NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

[PB the Deplorable]

I just recently had to educate FTF about this.  You can't successfully insult someone by associating them with someone or something they like.  And you can't tar Person A's image (no pun intended) among a given audience by associating him with Person B if the audience likes Person B.

In other words, P*B, the only people you're going to turn against Obama by associating him with Jimmy Carter are people who hate Carter; but I would gladly venture that people who hate Jimmy Carter probably already hate Obama.  Got that?
So keep on saying that Obama is like Carter.  Your side already hates them both, so you're adding no new converts there.  My side likes both --Carter more than Obama, for most folks-- so you're building Obama's cred on this side.
Preach on, P*B!

I realize there are some people posting here who are never going to get it. 

I find it a little hard to believe an expert in statistics is one of them.  I would have assumed most of those folks to be reasoned and analytical and make their decisions based on observation, facts, and common sense instead of emotions.

[PB the Deplorable]

How staggeringly presumptuous.   You really ought to pay more attention to the clues I've fed you over lo these months and years.
P*B, I've had more stats and research-methods classes (Master's and Doctoral) than most 100 random people you'd meet, combined.  I've taught research methods.  I've performed or been involved in most stages of design, analysis, and interpretive reporting of funded quantitative research...

I guess I should take your word for it, but I would not have expected someone with the briefest background in statistics, let alone a highly credentialed person such as yourself, to take the Federal statistics I mentioned at face value. 

That they are calculated using very flawed methodology is not even disputed among economists, and, I would have thought, among statisticians.

[Ben Shockley]

I guess I should take your word for it, but I would not have expected someone with the briefest background in statistics, let alone a highly credentialed person such as yourself, to take the Federal statistics I mentioned at face value. 
That they are calculated using very flawed methodology is not even disputed among economists, and, I would have thought, among statisticians.

First, P*B, I am not asking you to take my word for anything.  I am not making any judgments about any specific sources you attacked (not "cited"), because I haven't just psychically gone to your mind and learned which specific articles and local PSAs and high-school pamphlets from your real life course you think are so damned dirty and biased against good, real Americans like you.
As for "very flawed methodology, not even disputed" --that sounds so hack to me that I scarce want to touch it, but if you want to tell me about specific studies and specific critiques, I'll look at them.

I realize there are some people posting here who are never going to get it. 
I find it a little hard to believe an expert in statistics is one of them.  I would have assumed most of those folks to be reasoned and analytical and make their decisions based on observation, facts, and common sense instead of emotions.

Translation: as I noted last time, P*B presumes that any substantial degree of life experience will inevitably, and only, make people think like him.

And your presumption that "observation [and] facts" inevitably lead people to think like you is fatally flawed, buddy.  If your presumption was correct, P*B, why aren't academics overwhelmingly right-wingers?  You know: if exposure to "observation and fact" makes one a rightie?

[West of the Rockies]

I am among those who admire Carter, in particular, his compassion and genuinely good character.  I so wish we had pursued his views on seeking alternative energies.  Aspects if his presidency were not successful, but in some ways, he had extraordinary vision.

[FightTheFuture]

I am among those who admire Carter, in particular, his compassion and genuinely good character.  I so wish we had pursued his views on seeking alternative energies.  Aspects if his presidency were not successful, but in some ways, he had extraordinary vision.

Carter is a good man. A good Christian man. He`s been a force for the poor with his habitat for humanity. Heck, I even voted for him. Unfortunately, he was a weak leader and just flat wrong on a number of critical issues as President.

[PB the Deplorable]

... As for "very flawed methodology, not even disputed" --that sounds so hack to me that I scarce want to touch it, but if you want to tell me about specific studies and specific critiques, I'll look at them...

Let me give you a couple of examples.  I think you know all this already, or should. 

Unemployment.  They get that number based on the number of people receiving unemployment benefits. 

