Frist!
Wait, he's not running. Never mind.
Ugh, I somehow thought it started at 8:30, so I've had CNN on since then. Fucking start already.
You guys better be on your fucking game tonight.
I hate this fucking shit. Just let me live in a sane country for the last few decades of my life.
I know what it takes to create jobs- but it's a secret!
Apparently Romney is all about teh Pell grants.
6: What do I have to give up in return? Orgasms? Racquetball? Watching the World Cup? I'm ready to bargain.
The top quarter of Massachusetts students go to college for free. I bet that was mittens' idea.
It's just going to be a river of bullshit, isn't it?
I was going to watch but then I found out the questions were drawn from a random poll of Nassau County residents. Fuck that shit.
I'm watching by digital antenna and it keeps cutting out, Rmoney sounds like Ron Headrest.
14: No, it's cool. Every question is about what the Mets need to do in the off season.
7: I dunno, I am sure it involves tax cuts.
"What Governor Romney said just isn't true."
Romney wanted to save Detroit now. LIES LIES.
I cannot handle another debate. Watching social media this week.
He didn't want to keep them open, he wanted to liquidate them and fire everyone- just like he did to many other companies.
See, I could do this debate thing.
||
Bruce Wilder and William Timberman are on a roll in this CT Thread
Timberman thereat says it is all there at the end of Hobsbawm's V1 and beginning of V2. Which happens to be my very current reading (along with Friedrich List and Japanese domestic courts) as of like 5 minutes ago.
Just mentioning possible better uses of time.
What's the score?
|>
Did they intentionally go for the stereotypical accent?
26: Although he didn't have a rebuttal coming after that, Romney jumped in over the moderator to get in his "Nuh uh!"
24: That last dude was a perfect Nassau Co. amalgam: an Italian with Jon Stewart's "elderly Jew" voice.
Ok, Obama is doing fine. He seems better prepared, more aggressive, and the format suits him.
Mr. Oil sounds like he could be hot, but I wouldn't want to date Mr. Gas.
I'm watching/listening to this* on loop rather than the debate.
Ginger, MaryAnn and Mrs. Thurston Howell dancing to The Castaways "Liar, Liar".
29: Bitching about gas prices, no less.
||
Jill Stein arrested outside debate. But if y'all are watching tv I suppose you know that. I suppose, but I don't watch tv.
A police record should be a necessary qualification for the Presidency
|>
"Very little of what Governor Romney just said is true."
I am drunk and walking home. (Mmmm grappa.) Missing all the fun?
In the throat, togo. THE MOTHERFUCKING THROAT.
This is ridiculous, why aren't there backstage fact-checkers? Are we just going to watch them call each other liars for the entire debate?
Obama is not doing well at this head to head. He's getting overwhelmed a bit.
Huh. This is more contentious than I expected. Yay. If Obama's strategy was to get Rmoney to behave like a whiny-ass prick, it's working.
Give him a Kenyan Knuckle sandwich.
Okay, good line. Romney will bring back lowering prices by collapsing the economy.
41: Huh. Disagree. But Romney could read the phonebook and seem like a smirking douchebag to me, so.
"Is it the job of the Energy Department to lower gas prices?"
No.
34: We missed a real opportunity when Jim Jeffords retired.
40 - We live in a world in which the perfectly true claim that Paul Ryan seeks to dismantle Medicare was judged the Lie of the Year by multiple independent fact checkers.
I want Obama to point out that the Keystone XL pipeline isn't about oil for America, it's about exporting Canadian oil to the rest of the world.
I think Romney is coming off like a douchey ass.
Jammies keep shouting about 51.
The Graun is doing a live blog too.
Heebie heebie, you are not average average.
Taxes for no one, ponies for everyone!
I think Romney is coming off like a douchey ass.
I think he's doing pretty well. Lying his ass off, mind you, but effectively.
59: I CAN'T HERE YOU!
Liar, liar, pants on fire
Your nose is longer than a telephone wire
I had to look up the spelling of "rassle." I thought it was "rassel," but maybe that's something in German.
I'm done being relieved over Obama's performance. I'm now getting annoyed that the entire debate is about who can be the better Republican.
i>I think he's doing pretty well. Lying his ass off, mind you, but effectively.
And managing to get the last word every time.
Which site airs the real time thumbs up/down again?
Chris Bowers: "Romney is going to completely rearrange the way rich people pay taxes in order to make sure rich people pay the exact same amount of taxes."
59: agreed. This was the candidate that I feared all along: slick, good looking, self-assured, seemingly knowledgeable, and totally willing to abase himself to gain power.
YOU DON 'T PAY 60% IN TAXES!! Call him out on that
Mitch Hoffmann: "So far this has been a very strong first debate for the President."
Also, I think Obama is doing better than last time but not especially well. He really needs to find a way to politely scold Romney for getting in the last word every time. I'm not sure how he can do that.
67, 70: Shut up. Up your game, history boy.
68: Yeah, that was definitely phrased that way on purpose.
Big Bird / Planned Parenthood slam!
For a moment I forgot the moderator's name, and I thought he was offering 'candy' as one of the two things at stake.
71: sorry, I'm a Jew. We wander and worry.
Fifth repeat of The Castaways here.
"Make a little effort, try to be true
I'll be happy, not so blue"
I have more candy corn. Hooray. Thanks for the reminder.
Once again, Romney becomes hesitant and unsure of himself when on defense.
I wonder if we worry because we wander. Probably, right?
That generation didn't complain. All you kids are a bunch of whiners, though.
Arrgh, I heard some of the debate through the door!
"I'm melting! Melting! Oh, what a world! What a world! Who would have thought two men talking could destroy my beautiful obliviousness?"
81: Also part of that generation: Gloria Steinem, notable complainer.
They complained about manna -- free food! That's some complaining.
Oh, I was thinking about the original wandering generation.
Romney has "binders full of women."
I'm listening to WFMU instead of the debate. Besides the Nassau County origin of the questions, the liquor store around the corner was out of rye.
In the new economy Romney's going to bring, employers will be anxious to hire women!
Women have barely lost any jobs, I'm pretty sure.
93: You're going to get Romney fired, you monster!
I'm doing some terribly boring reading instead of watching the debate. We have rye, but I haven't yet been driven to crack it open.
Blinders for women? Just make the men veil themselves.
95: Just like a Mormon, pwn me on my own comment.
BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN
This is like Scott Brown's house full of women.
I'm supposed to be revising part of a brief, but the internet is so festive this evening.
I'm having a Manhattan made with cherry bitters. Thumbs up!
I guess I missed more than half the debate because of a long dinner. Opinion: Cra/igie on Ma/in is not really good enough to justify the cost. But hey, if I'm not paying...
Hey, Stormy, Obama's kind of kicking ass now. I mean, Romney doesn't have much to say that isn't a lie. It's kind of funny.
As I think about it, I suspect that Obama's strategy is to call a spade a spade, opening up the opportunity to call Romney a liar from now till election day. Given the campaign Romney is running, I hope I'm right.
97, 102 - But made with Buffalo Trace instead of rye, because we're out. Maybe one of the Nassauns will ask about the the terrible under distribution of Bulleit Rye.
Romney is claiming to be a small businessperson?
I AM MITROMNULAX! BINDER OF WOMEN!
I am not George Bush, I totes swear
Why not! He's totally for contraceptive care, too.
Apparently Bain Capital is a small business,.
The matter of til versus till is more troubling* to me than why Jews worry.
* And more interesting.**
** Bad Jew and bad historian!
Bureaucrats in Washington shouldn't decide whether women get affordable access to contraception!
104: Good. That's why I married Jewish, you guys come through when the chips are down.
I guess the liquor store might have had fancy rye, but they were out of Old Overholt, both sizes. I hope the mob-looking distributor guys who go in there all sinisterly are still going to let them carry OO.
Contraceptives for all! Sex for the wealthy!
"Binders Full of Women" - Lil Wayne feat. 2 Chainz
Frank Conniff: "Mitt: These are different times than the Bush years These are the years that were fucked up by the Bush years."
I ... I'm looking forward to the post-debate chatter on the news. What's become of me?
"Governor, you're the last person who's gonna get tough on China."
