Re: Lord help us I find it odd that all of a sudden, candidates' college transcripts are being posted to the public and assigned some level of significance. http://sportstwo.com/threads/188865...ighlight=obama college transcript#post2625354 http://sportstwo.com/threads/183863...ighlight=obama college transcript#post2582591 or... and... But barfo was right...(post 32)
Re: Lord help us I don't recall them complaining about the poor grades of Obama; I do remember them asking for his transcript. We have Perry's, why not Obama's?
Re: Lord help us How about someone ask for it, then he can stonewall for two years? That would seem fair.
Re: Lord help us We have Perry's because someone at A&M leaked it. We don't have Obama's because no one at Columbia has leaked it. barfo
Re: Lord help us That's a lot of D's. I could understand if he had a tough major, but it seems like he partied heavily.
Re: Lord help us I expect his duties on the cheerleading squad kept him away from his books on animal husbandry. barfo
Re: Lord help us Oh, let's not underestimate the Aggies. Hell, the fact that they are still called Aggies, more than 100 years after Oregon State decided that "Aggies" was so embarrassing they'd rather be known as Beavers, tells you something about College Station. barfo
Re: Lord help us Better he partied in college than now. Our current President seems intent to get all his partying done while he's in office.
Re: Lord help us Electoral vote changes, 2000 to 2012: New York 33 to 29 (-4) Texas 32 to 38 (+6) That 10 EV swing is equivalent to Obama having to win an additional 10 EV state along the lines of Maryland.
Re: Lord help us New York is a perfect example of why taxes don't work as smoothly as some dems think. Escaping taxes is much more fun than being stuck in some expensive, overpriced environment.
Re: Lord help us http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590 You may have noticed that I don't mention Rick Perry very much here. That is because Rick Perry is, in my opinion, ancillary to this entire discussion. He was governor while these these numbers happened, so good for him. Maybe that means these jobs they are his "fault". Maybe the job situation is the result of his policies. Or maybe Texas is simply the least bad option in a search for a favorable economic climate. That is not an argument I'm having at this exact moment. My point is to show that most of the "excuses" you will hear about Texas' job statistics are based in nothing more than a hope that Rick Perry had nothing to do with them and not on a sound understanding of the data. My advice to anti-Perry advocates is this: Give up talking about Texas jobs. Texas is an incredible outlier among the states when it comes to jobs. Not only are they creating them, they're creating ones with higher wages. One can argue that Perry had very little to do with the job situation in Texas, but such a person should be probably prepare themselves for the consequences of that line of reasoning. If Rick Perry had nothing to do with creating jobs in Texas, than why does Obama have something to do with creating jobs anywhere? And why would someone advocate any sort of "job creating" policies if policies don't seem to matter when it comes to the decade long governor of Texas? In short, it seems to me that this line of reasoning, in addition to sounding desperate and partisan, hogties its adherents into a position where they are simultaneously saying that government doesn't create jobs while arguing for a set of policies where government will create jobs. Or, to an uncharitable eye, it seem they are saying "Policies create jobs when they are policies I like. They don't create jobs when they are policies I dislike." People will continue to argue about the data. But hopefully this will be helpful in sorting out reality from wishful and desperate thinking. I mentioned on Twitter that the Texas jobs situation was nothing short of miraculous. This is why I said that and why I'm standing by that statement.
