hope helps you “clean up.”
@ 76
RR, thank you very much.
So the AVERAGE woman in this country earns 77% of what the AVERAGE man earns. No specifics, no control for length of time in the workplace, qualifications, age, etc. IOW it’s a raw figure, the type of figure Darryl @ 53 took me to task for using in an earlier comment.
I mention that the AVERAGE woman working in the White House earns less than 77% of what the AVERAGE man earns in the White House and Darryl jumps my shit for it.
I don’t really expect a fair fight around here. This wasn’t a surprise.
RR, calculate the time spent doing that research, multiply by Darryl’s hourly rate, and I’ll cut you a check. Thanks again for finding the source of that number.
@78 “My suspicion is that the quality of that 77% figure rather sucks. If only there were a qualified demographer around to weigh in on the accuracy of what was being discussed on his website …”
You don’t need to be a demographer, and you don’t need the services of one. Journalists do this stuff for you, for free. Have you glanced at the WaPo article I linked yet? You’ll find plenty of ammunition there for your argument that the quality of the 77% figure sucks. Their reporters looked into it and say as much. Before you pop off with a response, though, I’d like to point out I didn’t bring up the 77% figure or defend that specific number; I merely said countless studies show a gender pay disparity exists, which is true. The WaPo article backs me up on this factual proposition. It also provides what you asked for — specific sources. Have at it, then feel free to continue with this discusson at such time as your J-O-B permits.
Bob @ 66,
“Looks like it was appealed on BOTH grounds.”
Wait…are you admitting that your statement @ 39:
…was WRONG?
(Careful…you could get sent back to Wingding boot camp for such an admission!!!!)
@82 You’re welcome. But if I can find it, why can’t you?
Darryl @ 84:
Didn’t read it carefully but it looks like it was appealed on two grounds, decided on the SOL issue, and the other reason was then rendered moot and not addressed. I thought it was only a SOL issue.
That’s what I gather from not reading either opinion.
To the extent I called the appeal a SOL issue only that was incorrect, yes.
Congress did the right thing following the decision. I also think the SCOTUS did the right thing in stopping at the SOL and leaving the rest of it to the voters’ representatives.
@82 I don’t know what Darryl’s hourly rate is. The last time I did legal work for someone I effectively charged about $60 an hour. Finding that WaPo article took me 15 seconds. You owe me 25 cents.
I won’t cash your check because gas for driving to the bank costs
more than that.
Darryl:
Do you have a way of determining how many other blogs link to your presidential poll data analysis? Curious about how often your data is cited, by whom, and whether it’s used by both left and right sides.
Thanks in advance.
Bob,
“So the AVERAGE woman in this country earns 77% of what the AVERAGE man earns. No specifics, no control for length of time in the workplace, qualifications, age, etc. IOW it’s a raw figure, the type of figure Darryl @ 53 took me to task for using in an earlier comment.”
BULLFUCKING SHIT Bob.
Now you are trying to REWRITE HISTORY. This is stupefyingly amazing!
Here is your comment:
In other words you were responding to the issue, “equal pay for equal work”. And you cited a statistic that was NOT about “equal pay for equal work.”
Sorry asshole, you’re just lying. You don’t get a pass on that, and you don’t get to rewrite history either.
“I don’t really expect a fair fight around here. This wasn’t a surprise.”
(*Snicker*)…says the guy who just tried big-time etch-a-sketching.
RR @ # 22: I agree – When you see a federal judge order a sitting Secretary of State for a state to PERSONALLY appear before him, yes, the judge is ticked. The usual context of the order would be as follows:
“The Respondent (entere name here) is ordered to Personally appear before this court at xx:xx time on yy/yy/yy date to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court”.
Obviously, the judge didn’t agree to suspend his previous order pending review by an appellate court, so it is in effect until otherwise modified by the trial court or overturned or stayed by the appellate court. Refusal to obey a court’s orders places the Respondent in a position of summarily being found in contempt of court by the judge.
If the judge finds them in criminal contempt, it is referred to a prosecutor because a sentence of more than one year in jail can be imposed. But if it is civil contempt, the judge can put them in jail for thirty days, bringing them forward each morning to ask if they wish to purge themselves of contempt by complying with the court order.
While the prospect of seeing the Ohio Secty of State standing shackled in front of the judge in orange jail coveralls each morning is rather appealing, I’m sure the Republicans are trying to out-flank him by finding some sympathetic judge on the Appeallate Court to issue a stay of the ruling. This might be harder than they expect – judges don’t like to have politicians thumb their nose in the face of themselves or other judges, and they often close ranks in these types of cases – unless the trial judge has a reputation for being crazy and is being clearly out-of-bounds in his rulings. It’s worth noting that a stay has yet to be issued by any of the appellate judges, but one may turn up at the last minute.
