Full Version: Is... it... ... over?
What the heck. It's already off topic.
It's not that the NLSY is incompatible with the CPS. On rereading my statement, I can see why you think I said there's a problem compiling both for the models. From the same GAO report you linked:
In addition, the PSID does not contain data on education quality or field of study, such as college major. It also does not contain data on cognitive ability or measures of social skills, all of which may affect earnings. For example, studies of earnings differences that used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth have used a measure of ability in addition to work experience, education, and demographic variables.13 This data set, however, follows a specific cohort of individuals over time and is therefore not representative of the population as a whole.
Footnote 13 refers to O'Neill's paper. What's odd in the GAO's report is that they use PSID, another longitudinal/cohort study. The GAO and O'Neill used cross-sectional studies of the relatively fixed populations, though. I'm scratching my head.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ May 16 2008, 04:19 AM) 
I cannot find specifically where the GAO says the NLSY would be incompatible with the CPS.
It's not that the NLSY is incompatible with the CPS. On rereading my statement, I can see why you think I said there's a problem compiling both for the models. From the same GAO report you linked:
In addition, the PSID does not contain data on education quality or field of study, such as college major. It also does not contain data on cognitive ability or measures of social skills, all of which may affect earnings. For example, studies of earnings differences that used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth have used a measure of ability in addition to work experience, education, and demographic variables.13 This data set, however, follows a specific cohort of individuals over time and is therefore not representative of the population as a whole.
Footnote 13 refers to O'Neill's paper. What's odd in the GAO's report is that they use PSID, another longitudinal/cohort study. The GAO and O'Neill used cross-sectional studies of the relatively fixed populations, though. I'm scratching my head.
It is not over! Yesterday stupid President Bush crushed Obama in Israel with just a few words. Later Glenn Beck delivered this on his program...
Two women supporting Hillary were on The Factor last evening saying they and thousands of like thinking folks would leave the party if Obama is the nominee. It isn't over.
QUOTE
Here`s "The Point" tonight. Some Palestinians in Gaza are campaigning for Barack Obama. In him, they see the same radical possibilities that so many Americans see that share Obama`s extreme leftist views. That is as testifying as it is dangerous, and here`s how I got there.
According to an Al Jazeera news report, a group of Palestinians in Gaza are phone banking in support of Barack Obama`s campaign. Before every U.S. primary, a 23-year-old Gaza man gathers a group of his friends and randomly call America`s -- Americans to rally support for Obama.
Read the entire transcript that leave questions about who is funding this effort. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/15/gb.01.htmlAccording to an Al Jazeera news report, a group of Palestinians in Gaza are phone banking in support of Barack Obama`s campaign. Before every U.S. primary, a 23-year-old Gaza man gathers a group of his friends and randomly call America`s -- Americans to rally support for Obama.
Two women supporting Hillary were on The Factor last evening saying they and thousands of like thinking folks would leave the party if Obama is the nominee. It isn't over.
Yes the Democratic Party because of its infighting has come to an end. Liberals are turning towards the Green Party. On Coast to Coast AM radio, there's been talk of several million Greens ready to vote come November due to how the Democrats in Congress lied when they said they'd end the War in Iraq while and the Democrats haven't.
QUOTE(Zack @ May 16 2008, 06:17 AM)
It is not over! Yesterday stupid President Bush crushed Obama in Israel with just a few words. Later Glenn Beck delivered this on his program...
Wow! I didn't think anyone, with the exception of net2007, took Glenn Beck seriously.
There are other takes on Bush's words concerning Israel. Here is how MSNBC's First Read saw it:
QUOTE
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.
*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks -- and then McCain’s response to them -- overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.
*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.
*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks -- and then McCain’s response to them -- overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
Bush's and McCain's statements will help Barack Obama finish off Hillary Clinton for the nomination and should help him beat McCain in November.
Isn't it funny, Aquilla, that McCain's first volley in the general election "food fight" ended up being a boomerang that brings the rotten kumquat back to hit him square in the face?
QUOTE
Footnote 13 refers to O'Neill's paper. What's odd in the GAO's report is that they use PSID, another longitudinal/cohort study. The GAO and O'Neill used cross-sectional studies of the relatively fixed populations, though. I'm scratching my head.
Good enough. I think we're past any material debate, so lets just let this one rest.
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2008, 07:29 AM)
Bush's and McCain's statements will help Barack Obama finish off Hillary Clinton for the nomination and should help him beat McCain in November.
Isn't it funny, Aquilla, that McCain's first volley in the general election "food fight" ended up being a boomerang that brings the rotten kumquat back to hit him square in the face?
Isn't it funny, Aquilla, that McCain's first volley in the general election "food fight" ended up being a boomerang that brings the rotten kumquat back to hit him square in the face?
