quote:What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.
quote:There are many other examples of this debt-fueled strategy. In the two years following the acquisition in 1993 of GS Industries, a steel mill, for $8 million, Bain Capital increased the company’s debt to $378 million on operating income of less than a 10th of that amount. Some of this was used to pay Bain Capital a $36 million dividend in 1994. That degree of leverage was excessive in light of the cyclicality and capital-intensive nature of the steel industry.
By the time the company went bankrupt in 2001, it owed $554 million in debt against assets valued at $395 million. Many creditors lost money, and 750 workers lost their jobs. The U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which insures company retirement plans, determined in 2002 that GS had underfunded its pension by $44 million and had to step in to cover the shortfall.
Bain Capital’s acquisition of Stage Stores, a department- store chain, in 1988 was 96 percent financed by debt (mostly in junk bonds) -- an extreme level for a cyclical and very competitive low-margin business. Bain sold a large part of its stake in 1997 for a $184 million gain, three years before the company filed for bankruptcy because of its inability to service its $600 million debt.
Success, entrepreneurship, risk taking and wealth creation deserve to be celebrated when they are the result of fair play and hard work. President Barack Obama is correct in distinguishing the patient creation of value for the benefit of investors through genuine operational improvements and growth -- the true mission of private equity -- from the form of rigged capitalism that was practiced by some in the industry in the past when debt was cheap and plentiful.
While Bain Capital wasn’t alone in using financial engineering to turbo-charge its returns, it was among the most aggressive under Romney’s leadership. Enriching investors by taking leveraged bets isn’t a qualification for a job requiring long-term vision and concern for public welfare. It is appropriate to point that out to voters.
THE (relatively) NEW AND 'WTF' STUFF: The "You See, Romney Retroactively Retired" explanation.
quote:"Retroactively" is a word that might haunt Mitt Romney for some time.
The Republican nominee has been railing against President Obama's campaign ads, calling Obama's assertion that Romney lied about his time at Bain Capital "false and deceptive and dishonest."
The ads, however, are based on the Boston Globe's findings that Romney owned 100 percent of the company through 2002, despite his claim that he left in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Romney insists that despite the SEC filings, he was not playing any management role in Bain Capital after 1999. Today Romney's senior adviser Ed Gillespie went on CNN's State of the Union to try to clear things up. Instead, he likely made everything worse for the Romney campaign. As he explained to host Candy Crowley—
quote:There may have been a thought at the time that [Romney's leave of absence from Bain Capital] could be part-time. It was not part-time. The Olympics was in a shambles. The International Olympic Committee was going to pull the Olympics from the United States of America, which would have been a huge embarrassment. He took a leave of absence and in fact, ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to February 1999 as a result.
Wait, what? The concept of "retroactive retirement" is confusing, to say the least. Some are calling it, "the worst talking point ever."
But there's no ignoring Bain Capital either: the Obama campaign's attacks have increased in past days, now that government documents show that Romney was listed as owner of the company during its time of bankruptcies and outsourcing jobs.
On NBC's Meet the Press, Sen. Dick Durbin had harsh words for the way Romney is trying to distance himself from Bain Capital.
quote:Why is Mitt Romney running away from his company, Bain Capital, like a scalded cat? Because there's abundant evidence that under Bain Capital they were exporting American jobs to low-wage countries and he doesn't want to be associated with it.
He may not want to be associated with outsourcing, but Romney probably doesn't want to be associated with the confounding phrase "retired retroactively" either.
quote:There's another contradiction that will only muddy the question of when Mitt Romney actually left an active role with Bain Capital.
On Thursday, The Huffington Post obtained June 2002 testimony from Romney in which he explained his role with Bain Capital after leaving to run the Olympics:
"There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," Romney said.
Now, here's what he told CBS' Jan Crawford Friday night, as part of a round of interviews battling back on Bain (the key part is bolded):
CRAWFORD: If I could then talk about before you left in 1999, Bain did invest in a series of companies that did expand overseas, sometimes at the expense of American workers -- are you responsible for those decisions?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well I'm not sure which ones you're talking about, but I can tell you the people who have looked at the charges that the Obama campaign comes out with, which is that somehow we outsourced jobs, they've said that those were false and misleading. That the ads are inaccurate. Some have given it multiple Pinocchios. The president keeps on trying to divert any attention he can from his failure to turn around the American economy, and that's what this campaign's about. But the president keeps on trying to find something about Bain which is simply not true. And I left Bain in February of 1999. People can point out how - I was in Salt Lake City for three straight years. I don't recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or management meeting. We were, I was out there running the Olympics and it was a full time job, I can tell you that.
That's a direct contradiction. Moreover, the claim that he spent "three straight years" in Salt Lake City is a little shaky. He talked about multiple trips to Washington in his book on the Olympics, called "Turnaround."
I guess he also retroactively skipped out on the meetings or something to retroactively have stayed in SLC for the full three years. God I love this guy~~
[ August 31, 2012, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Romney is his own worst enemy.
[ July 16, 2012, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh I'm sure he'll just use tax loopholes and other fiscal acrobatics to magically erase all our debt, while still shrinking the size of government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama could and should boil that down to a good talking point and go on the offensive. Romneys biggest pro is his business acumen, and the mystery way in which that acumen translates to good handling of government. So pull back the curtain of his business skills and ask how America is supposed to be better off with a business plan designed to leave someone holding the bag. His skills have nothing to do with running a business for the long haul, he bought companies, maxed out their debt then left them flapping in the wind. Now put that up against his utter lack of plans to solve ANY of our budget issues and that might start some heads scratching.
Frankly I was fine with the retroactive retirement line. If he left unofficially and passed off his duties to others but later made it official then fine...but it sounds like thats not even what happened.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: :eyeroll:
Romney is his own worst enemy.
He never should have let George Lucas write his biography.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If Obama's team can't make the greedy tax dodging corporate raider image stick, they are incompetent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The stuff that is coming out is the kind of stuff that the right fervently dreams it could dig up on obama for the purposes of getting back the white house. I mean, Romney signed a filing for a company after 1999 that was in the business of fetus disposal. Honestly. If it was Obama who did this, could you imagine the sound and fury with which the hammer would come down? Except it's, you know, their guy who did this so they are content to instead mentally bypass the issue and just sort of mumble about it when it comes up.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: :eyeroll:
Romney is his own worst enemy.
He never should have let George Lucas write his biography.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If Obama's team can't make the greedy tax dodging corporate raider image stick, they are incompetent.
I'm not necessarily one for a whole lot of hyperbole about politicians. But in this case, the pattern of lying, and the size and sheer scope of the lying seems practically sociopathic. Bush was a fairly awful business man who managed to not let that record hurt him much in the eyes of the public (until of course he was president, and was proven to be an incompetent), but Romney has actively portrayed his business and his experience as everything in the world other than what it actually was. And he does so as if he has sure knowledge tht the lie is so huge that the media will never be able to get their hands around it. And he might be right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The way it comes off to me is just like he is trapping himself trying to have his cake and eat it too. Or whichever other loose metaphor works better for this situation.
He has hung so much up on the idea that it is his business acumen that makes him a great presidential candidate, touting his record as a businessman and how his experiences qualify him to fix the economy.
Yet at the same time he is trying to run and hide from so much of what Bain is and what it did under him, and is even the first presidential candidate in who even knows how long to outright refuse to release his tax returns — using a reasoning even dodgier than his Bain reasoning.
BUT HEY after all we have such short lemmingbrain memories; who wants to bet he's setting aside his VP pick to flush out all this nonsense about Bain and his creative tax loophole abuse and the fact that his business acumen is not at all applicable to what he claims that it is?
I mean, we have to remember that this is a guy who signed the Norquist pledge, and then says that a vulture capitalist group leveraging wipeout levels of debt and tax kickbacks to profit a very few at the expense of entire industries, and was for obamacare's state level identical equal before it was politically expedient not to be, and, well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not to mention pledging not to agree to even a $10 : $1 / Spending Cuts : Tax Increase deal.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote: Nevertheless, close and repeated study of his campaign in real-world situations has yielded a standard model that has proved eerily accurate in predicting Mitt Romney’s behavior in debate after debate, speech after speech, awkward look-at-me-I’m-a-regular-guy moment after awkward look-at-me-I’m-a-regular-guy moment, and every other event in his face-time continuum.
The basic concepts behind this model are:
Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.
Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.
Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”
Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.
Noncausality. The Romney campaign often violates, and even reverses, the law of cause and effect. For example, ordinarily the cause of getting the most votes leads to the effect of being considered the most electable candidate. But in the case of Mitt Romney, the cause of being considered the most electable candidate actually produces the effect of getting the most votes.
Absolutely brilliant
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously, tell me how much of that you can read, eh? I made it about halfway through but also skipped to the flip-flops part.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh, that was tedious reading. I think I'll go back to it tomorrow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney ('94): "I also would abolish PAC's... I don't like them. I don't like the influence of money... I think we have to really become much more vigilant in seeing the impact on money... in politics."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well, to be fair. Romney would eventually go on to have a failed senate bid, a governor's race, a failed presidential bid, and now the current attempt.
That's a lot of green between here and then. I still find his comments about how great he'd be for the gay rights to be his most egregious flip flop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't know, I think his record on abortion is even better. He was pro-choice before he was pro-life before he was pro-choice before he was pro-life. Or was it pro-life before he was pro-choice before he was pro-life before he was pro-choice before he was pro-life? I am really not inventing this question, it is something I am really asking myself. The document outlines his constantly contradicting position on roe v. wade in particular. He lacks any sort of substance or conviction on the issue, his (asserted as moral) position is literally only ever what he finds politically expedient at that moment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Regarding Bain, why is the 1999 date important? Did Bain only start unsavory business practices after that date?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The timeline is important. For a long time the attacks on Romney's business record went after certain companies that went bankrupt after 1999, the year that Romney left. The attacks had largely backfired.
What is happening is that people are now trying to tie Romney to Bain after 1999. If they can do this, they can then tell everyone they were right about the previous attacks.
There are democrats and even Obama supporters that work at Bain that say Romney did indeed leave in 1999 and did not have anything to do with the company after that period.
CNN reported last night that the accusations from Team Obama of felonious conduct are sheer nonsense and lies — and got that message from four executives at Bain, two of whom are “active” supporters of Barack Obama. John King spoke to all four, three of whom are Democrats, and all four said that Mitt Romney left Bain in a big hurry in 1999 in order to work full time on rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics. The rushed departure created a lot of paperwork headaches as Bain tried to unwind Romney from leadership, which required a significant amount of time. That’s why the company had Romney’s name on their SEC paperwork the next two years, as King reports
I think it is sad that so many people just jump to conclusions so quickly. Stop believing everything the Obama administration says please.
But hey, since we are talking about this, can we talk about Obama's ties to domestic terrorists?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If Gov. Romney left in 1999, he shouldn't have been signing his name to documents. A person's signature should mean something.
Did Bain not outsource before 1999?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine: I don't know anybody who believes Romney was actively working with Bain post 1999 because of anything President Obama has said. The Obama campaign is mostly riding on the coat tails of a Boston Globe article and several journalists I'm sure a furiously looking for a link.
But more than that, people who are persuaded that Romney's "say anything" attitude can be combined with perceptions that his business acumen is simply clever vulturing only the rich can do, will ultimately take him out of serious contention for the presidency.
Your claims of Obama's "Bill Ayers" ties to domestic terrorism was this sort of news four years ago, and nobody has found anything of substance, believe me, people have been trying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Regarding Bain, why is the 1999 date important? Did Bain only start unsavory business practices after that date?
Not at all, really. I think maybe the only thing he explicitly avoids association with if he manages to convince everyone he was retroactivly retired (and, uh, simply earning six digits to do nothing for the company) is when Bain just started flat-out working with the Iranian government. Possibly some of the more egregious outsourcing numbers?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: But hey, since we are talking about this, can we talk about Obama's ties to domestic terrorists?
Uh, sure? Why not talk about that and Obama's kenyan birth certificate, too?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
More importantly: it was after 1999 that Bain started working with clinical abortionists. That's why they're pretending the timeframe matters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Even letting that timeframe matter, Romney got Bain involved in that stuff anyway. By 1999 Bain was already invested into Stericycle, in a way which Romney really can't realistically divorce himself from.
Well, I mean, he's going to try.
quote:But more than that, people who are persuaded that Romney's "say anything" attitude can be combined with perceptions that his business acumen is simply clever vulturing only the rich can do, will ultimately take him out of serious contention for the presidency.
I call this 'ugly lessons learned from swiftboating' — Romney can't use his governorship as a positive, because conservatives won't let THAT fly. He's left with his business acumen at Bain. And, uh, the olympics.
So you adapt a page from the Rovian campaign against Kerry and you turn his greatest strength into a weakness, by patiently and pervasively toxifying the Bain association, and making people's associative attitudes whenever Romney tries to talk up his business experience as "here is a guy who practiced dirty, vulture capitalism and outsourced jobs." You don't let up on it, and you let it stick and poison him.
Well, except this case kind of differs radically from Swiftboating in the plethora of evidence pertaining to both Bain as a corporation and Romney's lack of consistent integrity. "Etch-a-sketch" as a metaphor for Romney's positional mutability wasn't even made up for him by his opponents. He hands them that for free because, well, that's basically exactly what he's like.
It is kind of fun to watch people try to lawyer away the fishiness of all this, though, as if there's no reason to think the retroactive retirement is kind of ridiculous, not at all different from Romney's (admittedly admirable) talent for creative adaptations and constant loophole abuse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Amidst the, "I wasn't there, it wasn't me, I was too busy to read what I was signing" muddle, has Gov. Romney actually disavowed or even disapproved of what was (is?) going on at Bain?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think he has nor does he have any incentive to do anything other than try not to directly address it? I mean, it is practically 100% guaranteed that you can come up with quotes by him where at some point he is strictly against the sorts of things he did at Bain, but .. that's just him being Romney. If he is forced to address it somehow it will be fun to watch the response, but it's not likely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's starting to get a lot of crap from big name Republicans on why he won't release his taxes. First time in decades a candidate has refused. A lot of "whats he hiding?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, McCain saw them
then he turned right around and selected palin
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And just think about that for a minute. He selected Palin. She was the more attractive choice. I mean, wow. EIther the worst decision he ever made, or an indictment of Romney that can't really be matched.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he does it now, its old news by election day. People have 48 hour attention spans. If he holds off, its "whats Mitt hiding" for four months.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Geraine: I don't know anybody who believes Romney was actively working with Bain post 1999 because of anything President Obama has said. The Obama campaign is mostly riding on the coat tails of a Boston Globe article and several journalists I'm sure a furiously looking for a link.
But more than that, people who are persuaded that Romney's "say anything" attitude can be combined with perceptions that his business acumen is simply clever vulturing only the rich can do, will ultimately take him out of serious contention for the presidency.
Your claims of Obama's "Bill Ayers" ties to domestic terrorism was this sort of news four years ago, and nobody has found anything of substance, believe me, people have been trying.
I was drawing a similarity between the two. I know the Boston Globe article was what sparked the debate. It has since been researched and found to be false. The Obama administration just took it and ran with it without doing their due diligence in finding out all of the facts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Campaign. The Obama campaign is him running for president. The administration is him running the country. He doesn't use his administration to run his campaign- at least, the two are not the sme entity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I know the Boston Globe article was what sparked the debate. It has since been researched and found to be false.
Errr...it has? Could I see where this was done? From what I've seen, the Romney campaign has disputed it, but not actually proven it to be wrong and in the process has said some things that are provably false.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And just think about that for a minute. He selected Palin. She was the more attractive choice. I mean, wow. EIther the worst decision he ever made, or an indictment of Romney that can't really be matched.
I'm obviously not a fan of either Palin nor Romney, but I don't think that's quite accurate. Well, maybe the "worst decision ever" bit. But the new liberal narrative that McCain must really think poorly of Romney because he chose Palin is... faulty thinking. Remember that at the time, the selection of Palin was, if anything, seen as a bit of a coup for the McCain campaign. She's a woman! That'll bring in those ladyfolks that there always votin' for Democrats. She's a dynamic speaker (keeping in mind that 99.9% even of the punditry had never heard her talk)! She's a down-to-earth deer-shootin' hockey mom! She's even more mavericky than McCain! It's a slam dunk!
In short, the selection of Palin wasn't so much an indictment of Romney, who was seen in that campaign as the dull establishmentarian anyway, hardly an exciting VP pick - and certainly incongruous with McCain's maverick schtick. It was more much a failure to properly vet Palin. That McCain is still trying to defend his choice, even with the benefit of hindsight, is sort of adorable, but the Palin pick was made because McCain impulsively went for the most outsider-y option he had available, not because he had some secret scary dirt on Romney.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine: You are right, the Obama campaign ran with it. They even said he was guilty of felony, which is ridiculous by any objective standard. It's sad our politics have degenerated to this level. It's sad both sides are at the bit to smear the other. It makes me not want to vote for President Obama's reelection.
But it isn't Pres. Obama's job to do any due diligence, they simply pounced on what the press is indicating may be the case, they probably won't backpedal from jumping too soon, which is actually as much a statement about us as it is about the Obama campaign. We're to be apologetic, careful, compromising, keeping the moral high ground, we say he's weak and has no spine, ergo not worthy to be the president. I've seen him try that tact before, the whole healthcare reform drama years ago was a perfect example of this transition.
He simply mentions his intention to use Democrat majorities in the Legislature to get reform hammered out, invites the Republicans because he needs them for legitimacy, and the GOP poisoned the well from the very beginning. The stalled, dragged their feet, created smoke screens, misused procedural rules, agreed in private, threw out the agreements in public. Their objective was obvious and clear to anybody watching carefully. Stop anything from being passed, then talk about how weak and impotent the president is the rest of his administration, then make him a one term president.
Liberals are not immune to trying to slime up a conservative, Scott Walker taking Kennedy's seat was a very unwelcome development and it was resisted. But Republicans in the past 8 years have taken the 24 hour news cycle, and combined with with incredible party discipline, and message consistency, and created a propaganda machine that the Democrats have just been unable to match.
McCain in 2000, suddenly we're all talking about his having a bastard child who is black, and that he has severe post traumatic stress syndrome. The child is adopted, and to say McCain because of his service in Vietnam and subsequent ordeal at the Hotel Hanoi is insane and shouldn't be considered for office, is a vile slap against all veterans who have endured violence for this country.
Kerry in 2004, suddenly all of his service in Vietnam is useless he was outed by his *false* "former soldiers in arms" who claimed he was a coward.
Obama in 2008 it went into overdrive. His middle name is "Hussein", he's a Muslim, he's got ties to domestic terrorists, he's a communist, he's an atheist, he's an atheist Muslim extremist (not even making that up, years later a huge chunk of conservatives still think he is Muslim), he uses a teleprompter, his real home is in Kenya so he's not really an American (this particular one went on for years long after the necessary proof had been provided), he went to a Wahhabi school in Indonesia when he was young, he's got communists in his administration, he hates white people, he's an angry black man who thinks blacks deserve reparations, he's uppity, makes gang symbols with his wife the day he's elected, and on and on it goes.