@ 89
Not a lie, but I should have cut-and-pasted @ 21’s entire comment.
He was the one that pasted the 77% number, then started talking about equal pay for equal work, and I didn’t catch his inconsistency.
The @ 21 sloppiness was not caught by me and I perpetuated it.
Which, unless I did it intentionally, is not a lie.
FWIW, I, too, favor the equal pay/equal work concept. I also favor the pay scale thing so there will always be some inequity, perceived or real, but hopefully it will be experience-based inequity rather than one that is gender-based.
# 27: Romeny is habitually vague. If you dissect his public comments, he never really says anything. It’s a habit with him – he never wants to be pinned down with anything. Heck, he’s gotten away with “I never said that…” for so many times, he’s even gotten caught in the few places where it doesn’t apply.
But his insistence that he “knows how to fix the economy”, without specifics, reminds me an awful lot of one of those Republican presidents that modern Republicans like to pretend don’t exist: Richard Nixon. Nixon insisted in 1968 that he had a “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam. Ultimately he ended the plan almost three and three/quarters year later, but only after first exanding the war, undercutting the leadership of Cambodia which led to the Kmer Rouge takeover there, and finally accepting the same conditions which N. Vietnam proposed in 1968, and were rejected by Nixon at that time. He admitted to Kissenger at the time that the plan would lead to S. Vietnam’s collapse, but he thought it wouldn’t happen until after he left office, which was good enough for him – it was somebody else’s problem then. His estimates were a bit short, S. Vietnam collapsed in the spring of 1975, leaving Gerald R. Ford to hold the bag on that one.
Bob,
“Do you have a way of determining how many other blogs link to your presidential poll data analysis?”
There are web-based tools to do that systematically. Alternatively, you can look at the site meter (bottom of blog) to catch someone coming in on a link. The peak linkage should occur within 1/2 day of a new analysis.
“Curious about how often your data is cited, by whom, and whether it’s used by both left and right sides.”
I haven’t really paid much attention this year, but my impression is that the poll-driven traffic is a fraction of what it was in 2008.
Last election, when there were many more polls and more excitement (open seat plus other factors), I was getting picked up by quit a few blogs (including some conservative blogs) and the occasional MSM (e.g. this).
# 92 (continued): I’d love to see Romney make public his plans for how he’s goint to pay off the deficit in the Baine Capital way: which states and resources would be sold to the Chinese, with the remainder filing bankruptcy?
# 31: Alleged threat of Romney’s “Tax Returns”:
I’m highly suspicious that Romney’s tax returns were stolen. Who would pick Franklin, Tennessee to steal the tax returns? Assuming they are accessing the database of a national firm, this would have to be an insider job – no alarms were sounded at the office or in the various accounting firm’s computer systems about an unauthorized access into a client’s files.
Do you think Karl Rove is setting up a diversion on the tax return issue, so that there is question about which data is real?
@95 “this would have to be an insider job”
That’s exactly what I told Mrs. Rabbit. She’s probably correct in speculating this story is either a hoax or a setup.
“Do you think Karl Rove is setting up a diversion on the tax return issue, so that there is question about which data is real?”
Yes, or someone like him. If I were Mitt Romney’s handlers, I would want to have an insurance policy, because leaks are an ever-present possibility.
SC @ # 39: You pass off the “statute of limitations” issue as if it’s of no consequence. This statute of limitations was already short enough, but the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted it in a way I’ve never seen it interpreted before: they said if you found out you’ve been wronged, the statute of limitations began running from the date you were actually wronged, not from the date you discovered the wrongdoing. In effect, when combined with the employer prohibiting employees from taking any action whereby they might discover the wrongdoing, the court decision by judicial fiat took away the right conveyed by statute by creating a precedural hurdle which very few could overcome.
Put another way, if a mechanic improperly installs a brake line in your car, and years later you discover it when you lose break pressure and crash the car, you can’t sue the mechanic because your statute of limitations ran from the date of the repair, not the date the negligence was reasonably discovered.
It’s far more than a “mere technicality”.
@97 It’s a procedural technicality, but not a “mere” one.
# 97: Republicans love to argue that the rules apply to everyone, so no one can object. But then they make sure the deck is stacked so that in practice they apply to everyone but themselves. In the Citizens United case, they argued that the ruling was fair because it benefited Unions, as well. Then they started a full-court attack on Unions, funded in large part by corporate donations. If successful, only corporations will survive to fund political campaigns.
