MOC's lunch with George Will

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Everything is fine, you can go back to sleep.

No, it's all horrible and falling apart - so definitely fiddle away here on Too Hot while it burns.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by mocgator

I agree... the smart productive people are sitting in parks for weeks at a time pooping on police cars and talking on their obama phones....

Must be exhausting being such a martyr. Does it subtitle you as one on those little badges they hand out before the panel discussion?

Actually, the productive people get on with their lives instead of crying all day long into their cordon bleu (that seems Hyatt-y) about the woes of the world on their back and how nefarious spindly-mustached liberals are ruining their beloved if imaginary country. Feigned serious politics is the new craze of the bored older white guy in America - their sophisticated replacement for pro wrestling dominated by cliched and trite archetypal caricatures, the most cursory of thought and even less education. Time and the malaise of lingering affluence have made them bitchy and entitled, and between the one Ayn Rand book they read and their dusty copy of Red Badge of Courage on their lonely shelves, they have somehow confused themselves as the intellectual protagonists.

Nothing really bad is happening to them, and they can't stand the thought of their irrelevance, so they create monster under their bed and barbarians at the gate. Taxes are as low as they have been in most of their lives, we aren't being attacked, the economy in its relatively natural cycle is improving, and the country is largely getting safer, so they harp on the pangs of the coming fall. The invent the devil they always needed. Political dispensationalists of sorts.

It's just sad and even human I suppose, but hardly admirable.

[CHFG8R]

You're funny (and must have spent some time on that - or had it stashed away like an obit). Pretty much the same old spin from the true believer crowd.

In case you missed it.

(R) = Bad
(D) = Good

And the hypocrisy of the true believer goes on, and on, and on. . . .

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

What are you talking about? You're not making any sense. This is what you said:

The feeling leading up to the election was that Republicans were fired up to get rid of Sir Taxalot and turnout for Romney would exceed that of McCain. That is why despite many polls showing a dead heat or even an 0bama edge, Conservatives from Romney on down felt that the perceived enthusiasm gap would result in higher turnout for Romney that would overcome 0bama's slim lead in the polls.

Unfortunately for America it didn't turn out that way. Enthusiasm for 0bama was down - he lost votes from 2008. But there wasn't the expected corresponding increase in enthusiasm on the other side, so he still won.

Fact: If more Republicans had gone out and voted (as hoped & expected) instead of staying home, Romney could've won. That's inarguable. So how is it a "myth" that Romney lost because so many Republicans stayed home?

Romney received 1 million more votes than McCain did and still lost by 5 million votes. The consensus among the pre-election polls was that Obama would win the popular vote. These polls were of likely voters. The polls showed one thing, that Obama would win, and conservatives, as they so often do, chose to ignore the data and believe what they wanted to believe.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Must be exhausting being such a martyr. Does it subtitle you as one on those little badges they hand out before the panel discussion?

Just a little tidbit, you can only be a martyr once you're dead.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Romney received 1 million more votes than McCain did and still lost by 5 million votes. The consensus among the pre-election polls was that Obama would win the popular vote. These polls were of likely voters. The polls showed one thing, that Obama would win, and conservatives, as they so often do, chose to ignore the data and believe what they wanted to believe.

Even the most adamant of polling data analysts (aka nerds who never get laid) allowed for the possibility that Romney could win. That's why even that king of the supernerds guy had the chances of 0bama winning at 80% or whatever it was, not 100%.

The possibility always existed that of the people who described themselves to pollsters as "likely" voters on either side, more of those on the Romney side than the 0bama side would actually go out and vote on election day. "Likely" means likely, not definitely. Nobody really knew what was going to happen until it happened.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Even the most adamant of polling data analysts (aka nerds who never get laid) allowed for the possibility that Romney could win. That's why even that king of the supernerds guy had the chances of 0bama winning at 80% or whatever it was, not 100%.

The possibility always existed that of the people who described themselves to pollsters as "likely" voters on either side, more of those on the Romney side than the 0bama side would actually go out and vote on election day. "Likely" means likely, not definitely. Nobody really knew what was going to happen until it happened.

People like Masta, George Will, and Romney before the election:

"The polls are wrong, we're going to win!".

People like Masta, George Will, and Romney after the election:

"The polls were wrong, we would have won if only more Republicans had turned out!".

[gator421]

Originally Posted by mocgator

I thought some of the most interesting point he made where in the education and how the morality of the family effects their financial class..

"American schools are a colossal disaster.

