are all of the squirrels in Michigan like this? We have them where I live, but they do not get close to people. My daughter was practically befriended by squirrels when we visited this summer. I have never seen such friendly ones, before.
Learned behavior, romani? If they live long enough, they develop an eye for the suckers. Or maybe it's just their sense of smell, since they're avoiding lab buildings. Anyway, the penalty for not being able to spot a soft touch is staying skinny and living as long or longer than the obese ones.
There has to be a squirrel, somewhere, that gets it about cars. The question is whether there's another one, that and whether they'll ever find each other.
-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 13th of December 2011 03:10:52 PM
cat, the squirrels on our campus are great evidence for Darwinian selection. They always seem to know who the freshmen are that will give them food. The upper classmen have learned better. They also know to stick around buildings with lots of humanities classes, and you never see them by buildings where they dissect creatures. They're too intelligent around here (and very fat).
W purchased a new unit today, to replace the Made In China unit that no one returns our calls or give any service. Ours is ROC and we have excellent service-prompt return calls, instructions for seat replacement, replacement parts. Price is nice too.
Until they start showing a little sense about crossing the street, squirrels are about the most compelling argument against Darwinian selection I can think of... at least the suburban/city ones.
They do make some of the best videos though, and I tend to look for birthday cards with a squirrel based theme.
But I'll bet you most parents are cringing at watching those parents allow the kid to handle a dead squirrel, kissing it, putting her hands by her mouth. I'd be afraid of some sort of disease, yikes!
Cat, all I got out of your post is "I'll lay odds," {making a bet}
I get the feeling that you are upset. ??
Mitt is a guy who made his money outside of politics vs someone who made money because of being in politics vs a MOC who hasn't made any money while being in Congress.
-- Edited by longprime on Sunday 11th of December 2011 10:18:46 PM
The fact he's rich might be relevant to some voters, just as his religion or how conservative he really is might concern others. The average voter, republican or democrat, is the result of mixing sober, logical people and howling-at-the-moon nuts. Sad, but true.
I'll lay odds, though, that the one that costs him enough votes that he may not be the best nominee will be that he's the ex-governor from a liberal state with an eeriely familiar healthcare reform, one that carrys his name.
If he gets the nomination, I think he ought to thank his lucky stars it'll be to run against a guy who's pretty universally despised.
I totally get what you're saying, SLS--it's why I voted for McCain last time.
But Newt as a nominee is just too much. Maybe I'll make peace with it by election time, but something just puts me off him that I can't explain. It's just the whole package. Yuk. And I'm not buying the crock about a changed man--no offense. Being a grandfather changes one? Yeah, right.
Newt is winning in the primary states--and likewise loses those in a match-up with Obama. Imo, if the R's are stupid enough to nominate him, they deserve the loss to Obama that will result. I don't want any part of it.
Sorry I'm so hot-under-the-collar about this! At least you can't say I'm not a bipartisan "hater" !
Personally, I don't care if he has $70 million to blow in 2008 or 2012. Good for him.
I don't think the media cares about the fact that he is rich.
Most of the people in Washington who are our elected officials have some sort of wealth. If they don't, they don't stay there very long.
Romney is capable. I voted for him last time in the primary. I just am not thrilled about voting for him, this time.
The question of the day remains, how many of those in the GOP will hold their nose and vote, or how many will sit home and say no, because they don't like the candidate. I understand principles and voting for only those that represent what you believe in.
Yet the reality is that if we don't present a united front as GOP voters, we will hand deliver a second term to Obama on a platter.
Totally your choice, to vote or not vote.
I have become fairly pragmatic. Which candidate can fix this mess in Washington? I don't have confidence that a 1 term governor from Massachusets can do this, at this point. You have to have some basic knowledge of how things work and how to make them change, when it comes to the mess in DC right now.
If Paul Ryan were running, I would be supporting him.
If this were a decade ago, I would say the same thing as you, hope. I would have said, hell, no, I won't support that guy. He is a jerk.
But time has humbled me, and made me see things differently. I try not to live off of first impressions of people, anymore. Sometimes jerks know how to make things happen. I see Newt as a changed man - being out of DC has helped him, in my opinion.
I am not a Tea Partier. I can understand how TP'ers might not want a guy like Romney. I can't see how they would want Mitt, either, though.
Ron Paul looks like a deer in the headlights on the debate stage. His ideas are wacko. We will never go to the Gold Standard again, or dump the Fed. It won't happen.
I can't vote for a guy like Santorum. In fact, for the briefest of moments this morning, I actually blanked on his name as I was getting ready to type it. I am sure he is a decent guy, but he isn't my cup of tea.
