MSNBC babe pwns her self big time

[ElFenix]

she is kinda easy on the eyes

my favorite segment on the news is the hot americans panel on megan kelly's show.

 

[Atreus21]

We weren't "headed" into a recession. We were already in one. In fact, we had been in one since well before the September crash. The trajectory of job loss was frightening. I don't know the textbook definition of depression. I think it actually varies. However, it is indisputable that our circumstances were extremely dire and getting worse by the day. What the congressman was trying to do here was minimize the magnitude of the plight were were in. Apparently, he isn't confidence enough in his argument that government spending wasn't the right solution so he had to try minimizing the problem.

Well, in any event, I still don't think we were ever in danger of a return to the 1930s. The economy is simply too diverse.

 

[Doboji]

Talk about walking right into it.

Great video.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...essman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

MSNBC babe:"Do You Have A Degree In Economics?"

GOP Rep: "Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors,"

Thats actually pretty funny.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yes true in general, but, in context, the question was rhetorical. It was intended to make the point that he didn't know what he was talking about, and it backfired. This is what happens when the journalist tries to play advocate. If they're going to assume that role, they'd do well to learn how to do it right.

Agreed 100%

It IS worth mentioning here that the Congressman is a complete idiot for believing we weren't headed into a recession. It's rather stunning stupidity.

That's not what he said, he said he disagreed with the assessment that we were going into a depression, not recession. There's nothing stupid about that assessment as it's far from a sure thing that we were going into a depression. Recession, yes, depression, maybe.

 

[woolfe9999]

Agreed 100%



That's not what he said, he said he disagreed with the assessment that we were going into a depression, not recession. There's nothing stupid about that assessment as it's far from a sure thing that we were going into a depression. Recession, yes, depression, maybe.

Yeah I meant to type depression there, not recession. You can see that from my subsequent posts where I accurately describe what he said.

 

[JD50]

lol, pretty funny. Some of you need to lighten up.

 

[JD50]

Yeah we were. The stock market hit a low of 6,700 in March 09. Everyone thought the megabanks were going to fail due to undercapitalization. Congress had to up the limit on insured deposits to $250,000 so people with over the $100,000 wouldn't start pulling money for fear of losing it. The car manufacturers were going to go under and wipe out millions of jobs related to the car industry. Consumer confidence hit an all time low in Feb 09 (link). Remember the credit freeze?

EDIT: Those aren't normal recession type-events.

Do you have a degree in Economics?

 

[Zargon]

my favorite segment on the news is the hot americans panel on megan kelly's show.

she is pretty hot too.

 

[waggy]

Talk about walking right into it.

Great video.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...essman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

MSNBC babe:"Do You Have A Degree In Economics?"

GOP Rep: "Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors,"

lol. after he said you could see it in her face that that backfired and she really didn't know what to do.

yeah self pawnage. but its not major

 

[werepossum]

lol. after he said you could see it in her face that that backfired and she really didn't know what to do.

yeah self pawnage. but its not major

Yeah, I tend to believe that we could easily have slipped into depression, but it's still major self pawnage. She ridiculed him and implied that he wasn't qualified to disagree with her, only to be confronted with the fact that he was completely qualified and she's - um, a journalism major.

I would say that I'd like to hear his ideas of what should have been done rather than the bailouts and stimulus max, but at this point it's academic anyway.

 

[DAGTA]

Too bad he didn't say, "Do you?" after "highest honors."

She seems to feel qualified speaking about the economy.

 

[PokerGuy]

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

She definitely got owned in that exchange. She had the smug elitist attitude in full display and got smacked down.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I find myself in rare agreement with PJ on this. It was self-ownage. Too bad she has no legal training or she would have learned that you never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to.

Aside from that it was a bullshit question anyway. She's asserting that a member of Congress can't have an opinion on economic policy if they don't have a degree in economics, which is absurd.

 

[a777pilot]

OK. What is everyone's degree in?

I'll start: A BS in Physics and Math. Nope, no economics degree there. I did however take a number of business and economics classes. Am I still allowed to have an opinion?

What's your degree in?

 

[GeezerMan]

OK. What is everyone's degree in?

I'll start: A BS in Physics and Math. Nope, no economics degree there. I did however take a number of business and economics classes. Am I still allowed to have an opinion?

What's your degree in?

OK, here are your questions geared for your degrees:
1. Explain string theory in 50 words or less.
2. If train A leaves Chicago traveling at 50MPH and train B leaves New York traveling 75MPH and the distance between the two cites is 600 miles how far from New York will it be when the two trains meet?

No googling allowed and you have 5 minutes to complete...

 

[a777pilot]

OK, here are your questions geared for your degrees:
1. Explain string theory in 50 words or less.
2. If train A leaves Chicago traveling at 50MPH and train B leaves New York traveling 75MPH and the distance between the two cites is 600 miles how far from New York will it be when the two trains meet?