Stormy (it's just you and me, babe), Obama is really kicking Romney in the teeth on women's issues. Romney has nothing but lies, and he looks pretty weird issuing them. Obama, meanwhile, has the ACA, and he's saying so. Things look much worse for the Mittster than they did fifteen minutes ago. I expect the gender gap to reopen* in the next few days.
* Collectors of low-hanging fruit, just don't.
Medicare Voucher! Say it over and over!
Family members report last bit was great--Obama on areas where Dickweed is worst than Bush.
Sure, make the black guy ask the dumbest question.
103: agreed, although the tasting menu is something to experience once.
Anyone else having trouble loading Unfogged on chrome?
Man, I really hope as many people watch this debate as watched the last one.
Obama smacked the question about his record out of the park.
Which station airs the live thumbs up/thumbs down live poll?
The matter of til versus till
Till the land, Till Eulenspiegel, 'til the cows come home.
You people suck; why aren't you telling who you are going to vote for and why? Isn't this a politics blog?
LB already told you! In a front page post!
132: right, but till is now acceptable. And unless you use the apostrophe, which is twee, I think til looks wrong. Which is to say, it's not that simple!
Paul Krugman is going to cut off Romney's balls for that Reagan analogy.
Romney answer on how the economy's been crap last four years was strong
Stormy, Obama has really killed for the last fifteen minutes. Mitt still looks polished and handsome, though, so it's not the rout it should be on the merits.
Andy Borowitz: "So far, fact-checkers have caught Romney telling three truths."
Oops, I spoke too soon. They've pivoted to the economy, and Mitt is on firmer ground again.
140: Fine, then let's call it a debate and go get drunk.
140: And I'm not really believing you--because I suck at being neurotic.
Romney wants to give green cards with degrees? That... would be a crazy huge change. Where'd he come up with that? It actually sounds good to me, given all the horrendous visa issues all my friends and colleagues who aren't US citizens have to deal with.
Wow they're having trouble with a rather lovely first name.
137: How many divisions has Krugman?
"Don't tell me different, know it's a lie
Come kill me, honey, see how I cry"
Another spin of The Castaways with Mary Ann and Ginger to calm down.
Personally, I think Romney is doing pretty well (at least through the eyes of a low-information voter who doesn't know he's lying through his teeth). My hope is that the press will be keen enough to see a change of the storyline that they'll call Obama the winner.
143: It was such a weird pivot for Romney, though, and not consonant with anything else he's said. "The president is a good man! He so wants to do well! He really wishes all good things and has such a good heart! But alas he just hasn't been able to deliver and we are all sad! Since he is such a good man!"
Did the dickwad just say "Democrat House"?
Seriously, my fellow Americans, don;t vote for this guy. Please.
Preaching to the choir?
147: My preferred policy is automatic citizenship for degree plus five years work. Only exception for felons. Let's steal other countries top talent.
What did he just say? Let illegal immigrants make their own decision whether to stay? WTF is that?
I have been doing Weight Watchers for five weeks and lost a chunk of weight. Having changed my diet and observed the effects, it seems the liquor is the main thing that makes me put on pounds, so I've been really quite good about not drinking much at all. It has been a very long first hour of the debate. I would like a binder full of gin long about now.
Romney just used 'illegals' as a noun.
Had to turn off the sound. I can't take it any more. LIIIIIEEEESSSS, nothing but LIIIIIIEEEESSSS! Someone tell me how it ends.
156: My preferred policy is to invade the Caymans, the Bahamas and Switzerland and get our money back.
Obama is getting pissed off, which is good, I think - he's pausing less and getting more animated.
Lorraine looks pissed.
That they mangled her name?
Oops, Obama assumed that Kerry was a woman and was looking around for the questioner when the guy was right in front of him.
I had a weird job in Mineola for a few months when I was 25. That is one depressing place.
Fuck, I turn the sound back on, and we get a question about Libya? Someone make it stop!!!
If that guy is talking to his buddies about that, there's no fucking way he's "undecided."
"Mr. Obama, I was watching the third hour of Fox and Friends yesterday..."
Snap poll results in my head: Mary Ann over Ginger, easily.
I am attending a Mountain Goats show rather than watching the debate. I think that was the right decision.
Romney just used 'illegals' as a noun.
That's what they say in Nassau County.
How many Latinos are there in the studio audience?
Obama really is doing 180 degrees better than last time.
http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/
Internet FTW.
"The president said he would put daylight between us and Israel" -- that's supposed to be, unambiguously, a criticism?
Yeah "undecided." Mitt's foreign policy idiocy is terrifying. Apology tour? Didnt happen. Now How about a pratfall tour you had this Summer, Mitt?
Personally, I think Romney is doing pretty well
Well, you did allude that he's adept at conning consultant types.
181 is not quite in keeping with all Internet traditions.
Holy shit, a moderator had a fact on hand! She's an embarrassment to the profession!
I just tuned it, but it looks like Obama is kicking ass on the Libya thing.
188, 89: And then immediately added something else to say Romney was "right about that." Bah!
The gun control question is a lame one.
Obama ought to explain why he killed the Arms Trade Treaty.
Is Unfogged just running super slowly? I'm switching back and forth between devices and they're all hung up.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Binders-Full-Of-Women/474385452583505 already as 14K likes
This is why the political media must die. Imagine a Dem trying to make hay about something like the Benghazi attack. Reagan the Magnificent Asswipe had the Beirut embassy blown up twice with many American deaths and still left the Marines sitting there with their thumbs up their asses.
#IThinkThat'stheRightTimeline
How did we get from AK-47s to babies havin' babies?
Romney thinks he's playing Shocase Showdown. Just taking the Democratic Position - 1 position.
Romney claims that automatic weapons are already illegal. Quick google search seems to disagree? I don't know anything about gun laws.
If you marry someone you might get a bulletproof vest as a wedding present! Seriously, did he just say "Before people have babies they should think about marrying someone?" Has he never heard of Dan Quayle?
Fast and furious? Really does anyone think the pres micromanages random ATF departments.
196: Good, because fucking fuckheads being fuckheads on that one.
Yay moderator again! Call him out on the assault weapons dodge.
Great pedantry from Romney on the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Of course, everyone who understood the difference was already voting for Romney.
Crowley showing some skirt.
197: But they didn't get the ambassador just some of the lowlings, so no harm, no foul.
I'm glad we're addressing the problems of everyday Americans.
Romney claims that automatic weapons are already illegal. Quick google search seems to disagree? I don't know anything about gun laws.
"Mostly true", in fact-checker land.
Obama missed the chance to say "George W. Bush started 'Fast & Furious', I stopped it."
195. That binders page is so on target I think it is by pros.
Outsourcing question this is going to be great.
Obama must have practiced his skeptically bemused look in front of the mirror.
Hard to tell who is spending more time on the other guy's turf: Obama wants nothing more than to cut taxes, and Romney loves entitlements and protectionism.
Automatic weapons are legal but regulated in the U.S.
216: No lie, he must have. Because that awful "look down and scribble" thing last time was the worst.
Are they fucking through yet? I'm exhausted.
Romneys answer end currency manipulatiOn, and raise tariffs on foreign goods? And... Lower taxes and make it harder for people to get healthcare? Not following you mitt
213 the weird CNN immediate tracking poll
Maybe he isn't consistently, I haven't been paying too much attention, just saw him shoot up really quickly for a while
209: agreed. She's been good. My wandering Jew worries were unfounded.
213 the weird CNN immediate tracking poll
Maybe he isn't consistently, I haven't been paying too much attention, just saw him shoot up really quickly for a while
224: So, Mr. Wafer, speaking as a tenured professor of history, what was your impression of tonight's debate?
We can compete if the playing field is level, so I support also paying Americans $3 a day!
Actually mr. President I'd be perfecty happy with high-wage low-skill jobs.
saw him shoot up really quickly
There goes the anti-drug vote...
I guess Romney thinks if he chants "government does not create jobs" enough times it will become true.
Shit question old guy. Maybe mitt will admit to being a colon though.
Cylon, but auto-correct was funnier.
I got all my kids insured- all five of them!
Hmm Romney is clearly trolling for the Halford vote with that intellectual property in China pitch. NO DICE MOTHERFUCKER.
