Obama vs Romney - POTUS 2012

[bleeding heart]

You two fellows know less about women than you do about politics.

I'm going to say that's your own fault....and not the fault of your crazed, overly-emotional mothers.

[Guest American Woman]

You two fellows know less about women than you do about politics.

I'm going to say that's your own fault....and not the fault of your crazed, overly-emotional mothers.

Not sure if you caught this, but according to CPCFTW, women are slaves to their hormones and emotions - except for a small minority of cold women. So women are either an "emotional nut job" ... or "cold."

[CPCFTW]

You two fellows know less about women than you do about politics.

I'm going to say that's your own fault....and not the fault of your crazed, overly-emotional mothers.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that women are more prone to base decisions on emotions... that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is when considering government policy.

The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions. In 1995, researchers in Scandinavia discovered that women were better equipped to not only detect, but also mirror, the emotions of others [source: Simon-Thomas]. A similar study in 2003 found that women identified and truly experienced the emotions of others, demonstrating superior levels of empathy to those exhibited by men.

Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women empathized.

This difference in emotional intelligence may actually prove beneficial to mankind. This sense of empathy allows women to fulfill their nurturing roles: The woman acts as a support system to friends and family. The ability to avoid experiencing the emotions of others allows men to focus on the problem at hand, seeking solutions and taking active roles in resolving issues. These differences in how men and women handle emotions can also help you choose the most effective source of help when you have a problem. If you want a sympathetic ear, talk to a female friend. For active solutions, talk to a man, but don't get upset if he appears to downplay how you feel.

[CPCFTW]

Not sure if you caught this, but according to CPCFTW, women are slaves to their hormones and emotions - except for a small minority of cold women. So women are either an "emotional nut job" ... or "cold."

"cold" isn't a bad thing. See above.

By cold, I mean some women will provide "active solutions... but don't get upset if she appears to downplay how you feel."

Don't get too emotional over what I type!

[bleeding heart]

There is plenty of scientific evidence that women are more prone to base decisions on emotions... that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is when considering government policy.

You didn't provide a link...nor did you say if the stated conclusions were the results of the studies, or rather a third party's take on the results of the studies.

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

"cold" isn't a bad thing. See above.

By cold, I mean some women will provide "active solutions... but don't get upset if she appears to downplay how you feel."

Ummmm. Having a "higher level of emotional intelligence," having more empathy and a greater understanding of how others feel - hardly translates to being an "emotional nut job," eh? Furthermore, it sounds like a useful trait to possess; ie: a positive thing. I would say it could even help one provide active solutions.

Don't get too emotional over what I type!

Oh, I'll try to control myself .... but, but, I just can't seem to stop the tears from coming! How could you say such a thing? Don't you realize that I have feelings? I, I, I ... just don't know what to say! You're just so mean. *sob*

[bleeding heart]

American Woman makes an interesting observation, CPCFTW.

you seem to have softened your stance from "women are emotional nutjobs" to something less provocative.

Why?

Real Men tell what's what, are Results-Oriented, and Get the Job Done. Apparently.

Waffling doesn't help; it's evidently more of a...feminine trait.

[CPCFTW]

American Woman makes an interesting observation, CPCFTW.

you seem to have softened your stance from "women are emotional nutjobs" to something less provocative.

Why?

Real Men tell what's what, are Results-Oriented, and Get the Job Done. Apparently.

Waffling doesn't help; it's evidently more of a...feminine trait.

Anyone who's been in a relationship with a woman can tell you that they can turn into emotional nutjobs at times. How many times have you cried in front of a woman? How many times has a woman cried in front of you?

[CPCFTW]

Ummmm. Having a "higher level of emotional intelligence," having more empathy and a greater understanding of how others feel - hardly translates to being an "emotional nut job," eh? Furthermore, it sounds like a useful trait to possess; ie: a positive thing. I would say it could even help one provide active solutions.