It’s an older version of the laws which prohibit sleeping under bridges. Republicans argue that it applies to everyone, but in reality only the poor need to sleep under bridges.
@ 97
They affirmed a decision. Ergo, it was interpreted by someone before them in a fairly similar manner.
A badly written law is still a law. Would you have preferred, say, that ACA be thrown out because it was so poorly written? Of course not.
SCOTUS chose to interpreted the technical aspects and apparently ditched the other issues, or so I learned this morning.
I actually was a plaintiff in a lawsuit in which SOL was a huge issue. Neither side knew how the judge would decide, I didn’t want to walk away with nothing, my opponent couldn’t afford an adverse decision. We settled. Smart attorneys on each side.
@92 “reminds me an awful lot of one of those Republican presidents that modern Republicans like to pretend don’t exist: Richard Nixon. Nixon insisted in 1968 that he had a “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam”
Same here. Republicans and their secret plans. We’ve seen that before.
Trolls would know about this except their memories all seem to begin with Jimmy Carter. “I’m not a crook” and WIN buttons don’t seem to ring any troll bells.
Just landed Lib da winks ar DUMMOCRAPT racism schmuck. You can ask my asrchloch stalker ylbuttspigot. He tracks Puddy wherever Puddy is worldwide.
Fact Checking Clinton speech… Seems this mindless progressives have a cow when the AP foo shits on them. Pox on their house. The AP is still the administrations press. Every now and then it wakes up and tells the truth!
BTW that in government we trust motto was P R I C E L E S S !
BTW been saying for years DUMMOCRAPTS hate Israel. P R I C E L E S S !
We’ve discussed insurance for road cyclists on here a few times and the answer has always been that beyond insuring your bike against theft* there ‘aint none. But, that’s starting to change. Change for the better, if you ask me.
* In some cases your homeowners general liability will cover you if you plow into someone while out on a ride. According to my insurance agent I’m covered.
No surprise here,
I struck me last night when I first heard about the alleged tax return heist and leak – what if Mitt were to ‘release’ some sanitized or completely fabricated version of his taxes that seemed to dispell all the lingering doubts and suspicions – how would anyone know that it wasn’t real?
There’s no way to really ‘fact check’ what he puts out as his return, without having the IRS confirm, right?
http://www.reuters.com/article.....KB20120905
Shame on President Obama for providing food relief to the victims of the Bush Depression. I guess that’s what Dullard is saying..
So what’s Dullard’s excuse for his own Dad taking “free stuff”??
http://www.politicususa.com/sh.....lfare.html
I thought the Rmoney family pulled themselves up their own bootstraps or nads – whatever…
@102, Piddles drops by and thinks that anyone is talking about an early day non-event. Well in the Fox News mouth-breathing universe of conservoworld, that’s all they’re talking about. Elsewhere? lets og to the headlines:
Pttisburgh Tribune-Review: “Clinton Argues for Obama, Don’t abandon ‘Long Road to Recovery’
Arizona Republic: “Clinton States his case for 2nd Obama term”
Birmingham (AL) News: “Clinton: Obama laid foundation for new jobs”
Racine WI, Journal Times: “Clinton boosts Obama in rousing convention speech”
Pensacola News Journal “Clinton: Obama halted slide”
Akron Beacon Journal “Clinton says give Obama more time”
Las Vegas Review Journal: “Clinton Energizes Delegates”
Albuquerque Journal: “Clinton: Obama’s way better”
And on and on. I’m sure if you dig you might find a couple major dailies that give two shits about voting on Jerusalem but most every human being who went to a convenience store or coffee shop or walked by a paper rack today knows Clinton crushed it.
Feel free to talk about a non-event as much as you like Piddles
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya!
This doesn’t mean drive a Prius. This means redevelop the nation so that most people can walk, bike, or take a train to work and start closing and pulling out some of our roads.
Their Mormons, pulling on their own nads is a sin and if they do that they wont get their own planet when they die.
They ‘re mormons. Dang, even by my low standards, that’s bad.
The Dow closes on a four year high on the day of the president’s acceptance speech. Romney just can’t catch a break.
“Eat me.”
GSA official reprimanded for planning party to celebrate herself
Refreshments would be served in Hudson’s seventh-floor downtown D.C. office suite, including a cake bearing her image, GSA sources familiar with the event’s planning tell POLITICO.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z25jpiqXtY
And now for something completely different.
Check out Google homepage
google.com
This is so cool! Tap the Console repeatedly. Tap the door to see the story.