Democrat labels of Romney pale in comparison. That isn't to say they are not there, or that they shouldn't do it. They shouldn't. But Republicans really do have no business trying to lecture Obama on proper campaign etiquette.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh snap.
Several books that have come out on the McCain campaign suggest Palin was a wild card, and McCain was totally aware how bad she was...they were hoping to train her but never got that far before she went rogue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: McCain in 2000, suddenly we're all talking about his having a bastard child who is black, and that he has severe post traumatic stress syndrome. The child is adopted, and to say McCain because of his service in Vietnam and subsequent ordeal at the Hotel Hanoi is insane and shouldn't be considered for office, is a vile slap against all veterans who have endured violence for this country.
The kid thing was vile, obviously. The insanity thing? I've read some accounts of his anger issues, and the extent of psychic trauma the man endured. It's a valid question- not that he should have been ruled out on that account all by itself. I'd say for a man who experienced what he did, not being dead of alcoholism or suicide, or living in a one room closet run by the VA is more than admirable. But we don't consider people for President out of fairness. I wouldn't want a man as commander and chief who had been through that experience, if given the choice. I realize it's not cut and dried, but there you have it. I'm sure I'm not the only person with such concerns. I was taught by vets of that war, and I've known others, and none of them had it as bad as he did, but some of them did have a lot of anger.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: By the time McCain was up for president he'd been serving in the Senate a long time. You'd think any serious mental issues would have come up then.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And just think about that for a minute. He selected Palin. She was the more attractive choice. I mean, wow. EIther the worst decision he ever made, or an indictment of Romney that can't really be matched.
Of the two I think it was really just a boneheaded choice, probably motivated by a desperate pull for 'diversity' where no other really viable woman seemed available. If anything, they were as likely to have passed up Romney just because he is so soul-crushingly boring.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: By the time McCain was up for president he'd been serving in the Senate a long time. You'd think any serious mental issues would have come up then.
The two jobs are a world apart, in a lot of ways. The president does a job that basically no-one is capable of doing and staying completely healthy or happy. And unlike even being a senator, there is essentially no quitting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You guys are missing the obvious. Like Romney (although to a lesser extent), McCain faced the problem of lack luster support from the conservative christian wing of the GOP. He picked Palin to excite that sector of his base and she succeeded in that quite brilliantly. Picking Romney would have made his troubles with the religious right even bigger. What he didn't anticipate is how thoroughly and completely she'd repel moderate republicans and swing voters.
It will be interesting to see what if anything Romney learned from McCain's mistake.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Campaign. The Obama campaign is him running for president. The administration is him running the country. He doesn't use his administration to run his campaign- at least, the two are not the sme entity.
Heh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: By the time McCain was up for president he'd been serving in the Senate a long time. You'd think any serious mental issues would have come up then.
The two jobs are a world apart, in a lot of ways. The president does a job that basically no-one is capable of doing and staying completely healthy or happy. And unlike even being a senator, there is essentially no quitting.
Oh I'll grant the jobs require different work loads. Congress is exceptionally lazy. But McCain was no danger (mentally) for the pressures of office and Bush's team knew it. I was concerned with McCain's age in 2000 to say nothing of 2008. Which was why when Sarah Palin showed up in '08 I was mortified.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
According to diligent research (or maybe just reading a title on reddit): Romney challenged kennedy in 1994 To release tax returns To prove kennedy "has nothing to hide".
if the democrats cannot saddle this guy with a flippy-floppy waffley image twice as bad as kerry could have ever gotten then i just have no idea what's going on
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I don't think the two situations are really comparable. I mean, we already pretty much know Mitt Romney has things to hide in his tax returns.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: According to diligent research (or maybe just reading a title on reddit): Romney challenged kennedy in 1994 To release tax returns To prove kennedy "has nothing to hide".
if the democrats cannot saddle this guy with a flippy-floppy waffley image twice as bad as kerry could have ever gotten then i just have no idea what's going on
It's that damn liberal media.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I lol'd. Several times.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Campaign. The Obama campaign is him running for president. The administration is him running the country. He doesn't use his administration to run his campaign- at least, the two are not the sme entity.
Heh.
Heh. Heh. There are rather defined boundaries between the two organizations. Hehing aside.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, yeah, completely.
I agree that his campaign and his administration are two different groups. Are you familiar enough with the staff on each to know there is no overlap? I'm certainly not.
More importantly, though, I think he does use his office to campaign. (That's campaign the verb, not campaign the noun.)
Hence the heh.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: I agree that his campaign and his administration are two different groups. Are you familiar enough with the staff on each to know there is no overlap?
Of course there is overlap, but it's still a very important distinction and using the terms interchangeably is nonsensical. It's just as incorrect to credit the administration for an attack on Romney made by the campaign as it is to credit the campaign for passing healthcare reform.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hey now! Somebody is making sense.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Heh
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Heh
heh Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: I agree that his campaign and his administration are two different groups. Are you familiar enough with the staff on each to know there is no overlap?
Of course there is overlap, but it's still a very important distinction and using the terms interchangeably is nonsensical. It's just as incorrect to credit the administration for an attack on Romney made by the campaign as it is to credit the campaign for passing healthcare reform.
But the campaign would happily take credit for passing healthcare reform, right? That's what campaigns do.
Look, I understand the distinction, but I'm not sure why it's as important as you think it is.
In context of this thread, Geraine said the Obama "administration" ran with something, when in reality it was the Obama campaign. Okay. And it's fine to correct his error, but to pretend the error is anything but trivial is bizarre.
At the end of the day, Obama ran with it. He has to own the actions of both his administration and his campaign. Does the substance of what Geraine said meaningfully change with the correction?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But the campaign would happily take credit for passing healthcare reform, right? That's what campaigns do.
I think you are confused. The Campaign would happily give credit to the Obama administration for passing health care reform. Campaigns don't pass laws, they don't draft laws, they don't lobby for laws. What a Presidential Campaign does is persuade people to vote for their candidate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yes, I understand that campaigns don't, themselves, draft laws. The campaign isn't the same entity as the administration. So in that sense the campaign doesn't take credit for anything. But Obama, via his campaign, can take credit for the actions of his administration. The same way that, 4 years ago, he made promises, via his campaign, of what his administration was going to do.
Because, again, Obama is responsible for the actions of both of them.
What's the point of harping on this distinction? The only explanation I can think of is to try to relieve Obama of culpability for the actions of his campaign. Is that the reason?
If so, it seems hypocritical given that these same people would not just hold Romney responsible for the actions of his campaign (rightly!), but also hold him responsible for the actions of PACs and SuperPACs that support him, etc.
If not, then why? Just a minor correction of Geraine's trivial misstep? Once again: the correction made no substantive change to Geraine's actual statement.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Thanks!
Wasn't talking about you! Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:What's the point of harping on this distinction? The only explanation I can think of is to try to relieve Obama of culpability for the actions of his campaign. Is that the reason?
Alternate explanation: campaign law sets pretty specific boundaries between administration and campaign. Casually conflating the two entities could be interpreted as implying some sort of impropriety by Obama (as incumbent). Insisting on the distinction seemed to be a reaction to that implication, whether or not it was intended.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [What's the point of harping on this distinction? [/QB]
*You* are harping on the distinction. I made the distinction once, which was sufficient. You wanted to argue about it, because you didn't like the distinction being (fairly) made. So, if you're asking what the point is of people answering your dismissal of a point you admitted was fair to make in the first place (while you passive-aggressively imply that actually the distinction is meaningless anyway), it's that your dismissal of the point is objectionable. You just can't deal with the idea that you can reject someone else's view of things, and then *have them answer for themselves* without calling that "harping" on the point. Maybe you should just let people get their points across and not worry about who's "harping" on what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:What's the point of harping on this distinction? The only explanation I can think of is to try to relieve Obama of culpability for the actions of his campaign. Is that the reason?
Alternate explanation: campaign law sets pretty specific boundaries between administration and campaign. Casually conflating the two entities could be interpreted as implying some sort of impropriety by Obama (as incumbent). Insisting on the distinction seemed to be a reaction to that implication, whether or not it was intended.
It is as such.
Wait for the "who me?" Reaction, as if being utterly careless with words is permissible, as long as you can plausibly deny intent.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Thanks!
Wasn't talking about you!
I spent a few minutes trying to find a humorous link that could imply that I did, in fact, understand you weren't referring to me and was thanking you ironically. I found this instead, which is better than anything I could have hoped despite not being terribly relevant, so there you go. Enjoy!
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:What's the point of harping on this distinction? The only explanation I can think of is to try to relieve Obama of culpability for the actions of his campaign. Is that the reason?
Alternate explanation: campaign law sets pretty specific boundaries between administration and campaign. Casually conflating the two entities could be interpreted as implying some sort of impropriety by Obama (as incumbent). Insisting on the distinction seemed to be a reaction to that implication, whether or not it was intended.
Yeah, that explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks, Juxtapose.
Although, again, in context I think one would be hard pressed to argue that Geraine was trying to imply that.
[ July 20, 2012, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Wait for the "who me?" Reaction, as if being utterly careless with words is permissible, as long as you can plausibly deny intent.
From who? I'm not the one who said it, and Geraine hasn't been involved since you corrected him. Or did you get confused and think we were the same person?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I haven't reponded to what Orincoro said because I didn't disagree with what he said.
It was the Obama campaign, not the administration. It was my mistake.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I stand corrected then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A student just called to ask how he could "retroactively drop" a class. I (barely) refrained from asking him if he were related to Gov. Romney.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've retroactively dropped classes before. Saved me a ton of money.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is possible here to drop a class shortly after the drop date. Not, as this kid was asking, weeks after the quarter has ended.
Mostly "retroactively" just struck me as funny.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I got sucked into work and expected romneytalk to sort of descend to that droll, non-schadenfreude-producing levels of meh. But the sinister cackling LIE-beral (or whatever) in me got to finally kick up gnews and see that romney had failure cascaded through the bain stuff out to Britain to uh
fail really hard at an international relations trip.
like really hard
bad enough that this may be the first time i think a dailymail linkup is ultimately the most appropriate
I love how he distances himself from the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" comment and then turns around and declares himself "a guy from Great Britain".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The severity of Romney's "gaffes" are overblown, especially the one relating to the Olympics. A few months ago London wasn't ready, security-wise, so it's valid to scrutinize their current level of preparedness. Having been involved with the winter Olympics in 2002, Romney has special knowledge concerning various risks and aspects of security. Cameron's thin-skinned response shows he can't differentiate between criticism and insult.
Apparently their level of preparedness approaches that of precognition. The Korean peninsula must have recently been reunified under the South Korean flag and somehow they had already prepared the appropriate flag for when the (former) North Korean athletes took to the soccer field last Wednesday. Amazing.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: A few months ago London wasn't ready, security-wise, so it's valid to scrutinize their current level of preparedness.
A week ago, there were doubts about London's preparedness, security-wise. It's not that Romney was actually wrong about that stuff. It's just that he probably shouldn't have said it while he was a guest of honour in the city and the British government was rolling out the red carpet for him.
It's the equivalent of spitting your food into your napkin at a dinner party and then giving tips to your host on how the meal could have been prepared to your liking. It's simply not diplomatic, and shows a shocking lack of judgement.
The multitude of other gaffes... forgetting the name of the politician he was talking to, mentioning top-level spies by name, talking about seeing the 'backside' of 10 Downing Street (which sounded like he was talking about the Prime Minister's bottom)... that was just icing on this particularly weird cake.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The severity of Romney's "gaffes" are overblown, especially the one relating to the Olympics.
Hey, capax, remember when Obama first visited Britain and his administration made a number of small gaffes?
Do you remember how severe you thought those were at the time? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Remember: foreign policy and interactions were important when *Obama* was running, not Romney. Get with the program!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you remember how severe you thought those were at the time?
No
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Remember: foreign policy and interactions were important when *Obama* was running, not Romney. Get with the program!
British reaction has been priceless.
But I'm sure the right-wing media will be talking about how Godless commies in Britain sang a paean to their healthcare system during the Olympics opening ceremony instead of Romney's faux pas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you remember how severe you thought those were at the time?
No
Literal laugh out loud here.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you remember how severe you thought those were at the time?
No
Literal laugh out loud here.
dude bro, literally shrugging my shoulders at you here..
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That's some pretty conspicuous not caring.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's almost hipster levels of not caring.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
look out guys, he's making sure i know he doesn't care
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Romney said that the culture of freedom in the US was the single most important factor in America's economic success.
"Like the United States, the state of Israel has a culture that is based upon individual freedom and the rule of law. It is a democracy that has embraced liberty, both political and economic," he said.
But he also gave a lot of credit to israel's healthcare system and admired how strong government controls keep costs low and care effective and uh well whatever!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But he also gave a lot of credit to israel's healthcare system and admired how strong government controls keep costs low and care effective and uh well whatever!
That's a misrepresentation of what Romney said. He admired the low cost of Israeli healthcare but didn't credit the low cost to government controls.
And I wouldn't call it incredibly effective. According to the Boston Globe:
quote:There are some out-of-pocket payments, such as visits to specialists and pharmaceuticals, and the plans do not cover dental or eye care.
...
There are some downsides to the Israeli health care system, which could be some reasons why the costs are lower. The country’s hospitals — many of which are government-owned and operated — are often over capacity, which means patients are routinely kept on gurneys in hallways or in waiting rooms. For nonemergency procedures, such as a hip replacement, patients may have to wait several months.
Despite our healthcare problems, we're doing a bit better than gurneys in the hallway. Plus, two of the most expensive parts of our healthcare - specialists and pharmaceuticals - are still paid out-of-pocket in Israel, which means they're scrimping when it comes to the more costly, critical aspects of healthcare.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Despite our healthcare problems, we're doing a bit better than gurneys in the hallway. Plus, two of the most expensive parts of our healthcare - specialists and pharmaceuticals - are still paid out-of-pocket in Israel, which means they're scrimping when it comes to the more costly, critical aspects of healthcare.
They still aspire to be Canada.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I love this game: when someone brings up Canadian healthcare Ina disparaging way, I say: "yeah, I totally agree. It's pretty much a disaster. The worst socialized medicine system around. Too bad we can't do that well."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That was an interesting article, ElJay. Thank you for posting it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Despite our healthcare problems, we're doing a bit better than gurneys in the hallway. Plus, two of the most expensive parts of our healthcare - specialists and pharmaceuticals - are still paid out-of-pocket in Israel, which means they're scrimping when it comes to the more costly, critical aspects of healthcare.
This is ... a reasonable post! But this part:
quote:we're doing a bit better than gurneys in the hallway.
isn't true. Our overloaded metro systems frequently have gurneys in the hallway. Very frequently. And even if we never had any gurneys in the hallway and Israel did, it does not mean we're doing better than them. We are not. They are spending less than half the gdp per capita on healthcare than we do, and israelis receive better care overall than we do, and do not have an endemic problem with a significant percentage of the population being without coverage for nearly anything short of ER coverage. For everything that they are 'scrimping' on, we are ruefully abandoning tons more to the Invisible Hand, which has delivered us a culture of medical neglect, bankruptcy, and out of control premiums.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Absolutely brilliant article, ElJay. That article needs to be shown to every person who doesn't understand why universal health care is important and so much better.
And Canada's system isn't the worst in the world at all and I think that story really just comes from rich people who command care along the levels of Grey's Anatomy. Imaginary care for the vast majority of people. Aside from the annoying and expensive oversight of dental care (Chiropractic is covered and dental not, are you kidding?!) it is better in terms of quality than the UK in my personal opinion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I stole the article from Raja, incidentally, who posted it on sake a week or so ago. But yes, I think it's very good, and a good read for people who buy into the myth that Canada's care sucks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I love this game: when someone brings up Canadian healthcare Ina disparaging way, I say: "yeah, I totally agree. It's pretty much a disaster. The worst socialized medicine system around. Too bad we can't do that well."
Who disparaged Canada?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I stole the article from Raja, incidentally, who posted it on sake a week or so ago. But yes, I think it's very good, and a good read for people who buy into the myth that Canada's care sucks.
Canada's care has its problems.
Yet the difference between the state of their system and the state of ours is such that canadians are often quite sincerely (and without significant misapprehension of what our system really is) astonished with how terrible our system seems and happy that they don't have it, and frankly baffled with why we try to convince ourselves that our system is better than theirs.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: Nevertheless, close and repeated study of his campaign in real-world situations has yielded a standard model that has proved eerily accurate in predicting Mitt Romney’s behavior in debate after debate, speech after speech, awkward look-at-me-I’m-a-regular-guy moment after awkward look-at-me-I’m-a-regular-guy moment, and every other event in his face-time continuum.
The basic concepts behind this model are:
Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.
Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.
Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”
Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.
Noncausality. The Romney campaign often violates, and even reverses, the law of cause and effect. For example, ordinarily the cause of getting the most votes leads to the effect of being considered the most electable candidate. But in the case of Mitt Romney, the cause of being considered the most electable candidate actually produces the effect of getting the most votes.
Absolutely brilliant
That is pretty funny. The only depressing thing about it is...it pretty much describes almost every single politician in our system. This quantum theory perfectly describes the creeping, frustrating feeling I get every time someone wearing a suit and tie, who gets a check from the government, stands in front of a camera and begins to speak.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure I agree with that. I feel like the majority of our problems especially over the last couple years are that politicians have steadfastly stood behind a series of increasingly extremist policies, rather than waffling to a state of absurdity.
Romney's political positions are like quicksand. Most of our politicians are like concrete.
What we need is a set of politicians who are more like a potted plant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On the other, it's about time Reid grew a pair and about time the Democrats starting punching back. This is exactly the sort of thing that Republicans do all the time, and Romney is throwing an absolute hissy fit over it.
And now everyone will wonder, seriously, why not reveal your returns?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't need 10 years of tax returns. I'll accept one of his tax returns from any of the eight years prior to the ones he's already released.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I normally wouldn't even care that much.
But the fact that he's so adamant about not doing something presidential candidates normally do without controversy really has me wondering.
I don't normally go in for the whole "what's he hiding!?" hysteria, but I'll admit I'm highly curious, and it looks somewhat suspicious, especially given his track record and what we do know about his finances.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not sure what you mean by "it looks somewhat suspicious". Do you mean "somewhat suspicious that he has done something clearly illegal" or "somewhat suspicious that he has done something politically embarrassing." If its the latter, I'm way past "somewhat suspicious".
Romney's taken a lot of flack, even from Republicans, for not releasing his returns. The longer he refuses to release them, the bigger the political liability it becomes. Unless he's an idiot, it's a safe bet that he and his campaign believe that releasing the tax returns will be a bigger embarrassment than keeping them secret.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I guess I normally wouldn't even care that much.