I already said it is a useful trait to possess... but government policy, which is funded through coercion, shouldn't be based on empathy. Sometimes the "cold" solution is the optimal one.

Edited September 16, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Guest American Woman]

Anyone who's been in a relationship with a woman can tell you that they can turn into emotional nutjobs at times. How many times have you cried in front of a woman? How many times has a woman cried in front of you?

Sounds as if you are frustrated by that. You do realize that frustration is an emotion, right?

Crying, by far, isn't the only emotion - there's a whole long list - yet you seem to think that because women are more likely to cry and less likely to hold their emotions in that they are uncontrollably emotional.

Anger, btw, is an emotion too - and I would say Bush's reaction to 9-11 was anger. He certainly showed anger to the world. Does that mean his he was an emotional nut job and not up to dealing with it?

Edited September 16, 2012 by American Woman

[CPCFTW]

Sounds as if you are frustrated by that. You do realize that frustration is an emotion, right?

Crying, by far, isn't the only emotion - there's a whole long list - yet you seem to think that because women are more likely to cry and less likely to hold their emotions in that they are uncontrollably emotional.

Anger, btw, is an emotion too - and I would say Bush's reaction to 9-11 was anger. He certainly showed anger to the world. Does that mean his he was an emotional nut job and not up to dealing with it?

How do I sound frustrated? There you go again, always trying to empathize!

I would argue that the reaction to 9/11 was an opportunistic and calculated, not emotional. In the case of foreign policy, being more empathetic would probably be a good thing though. I'm more concerned about domestic policy.

Edited September 16, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Guest American Woman]

How do I seem frustrated? There you go again, always trying to empathize!

I wasn't empathizing; I was coldly accusing you of being frustrated.

I would argue that the reaction to 9/11 was an opportunistic and calculated, not emotional. In the case of foreign policy, being more empathetic would probably be a good thing though.

In light of your subsequent posts, you might want to re-read what JerrySeinfeld has said, ie: what you were agreeing with. Seems to me you've lost the "emotional nut job" stance and are seeing things more realistically - or dare I say, less emotionally?

[CPCFTW]

In light of your subsequent posts, you might want to re-read what JerrySeinfeld has said, ie: what you were agreeing with. Seems to me you've lost the "emotional nut job" stance and are seeing things more realistically - or dare I say, less emotionally?

I think his post had a touch of hyperbole, and I do disagree with his argument that children should only be raised by a woman and a man. But it's probably the most healthy relationship that a child could be raised in.

Edited September 16, 2012 by CPCFTW

[BubberMiley]

But it's probably the most healthy relationship that a child could be raised in.

Why?

[CPCFTW]

Why?

You get daily exposure to both sexes that you will have to socialize with in the real world, and you are exposed to the biologically normal relationship.

Not that there's anything wrong with being gay... but even if we accept that being gay is biological, you still have a 97% chance of having a straight child who would benefit more being exposed to straight love/intimacy.

Edited September 16, 2012 by CPCFTW

[BubberMiley]

Parents exist for love, guidance and support. The rest of the world exists to provide different types of people to socialize with. I think if a couple can fulfill that primary role of parenthood adequately, the child has every chance of seeing a good example being set, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

But where did you get the 97% figure?

[sharkman]

Parents exist for love, guidance and support. The rest of the world exists to provide different types of people to socialize with. I think if a couple can fulfill that primary role of parenthood adequately, the child has every chance of seeing a good example being set, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

But where did you get the 97% figure?

Parents offer far more than that.

[BubberMiley]

Parents offer far more than that.

Your arguments are always so substantive.

[Guest American Woman]

I think his post had a touch of hyperbole, and I do disagree with his argument that children should only be raised by a woman and a man. But it's probably the most healthy relationship that a child could be raised in.

A touch of hyperbole? It was drowning in it.

I don't know if being raised by a woman and a man is automatically the most healthy relationship for children as there are other factors involved, too - how happy and healthy the relationship is, the love they have for the children, the time they devote to the children, to name a few.

