The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

DarthMonk wrote:Some of your posts sound intelligent. The last few don't

You make it clear at a point there is no point. If you seriously believe that today women with the same skills and experience make 72 cents on the dollar, you either have no real job experience or you're just living in an ideological bubble. Yes, I know, that wasn't liberal, so it wasn't intelligent.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Is the election being held in this thread?

People ... you get too excited. It is only POLITICS. They are ALL bad. You might argue that some are worse than others and that is fine.

I'd have made fun of you for clicking on another thread and telling us we should stop discussing things you aren't interested in, but last time you did that it worked, so what do I know???

You realize it is "the lounge," right?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Respect to the president for cutting his campaign rally short to get back to DC and oversee the emergency response situation for Sandy

I'm not knocking him for it, but there wasn't another choice politically as either party criticizes the other for not doing that. And yet of course he's done nothing as there's nothing for him to do. It's a total non-event.

Probably, but no matter who the president was that wouldn't change my comment. I don't just comment based on dislike/like for a president (not saying you or others have said that)

Fair enough langley, and I know you well enough to believe that's true

Yea bro, I hate what politics do to us as a nation.. it ignores everything we have in common and spotlights the differences. I mean, I understand but it's so annoying. Imagine everyday was the day after 9/11 and we were ONE NATION.

Whoever is in office next, I'll support regardless cuz he'll be our leader.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Some of your posts sound intelligent. The last few don't

You make it clear at a point there is no point. If you seriously believe that today women with the same skills and experience make 72 cents on the dollar, you either have no real job experience or you're just living in an ideological bubble. Yes, I know, that wasn't liberal, so it wasn't intelligent.

Just a quote on the 72%. If it's wrong I'm fine with that. I did research on another claim. I'd love someone else (you) to research the 72% and get back to us.

A few minutes later - 1st google hit on "pay men vs women" ~

Male–female income difference, also referred to as the "gender gap in earnings" in the United States, and as the "gender wage gap", the "gender earnings gap", "gender income difference" and the "gender pay gap", refers usually to the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers.

The statistic is used by government agencies and economists, and is gathered by the United States Census Bureau as part of the Current Population Survey.

In 2010 the median income of FTYR workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81, slightly higher than the 2008 ratio.[2] The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.81 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 19% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work. However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed to gender discrimination.[3]:80

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.[3]:93 One economist testified to Congress that hundreds of studies have consistently found unexplained pay differences which potentially include discrimination.[3]:80 Another criticized these studies as insufficiently controlled, and opined that men and women would have equal pay if they made the same choices and had the same experience, education, etc.[4]: Other studies have found direct evidence of discrimination. For example, fewer replies to identical resumes with female names[3]:10 and more jobs went to women when orchestras moved to blind auditions.[4]

Summarizing: My quick research indicate a "same job" gap of 5% to 10% that grows with time as side-by-side careers progress.

There are the facts as I currently know them. I assumed nothing and continue to question. I did research on both sides.

You "argue" ... kind of.

Back to who's gonna win - probably Obama.

DarthMonk

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Respect to the president for cutting his campaign rally short to get back to DC and oversee the emergency response situation for Sandy

I'm not knocking him for it, but there wasn't another choice politically as either party criticizes the other for not doing that. And yet of course he's done nothing as there's nothing for him to do. It's a total non-event.

Probably, but no matter who the president was that wouldn't change my comment. I don't just comment based on dislike/like for a president (not saying you or others have said that)

Fair enough langley, and I know you well enough to believe that's true

Yea bro, I hate what politics do to us as a nation.. it ignores everything we have in common and spotlights the differences. I mean, I understand but it's so annoying. Imagine everyday was the day after 9/11 and we were ONE NATION.

Whoever is in office next, I'll support regardless cuz he'll be our leader.

Well put LPJ

DarthMonk wrote:Just a quote on the 72%. If it's wrong I'm fine with that. I did research on another claim. I'd love someone else (you) to research the 72% and get back to us.

Sure, if you make a claim, it's my job to prove you wrong. Crazyhorse already introduced me to that rule. Funny, it doesn't apply to him. He only gets to apply it to others. I will say if you actually believe women with the same skills and experience make 72 cents on the dollar, you either have no work experience or you are lost in an ideological fog.

langleyparkjoe wrote:Yea bro, I hate what politics do to us as a nation.. it ignores everything we have in common and spotlights the differences. I mean, I understand but it's so annoying. Imagine everyday was the day after 9/11 and we were ONE NATION.

