Why Romney lost

I'd interview everyone, but, that said, my experience with black attorneys has been that a large number of them are utterly unqualified, and that one has to be careful choosing. (Their competition are often sleazeballs, but not as many are conspicuously idiots.)

I credit that to special gov't preferences and social promotion of people who shouldn't be promoted, not to any inherent deficiency of black people.

Try listening to Warren Ballentine on the radio some time.

I'd gladly pay a sharp black attorney whatever we'd negotiate. I don't care about color, that'd be stupid.

Nothing is ever equal. Trying to force it just picks different favorites.

I do not think ill of Democrats generally--it's a perfectly honorable thing to be. It's the leaders today--they're not Democrats. They're something else.

James Arthur

Megasoft has proven that FUD works pretty well for decades.

?-)

You left out a word.

?-)

and

The Tea Party gave him the election on a tray. Nobody in their right mind could fail to be afraid of what they'd do if they'd got their front man into the White House. There wasn't any uncertainty or doubt involved

And yours is bizarre misinterpretation. Who do you think Obama is being intolerant of? Far from being financially repressive, his administration has been progressively - if slowly - reviving the economy pretty much since they got into office, and reducing unemployment in the process. And who are his cronies who are doing so well? Name a few names ...

Obama's campaign said he wasn't going to court working-class white voters. (Yep, they actually said that.)

How much hoopla was made over that, as compared to Romney's (non- bigoted & correct) estimate of who wouldn't vote for him?

James Arthur

Freeloaders won over bigots.

It is not about v.p. It is the style of thinking (or non thinking) that has side effect of bringing up wrong folks and ignoring obvoius reasons.

VLV

The regular brothels advertise in the local newspapers, in the classifieds ads. It's a service for people like you, who can't do any better. If you need more information, try Google It's not an area that I've studied.

ion

NO! he had FOX-News and hundreds of millions Dollars of money. Most of the medias were for sale. If one hasn´t anything to say for progress nobody will want to hear to him.

Yep. Let's hear it for PROGRESSIVE. Wonder how long it will take before we go bust and the Chinese take over? ...Jim Thompson

But the media are not for sale... except for Fox, they're uniformly leftist. ...Jim Thompson

So, when you have nothing to contribute, you resort to childish one-line

retorts? And this coming from someone who thought this was a good design:

This behavior is typical of many right-whiners. Blinded by frustration, hate, and selfishness, unable to engage in polite discussion if it differs from your dogma and threatens your curmudgeonly ideology and delusions. Have another "election cocktail" and crawl back in your hole until you can actually contribute something constructive, rather than knee-jerk ad hominem rhetoric.

Paul

When you are pushing the limits of far-right extremism and accept their delusional dogmatic propaganda as gospel, even reasonable and moderate centrism appears leftist. Attitudes like yours and Boehner's are the cause of gridlock and lack of progress, and may result in a painful fall over the financial cliff.

Paul

Boehner is going to fold, giving you "progressives" everything you want, including what you think you can avoid... a depression.

The only solution is to stop spending more than we take in. But that'll not happen... Obama will tax the "rich"... if he took it _all_, it would yield only ~$1.5T, and the country will fold.

Good riddance. Sometimes a crash is a good thing. Everything revalues to true worth. Those with a tradable skill survive, those without die.

California is to Greece as the US is to Europe, enjoy the ride ;-) ...Jim Thompson

se

the

Jim Thompson is as silly as James Arthur. He doesn't realise that the deficit-funded stimulus spending is still struggling to stop the US economy from sliding back into recession. It would be better targeted and more effective if the Republicans in Congress weren't treating it as a pork barrell to be distributed to the people who fund their election campaigns

That's not a solution - it would make the economy a lot sicker than it is now, and depress tax revenue even further.

Jim doesn't know about corporate tax loop-holes, and has bizarre ideas about what might cause the US to "fold".

Not exactly. A lot of - just - viable firms will fold, and their assets will stop being usefully employed, destroying their value. It takes quite a while to rebuild an economy after a Great Depression style decline.

And Jim is convinced that his skills will still be tradable, when nobody wants new integrated circuits designed because there aren't any customers in the market to buy them.

That might even be right - Jim has just surprised me.

on.

Back when the Republicans weren't a collection of rabid right-wingers, intent on purifying their rangs of anybody who might be described as moderate.

So what? Black employment rates have been lower than those for whites for a very low time, and for obvious reasons - they haven't got the a same level of education and training as their white colleagues. Blaming that on Obama is simply wrong, you should have enough sense to know it, so you are flat-out lying.

That's not actually the idea I'm touting. What I'm pointing out is that if you don't invest in the education and training of the low- income end of your work force, their productivity, and the productivity of the country as a whole is compromised. Look at Germany, and look at the fate of the illegitimate children of Afro- American US servicemen in Germany after WW2.

They did better in Germany than the legitimate kids of the same servicemen did in the US.

e stole a

That's your woefully inadequate straw man, not my point at all.

By which you mean you can't hires employees as cheaply and transiently as you'd like.

Your economy is growing slowly, not stagnating. The debt is climbing but The Tea Party nitwits in congress are to blame for misdirecting the stimulus spending to people whi can't be relied on to spend it, not that you have the wit to understand why this a bad thing to do, any more than they do.

That was what the Tea Party was hoping for - with their particular lie, which you don't happen to recognise as a lie. The electorate declined to become equally brainwashed.

h,

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson confuses "leftist" with "not as lunatic rightist as he is".

Jim Yanik makes the same mistake.

Some of these people really are lost causes.

and

I've had personal, similar experiences with degreed/papered people (masters degree in statistics is one person I'm thinking of right now, who had no idea how to calculate a percentage from two numbers), who could only have gotten through the work required either with gobs of money or else because of preference systems in college.

But I judge those people based upon experiences I actually have and then they become part of the statistics. But I do not apply the statistics backwards -- judging someone who fits a "group with poorer statistics" by labeling them before I let them have a chance to show me differently.

I might modify my question and ask whether or not you'd decide to avoid wasting your time on the basis of your experience with a "large number of .. utterly unqualified" individuals, draw conclusions on the basis of that about how that happened, and then reverse the process and make decisions about other individuals and never give them a chance to show differently.

It's kind of a viscious circle, if you answer in a certain way, you know.

You could very well be right. I felt similarly about those for whom I could not imagine any other possible explanation. But it remains a tentative question in my mind, as I know my experiences are quite limited.

Don't even know who that is. I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. Not in 25 years now.

Of course. Question is how you'd choose to squander the limited time you'd have before getting to the point of having to make a decision about selecting one.

Cross-purposes answer. So I'll leave it.

The Republicans today are something entirely different that those I've worked for and voted for (yes, quite a few, before the Moral Majority, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party completely changed the face of the party.) It is NOTHING like it used to be -- and recently enough that I was voting Republican and was a Republican, by party designation.

I think the Democratic part has also changed, too. But not nearly as much.

Jon

first

Americans have funny ideas. I don't think I've even seen a kangaroo outside of a zoo, let alone getting within kicking distance of one.