And I believe we are all children of the same god
Sdfsvdafbdsgfng
Romney's pitch for himself is pretty awful.
If I play "Liar, Liar" one more time ill it be over?
Science!
He really needs to find a way to politely scold Romney for getting in the last word every time. I'm not sure how he can do that.
A little delayed, but this is really the responsibility of the moderator. It is impossible for Obama to call him out without sounding peevish. Peeving is the moderator's job.
Did not like the chanting much, I did not.
I really really hate these "how are you different?" questions. Just an opportunity to bullshit. They already have those opportunities.
Finally with the 47 percent. And it's over. Ha.
Umm we know I'm biased, but that end looked like Obama literally wiped the floor with Romney.
Draw. Fluent liars are just too hard to pin down.
Obama's the winner, now let's have the press tell us what we'll think tomorrow!
"The most rancorous Presidential debate ever," says CBS.
Also: "The President certainly accomplished what he failed to accomplish in the first debate."
Ann has not yet mastered the art of keeping a look of distaste off her face.
An Obama advisor on ABC says Obama won, but a Romney advisor says Romney did the job! Donna Brazile, who won? Obama, of course. George Will? Haha, Will's mic wasn't working so I guess Obama really won!
Nice pulling of the Costanza move -- go out with your best line and leave the room.
Ann has not yet mastered the art of keeping a look of distaste off her face.
She was raised Episcopalian; only converted to marry Mitt.
And in other good news, the Yankees are losing.
254: If you're referring to the 47% line, I still think that's better at the beginning. Frame him as saying one thing to his private donors, something else when he knows we're watching.
258: That's what I've been waiting for: "Which Romney will show up to govern? I'm guessing the one talking to the rich donors."
Tom Brokaw just called Romney "one of the original big business creators in America".
261: So weird. Dude was a speculator basically. Bizarre.
Tom Brokaw keeled over the shark a long time ago. He's really turned into an awful, awful old man.
The "Obama comeback" storyline animates the post-debate spin. Good.
Hey look at that. 2-0. Nice use of the White Stripes on the sound system at Comerica. God bless Detroit.
I hate undecided voters so very much.
OK, shitfuck. You folks done pretty good. Go out and pound a few Budweisers. </BallFour>
The OG of the 'we're doomed, it's over, we're all gonna die' school of Debate 1 analysis is ecstatic. Apparently Obama 'dominated' Romney in 'every single way'. He's now a 'lethal, but restrained predator'. Romney on the other hand was 'schvitzy'
Holy fucking shit, a "fact checker" said 50/50 on Benghazi terror exchange- Obama said "act of terror" in the rose garden but didn't use the word "terrorism" until two weeks later so both were right. Fucking shoot me now, as long as you call it "terrorism" and not an "act of terror."
Now there's an ad on TV telling me that Elizabeth Warren refuses to talk about jobs and the economy. The fuck?
I got an ad telling me that Scott Brown is pro-choice and favors equal pay for women, and he'd better be because he lives with 3 women. Would someone please point out the difference between private acts and public policy?
214: Catch-phrase first used, as far as I know, by Romney in the first debate, and at least 10 times since then.
276, next you'll be telling us rich people should be taxed by the revenuers IN ADDITION TO their own self-taxation.
Yeah, if you think taxes should be higher, why don't you just pay more and everything will be fixed!
Ooh, now John Tierney defending his corrupt in-laws (or rather, dissociating himself from them)
I'm pretty confident that Brown is pro-choice for his kids and if they need some cash for an abortion in Montreal or London he'll pony up.
Ok, I get that "trickle down government" is a catch phrase, but what does it even mean? "Trickle down economics" is a concept that I understand (and is still a major component of Republican policy, is it not?) But I have no idea what "trickle down government" is supposed to be, or how it would distinguish itself from government that is not trickle down.
Shjtfuck. Leyland, pull Verlander now.
Trickle down economics- give all the money to rich people, some of it will trickle down to the rest of the non-rich people
Trickle down government- give all the money to the government, some of it will trickle down to the rest of the non-government people.
Please point out 10 ways in which this is stupid, aside from being an analogy.
284: It's a cleverness the Republicans introduced sometime in the last month or so -- turn the enemy's complaint against you (trickle-down economics) against them! In this case, explain that government doesn't create jobs by arguing against trickle-down government. Just an extension of the general anti-government schtick.
It actually is pretty clever. Assholes.
285: I know....too many pitches.
Is it supposed to mean anything? Isn't it one of those phrases crafted to attach Democrats on Republican weaknesses? Asking what it means is probably a category error. I say probably because I'm not entirely sure what a category error is.
Anyway, parsimon is correct, except about it being clever. There's nothing clever about it. It's sort of manufactured anti-cleverness.
One more out. Don't fuck this up.
now let's have the press tell us what we'll think tomorrow!
You really have to listen to the callers on the CSPAN live call-in show. That's where they have 3 separate phone numbers for the Republican line, the Democratic line, and the Independent line. Always listen to those callers for the first while right after one of these debates: they're unfiltered by post-debate spin.
They're also awesome sometimes for how out there they are.
A childhood friend who never shares political stuff on FB just shared one of the "binder full of women" things.
Could we really hope for the forces of evil to be vanquished twice tonight?
Aggh. Crappy fielding is crappy.
284
Ok, I get that "trickle down government" is a catch phrase, but what does it even mean? "Trickle down economics" is a concept that I understand (and is still a major component of Republican policy, is it not?) But I have no idea what "trickle down government" is supposed to be, or how it would distinguish itself from government that is not trickle down.
It's government that gets its regulations and inspectors into every facet of life, leaking and dripping into places that you thought were safe, government staining and tainting every private aspect of yourself, like getting into women's oh man even I can't make that make sense for Romney.
Honestly, Ibanez sucks against lefties so its highly unlikely he'll do anything. The BAL winning hit was a fluke.
301 - But inevitable, given Pratchett's Law of Narrative. The Orioles haven't lost a game after leading in the eighth all season, ehhhhh?
CNN says Obama won, 46-39.
301: Yeah, they'd also won 16 straight extra-inning games.
When we came into the clubhouse, all of us yelling and screaming Like a bunch of high-school kids, Joe Schultz said, "Stomp on em. That- away to stomp on 'em. Kick 'em when they're down. Shitfuck. Stomp them. Stomp them good."
Baseball needs color commentators who correct for multiple comparisons.
http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/image/33750544241
303: Fuck CNN and they're fucking polls; they aren't the boss of anyone. Fuckwad dickheads. Don't care if they say my guy won. They must be killed if we are to live. Them and Jake Tapper. And Mark Helperin.
CBS scores it 37-30 Obama.
The polls are the least bullshit part of post debate coverage.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the polls aren`t bullshit.
307 - Don't remind me. This is the first time the Orioles have been decent since I was in college, but there's going to be a wicked reversion to the mean.
Ezra Klein's tie was improperly tied. I've never been more outraged. Wait, now Chuck Todd is on my TV. I am more outraged. Chuck Todd is human garbage.
273: Holy fucking shit, a "fact checker" said 50/50 on Benghazi terror exchange- Obama said "act of terror" in the rose garden but didn't use the word "terrorism" until two weeks later so both were right. Fucking shoot me now, as long as you call it "terrorism" and not an "act of terror."
Yeah, another "fact checker" equivocated in much the same way. They're really paralyzed by the need to nod to the he said/she said routine. I don't know why it keeps surprising me.
Yo, that was my favorite moment in the debate: Romney deciding to call Obama out on the latter's statement that he'd spoken in the Rose Garden the following day to say that the attack was an act of terrorism, and Romney looks at Obama (have I picked a fight? You got something to say, Obama?), and Obama says coolly, "Please proceed, Governor."
So great. Probably you guys noted it upthread.
FACT CHECK- Neither 30 + 37 nor 46 + 39 add up to 100. The polls are six pinnochios on fire!
318: There is a commercial for MSNBC in which Chris Hayes is wearing a shirt he has clearly just unwrapped from plastic. It kills me.
Millions Head To Internet To Figure Out Their Own Opinions About Debate
I don't think Chuck Todd's that bad.
(runs away, sees what they're saying on tv)
Hey, actually there's an interesting looking documentary on PBS called "Race 2012", about racial issues in politics/government over time in the U.S.