Whoever is in office next, I'll support regardless cuz he'll be our leader.

I hate politics too. The problem is that politicians are making so many decisions that remove our choice over our wallets and our lives. They are destroying our freedom and driving us bankrupt. Rallying around a party or compromising with another one thereby furthering that end is not something I'm interested in. I believe like the founding fathers that 95% of government should be local, and this election should be almost meaningless because the result would have almost no impact on our lives. Unfortunately, the complete reverse is true.

On this topic, I thought you guys might get a kick out of this tempest in our little Richmond teapot from today: http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/who ... id=1778662

Romney came out with an ad that said it's Obama's fault that a local barbecue is closing down. (Regardless of the politics, the barbecue really was terrible, and the restaurants were gross.)

I don't know how Ohio residents deal with being a swing state every year. The number of campaign stops and the volume of political ads is basically unbearable.

To the poll, my 9-year-old told me Obama is going to win, and I think her judgement is as valid as any political pundit's, so I'll go with that.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sure, if you make a claim, it's my job to prove you wrong. Crazyhorse already introduced me to that rule.

Really? I thought you invented that with the whole Marxist thing.

cvillehog wrote:To the poll, my 9-year-old told me Obama is going to win, and I think her judgement is as valid as any political pundit's, so I'll go with that.

when politics give you a headache, just go wit the kid.. I like it.

I ask my kid, she'll say.. "I think whoever you want to win will win daddy". No dear, Mickey Mouse won't win

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sure, if you make a claim, it's my job to prove you wrong. Crazyhorse already introduced me to that rule.

Really? I thought you invented that with the whole Marxist thing.

You're close. The Marxism isn't an example of my point that for liberal arguments, no explanation is required. What you are referring to is the flip side that for non-liberal arguments, no explanation is good enough.

You don't even know what my standard for being a Marxist was, do you? I've only mentioned it like 50 times.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

cvillehog wrote:To the poll, my 9-year-old told me Obama is going to win, and I think her judgement is as valid as any political pundit's, so I'll go with that.

when politics give you a headache, just go wit the kid.. I like it.

I ask my kid, she'll say.. "I think whoever you want to win will win daddy". No dear, Mickey Mouse won't win

Unfortunately enough...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sure, if you make a claim, it's my job to prove you wrong. Crazyhorse already introduced me to that rule.

Really? I thought you invented that with the whole Marxist thing.

You're close. The Marxism isn't an example of my point that for liberal arguments, no explanation is required. What you are referring to is the flip side that for non-liberal arguments, no explanation is good enough.

You don't even know what my standard for being a Marxist was, do you? I've only mentioned it like 50 times.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

Um, you make the claim, and then chastise Darth for not proving you wrong (even though he had attempted to here). It was only a dozen pages back.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Just a quote on the 72%. If it's wrong I'm fine with that. I did research on another claim. I'd love someone else (you) to research the 72% and get back to us.

Sure, if you make a claim, it's my job to prove you wrong. Crazyhorse already introduced me to that rule. Funny, it doesn't apply to him. He only gets to apply it to others. I will say if you actually believe women with the same skills and experience make 72 cents on the dollar, you either have no work experience or you are lost in an ideological fog.

Didn't you do that already?

I made no unsupported claim. I never called 72% a fact. I even said it could be wrong and welcomed input. If you want to make claims about something being wrong you should do some work and back it up. You (your post regarding this discusson) are weak. I questioned all things and did my work ... and yours. You ran off at the mouth (post) as usual and said stuff about me that is false.

BTW - this thread is still about who's gonna win.

What say you and why? Gonna?

Cue idiotic reply post that "argues" merely to disagree. I'll be pleasantly surprised if you address the title of the thread.

DarthMonk

Deadskins wrote:Um, you make the claim, and then chastise Darth for not proving you wrong (even though he had attempted to here). It was only a dozen pages back.

Darth: You disprove my assertion that women make 72 cents on the dollar.

Kaz: Give me one plank of the Manifesto that Obama opposes, pick your favorite one and I'll argue that. Pick any one you want that you feel you have the strongest case for.

Deadskins: No, you argue them all, I'll pick one and make a snarky comment which doesn't mean anything and I'll believe I've disproven your contention.

Those are the same, gotcha.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Um, you make the claim, and then chastise Darth for not proving you wrong (even though he had attempted to here). It was only a dozen pages back.

Darth: You disprove my assertion that women make 72 cents on the dollar.

