To the extent that the story is "biased", it's biased in favor of an individual caught in the jaws of a bureaucracy for a crime that took place twelve years ago. It takes a certain kind of mentality to convert that into a "sob story," but then nothing about your twisted slant on life should surprise anyone here by now.

Of course, the question is whose side Biden is on; the other day he explained that the middle class has been "buried" the past four years. Apparently he forgot who was president in that time.

Which doesn't really matter. It's like Red Sox fans whining about the Red Sox. At the end of the day they are still Red Sox fans. What matters is the undecideds and this year there are not a whole bunch of them left.

It's a binary reaction. The more you think Romney did a good job presenting himself in the debate the less well you think Obama did. It isn't really possible for one to think Romney did a great job and so did Obama.

I don't get this. The next two debates have a foreign policy component that is surely one of the President's strong suits and the weakest of his opponent.

So if she was deported 12 years ago, you wouldn't have had any problem with it, but now, because she was essentially gifted with an additional 12 years in the U.S. by an incompetent bureaucracy, she's entitled to stay forever?

So an article about how crappy the government works and how arbitrary it can be is now a liberal bias?

If the IRS tried to revisit someone's taxes from 12 years ago to force them to pay more money and an article like this was written, would it be "liberal bias"?

You're blaming the left for no one on the right having the brains to find a video?

Andrew Sullivan printed the transcript of that speech, in full, the day it was delivered.

Here's your stupid. No one has tried to "suppress" a speech where Obama is basically channeling Bill Cosby's "take care of you kids and be more responsible" schtick.

Of course, you haven't actually read or watched the speech, have you?

Apples and oranges. This woman isn't being prosecuted well after the statute of limitations expired. She was prosecuted at the time, and then enjoyed 12 years in the U.S. that she wasn't supposed to enjoy. To the extent there were any mistakes or delays, she's not suffering because of them; she has benefitted from them.

So if the IRS did the same thing by taking action to institute, letting things slide and languish because they were clueless and inept, then finally getting its act together and going after the money, potentially bankrupting the taxpayer, you would complain about the liberal bias if this type of story was written?

Well, yeah there does. If 1% of all voters changed their mind and voted for Romney instead of Obama then that means that 2% of all people who were going to vote for Obama would have to change their votes and that doesn't even factor in the few people that have changed their mind the other way. At this late in the game that doesn't seem likely to happen because of one debate a month before the election. How often does something like that happen this late in the game with voters that have already declared for a candidate?

Twenty-seven percent of those surveyed said the debate had prompted them to see Romney in a more positive light, while 19 percent said it caused them to view him more negatively and 40 percent said it did not change their opinion.
Obama did not appear to suffer any damage. Fifty-four percent said the debate did not change their opinion of the president, while 16 percent said their opinion had improved and 18 percent said they viewed him more negatively.
Obama's favorability ratings remained unchanged, as 56 percent said they viewed him favorably and 44 percent said they viewed him unfavorably. His standing improved among independents by 8 percentage points.
Romney appears to have made his greatest strides among his fellow Republicans

Okay, what does one point mean? If 1% of Obama voters switch to Romney's side that narrows the gap by roughly 1%. A 1% switch is not a 2 point swing.

It isn't outlandish to suggest that but to make it more reasonable you also need to suggest that it is likely that 1 to 2 percent of soft Romney supporters will stay home or not bother with sending away for an absentee ballot.

And what is 1 of 49? Is it one percent or is it almost two percent?

I'm happy to go all in on this. The characterization was and is accurate. So it couldn't possibly be dishonest. However, there could be dishonesty on the part of the person denying the obvious... More likely, though, it is just an incredible lack of self awareness on your part. You don't even understand your own positions.

I'm not going to go back through the archives to educate you on what your beliefs are. Your posts have made clear that you are for majority rule as long as the majority agrees with you, and if the majority doesn't you start complaining about rights. We can see this with your nyah nyah'ing on various issues that go your way.

And, of course, as the time Mitt Romney said he wanted to kill Big Bird. I'd put money to odds that history will remember that bit longer than they remember the debate winner or loser.

After last night's debacle, for Obama to even mention Big Bird today was silly.

Well, undecideds often tend to move predominantly in one direction, frequently against the incumbent, rather than splitting down the middle. If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case. Plenty of others with his approval rate (below 50%) have lost re-election.

Well, undecideds often tend to move predominantly in one direction, frequently against the incumbent, rather than splitting down the middle. If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case. Plenty of others with his approval rate (below 50%) have lost re-election.

President Obama’s advisors scrambled Thursday to explain why the incumbent never invoked the game-changing “47%” video during his first debate with Mitt Romney.

...