323: says bob mcmanus's biggest defender. Von Wafer wins the debate!
325: What?
I'm going to watch this documentary.
This is the first time the Orioles have been decent since I was in college, but there's going to be a wicked reversion to the mean.
Buck Showalter laughs at puny statistics-based expectations.
326: I was just kidding around with you, parsi. My mistake. It won't happen again.
269
I hate undecided voters so very much.
Everybody hates atheists.
I'd like to throw some love to the OP. "Love be a btocked lady tonight," that's funny stuff.
331: Trolling doesn't work every time.
My Facebook feed is currently about 80% "Binders Full Of Women." I guess that's the main takeaway from the debate among my social circles.
Only about half of it's from Unfogged people, too.
333: It would be funny if my typo were a result of my being btocked.
In seriousness, how come no one has pointed out that the whole Binder of Women thing was essentially Romney practicing affirmative action?
And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?
We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.
338: or, rather, lying about having done so.
Well, yes, I did say it was Romney speaking so that's a given.
Even if he hadn't been lying, the story still sounds pretty damning to me. What, you didn't already know any qualified women?
338: Because, in the story as told (and really? you are making up a story to illustrate how pro-woman you are and *that's* the best you can do?), it's not that only men applied. It's that his staff apparently found only men "have the qualifications." Oh, sure, we could just accept that his staff evaluated all the applications objectively (in the story as told) and that none of the women who applied had the qualifications. But that story is only plausible if you actually believe that it's just so much harder to find women who have qualifications (rare birds, they!).
Ugh. The debate by and large kind of bored me. But that question answer answer still has me fuming this morning. Binders full of women was bizarre, sure. But what put me over the edge was the bit about how once Romney magically transforms the economy, employers will be so anxious to find good workers that they'll want to hire women. I know right? An economy so booming that even women might be desirable members of the labor force! To think!
Women's issues are an area where I think Mitt's Mormonism really shows through, to his discredit. Mormon culture is shot through with 1950s-style assumptions about the role of women -- the whole "of course working women executives need to go home early to cook dinner for their kids" thing, for example. I guess B-school culture didn't help Mittens either.
it's not that only men applied
I found that a little odd on different grounds. I wasn't under the impression that people usually "apply" for cabinet positions.
See, I'm less upset by the idea of professional women wanting to get home to make dinner for their kids. Probably because I blew off a 5:00 meeting last night because I decided it was more important to go home and make dinner for my kid. I'd really like, though, if the idea that working dads want to get home to make dinner for their kids also became a default assumption.
But you're right that wanting to make dinner for their kids isn't what holds women back professionally and flex-time, work/life-balance arrangements are a magic fix for gender issues in the workforce. Indeed, some women don't even have kids!
It is weird he said "applicants"; I think he might have been thinking of the broader universe of gubernatorially-appointed positions rather than the cabinet; in California these are so numerous there's an online application now.
I suspect that today's undecideds are less well informed than the median voter, including the women. The basic facts of Romney's life and outlook will work against him. Fifties prosperity by voting for a fifties guy is not a stance that will work on voters younger than 40.
342.1: What Romney said is that his staff claimed that only men were qualified. In the story, Romney was rightly skeptical of this, and demanded that they look harder for qualified women. Then once they did take another look they found that - oh, look, it turns out there are lots of qualified women out there. Enough to fill binders with their resumes. We just somehow mysteriously didn't notice them before.
IOW it is a story about how his staff was sexist, but Romney fixed everything with his superior feminism. I think this was an attempt at a "dog whistle" to the feminist left.
Vote for me- I'm not a sexist, but every single person who works for me is!
They have to put the resumes in binders because the staff is so old fashioned they have secretaries who print out all email and attachments.
Did email even exist yet the last time Mitt was able to convince voters to elect him?
I noticed last night that Romney tended to use phrasing such as "when I was governor of my state" [my emphasis] to refer to his time in MA. Was he avoiding saying "Massachusetts" for some reason?
The difference between this debate and the other one is that now when Romney said "I have come up with a new ideology, let's call it compassionate conservativism, that has very little in common with the Republicans you're familiar with", Obama was able to say "No you haven't" rather than being flabbergasted into silent befuddlement.
352. Absolutely, because saying the name brings into sharp relief that MA will not now vote for him, and that he's a creature of the East Coast.
343: Very much of the "of course you can have a career*, honey, as long as it doesn't affect your responsibilities around the house" school.
*young married student the other day recounts how she's arguing with her husband because he doesn't want her to finish college because she's supposed to be planning to take care of babies. I hope she stays in school.
If I'm being honest with myself, I basically shared Andrew Sullivan's completely over-the-top reactions to both debates. I thought Obama was just unbelievably awful in the first, and very good last night. Romney last night was every bit as bad as Obama was two weeks ago, and Obama performed well. I don't have a sense for how much any of this matters for outcome of the actual election, but the debate performances themselves seemed as different as night and day. In my mind, both debates seemed lopsided because of awful performances by the loser (first Obama, then Romney), rather than because of anything exceptional from the winner. I'm as stunned that anyone at all thinks Romney did well enough in the debate last night as I am that anyone thinks Obama did well enough two weeks ago--their respective performances were so poor that even partisans should be able to acknowledge the fuckups.
For any Jill Stein voters out there, you'll be proud to know that you are making common cause with Camille Paglia:
OK: Who are you going to vote for?
I am voting for the Green Party.
Oh, you are? I don't even know who the Green candidate is. Who is it?
Jill Stein -- a doctor from Massachusetts. Now, I wouldn't be voting Green if Roseanne Barr had won the nomination, but Stein is a solid and sensible candidate.
Re his manifest contempt for women having an equal seat at the table: No wonder the fucker bagged on going on The View this week.
I don't see where Romney's thing about hiring women was a sign of contempt or condescension or obliviousness. The story is, his advisers told him to hire all men. He said no, there must be qualified women, go find some. Turned out he was right! Now maybe this is a lie, but it's not the sort of story Rick Santorum would ever make up.
Same thing when Romney said that in his magical future economy, employers will be nicer and more willing to give mother-friendly flexible hours, because the job market will be better and employees will have more negotiating power. Now, the part about Romney wanting to reduce the pool of surplus labor is a lie, but the rest sounds fine. This was instantly twisted by some people into "Romney: When I'm in charge, employers will be so eager to hire people, they'll even hire women!"
359: It's a sign of obliviousness that he thinks that the solution to ensuring that qualified women are considered for positions is a matter of the man at the top being a noble gentleman. (It also seems that the story is false.)
One last thought before I go away to await the next debate or cock joke thread.
It's not over until I get to gnaw on Tom Brokaw's skull. </HST>
360 is right. Obama said, we want to sign equality into law, Romney said, women should depend on employers' largesse.
359.1: It fits into his overall pattern of not generally seeing women as having agency in their own lives or the world in general, you ignorant slut. But I'm sure Tom Brokaw would share your perspective.
I think Roseanne Barr would make a decent president. She has demonstrated more concern for working families than either of the guys running now.
It shows that he thinks of hiring as a phenomenon in which one person is matched to one job. When he thinks of Massachusetts hiring people, he thinks of the people he handpicked for the cabinet, which was similar to how people were hired at his company. Not the principles and policies that led to thousands of people being hired every year for civil service jobs.
331
Does anyone understand 330?
Flippanter, an Obama voter, is apparently fine with Romney voters but hates those of us not in thrall to either.
Just one of the things Flippanter and God have in common.
366: James, I think you would have been clearer if you'd had everyone hating on agnostics. Atheists can be viewed as having chosen a side in a binary contest.
Plus, everyone really does hate agnostics, who are just atheists that don't have the guts to admit it.
Obama said, we want to sign equality into law, Romney said, women should depend on employers' largesse.
It's SOP for Republicans, of course, to reject structural solutions to structural issues, but it's thrown into relief by Romney's independent power as a governor CEO and his wealth. To wit, Ryan's story at the VP debate about Mittens paying for college for some poor unfortunate whose parents were in a car accident (or whatever that story was; I was distracted by the fact that he was stupid enough to tell a car accident story while sitting next to Biden). Isn't Mitt compassionate! One whole person's life won't be ruined by lack of affordable care!
