Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  12/16/2012 03:12 PM Report

Do the Republicans want to restore math capabilities in the American population?

Spend a million dollars to establish a 'user-free' phone bank to answer students' math questions!

You could call it "Our Republic Counts"!

khanacademy.com is helpful, and interesting, but there is too little context ("continuity" ..hah!) available with the 'pre-recorded' segments, ..too little opportunity to ask follow-up questions, ..and -- perhaps most important -- too little opportunity in our society to 'discuss' some magnificent and inspirational thoughts and ideas which working in the language of math can engender.

Want to create a few thousand jobs? ..and find useful employment for a few thousand Math graduates???

Find a corporate sponsor for the establishment of a full-scale national 'Hot Line' where L'Hopital's Rule can be shared, discussed, understood, and carried forward to new creations!

America could ONCE MORE be on the march!!!

NeilMacCallister  12/12/2012 10:46 AM Report

It occurs to me that calling 'the rich' .."unfair" ..is just another form of "criminal profiling", or "racial profiling".

Saying that "Those people making 250K/yr are not "paying their share" -- is the same as saying "Those AF-American criminals on Welfare", ..or "Those lazy Latinos who come here to sell drugs and steal stuff".

***

And there is also the turn-around due, ..that "people who MAKE MILLIONS are the people who create jobs" ..I believe that should be: "The people who CREATE JOBS, are people who make millions".

And that cuts both ways, ..there are many "millionaires and billionaires" who don't create jobs (like Barack Obama, or the CEO's of Solyndra) ..so we don't need to cry over a decrease in subsidies.

But their was a guy down my block who took over a failing concrete crew, ..and turned it into a much-requested professional success, ..he has now moved to a very nice million dollar 'estate'.

Good for that concrete guy!!

We need to be able to imagine and appreciate the difference!!

***

Barack Obama is now getting rich by shooting up a whole class of people with a shotgun, ..

He is turning the American economy into an "OK Corral" gun-fight over taxed personal possessions, ..just another 'Egypt', ..just another 'Greece'.

Let's raise the taxes on those government people who get to vote themselves a million dollar salary, ..and let alone those folks who MAKE a million dollars by selling a quality product to a million willing and sharp-eyed shoppers!

NeilMacCallister  12/10/2012 01:58 AM Report

Mitt Romney did NOT "lose" this election -- America lost a chance to have someone who knew how to put America back in the black.

Obviously, America prefers to eat its seed corn, and perish next year.

Who knew America was so ignorant, selfish, greedy, and suicidal???

Fine. So now, this lazy America can now die. Charlie Rose, E. J. Dionne, and Connie Schultz, have all stashed enough public money to float away on those lifeboats for the rich.

Bon Appetit, America!!

Gustav  12/09/2012 07:33 AM Report

I understand campaigning not on politics but on emotion. But to say that the "winning=better campaign" and that politics, ideals, values doesn't seem to figure in seems a bit dark...

Viteric  12/06/2012 09:29 PM Report

To make my decision i did research on both candidate's past experience. Same as when i interview someone for a job. Why should this be different? I was looking for the candidate with the experience to run the biggest corporation in the world, the United States of America. That's where Mitt went wrong. His campaign was focused on following Obama's which only led him into a rabbit hole. Talk about not defining himself. His focus should have been his superb ability to lead companies to success by streamlining and discarding waste. His attack should have been on Obama's lack of experience in business lesdership. After all, who would honestly believe that a constitutional law attorney would be able to lead us to economic greatness. Attorneys are only one thing: interpreting and creating laws or language arts, not math.

rtb  12/06/2012 05:36 PM Report

For someone who knew exactly what was wrong with the president, he's surely lacking in understanding what went wrong with Romney.

REMant  12/06/2012 11:29 AM Report

Both candidate and strategist having been heavily criticized in conservative circles since the election, Stevens has been making a publicity tour it appears. I read his Nov 28 apology (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-man-the-right-fight/2012/11/28/5338b27a-38e9-11e2-8a97- 363b0f9a0ab3_story.html), if Charlie hasn't or hadn't when this was taped (mention was made of the lunch with Obama on the 29th), and its conclusion, that the GOP should stay the conservative course, is belied by the many misstatements in their defense:

1. The campaign wasn't any national movement, and whatever base Romney began with was made up of leftover Bushies.

2. He won the nomination in a very weak field, except for Paul, whose message, unappealing to average American conceit, was only accepted by a minority of those of above average intelligence and self-effacement, much as McCarthy's and McGovern's, and probably Goldwater's.

3. Romney did raise a lot of money, but from Wall St, and he only flirted with conservative economics. It wasn't just the economy stupid, but the stupid economics.

4. IMHO he did as well as he might have in only one debate.

5. Ryan, I believe, was much more of a hindrance than a help, primarily shoring up the faithful, seniors voting for Romney primarily because they saw personal qualities they appreciate, not the stand on Social Security. I'm sure he hurt independents.

6. The entitlement debate was no doubt charged, if not changed, by the revelation of the 47% comment, but while I'm sure Romney believes in the work ethic and in service, I doubt he would have made the kind of speeches he did regarding it had it not seen the light of day, and they were short-lived.

7. Obviously, however, the message resonated with those making more than the median income (around $50K), which is why it should not have been spurned, even if the candidate did need to show more empathy for others.

8. For a party out-of-power to gain on an incumbent is only to be expected, and white resentment over the president's obvious minority bias surely not unexpected, still he did not do as well with blue-collar types as he needed to.

9. The campaign should have early realized, and perhaps the 47% remark shows it did, that the president's supporters were in thrall, as well as, beholden to their candidate, and would brook no dissing on either count.

10. The candidate made up for many of the problems by finally coming across as a decent guy, and I can see him a lot more easily changing a bedpan than I can Barack Obama. But that should have been worked on a lot earlier. Like maybe four years ago. Tho I think he learned a lot in this exercise, and I understand the campaign hadn't the funds to counter the summer attack ads, which I don't really blame the Dems for. Cos like Bain are among the scum of the earth.

11. Both parties have real problems with substantial parts of their membership, the one with the dependents and the other with the snobs, and the only way out of this conundrum is to reduce the numbers of both, and the only way to do that is to follow Paul's lead and not just talk about it.

12. Last I'll mention again that even if Romney had won the popular vote, he would have lost because of the distribution of it, a serious constitutional problem that needs to be addressed.