But the fact that he's so adamant about not doing something presidential candidates normally do without controversy really has me wondering.
I don't normally go in for the whole "what's he hiding!?" hysteria, but I'll admit I'm highly curious, and it looks somewhat suspicious, especially given his track record and what we do know about his finances.
I laughed when a columnist noted that it's so nice that Romney has decided that his first issue he will never flip flop on is the release of these tax returns.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not sure what you mean by "it looks somewhat suspicious". Do you mean "somewhat suspicious that he has done something clearly illegal" or "somewhat suspicious that he has done something politically embarrassing." If its the latter, I'm way past "somewhat suspicious".
Romney's taken a lot of flack, even from Republicans, for not releasing his returns. The longer he refuses to release them, the bigger the political liability it becomes. Unless he's an idiot, it's a safe bet that he and his campaign believe that releasing the tax returns will be a bigger embarrassment than keeping them secret.
I agree.
I just feel like a hypocrite for playing the conspiracy card after years of slamming the GOP for doing that. I realize on an intellectual level that there's a difference - there's a strong, logical case to be made here that he's clearly making a tactical calculation that taking flak for not releasing them is better than actually releasing them, so obviously there's something to hide or he'd just release and move past it. Politicians release and disavow things all the time.
But on a different level, I feel like a partisan hack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I guess I normally wouldn't even care that much.
But the fact that he's so adamant about not doing something presidential candidates normally do without controversy really has me wondering.
I don't normally go in for the whole "what's he hiding!?" hysteria, but I'll admit I'm highly curious, and it looks somewhat suspicious, especially given his track record and what we do know about his finances.
I laughed when a columnist noted that it's so nice that Romney has decided that his first issue he will never flip flop on is the release of these tax returns.
It's not surprising at all.
Romney has long taken a pretty firm stance on the issue of him looking bad - he's against it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you take Romney at his established patterns: like everything he's done, it is a base political calculation.
He has determined that as much as the political damage will be for not releasing his returns (and having his wife literally say "We've given all you people need to know") and catching flak for that constantly all the way up to the election, it is significantly less an issue for his electability than if he released them.
that or it having like a 5% chance of being a ply ploy.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
PolitiFact addressed Harry Reid's dishonest accusations charging Romney with not paying taxes. From the article:
quote:Salon.com -- which is generally considered a liberal media outlet, thus no friend to Romney -- asked two tax experts whether they thought it was likely that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. They concluded, "probably not."
The article quoted David Miller, a tax attorney with the firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York, saying it’s "highly unlikely" that he paid nothing.
"It would be easier for someone like Steve Jobs to pay zero, as most of his wealth was in company stock, which isn’t taxed until sold and may never be sold," Miller told Salon. The Salon article continued, "But Romney’s arrangement with Bain is different. He would have earned management fees, and when Bain sold the underlying companies that it invested in, Romney would have been subject to tax on his share. 'It’s possible he paid very little in taxes, but I find it hard to believe that he paid none,' Miller said."
Salon also quoted Joshua Kamerman, a lawyer and CPA in New York, who said while it’s theoretically possible, it’s also "preposterous."
...
We asked Lawrence J. White, an economist at the Stern School of Business at New York University, for his view, and he concurred with Miller and Kamerman. "I agree that it's extremely unlikely that Mr. Romney paid no income taxes for 10 years," White said.
Probably not. Hard to believe. Preposterous. Extremely unlikely.
It's likely Reid is straight up lying. His poor character was known before he launched this defamation and slander campaign but dishonesty of this dark shade shouldn't be ignored, no matter which side of the aisle you sit on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Out of curiosity, Romney says he left Bain in 1999, so the last ten years of tax returns wouldn't have any Bain derived income, it'd all be from investment income. So those experts would seem to be a little off, no?
Besides, for a guy who mastered the use of shell companies and off shore accounts while at Bain, I'd be surprised if the taxes he paid were anything but very very low.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, Romney says he left Bain in 1999, so the last ten years of tax returns wouldn't have any Bain derived income, it'd all be from investment income. So those experts would seem to be a little off, no?
Besides, for a guy who mastered the use of shell companies and off shore accounts while at Bain, I'd be surprised if the taxes he paid were anything but very very low.
That's all speculation, and your'e welcome to point to any or all shell companies and tax havens Romney has utilized. Still, it's not approaching the level of Reid claiming - based on information from a source who's identity he won't divulge - that Romney paid no taxes. If he was arguing that Romney paid only capital gains, his speculation would at least be in the realm of possible truth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Shame we can't look at the Presidential candidate's tax history to make these sorts of decisions ourselves.
Which is, of course, totally kosher from the guy running for the election to leader of the 'mistrust government' party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, Romney says he left Bain in 1999, so the last ten years of tax returns wouldn't have any Bain derived income, it'd all be from investment income. So those experts would seem to be a little off, no?
Besides, for a guy who mastered the use of shell companies and off shore accounts while at Bain, I'd be surprised if the taxes he paid were anything but very very low.
That's all speculation, and your'e welcome to point to any or all shell companies and tax havens Romney has utilized. Still, it's not approaching the level of Reid claiming - based on information from a source who's identity he won't divulge - that Romney paid no taxes. If he was arguing that Romney paid only capital gains, his speculation would at least be in the realm of possible truth.
Actually nothing I just said was speculation. His work at Bain is fairly well documented. All you have to do is look at the Bloomberg article about what he did in that Italian phone book deal. My point was that your guys in that article are saying that his Bain work must have left some taxes for him to pay, but people are pushing for only ten years, if not all, and in the last ten years, he wasn't at Bain. So as an excuse for calling Reid a liar, it falls flat.
The Reid thing aside, even the one year of returns he released leaves a large number of lingering questions about his taxes and financial dealings. He hasn't come even close to being as forthcoming as the last 30 years worth of presidents, and he's asking us to trust him with the keys to the country with a lot of clouds hanging over his head.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nonono, Lyrhawn: we can trust him because he's a highly successful capitalist. He's not legally required to divulge more, so we should simply take his word for it that there's nothing dubious in those records.
Funny how that whole 'not legally required' argument still doesn't cut it with the Republican base when it comes to citizenship, though. Weird. Almost as though there's some sort of transparent double-standard going on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Romney can't be transparent. If he was, we'd be able to see the wires and motherboard.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
So now Romney, the Republican pundits and Fox News are accusing Obama and Dems of trying to restrict voting rights of the military when the truth is that the Ohio republicans have been trying to restrict the voting rights of everyone but the military.
I'm to the point where I have to laugh when I see stuff like this.
Not only is it based on a bold-faced lie, since they're literally just making something out of nothing, but it actually obscures yet another attempt by Republicans to enact rules that potentially suppress the votes of others.
It's just icing on the cake that they turn around and manufacture an issue to obscure the controversy.
I noticed Fox News also fails to mention that 300,000 Ohioans signed petitions to get the law added as a ballot issue in November, they disliked it that much.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Wayne Allyn Root released a column saying Romney should agree to release the past 10 years of tax returns if Obama agrees to unseal his college records. He believes the entire controversy would go away. I mean, we are supposed to be vetting these people right?
Warning, there are some....Well not birther comments but something along the lines of foreign exchange student, scholarships for foreigners, etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wayne Allyn Root released a column saying Romney should agree to release the past 10 years of tax returns if Obama agrees to unseal his college records. He believes the entire controversy would go away. I mean, we are supposed to be vetting these people right?
College records and tax returns are far from equivalent, since it would be quite unusual for college records from decades ago to tell as much about who someone is in the present than recent tax records, which have been the standard for all candidates for some time now until 'Just Trust Me' Mitt.
Frankly, Geraine, I'm a bit embarrassed for you that you would look to a source like that for reasonable compromise. The man's agenda isn't just clear within a paragraph, but his commitment to believing in a terrible Obama conspiracy is right out there in the open as well. So let's be real here: do you really think that if Obama released his college records (a concession which he would be giving up for basically nothing), and nothing shocking was found...that suddenly these thinly-veiled Birther idiots would just pick up their balls and go home?
There's no reason to believe that, because well, Birthers.
If Romney were a man of his principles-limited government, distrust of government, transparency, man of the people, etc.-and if the Republican base actually believed what they say they believe, this would've been a non-story, because the records would've been out ages ago.
It only makes sense when you pin down the only real driving principle this election: Not-Obama. Because that's the important thing right now to the GOP and its base and elements within it like the various Tea Parties. Other stuff might be important but for pity's sake Not Obama!!!! A one-term or even a NO term president when you toss in all the Birther stuff has been the rallying cry for three years now.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:if Obama agrees to unseal his college records..
I think I mostly missed this controversy. What are conservatives hoping to find? A bad grade? Took too many "radical" classes?
Edit: Nevermind, read the article. Guess it was both of the above and also more birther crap *yawn*.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For the situations to be equivalent Romney would have to release the tax returns, then the long form tax return, then the official primary document the IRS keeps and never copies. Then Obama would release his grades flowed by Romney now being obligated to release his banking statements, and on and on it goes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Wayne Allyn Root released a column saying Romney should agree to release the past 10 years of tax returns if Obama agrees to unseal his college records. He believes the entire controversy would go away. I mean, we are supposed to be vetting these people right?
Warning, there are some....Well not birther comments but something along the lines of foreign exchange student, scholarships for foreigners, etc.
Man, geraine. You love to link us to some really nutty sites, and this one has not deviated from your source tendencies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I love how incredibly, incredibly creepy that picture of "Wayne Allen Root" is.
But, to be fair, the original article is from "The Blaze," which is your run-of-the-mill nutty site. In general, it's safe to assume that any "fact" you see on "The Blaze" is false, and any logic is bad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For the situations to be equivalent Romney would have to release the tax returns, then the long form tax return, then the official primary document the IRS keeps and never copies. Then Obama would release his grades flowed by Romney now being obligated to release his banking statements, and on and on it goes.
Obama would take that deal in a heartbeat.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Romney can't be transparent. If he was, we'd be able to see the wires and motherboard.
Considering how glitchy he has been, I think he is still running on vacuum tubes and tesla coils.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Wayne Allyn Root released a column saying Romney should agree to release the past 10 years of tax returns if Obama agrees to unseal his college records. He believes the entire controversy would go away. I mean, we are supposed to be vetting these people right?
Warning, there are some....Well not birther comments but something along the lines of foreign exchange student, scholarships for foreigners, etc.
Man, geraine. You love to link us to some really nutty sites, and this one has not deviated from your source tendencies.
I do? I guess you have special powers to know that I love to do something. I don't remember constantly linking nutty sites in the past, but perhaps you have me confused with somebody else. It has happened before.
Root lives here in Las Vegas, and has been on a couple of local news stations as well as radio stations talking about this. Yes, his article on The Blaze was the only place I could find any of his comments in print. Since I cannot easily link a radio interview or local news program, it was the easiest way.
But hey, if you want to accuse me of "loving to link nutty websites" you should probably speak up more, since 90% of the posters on this forum have done just that in the past.
Honestly, what Root was doing was exactly the same thing Reid is doing. Throw out information based on mysterious sources, and then say "Well it is up to the other person to prove me wrong."
And to a degree he is right. Does anyone here honestly think that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years? If Romney didn't pay taxes and he then blamed it on Turbo Tax, would you accept that excuse?
If the argument is that he didn't pay as much as others, then come out and say that. Don't throw out allegations that he didn't pay taxes at all. It is likely that Romney didn't pay as much in taxes because he wasn't actively earning money. Even raising taxes on millionaires wouldn't affect Romney unless something is done about capital gains tax. The democrats aren't even asking about that. They want higher federal income tax on the rich, something that really won't help much at all, but it helps them get votes, so why not?
[ August 08, 2012, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I guess that's one way not to respond to muliple explanations of how the two things aren't at all the same and that the request's purported claim of equality is deeply hypocritical.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well I guess that's one way not to respond to muliple explanations of how the two things aren't at all the same and that the request's purported claim of equality is deeply hypocritical.
No Rakeesh, I find the entire argument about Romney's tax returns completely idiotic. Reid is a blithering idiot and I have no idea why my state keeps re-electing him. He is doing nothing but talking out of his ass, so how is that any different than Root?
Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years? Do you believe what Reid is telling you? If so, Why?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geraine -
Whether or not he paid taxes for the last ten years isn't really an issue for me. Personally I think he paid some taxes, at an incredibly, ridiculously low rate that would embarrass him, and they should.
But there are many other perfectly legitimate questions being raised by tax experts who have looked at his 2010 return and some a lot of potential problems. Without seeing more returns for explanations, those questions cast serious doubt on his credibility and transparency.
Reid is going about it via a fairly underhanded tactic, but I actually find it pretty amusing. Republicans have been making shit up for years far, FAR more aggressively than Democrats and then altering reality to make everyone believe it. They created impossible burdens of proof, which is why the vast majority of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. But this doesn't even come close. All Romney has to do to shut him up is release his returns, and the issue goes away. And the bitch of it is, it's really not that unreasonable a request.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do? I guess you have special powers to know that I love to do something. I don't remember constantly linking nutty sites in the past, but perhaps you have me confused with somebody else. It has happened before.
No, it's you — I've commented on it before. Your take on political issues or controversy usually comes paired with links that give some insight into the kinds of places which you frequent. They're weird and they're often full of lies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a side note: in every economic model I've seen, a higher federal income tax actually helps quite a bit, as opposed to "not much at all."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years? Do you believe what Reid is telling you? If so, Why?
No, I would be quite surprised to learn Romney was either that criminal or that stupid. Nothing I've had much to do with Reid's attacks-my irritation with the Romney campaign and my disgust at the blunt hypocrisy of the Republican base on this matter is entirely in Romney's refusal to release more records, and the insistence that the refusal is perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable, and that those who raise questions are somehow wrong to do so.
The party that claims to mistrust concentrated government power and government secrecy fields a candidate who goes to some political trouble to make sure we know less about some pretty critical parts of his life, personal and professional, before we make a decision to elect him, to know less about him than has been considered acceptable for candidates for, what, thirty years?
This after a years-long campaign of slander, racism, and xenophobia against Obama that is still powerfully believed in by a big chunk of the Republican base, and you offer up the 'compromise' that Obama should release records far less significant and far less recent than Romney's, and then pivot to 'well we're supposed to be vetting them both'. It's not the same thing at all.
You're a conservative, that's cool. Disagree on a lot, but that's kosher. But unless you throw some of the most important principles of conservatism overboard, your response to Romney's stubborn secrecy on this issue cannot be anything less critical than a serious wariness...unless, as with the GOP, your actual guiding light here is 'No More Obama'. That's why I said your bringing this up was embarrassing.
You're supposed to be the guy who, when politicians do this sort of thing, waves a big red flag and starts the sirens. The question is-why aren't you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Because the par strategy is, essentially, if it's actually a problematic issue (and it is) the immediate narrative that is sold in response is a distraction. At least here I'm happy it's not (yet) a popular obvious distraction, because it's so baldly 'oh yeah, well look over there what's obama hiding your side does it too equivalence what a non issue etc'
Man, if Obama hadn't released his tax returns I would have just thought the exact same thing. Namely "Well then, I wonder what the skeleton in the closet is." Oh, and the Republicans would have just adored and piled on that opportunity. I might have preferred that they sink into something .. uh, how to put this? Not retarded? Not william ayers slash jeremiah wright slash barack nate dhalani is a muslim kenyan wheres the long form birth certificate?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Whoa, that photo of Wayne Allen Root on his website is a the creepiest image of someone I have ever seen, unless he's got a waxwork image of himself and that's what's pictured there.
It's like he's a Ken doll made out of a mould: deeply over-suntanned skin, shiny white, even teeth, lifeless stare that doesn't quite fix on anything, slightly oversized clothes that don't hang like full-scale clothes do, smoothed-away wrinkles.
This has no bearing on how crazy he is, but he sounds pretty crazy nonetheless.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Related to the above issue, I think those people who follow Romney probably don't care about his tax at all. If he paid less, they probably would laud him for having managed to avoid paying taxes, which is, as far as my impression goes-- kind of a major point of Republicanism at the moment.
"Hey, here's a dude who hates taxes so much, he pays as little of them as possible! He's just like me."
How many Republicans will really be upset enough to vote for Obama if it turns out that Romney has been gaming the system-- that's what they want, isn't it?
All in all, politics in America appears to be considerably more corrupt that it appears to be in the UK, and possibly even in Canada. I feel bad about that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For me I wouldn't mind one wit if Romney used loop holes to avoid paying taxes. Every American seeks to minimize their tax burden to the best of their abilities. He just happens to have more ability and information than most.
What I do mind, is his coming in with a fiscal reform platform, and all his talk has been about tax cuts, spending cuts, and simplifying the tax code, but not in a manner that would close the loopholes folks like him use, just so the less wealthy see their "entitlements" taken away.
I just don't think the money is there. I absolutely would be OK with my own tax burden increasing, so long as we all increase it together so that we can start paying down the debt.
But no, it's always "Everybody but me and my constituents need to pay."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Whoa, that photo of Wayne Allen Root on his website is a the creepiest image of someone I have ever seen, unless he's got a waxwork image of himself and that's what's pictured there.
For how absolutely terrible the photoshop job is, they might as well have used a waxwork image.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For me I wouldn't mind one wit if Romney used loop holes to avoid paying taxes. Every American seeks to minimize their tax burden to the best of their abilities. He just happens to have more ability and information than most.
What I do mind, is his coming in with a fiscal reform platform, and all his talk has been about tax cuts, spending cuts, and simplifying the tax code, but not in a manner that would close the loopholes folks like him use, just so the less wealthy see their "entitlements" taken away.
His tax plan makes absolutely no sense even when Romney is given the absolute best benefit of the doubt.
quote:Lots of justified talk today about a new Tax Policy Center report on the distributional implications of the Romney tax plan, showing it to be very much a Dooh Nibor – that is, reverse Robin Hood – thing. Obama is talking it up; Romney, predictably, is dismissing the report as the work of a “liberal group”.
The question one might ask is, did TPC – which is actually painstakingly and painfully nonpartisan – make questionable assumptions to get its results, so that some other set of assumptions might portray Romneynomics in a more favorable light? And the answer is no: TPC actually bent over backwards to literally give Romney every possible benefit of the doubt.
Here’s what they did. They took Romney at his word that he plans to offset his cuts in income tax rates by broadening the base, that is, limiting exemptions and other loopholes. They also assumed, however, that Romney would not be willing to tax dividends and capital gains as ordinary income, since he has made it clear that he opposes any rise in taxes on investment income. As they point out, this leaves a relatively small pool of loopholes to close – big enough that the Romney tax cuts could, in principle, be paid for by base broadening, but not with a lot of room to spare.