Kaz: Give me one plank of the Manifesto that Obama opposes, pick your favorite one and I'll argue that. Pick any one you want that you feel you have the strongest case for.

Deadskins: No, you argue them all, I'll pick one and make a snarky comment which doesn't mean anything and I'll believe I've disproven your contention.

Those are the same, gotcha.

Say what? You made the claim that the planks of the Communist Manifesto and the Democratic party are the same, offer up not one single plank of either to back up your claim, and suddenly I'm supposed to have picked one and made a snarky remark that I believe disproves your contention? That's a straw man stretch, even for you Kazoo. Wow! Remind me again who said:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

Now I know why QBs like handing off.

Some lady at a town hall meeting asserted 72 cents on the dollar, not me.

I found out it's 80 cents.

I found out it's 90 cents for the same job.

Now I'm running the pitch. I'll watch from back here. Deadman, find the hole and make one good cut. Run him over if he acts tough.

DarthMonk wrote:Deadman, find the hole and make one good cut.

Too many holes. That bucket is more like a sieve.

SCANDALOUS:

Some people have VOTED FOR ROMNEY and the darn mofo...machine SWITCHED THE VOTE TO...........NObama....

this prez wants to win AT ALL COST.........!!! EVEN BY CHEATING

How corrupt is this COUNTRY....??? I thought stuff like that only happens in Iraq, Afghan, and other such places.........

SMH..........tsk tsk tsk

tribeofjudah wrote:SCANDALOUS:

Some people have VOTED FOR ROMNEY and the darn mofo...machine SWITCHED THE VOTE TO...........NObama....

this prez wants to win AT ALL COST.........!!! EVEN BY CHEATING

How corrupt is this COUNTRY....??? I thought stuff like that only happens in Iraq, Afghan, and other such places.........

SMH..........tsk tsk tsk

Now, that's funny!

81% chance Obama wins now. 303 - 235 College, 50.4 - 48.4 POP.


Chances of Obama Winning Tipping Points and Battlegrounds:

Colorado 66%

Florida 44%

Iowa 79%

Nevada 87%

New Hampshire 79%

Ohio 81%

Virginia 65%

Wisconsin 93%


Rain and voter fraud - these are Romney's best chances to win.

538 ~

If you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven’t come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a “tossup.”

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.
A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.
The argument that Mr. Obama isn’t the favorite is the one that requires more finesse. If you take the polls at face value, then the popular vote might be a tossup, but the Electoral College favors Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is winning. He’s been ahead in the vast majority of polls in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and all the other states where the Democrat normally wins. These states add up to more than 270 electoral votes. It isn’t complicated. To argue that Mr. Romney is ahead, or that the election is a “tossup,” requires that you disbelieve the polls, or that you engage in some complicated interpretation of them.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Darth....don't believe everything you see or hear about this race.

Many other pundits predict Romney winning....BY A LANDSLIDE.

We shall see next Tuesday.

As I said before: GOD will place into the White House......WHO HE DEEMS FIT for this time in history.

tribeofjudah wrote:Darth....don't believe everything you see or hear about this race.

Yes, because we still have those electronic voting machines. The winner has already been decided, we just have to wait until next Tuesday to find out who it is.

tribeofjudah wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^
Darth....don't believe everything you see or hear about this race.

Many other pundits predict Romney winning....BY A LANDSLIDE.

We shall see next Tuesday.

As I said before: GOD will place into the White House......WHO HE DEEMS FIT for this time in history.

No worries about me believing everything I see or hear about this race or anything else, bro. I like evidence.

Final projections of 2008 election:

In the final update of his presidential forecast model at midday of November 4, 2008, Silver projected a popular vote victory by 6.1 percentage points for Barack Obama and electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state). Obama won with 365 electoral college votes, Silver's predictions matching the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state. His projected national popular vote differential was below the actual figure of 7.2 points.

The forecasts for the Senate proved to be correct for every race. But the near stalemate in Minnesota led to a recount that was settled only on June 30, 2009. In Alaska, after a protracted counting of ballots, on November 19 Republican incumbent Ted Stevens conceded the seat to Democrat Mark Begich, an outcome that Silver had forecast on election day. And in Georgia, a run-off election on December 2 led to the re-election of Republican Saxby Chambliss, a result that was also consistent with Silver's original projection.

I like Obama's chances and if you want to define "Landslide" I'm up for a friendly bet.

DarthMonk

the movie 2016 should make some people do a double take....