Problem with schools
-Coleman report studied schools. Quality of the family was key factor not money.
-Parent pupil ratio

There is no economic divide. There is an education divide. 74% of African American children are born to unmarried mothers. The "moral culture" of the “poor” is totally different from that of the middle class and above. The moral culture is what propagates being poor… not rich people and corporations. And the Government cannot write a law to fix culture…try as they may."

We don't have a teacher/ student ratio problem... we have a parent/ student ratio problem.

Why is it so few people want to address this issue?? Is it racist?? Does it deride the democrat's protected class?? We need really need to have a discussion on this... but how can you change the "morality" of the poor? George brought up a great point.

Good question. I completely agree the family structure is the key to education. Students with strong, positive family/adult support generally do well in school.This is one of the main issues that Florida teachers have in regards to being paid for performance. But it is not an issue that anyone wants to address. Other than giving it a little lip service.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

People like Masta, George Will, and Romney before the election:

"The polls are wrong, we're going to win!".

People like Masta, George Will, and Romney after the election:

"The polls were wrong, we would have won if only more Republicans had turned out!".

So...it's not true that Romney would have won if more Republicans had turned out? Hmm. Maybe you're right, considering that Democrats run so many of the local boards of elections in urban areas where it's hard to control fraud.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by gator421

Good question. I completely agree the family structure is the key to education. Students with strong, positive family/adult support generally do well in school.This is one of the main issues that Florida teachers have in regards to being paid for performance. But it is not an issue that anyone wants to address. Other than giving it a little lip service.

I agree as well but cannot think of anything that might improve the problems with the societal deterioration. I am certainly open to hearing what others think on this subject.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Just a little tidbit, you can only be a martyr once you're dead.

The death part will come inevitably, and inexorably, it's the road to golgotha among we evil backbiting pharisees that makes for the romanticized passion of the rightwinger.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

So...it's not true that Romney would have won if more Republicans had turned out? Hmm. Maybe you're right, considering that Democrats run so many of the local boards of elections in urban areas where it's hard to control fraud.

I'm sure it is true that Romney would have won if (a lot) more Republicans turned out. And if more Dems had turned out Obama could have won by 10 million votes instead of 5 million votes.

But the pre-election polls indicated that not enough republicans would turn out to give Romney the victory. So the myth that River speaks of is that lower Republican turnout than expected caused Romney to lose. The polls by and large predicted a Romney loss, and Romney lost.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

You're funny (and must have spent some time on that - or had it stashed away like an obit). Pretty much the same old spin from the true believer crowd.

In case you missed it.

(R) = Bad
(D) = Good

And the hypocrisy of the true believer goes on, and on, and on. . . .

Not sure if you are talking to me, but I am no true believer. My algebra would not rate based on Ds or Rs, and really focuses more on those that want to move the world forward and those that want to stifle that. I haven't voted for a D in a long, long time.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

The death part will come inevitably, and inexorably, it's the road to golgotha among we evil backbiting pharisees that makes for the romanticized passion of the rightwinger.

These folks want to enjoy their martyrdom before they actually die. It's like the fantasy of being able to go to your own funeral.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I'm sure it is true that Romney would have won if (a lot) more Republicans turned out. And if more Dems had turned out Obama could have won by 10 million votes instead of 5 million votes.

But the pre-election polls indicated that not enough republicans would turn out to give Romney the victory. So the myth that River speaks of is that lower Republican turnout than expected caused Romney to lose. The polls by and large predicted a Romney loss, and Romney lost.

Oh, is that what river was speaking of? Nice of you to put words in his mouth but this is what he said:

Originally Posted by rivergator

one of the rightwing myths is that Romney lost only because so many Republicans stayed home.

If fewer Republicans had stayed home then Romney would've won. It's not a myth, it's a mathematical fact. You guys are so determined to lash out at Conservatives over anything and everything that you'll disagree with even the most inarguable statements.

Hey - it's raining where I live today.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Oh, is that what river was speaking of? Nice of you to put words in his mouth but this is what he said:



If fewer Republicans had stayed home then Romney would've won. It's not a myth, it's a mathematical fact. You guys are so determined to lash out at Conservatives over anything and everything that you'll disagree with even the most inarguable statements.

Hey - it's raining where I live today.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

No, you're right. If every registered Republican who didn't vote had voted for Romney, Romney would have won. You got me. And now I'm sure River meant exactly that there was no possible way Romney could have won even if every single registered Republican had voted. I'm sure that's actually what he meant. But we can let River clear that up for us if he wants to.

