Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

October 18, 2012 - Morning Headlines

- The Boy Scouts of America will be releasing more than 20,000 pages of once confidential documents regarding sexual abuse by adults in the organization from 1965 to 1985. Victims names will not be released (CNN):

- Romney supporters, many of them former female staffers, are rallying behind the former governor after his "binders of women" quote began spreading around the internet (Fox News):

- Bangladeshi national, Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis was arrested for plotting to blow up the New York Federal Reserve. He had been tracked by US officials and was unknowingly working with US law enforcement on his plot (ABC News):

*** Be sure to vote in our second presidential debate poll on the left side of this blog ***


  1. I love the smell of desperation in the morning. "Binders full of women" is an issue?

    Perhaps it is more noble to use women as human shields. You know, like Hillary Clinton being President 0bama's human shield over Libya.

    But I guess when you pay women less (like 0bama) and make the workplace a hostile environment toward women (like to follow) the best thing to do is change the subject.

    Perhaps, Mitt should show some true intelligence like, I don't know, maybe campaign in 57 states, ride the inter-continental railroad, call a corpsman (pronounced CORE-man) a Corpseman, give an asthmatic a breathalyzer (for treatment), or talk about how what America needs is a three letter word...J-O-B-S (Biden).

    Mr. President, if gas prices were $1.84 when you took office because the economy was in the tank, why were gas prices not high when Clinton was President? You know, back in the good old days.

    After two debates the best the inept POTUS can come up with is freakin' Big Bird and "binders full of women".

    While it is amusing watching this train wreck of a President, it is kind of sad seeing the woefully ignorant dumb masses that actually fall for this garbage.

    Gotta go buy more ammo, the 0bamatards are vowing to riot if Romney wins.

    1. 32slim32 - Good morning! I have to admit, I have to agree with your basic argument here. I continually talk about the American electorate. In fact, many people do. Have you ever seen the Howard Stern campaign videos where he asks Obama supporters questions about "Obama" though they're really questions about McCain (and in this year, Romney/Ryan). If you haven't, his staffers, for example, ask people who they're voting for. If they say "Obama," he then asks something like, "are you happier that he is anti-abortion, or are you happier that he is anti-gay marriage?" Or something like "do you think his runningmate, Paul Ryan, will make a good VP?" As if they know the facts, these supporters answer affirmatively that they still agree with Obama on these "positions" regardless of how backwards they are.

      What am I getting at? The American electorate, for the most part, does not get below surface issues. They do not dig deeper. It's our world here because we follow these things heavily. People like you, RKen, whatsamattausa, MN 4 Rick, et al., no matter how much we disagree, our basic beliefs are rooted in the fact that we dig and search and seek to know. Many people don't, and the proof of it can be seen in a few examples, most of which, I believe, you correctly pointed out:

      1. Binders of women - With this, I just want to say "seriously?!" 23 million people unemployed and underemployed and this is what I see on Facebook?
      2. Big Bird - Ditto on the explanation
      3. Constantly believing and repeating the lie that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than Americans making $50K and less. Even if this was true, which it isn't, why is that a reason to NOT elect Mitt for president? Obama said in 2008 that if you don't have ideas, you don't have a record to run on, you make your opponent out to be someone you should run from. Implying that we should not elect Mitt because he paid a lower tax rate than the middle class (again, a lie) is exactly this.
      4. Dog on roof? - Again, come on.
      5. Mitt's "magic underwear" - I don't care if he wears thongs, if he can fix the economy, I'm electing a thong-wearing president.

      The "Binders of women" one is definitely the top of the heap. All these things are floating around Facebook and Twitter, and they are such insignificant issues. But sadly, this is what sticks, and these could get Obama elected. But yes, the lack of true understanding of major issues, and the replacement of these major issues being filled in by platitudes and trivial things is truly, truly sad.

    2. And yes, I forgot to mention, you quick analysis of gas prices, at basic glance, was true. Overall, his explanation of gas prices relative to a recession or growth, was really, really odd. Of course, no media outlet is calling him out on it.

    3. LME, dang you. Thanks for the mental picture....Romney in a thong. LOL

      Yes, I have seen the Howard Stern videos of the mindless drones that support the 0bama/Ryan ticket. I bet a lot of them are the same ones that thought Palin would be a good VP for 0bama in 2008. Have you seen those videos? The ones from 2008 of geniuses that voted for 0bama.

      It's not just politics that American's are dumber than dirt about. I have seen videos of people that can't tell you when 9/11 happened. That's just sad. Or people that can't even guess where Kentucky Fried Chicken started.

      The "binders of women" kind of flew over my head but that 0bama explanation of gas prices caught my attention.

    4. A few comments I have. :)

      I agree with both of you, in the ignorance that prevails most of our voting electorate. I also agree that these are all incredibly silly, ridiculous issues to build up as much as they have been over this election.

      That said, I have two comments!

      1. Gas prices are linked rather closely if not directly to the health of the stock market (and thereby, our economy). The price of a barrel of oil and/or the price of future oil contracts are very closely tied to the S&P/Dow, if you plot them out on curves. Certainly close enough to make a compelling argument for it.

      Slim32 raises an important question over why then, during Clinton, we didn't see a spike in gas prices. This is primarily because of this:

      Which of course, was only passed in 2000 (after Clinton).

      That said though, there are still many, many other factors that affect the ultimate price of oil. But the stock market is one of the bigger indicators.

      Here's a sample analysis:

      2. I think the 'binder's full of woman' and Big Bird trends are ridiculous; no question about it. But on that topic, I do think the jokes and criticisms that have emerged from it have more to do with them both being examples of a poor response to the question than people seriously getting caught up on those exact words/statements.