On NO!!! MSNBC has said these things and declared it will hurt John McCain? Oh, woe is me, when we lose MSNBC, it's all over. That will be the turning point, all is lost. :'( We should just declare Obama the President now and save him that nasty little task of actually being nominated.
And, this issue isn't a "food fight" issue. It's about substance. Obama wants to negotiate with terrorists, McCain doesn't. That's an issue for debate, not a piece of pie being thrown.
Aquilla
.
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2008, 10:29 AM)
QUOTE(Zack @ May 16 2008, 06:17 AM)
It is not over! Yesterday stupid President Bush crushed Obama in Israel with just a few words. Later Glenn Beck delivered this on his program...
Wow! I didn't think anyone, with the exception of net2007, took Glenn Beck seriously.
There are other takes on Bush's words concerning Israel. Here is how MSNBC's First Read saw it:
QUOTE
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.
*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks -- and then McCain’s response to them -- overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.
*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.
*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks -- and then McCain’s response to them -- overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
Bush's and McCain's statements will help Barack Obama finish off Hillary Clinton for the nomination and should help him beat McCain in November.
Isn't it funny, Aquilla, that McCain's first volley in the general election "food fight" ended up being a boomerang that brings the rotten kumquat back to hit him square in the face?
Yesterday the Congressional Black Caucus sided with Hillary on the war funding and tossed Obama's plans out with the bath water, each and every member of the Black Caucus voted no on war funding (Hillary's position). Obama wants to leave the soldiers there to die with a promise of failure once he is elected but I guess he would need some funding to do so?
So you find MSNBC a great source for news and Glenn Beck and others a poor sources? News comes in any form that can be backed up with facts and Glenn had "facts", perhaps you should try to follow up on the facts?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 16 2008, 10:58 AM)
And, this issue isn't a "food fight" issue. It's about substance. Obama wants to negotiate with terrorists, McCain doesn't. That's an issue for debate, not a piece of pie being thrown.
Apparently, so does Bush:
QUOTE
In December Bush announced an agreement between the United States, Britain and Libya for Libya to give up its WMD programs in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions and better relations with the international community.
I suppose when you become a good terrorist you get to be negotiated with. Ahh... Gone are the days when we don't negotiate with terrorists.
QUOTE(logophage @ May 16 2008, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 16 2008, 10:58 AM)
And, this issue isn't a "food fight" issue. It's about substance. Obama wants to negotiate with terrorists, McCain doesn't. That's an issue for debate, not a piece of pie being thrown.
Apparently, so does Bush:
QUOTE
In December Bush announced an agreement between the United States, Britain and Libya for Libya to give up its WMD programs in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions and better relations with the international community.
I suppose when you become a good terrorist you get to be negotiated with. Ahh... Gone are the days when we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Ok, let's get this clear here.... Bush and the UK negotiate with Libya to abandon their WMD programs and Libya agrees to do that and to the left this is bad thing? This is the message you're going to carry into the fall? Good luck with that one.
(this may be easier than I thought)
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 16 2008, 02:36 PM)
QUOTE(logophage @ May 16 2008, 01:44 PM)
Apparently, so does Bush:
QUOTE
In December Bush announced an agreement between the United States, Britain and Libya for Libya to give up its WMD programs in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions and better relations with the international community.
I suppose when you become a good terrorist you get to be negotiated with. Ahh... Gone are the days when we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Ok, let's get this clear here.... Bush and the UK negotiate with Libya to abandon their WMD programs and Libya agrees to do that and to the left this is bad thing? This is the message you're going to carry into the fall?
No, it's not a bad thing to negotiate with terrorists. Clearly, the results of negotiating with Qaddafi are good. That's why you negotiate with terrorists. Perhaps, you missed this point?
Edited to add:
Why this need to call everyone who disagrees with you (or calls you on flaws in your logic): "on the left"?
As far as this thread goes Obama's reaction to the president's statement is defense only. I would point out that Hillary told him he was dumb in public for this foreign policy and he tucked his tail and tried to forget he said it. Yes, Obama can beat up on Bush but if it is between he and Hillary or McCain one on one he loses.
On Tuesday Obama will get his butt handed to him in KY almost as bad as he did in WV. Right now he is a microphone whore with all the sobbing people that fall in the target of president Bush. Next week will Obama and all Black Caucus vote for war funding or vote against it? I'll bet Hillary and the Black Caucus votes against it, how about you?
On Tuesday Obama will get his butt handed to him in KY almost as bad as he did in WV. Right now he is a microphone whore with all the sobbing people that fall in the target of president Bush. Next week will Obama and all Black Caucus vote for war funding or vote against it? I'll bet Hillary and the Black Caucus votes against it, how about you?