So which loopholes are closed? TPC made the most Romney-friendly assumption they could – namely, that base broadening is concentrated on top incomes as much as possible. First you eliminate all deductions that benefit those with more than $1 million in income; then all that benefit those with between $500,000 and $1 million; and so on.
The key point is then that even if you do this, the tax cuts Romney gives high-income Americans are bigger than the loopholes he could conceivably close...
quote:This means that even on the most favorable assumption, the Romney plan would give the rich big tax cuts on net – which means that to be revenue-neutral, it must raise taxes on Americans making less than $200,000 a year.
So they’re actually giving Romney every possible benefit of the doubt – and still his plan is a redistribution from the middle class to the rich. In practice it would surely be much worse.
I’ll be curious to see how all this gets reported. The TPC results are ironclad; there is no valid Romney counterargument except to say that he doesn’t really mean all that stuff about actually making up for lost revenue. My guess is that the stories will nonetheless be he said/she said, but maybe I’ll be favorably surprised.
quote:1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) The reason Romney’s plan doesn’t work is very simple. The size of the tax cut he’s proposing for the rich is larger than all of the tax expenditures that go to the rich put together. As such, it is mathematically impossible for him to keep his promise to make sure the top one percent keeps paying the same or more.
3) This is going to be a huge problem for the Romney campaign. The Romney team has tried to paper over the fact that its policy promises don’t add up by withholding the crucial details that independent analysts need to do the math. But now independent analysts are filling in those details for them (the Tax Policy Center’s look at Romney’s tax plan should be read in tandem with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities effort to flesh out his spending promises). And, ultimately, that’s worse, as actors with more credibility than the Romney campaign are showing what the Romney campaign was trying to hide.
4) Evidence the Romney campaign does not have a good counterargument, part one: If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
5) Evidence the Romney campaign does not have a good counterargument, part two: They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
quote:Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years? Do you believe what Reid is telling you? If so, Why?
No, I would be quite surprised to learn Romney was either that criminal or that stupid. Nothing I've had much to do with Reid's attacks-my irritation with the Romney campaign and my disgust at the blunt hypocrisy of the Republican base on this matter is entirely in Romney's refusal to release more records, and the insistence that the refusal is perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable, and that those who raise questions are somehow wrong to do so.
The party that claims to mistrust concentrated government power and government secrecy fields a candidate who goes to some political trouble to make sure we know less about some pretty critical parts of his life, personal and professional, before we make a decision to elect him, to know less about him than has been considered acceptable for candidates for, what, thirty years?
This after a years-long campaign of slander, racism, and xenophobia against Obama that is still powerfully believed in by a big chunk of the Republican base, and you offer up the 'compromise' that Obama should release records far less significant and far less recent than Romney's, and then pivot to 'well we're supposed to be vetting them both'. It's not the same thing at all.
You're a conservative, that's cool. Disagree on a lot, but that's kosher. But unless you throw some of the most important principles of conservatism overboard, your response to Romney's stubborn secrecy on this issue cannot be anything less critical than a serious wariness...unless, as with the GOP, your actual guiding light here is 'No More Obama'. That's why I said your bringing this up was embarrassing.
You're supposed to be the guy who, when politicians do this sort of thing, waves a big red flag and starts the sirens. The question is-why aren't you?
I'm not debating whether or not he should release more tax returns. My entire point was that Reid is phishing and people are making this more of a controversy than it should be. Root suggested that Romney bring back the college transcript controversy to shut Reid and the Obama campaign up. Root's suggestion to Romney shows just how silly the entire argument by Reid is.
Do I believe Romney should release more tax returns? He could. To his credit, President Obama has released the most at 12. Clinton and Bush released 8. The further you go back, the less they released, with the exception of Roosevelt, who released 25 years.
I'm not arguing that Romney should or shouldn't release more tax returns. I'm arguing that the accusations made are nothing more than an attempt to push an agenda and create controversy.
And let's be honest. Whether or not Romney releases the tax returns, the Obama campaign wins. If he releases them it shows that he caved and possibly gives the Obama Campaign ammunition. If he doesn't release them, then he will continue to get attacked by the campaign anyways, but could possibly show to his base that he is willing to stand up to the Obama campaign.
Your call of hyprocrisy is weak. If vetting candidates is so important to you (it should be) where were you in 2008 when there was a candidate that nobody knew anything about? Ayers or Rezko ties? Ah, those don't matter! Just sweep it under the rug. Drug use? Meh, no big deal. Black Liberation theology? Hey, good for him!
If you did post about looking into these things then I apologize. But I'm just going to pull a Reid and say it is up to you to prove it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't understand why the Ayers thing is any kind of big deal to anyone. It's entirely normal for politicians to hang out with the likes of Ollie North, who committed very serious crimes. Or Cheney, for that matter, who has admitted to breaking US law and international treaties by ordering waterboarding. It's just normal for people in politics to hang out with influential criminals who fit with their ideology.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dick Morris also has recommended that Gov. Romney tell Obama that he will release his tax returns beyond the two years he already has, if Obama will unseal all his college records, so America can see what it is he has been hiding.
As for relative business acumen: Does anyone think that Obama could even be in the same league with Romney as a businessman?
Would anyone here care to defend the totally dishonest and horrifically vicious "Romney killed my wife ad," currently making its way in Facebook feeds, etc., which continues the utterly insane attempt by the Obama camp to use Romney's past association with Bain against him? The facts are that Joe Soptic's wife died seven years after Romney left Bain; Bain tried to save the GST steel plant where Soptic worked and had his health insurance; and it was an Obama bundler that ultimately closed down the plant.
Aren't any Obama supporters getting ashamed of how low the Obama promoters are being in their deliberate, outrageous falsehoods? Are there any crimes the Obama people will not accuse Romney of being guilty? Are they so truly desperate that they feel they must resort to such tactics?
Anyone who favors Obama should question the wisdom of an inexperienced lightweight like Obama (who never had a real job in his life, other than a political career based on make-believe), trying to attack Romney on the basis of his business experience and acumen.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Germaine--everybody agrees that Reid is most likely (95% likely) making things up.
Let it go.
Everybody but Mr. Romney agrees that he should release more Tax history to squelch this tempest in a teapot. However, it is his choice.
Let it go.
However, the call of Hypocrisy is correct. All the Birthers out there (Birthers, not Republicans or Conservatives or Tea Partiers, just the Birhters) who demanded that President Obama release his birth certificate should be demanding Mr. Romney release his taxes. They certainly should not be defending his right to keep them secret.
(You can argue that there is a difference between hiding something that makes you possibly unfit for office is different than hiding something that makes you appear greedy. You haven't argued that, and neither have they.)
You then pull out four totally unsubstantiated rumors crafted by conservatives to attack President Obama. The Drug Use, Black Liberation Theology, Ayers connections and Rezko connections have all been looked at by the regular and conservative media with nothing by innuendo and accusations supporting them.
Kind of like what Senator Reid is doing to Mr. Romney.
In fact they are the same type of blatant lies crafted out of the weakest of connections designed to create fear and prejudice against the politician.
Lets take a quick look at your accusations and how they have played out over the past few years.
Did Obama use drugs? If so we would expect him to legalize it, or be caught using it still, or promote his kids using it, or cut funding to the DEA. None of that happened.
Does Obama support the terrorists Ayers? If so he's dangerous and once elected will appoint terrorists everywhere, destroy the FBI, and declare martial law in preparation for a communist take over. None of that happened.
Does he have corrupt ties to swindlers like Rizko? If so we should be finding lots of corruption charges pressed against him and his folks. Less of that has happened where money is involved than in the past administration.
Does he support Black Liberation Theology? If so then he would support all kinds of reforms that promote Black domination of the rest of the country. He would be appointing only or majority black judges, administrators and more. His record is neutral on that.
The fact that you find four of these mudslinging lies to paint President Obama with, while we just have Reid's one lie on our side says something very important as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that anyone is saying that Gov. Romney wasn't an experienced and successful business man. Just that his business wasn't all that good for people who weren't Bain stockholders.
Being able to make a lot of money as a business vampire and fixing the US economy are not the same skill set. In fact, they are contradictory.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth_Mauve, you suggest that Obama would do such blatant things if the proven facts of his association with Ayers, Rezko, and (the irrev) Wright were true. What if he has an I.Q. above 80, and is capable of being somewhat subtle, so he can maintain power and implement more of his strategies for turning America into a third world nation?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, calling Romney a "Business Vampire" is another example of Obama camp extreme dishonesty and viciousness. Are you willing to repeat every such term the Obama smear merchants are willing to invent and throw out there? Is there some point at which you will say to yourself, "Wait a minute, these guys are all-out negative in everything, and have gone way beyond the limits of credibility and even decency."
They are accusing Romney of being a childhood bully. Do you buy that, too?
Romney so clearly outclasses Obama in knowledge of business and economics, and Obama is such a failure in keeping any of his promises, the Obamanaughts must resort to such desperate methods to smear a legitimate opponent.
I bet Obama tries to get out of facing Romney in any debates--he has to know Romney would crush him.
[ August 09, 2012, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Turning America into a third world nation would be an improvement in some categories; such as wealth distribution.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This thread is tragic.
There's Ron, who has a point about the appalling Obama ad that so unnecessarily tries to link the death of a woman without health insurance to the failure of Romney when they should just point to the fact that the woman, in a country that used to lead the world, had to hide her cancer because she was worried about paying the bills. Universal Health Care? Takes care of that. Lose your job for whatever reason? You still have health care.
All of you undermine yourselves when you go extreme on the rhetoric.
Ron-- you should know that a businessman does not necessarily make a good government leader. The government is not a business. If Romney wants to be a businessman, he should be a businessman, not a president.
quote:Obama camp extreme dishonesty and viciousness
But how can this be a fair comment when the so-called Romney "camp" makes the same absurd claims?
*
Every four years, the rest of the world watches America ramp up to fight a two year long expensive civil war without (many drawn) guns. Thousands of hours of effort that could be used to govern the country are thrown away to do it. Each time around, the rhetoric seems to get more extreme and more based in outright lies. From an outsider's point of view it absolutely looks like the country is tearing itself apart over fear, the interpretation of an obviously out-of-date document, and the definition of the word "freedom".
The winner's victory is phyrric, because whoever gets saddled with the 'win' ends up with enormous and growing debt, a media that's forgotten how to ask a difficult question, corrupt and expensive business and financial practices, a broken social system that would rather let its citizens die or live under crippling debt than pay a little more in taxes, a high level of poverty and violence, rampant fear manifesting in burgeoning extreme ideas and religion, a hugely expensive and shamefully large jail population, one of the last few criminal justice systems that ends in death and an utter inability to speak clearly to one another and be heard.
Exactly what 'freedom' is this promoting?
Don't you think that spending this much time at war with yourselves over absurdities is just too much time wasted?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooohhh! Ron is making predictions! How does that usually work out?
I thought I came up with business vampire on my own. I haven't seen it in any Obama campaign material. But basically that is what private equity companies like Bain are. They employ "roll up" strategies (which generally cost US jobs) to make companies more profitable and squeeze what they can out of a company. Whether the company is better off, or bankrupt - like Ampad and GST Steel - Bain makes a lot of money. About 40% of the companies Bain took over went bust.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron "Barack Nate Dhalani" Lambert: Aren't any Obama supporters getting ashamed of how low the Obama promoters are being in their deliberate, outrageous falsehoods?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Teshi, when the main problem of the nation is generally acknolwedged to be the economy and other business-related things such as jobs, don't we need someone in office who knows something about business and economics? Such expertise could hardly be a liability!
And what "obviously out-of-date document" are you referring to? The Constitution of the USA? Yes, that ingenious document is what restrains "progressive" fools from turning America into a socialist backwater with equal ruin for all. Of course left wing liberals are impatient with such restraint, and falsely claim that it is "outdated." But it is the best such document ever invented in human history: it is what keeps government from trampling on the rights and freedoms of individuals; it is what keeps arrogant majorities from persecuting minorities; and it provides a level playing field for political competitions, so that the better ideas may win (usually).
And in case you have forgotten, it is regularly updated when the vast majority of the nation sees the need--by the amendment process. Unless you think that "Women's Suffrage" (19th Amendment--1920) is outmoded; or perhaps you believe the amendment that makes the minimum voting age 18 (26th Amendment--1971) is outmoded; or perhaps you think that the amendment that does not allow increases in congressional salaries to take place until the following term (27th Amendment--1992) is outmoded.
The "Equal Rights" Amendment has not yet been approved. But that is not the fault of the document, that is the choice that the people have so far been making (though the margin is close).
I still think Obama was probably born in Kenya, like his grandmother said he was. And I wonder if the foreign student listed in his college yearbook, Barry Soetoro, ever changed his citizenship from Indonesian back to American. Could that be why his college records are sealed?
Dismissing reasonable possibilities for which there is evidence is not indicative of critical thinking. You only accept what you want to believe, and ignore everything to the contrary. It doesn't bother you that Obama listened to Jeremiah Wright's sermons for TWENTY YEARS. It doesn't bother you that OBAMA DID BEGIN HIS POLITICAL CAREER IN JIM AYERS' LIVING ROOM, according to eyewitnesses who were there--and then he lied about it, saying he was "just a guy who lived down the street." You ignore the literary evidence that some have cited that shows that Ayers ghost-wrote both of Obama's books. You dismiss all that as conservative "hype."
Destineer, do you claim to be a prophet who knows the future for certain? Are you that sure I am wrong?
[ August 09, 2012, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, it would probably be more amusing for a non-American like me to believe that Obama is actually not an American but managed to scam his way into the Presidency. Ron, I'm not sure why you think we would "want to believe [that]" Obama is an American.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:don't we need someone in office who knows something about business and economics
This is a common misconception, I'm afraid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Obama's grandmother didn't say he was born in Kenya. Non partisan translators don't claim she did. She doesn't say she did. Your own party has disavowed the claim that she did.
It's a lie, and one so obvious and so stupid that only someone deeply committed to believing it could manage to do so for more than a moment or two, much less years. So, good on you, kid!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:don't we need someone in office who knows something about business and economics
This is a common misconception, I'm afraid.
Really? Considering how integral both those issues are in everyone's lives, I think the president should know something of business and economics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He should know as much as anyone who's taken a couple college econ classes, sure. Any more than that is wasted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Should know and should e the singular qualification for are two radically different things.
I guess because we were on an upswing back in 2000, Dubya's thoroughly mediocre business experience didn't signify, of course. If Bill Gates ran on the Democratic ticket, Republicans would of course pivot again.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Destineer, do you claim to be a prophet who knows the future for certain? Are you that sure I am wrong?
What did you think I was saying about the future, Ron?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Ron's doing the whole "grandma said he was born in Kenya!" thing again I see.
Last time he posted a video and claimed she said it in the video. When challenged for where exactly she says it (spoiler: she doesn't) he kept dodging the question until finally the thread died. Takes some balls to bring it back up after looking ridiculous the last time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not really. Ron has long been dead to all shame when it comes to questions of objective on some issues, this being a classic. At this point there is literally nothing that anyone would think might shake Ron from a belief he wants to believe in, and when anyone who doesn't sign on is a heathen hater of America, it's not only hard to change his mind, he CAN'T without becoming one himself. Very tidy little cul de sac of dishonest politics here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ron you have convinced me, you have convinced me in what I have long suspected but never dared to truly critically examine. You have, through your posting successfully convinced me of the errors of my worldview and I have been forced to reexamine them thoroughly and with an open mind come to what is now obviously, and self evidently the correct and only conclusion that can reasonably be made. The cloud has been lifted, my mind is free from its shackles of orthodox thought. In this freedom I can now state what is now to me, absolute truth.
You, of no fault of your own, are an "evil" human being. No wait, wait for it. I don't mean it the way most people mean it, its more that you have convinced me that morality as I have previously known it, is entirely in error and with my new correct point of view I can now objectively determine where good and evil exists. You are not evil for what you do or say, you are evil because you are Christian. Because you see, and this is now clear to me given historical facts. That Christianity as a religion is inherently evil, its morality is fundamentally wrong. To the very foundation of its being Christianity is an evil and unnatural abberation to the natural Human Condition.
For you see, because Christianity attempts to instill values of absolute morality and virtues upon humanity, it commits the same grievous errors as Marx and Communism. It attempts to change human nature against itself, the difference is only in the degree of success before it is noticed in its scam, in its cultlike effort to spread its altered and perversed truth of the universe to its followers, to the point that it has infected government and the way we live and organize ourselves. Christianity is the ultimate evil, and Jesus Christ by accepting all of mankind's sins is in fact the most abhorrent and evil individual to have ever existed or will ever exist. No greater evil has been committed by any other individual, no greater evil could be committed than that of Jesus's sacrifice.
Humans are individual beings, but we evolved to be societal creatures in order to survive. Its inherent in us to some degree to cooperate to construct society, there is a strand of collectivism there that makes communism intellectually palatable to a large number of people. However Marx's philosopher governors went too far, they tried to eliminate the self, and the individual completely; this is against human nature, it runs counter to our instincts. Even if human thought and language were rewritten to remove even the ability to think of rebellion or dissent we would instinctually resist because it is in our nature to.
Christianity commits the greater evil however, in that it efforts to eliminate the self by saying we are equal because we struggle equally for the same reward. This is a lie, and through its perversion of human nature through these lies Christianity commits the greater evil. Because Christianity, in its ultimate aim by spreading virtue seeks to destroy human dignity, our ability to achieve goals greater than ourselves, to achieve godhood. It denies us our rightful place among the stars by removing our will to power.
The Greek you see, knew what it was talking about. The Greek and their cousins the Romans, possessed prior to the spread of Christianity that destroyed Rome, the Will to Power. The Greek knew that if he by accident, injured the daughter of a family who owned the woods he was hunting in, they had every objective right to do more than inflict an equal injury or compensation. But to maim or ultimately kill him, and the Greek who committed the accident would not cry out against false injustice, he would accept his truly just punishment with a smile, because he knew that with every action the ultimate and possible result is death as the just punishment for his will for power.
In more lawless times there is the proof of this, the proof of this precendented truth. When in the middle ages the Peasant sometimes without even leaving his house, may risk death and destruction at anytime. Just as the Nobles who falsely claim their superiority, these nobles are just as likely to die for their grand ambitions and projects, as the Peasant is for their smaller ones. Their fate were ultimately equal in this regard.
But now and today, the proof of Christianities evil, in its reversal of human nature is easily seen in how the average American "Citizen" now without leaving their home are just as likely to "Die" in a sense. They have their own will to power, and they accept the fate that they might lose their game of Americanized Russian Roulette at anytime just for the chance to improve their lives. That's why they work extra jobs, that is why they take risks, they know the consequences very well. The Citizen of today is in many respects no different from the Peasant of the Middle Ages.