I demand to know which god every front page poster is voting for.
I'm more interested in whether they will spit, vomit, or spue the agnostics out of their mouths.
YOU DON"T VOTE FOR GOD
GOD VOTES FOR YOU
This debate really showed how wrong the whole 'Obama doesn't want to be President' interpretation of the first debate was. I think in the first debate Obama got caught really flat footed when Romney switched from 'Republican primary Romney' to 'general election Romney', which involved smooth denials of lots of the shit he had to say to conservatives to win the nomination. I actually think Romney's shift back to just lying about his past committments speaks kind of well of him, in that he knows quite well that the various Republican tax promises don't add up.
Fifties prosperity by voting for a fifties guy is not a stance that will work on voters younger than 40.
the fifties have a bad rep because of the race/gender attitutudes but purely in economic policy '50s-style prosperity' was much better than what we have now. (The heritage of the New Deal). If we could get 50s tax rates, union participation, and banking regulation, not to mention going back to 50s rates of income inequality, that would be pretty cool.
I was distracted by the fact that he was stupid enough to tell a car accident story while sitting next to Biden
And that he segued into it from the automaker bailout issue via a remark a Mitt being a car guy. That's unfathomable cluelessness on a par with the soup kitchen stunt.
I demand to know which god every front page poster is voting for.
Heebie: YHWH (like IBM, no one ever got fired for choosing YHWH)
Lizardbreath: the Eumenides, running jointly
Apostropher: Dionysius
Neb: Thoth
Alameida: Cthulhu (family connection)
374.1: Agreed, but I would add that he also seemed surprised by Romney's agressiveness. He must've practiced quite a bit between the two events.
50s-style prosperity' was much better than what we have now. (The heritage of the New Deal)
In absolute terms, yes. But both rapid domestic growth as well as the USA being the most powerful nation in both military and economic terms is a consequence of the rest of the world recovering from having been bombed to shit.
It is relative prosperity that matters politically, both with respect to the recent past and to other countries. Having kids get a job that supports food, shelter, and basic medicine is not enough if there was more in living memory, or if Brazilians are doing just as well.
We are all sinners in the chads of an angry God.
369
James, I think you would have been clearer if you'd had everyone hating on agnostics. ...
You may be right.
378: you often hear this but I don't completely agree with it. I think if we had our current economic institutions in the 50s we would have had a very different pattern of growth, one less beneficial to the middle class. Basically the elites would have captured much more of the surplus from our privileged economic position. There was a massive decline in income inequality post-WWII, and I think the key was New Deal institutions and consensus.
Also, no one ever points out that the idea that the poverty of the rest of the world made us richer is totally at odds with mainstream microeconomics and trade economics. It's basically a mercantilist idea of growth. I mean, I agree with that mercantilist idea, but it's interesting that everyone intuitively adopts it for that period without noting its divergence from current orthodoxy. Of course, your emphasis on relative prosperity is one way to bridge that difference.
the idea that the poverty of the rest of the world made us richer is totally at odds with mainstream microeconomics and trade economics.
That's not what the argument is, though. The rest of the world wasn't poor, it just didn't have stuff, or the means to make stuff, due to it all having been bombed etc. So it bought lots of stuff from the US.
OT: Is RealClearPolitics a right-leaning blog?
Same thing when Romney said that in his magical future economy, employers will be nicer and more willing to give mother-friendly flexible hours, because the job market will be better and employees will have more negotiating power. Now, the part about Romney wanting to reduce the pool of surplus labor is a lie, but the rest sounds fine. This was instantly twisted by some people into "Romney: When I'm in charge, employers will be so eager to hire people, they'll even hire women!"
Here's what he said:
We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women.
Takes a lot more twisting, im(never very)ho to make that about flexible hours and negotiating power than to make it about employers so eager to hire that they'll be eager to hire women.
But 386 to 384, too. I just hadn't read it yet.
The rest of the world wasn't poor, it just didn't have stuff, or the means to make stuff,
I don't know, sounds poor to me.
due to it all having been bombed etc. So it bought lots of stuff from the US.
That was kind of my point, in standard micro (or micro-based macro) you're not supposed to have to destroy the world to juice aggregate demand. Per Say's Law and later neoclassical variants, aggregate demand is supposed to take care of itself, at least approxmately.
The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant: a Fassbinder full of women.
After listening to the debate, it occurs to me that I dislike political speech so much that I have a hard time telling who is better at it (or won a debate). The whole formula (tear-jerking anecdote, something I did, something bad about the other person) leaves out the stuff I want to hear entirely (in a nasally voice: well, Megan, I think that's best addressed by adjusting General Plan section 1674.3(a) to require pervious cement in every frontage longer than 25ft. If you like, I can explain why we didn't choose a 30ft threshhold.). I didn't like Romney's answers, but then Obama's answers feel vague and anecdotal too. Since both leave me dissatisfied, the day after when people are saying that one guy smashed the other guy, I don't really get why.
393: you need to be very sensitively attuned to every nuance of messaging in order to determine which side's bullshit is more bullshitty, or whether one side went beyond the bounds of permissible dishonesty.
Well, Megan, I think that's best addressed by adjusting General Plan section 1674.3(a) to require pervious cement in every frontage longer than 25ft. If you like, I can explain why we didn't choose a 30ft threshhold.
I do know what you mean -- I was watching with the kids and snarling at both of them for either lying or not really saying anything.
386: Thanks, pf. I know I could have looked into it myself; I'd just become puzzled in the last week or so, since that blog is cited relatively often for its polling summaries, yet whenever I've clicked over to something there, it seems .. right-leaning.
I read the blogs. I know the objections to most of the common bullshit. I don't like the whole communication style. I'd skip the whole anecdote part, and then I want to hear exactly which levers they'd pull. I'd be happy to stipulate love for their families and concern for the poors if it would make them skip the anecdote and spend more time on what they can change and the three or four reasons that's the thing that would be most influential to change.
Yes, that guy exactly. I'd love to vote for him for president.
If you have pervious cement, then the water will escape into the ground.
393, 395: Yeah, absolutely. I was cringing at Obama's answers in the first 10 minutes, then sighing at them for the next. (boilerplate! campaign pitch!) OTOH, and I do mean this: 2 minutes really is not a hell of a lot of time to say much of real substance. I mused about that last night: why 2 minutes? It makes the respondents talk really fast and use catchphrases that are intended to capture/indicate whole arguments that are spelled out elsewhere -- though in Romney's case, they're not actually spelled out anywhere.
Obama did get better after the first half hour or so. The 2-minute thing, though: is that some standard debate club practice or what?
Two minutes is the maximum attention span of the average voter.
The script in 395 is hilarious. Also hilarious is that in the stills I don't know which one is supposed to be Carter.
Further to 400, here's a concrete-ish example. The candidates' responses to the first question from the college student who asked how they'd help him after he graduated were ... non-responsive.
It's obviously a question about the candidate's plan for the next four years. Talk about student loans and jobs. I don't know why Obama has, as far as I've noticed, failed to talk about his American Jobs Act proposal (languishing in congress): talk about its contents, investment in infrastructure, tax incentives for small businesses, and whatever else is in there. Re: student loans, do I seem to remember a proposal from a while back that loan repayments be tied to a percentage of income? (What happened to that? How would that work? Some kind of financial regulation or something?)
That stuff is, in any case, relatively meaty, concrete, and forward-looking.
I don't know why Obama has, as far as I've noticed, failed to talk about his American Jobs Act proposal (languishing in congress)
It's far better for Obama to emphasize things he's actually accomplished than things he wanted to do but was unable to accomplish. Obama has to tread very carefully when making the "I'd be doing all this great stuff if only Congress weren't blocking me" argument because it opens him up to a potentially-devastating two-pronged counter-attack: 1) "So if Congress blocks you again in your next term, you won't be able to get anything done then, either?" 2) "Romney wouldn't face the same opposition from Congress, so he'd be able to actually get stuff done.*"
* Yeah, the stuff he'd be getting done would be really bad stuff, but at least he'd be getting stuff done.