QUOTE(logophage @ May 16 2008, 02:40 PM)
No, it's not a bad thing to negotiate with terrorists. Clearly, the results of negotiating with Qaddafi are good. That's why you negotiate with terrorists. Perhaps, you missed this point?
Edited to add:
Why this need to call everyone who disagrees with you (or calls you on flaws in your logic): "on the left"?
Edited to add:
Why this need to call everyone who disagrees with you (or calls you on flaws in your logic): "on the left"?
There is a difference, a "nuance" between negotiating with a terrorist regime and them negotiating with you. This is apparently something that has escaped Obama's understanding of the world.
And, I have disagreements with those on the right as well. You aren't one of them. Just callin' it like I see it.
Aquilla
QUOTE
And, this issue isn't a "food fight" issue. It's about substance. Obama wants to negotiate with terrorists, McCain doesn't. That's an issue for debate, not a piece of pie being thrown.
Nixon went to China and Reagan met with the Soviets. Back channel work was always being done. Bush II negotiated with the terrorist Quaddafi, of course there are badly done mangles like Reagan/Bush I's Iran-Contra affair, but the point is clear that being open to talks is a good idea. Even I'mOnnaJihad won't last forever in Iran and its population is in many parts open to better relations with us, they just don't want to be like us or have any interest in Americans dictating to them what they should believe or how to act.
As clumsy and cheap as Bush's final attempts at relevancy were Track II diplomacy is often pretty effective as well.
QUOTE
There is a difference, a "nuance" between negotiating with a terrorist regime and them negotiating with you. This is apparently something that has escaped Obama's understanding of the world.
Have yet to see where Obama has given in to the terrorists demands? A couple links would be appreciated.
But as long as we are not caught being appeasers who are caught in the act of appeasing -- like chamberlain appeased when he clearly appeased and was an appeaser -- we should be ok with the talk radio Right and their acolytes.
QUOTE(Bernaserra @ May 10 2008, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE(Zack @ May 10 2008, 01:51 PM)
Hillary Supporters: What's on your mind? Tell us your frustrations, let's talk it out. Why does the press not ask Black Caucus super delegates supporting Obama why they are refusing to vote for war funding in congress yet support Obama who clearly states he will remain in Iraq for up to two years?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080506/pl_af...bU3cSmuV.IDW7oF
The Congressional Black Caucus shut down the House of Representatives Thursday when the entire caucus vowed not a penny for war funding.
Why is the press trashing Hillary's odds when the two candidates are tied?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-obama-wa.html
QUOTE
Pentagon warns of June pay crunch for troops Tue May 6, 1:43 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon warned Tuesday the US Army will not be able to pay its soldiers beyond June 15 unless Congress acts soon on a stalled request from the administration for war funding.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon warned Tuesday the US Army will not be able to pay its soldiers beyond June 15 unless Congress acts soon on a stalled request from the administration for war funding.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080506/pl_af...bU3cSmuV.IDW7oF
The Congressional Black Caucus shut down the House of Representatives Thursday when the entire caucus vowed not a penny for war funding.
Why is the press trashing Hillary's odds when the two candidates are tied?
QUOTE
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-obama-wa.html
What your not realizing is that you just can't magically make all of those soldiers teleport from iraq back to the us. You have to withdraw in a sensible way that prevents anarchy. As for congress they would probably support a funding for a timed withdraw.
You don't know the real definition of Anarchy. Anarchists are people who want nobody to rule them. They are people who don't what to be told what to do, where to go, what to think, what God to worship, how to dress and so on. They are people who want to use their own minds to determine their lives and their destiny. The term you are looking for is chaos. The power structures of the world and their propoganda mechanisms have successfully associated anarchism with chaos, but the truth is that these terms are not interchangeable.
If history is any indicator, Barack Obama will not get these troops out of Iraq within two years, or four years. Nixon's 1968 platform was to end the war in Vietnam. His platform in 1972 was to end the war in Vietnam. Will Barack Obama be trumpeting the same message of hope and change in 2012?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 17 2008, 12:35 AM)
QUOTE(logophage @ May 16 2008, 02:40 PM)
No, it's not a bad thing to negotiate with terrorists. Clearly, the results of negotiating with Qaddafi are good. That's why you negotiate with terrorists. Perhaps, you missed this point?
There is a difference, a "nuance" between negotiating with a terrorist regime and them negotiating with you. This is apparently something that has escaped Obama's understanding of the world.
I have no idea what this statement means. What's the difference again? How can there be a negotiation without both parties negotiating? No wonder Republicans are so lost now. They can't even fathom what negotiation means.
Edited to add: Yes, I understand that I'm not "on the right" (I don't have enough fascist tendencies); however, I'm also not "on the left" (I don't have enough communist tendencies).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.