The Goat Pen

Good luck, BOJ. Think of it as fraternity hazing. That's what it sounds like, anyway.

How would you know what it sounds like with a sheet over your head & ears?

There is no question that OB still does written boards, record keeping for 1 year then oral boards.

Mitt Romney channels Chris Christie.....

[youtube]qKXKElB9Kms[/youtube]

That woman was not the least bit interested in asking Mitt even one question. And Mitt called her on it with a "do you have a question, what is your question?" comment. She hates Romney, will never vote for him (or any Republican), and she is only interested in having the government make people (possibly herself) "whole" at the expense of "the other." That is HOPE AND CHANGE in a nutshell, more government entitlement, we don't care where the money comes from, just get it for us, RIGHT NOW. She was at that town hall for one reason, and one reason only, to try and HURT Mitt Romney politically by getting him to say something (anything) that might make him look silly/unintelligent to the moderates who actually care about what these GOP candidates have to say.

Those on this board who do NOT like Romney (in favor of Rick Perry/Michelle Bachman/Ron Paul/<insert-random-GOP-Primary-winner-but-election-loser-here>) I ask you, and be honest, was Mitt Romney's response not entirely Presidential?

8 out of the last 10 years are the warmest in history, but you can't predict with absolute certainty that this year will be in the top 10 too.

Is that in the last 4.000.000.000 years or just in the last couple of million?

She was at that town hall for one reason, and one reason only, to try and HURT Mitt Romney politically by getting him to say something (anything) that might make him look silly/unintelligent to the moderates who actually care about what these GOP candidates have to say.

Looking at that video, if that was her goal, it may have worked. Romney has been getting by with talking points. What he doesn't do is convince many that he has any real convictions. Her point is a valid one.

Owlman wrote:There is no question that OB still does written boards, record keeping for 1 year then oral boards.

That's why I said I didn't know. I never heard any of them talking about oral boards but they were focused on the written boards.

One of my med school classmates is slated to be the last of the Psych oral board takers. That has to suck knowing you are the last ones that will have to go through it. He didn't have to do orals in Peds though, that's another one that doesn't do them now. (He did med/peds psych and child psych so he has to do oral boards in the psych fields but not medicine or peds)

Seems like everyone is getting rid of the orals if they can (that is everyone except Surgery, they will cling to tradition till the bitter end on almost everything). That's not always a bad thing and my personality is to enjoy tradition myself so I fit right in with regard to that. I didn't know if OB was getting rid of them or not, and I hadn't heard any of their chiefs talking about them so I didn't know if they were getting rid of them too or not.

Owlman wrote:

She was at that town hall for one reason, and one reason only, to try and HURT Mitt Romney politically by getting him to say something (anything) that might make him look silly/unintelligent to the moderates who actually care about what these GOP candidates have to say.

Looking at that video, if that was her goal, it may have worked. Romney has been getting by with talking points. What he doesn't do is convince many that he has any real convictions. Her point is a valid one.

You didn't watch the video. Either that, or you didn't listen to it.

Romney repeated one specific conviction that she was aware of, one conviction that she finds entirely distasteful, his conviction to balance the budget. His repeating that 50 states must do this, was spot on. They are not permitted to borrow from China against tomorrow. The woman at that town hall did not give a fuck about the federal government balancing any budgets. She wanted to make sure that everyone continued to get theirs, fuck the future.

The reoccuring theme I find in talking to people about the federal budget (and the entitlement spending) seems to be true of three things: if you are elderly and you depend on government entitlement you are scared of this balance the budget talk from the GOP (as evidenced by the 26th district in New York) or, if you are over 45 and childless then you probably don't care too much about the deficit spending. BUT if you are working and you have children OR you are under 45, you typically want a balanced federal budget.

That is becoming the political divide in this country, those working middle aged people with children and young adults (those who pay in or are worried about what their kids will pay), vs the older childless and the retired (those who need a leg-up and those who don't give a fuck because when they die, it is the end of the entire universe, yes I'm talking about you Bill Maher and you too Paul Krugman.)

