I can't compete with all the instantanious "tweets". That Candy lady from CNN was biased on Obama's behalf and often asked questions that gave Obama more time to allow him to "bail himself of a jam" on various questions. Obama talked four minutes more than Romney. The debate ran till twenty minutes to eight or ten minutes over but they needed the time. Again you had Mitt Romney returning to his "moderate and reasonable' mode, putting distance between himself and Ryan's lies. The one area where Romney was allowed to run amuk a little was in this whole area of how there are four million fewer people in the work force than there were five years ago and therefore the 7.8% represents lower employment than we had when Obama came to office. I have been continually puzzled how we could actually be four million employed people down. I would have been more diplomatic to Romney in some of my answers. For example on immigration where Romney said he'd give people in the Armed Forces a path to citizenship, I would have ask how many other such "avenues" Romney had for these children of immigrants. I'd also have put it straight to Romney whether his official position has changed from the Dream act. I thought Romney did awful on the subject of women's rights in the work place. Obama pretty much cleaned his clock in this area. I don't think people care or believe how many women were in cabinet posts of the Massachusetts Governor. What women care about are policies that affect everyone. Romney also did really badly on the subject of the assault weapons ban. The President said he was for everything Romney was for in terms of family values and marriage, but he was also FOR a lot of other measures, too. I wish the President had nailed the obstructionist tea party congress more than he did. This line of Romney about having "a super majority of his own party in congress for four years" is just plain silly. It seems the Republicans are already attacking the bias of the CNN moderator. In general I have been hesitent tonight to want to make a lot of snap decisions the way I did last Thursday with the Veep debate. Obama won on "Optics" because he talked more and at times it was like he was delivering his own uninterrupted "stump" speech. I think Obama gave a better closing address this outing. Obama was given the oppertunity to explain the fact that the reason why oil leases on Public Lands were yanked is because the oil companies THEMSELVES were choosing not to drill for Oil but to just Sit on their Resource, so Obama turned the leases over to others who would actually drill. Romney did really badly in explaining outsourcing. Obama also conceded ground to the right in saying that he, too, believes that Corporate Income taxes are too high. I hope the tea party people were listening. Romney again dragged in the issue of the Canadian pipeline with the implicit line that somehow WE would be getting that oil. Obama countered the attack on the jump in gasoline prices fairly well citing economic considerations. Obama needed however to stress more fully the extent to which NO president is in Control over international oil prices, but prices at the pump are as affected as much by increasing economic demand in places such as India and China, as they are by any regulations. I would also have cited that even the Mideast has passed "Peak oil". I would have talked a little about global warming and pinned Romney down asking "You believed in Global Warming before you were against it". I also would have been more direct in general in answering specifically what the audience member was asking about. For someone who says "Get me a job because I just graduated college" I would have asked about whether he majored in the right subject, or how many people were out helping him with friends in high places. I would ask him if he's confident in his job interview skills and also I would have reminded families that CD's for the average person aren't making any money anyhow. Neither are capital gains a lucritive way to go now. I would have said "You should have been either in energy or grain futures or else common stocks because that's where the money is". And added that, "People like Mitt Romney have access to investment advisors many people can only dream about but instead are subject to the machinations and being jerked around by fast talking investment advisors out to make a fast buck off you, and don't care much how. I also would have disputed in essence "Romney's whole life". I would have said (perhaps unwisely) "Well one trait we know about Mitt Romney is he's not afraid to brag about himself. Excessive humility is not his problem. He's a man whose contributed virtually nothing to American society his whole life- - and lies about his own past all the time, unlike myself- - whose past is out there for everyone to peruse and examine.
There are two major math probability errors Christian Preachers make when talking about Bible Prophecy. For instance in that Tom Petti song "Something Big" that may be prophetic about OJ Simpson and the murders. We could say it being June, and on a Sunday narrow the perameters down. The idea of being in a hotel and talking on the phone a lot and being hyper and "working on something big" and leaving in the late morning not having slept in the bed- - all these things are part of an "overall behavior pattern" for instance of a businessman. And yet if you were to break each one of them down - not sleeping in the bed - - being hyper - - - talking on the phone - - - it being June - - you could get the probability numbers way up. One could say "being male" is 1 in 2, and not sleeping in the bed is maybe 1 in 4. Being hyper is one in 3. Talking on the phone a lot working on "Something Big" is 1 in 3, we'll say.. So what Chuck Smith does to these numbers is multiply the 2 and the 3 and the 4 and whatever numbers we throw in- - to get maybe 1 in 100 that "the song is pure chance". In other words by Chuck Smith's reason you would jack the probability statistics to perhaps a 95% probability or higher that Tom Petti was prophetic in this song. But then they comit the falocy of "changing horses in mid streme". If you talk the Jim Morrison song "Peace Frog" you have the town of Chicago - - one in 100 probability - - blood stained palm trees - - maybe 1 in 20. And "blood on the rise and following me" a murder - - be charitable - one in one hundred. They take the odds of THIS song and multiply them TIMES the probability of the other song. Statisticians know that you don't just "jump to another book" to get stuff. All the Bible writers were different with different aims and different theology. You as it were "Don't switch horses in mid stream". Keep in mind that these theologians say there are some 1,800 prophecies of "The Messiah" but only three hundred or One Sixth of those verses they admit ARE prophecies, have Even Been Fulfilled by their Own Count. You hunt and pick a verse or two from this book, and a little from this one over here. One from collum A, one from collum B and one from collum C, and multiply it All Together! That's where Chuck Smith comes up with his math odds. Now you know. These Evangelists count on you're being stupid. Maybe if you're Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" but hopefully if you're reading this, you're smarter than that, and too smart to be taken in by a Christian Evangelist.
No comments:
Post a Comment