I think if children feel loved and secure and their emotional and physical needs are being met, then that is a healthy environment for children to grow up in. I think there are times that boys would like a man in their life and girls would like a woman in theirs, but for so many reasons so many children are not being raised in that 'traditional' setting, and there are aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents and teachers and friends of mom/dad and there is scouts and sports and big brother/sister programs - so there are many ways to for the children to receive time and attention - and love - from both men and women, regardless of whether or not they are being raised in the 'traditional' man/woman home environment.

Edited September 17, 2012 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Anyone who's been in a relationship with a woman can tell you that they can turn into emotional nutjobs at times. How many times have you cried in front of a woman? How many times has a woman cried in front of you?

There's a definite difference, it's true, but I don't see this as some sort of measurement of emotional nutjobbery.

If I did, why might I not think that the relative lack of crying suggests an emotional nutjob?

[kimmy]

An excellent few days for Willard.

Shoots self in foot by conceding that his plan to balance the budget basically consists of hoping the economy improves.

Shoots self in face with embarrassing footage from a private fundraiser hosted by a "private equity titan" famous for hosting orgies.

So it should be no surprised that the Republicans have realized that to have any chance, they're going to need a lot of

help from Baby Jesus.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

Mitt has ran a pretty poor campaign with blunders abound. At least he's avoided a Palin-like disaster, but has had a lot of other gaffes to help almost make up for it.

I think it's becoming more and more clear that it's hard for a Republican candidate to simultaneously pander to both the freaks on the far-right of GOP base and independent/swing voters who are actually sane.

[bleeding heart]

An excellent few days for Willard.

Shoots self in foot by conceding that his plan to balance the budget basically consists of hoping the economy improves.

Shoots self in face with embarrassing footage from a private fundraiser hosted by a "private equity titan" famous for hosting orgies.

So it should be no surprised that the Republicans have realized that to have any chance, they're going to need a lot of

help from Baby Jesus.

-k

Certainly his campaign is looking more and more like a debacle. And in fact, you can make plenty of mistakes: Obama's "clinging to guns and God," or whatever it was, was definite misstep, but such things are survivable.

It made him sound to many people like some sort of liberal elitist.

But if sounding like an elitist is a problem, then Mitt (already struggling with this image) just dug himself a very deep hole.

And when the campaign mistakes keep coming and coming, then you probably lose. And according to the article, David Corn still has more video to show us.

Romney dismissing half the country as losers without a compass is a bad one. Really bad. What's even worse is his full-frontal, unabashed remark that he basically won't be representing nor working for them, anyway.

As for the Jesus bit: I'm assuming that either God doesn't exist, or that he doesn't automatically pick sides with Republicans, or that he actively hates Romney, anyway.

Edited September 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

Paul Ryan gets the crowd fired up, hands off to Mitt Romney, and the enthusiasm is ...

...painful to watch. "Oh... sweet Jesus..."

Sort of brings to mind a Canadian moment from a while back...

-k

[Shady]

An excellent few days for Willard.

Shoots self in foot by conceding that his plan to balance the budget basically consists of hoping the economy improves.

Not hoping, putting in place pro-growth economic policies, as opposed to the current President's economic wet blanket.

Household Incomes Fall In Aug., Off 8.2% Under Obama

In another sign that the economic recovery under President Obama is not producing gains for average Americans, median household incomes fell 1.1% in August to $50,678, according to a report released Tuesday by Sentier Research.

Link

He's doin a heckuva job ain't he kimmy!

Shoots self in face with embarrassing footage from a private fundraiser

-k

That was last week kimmy. Try to keep up. This week is Obama's turn. Calling the assassination of an ambassador a "bump in the road." And being the first president in 3 decades not to hold any bi-lateral meetings with any world leaders during the UN summit.

He's doin a heckuva job ain't he kimmy!