But what of the modern day Noble? The Capitalist? Is his fate the same as the Noble who preceded him? Shockingly it is not so! The Noble of today is exceedingly unlikely to lose anything at all! The millions won and lost daily by the transient millionares is of no consequence to the accumulating wealth of those with billions at thei r finger tips, they do not face death on a daily basis. They see comfort and no risk, they have rigged the system to their benefit and their insulation from the risks of the Citizen.
And why is this? Christian Virtue is why, it is Christian virtue that interrupted the natural process of cause and effect, the capitalist whose products murdered thousands through pollution, would have lost his head and the desolation of his family and his accessories to the crime to the crowds of Modern Hypothetical Greeks. But Christianity instead demands an eye for an eye, but how does one man trade 10,000 eyes if he only has his two? So he compensates with a smile with his money and a negligible amount of his reputation, for he can always make more money and his reputation has no consequence.
We can see how in nations without the influence of Christianity that the situation is very different, in China for instance executions are common for those who lost their will to power, and the people through providence or numbers have a unique ability to claim such a toll. The People know death may come if they fail, but when they succeed they succeed while their local Capitalist head rolls; true sometimes the Capitalist is saved through their associates, but it is without a doubt that they are playing Russian Roulette with Chinese Characteristics; everyone with power has their neck on the line each and every day and death is imminent should they fail for even a second.
So because Christianity and Jesus, through their doctrine protects the Capitalist, they are evil and without redeeming qualities; and Jesus, its originator, is its most evil human being to have walked the Earth.
I am now a nihilist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I still think Obama was probably born in Kenya, like his grandmother said he was. And I wonder if the foreign student listed in his college yearbook, Barry Soetoro, ever changed his citizenship from Indonesian back to American. Could that be why his college records are sealed?
Hey Ron, you are totally just as completely, incredibly wrong as you were last time, so to save everyone some time I'll just link everyone to how wrong you are and we can relive that hilarity and watch you repeatedly ignore or deny incredibly basic facts (like how your video never had us watch obama's granny say that obama was born in kenya, like you claim) and watch you use a completely worthless video (which even the birther orgs in question don't trust and think was set up against them because it's so easy to knock down) as the basis for your continued birtherism.
Because, let's face it. You're irrationally gullible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And why is this? Christian Virtue is why, it is Christian virtue that interrupted the natural process of cause and effect, the capitalist whose products murdered thousands through pollution, would have lost his head and the desolation of his family and his accessories to the crime to the crowds of Modern Hypothetical Greeks. But Christianity instead demands an eye for an eye, but how does one man trade 10,000 eyes if he only has his two? So he compensates with a smile with his money and a negligible amount of his reputation, for he can always make more money and his reputation has no consequence.
We can see how in nations without the influence of Christianity that the situation is very different, in China for instance executions are common for those who lost their will to power, and the people through providence or numbers have a unique ability to claim such a toll. The People know death may come if they fail, but when they succeed they succeed while their local Capitalist head rolls; true sometimes the Capitalist is saved through their associates, but it is without a doubt that they are playing Russian Roulette with Chinese Characteristics; everyone with power has their neck on the line each and every day and death is imminent should they fail for even a second.
So because Christianity and Jesus, through their doctrine protects the Capitalist, they are evil and without redeeming qualities; and Jesus, its originator, is its most evil human being to have walked the Earth.
I am now a nihilist.
Aaaand this is also kind of completely crazy. Okay, great thread everybody, let's pack it up, we're off!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm really not sure how much of that, or even if any, was a parody of Ron's crazy or what was actually sincere.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Both Communism and Christianity have stared into the abyss, but only Christianity had the inherent weakness to blink.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL....I didn't think it was possible for you to sound more ridiculousness, Blayne.
I stand corrected.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I thought I had a fairly hyperbolous contribution to this page, but it seems I have been outmastered.
quote:And what "obviously out-of-date document" are you referring to? The Constitution of the USA? Yes, that ingenious document is what restrains "progressive" fools from turning America into a socialist backwater with equal ruin for all.
Yup, lol. That's the one!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blayne, if that was a parody, that was brilliant. If you meant that seriously, I'm very sorry that Ron broke you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The thing that gets me about Republican's response to Reid's accusation, is that it would be so trivially easy for Romney to prove him wrong. He wouldn't even need to release all the hundreds of pages of financial documents associate with the returns.
Even millionaires use the same 2 page 1040 form I do which summarize gross income, deductions and total taxes paid. Releasing just that much would prove how much income tax he paid.
So why settle for just calling Reid a liar when you could easily prove he's lying?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Romneys campaign is pretty much curled up in the fetal position now.
This mess about welfare reform and his shrill cries about voting military families in Ohio are indicative of a candidate who just doesn't give a crap anymore, if ever. He's locked into lying, and he'd rather lie to continue his narrative than tell the truth and risk revealing what's behind the curtain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think he doesn't give a crap. I think most likely that even as a man of multiple fairweather personas, and even as a man who is used to just wearing whatever mask is the most politically expedient, he is most likely (privately) ruing the now-understood-in-full terms of the faustian bargain he signed up to. He had to remake himself as a candidate that could be viable with the conservative base as his core, but the practical requirements of doing what it takes to appeal to that group is just nuts.
Perhaps the strategy is to wait for a worldwide economic collapse to shockwave over from the asian markets over to our own, then blame obama for everything.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, I am hoping it was a parody. Like Tom said, if it was in was a riot.
If not....well, I still get to laugh, just not for the same reasons. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Perhaps the strategy is to wait for a worldwide economic collapse to shockwave over from the asian markets over to our own, then blame obama for everything.
to note: this is not snark. It could legitimately be the workable strategy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ron....thank you. I had been thinking the world was a sane place, filled with things like logic and proof that could help people make logical and informed decisions about their future.
I stand corrected.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that's a fair observation Sam. Romney is trying to straddle the growing divide between the republican base and rational moderates which is becoming increasingly impossible to do. Any specifics about what he (or anyone else for that matter) would do with taxes, spending, or just about anything else are bound to alienate either the hard core conservative base or the moderates. The only thing he can really do is try to divert people attention away from him and onto Obama's weaknesses and so far it's not working.
I said some time ago that this election season was going to get really ugly. Neither side is all that exited about their own candidate so they are going to fan the flames of hatred against the other side.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Perhaps the strategy is to wait for a worldwide economic collapse to shockwave over from the asian markets over to our own, then blame obama for everything.
to note: this is not snark. It could legitimately be the workable strategy.
Hasn't this has been the official if unspoken Republican party strategy since Nov. 2008? It's the only way the past four years of government gridlock make any sense whatsoever. The republicans recognized in 2008 that the worst possible scenario for their party was an economic recovery under democratic leadership and so they've done everything they could to stop that from happening.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:I'm not debating whether or not he should release more tax returns. My entire point was that Reid is phishing and people are making this more of a controversy than it should be. Root suggested that Romney bring back the college transcript controversy to shut Reid and the Obama campaign up. Root's suggestion to Romney shows just how silly the entire argument by Reid is.
So, wait, the discussion was about Romney's tax information, and you abruptly changed the subject to how awful Reid is, and that's not to be construed as a defense?
It's obviously a defense. And anyway, I was never talking about Reid but rather the right's hypocrisy by its own stated principles. The fact that members of the left are bad too doesn't change that. I don't care if there actually was compelling evidence Obama did something heinous in college or was born in Kenya, as deceitul fanatics such as Ron keep on insisting until repetition creates its own credibility. The point is, you guys are supposed to care about limiting the power of government and keeping it small, honest, and transparent.
But you don't. Why can I say this? Because when it's your guy you would have to be casting a critical eye towards, you don't. If you don't want to have the hypocritical absurdity of that thrown in your face, then your response to Romney's unprecedented-in-recent-history secrecy about himself shouldn't be, "But what about Harry Reid?"
Just like my response to the Romney-killed-my-wife ad isn't to point out how common the belief in the Republican base is that Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Communist working deliberately to turn the USA into a Third World nation, even though that is perfectly true. My response instead is to point out what a contemptible political trick that is, and how dishonest, and that I have lost substantial respect for Obama for fielding it.
quote:I'm not arguing that Romney should or shouldn't release more tax returns. I'm arguing that the accusations made are nothing more than an attempt to push an agenda and create controversy.
First of all, the controversy isn't one manufactured by the Obama campaign. It's a big deal when a candidate tells voters, "You don't need to know as much about me as any other candidate for decades." That is an actual story. Second, the 'agenda' being pushed? That's supposed to be your agenda! Politicians answerable to us, they have to convince us to trust them, control over the government, so on and so forth. That's supposed to be your gig, pushing that agenda!
But that's not your agenda, which is my point. Your (Republicans, and especially the Republican base) agenda is: No-Obama. That is also an agenda being pushed, and *that* is the one they, and you, care about. So you folks can talk all you like about small government and how you want to limit its power and how you're wary of government control and excess and deceit, but damnit, you've lost that card with people who actually pay attention to what your political stands actually are. And I say that as a registered Independent who voted for Dubya twice, who would love for Republicans to field a candidate who actually stands for conservative government principles so I could consider voting for them, but who gets instead Palins and Romneys.
quote:And let's be honest. Whether or not Romney releases the tax returns, the Obama campaign wins. If he releases them it shows that he caved and possibly gives the Obama Campaign ammunition. If he doesn't release them, then he will continue to get attacked by the campaign anyways, but could possibly show to his base that he is willing to stand up to the Obama campaign.
This is a political concern, not one of principles and Geraine-thank you for illustrating my point so neatly. Your two main arguments as to why the Romney campaign shouldn't release information are: Democrats are bad too, and it would be harmful to the campaign. Well, exactly. There you go. One-term president is, by your own words, the guiding light of Republicans.
quote:Your call of hyprocrisy is weak. If vetting candidates is so important to you (it should be) where were you in 2008 when there was a candidate that nobody knew anything about? Ayers or Rezko ties? Ah, those don't matter! Just sweep it under the rug. Drug use? Meh, no big deal. Black Liberation theology? Hey, good for him!
First of all, unless you have a better source for ANY of that than your wingnut political link above, well I'll be surprised and impressed. Second, my vote for Obama was strongly, even mostly, a vote against McCain because of his pick of Palin. Other considerations became secondary to the problem of his horrifically bad judgment naming her, and the very serious possibility that she might've become President.
So...again, Geraine, nice try. But an argument of equivalency, which is all you've done except to defend the Romney campaign's preservation instinct, isn't actually a committment to principle...unless that principle is only No-Obama. Which it clearly is.
Just say so is all. Don't pretend to actually cling to your own virtues. Not outside of Fox News and talk radio, anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... For me I wouldn't mind one wit if Romney used loop holes to avoid paying taxes ...
Different people mind different things though.
He's obviously performed a pretty simple calculation that the tax dodges he's used are damaging enough politically that the current situation is better.
It's one thing for the middle class to use borderline tax dodges "for them" (not sure what the American equivalent is, but here one can, say, donate to a disreputable tax shelter that might not survive a in-depth audit) and many Americans would probably have sympathy for that.
But say he had a hand in creating the loopholes that he used (i.e. "Romney voted for this loophole which allows him to pay X less than you") or the loophole involves funnelling money through a country that might rile up his base (i.e. "Romney sends his money to China to avoid paying taxes"), then the cost may very well be higher than letting this Reid thing peter out by November.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Has Mitt Romney released his College Transcripts? If so, I can't find any record of it.
I don't really care whether he has or not. No one in the business world asks to see your college transcripts unless it's your first job out of school. Once you've had a few years of real world experience, your professional track record says a lot more about you than your performance on tests you took years ago.
I'm just saying that the request isn't equivalent unless Romney has released his transcripts. Obama has released his tax returns for the past 12 years so when Democrats call on Romney to release his, they are asking him to do something their candidate has already don. When Republicans call on Obama to release his College transcripts, they are demanding something from him that they haven't asked of their own candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Neither side is all that exited about their own candidate so they are going to fan the flames of hatred against the other side.
I hear this all over the place but it's really just not true. Obama really does not have a base problem. The last RCP shows obama at 86.9 approval, 10.7 disapproval. For the most part — overwhelmingly, really — Democrats like Obama just fine.
There's lots of grousing about Obama for not delivering An Pony or whatever — and this is consistent with liberals being liberals, we're basically hipster garbage when it comes to politics, I posted a pretty good soc article about this once — but the narrative about Widespread Democratic Disappointment with the False Messiah is cloud-seeding and convenient illusion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I guess as long as I'm becoming a voracious doesn't-do-anything-but-talk-about-how-bad-Mitt-is one-note commentator (guh) I might as well pile it on even higher: political ads descending into complete lies.
quote:Paul Waldman has done a lot of academic research on political ads. In fact, he says, he has personally watched "every single presidential general election campaign ad ever aired since the first ones in 1952." So what does he think of Mitt Romney's new ad that claims President Obama has a plan for "dropping work requirements" for welfare? "Under Obama's plan," says the narrator, "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
quote:
I've seen ads that were more inflammatory than this one, and ads that were in various ways more reprehensible than this one (not many, but some). But I cannot recall a single presidential campaign ad in the history of American politics that lied more blatantly than this one.
....Usually candidates deceive voters by taking something their opponent says out of context, or giving a tendentious reading to facts, or distorting the effects of policies. But in this case, Romney and his people looked at a policy of the Obama administration to allow states to pursue alternative means of placing welfare recipients in jobs, and said, "Well, how about if we just say that they're eliminating all work requirements and just sending people checks?" I have no idea if someone in the room said, "We could say that, but it's not even remotely true," and then someone else said, "Who gives a crap?", or if nobody ever suggested in the first place that this might be problematic. But either way, they decided that they don't even have to pretend to be telling the truth anymore.
This is what's so striking about Romney's campaign. As Paul says, it's common to twist and distort and cherry pick. But Romney has flatly claimed that Obama said something that, in fact, a John McCain aide said. He's snipped out sentences from an Obama speech and spliced the two halves back together so nobody could tell what he did. Then he did it again to another Obama speech. And he unequivocally said that Obama plans to drop work requirements for welfare even though he's done nothing of the sort.
This really is a post-truth campaign. It's different.
Campaign ads are worse than they have ever been and I am in a swing state. I literally just stopped watching TV. Full stop.
ARGH except now youtube and other internet video are now ALSO getting swamped with this crap ldjghsdlghjdsfg
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Just like my response to the Romney-killed-my-wife ad isn't to point out how common the belief in the Republican base is that Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Communist working deliberately to turn the USA into a Third World nation, even though that is perfectly true. My response instead is to point out what a contemptible political trick that is, and how dishonest, and that I have lost substantial respect for Obama for fielding it.
Technically, the Obama campaign didn't field it. It was a super pac.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I know. But I think we both know that if the Obama campaign let it be known up front they were committed to not supporting that sort of thing, or had come out immediately to express unqualified disgust if it was made.
That's quite aside from the point that if we'll tar Romney for fielding support from Birthers, then we can hardly shy away from admitting complicity here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only has Obama not removed the work requirement, more control over welfare programs has actually been returned *to state governments*, something Republicans should be universally ecstatic about.
Instead the story is that Obama has removed the work requirement in some mustache-twirling villain to give money to welfare mothers forever or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why is it that we start frothing at the mouth at the idea of a poor person catching a break that might not be "deserved"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is it that we start frothing at the mouth at the idea of a poor person catching a break that might not be "deserved"?
Base american neo-puritanist mentalities at work. Hard-sold narratives about 'handout culture' and welfare leeches and how we are training people to stay needy. Not evidenced by social research, of course, but there you go.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But anyway, about the part of your quote I deceptively cut away so that I could comment on it...
I've seen this defense of that Obama remark and it really baffles me. The first time I saw it, I saw the full clip, including the part in the middle Romney cuts out. And I absolutely interpreted it the same way the Romney campaign did. The idea that someone interpreted it a different way actually baffled me when I first saw Jon Stewart make that claim.
The excised part doesn't change the Romney interpretation, it reinforces it. In the excised part he talks about how if you were successful, somebody helped you, and roads and bridges helped you, and the American system helped you. That ties perfectly into the idea that nobody built their business on their own, and, in fact, other people helped make it happen.
On top of that, it's a total contortion of the English language to assume that the word "that" refers to a noun other than the most recently used applicable noun. In this context, the clear winner noun is "business." Why would he be saying that an individual successful person today didn't build the entire American infrastructure? That's a total non sequitur and irrelevant.
So I think this deflection is totally absurd. But it gets better!
Because even if we grant that the deflection is right, and when Obama says "you didn't build that" the "that" is referring, not to an individual's business, but to the American infrastructure/system... then the meaning of his speech still doesn't change!
Because then he's still said: Nobody achieves success on their own, and nobody achieves success due primarily to their intelligence or hard work. Instead, the main reason people are successful is because of the help they get from teachers, roads, bridges, and other government services, which they did not personally build.
Which means the application of "you didn't build that" to an individual's business is the conclusion that logically follows.
I just don't get this level of weaseling. These seem like some pretty basic left/right ideology differences. I was utterly unsurprised by what Obama said, and I assumed that most people who align with his ideology agreed with his sentiment.
Why run from it so hard? Why the big act about Romney lying and deceptively editing his speech?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because then he's still said: Nobody achieves success on their own, and nobody achieves success due primarily to their intelligence or hard work. Instead, the main reason people are successful is because of the help they get from teachers, roads, bridges, and other government services, which they did not personally build.
The first thing-nobody in America achieves success entirely on their own-is simply, undeniably true. Your personal politics may or may not lead you to recoil from that, but that doesn't change anything.
The second thing-the part where you insist he was claiming no one's success is primarily due to their own effort-is a complete fabrication, I'm not claiming it was intentional, founded in what you perceive as 'left ideology' or something. You would be very hard pressed to find, so long as you didn't cherry pick, any actual Democrats or even liberals who would acknowledge that belief as their own, unless you're reading their minds or something. You're welcome to try it sometime, if you like, just out in the world, with actual Democrats instead of the ones Republicans and libertarians like to talk about:p. I'm being pretty heavy on the incredulous sarcasm because (and I don't say this should matter to you), I was really surprised to see you label that belief that way, and it made me really question just how much of a handle you actually have on what people who disagree with you think. If this is an example, that handle is rotten wood covered in grease.
So anyway, that's why 'run from it so fast': it's not an actual left or Democratic belief.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait, but that part of the Obama quote isn't even being disputed, Rakeesh...
quote: Obama Said: If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be ‘cause I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
Maybe we're arguing over the definition of "primarily?" The part that I bolded seems to strongly support what I meant by my statement earlier. How do you interpret it?
Again: To me, it very specifically seems to be downplaying the amount that hard work/intelligence contribute to success. How did I misunderstand?
(As I think I've said before, I was a leftist until less than a decade ago, and most of my friends and all of my family still are leftist of one stripe or another, so... yeah. I'm not trying to cherrypick or use fabrications or whatnot. Let's focus more on communicating clearly and less on assuming that the other person is incapable of doing so due to their politics)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting that Gov. Romney is trying to run on his business experience and run away from it at the same time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
Without trying to be hostile or aggressive, it's really not just an assumption I'm making here, that you don't understand the opposition's politics. Let's look at what you brought up yourself, and I'll try to illustrate.