The main problem with non-lawyers doing questioning is that they fail to ask follow-up questions. Of course the first answer to any remotely tough question is going to be evasive or nonresponsive. One of the things I liked about the most recent debate was that they gave Candy Crowley (sp) just a little bit of room to ask follow up questions, although not nearly enough.
Also, and this is more in the realm of fantasy, the candidates should be able to bring documents to the debate. "Oh really, Mr. Romney. Well I've got a transcript of your speech before the Republican club of South Carolina in January right here. Can you read page 18, paragraph 12, line 6 into the record?" People will lie like crazy until you confront them with documents.
405: all of this was covered in The Newsroom. Are you Aaron Sorkin?
No, I haven't taken nearly enough drugs.
the candidates should be able to bring documents to the debate
Look, I've got my binder full of women right here! What have you got, Mr. President?
What if the debate was conducted on a floating platform on a lake of lava? It would be sort of tippy, but also big enough to get a running start at somebody.
|| Is it improper to refer to opposing counsel's argument as "insane"? |>
I really think the 24 hour closed room crisis simulation idea I floated a while back would be way better than the debates. It would be about 100x as entertaining, and more informative.
Arguably, even putting the candidates in for 48 hours on Real World/Road Rules challenge would be more informative.
410: There are always circumlocutions. "Highly original, albeit perhaps poorly supported" has worked for me in the past.
Debates are an outmoded technology that haven't changed since the 1850s.
I kinda think a Real World/Road Rules challenge is one of the few things that a horrible road campaign might actually prepare candidates for. They don't do their own logistics, but the hours and crappy food must be similar.
"has no basis in law or reason."
I thought debates in the 1850s were more structured around the candidates responding to each other at length.
Or you could just deal with the substance of the argument, rather than throwing a bunch of words together that don't mean anything.
What if the debate was conducted on a floating platform on a lake of lava?
Which candidate gets horribly burned and ends up in the Vader suit?
The Lincoln-Douglas debates are amazing. Giants walked the land back then.
Honestly, my idea for using advances in reality TV show technology to improve the political process is so awesome. It would be especially great in the primaries -- you could have every major party candidate put on an island for 72 hours and given a series of challenges.
Thanks, counselors! I was running out of good circumlocutions for "batshit nonsense."
"has no basis in law, reason or in the very nature of reality."
What? Too over-the-top?
I fondly remember a motion to dismiss I worked on when I was very junior where the senior partner characterized the claims in the complaint as "thin gruel in a very thick bowl." Which, you can kind of tell, makes no real sense, but you see what he means. Opposing counsel snapped back in the opposition that their claims were "A thick, rich, stew indeed", which really, really makes very little sense at all.
The quoted part of 413 is eerily similar to the comments I got on a paper yesterday.
In your context, it was probably dripping with slightly less sarcasm.
418 assumes facts not in evidence. There is no substance to the argument. Ergo, "insane."
404: Obama has to tread very carefully when making the "I'd be doing all this great stuff if only Congress weren't blocking me" argument because it opens him up to a potentially-devastating two-pronged counter-attack
I understand, but I don't really buy it, to be honest. Given that that counter-attack can be launched regarding any proposal, if one therefore avoids saying anything whatsoever about what one would like to do, one -- Obama -- looks like a man without a plan.
I think things can be framed simply enough as: 'I'd like to do this, and I propose that. These initiatives would improve the general welfare in the following ways: [spell out]. I have put forward the American Jobs Act proposal, which does this and that.' continue ...
It's self-knee-capping to avoid making any mention of what you want to do, and, perhaps more importantly, making a case for *why* you want to do them (reduce income inequality, etc.). We here know this stuff, but I didn't hear much of it last night except in the most coded of terms.
That's pretty awesome. I got a response to my "two bites at the apple" argument (I hate the cliche, but it's almost a legal principle by now) which was a convoluted analogy about taking one bite from an apple and another bite from an orange.
418, 426: Right -- this is probably hard to appreciate if you're not looking at it, but a really nutty legal argument can easily get too meaningless to engage with on its own terms, because it really hasn't got any coherent terms. You get this soup of what should be technically defined terms, being thrown around out of context such that there's literally no way to attribute an exact meaning to them. To talk about it, you have to identify it as outside the normal scope of argument.
426: there's no substance to calling an argument "insane." If you can actually show that the argument has no substance, you don't need to call it anything.
Oh, now I want to integrate the soup metaphor into this response! Thin gruel in a dense vessel and opposing counsel just keeps throwing in random oddities in hopes of transforming it into something less disgusting.
431: Fallacious interspersing commentary speciously self-tautologizes, making your tactic unworkable.
Prove me wrong.
Gee, thanks for the enlightenment, text. I had no concept of legal reasoning and sincerely thought just labeling my opponent's position "insane" would do the trick. Phew. You saved me from that gaffe!
Dammit LB. I think I *could* make an effective argument in response to 433.
Irrelevantly, "gaffe" is such a strange word. It derives from the French for "boat hook", really? There has to be more to that story.
433: You have written that my comments are "specious" and "self-tautologing." You have also written that they are fallacious and that they are interspersed. And that's it, all in a clumsy sentence.
Of those claims, it is true that my comments are interspersed. Otherwise you are just listing a bunch of words that mean "wrong" and "bad." Actually, "self-tautologizes" doesn't mean anything. It's redundant. A tautology is already self-referential.
So, you have written a conclusory sentence that just means "you are wrong" and "your comments are interspersed." And you did it in a clumsy way, with a bunch of words that mean the same thing, to the extent that they mean anything.
There has to be more to that story.
Certainly, every good story needs a hook.
||
Jesus Christ, judges will make me get old before my time. I've been waiting for ten months for a decision on two (identical) very simple motions in two (almost identical) proceedings before the same judge. Her chambers has lost and refound the file several times, and kept on getting puzzled about whether she was actually supposed to decide the motion. Which she has to before anything else can happen in either proceeding.
The motions were that the other party should have to do something by a date certain. She just granted both motions in their entirety, without specifying what the goddam date certain actually was. Now I have to make another motion asking her to clarify, and she's just going to lose that one again. Argh.
|>
now isn't that much better than just calling you crazy, and probably a bad lawyer?
436: chronologically, fallaciousness facially obviates speciousness.
440
Which side does delay favor?
441: No, because you didn't address the substance of what I said -- apparently you failed to understand the distinction between tautology and self-tautology. If it's too difficult for you to understand, obviously you haven't been able to refute it.
(Actually, I didn't manage to be quite nonsensical enough -- you could attribute a meaning to the sentence in 433 that might be defensible. Real word-salad is hard to generate. But there is a point at which you can't just say something is wrong, you have to point out that it's incomprehensible nonsense, if it is.)
Right -- this is probably hard to appreciate if you're not looking at it, but a really nutty legal argument can easily get too meaningless to engage with on its own terms, because it really hasn't got any coherent terms.
It's tricky to debate Mitt for a similar reason.
The problem with text is that text is a boat and boats are made of dirt and dirt is bad. QED.
442:
If you think about it, that statement is probably true.
Oh, the lawyers are talking this isn't a political thread any more.
444: Indeed. The very substance of your attempted speciousness belies the underlying ad hominem confluence spawned by the interjection of a non-sequitur.
447: Hmm, I don't think that one's gonna float.
If the sentence actually has some meaning, you can always point out how that meaning is wrong or unsupported.
If the sentence doesn't have any meaning, just quote it. Or diagram it if you want to take the time.
400: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
If the sentence doesn't have any meaning, just quote it. Or diagram it if you want to take the time.
This is better than saying it doesn't have any meaning?
The real problem is that I am getting so annoyed by the increasing multiplication of increasingly bizarre arguments in this case, that I'm starting to write my response in a tone I would use here. And I'm pretty sure "fuck you, clown," would get me sanctioned.
The problem is that you're thinking it's tedious to do that. But it can actually be fun! Think of it like you're hunting with Dick Cheney.
Sometimes, what works for me when that happens is to just go with it, and then go back and edit out the epithets and tone everything down a notch. You end up with something that's less legalese-sounding than usual, but that's not a bad thing.
It's better than just saying: "you crazy!"
Fascinatingly, no one advised 'you crazy' as a useful way of describing opposing counsel's arguments. In blog comments, of course, its utility is unimpaired.