But now you're being very literal again, strictly interpreting what River said. In the Rubio thread, you are adding all sorts of additional meaning to what Rubio said that isn't actually in the words Rubio used. More of that thing I've noticed about you where your interpretive style varies depending on what is said and who said it.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

No, you're right. If every registered Republican who didn't vote had voted for Romney, Romney would have won. You got me. And now I'm sure River meant exactly that there was no possible way Romney could have won even if every single registered Republican had voted. I'm sure that's actually what he meant. But we can let River clear that up for us if he wants to.

But now you're being very literal again, strictly interpreting what River said. In the Rubio thread, you are adding all sorts of additional meaning to what Rubio said that isn't actually in the words Rubio used. More of that thing I've noticed about you where your interpretive style varies depending on what is said and who said it.

I don't see river clearing anything up.

With regard to the Rubio thread, I absolutely did not add additional meaning to what Rubio said, and anyone who wants to visit that thread and have a good laugh at your foolish posting over there is welcome to do so. All I added were the additional words from the speech to give it the context you conveniently omitted in your quixotic quest to label Rubio a hypocrite. Your quixotic, lonely quest that even the poster who started that thread has abandoned in shame. There's not even anybody willing to fill the Sancho Panza role for you that you usually play for your hero river, as you've done here.

Sad.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

I don't see river clearing anything up.

With regard to the Rubio thread, I absolutely did not add additional meaning to what Rubio said, and anyone who wants to visit that thread and have a good laugh at your foolish posting over there is welcome to do so. All I added were the additional words from the speech to give it the context you conveniently omitted in your quixotic quest to label Rubio a hypocrite. Your quixotic, lonely quest that even the poster who started that thread has abandoned in shame. There's not even anybody willing to fill the Sancho Panza role for you that you usually play for your hero river, as you've done here.

Sad.

You are correct. I proudly carry River's water (cute pun, huh?) I just wish all you guys would start using the term 'dangoledance' too. Then I would have real status around here.

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Must be exhausting being such a martyr. Does it subtitle you as one on those little badges they hand out before the panel discussion?

Actually, the productive people get on with their lives instead of crying all day long into their cordon bleu (that seems Hyatt-y) about the woes of the world on their back and how nefarious spindly-mustached liberals are ruining their beloved if imaginary country. Feigned serious politics is the new craze of the bored older white guy in America - their sophisticated replacement for pro wrestling dominated by cliched and trite archetypal caricatures, the most cursory of thought and even less education. Time and the malaise of lingering affluence have made them bitchy and entitled, and between the one Ayn Rand book they read and their dusty copy of Red Badge of Courage on their lonely shelves, they have somehow confused themselves as the intellectual protagonists.

Nothing really bad is happening to them, and they can't stand the thought of their irrelevance, so they create monster under their bed and barbarians at the gate. Taxes are as low as they have been in most of their lives, we aren't being attacked, the economy in its relatively natural cycle is improving, and the country is largely getting safer, so they harp on the pangs of the coming fall. The invent the devil they always needed. Political dispensationalists of sorts.

It's just sad and even human I suppose, but hardly admirable.

That little rant would even be funnier if it included a video. Could you work on that?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Must be exhausting being such a martyr. Does it subtitle you as one on those little badges they hand out before the panel discussion?

Actually, the productive people get on with their lives instead of crying all day long into their cordon bleu (that seems Hyatt-y) about the woes of the world on their back and how nefarious spindly-mustached liberals are ruining their beloved if imaginary country. Feigned serious politics is the new craze of the bored older white guy in America - their sophisticated replacement for pro wrestling dominated by cliched and trite archetypal caricatures, the most cursory of thought and even less education. Time and the malaise of lingering affluence have made them bitchy and entitled, and between the one Ayn Rand book they read and their dusty copy of Red Badge of Courage on their lonely shelves, they have somehow confused themselves as the intellectual protagonists.

Nothing really bad is happening to them, and they can't stand the thought of their irrelevance, so they create monster under their bed and barbarians at the gate. Taxes are as low as they have been in most of their lives, we aren't being attacked, the economy in its relatively natural cycle is improving, and the country is largely getting safer, so they harp on the pangs of the coming fall. The invent the devil they always needed. Political dispensationalists of sorts.

It's just sad and even human I suppose, but hardly admirable.

Generalize much? Buy into and perpetuate negative stereotypes much? Like most Liberals you project onto others the qualities you despise in yourself, oh believer of prejudicial assumptions with their basis in ignorance and shallow small-mindedness.