Bachmann doesn't ring any bells for me, either.
Clearly, we have lots of time to see how things change in this campaign and who remains the front runner.
-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Sunday 11th of December 2011 01:53:14 PM
I read in the Times this morning he is worth 200 million and has spent 52 mil on his campaigns. I am not getting the point. We have a finite list of characters for Republican nominee. Since when did wealth preclude a nomination? Is there something in the constitution about this? I don't think so. Inherited money is preferable to self-earned money? Preference is now given to those only within a certain income level? This is nonsense! R's are falling for the Democrat paradigm! We can only elect people who have money if they are career government people? As far as I'm concerned, Newt made all of his money off his career in government and his supposed "intellectual historian" scam. Give me a break.
In 1970, Gingrich joined the history department at West Georgia College as an assistant professor. In 1974 he moved to the geography department and was instrumental in establishing an interdisciplinary environmental studies program. Denied tenure, he left the college in 1978.[17] - Wiki
What is wrong with conservatives? Who cares if Mitt has a gazillion dollars? Didn't Kennedy, the Bushes, Kerry, McCain? This is only an issue because the media is jumping on the Newt bandwagon in order to get BHO elected. Newt is more than the flavor of the month at this point--he is ahead in Iowa, SC, Florida and closing in on Mitt in NH.
Mitt Romney is an obviously competent human being--probably the most competent person running in a long time, and certainly more competent than Gingrich, who left Washington in a blaze of dishonor. If conservatives in Iowa and other places care more about Mitt's personal fortune, his Mormonism, his dullness, his perfect hair, or whatever other ridiculous things they seem to be having a problem with than they do about defeating Obama, then they are just stupid. If NG is the nominee, I'll be sitting out the first presidential election in my lifetime. A pox on the Republican party if they nominate him.
I probably would have made a $20 bet. Even at that rate, I would have still had to go to the atm to get money to pay it. I rarely have any cash in my pocket!
Yeah, a million buck bet would have been really ridiculous. I am not suprised he is cheap - many of those with the most money stay rich because they are smart about hanging onto their money!
"In our most recent school board campaign for my kid's school district, I voted for the candidates that annoyed me the less and I figured wouldn't screw up the schools too bad. It wasn't because I thought they were awesome"
yeah, that's pretty much how it goes. Who annoys you the least and won't screw up as much as the others. That's what it comes down to!
The bet thing with Romney is kind of funny, actually. I've heard he is notoriously cheap. But I'm sure some will take it as he carries $10K in his pocket like most of us do a quarter, as opposed to a phrase many of us use when we know we would win the bet. God forbid he had said a million bucks.
The bet was about whether or not Romney supported a federal health mandate in his book. Perry wagered that Romney did. Romney said he didn't and bet $10K. Perry said he wasn't a wagering man.
Either way, this exchange didn't help Romney nor Perry. Romney looked out of touch. Perry looked weak, backing down.
Will this be Romney's flashback to George H.W. Bush's price of "socks" moment?
I think you have sort of answered your own question. Who does the media love? Whomever they can get the most mileage out of, for as long as possible. Bachmann and Perry are entertaining.
They don't love Mitt. He is too damn boring. Even his religion is boring. (No offense to my LDS friends!)
They will have TONS of mileage with Newt. For better or worse.
Still - the question remains. Who can get the votes, not just in the primaries, but in the general election? If Mitt is the nominee, does he have a chance against Obama?
Just because a candidate isn't a media darling doesn't mean they aren't electable.
The media does help elevate and deflate candidate's campaigns, but you can never be certain if the good or bad press is to blame for their rise or fall. Voter apathy and even campaign fatigue can kill a candidate's chances even more so.
There are plenty of people who read newspapers, and others who will just vote for a name they know. Or they vote against their party because someone impresses them.
In our most recent school board campaign for my kid's school district, I voted for the candidates that annoyed me the less and I figured wouldn't screw up the schools too bad. It wasn't because I thought they were awesome.
I also thought the moderators asking the fidelity question to give the other candidates a chance to slam Gingrich was really low. Perry just ran with it. As much as I don't support someone who has been so unfaithful in their personal life, I think it was unbelievably rude to go in that direction. Paul and Romney helped take it down a notch. I actually felt sorry for Gingrich.
Did Michelle Bachman answer one single question that they asked her? Even one? And does she ever manage to answer a question any way besides, "And that's why I am the person to vote for, and I did (fill in the blank) and I, I, I, I......"
I knew as soon as he said that $10,000 bet, the media was going to be all over it. I make $10,000 bets with my husband all the time. Sometimes it's a million, or even a billion. Of course I don't mean it, anyways, it's all the same money. But it's easy to declare a $10,000 bet if you know you're going to win.