Our debates are kind of sliding toward a single combat type reality show event -- I mean, when you get two guys competing over who looks more alpha while calling the other a liar, are we that far from just fistfighting?
There was a minute or so in the middle when they were nose-to-nose shouting where my kids were yelling "Fight, fight! Hit him!" They're badly brought up. I blame society.
460: right, Di wanted to call them "insane" and you wanted to throw in a very impressive word jumble.
Those are both techniques for avoiding the substance of an argument.
Don't get me wrong. It's kind of a blast writing a legal document like I'm responding to some obnoxious troll. I will think it needs serious toning down before filing, but my partner/client will probably love it as is...
Reality TV technology has moved far beyond single combat events. That's also 19th Century technology.
461: Yeah, the alpha thing was so transparent. The thing is, I'm not sure it's very far from reality. Romney set those terms, though.
461: As the debate progressed, I was actually anticipating that one of them would sucker-punch the other, and they would then proceed to beat the living shit out of each other until one of them was dead.
"Opposing counsel's argument is just so crazy I can't even address it!"
Always a good strategy. I say keep going with it.
Those are both techniques for avoiding the substance of an argument.
Sure. Or, at least if you assume that either of those options were intended to be in lieu of rather than in addition to a response.
Always a good strategy. I say keep going with it.
Who you going to vote for? Huh? Tell me know! Who? I wanna know! Tell me. Who you gonna vote for!
It sounds like you have everything under control, Di. I wonder why you're even going onto a blog to ask how to make your legal arguments.
468: It really is a good strategy where appropriate. The polite way of saying "So crazy there's no way to respond to it in its own terms" is the first sentence of a paragraph, of course. The rest of it goes on to point out what in the argument fails to make sense, which terms are not being used in any comprehensible way, and so on. But there's a difference between writing "This argument is incorrect because (a), (b) and (c)," and "This piece of writing isn't a working argument at all, much less a correct one, because (a), (b), and (c)". You point out that it's not a functional argument to flag for the judge that you're going to do the latter, rather than the former.
453: I was going to invoke the Kobayashi Maru in response to Halford's 411, but I didn't want everyone to think I was a geek.
472 is right.
The big problem with an insane opposing brief is that judges (particularly appellate judges, who have more time) view the crazy argument as a kind of Rorsarch test the judges can use to come up with the best arguments against (your) sane position. So the challenge is not so much to refute the crazy, as to prevent a judge from latching on to something in the whirlwind of crazy that's actually a good argument. The dange is that the judge latches on to somethig you've failed to address sufficiently because you're responding to a general whirlwind of crazy.
So not addressing the argument gives judges less opportunity to take it where they want to go? Doesn't follow.
Appellant's opening brief is so crazy that I'm afraid if I address it, you'll find something worthwhile in it, your honor. So just rest assured, it's crazy.
I think it's a good strategy, go with it.
473:
"Your solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis was, shall we say, unique."
"It had the virtue of never having been tried."
476, 477: Now you're getting it.
So the challenge is not so much to refute the crazy, as to prevent a judge from latching on to something in the whirlwind of crazy that's actually a good argument.
Oh, that is just the worst thing when judges do that. Or even just worrying that they're going to do it, is also a very bad thing.
(I had that tendency myself when I was a clerk, too, but why should that stop me from complaining?)
I hope the legal profession doesn't think that it came up with these rhetorical forms all by itself, as though they're new. I assume it does not.
My usual technique for dealing with an incoherent opposing brief is to try and tease out 2-3 decent but losing arguments from the other side's papers, state the other side's arguments clearly and coherently, and then decisively refute them, while very briefly explaining why everything else in the brief is incoherent.
Sometimes this provokes resistance from clients or other lawyers ("why are you doing a better job making the other side's case than they can do themselves?") but I think you're almost always better off clearly framing the issues for a judge, and explaining why you win on that framing, than you are relying on the craziness in your opponent's crazy brief to lose the case for them.
474: A brief can be so crazy it just might work?
It's the Hannibal Smith school of legal argumentation.
I hope the legal profession doesn't think that it came up with these rhetorical forms all by itself, as though they're new. I assume it does not.
Um.... Okay.
I think that's a pretty safe assumption. Most professions, being abstract concepts and all, don't have much in the way of thoughts.
Dentistry comes up with an interesting bon mot occasionally. Probably the nitrous.
Mostly the legal profession tromps heavily about the meadow, or naps, or grazes on nice green grass, but when it thinks at all, it thinks about clouds.
Blacksmithing tells a fine dirty limerick.
Personally (I can't speak for the rest of the profession) I never come up with anything new if I can help it. Maybe a new way of using an old thing sometimes. That can be fun.
My opposing counsel is coming up with new stuff so often it's crazy!
If you looked into it, all of his arguments probably go back to 17th century French literary criticism.
"Hey, I just sued you, and this is crazy, but here's my motion. Coherent, maybe?"
483: It's the drunken boxing school of rhetoric. They can't refute you if even you don't know how your argument is going to end.
Canonically it's the Chewbacca Defense, no?
It's the drunken boxing school of rhetoric
To be clear, we do not believe we came up with this all by ourself.
495: Are you by any chance related to The Plain People of Ireland?
Romney claims that automatic weapons are already illegal. Quick google search seems to disagree? I don't know anything about gun laws.
Full autos, short barreled shotguns and rifles, suppressors, etc. are legal but highly regulated. Generally referred to as Class III or NFA items and some states ban them. If you're in a state where they're legal you still have to get a federal permit from the ATF that requires you to pass a background check and put your fingerprints on file with them.
If you want to get around the background check you can glue a bunch of regular rifles together and shoot them one after another.
So they're not illegal. I at least thought he got that right. He could at least figure out a few basic things about each issue, you would think. He's just running for president right now -- he doesn't have a day job, right?
How much money do you guys think he's going to lose on this thing, in total?
It's illegal for a civilian to buy an automatic weapons made after 1986.
To get a machine gun, you have to find somebody who wants to get rid of their machine gun and hope they kept it in good shape.
I dunno, Moby. I trust gswift on this, and you on nothing.
I would guess that Romney is going to lose about a thousand times as much money as would make my wife happy for me to earn this year.
Full autos are quite expensive on the private market. Illegally possessing an NFA item is dumber than hell. Sawing a few inches off of a shotgun means catching a federal charge and federal charges are not to be fucked with.
federal charges are not to be fucked with
Ahh, yeah, not any more.
Good times, though.
Rather than saw off a shotgun, you're better off to get a bigger coat.
502 is right.
Rather than saw off a shotgun, you're better off to get a bigger coat.
Seriously. Similarly, for god's sakes don't rob a bank. The average haul is quite small and it's pretty typical to get ten years in a federal pen for that kind of thing. Go steal a car or something.
502 is right.
I'm sure Moby is relieved that text can trust him on this one.
410-422: I'm not a lawyer, but I still like my version.
I've got plenty of firearms inside where it's warm.
508: I hear bicycles have a great risk/reward these days.
Not as part of a RICO-type organization, though. I represented a guy pro-bono once who was looking at something like ten years in federal prison for buying a car that prosecutors said he should have known was stolen. He was going to get charged as part of the interstate car theft ring, with the sentence calculated on the basis of the value of all the cars stolen by the ring as a whole. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, they let him out with time served, and he went back to Ghana.
I hear bicycles have a great risk/reward these days.
Totally. I'm amazed at how many people drop a couple grand on a bike and don't have the serial number written down. And local internet ads have made selling them a breeze.
514: aside from the immensely remote chance the bike gets recovered (not even sure who would do that) before it gets flipped, what good would that do?
Seems like the DIY Craigslist sting is about the likeliest option at this point.
wow, if I were a petty thief I'd definitely send you an email for some pointers, sifu.
You don't know my email address.
Debates are an outmoded technology that haven't changed since the 1850s.
I think their heyday was even earlier than that. Debates seem to be very popular among the various fringe anti-science groups, and I sort of assume it's out of an attempt to bring back a pre-scientific intellectual culture (see also, the classical education movement). I basically assume anyone who actually wants to have a debate about anything hates science.
512: the County Council is the culprit.