If a person is out of work awhile and runs out of benefits, they are no longer considered 'unemployed'.  If a person is unemployed and takes a part time job making minimum wage to get by until they find a decent job in their field, they are no longer considered unemployed.  Same thing if they are working as a temp.

The figures to look at are total number of employed, but there is no guarantee those numbers are honest either.


Or the % of American households under the poverty line.  'Poverty' is based on how much income a household is getting currently.  It does not include handouts such as Sec 8 housing, food stamps, welfare payments or any of the rest.  People getting all those goodies are considered by our government to be living in poverty.  People with savings but no current income are considered to be below the poverty line, retirees with savings and a small pension or no pension, people who work but are paid under the table in cash, etc.

That's why we have all these people supposedly living below the poverty level who have a place to live, a car, TV's, iPhones, and all the rest.  That isn't anyone's definition of 'poverty' except Uncle Sam's.


Or we hear about 'hunger in America'.  Then we find out if a person missed a handful of meals during the year - and that's mostly because their sad sack mothers spent their food stamp money on drugs, they are counted.  But that isn't what people think of when we are told 'X' number of Americans are 'hungry'.



The reason it matters I because people vote in part based on these 'statistics'.  Policy is set based on these numbers.

... why aren't academics overwhelmingly right-wingers?...

The same reason they aren't welcome in Hollywood - a modern day Blacklist

[PB the Deplorable]

Carter is a good man. A good Christian man. He`s been a force for the poor with his habitat for humanity. Heck, I even voted for him. Unfortunately, he was a weak leader and just flat wrong on a number of critical issues as President.

Ever since he lost to Reagan, and has been considered a failed Presidency, he has been a bitter angry man.

This is a person who is willing to go to dictatorships - enemies of America - to 'monitor' their elections and declare them 'free and fair', yet come back to the US and denounce our elections.

[NowhereInTime]

The same reason they aren't welcome in Hollywood - a modern day Blacklist

That's the most pathetic,  "Woe is me" response I have ever seen.  Could it be possible that the reality is that most educated academics abhor the inherent selfishness of conservatism? Could it be in professions where people interact with people (media, acting, educating) instead of spreadsheets that they tend to be people oriented?
Oh, no. It's a Blacklist.  I should update my Spader avatar.

[NowhereInTime]

Ever since he lost to Reagan, and has been considered a failed Presidency, he has been a bitter angry man.

This is a person who is willing to go to dictatorships - enemies of America - to 'monitor' their elections and declare them 'free and fair', yet come back to the US and denounce our elections.

Now that's BS.  Well done,  sir.

[PB the Deplorable]

That's the most pathetic,  "Woe is me" response I have ever seen. 

Could it be possible that the reality is that most educated academics abhor the inherent selfishness of conservatism?

Could it be in professions where people interact with people (media, acting, educating) instead of spreadsheets that they tend to be people oriented?...

No. 

It's because the Left has wormed their way into nearly all our institutions and have seized control of them, they believe in Alinsky and Marx and NOT in Liberty and Democracy, and they know their ideas don't stand up under scrutiny. 

As with the Media, they are obsessed with suppressing ideas and information that contradict them and their ideology. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Now that's BS.  Well done,  sir.

Really, which part of that do you think is incorrect?

[TheGrimCreeper1]

Really, which part of that do you think is incorrect?

I think you made quite a bit of sense in your "BS" post. Democrats and establishment Republicans are more interested in silencing opposition and maintaining power than making tough decisions that would actually benefit everyone.

[NowhereInTime]

I think you made quite a bit of sense in your "BS" post. Democrats and establishment Republicans are more interested in silencing opposition and maintaining power than making tough decisions that would actually benefit everyone.

Not true at all.  I just wish conservatives would be more honest about their desires for wealth and would stop making up their owns facts or using rhetoric like "full stomachs and empty souls" to describe things like school lunch programs.  If you guys didn't keep changing the rules it would be a hell of a lot more civil.
The BS was regarding Carter's "bitterness".  It is so far off the truth it is not worthy of rebuttal.