Who did the Dems think was going to get the nomination at the start of the campaign? Was it a little known US Senator, or the former first lady?
Who did the Republicans think was going to get the nomination in the early stages of the campaign? Was it John McCain, who was practically a moderate, or Rudolf Guliani, also a much more moderate Republican? What about Huckabee or Mitt Romney?
The best question we should ask is why the candidates that seem to rise to the top in the GOP field aren't necessarily ones that could win when facing a tough challenger. And in 2008, that challenger beat the pants off of everyone in his own field - and the GOP's.
Immediately after the 2006 midterm elections, media pundits began speculating, as they did about the Democrats, about potential Republican candidates for President in 2008.[10] In November 2006, Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani led in the polls, followed closely by Arizona Senator John McCain.[60] The media speculated that Giuliani's pro-choice stance on abortion and McCain's age and support of the unpopular Iraq War would be detriments to their candidacies.[10] Giuliani remained the frontrunner in the polls throughout most of 2007, with McCain and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson fighting for second place.[61]Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Giuliani, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul announced their candidacies on January 28, February 5, February 13, and March 12, respectively.[62][63][64][65] McCain officially announced his candidacy on March 1, 2007, after several informal announcements.[66] In the third quarter of 2007, the top four GOP (Republican) fundraisers were Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and Ron Paul.[67] MSNBC's Chuck Todd christened Giuliani and John McCain the front runners after the second Republican presidential debate in early 2007.[68]
Huckabee, after winning in Iowa, had little money and hoped for a third-place finish in New Hampshire. McCain eventually displaced Rudy Giuliani and Romney as the front runner in New Hampshire. McCain staged a turnaround victory,[69] having been written off by the pundits and polling in single digits less than a month before the race.[70]
With the Republicans stripping Michigan and Florida of half their delegates for moving their primaries into January 2008 against party rules, the race for the nomination was based there. McCain meanwhile managed a small victory over Huckabee in South Carolina,[71] setting him up for a larger and more important victory over Romney in Florida, which held a closed primary on January 29.[72] By this time, after several scandals, no success in the early primaries, and a third-place finish in Florida, Giuliani conceded from the nomination race and endorsed John McCain the next day.[73]
In February, McCain, besides winning Giuliani's support, was endorsed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger before the California primary took place on Super Tuesday. This gave him a significant boost in the polls for the state's primary,[74] which awarded the greatest number of delegates of all the states. On Super Tuesday, McCain won his home state of Arizona, taking all 53 delegates, and the largest of the Super Tuesday prizes, nearly all of California's 173 delegates. McCain also scored wins in seven other states, picking up 574 delegates.[75] Huckabee was the "surprise performer", winning 5 states and 218 delegates.[75] Romney won 7 states and 231 delegates.[75] Two days later, Romney suspended his presidential campaign, saying that if he stayed in the race, he would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win".[76] His departure left Huckabee and Paul as McCain's only major challengers in the remaining primaries and caucuses. Romney endorsed McCain on February 14.[77]
Louisiana, Washington, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Washington held primaries in February after Super Tuesday. Despite McCain picking up big victories, Huckabee won Louisiana and Kansas. McCain narrowly carried the Washington caucuses over Huckabee and Paul, who amassed a large showing.[35] The Virgin Islands and Puerto Ricoclosed February for the Republicans. After Super Tuesday, John McCain had become the clear front runner, but by the end of February, he still had not acquired enough delegates to secure the nomination. In March, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination after sweeping all four primaries, Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island, putting him over the top of the 1,191 delegates required to win the GOP nomination.[37] Mike Huckabee then conceded the race to McCain, leaving Ron Paul, who had just 16 delegates, as his only remaining opponent.[78]
-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Sunday 11th of December 2011 08:35:25 AM
It's sort of amazing how the media loves one candidate and then hates that candidate. The media loved Bachman at first and then hated her. They loved Perry as the new king of the party and then discarded him. They loved Ron Paul and then hated him. They now love Newt and will soon raise doubts about him. The only guy they have not liked is Mitt which is a good reason to believe he will be the party's nominee.
Beginning with Jake Tapper right after the debate, this is supposedly the huge take-a-way from it--the moment "everyone will remember." Does it deserve to be?
Seems like the liberal media are really pushing Newt-- they can't seem to stop talking about this--which tells me that he is who they want to run against. Sigh.
Great idea--let's nominate someone who can't win against Obama! What is wrong with this party?
-- Edited by hope on Sunday 11th of December 2011 06:39:19 AM