      When pressed for what specific areas he would cut, citing a 0.0016% of our budget program as the sole example is a poor response. Likewise, when asked about equal pay for women, he switched to more of an affirmative action topic and avoided the question.

      This of course isn’t to say that the levels these two responses were taken to are warranted, as I again disagree with it. And it isn’t to say that Obama had some poor answers as well.

      But I do at least believe there was (initially) valid and understandable reasoning for being upset with those responses, and it isn’t just all literally about having a binder full of woman and/or Big Bird.

      On the other hand though, like was brought up here, most people that are parroting those points now likely don’t have or even know of a reasonable explanation to go with them. So even despite my point above, you’re both still right.

    5. RKen, good afternoon.

      I need a little clarification, please. Are you saying that because of CFMA (wikipedia link) that is why prices NOW fluctuate so much whereas they didn't before?

      The reason I ask is because of this excerpt from your wikipedia link:

      "The first provision of the CFMA to receive widespread popular attention was the “Enron Loophole".[74] In most accounts, this “loophole” was the CEA’s new section 2(h). Section 2(h) created two exemptions from the CEA for “exempt commodities” such as oil and other “energy” products.[75]"

      I don't understand how oil would be any different than it was during the Clinton administration since it was exempted from the statute. Pre-2000 there was no law, they made a law and exempt oil and "other energy products", so isn't it the same for oil as it always was? Am I missing something? (That is serious, not rhetorical or snide)

      Amazingly in the pre-0bama era, reasons for high gas prices included:

      1. Bad energy policy and weak dollar.

      2.Bad foreign policy.,_not_consumers

      3. High deficits (of $250 Billion to $400 Billion).

      How come those don't still apply today?

      As far as high oil prices, I never see that as a good thing-- regardless of what CBS says.

      Also, if you could help me out on one more thing I would greatly appreciate it. The .0016% of the budget you refer to...what is that? I am assuming it is either PBS (Big bird) or "green energy". Which one, or is it something else?

    6. Hey Slim,

      The CFMA basically defined oil as an official tradable market commodity, wherein future oil contracts could be bought, sold, and exchanged on the open market. Before this, regulations prevented this for certain commodities. But the CFMA changed that.

      In your quote, you're actually referring to the CEA, which was a different act passed in 1936 and made an exemption for oil and other energy products; as you correctly pointed out. However, again, this was for the 1936 CEA bill. The 2000 CFMA bill, no longer had exemptions.

      But, bringing future oil contracts to the open market did have the effect of more closely tying the value of those oil contracts to the values of the market itself. Just like for any other item on the market, when the market index drops, generally most everything else on the market drops. Same for when it rises.

      All of your reasons for gas prices rising and falling are also correct, slim, which was why I did make sure to point out that there are many other factors that still come into play on determining gas prices. The market is just one of the bigger ones. Foreign policy and value of the dollar are big ones too, as you listed. :)

      Hoping that made more sense.

      I believe the 0.0016% of our spending was in reference to the amount of funding the federal government provides towards PBS.

    7. RKen, thanks for the clarification.

      As far as the PBS spending goes, while I do see your point about being only .0016% of the budget (actually I would think it is an even smaller percentage of the budget), it is still $445 million of taxpayer money.

      In fact one article I read called it a "drop in the bucket". Do you know how a bucket fills up in a rain storm? One drop at a time.

      Have a great weekend RKen and thanks again for the CEA/CFMA clarification.

    8. That's a fair point slim, can't say I disagree with it either.

      And no problem, happy to clarify.

      You have a great weekend too!

  2. Romney in a thong! Oh my!

    I caught that 'gas prices were low b/c the economy was in the tank' comment. As I said yesterday... it made NO logical sense to me.

    I heard the 'binders' comment and I didn't think anything more than he had read through many women's resumes to choose people for his MA cabinet... silly me.

    Next day - poof - I see 'women' dressed up in cardboard 'binders' parading around a Romney headquarters, with all sorts of women's 'issues' written on them - in Ohio... and I thought 'THAT's what they heard?'

    As a woman, this women's rights thing bothers me. Everything they're pushing (IMO) is based in selfishness. THEY want sex - without even the responsibility of paying for their own protection! They don't want to be 'punished with a baby' but I'm supposed to pay for that too. They SAY it's about CHOICE, but bash women - like Ann Romney - who CHOSE to stay home and take care of her home and family. Obama's 'policies' have made it IMPOSSIBLE for women to CHOOSE that same path. Obama's 'fundamental transformation of America' has pushed women - who CHOSE to stay home - out into the workforce instead - in order to feed their families. Another half-million? women have lost their jobs due to Obamanomics.

    War on Women? - I'd say it's coming from the White House. And I find it insulting that these 'celebrities' run around spouting that we(women)have nothing more valuable to share with society - than our private parts.

    All over twitter the lefties holler, 'Romney's a liar' 'Romney's gonna overturn Rowe v. Wade''Romney and the GOP want to take women back to the '50's'

    I ask: When did he say that? What did he lie about? Facts please (links from MM/DailyKos are NOT acceptable.)*crickets* from the lefties - and/or I get blocked... (but on the upside - I've gained a bunch of conservative followers)lol

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

    Side Note: Tax payer funded 'Planned Parenthood' just 'celebrated' 6M abortions... sad. Even the Grand Poobah of the left - Bill Clinton said: 'Abortion should be safe, legal... and rare.' I guess PP and the Feminazis didn't get that memo.

    1. Hey Dara good afternoon. I guess I am silly like you too, because, when I heard Romney talking about seeking out women to hire in his cabinet and he said "binders full of women" I didn't think a thing about it. I am just dumb enough to think he was talking about resumes of women.

      What woman in her right mind would want some rich white guy looking at their resume to offer them a job? How offensive. I can't believe you and I failed to see it that way the first time. LOL

      Have a great day Dara.