"You didn't get there on your own." The only thing this statement can be factually said to claim is that one's 'getting there' has some amount of outside help. That's all. It hints at no proportions whatsoever, making only the statement that no one achieves success with only their own efforts. Any other interpretation you bring to it isn't coming from the words themselves, but from some outside source.
"Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."
The same thing is true here. The words themselves hint at no proportions of ownership of success at all, just that it never exists exclusively because of individual effort.
quote:Again: To me, it very specifically seems to be downplaying the amount that hard work/intelligence contribute to success. How did I misunderstand?
Oh, now on this I absolutely agree. The statement is downplaying it-from an artificially high, never substantiated by any sort of research ideology that every human is an island, that when the rare few succeed they ought to reap the rewards and the credit entirely to themselves. A pretty self-destructive belief, when you consider that of course most will never achieve enormous success and catering a political system to them is thus foolhardy.
Or do you disagree with the actual content of the statement? Does anyone in the United States achieve success entirely on their own, with no outside assistance of any kind before they achieved their success? Because let me tell you, I'm struggling to think of a modern American businessperson or politician or anyone who has achieved great success in their field who doesn't have somewhere in their past a moving figure, a helping hand, someone who chipped in when things were at their worst or provided a steady, ongoing safety and security. Can you think of any such examples that would contradict what Obama actually said, as opposed to what you're reading into it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
Without trying to be hostile or aggressive, it's really not just an assumption I'm making here, that you don't understand the opposition's politics. Let's look at what you brought up yourself, and I'll try to illustrate.
Sounds good.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: "You didn't get there on your own." The only thing this statement can be factually said to claim is that one's 'getting there' has some amount of outside help. That's all. It hints at no proportions whatsoever, making only the statement that no one achieves success with only their own efforts. Any other interpretation you bring to it isn't coming from the words themselves, but from some outside source.
"Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."
The same thing is true here. The words themselves hint at no proportions of ownership of success at all, just that it never exists exclusively because of individual effort.
Sure, I'm interpreting the words a certain way, that's absolutely true. All you're doing here is suggesting that there are other ways to interpret what he said. That's true too!
So far, though, you haven't given an explanation for why I should use your interpretation. And below, you give a compelling argument that I should, in fact, use my original interpretation! Let's continue.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Again: To me, it very specifically seems to be downplaying the amount that hard work/intelligence contribute to success. How did I misunderstand?
Oh, now on this I absolutely agree. The statement is downplaying it-from an artificially high, never substantiated by any sort of research ideology that every human is an island, that when the rare few succeed they ought to reap the rewards and the credit entirely to themselves. A pretty self-destructive belief, when you consider that of course most will never achieve enormous success and catering a political system to them is thus foolhardy.
Right, so, am I correct in reading this to mean that you believe that the people who take the opposite side to Obama sincerely believe, and espouse their belief, that every man is an island, and that nobody who is successful utilizes any help from anyone else or uses roads or bridges or any American traditions?
Because if the Republicans or ultraconservatives or whatever you want to call them don't take that attitude, then what would be the point of Obama's speech, interpreted the way you suggested earlier?
I mean, he's arguing with somebody, right?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Or do you disagree with the actual content of the statement? Does anyone in the United States achieve success entirely on their own, with no outside assistance of any kind before they achieved their success? Because let me tell you, I'm struggling to think of a modern American businessperson or politician or anyone who has achieved great success in their field who doesn't have somewhere in their past a moving figure, a helping hand, someone who chipped in when things were at their worst or provided a steady, ongoing safety and security. Can you think of any such examples that would contradict what Obama actually said, as opposed to what you're reading into it?
As I tried to lay out above, you're presenting a sort of pointless dichotomy here. Few people think that people succeed without any help or cooperation from anyone. That's not what's at issue, but the fact that you keep acting like it is demonstrates that you really don't understand your own opposition. Sorry.
To answer your question, though, about what I think?
I think context matters. People succeed or fail within their contexts. They deserve responsibility for their success or failure within that context. What purpose is served by measuring them against someone in a different context? What problem does that solve?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think the president's point was that the only way it would make sense to do without a welfare safety net would be if people were always entirely responsible for their success or failure. Since they aren't, the ideology he opposes must rest on a mistake. Either the right doesn't realize that people aren't always 100% responsible for their outcomes, or else they mistakenly think that people should be forced to live with bad outcomes that they aren't entirely responsible for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
quote:Sure, I'm interpreting the words a certain way, that's absolutely true. All you're doing here is suggesting that there are other ways to interpret what he said. That's true too!
So far, though, you haven't given an explanation for why I should use your interpretation. And below, you give a compelling argument that I should, in fact, use my original interpretation! Let's continue.
Actually, what I said was that there was a baseline to the remarks that don't admit any kind of proportions of responsibility for success-merely that they exist. That is the only thing we can say his remarks definitely say. You'll have to show where his words clearly say what you claim they say, because put simply you haven't yet.
quote:Right, so, am I correct in reading this to mean that you believe that the people who take the opposite side to Obama sincerely believe, and espouse their belief, that every man is an island, and that nobody who is successful utilizes any help from anyone else or uses roads or bridges or any American traditions?
It's something of a theme, yes. But like Obama's remarks, I would hesitate before ascribing that to anyone but the far, far right.
quote:Because if the Republicans or ultraconservatives or whatever you want to call them don't take that attitude, then what would be the point of Obama's speech, interpreted the way you suggested earlier?
I mean, he's arguing with somebody, right?
The most obvious, likely intent, stripped of any suspicious-of-leftist-politics would be simply that Obama's words meant what they literally said, and then inferring that the proportion is probably higher than conservatives would be willing to credit.
quote:As I tried to lay out above, you're presenting a sort of pointless dichotomy here. Few people think that people succeed without any help or cooperation from anyone. That's not what's at issue, but the fact that you keep acting like it is demonstrates that you really don't understand your own opposition. Sorry.
But I never presented that as a commonly held conservative belief-just as a theme, an influence. Whereas you come right out and say, applying your own interpretation only possibly admitted by the words, that he was saying the extreme end of the opposition theme. The only dichotomy I presented was that the only way you could actually disagree with the *facts* of what Obama's words said was to say that Americans have at times achieved success entirely without help. I made no other statements than that.
quote: I think context matters. People succeed or fail within their contexts. They deserve responsibility for their success or failure within that context. What purpose is served by measuring them against someone in a different context? What problem does that solve?
Precisely because context does matter, and we are trying to make policy for a nation, not just a group of individuals-and especially because what Romney is advocating is that we design policy around the privileged context. Which is great for people within it.
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I think context matters. People succeed or fail within their contexts. They deserve responsibility for their success or failure within that context. What purpose is served by measuring them against someone in a different context? What problem does that solve? [/QB]
Examples make philosophical discussion easier so I'll give you one:
You're an amazing, absolutely brilliant comedian. You work tirelessly at your craft and come up with new, genius material every few months. Here's the fork in the analogy:
1.) You're born in the US, perform at the largest venues to sold out crowds, have a special on HBO and Comedy Central and are a successful millionaire enjoying life.
2.) You're born in Soviet Russia, you perform in small venues but a few people find your jokes offensive and against the communist manifesto and report it to officials. You're jailed for a year. Things get a bit better in the 90's so you can make a living but will at best be making middle class level salary.
The President's point and what most people realize is that a lot of your success is based on the environment around you and not just on your intelligence, hard work, or god-given abilities. I think it's reasonable to feel that when you succeed in the American dream, you owe a bit back to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Did you come up with the stand-up comic example yourself, Slavim? Never heard that one that I remember, seems very apt.
It runs right up against the themes of American exceptionalism thick in American politics in general and the Romney campaign in particular. Speaking for myself, I actually do subscribe quite a bit to that theme...but I also recognize just how much of an impact having a very poorly defended, wide open, enormously rich continent to attempt to exploit has had on our success as a nation, and on us individually.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The thing that gets me about Republican's response to Reid's accusation, is that it would be so trivially easy for Romney to prove him wrong. He wouldn't even need to release all the hundreds of pages of financial documents associate with the returns.
Even millionaires use the same 2 page 1040 form I do which summarize gross income, deductions and total taxes paid. Releasing just that much would prove how much income tax he paid.
So why settle for just calling Reid a liar when you could easily prove he's lying?
True, but how long would it be before they demand all of the other forms showing all of the deductions Romney took?
Rakeesh, I'm done. There is no point arguing with you, because all you are going to do is repeat your "Nobama" mantra, twist words, and make it fit your argument. You don't want to understand what I am saying, so let's just leave it where it is, and move on. I'm sure part of it is me not explaining myself well enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:True, but how long would it be before they demand all of the other forms showing all of the deductions Romney took?
Rakeesh, I'm done. There is no point arguing with you, because all you are going to do is repeat your "Nobama" mantra, twist words, and make it fit your argument. You don't want to understand what I am saying, so let's just leave it where it is, and move on. I'm sure part of it is me not explaining myself well enough.
How long will it be before Republicans insist on the sort of disclosure Obama has already given, much less the kind of disclosure their own ideology claims to insist is important? Sometime before or after hell freezes over?
As for twisting words...you're welcome to show precisely where I've done that. Pointing out that your objections were entirely limited to 'but what about Reid' and 'it would be bad for the campaign' isn't, in fact, twisting words. It's not twisting words to point out your attempted zing about Obama, positively loaded with lunatic fringe right conspiracy nonsense, by the way, didn't actually register since my reasons for voting Obama had a great deal to do with McCain's terrible choice. Nor is it twisting words to point out all of this indicates a huge paradox, to use the nicer word, within the GOP, or that business experience wasn't nearly as important when you fielded a candidate whose experience was mediocre.
The 'Nobama' mantra isn't mine, it's yours. Storming off in a huff when it's pointed out to you illustrates that. But then, I've never known you on Hatrack to fail to fine a way to vote conservative and toe the party line. But we're not on Fox and Friends right now, so no, complaints of equivalency aren't going to be taken at face value.
But while we're talking about vetting...Romney is carefully not running on the only actual government experience he's got. He can't, because to do so would infuriate his base and cede a huge portion of his platform to his opponents, but anyway. What we're left with is someone running on...business experience and administering an Olympics. Man. At his age, what a record!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He picked his vice president.
Ryan.
quote:Romney’s original intention was to make the 2012 election a referendum on President Obama’s management of the economy. Ryan makes it a choice between two competing plans for deficit reduction. This election increasingly resembles the Obama campaign’s strategy rather than the Romney campaign’s strategy.
quote:Ryan upends Romney’s whole strategy. Until now, Romney’s play has been very simple: Don’t get specific. In picking Ryan, he has yoked himself to each and every one of Ryan’s specifics. And some of those specifics are quite…surprising. For instance: Ryan has told the Congressional Budget Office that his budget will bring all federal spending outside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050. That means defense, infrastructure, education, food safety, basic research, and food stamps — to name just a few — will be less than four percent of GDP in 2050. To get a sense for how unrealistic that is, Congress has never permitted defense spending to fall below three percent of GDP, and Romney has pledged that he’ll never let defense spending fall beneath four percent of GDP. It will be interesting to hear him explain away the difference.
This is now a ticket only for people who live in a fantasy world where either of their tax plans make any sense or are at all credible.
I'm inches away from intrade right now. Inches. I have to be shown something which doesn't indicate that this is just done. Gone. Sunk. Over.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hurr reid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow, I wasn't expecting Ryan, but rather another more mild VP candidate.
Well, Ryan's absurd, impossible-even-with-a-series-of-miracles is doubtless going to be a big hit with the base, and actually does help the Romney campaign run on some actual government that didn't take place in Massachussetts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
why do we have a political base that you can feed a completely unworkable CBO-verified garbage untenable fantasy tax plan to and they will consider it a 'big hit.'
why is this an actual political base.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So, Tom, am I spending all my fall weekends canvassing in WI or giving it up to concentrate on Ohio or Iowa?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Good question. Honestly, I think that depends on whether or not the drooling idiots who voted for Walker figure out that he delivered a steaming pack of lies to them or not by November.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And who is allowed to vote.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Does anyone in the United States achieve success entirely on their own, with no outside assistance of any kind before they achieved their success? Because let me tell you, I'm struggling to think of a modern American businessperson or politician or anyone who has achieved great success in their field who doesn't have somewhere in their past a moving figure, a helping hand, someone who chipped in when things were at their worst or provided a steady, ongoing safety and security. Can you think of any such examples that would contradict what Obama actually said, as opposed to what you're reading into it?
This is relevant to what you are trying to point out.
3. Ryan's father died when Paul was only 16. Using the Social Security survivors benefits he received until his 18th birthday, he paid for his education at Miami University in Ohio, where he completed a bachelor's degree in economics and political science in 1992.
4. Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for his family's construction business before being elected to Congress. Ryan Incorporated Central began as an earthmoving business created by his great-grandfather in 1884.
Ryan is the perfect example. Here is a man who believes in the same kind of tea party libertarian bootstrappiness and wants to gut the system and let people sink or swim. Yet look at all the opportunity he had. A family business he could run. The government is there at a low point and in response to tragedy gives him the means to get into college and make who he is today possible. All so he can just get right to the height of power and be part of a campaign which is ideologically required to disdain and spit venom at the very idea Obama is speaking to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, there's really nothing more antithetical to the Calvinist based bootstrap mentality than the concept of actual, authentically lucky happenstance. Malcolm Gladwell has written extensively on the degree to which luck is minimized by society in preference for "hard work" and " positive thinking." it appears people would rather believe in magical powers than in luck- nobody wants to believe that success and happiness is transient and not necessarily deserved.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Orin, its not luck--its Probability, which is a sub-set of Math, and you know that the majority of people hate Math. It requires them to think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Orin, its not luck--its Probability, which is a sub-set of Math, and you know that the majority of people hate Math. It requires them to think.
I hate math.
But I love to think.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Orin, its not luck--its Probability, which is a sub-set of Math, and you know that the majority of people hate Math. It requires them to think.
Yes, which is why we have supposedly serious individuals like Oprah Winfrey talking seriously about magic's influence on their lives.
But that does make sense, in a weird kind of way. It's not like she could have sold the inspirational aspects of her personal story, and justified her success, even to herself, while acknowledging that the other 999,999 people out of a million in similar life circumstances are lucky to become the assistant manager of Taco Bell.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible. Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election.
quote:If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one -- and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.” The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent. The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table. Favorable Conditions To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts. Democrats will not admit that obvious truth, because it would take away their fondly loved power to control other people's lives and money.
The question is whether the Romney administration and a Republican-controlled Senate and House would be able to enact significant spending cuts, since it would mean giving up power for them, too. We will just have to see if they can match spending cuts with tax cuts.
There might be some hope of them doing this, if they can finally get a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget--which in turn would be facilitated by giving the president a line item veto. Both these things are things that conservative Republicans have been calling for for decades.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts. Democrats will not admit that obvious truth, because it would take away their fondly loved power to control other people's lives and money.
Another transparent Ron Lambert lie. Democrats, while not nearly as enthusiastic about them as Republicans, have also been making serious cuts in spending throughout the nation, voting for them and pushing for them, for years now.
Think carefully, Ron: are you going to deny it? It's a falsehood above your usual standard, so here's a nice chance to qualify.
Posted by hef (Member # 12497) on :
Of course, the line-item veto was passed back in 94. It was promptly overturned by the courts. But it hasn't seemed to be that much of a Republican priority since then. I wonder why the Bush administration didn't want to get that passed?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Budget cuts are absolutely part of the conversation right now. But I would say as a general rule, getting the Democrats to agree to budget cuts is a much simpler matter than getting the Republicans to agree to tax increases or even allowing tax cuts to expire.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's a falsehood above your usual standard, so here's a nice chance to qualify.
His usual standard of, That thing you don't see happen in the video you're watching does happen in the video, and if you say it doesn't, you're lying?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd say that's his apogee of dishonesty, but not quite his usual standard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts. Democrats will not admit that obvious truth, because it would take away their fondly loved power to control other people's lives and money.
The question is whether the Romney administration and a Republican-controlled Senate and House would be able to enact significant spending cuts, since it would mean giving up power for them, too. We will just have to see if they can match spending cuts with tax cuts.
There might be some hope of them doing this, if they can finally get a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget--which in turn would be facilitated by giving the president a line item veto. Both these things are things that conservative Republicans have been calling for for decades.
Forget the Democrat vs. Republican part of this. What about all the evidence in the last three years of austerity's enactment around the world convinces you it's the way to solve our problems? Austerity has stalled the economic engine in Europe, and destroyed some of their economies.
Billions of dollars are being sucked out of the US economy when we cut major spending, which means lots of people get fired, and stop spending, and then more people get fired, and then they lose their houses, etc etc.
The first stimulus did what it was supposed to do. Now we need a second one. Once the economy is humming along, we can start scaling back on spending. But when the Republicans refuse to cut things like the defense budget, I really don't see it ever happening.
The Ryan budget isn't a serious budget. It's a partisan fantasy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts.
So in your alternate earth history, World war II simply kept us in a depression, as it put government spending through the roof. Therefore, it is impossible for that era, with a net spending increase, to be concurrent with economic recovery for any reason.
Or no, wait. You just made yet another indefensible statement you will stick with forever?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Only the most immense stupidity would lead anyone to deny that the real reason for the wreckage of European economies, as well as the downward spiral of our own, is spending more than legitimate income. Anyone who has ever managed a budget--personal or otherwise--has come face-to-face with this inarguable fact. If you live beyond your means, you are destroying yourself. This is a law of nature only complete fools ignore.
But politicos, and especially (more than anyone else) Democrats and liberals of all stripes, base their popularity and power on promising the masses more and more freebies. This is what destroyed ancient Rome--bread and circuses--and the principle remains operative today.
Cut spending to the point where you do not spend more than your legitimate income, or die. Absolutely die. There is no alternative outcome possible. And raising taxes to perpetuate overspending only makes matters worse, because that kills productivity.
Rakeesh, as usual, your obnoxious criticisms of me are invalid and only reveal your own character flaws.
Samprimary, you are just more of the same. Your analysis of the economic consequences of World War II are about the most ignorant I have ever come across. Spending did not end the Depression. Spending caused the Depression. Do you really believe that the tremendous, all-out effort to defend the nation, and free democracies, produced prosperity? Ever hear of rationing? Talk to people who lived through that time, and see if they think it was a time of prosperity. No passenger cars were made. All the automobile factories were making tanks. The prosperity came later, as the world rebounded from the desperate circumstances of war. And that took years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, to cut through your other associated drivel: you are still standing by your claim that Democrats refuse to admit cuts are needed?
