CommentsDisplaying Firebrand's 10 most recent comments.

• Worst Week Ever for Obama?

  May 25, 2012 at 7:48pm

  If I were Romney, I would prep for this question during the presidential debates by finding out a few things:

  1) Since Bain invested money in companies, how much longer did people get to work while the company tried to get back on it’s feet?

  2) how many jobs were saved when Bain initially injected cash into a business?

  3) how many chances/how long were those companies allowed to operate before Bain decided that it didn’t want to lose any more money?

  4) were people thrown out on the street or were they offered a buyout or alternate employment?

  5)What’s the % of companies that went on to be successful vs. companies that had to be liquidated?

  6) What’s the exact number of jobs created vs. jobs lost? (”If you subtract the jobs lost from the jobs gained, Bain created/lost XXX jobs?

  I would answer the question this way:

  The purpose of Bain capital was to inject money into undervalued companies. There were two possible outcomes when we did this. First, the company fails and we liquidate. Second, the company becomes successful and everyone wins. Bain didn’t have control over how the companies were run, so if it failed it was the direct consequence of the company’s management. By injecting money into those companies, everyone that worked there got to keep their jobs longer than they would have if Bain hadn’t gotten involved. If you subtract the total number of jobs lost from jobs created, Bain created/lost XXX jobs. Simple.

• Is This the ‘Greatest Political Ad Ever?‘ You’ll Have to See to Believe

  May 25, 2012 at 3:58pm

  I liked it. It wouldn’t change my vote, but I liked the ad.

• Conservatives, Remember Who You Are

  May 25, 2012 at 3:33pm

  Agree.

• University Study Determines Fox News Has Least-Informed National Audience Based on These Questions

  May 24, 2012 at 2:15pm

  In reply to wewantchillywilly.

  @best
  There are so many things wrong with the experimental set-up of their survey I’m not really sure how to get it into one post. Let me address your criticisms first.

  While it is true that “oversampling” SHOULD reduce the margin of error, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it does. This is especially true if the calculated mean is based on two disparate populations. Also, since the number of people surveyed was finite, the number of people “watching only liberal sources” would have to be under-sampled and therefore the true value for that group underrepresented.

  This study is what happens when political science professors don’t consult statisticians/mathematicians for experimental design and implementation. The researchers didn’t group the answers by questioner to look for questioner bias. Actually, they didn’t run any bias controls whatsoever. They didn’t give statistical analysis of deviations between the groups to show whether or not the difference between 1.48 and 1.84 is actually significant. Also, they asked only 3-4 questions from each category. Did they cross-reference the news sources to determine if each of those news sources covered each of those topics equally? If not, did they have a logistical temporal control? In other words, did they then follow up with questions on topics that were given equal time on each network?

  In short, their study is extremely bland (take it with a grain of salt).

• University Study Determines Fox News Has Least-Informed National Audience Based on These Questions

  May 24, 2012 at 12:43am

  In reply to wewantchillywilly.

  The study was conducted incorrectly. The questioners asked about political affiliations and the major news source BEFORE they asked the questions. This could introduce bias into the sample from the person asking the question. Also, at least half of the study should have been conducted by an independent party outside of the progenitor group (an internal bias control) and the study should have been repeated by a group of conservatives in addition to the liberals that ran the study (an external bias control). If you look up the courses that the profs teach, papers they’ve published, and talks they’ve given, you can tell that they have a high propensity for liberal bias in their study. To prevent anyone from crying foul, they should have removed that bias as best as possible.

• Joe Biden: Blame the bad economy on… the Tea Party

  May 23, 2012 at 1:52pm

  In reply to Firebrand.

  …..someone else.

• Joe Biden: Blame the bad economy on… the Tea Party

  May 23, 2012 at 1:50pm

  The democratic leadership in a dark room arguing over why the light has gone out. It goes something like this:

  Who installed this light bulb?
  I don’t know.
  Well, it’s out. I can barely see.
  I know, me too.
  I bet republicans installed the bad bulb.
  I think they might have. They probably did.
  It was Bush. Definitely Bush that installed the bad bulb. In fact I think it actually burned out when he was here a minute ago.
  It’s definitely his fault that the bulb burned out.
  Does it matter if he installed it?
  No. It’s just his fault.
  I hate the dark.
  Me too.
  Me three.
  I hate that joke.
  Anyway, it’s still dark.
  I know…. stupid Bush.
  I know!
  Hey, why’s it dark in here? [new guy]
  Bulb’s burned out.
  Yea. Republicans fault.
  Oh. Have you thought about changing it out? Maybe with an improved bulb?
  We thought about a green bulb.
  Those are so expensive. Wouldn’t it be better to just use the same type bulb but make it with better materials?
  No.
  Why?
  It‘s Bush’s fault it went out.
  So?
  So if we fix it back to the way it was only better, we’ll be like Bush. It has to be a different bulb.
  Who cares? And what if that one breaks?
  Still Bush’s fault for putting us in the position to have to install a different bulb.
  Ugh! Can you just fix the damn light?
  It depends. Does everyone get an equal share of the light?
  Just fix the damn light!
  Only if we are guaranteed the right to change the bulb in the future.
  You know what? I’m gonna ask

• New Obama Book Shocker: Kennedys and Obamas at War — Caroline Considers Obama a ‘Liar’

  May 22, 2012 at 1:22am

  In reply to Firebrand.

  @slap

  You make a good point about conveying a message not necessarily depending on spelling. You‘ll notice that I’ve never chastised any poster about it. HOWEVER, as a writer, what you say and how you say it ARE important. It’s their job as writers to dis-spell any misleading connotations that arise from poorly worded, spelled, or structured sentences.

  For instance, the following is a horrible sentence (because it can be interpreted more than one way).

  “My father loves beer more than my mother.”

  You disagree with what I’ve said, so you immediately label me as a lefty? You’re not just off-base, you’re not even on the right planet. You would have known that if you would have taken the time to click my name and read some of my other posts before making an incorrect assumption…

• Is Congress actually getting dumber?

  May 22, 2012 at 1:03am

  It’s cool. The data is totally reliable. It’s not like they received funding by far left organizations like the Open Society Group, Google, or Craigslist or anything. It’s not like the Republican takeover of Congress and the introduction of Tea Party candidates in the last election, making Congress stupid, would serve any kind of agenda. oh wai….

• This Week in Washington – Law of the Sea Treaty and Liberal Justice

  May 22, 2012 at 12:48am

  So, did 2/3 of the Senators approve the agreement that Obama made with Afghanistan?