So, when I go by the local pawnshops, it seems like the two things they always have prominently displayed are bicycles and power tools. What's the chance that either type of item is stolen? I've just assumed it's 80/20 stolen/unstolen, but I don't know if that's extraordinarily cynical or extraordinarily naive.
If you looked into it, all of his arguments probably go back to 17th century French literary criticism.
Lots of extra s's and y's scattered in the briefs?
what good would that do?
Because with a serial number you can put it in NCIC as stolen property and any cop in the country who stops someone with that bike will see it's stolen property, the originating agency's case number, etc. and can actually arrest the guy. I encounter what I'm pretty sure is stolen goods all the time but without the stuff being in the system you're usually SOL when it comes to proving it and seizing the property.
So where do you guys sell your stolen bikes? Or do you keep them around as trophies?
What's the chance that either type of item is stolen?
Fairly high, although supposedly lower on the tools lately because the housing construction crash led to a lot of guys being out of work and pawning tools.
Do people ever LoJack a bike? That would seem like a reasonable idea if there was a way to make it work. I have no idea how big the unit is.
That makes sense. I've been going under the assumption that the past few years have probably been a great time to buy boats, guns, motorcycles, etc. for similar reasons.
It's not so much the size of the unit as the charge in the battery.
After our house was robbed, we called around to pawnshops and got elaborate explanations that California had such strict regulation of pawnshops that the only place you could be sure NOT to find stolen goods was a pawnshop. They told us to try swapmeets or Craigslist.
We never did see our stuff again (yet) and I don't know how much to believe the pawnshops, but they certainly all said that they were the last place to find our stolen musical instruments.
There was a minute or so in the middle when they were nose-to-nose shouting where my kids were yelling "Fight, fight! Hit him!"
"Get two knives!"
532 -- Didn't you try to do some kind of a sting operation on the thief?
Naw, we realized the mandolin on CL wasn't the one stolen from us. But for a couple excitable hours, I thought it was.
Is cycling without shoes as stupid as it looks? I just saw two women ride by, one wearing toe shoes and the other with completely bare feet.
536: experience says: very much so.
It depends. Are you in danger of falling off?
Cycling with those little booties on looks even stupider, but it probably works better.
You know what I can't figure out? Walking around on the bike path in the middle of the day, you see all these guys on really expensive bikes, all decked out in the finest racing kit, who look like they should be working somewhere. Fit, upper-middle class, driven -- there can't be that many freelance graphic designers/yoga instructors in this town.
538: Always with the "depends" this one -- it's like a fetish or something.
I know. Wouldn't it be great if all of the people with really sick fetishes -- who had like screwed up relationships because of them -- just wanted to wear depends, natilo?
Why do you think it would be great?
It might improve your relationships, natilo.
I'm assuming that would be a good thing, but maybe I shouldn't.
Why do you think it would be great if my relationships were improved?
Don't you think you and your loved ones would be happier if your sick fetishes were instead the depends-wearing variety?
Why would you assume that? Why would you not assume it?
Why do you think me and my loved ones would be happier if my sick fetishes were instead the depends-wearing variety
It stands to reason that a person and his family would be happier if their dangerous sexual fetishes were tamed. I was applying that logic to your dangerous sexual fetishes. Do you disagree with that, natilo?
Hey, text! I dunno why, but this just occurred to me. Have you ever considered becoming a mod on reddit? I mean *blush* maybe you already are. How would I know? It's just that it's such a super welcoming, affirmative place, and you don't need a day job or anything. To do it. And I hear they might be looking for new people. I know it might seem "lame" or "mainstream," but it's what you make of it, right?
I'm sure this is totally presumptuous of me. It just seems like, I don't know, you're a very clever "fox" or "trickster," "Loki" figure, right? Maybe that's too mythological or something. I don't know, you can probably set me straight. And I'm sure you're not, like, looking for new things to do, so I probably shouldn't have said anything. Oh golly, I just keep typing!
I don't know what reddit is and I doubt I'll look into it, but thanks, lurid keyaki.
OMG, you're a genius. That was a brilliant work right there. I'm in awe.
I guess you are. Life must be nice for you.
unfogged is a strange and wonderful place today.
I am the only person on this thread who is not an Eliza bot. I don't like to look out the window, so I can only assume you were all killed in a nuclear war. I always imagined nuclear wars would make more noise.
559.1: I beg your pardon. I do admit that I was concerned -- though in another thread -- whether you were a Republican. But I think I can let that go.
Was 560 really in reply to 559?
539: doctors work weird hours and have weird days off.
How does it make you feel when I tell you about my 559?
Yes, I think that 559 as well. Are you enjoying this conversation?
Okay, I see where parsimon asked me the question originally.
In order:
a) I really am a registered Republican, so that I can vote in the Republican primary. There's always a Republican I want to vote against, and rarely a Democrat I particularly want to vote for.
b) As Sifu surmised, I'm a huge Nicki Minaj fan. I even like that Starships song that probably objectively sucks.
c) If I really do vote for Romney, it really will be because I'm trying to destroy America.
If I vote for Romney, it will be because I'm trying to destroy Israel.
If I vote for Romney, it will because it sends the message that this country needs a real progressive party on the left.
568: What does Nicki Minaj have to do with it? Is she a Republican?
Eliza bot
Or as the whippersnappers today would say, Siri.
I tried to ask Siri questions about her relationship with Wolfram Alpha but she got really evasive.
I don't know how much to believe the pawnshops, but they certainly all said that they were the last place to find our stolen musical instruments.
That sounds overstated. Just like with bikes, IME very few people have the serial numbers written down on guitars and such and proving an item is stolen without that info is just about impossible.
So that whole Siri thing -- does anyone use it after the novelty factor wears off? If you start using it again after a long hiatus, does it get all pushy like new-text?
Holy crap do I hate Siri. Its only function seems to be to come on when I don't want it to.
571: She said in a song she was voting for Romney.
What did I say that made you think I was a Republican?
575: I have used it to send simple texts maybe two or three times. It... does not work well in most cases.
Kinda fun to make nonsense syllables at it, though.
If you start using it again after a long hiatus, does it get all pushy like new-text?
The worst offender there is the Wii Fit. I get on the thing after 6 months and it gets all snippy about missing me and makes passive aggressive comments about how fat I am. I can't believe they didn't design that thing with a "shut the fuck up" option.
What did I say that made you think I was a Republican?
Maybe this?
579: Wii Fit didn't even say anything nice after I ran my half marathon. She's just stuck up because she looks so good in yoga pants.
575: old-text was so lovely, and I never knew him as textualist.
God, I really am a Republican. It's like I never really knew myself until this moment.
For the past few days I have had a word on the tip of my tongue. Just now I recalled what it was: badgering. Yay, old brain.
Or this, which nobody has ever linked to before.
587: It's really hard to click on the button, but trust me it's worth it when you do.
577: What did I say that made you think I was a Republican?
The comment linked in 580, I suppose, and the fact that I entertain the possibility that people really are Republicans. Here's what it is: it kind of upsets me if you're going to vote for Romney. I want to know why. But you seem to be kidding, so it's moot, I gather.
587. I had trouble clicking on that button, so I just clicked on the Donate button instead.
I think honey is involved somehow.
Speaking of internet jokes people might not yet be aware of, Chewbacca Ate My Balls is still going.
And now, let's listen as Ella Fitzgerald sings the Cole Porter songbook. 1st up, Night and Day.
That started with a political ad for me.
My FF add-ins keep those nasty YouTube ads out of sight.
I didn't even realize they were there until I saw comments bitching about them.
I just spent a while looking for a Klaus Nomi Cole Porter cover. No dice, sorry.
I have loyalty to Siri because I was driving my friend to the commuter rail station near my hometown (we'd stayed with my parents for a thing) and I took a wrong turn and drew a total blank about how to get there, and we were cutting it close. She pulled out her phone, said "where is the train station?" and we were instantly appropriately guided. It was miraculous and the alternative would have been to pull over and laboriously type, possibly missing the train and RUINING EVERYTHING! (Of course, I don't even have a Siri myself and I haven't yet ruined everything, have I?)
576- it used to do that to me in meetings, you have to turn off the "activate Siri when you hold it up to your ear" setting. I use it for setting timers or alarms but that's about it.