No googling allowed and you have 5 minutes to complete...

1. The theory of strings is that if you tie them all together one can reach a conclusion.

2. They will never meet. It's contrary to union rules.

 

[GeezerMan]

1. The theory of strings is that if you tie them all together one can reach a conclusion.

2. They will never meet. It's contrary to union rules.

You sir are a natural for public office....

 

[HomerJS]

Talk about walking right into it.

Great video.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...essman_do_you_have_a_degree_in_economics.html

MSNBC babe:"Do You Have A Degree In Economics?"

GOP Rep: "Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors,"

I thought having an education made you an elitist?!?

 

[Delita]

OK. What is everyone's degree in?

I'll start: A BS in Physics and Math. Nope, no economics degree there. I did however take a number of business and economics classes. Am I still allowed to have an opinion?

What's your degree in?

OK, here are your questions geared for your degrees:
1. Explain string theory in 50 words or less.
2. If train A leaves Chicago traveling at 50MPH and train B leaves New York traveling 75MPH and the distance between the two cites is 600 miles how far from New York will it be when the two trains meet?

No googling allowed and you have 5 minutes to complete...

A) Undergraduate: Double Major - Finance, Economics. Graduate: MBA

1) String theory states that everything, at it's fundamental level, is composed of vibrating strings. The frequency of the vibration is what defines what things are. I love reading about theoretical physics (String theory, M Theory, etc). Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking's books are fascinating reads. Recently started reading Sean Carroll's book From Eternity to Here. Talks about the arrow of time. Just for fun here's a video of him talking about the theory from the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFfUsDgnaU <- Edit: Whoops wrong video. That one is on dark matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo <- One on time

2) 360 Miles I think. A lot of these lame questions on the GMAT. It's been a while but I learned to do them quick using an RTD chart (Rate Time Distance). Here's the logic I used to get there:
Train A (Chicago) and Train B (New York) are traveling together at a rate of 125 MPH. At that rate, to travel the 600 miles, it would take 4.8 hours. Since train B is traveling at 75 MPH for 4.8 hours it would be 360 miles away from New York and train A would be 240 miles away from Chicago.

 

[a777pilot]

A) Undergraduate: Double Major - Finance, Economics. Graduate: MBA

1) String theory states that everything, at it's fundamental level, is composed of vibrating strings. The frequency of the vibration is what defines what things are. I love reading about theoretical physics (String theory, M Theory, etc). Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking's books are fascinating reads. Recently started reading Sean Carroll's book From Eternity to Here. Talks about the arrow of time. Just for fun here's a video of him talking about the theory from the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFfUsDgnaU <- Edit: Whoops wrong video. That one is on dark matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo <- One on time

2) 360 Miles I think. A lot of these lame questions on the GMAT. It's been a while but I learned to do them quick using an RTD chart (Rate Time Distance). Here's the logic I used to get there:
Train A (Chicago) and Train B (New York) are traveling together at a rate of 125 MPH. At that rate, to travel the 600 miles, it would take 4.8 hours. Since train B is traveling at 75 MPH for 4.8 hours it would be 360 miles away from New York and train A would be 240 miles away from Chicago.

I have no idea about string theory. Never heard of it in school.

As to the train problem, it was never stated which directions the trains were headed. You assumed.

 

[Zargon]

not that it matters, a BS is econ in the 60's does not make you much more informed than anyone else smart enough to graduate from college

 

[Nebor]

Dual BS in Information Systems and Economics, MBA with a focus in managerial economics.

Since I don't work in the field of economics (and never have) I don't really consider myself qualified to make complex economic estimates, but I am often astute enough to see the flaws in theories that some put forth.

 

[a777pilot]

not that it matters, a BS is econ in the 60's does not make you much more informed than anyone else smart enough to graduate from college

Except that the Congress Critter she asked had a double major that he completed in three years, with Highest Honors in Economic, then went on to become a lawyer. Oh, by the way, he attended college in the 70's, not the 60's.

 

[ElFenix]

BA in economics, government, and history

 

[Riparian]

Except that the Congress Critter she asked had a double major that he completed in three years, with Highest Honors in Economic, then went on to become a lawyer. Oh, by the way, he attended college in the 70's, not the 60's.

Although she was trying to be a bit snarky with her question, it doesn't make much sense to value the opinion of an undergrad Economics / Political Science double major with a law degree over the opinion of Ben Bernanke. Bernanke also graduated from undergrad with a degree in economics summa cum laude from Harvard and then went on to get a PhD in economics from MIT with a thesis study titled: Long-Term Commitments, Dynamic Optimization, and the Business Cycle.

Her point in the video, before asking the poor question, was that the Fed Chairman had a viewpoint regarding the economy that was being contradicted by a person who has an undergrad degree in economics without further study into the subject. It would be hard for me to take the advice of a biology / pre-med student's opinion over that of a doctor.