Oh I watched the video (you posting it wasn't the first time I saw it). She pointed out the problem that Romney has, people don't believe his conviction because he uses platitudes. That very day, he was shifting positions again on climate change trying to look more conservative (probably due to Perry entering the race). She was just pointing out what others think, we don't know what Romney really believes.

As for deficits, many want the deficit decreased, as long as it falls on the other guy. Here's a good way to start some deficit reduction, stop the mortgage deduction. People will then buy a house more in line with their income. Of course, that wouldn't effect the poor and elderly. Housing prices would drop even more to where they probably should be.

Owlman wrote:Oh I watched the video (you posting it wasn't the first time I saw it). She pointed out the problem that Romney has, people don't believe his conviction because he uses platitudes.

That was not what she pointed out.

She was scared that a President Mitt Romney was going to take something away from her (and others.) THAT is what she was pointing out, not your senseless rhetoric.

Owlman wrote:As for deficits, many want the deficit decreased, as long as it falls on the other guy. Here's a good way to start some deficit reduction, stop the mortgage deduction.

Fine. That is a TAX INCREASE (yes it is) but I'm okay with that specific one. But you damn well better cut spending that much more.

F@<%ing Scots...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ddafi.html

Deficit reduction is deficit reduction. Is the goal to reduce the deficit, or is the goal to go after programs that some groups don't like? They are two different things.

Well sh!te!! The warmest temps in recorded history couldn't push Irene to a Cat 4.....


just damn

Still hope....NBC nightly news is going a full hour tonight......



please please please please please

Those on this board who do NOT like Romney (in favor of Rick Perry/Michelle Bachman/Ron Paul/<insert-random-GOP-Primary-winner-but-election-loser-here>) I ask you, and be honest, was Mitt Romney's response not entirely Presidential?

No. Willard was not "entirely presidential" in this case because he is inherently incapable of being presidential ever. That's because, to be presidential, your words have to have credibility. Willard has already squandered his credibility several times over - most recently with ObamaRomneyCare. You can't be the architect government-run health care on the state level, and then be dead set opposed to government-run health care on the national level. Yes, you can start crying "federalism" all you want, but when you do, most people hear a redux of "what the definition of is is."

Listening to Willard articulate his latest poll-tested, focus grouped, politically crafted, deeply held personal conviction is like listening to Bill Clinton extol the virtues of marital fidelity, or Obama arguing for spending restraint. Zero credibility, zero presidential material.

No. Willard was not "entirely presidential" in this case because he is inherently incapable of being presidential ever. That's because, to be presidential, your words have to have credibility.

LMAO

Professor Tiger wrote:

Those on this board who do NOT like Romney (in favor of Rick Perry/Michelle Bachman/Ron Paul/<insert-random-GOP-Primary-winner-but-election-loser-here>) I ask you, and be honest, was Mitt Romney's response not entirely Presidential?

No. Willard was not "entirely presidential" in this case because he is inherently incapable of being presidential ever. That's because, to be presidential, your words have to have credibility.

Again, Oprama being elected completely disproves this.

Anyone on this board who is in the way of Irene, Godspeed. My prayers and good thoughts to you. Auggie, I thought you were from N. Carolina. Be safe.

Again, Oprama being elected completely disproves this.

I disagree. Obama has always been a forthright liberal. He didn't even try very hard to hide that fact in his election. Everybody knew he was going to raise taxes on the rich, massively increase government spending, do some kind of giant stimulus, repeal DADT, apologize to the world for America's evils, etc. And, from a conservative point of view, he has been consistently liberal all along.

He is only Romney-like from a liberal point of view. His promises to them were only half-fulfilled. He didn't get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he didn't close Gitmo, he didn't abolish the Patriot Act, he didn't imprison W or Cheney, etc. That's why the liberal intelligentsia are so furious at him right now.

He's also decreased taxes, not increased them. Gun rights have increased during his watch (with no response) as well. He moderated his view on PPACA, quickly agreeing to eliminate a govt option, despite getting no Republican support, much to the chagrin of the left . He's proposed cutting payroll taxes (now the Republicans are against decreasing payroll taxes) and he KILLED BIN LADEN!