“It wasn’t a calculated decision,” claimed Obama senior strategist David Axelrod on Thursday. “I think the President’s belief is that that’s something that’s been very much part of the fabric of the discussion.”

Though Axelrod claimed that “a lot of these issues are well known to the public,” he later acknowledged that many feel Obama made a mistake.

“I understand that our strong supporters feel very, very strongly that ... we should have plowed in on the 47 percent, on his tax returns, on Bain, and so on,” Axelrod said on MSNBC.

Axelrod pledged the campaign would “make some adjustments” before the next debate - but did not say whether that would include ripping Romney’s remarks.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/failure-mention-47-video-debate-a-calculated-decision-article-1.1175146#ixzz28NeeIVqg

I don't understand Axelrod's comment here that "It wasn't a calculated decision" for Obama not to mention the 47% last night. Does that mean that the calculated decision was to mention it and Obama didn't, or that they just didn't calculate whether he should mention it or not?

The debates for the most part are for the candidates to look presidential and to get their talking points out to the public. They aren't about attacking or destroying your opponent personally. The 47% comment is a known strike against Romney. People who are voting know he has said it and having Obama bring it up can only do harm to Obama.

And I consistently have said one point is in reality two percent of either side's voters.

Nate Silver and others have pretty well debunked the idea that undecideds break against incumbents. article

"But in my view the empirical evidence — although it is somewhat ambiguous — mostly argues against this idea.

Really? Wouldn't 2004 be a better indicator? Bush was just as 'disliked' as Obama is purported to be, and he won with more than 50% of the vote.

If the premise is that Obama is/was too far ahead to lose, I doubt that is the case.

Except that my point was that asking for 2% of Obama voters to switch to Romney's side this late in the game is asking a lot.

Bitter Mouse defers to "democracy" when it yields the results he likes, and then he invokes "rights" when democracy either isn't doing what he wants or isn't doing so quickly enough.

Got any evidence for that big guy? Plenty of posts to look through, show us all where I did this, or are you all in like Ray?

We're already seeing the difference in enthusiasm in places like Ohio, where more Republicans have already requested an absentee ballot than in the last election, while requests among Dems are down by ~40 percent.

I've seen this number bandied about in a few other places, so I'm sure you're not making it up. I am generally curious where it comes from, though. The government doesn't ask for your party affiliation when you request an absentee ballot (or at least my state didn't when I got one in '04).

And now you're changing the argument. We were discussing 2% of Obama's voters defecting to Romney.

If 2% of the likely Obama voters don't vote that isn't a two point swing. That's a 1 point swing since Romney doesn't pick them up.

I've seen this number bandied about in a few other places, so I'm sure you're not making it up. I am generally curious where it comes from, though. The government doesn't ask for your party affiliation when you request an absentee ballot (or at least my state didn't when I got one in '04).

By the way the big whopping 40% decrease for the Dems in Ohio means that 30% of all absentee ballots requested by people are from Democrats instead of 2008's 33% while the Repubs have 24% of the absentee ballot requests instead of 2008's 20%.

I have no idea if requests are down 40% by Dems. It sure doesn't look like that huge of a difference.

Bitter Mouse defers to "democracy" when it yields the results he likes, and then he invokes "rights" when democracy either isn't doing what he wants or isn't doing so quickly enough.

Among other examples, you gloated about Obamacare being upheld because it was the result of "democracy," but you've also claimed people would have a "right" to healthcare even if Obamacare hadn't been upheld.

I can find the exact quote where I was called a monster for deferring too much to Democracy if you want. So now I am horrible because I only support the process when I like the result? You folks need to make up your mind why I am a monster.

If this is your gotcha then yes, it is true. I believe people should have rights (note: those rights are not natural rights, thought we can revisit that discussion as well), and among them the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy. And yes, I celebrate that ObamaCare passed and is constitutional. You got me.

and the Obama partisans who have repeatedly said "IT'S OVER", could be as far off as Ray was last year when he insisted the Red Sox could not lose a playoff spot.

You stated that 1 points worth of Obama voters could switch to Romney because of the debates and because of that there doesn't need to have a lot of undecideds vote for Romney. You also stated how a 1 point switch is a two point turnabout. Yes, you did also mention briefly in a follow up post that some voters could also decide to stay home but again, that is a different topic then voters changing their vote.

and the Obama partisans who have repeatedly said "IT'S OVER", could be as far off as Ray was last year when he insisted the Red Sox could not lose a playoff spot.

I've never called you a "monster" or "horrible." I believe some of your political positions are horrible, but not you personally. I try hard to follow Scalia's edict about attacking ideas rather than people.

There are all sorts of contradictions in there. Almost by definition, if not exactly by definition, rights can't be subject to the whims of democracy.