I don't know if it's because you say, "Jesus!" in that super-special way or something that makes you think you can just will this to be true, but this is a provable falsehood, and I'd like to know if you're interested in standing by it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, you are just more of the same. Your analysis of the economic consequences of World War II are about the most ignorant I have ever come across. Spending did not end the Depression. Spending caused the Depression. Do you really believe that the tremendous, all-out effort to defend the nation, and free democracies, produced prosperity? Ever hear of rationing? Talk to people who lived through that time, and see if they think it was a time of prosperity. No passenger cars were made. All the automobile factories were making tanks. The prosperity came later, as the world rebounded from the desperate circumstances of war. And that took years.
Wow it's like you completely managed to miss what I said.
Read this again:
quote:So in your alternate earth history, World war II simply kept us in a depression, as it put government spending through the roof. Therefore, it is impossible for that era, with a net spending increase, to be concurrent with economic recovery for any reason.
Power word: concurrent.
The WWII era was an economic recovery. Nominal GDP went from 101.4b in 1940 to 173.52b in 1945. That is red-hot growth. 1944 alone saw a 28.14% increase in GDP.
During that time, federal spending alone went from 9.47b to 72.11b, rocketing up from less than ten percent of GDP to over 40%. It would not go back down to pre-war levels.
Your words — your exact, inescapable words, are "There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts." — and yet, our very own nation experienced an economic recovery concurrent to a massive growth of spending, both in absolute value as well as percentage of our total gross domestic product, ~and~ a significant degree of centralized governmental control of the economy — the very same rationing and forced re-appropriation of industry you speak of.
According to your words, this is impossible. There would be no way that the economy could recover, because there were no spending cuts at the time, spending grew, and stayed grown through to our next era of economic prosperity.
So, what you said is wrong.
It is an indefensible statement (well, unless you're Ron Lambert and you might be desperate enough to try to claim that an almost 75% GDP increase during a time period in which federal spending doubled two years in a row obviously does not count and continue to call me ignorant and stupid and project onto me as fast as you can).
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Only the most immense stupidity would lead anyone to deny that the real reason for the wreckage of European economies, as well as the downward spiral of our own, is spending more than legitimate income. Anyone who has ever managed a budget--personal or otherwise--has come face-to-face with this inarguable fact. If you live beyond your means, you are destroying yourself. This is a law of nature only complete fools ignore.
I think you're wrong. You CAN do very well by living beyond your means... at least for a short time.
Here's a simple example to demonstrate this: Bob wanted to go to college. Even with the part-time job he could get working in the cafeteria, Bob couldn't really afford college, but went anyway. Bob tried not to waste money while he was in college, but he didn't try to cut his expenses to match his income... he didn't stop doing maintenance on his car, he didn't stop feeding his cat, he didn't even stop helping out his elderly parents financially. Bob ended up taking out a lot of loans and lived well beyond his means for 4 years. When he got out he got a job. He eventually repaid all his loans and is now doing quite well, financially.
Debt isn't necessarily bad... it's unnecessary debt that's bad. Sure, we shouldn't waste money but there are A LOT of very smart economists out there pointing out that you cut your budget in good times, not in bad... because cutting it in bad makes it even worse.
Related thought... our infrastructure in this country is falling apart. It's appalling, in fact. We (which means the Government ultimately, unless we start making every interstate and bridge a toll road and start charging somehow for the locks and dams too) are going to have to fix it eventually if we want to keep our economy going. Construction costs are cheap now, as are interest rates. Seems to me now is the perfect time for our country to borrow a bunch of money to fix our infrastructure.... if we wait until "we recover" it's going to cost us a heck of a lot more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think we all agree that crushing debt is bad. But using austerity to get out of that debt is also bad. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I don't know why you think they are.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Because he thinks the government and the economy work the way his bank account does. A lot of people do.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So you think that the laws of economics are different for nations than for individuals? Like individuals, nations can live beyond their means, for a while--as just_me said. But there comes a time when your credit is exhausted. This takes longer for nations, but eventually the Chinese and whoever else is going to stop buying our treasury notes. Then we will be just as bad off as Spain. Obama will have acheived his number one secret agenda item, of turning America into a third world nation.
But even before you reach the point of credit collapse, you are paying more and more in interest payments, so that you have less and less you can really afford to spend. You (and nations) are forced to borrow more, to keep up their standard of living. Until like Greece and Spain, and the rest of Europe, it all comes crashing down.
For individuals, when that point is reached, all you can do is declare bankruptcy, or else run off and live in the woods. For nations, you have depressions from which it takes a decade or more to recover.
Oh, and by the way, returning to the WWII discussion, remember that America was in a depression when WWII came along. The extreme austerity measures during the half decade we were at war, were necessary. Of course when production could turn from wartime to peacetime, there was a significant gain in GDP. But that was a gain over Depression era GDP, so it looked like a big increase.
There are many economists who believe that if FDR had not tried all his spending stimulus schemes, the nation's economy would have recovered much faster. What was needed to recover from the Depression was a basic correction of all the overheating spending that had led to the big crash.
Now, I believe that in emergency situations, where multitudes are literally starving, some means to provide mercy must be employed, something that allows people to have the most basic necessities--since it is not their fault that industries collapsed and they lost their jobs. But that does not mean you start spending so much you guarantee another Depression.
I have to wonder if any generation will ever learn these lessons, when there still seems to be so much unreasoning resistance to learning what should be obvious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
But not even his bank account works that way. You can do stimulus spending beyond your immediate short-term means to pull yourself out of a crappy life economic situation. I know more than one person who put out some loans to travel to work fairs, relocate to places where jobs were available, hell, even just buy a decent car and a good suit if even just to make it to interviews on time and presentable.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But Samprimary, the hypothetical person you are talking about subsequently paid off his student loan, or travel loan, or whatever. Capitalism itself is a good idea, where you borrow so you can build greater capacity, or start manufacturing your genius invention, for the increasing betterment of all society (and for the well-deserved betterment of your personal bank account). But legitimate capitalism pays its bills.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Oh, and by the way, returning to the WWII discussion, remember that America was in a depression when WWII came along. The extreme austerity measures during the half decade we were at war, were necessary. Of course when production could turn from wartime to peacetime, there was a significant gain in GDP. But that was a gain over Depression era GDP, so it looked like a big increase.
There was a significant gain in GDP DURING THE WAR. Before production turned from wartime to peacetime. It looked like a big increase because it was a big increase.
You aren't addressing anything I said. It is like you are twisting furiously to get away from what I have pointed out to you. You said "There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts." We went from the great depression to the 1950's prosperity period with a dramatic increase in spending, not spending cuts. So what you said is wrong, demonstrably. Come work around that some more.
In addition, why are you calling what we did during the war 'extreme austerity measures?' It tells me you don't understand what austerity measures are. They certainly aren't "increasing federal spending fivefold."
quote:There are many economists who believe that if FDR had not tried all his spending stimulus schemes, the nation's economy would have recovered much faster.
There are many economists that believe the opposite (probably many more). Without a substantiated reasoning as to what the claim specifically is, this soundbite means nothing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, "legitimate" capitalism sells high and buys low. "legitimate" capitalism today avoids its bills.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Samprimary, the hypothetical person you are talking about subsequently paid off his student loan, or travel loan, or whatever.
So? You said that spending beyond your legitimate income is destroying yourself and that only fools ignore this basic fact. If I'm unemployed and I'm spending more money to get a job, that's not austerity, that's stimulus spending. According to how you worded it it is not legitimate capitalism.
Sooooooo...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As an aside, it is interesting how much we try to rely upon logical arguments, and the facts adduced in support of them. The ancient Greeks had a view of the elements of persuasion. They were ethos, logos, and pathos. The first one refers to the character and credentials of the speaker or writer which recommends their credibility. The second is the quality or logic of the argument itself (which includes the facts adduced in support of the argument). Logos you may recall is the Greek word for "word." The last refers to the passion, which includes the power of the speaker or writer's appeal to the emotions or self-interest of the listener or reader.
One thing that makes things a little easier, though, is that if you can get the hearer or reader to remember some key essentials of what you propound to them, it in effect "sows seed," which later they may recall to their benefit in a time of need, when they will be more receptive to previously unwelcomed ideas. This is why Jesus told so many parables, that served to lodge certain ideas in people's memories.
This consideration is why evangelists still try to evangelize the masses, even though the vast majority do not seem to respond at first. As long as we have helped ensure that a responsible witness is out there, we can feel that we have done our job to the best of our ability. Even Jesus did not always see people converted immediately by His preaching (logos), even though reinforced by miraculous works of healing that showed He really cared about people's good (ethos and pathos). But Nicodemus did eventually come around. And Peter was truly converted after he was tested, and forced to confront his own weakness and lack of fidelity, where he had thought he had only strengths and was in need of nothing.
This works in religion. Maybe it will work in politics as well. They say that Barry Goldwater became more moderate as he grew older. And there is the old observation that if a person is not liberal in youth, he has no heart; but if he is not conservative when he becomes mature, he has no brain. Sow the seeds, water and cultivate them, and eventually they may sprout up and grow up and yield a harvest. This is why I keep trying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So you think that the laws of economics are different for nations than for individuals?
I'd just like to point out that the laws of economics are in fact different for nations than they are for individuals, to the extent that they are usually taught in different classes. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
Look at ACTUAL examples over your theoretical model.
America actually had a second mini-Depression in the 30s after FDR did exactly what you're saying. He spent a lot at first to get us out, and then when he thought things were fine, they drastically cut back on spending, which sent us back into a Depression. It was only massive WWII spending that got us out.
But let's take Greece as an example. Yes, they spent themselves into a bottomless hole. That was a poor choice. On that we can both agree. But then how to get out of that hole? Most every agreed that for Greece to default on its loans would be catastrophic, so Europe loaned Greece a large sum of money with the understanding that they would have to raise taxes and dramatically cut spending. They were being forced to do exactly what you said they should do to get their house in order and stave off a default (basically, bankruptcy). After much discussion, and a whole lot of rioting, they did exactly that.
What happened?
The dramatic cut in government spending sent Greece's economy into a nosedive. Tens of thousands lost their job as the economy retracted, and as a result, tax receipts dropped dramatically. At the end of the day, they basically ended up back at square one, except hundreds of thousands fewer people had jobs and the GDP was retreating. Austerity was an abject failure in Europe, and most of the countries who forced it on Greece are admitting publicly that it was a mistake.
England is another good example. They were in decent shape a few years ago when they decided to undertake radical austerity. They cut their budget incredibly aggressively, and the result was stalling their economy to the point of stasis. They're just now having a national discussion about what a bad idea that was and how they need to spend more to get things going.
Right now interest on new debt is basically 0%. It's cheaper to borrow than to raise taxes, so why wouldn't we spend more right now to get the economy moving, then cut back later when people actually have jobs, tax receipts are up, and the machine is actually working? Austerity sucks billions of dollars out of the economy, and the proof is right in front of our faces in Europe that it simply does not work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well since you're clearing diverting into your typical gutless, unethical preaching-http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3605
There. Democrats offering major spending cuts. There isn't a freaking video you can hide behind here, Ron. You said plainly they would never offer spending cuts, and they probably have.
It's bad enough you're such a flagrant liar. What's even worse is that, as stupid as it is, your slant on religion supposedly reveres honesty. So you're a liar and a hypocrite.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I saw a poster the other day. It had Paul Ryan saying, "You can't borrow and spend you way to prosperity."
Then I see Bain Capital's business plan. Borrow millions of dollars. Spend it on companies. Borrow more millions using those companies as collateral. Spend it on paying off Bain's investors and trying to make the companies you purchased more profitable.
Result was pretty darn prosperous for Governor Romney.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I half suspect the real reason Ron objects to macroeconomic stimulus is because its "usury".
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One thing that makes things a little easier, though, is that if you can get the hearer or reader to remember some key essentials of what you propound to them, it in effect "sows seed," which later they may recall to their benefit in a time of need, when they will be more receptive to previously unwelcomed ideas. This is why Jesus told so many parables, that served to lodge certain ideas in people's memories.
What do you think you are "sowing" that will make people receptive to your claims? All you do is make false (and kind of kooky) claims and then call people arrogant idiots for denying you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, Democrats are always the ones who resist cutting spending and cutting taxes. They may pay lipservice to either, but the reality is they do as little of either as they can get away with. They will only cut some program like defense so they can expand spending for some socialist program that offers more bread and circuses to their constituency.
As long as people keep propounding the idea that austerity is a bad idea for getting finances in order (just because it does not result in instant prosperity, after decades of out-of-control spending), does not mean it is not the one and only thing that can save a nation's (or a person's) economy.
For crying out loud, this is not rocket science! Don't you spendthrifts have any sense?
As I said Darth_Mauve, what Bain Capital did was capitalism. They paid all their bills in the long run. That is what capitalism does. What too many nations have been doing for too long is like what an individual does who gets a second credit card so he can use that to make the payments on his first credit card, then gets a third credit card to make payments on the first two, and on and on until the credit card companies get wise to what he is doing, and he can't get any more credit cards. Then he either declares bankruptcy or runs away and lives in the woods.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Spendthrift"?
Tell me Ron can people print their own money?
Can people just decide to confiscate all of the gold the people around them or in their home own?
Also how is government money invested in defence not socialism? Why following your logic can we not just simply privatize the military? Let CEO's form private armies that the government can rent? Wouldn't that be more efficient?
Also did you know the Democrats offered to cut 10$ for every 1$ raised with new revenue? Is that "lipservice"?
The GOP threatened to default on US debt, which would've crashed the US economy and caused a depression which would probably have turned the US into a third world nation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:Also did you know the Democrats offered to cut 10$ for every 1$ raised with new revenue? Is that "lipservice"?
That is not accurate. Republican candidates for president were asked in a debate if that arrangement would bring them to the table, and they all said no.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was under the impression it was seriously considered during the Committe/Gang of Four thingy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I was under the impression it was seriously considered during the Committe/Gang of Four thingy.
Nope. But I believe numbers like 2:1 - 4:1 were probably discussed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My mistake but still fairly substantial.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, Democrats are always the ones who resist cutting spending and cutting taxes. They may pay lipservice to either, but the reality is they do as little of either as they can get away with. They will only cut some program like defense so they can expand spending for some socialist program that offers more bread and circuses to their constituency.
Ok, so you're openly abandoning your original statement (sensibly, since it was proven false) and shifting without remark to a different claim. Thanks for affirming my use of the words gutless an dishonest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My mistake but still fairly substantial.
Sure, I suspect Boehner was reined in by his own party, but we can't know what was actually said as nobody from either side has spoken of it other than talks collapsed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I was under the impression it was seriously considered during the Committe/Gang of Four thingy.
Nope. But I believe numbers like 2:1 - 4:1 were probably discussed.
6:1 was the highest ratio I remember the Dems offering.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I was under the impression it was seriously considered during the Committe/Gang of Four thingy.
Nope. But I believe numbers like 2:1 - 4:1 were probably discussed.
6:1 was the highest ratio I remember the Dems offering.
I can only see that as being possible if we cut the heck out of defense spending.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And because I am legitimately curious again:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Obama will have acheived his number one secret agenda item, of turning America into a third world nation.
What is this secret agenda and where is the proof of it and what exactly are its goals or why obama wants to make america a third world nation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He wants to make it more like his birth nation - Kenya.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Good one Lyrhawn.
Actually Obama made his mindset clear to his early contemporaries such as Dr. John Drew (who was at that time a somehat moderate Marxist) who said he "was stunned at Obama’s unwavering belief in the imminence of a Marxist revolution in the United States."
This is probably the real reason why Obama keeps his college records sealed. He is probably afraid Americans would discover he was not just a communist, but a flaming firebrand communist. And of course he was not disturbed by the Irrev. Jeremiah Wright calling for God to damn America during the TWENTY YEARS he attended the church where Wright was pastor--in his heart, he agreed with Wright.
And let us not forget the fact that one of Obama's primary mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, who was guilty of "horrible agitation on behalf of international communism throughout the 20th century," and on whom the FBI had a 600-page file, and officially certified him repeatedly on the Security Index, meaning if a war broke out between the USA and the USSR, Davis would have been immediately arrested. Obama having such a man for an influential mentor cannot be ignored by any sane person. If Obama were applying for an entry level position in government, with a mentor like that, he could never get any kind of security clearance. And yet Americans voted him right into the Oval Office.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The whole Democratic Party are Communists apparently all this time.
Ron has linked to an article that is in relation to an interview that is referring to a book some nutjob wrote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What, did he take Flaming Communist 301 in college?
To note, I wish we'd had that class available at my undergrad school. I had to settle for labor history.
Out of curiosity, Obama is basically the best friend capitalism has had in, I don't know, maybe a hundred years. He's taken trillions of public dollars and funneled them to the private sector, and single handedly bailed out Wall Street.
Why do that if he's trying to remake the US as a Communist utopia?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What, did he take Flaming Communist 301 in college?
To note, I wish we'd had that class available at my undergrad school. I had to settle for labor history.
Out of curiosity, Obama is basically the best friend capitalism has had in, I don't know, maybe a hundred years. He's taken trillions of public dollars and funneled them to the private sector, and single handedly bailed out Wall Street.
Why do that if he's trying to remake the US as a Communist utopia?
Shhhhh! He's obviously an incompetent communist. So much so he makes an outstanding capitalist.
It's sorta like the arguments I've been hearing from Romney supporters about how "He isn't going to remove Obamacare the votes aren't there, he doesn't mean it." I just don't understand how the mental gymnastics that allow somebody to vote for somebody because they aren't actually going to do what they say they are going to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why do that if he's trying to remake the US as a Communist utopia?
Yes! Because pivoting to an open embrace of Communism right now is just what we'd expect. Massive aid to capitalism just lulls our guard, and then bam! He catches us with our trousers down!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If as many liberals as conservatives believed that Obama was a secret Communist, I bet he'd be elected in a landslide. Most liberals are discouraged by his complete lack of liberalism on most issues.
We could stand to hear a little more Marx in his speeches, though the class warfare stuff is pretty good.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And yet Americans voted him right into the Oval Office.
Pretty cool, eh?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second...if we all know deep down he's a Muslim Commie atheist...doesn't that mean, since we endorsed him, we're no longer the nation of Jesus and sunshine? That is...no longer a Christian nation?!?!....!?!? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
America deserves fire and brimestone!
Cue Southerner Yahoo: "Hey honey, look at im' fiyah! Ya'll get out the hot dawgs and dem' ketchup and rouse em' boys cuz' we're havin' us a BarBeeQ tonight!"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If Obama were applying for an entry level position in government, with a mentor like that, he could never get any kind of security clearance. And yet Americans voted him right into the Oval Office. [/QB]
Oh look! Snopes did an article on the "if Obama applied for a government job he couldn't get a security clearance" question.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Snopes people are known to be biased in favor of Obama and liberal Democrats. You cannot rely on anything they say that involves politics. They cover up and omit the truth all the time, and fabricate things freely to discredit the truth, just like most of the Main Stream Media.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Snopes people are known to be biased in favor of Obama and liberal Democrats. You cannot rely on anything they say that involves politics. They cover up and omit the truth all the time, and fabricate things freely to discredit the truth, just like most of the Main Stream Media.
