DescentBB

CobGobbler wrote:So...not letting someone insinuate the President is telling a blatant lie is a bad thing? Romney's claim was 100% wrong but you're saying it was more wrong to call that out??

It is if you, by definition, aren’t supposed to do it….

She was the moderator, and should have done her job, not try to start fact checking, I’m really surprised this isn’t a bigger deal…no wait, I remember who controls the press.

Maybe someone from FOX news should moderate the next debate.

Spidey wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:So...not letting someone insinuate the President is telling a blatant lie is a bad thing? Romney's claim was 100% wrong but you're saying it was more wrong to call that out??

It is if you, by definition, aren’t supposed to do it….

She was the moderator, and should have done her job, not try to start fact checking...

My impression watching the debate was that she was favoring Obama slightly. I actually thought she was doing Romney a favor by stopping the direction he was going on Libya. It was a little embarrassing, but it gave him the opportunity to use his time better and come up with something on the fly. Besides, it was late. The debate was pretty much over at that point and Romney stood his ground well. I don't think the Libya comments are any kind of game changer. Romney still has tons of momentum.

Spidey wrote:Maybe someone from FOX news should moderate the next debate.

use Hannity!!! then Romney wont even need to debate Obama, Hannity will do it for him

I like CUDAs idea.....Obama would come off as so comparatively sane that way.

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe when Romney's "binders full of women" pimpish comment finally sinks in, they'll start thinking differently.

So let me get this straight. Romney wanted a list of qualified women to staff his cabinet. Got the list in binder form and you and Obama somehow think this is demeaning women? Wow, just wow.

tunnelcat wrote:Nearly ever job I've worked at in my life, I was paid less, sometimes way less, than any male counterpart in the current job I had at the time, even though I had the same skills and abilities and never took child leave. Do I resent that fact, yes.

Maybe you should be glad you don't work for Obama:

"When one of President Obama's debate coaches, Anita Dunn, worked at the White House, this is what she reportedly had to say about her experience there: "

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. ... Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

So let me ask you now TC, who would you rather work for?

Heh, before anyone gets me wrong, I am not for Obama so much as I am completely against Romney. I found the way Romney told that story somewhat belittling too. Of course, he was trying not to, but it still came across as "We needed qualified women and they were very hard to find." You can believe that women are not equals in Romney's belief system. In fact, I doubt Romney thinks he has too many equals period and is probably one hard-nosed SOB.

I don't think Romney counts anyone as his equal unless they're worth at least eight figures.

Seriously, how anyone can look at that wax-figurine fake smile plastered on his face and not have their lizard brainstem start yelling, "Danger! Danger" is beyond me. As a friend of mine put it, he's the spitting image of an 80s movie villain. You almost expect him to say, "I'm going to tear down that forest and build condos, and there's nothing you can do to stop me!"

Ferno wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Nearly ever job I've worked at in my life, I was paid less, sometimes way less, than any male counterpart in the current job I had at the time, even though I had the same skills and abilities and never took child leave. Do I resent that fact, yes.

Did you put in the same amount of hours as your male counterparts? Did you take any 'mental health days' off? Any sick days off? Any 'finding yourself' days off? How much vacation time did you take?

Yep. Same amount of time, no more than average sick days, no on-the-rag days, same vacation days, etc. I didn't have any problems that interfered with work until I hit perimenopause, then I had to retire because I couldn't work at all. That was my decision, not the employer's. I didn't deem it fair to cause an employer problems because I could no longer function at any capacity and medical science couldn't fix the problem.

flip wrote:Heh, before anyone gets me wrong, I am not for Obama so much as I am completely against Romney. I found the way Romney told that story somewhat belittling too. Of course, he was trying not to, but it still came across as "We needed qualified women and they were very hard to find." You can believe that women are not equals in Romney's belief system. In fact, I doubt Romney thinks he has too many equals period and is probably one hard-nosed SOB.

That's my sentiment too. I'm not really a fan of Obama, but I dislike Romney soooooooooo much more. If there was a viable, not crazy third party candidate, I thought had at least a snowball's chance in hell of beating both of the 2 main candidates, I'd vote for them.

woodchip wrote:So let me get this straight. Romney wanted a list of qualified women to staff his cabinet. Got the list in binder form and you and Obama somehow think this is demeaning women? Wow, just wow.

Maybe he had a Freudian slip, but he could have been more diplomatic and said: "Binders full of qualified women." Instead, he sounded like a pimp looking for his prostitutes.

callmeslick wrote:I like CUDAs idea.....Obama would come off as so comparatively sane that way.

no doubt. Hannity is a bit of a loon.

tunnelcat wrote:Yep. Same amount of time, no more than average sick days, no on-the-rag days, same vacation days, etc. I didn't have any problems that interfered with work until I hit perimenopause, then I had to retire because I couldn't work at all. That was my decision, not the employer's. I didn't deem it fair to cause an employer problems because I could no longer function at any capacity and medical science couldn't fix the problem.