Yes I celebrate the Obama decision. Because I believe that everyone should have the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy, because I (and millions of others - because that's how Democracy works) got together and all of us helped change the nation so that it became legal. I never said that prior to ObamaCare being enacted that Democracy was wrong or illegitimate. Feel free to look.

Working to change the system is not "squealing about rights", it is acting based on ones beliefs. Just like everyone in a Democracy should do. The fact that you think otherwise is really truly bizarre.

If this is your gotcha then yes, it is true. I believe people should have rights (note: those rights are not natural rights, thought we can revisit that discussion as well), and among them the right to health care. And I defer to Democracy. And yes, I celebrate that ObamaCare passed and is constitutional. You got me.

You say just above in relation to Obamacare passing: "I defer to Democracy." But when there was no Obamacare, you didn't "defer to Democracy," you whined about 'rights' and "got together" to change it.

So what are you disputing, exactly? The characterization was and remains 100% accurate. But it's interesting that you have to be introduced by others to your own beliefs.

We are all for democracy when it gives what we want; when it looks like it won't, we all suddenly want it to be about higher principles of right and wrong.

In one of your follow ups you asked why does it matter that it is 2% and I responded as to why it matters at which point you dropped the potential 2% swing and then focused on people staying home. You were, I believe, trying to make numerous points about several different scenarios. I responded by disagreeing with one of your scenarios. I'm not sure why I have to discuss all of your scenarios to make my points against one of your points/scenarios valid.

President Obama's reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

I guess you are also done talking about comparing apples to oranges because it's boring, right?

I'd be mildly surprised if Ray doesn't say that the government should just stay out of the marriage business.

And then we try to leverage those higher principles of right and wrong and the fact it is a Democracy so that the Democracy changes.

But since it is in the marriage business they should apply their rules equally to all people.

As long as we're talking about rights and whims, and now that I'm finally home, I'd like to once again ask Ray his opinion on something, for the third time now in the past two pages.

Ray, you flat-out state that gay marriage "isn't a right". I know you think I'm probably trying to "get" you or have you labeled as a homophobe or something, which I am not. My purpose in asking if you think that hetero marriage IS a right is simply to try and grasp your philosophy on this. Do you or do you not think that hetero marriage is a right? 'Tis a simple question.

And that's what happened to this thread. I doubt if it can ever be purged of the polluting trollery that has come to inundate it.

You really know how to snatch ridiculousness from the jaws of sanity, Ray.

But keep comparing sentient beings to animals and inanimate objects if it makes you feel better.

What is the argument?

Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically. Because there is nowhere to draw the line after that. If we've redefined marriage once, why shouldn't we do it again and again? How can I sit here and tell five people they can't marry, or a brother and a sister they can't marry, once I've supported same-sex marriage? What is the argument?

Consanguinity is to be distinguished from affinity, which is the relation of a person, through marriage, to the consanguineous relatives of a spouse. Marriage between persons in lineal consanguinity (persons in the direct line of descent, such as father and daughter) and between brothers and sisters is void under common law, church law, and statute. Whether or not marriages between persons of collateral consanguinity (those having a common ancestor but not related in direct line of descent) are prohibited as incestuous depends on statutory provision and judicial interpretation. In more than half the states of the United States, marriage between first cousins is prohibited by law, and the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Eastern Church have strict rules on consanguinity as an impediment to marriage. Statutes in the United States discard affinal relationship as an impediment to marriage. Whether incestuous marriages are void or voidable in the United States depends on local statutes and their interpretation.

Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically. Because there is nowhere to draw the line after that.

As for polygamy, it's a little less clear. But since government grants fiduciary rights and responsibilities to those in a marriage contract, and multiple partners muddy these waters, it's logical to draw the line at one.

Although I have to say, you and others here deserve it for taking Ray and Joe seriously. That's a mug's game. Many people in engaging Joe and Ray seriously have ignored at their peril the wise saying of Mark Twain: Never argue with the truly stupid (and, I would add, thoroughly insincere); they only drag you down to their level, then beat you with their experience.

Quoting from the executive director of the Center of Immigration studies - “The abuse of discretion makes it impossible to give the executive this kind of wiggle room, because they can’t be trusted,” he said.

“Often the deportation proceedings don’t begin until years after they immigrants have served sentences and cleaned up their lives, getting jobs and starting families.”

“Cambodia accepts only a few requests for travel documents each year, however, so she was released from prison and put on an order of suspension, reporting regularly to the ICE office in Fairfax. She did so for the next eight years, …”

So, you obviously knew it was against the law, so maybe you are asking a different question, but the answer to the last question is, more or less, the laws against marrying people you are related to by "blood" as they exist in the United States.

So the unemployment rate is back to what it was the month Obama took office.

In other news, unemployment is projected to have increased from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. Actual report is released tomorrow AM.