I think you would fit in pretty nicely at the shop that I work at, if it weren't for the fuckin' perimenopause part.

I especially liked the fact you used 'on the rag' instead of using some pillowy-soft, politically-correct synonym.

If Obama saved two people from a burning car, Hannity would call him a vandal for breaking the glass.

Ferno wrote:I think you would fit in pretty nicely at the shop that I work at, if it weren't for the ****' perimenopause part.

Heh! I could due without the perimenopause part!

Ferno wrote:I especially liked the fact you used 'on the rag' instead of using some pillowy-soft, politically-correct synonym.

You mean like "The Monthlies", "That Time of the Month" or "My Period"? You do realize that in olden times before disposable products, women actually had to use a rag and rewash it. TMI?

CobGobbler wrote:If Obama saved two people from a burning car, Hannity would call him a vandal for breaking the glass.

No, Hannity would blame Obama for setting the car on fire in the first place. Glenn Beck would accuse Obama of building a socialist car that caught fire because of it's commie shoddy construction.

tunnelcat wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:If Obama saved two people from a burning car, Hannity would call him a vandal for breaking the glass.

No, Hannity would blame Obama for setting the car on fire in the first place. Glenn Beck would accuse Obama of building a socialist car that caught fire because of it's commie shoddy construction.

You mean like the Chevy Volt?

CobGobbler wrote:If Obama saved two people from a burning car, Hannity would call him a vandal for breaking the glass.

and people would call him reckless for 'risking his life unnecessarily', then pontificate how he should have let the proper authorities deal with it.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:If Obama saved two people from a burning car, Hannity would call him a vandal for breaking the glass.

No, Hannity would blame Obama for setting the car on fire in the first place. Glenn Beck would accuse Obama of building a socialist car that caught fire because of it's commie shoddy construction.

You mean like the Chevy Volt?

Last I heard, GM is still considered a private company with the government as the majority stakeholder, and only because the stock price hasn't rebounded enough to pay off the debt. Even Toyota is bleeding red ink, so it's not a government problem, it's an economic problem.

And the Volt was a concept car in 2007, before the bailout. As for battery fires, even the Prius A123 Hybrid has had it's own fire problems.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_ ... eport_2008

By the way, laptop batteries even catch fire, so are you going to not buy a laptop because you think it's going to catch fire? That's the hazard with Lithium Ion batteries. But if you want semantics, all gasoline-powered cars are fire hazards if the fuel system isn't maintained or designed right or is damaged in an accident.

You're forgetting Romney did use the government to help bail out the 2002 Olympics. I guess Romney's a secret socialist, at least when it's convenient to bilk the public taxpayer for his own private gain.

http://www.kgw.com/news/national/Feds-b ... 99746.html

A123 doesn't manufacture lithium ion batteries. they manufacture lithium iron manganese batteries. A completely different chemistry and not prone to catching on fire even when you smash them with an icepick.. So whoever wrote that wikileaks article either doesn't know that A123 cells don't catch fire, or doesn't know what an electrical short is.


seriously, look at some videos of destructive testing involving A123 batteries. All they do is produce smoke.

By the way, laptop batteries even catch fire, so are you going to not buy a laptop because you think it's going to catch fire? That's the hazard with Lithium Ion batteries.

Lithium Ion batteries only catch fire if A) they're over-discharged, B) if there's too much current pulled from them or C) overcharged. Each situation leads to what's called Thermal Runaway, causing a fire from the inside.

And the Volts battery maker is now filing for bankruptcy with a Chi-com company looking to buy it out. More taxpayer dollars wasted.

Ferno wrote:A123 doesn't manufacture lithium ion batteries. they manufacture lithium iron manganese batteries. A completely different chemistry and not prone to catching on fire even when you smash them with an icepick.. So whoever wrote that wikileaks article either doesn't know that A123 cells don't catch fire, or doesn't know what an electrical short is.


seriously, look at some videos of destructive testing involving A123 batteries. All they do is produce smoke.

I didn't know that. It sounds more promising.

Ferno wrote:Lithium Ion batteries only catch fire if A) they're over-discharged, B) if there's too much current pulled from them or C) overcharged. Each situation leads to what's called Thermal Runaway, causing a fire from the inside.

There is another reason. If they are made poorly and get an internal short, they get hot and go POOF! There's been a bunch of those recalled in the past.

woodchip wrote:And the Volts battery maker is now filing for bankruptcy with a Chi-com company looking to buy it out. More taxpayer dollars wasted.

It's not any different than if a bunch of people with pensions, 401K's and other investments losing big when some product a company makes goes bust and the company tanks. But I will grant you that paying workers to do nothing while waiting and hoping for the market to improve IS stupid.

Easy to do when the Govt. gives you money to promote your product.

tunnelcat wrote:There is another reason. If they are made poorly and get an internal short, they get hot and go POOF! There's been a bunch of those recalled in the past.

doubtful. I would have known about it before the recalls happened.