OK, now here's the part where you substantiate these bold claims. We're all waiting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Snopes people are known to be biased in favor of Obama and liberal Democrats. You cannot rely on anything they say that involves politics. They cover up and omit the truth all the time, and fabricate things freely to discredit the truth, just like most of the Main Stream Media.
The truth has had an Obama bias for awhile now.
That's why Republicans hate it so much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If as many liberals as conservatives believed that Obama was a secret Communist, I bet he'd be elected in a landslide...
Yep. If only your Democrats could be half as crafty as Ron suggests.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Snopes people are known to be biased in favor of Obama and liberal Democrats. You cannot rely on anything they say that involves politics. They cover up and omit the truth all the time, and fabricate things freely to discredit the truth, just like most of the Main Stream Media.
What part of the article is misrepresentation? What is a fabrication? Can you point to any one claim they made?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Its the "F" word. Snopes and other commie type web sites like Fact Check.org all use that liberal four letter word "Fact".
A Fact is not the Truth. The Truth is what the spin-masters on the right tell you it is, and anyone who argues against it, especially with Facts, is a left leaning liberal.
See, Facts and the real truth lean left.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well you're ahead of your usual pace, Ron. This is at least two major, specific claims you've made. The one was proven to be an outright lie, making you a liar, at which time you shifted your position with deft spinelessness and behaved as though that's what you said all along.
Now along comes your Snopes claim. You won't substantiate it much less provide evidence sufficient to consider it proven. No, you'll just leave it out there until perhaps someone offers up examples of Snopes attacking and being deeply critical of Obama and liberals (which, ask actual freaking liberals, he doesn't qualify). At which time there is no doubt you'll bluntly refuse to acknowledge your claim was a lie, or at most alter your position and smugly claim no one disproved your new theory.
I'm really not sure which is worse for this American experiment we've got going, and for humanity in general: people who are liars because the truth doesn't serve their particular interest, or people like yourself who are liars because they lack the courage to face a reality contrary to the one between your ears. At least with the first bunch of dishonest people, you can discover their interest and approach or impede them on what they actually want as opposed to their claims.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think we should let Ron be the moderator for the debates. I can't think of a better way for Obama to get reelected.
Snopes.com is biased? LOL
That's a new one, although it fits in well with the whole " if someone disagrees with me they are commies, and have a liberal slant" vibe that Fox News puts out...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This site is more amazing than it has ever been. It's like crazy fundie islamophobe homophobe (hi Laura Ingraham!) ground zero.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Snopes.com is biased? LOL
The majority of the manufactured controversies and faux conspiracies for the last few years have come from one end of the political spectrum, therefore the majority share of fact-checking and myth-debunking sites has been dedicated to addressing them. People like their myths and conspiracies though, so their only reasonable response is to dismiss these sites as partisan.
Romney recently demonstrated this behavior by first praising the Tax Policy Center as "objective" until such time as it assessed his tax plan as being mathematically impossible, at which point the campaign decided that it was a biased organization rather than, you know, actually contesting the analysis in any concrete terms.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Snopes people
Barbara and David Mikkelson. A nice Californian couple.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A nice couple of liberal commies, you mean
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Right. Californian.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Until California is willing to elect Republicans to office...oh wait.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The day will come when you will admit that everything I have told you is the truth. You simply do not welcome it now. Your loss.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Compare their analysis of the Obama/Ayers connection with truthorfiction.com's analysis of the same subject. Snopes minimizes the connection, categorizing the rumor as a "Partial Truth," while truthorfiction calls it a "Truth" and, in fact, references a CNN expose of the two, as well as a Wall Street Journal article about their connection. Snopes not only does not reference either source cited above, but instead, lists a quote from an Obama spokesman as its main source.
Another comparison of Snopes vs. Truthorfiction is their treatment of the email regarding "Obama's 50 lies." Snopes adds editorial comments favoring Obama on unproven statements or even on proven ones where the comments are that he is "taken out of context."
There are other things that they list as false, even though Youtube has videos of Obama or others actually making the statements.
I could add that the fact that Obama launched his political career in William Ayer's living room has been testified to by two eyewitnesses who were there. This is just something that willfully blind Obama worshippers don't want to accept, even though it is proven true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, do you honestly not know how these kind of introductions work? One doesn't have to be best buddies to host a political or fundraising event for someone. Alice Palmer wanted to introduce the man she wanted to replace her.* Ayers and Dohrn prominent figures in the district (not the devils you imagine them either) agreed to host the event.
*Before she decided to run again after all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Compare their analysis of the Obama/Ayers connection with truthorfiction.com's analysis of the same subject. Snopes minimizes the connection, categorizing the rumor as a "Partial Truth," while truthorfiction calls it a "Truth" and, in fact, references a CNN expose of the two, as well as a Wall Street Journal article about their connection. Snopes not only does not reference either source cited above, but instead, lists a quote from an Obama spokesman as its main source.
Another comparison of Snopes vs. Truthorfiction is their treatment of the email regarding "Obama's 50 lies." Snopes adds editorial comments favoring Obama on unproven statements or even on proven ones where the comments are that he is "taken out of context."
There are other things that they list as false, even though Youtube has videos of Obama or others actually making the statements.
I could add that the fact that Obama launched his political career in William Ayer's living room has been testified to by two eyewitnesses who were there. This is just something that willfully blind Obama worshippers don't want to accept, even though it is proven true.
Truth or fiction has a conservative bias, so we can safely ignore everything they say. Also Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ so we can ignore them too. Isn't this fun?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For an amusing look at how incredibly, incredibly terrible "Truth or Fiction" is, examine how they handled this one:
They're a sad knock-off site.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, Obama is basically the best friend capitalism has had in, I don't know, maybe a hundred years. He's taken trillions of public dollars and funneled them to the private sector, and single handedly bailed out Wall Street.
Help to big businesses != friend to capitalism. Rather the opposite, in fact. Or one of the opposites, actual communism being the other opposite.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The day will come when you will admit that everything I have told you is the truth. You simply do not welcome it now. Your loss.
You remember when you showed us that video that you claimed showed Obama's grandmother saying "barack nate dhalani" and at least ten people tried to point out to you that the video never showed her saying this at all and that this wasn't even remotely verified as translatable to what you claimed it was?
I ask because it was a pretty clear, straightforward example of when you are telling us something which is not even remotely true and is something we can easily fact check which shows you completely incorrect, but which you insist is true forever?
Its like this for all of what you present here. There is absolutely no way that people here are going to admit that "everything I have told you is the truth", because nobody is gullible enough to even think that at least half your political claims are fair and factually based.
How can you not see this? What is up with your mind that you are that incapable of figuring out where and when you are just completely wrong? Why are you so convinced on such easily debunked crap as long as it fills you out with the kind of conspiracies you want to believe?
And like I asked before, where do you really think you are "sowing" us towards? Do you think we're really being led towards your way of thinking, as opposed to having been warned away from it as fast as possible?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, Obama is basically the best friend capitalism has had in, I don't know, maybe a hundred years. He's taken trillions of public dollars and funneled them to the private sector, and single handedly bailed out Wall Street.
Help to big businesses != friend to capitalism. Rather the opposite, in fact. Or one of the opposites, actual communism being the other opposite.
Best friend to what the right in America often defines as capitalism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, you've been proven a liar after having been offered more chances than you merit to qualify or modify your statements. That's not the first time that's happened, either, and your usual 'someday you'll listen and be sorry!' isn't actually evidence.
Instead, it's a typical weak-willed prevarication. Rather than being a forthright human being capable of the minimum degree of guts and integrity to admit being wrong on the Internet in front of people you loathe, you instead defer your proof of honesty to the future. You can't do it in the present. You have consistently failed to do so. It's fortunate for you that your take on the universe, one which values honesty, is so likewise nomsensical.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, you are good with all these deep secret conspiratorial history ideas, but has the President done anything that you are afraid he would do? Has he hired Ayers or sent billions to Meyers or anything Islamic or Socialist? Has he destroyed America?
No.
Not even close.
So perhaps Snopes was right and Truthorfiction was just a fear generating scare tactic.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I could add that the fact that Obama launched his political career in William Ayer's living room has been testified to by two eyewitnesses who were there. This is just something that willfully blind Obama worshippers don't want to accept, even though it is proven true.
Oh, you're making it sound like Ayers invited him specifically because they knew each other! Or that Obama wasn't in other people's living rooms that day "launching his career" as well!
That's just silly, Ron. You'd better be more careful, or people will begin to think that you actually believe what you write!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've recently learned that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn". Coincidence?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've recently learned that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn". Coincidence?
Certainly not.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Go to Heaven, Rakeesh.
Darth_Mauve: of course--he has done many things directly designed to weaken America and turn it into a third world nation. Which was what Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor, wanted. If you can't see this, then you deserve him.
kmboots, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn were indeed devils who were active members of the terrorist "Weather Undergound." They planted bombs that killed people. They got off only because the FBI screwed up its case. Neither has ever denied or apologized for what they did. In fact, Ayers has said he only wished he had done more. So he is now a college professor. So he has a house in the suburbs and mows his lawn. What do you think he still stands for? Would you want your children to have him for a teacher?
There is also evidence that Ayers ghost wrote Obama's books.
Lyrhawn, we do not know if Obama (or Barry Sotoro as he was known then) took "Flaming Communist 301 in college" since all his college records remain sealed. Ask yourself: What is it that he does not want America to know about himself during his college years? No other politician that I know of has his college records sealed. Romney's and Ryan's aren't.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No other politician that I know of has his college records sealed. Romney's and Ryan's aren't.
What are you talking about? All college records are sealed, by law by default. That's true for every student or former student, including politicians and celebrities. US Universities are legally prohibited from releasing any person's college records except with the express written permission of that person. In order for you to get a copy of my transcripts from any of the Universities where I studied, you would either have to have a warrant or I would have make a written request for my transcripts to be sent to you. The same is true for every person who studies at a US college or University. Including Romney, Ryan, Obama, Biden, and Lady Gaga.
If Romney's college records are available to the public (and I've seen no evidence that they are), it would be because Romney has released them to the public. And unless they were sent to you directly, in a properly sealed envelope directly from the University, they would not be considered "authentic" transcripts for any legal purpose.
I asked here on this forum several weeks ago whether Romney had released his college records and if so, where I could find them. I have received no reply. I've searched the net a couple of times and have not found any reference or links to Romney's college transcripts. If Romney and Ryan's college records are available publicly, as you claim, can you please provide a link.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're right, Rabbit, you may count on never hearing directly from Ron about it, ever
Ron, say go to Heaven all you like, but that won't make you an honest man with respect to politics. You're not-you're a liar. You've been proven on multiple occasions to be a liar. I don't care how many times you spin around and say Jesus, still a liar. On the video, and now on Democratic willingness to embrace spending cuts.
On plenty of other things, really, but those are two easily investigated flagrant examples. Claiming people will change their minds in the future is not, however desperately with fanatic intensity you wish, evidence today.
I'd still love a response from you about how Democrats are, in fact, willing to advance spending cuts as evidenced by a few minutes watching cable news. But you won't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course Rabbit's right. It's FERPA. They're not actually sealed, though. Sealed means that the documents would be pubic, but were ruled by a judge to not be allowed to be released with the court's permission.
In any case, President Obama's college records are private, just like Governor Romney's and Representative Paul's.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What will Rush Limbaugh say if Hurricane Isaac does actually does hit Tampa during the GOP convention? Will he claim that Obama controls not only the weather forecasters but also the weather?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well he does have that atheist communist Muslim Weather Dominator he and the Weather Underground worked on back in college...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: All college records are sealed, by law by default. That's true for every student or former student, including politicians and celebrities.
[nitpick] All living students and former students. The rules are different once someone is deceased.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Go to Heaven, Rakeesh.
So you run out of real answers for his charges, so you essentially wish death upon him.
Shall we all gaze at you and see you for who you really are, now?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've recently learned that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn". Coincidence?
I like how ryan couldn't throw ayn rand under the bus fast enough when it came down to having to appeal to the religious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, we do not know if Obama (or Barry Sotoro as he was known then) took "Flaming Communist 301 in college" since all his college records remain sealed. Ask yourself: What is it that he does not want America to know about himself during his college years? No other politician that I know of has his college records sealed. Romney's and Ryan's aren't.
Ask a better question: What the hell does it matter? Are you really expecting you'll find he took some terrorist Muslim training class in school that will prove to be fodder for your conspiracy theories?
And why point out the name thing?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Honestly, my conspiracy theory with selecting Rep. Ryan is that Gov Romney has basically given up winning this election (I'm not sure that was ever a major goal anyway) and the GOP business interests are trying to both shift the conversation even more their way and set up Rep. Ryan for a run in 2016.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read similar articles, but not that end with Ryan as the candidate in 2016, it's for Romney to save face.
He knows he's going to lose, so he picked Ryan as a way of saying to the establishment, "Look, I'm not an eastern moderate, I went all-in on your right-wing strategy, look at my VP candidate! And it still didn't work."
And if that's the narrative that prevails, it'll have a pretty big impact on the nominee in 2016 should Romney lose. Many were predicting that, should he lose, the GOP would shift even more wildly to the right, believing they lost because they weren't adhering to their principles enough. But if he loses while hewing to that course, they can't make that argument.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
President Obama still has some serious problems. No president has been reelected with unemployment *or* the economy being at the levels they are. It's surprising the Republicans are not dominating with that narrative.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: All college records are sealed, by law by default. That's true for every student or former student, including politicians and celebrities.
[nitpick] All living students and former students. The rules are different once someone is deceased.
You are correct and as soon as we have a deceased Presidential candidate that exception will be highly relevant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: President Obama still has some serious problems. No president has been reelected with unemployment *or* the economy being at the levels they are. It's surprising the Republicans are not dominating with that narrative.
I just read something this morning that discussed this in The New Yorker
The gist is that in any other country or time, the GOP would be running away with this election hands down. But the GOP isn't really a party any more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: President Obama still has some serious problems. No president has been reelected with unemployment *or* the economy being at the levels they are. It's surprising the Republicans are not dominating with that narrative.
I just read something this morning that discussed this in The New Yorker
The gist is that in any other country or time, the GOP would be running away with this election hands down. But the GOP isn't really a party any more.
Or, it's ripe for a platform shift and it's in the midst of that turmoil. Hopefully some charismatic conservatives can redefine it's platform and stamp out the radical elements.
Or else the entire party flames out and a new party rises from the ashes.
[ August 23, 2012, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: President Obama still has some serious problems. No president has been reelected with unemployment *or* the economy being at the levels they are. It's surprising the Republicans are not dominating with that narrative.
FDR
As bad as the economy is, it was in fact worse when Obama took office.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmboots, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn were indeed devils who were active members of the terrorist "Weather Undergound." They planted bombs that killed people. They got off only because the FBI screwed up its case. Neither has ever denied or apologized for what they did. In fact, Ayers has said he only wished he had done more. So he is now a college professor. So he has a house in the suburbs and mows his lawn. What do you think he still stands for? Would you want your children to have him for a teacher?
There is also evidence that Ayers ghost wrote Obama's books.
Not sure why I bother...
The Weather Underground did plant bombs that were meant to do property damage not to kill people. The people killed by the Greenwich bomb were members of WUO who were killed in the process of making the bomb. (This was also a very common occurrence in the IRA.)
He has on a number of occasions made clear that when he said that he wished they had done more he was referring to stopping the Vietnam War - where lots of innocent people were being bombed by us.
This is not to justify what he or the WUO did; it was wrong. It is merely to prevent Ron spreading even more misinformation.
As for having any of my hypothetical children taught by him - no problem. Judging by how well their children and the child they raised are turning out not to mention how passionately Bernadette Dohrn fights for families at the Children and Family Justice Center.
The "evidence" that Mr. Ayers wrote either of the President's books is as specious as just about everything else you post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We're ... really never getting his tax returns. Ever. Unless some sort of Oh Sh*t Moment happens that has them realize that a leak of the central circumspect elements is imminent anyway.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit (I like the way you quote yourself), I think you may be confused by the difference between legally sealed and private:
quote:First, different countries may have different policies and laws governing records.
Second. there is a difference between "sealed" and "private". "Sealed" is typically a term used in legal settings to mean a record cannot be "opened" (viewed, seen, copied) without a Judge reviewing the record and a court order. As examples of "sealed records" in the USA:
adoption records before 1980s a minor's arrest and court records
Third, privacy is a term used broadly to cover a variety of records, and typically, it means NO one other than the person whose name is on the record, or the parent or legal guardian, can request to see or copy the record. Some examples of records protected under "privacy" in the USA include:
school records college records employment records medical records hospital records psychiatric records dental records
If Romney and Ryan had not released their college records, then why wouldn't Obama have mentioned this?
What about all the articles Obama wrote for college publications--which were published? Why are they inaccessible? Is Obama afraid for American to read what he was ranting and raving about at that time? Is he afraid that Americans might learn he was listed as a foreign student from Kenya, or Indonesia?
Here is some information about Romney that includes some of his academic achievements:
quote:4. Mitt and Ann married on March 21, 1969--four months after he returned from his mission. Future President Gerald Ford was a guest at their wedding. Ann was attending college at Brigham Young University and Mitt transferred there, eventually graduating first in his class in 1971 with a degree in English and a 3.97 GPA. Their first son, Taggart, was born on their first anniversary.
5. The young couple moved to Boston so Mitt could attend Harvard Law School. He was also accepted into a joint M.B.A. program at Harvard Business School. Their second son, Matthew, was born and in 1975 he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and in the top 5 percent of his class at HBS.
6. He first worked at Boston Consulting Group, then as a management consultant at Bain & Co., where he became a vice president in 1978. By then he and Ann had three more sons--Joshua, Benjamin, and Craig. Mitt was asked to head Bain Capital, a venture capital company, in 1984. It was there that he became a millionaire.
7. Romney was a leader in the Mormon church while living in Belmont, Mass. He was bishop of the Cambridge congregation, then bishop of Belmont, and in 1986 became president of the Boston-area "stake," similar to a diocese.
8. He spent $3 million of his own money in an unsuccessful race to unseat Edward Kennedy from the U.S. Senate in 1994.
9. He became president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in February 1999 and turned around a scandal-plagued Winter Olympics. Romney donated $1 million to the games and refused to take a salary unless the committee finished in the black. When the Olympics ended successfully in February 2002, people viewed him in a new light as a rising politician.
10. Romney was elected the 70th governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and served until 2007.
It seems to me that Romney has been pretty well vetted in an already long career of outstanding public accomplishment in business and government. What do we know of Obama? What has he ever done that compares?
Why are any of you still trying to defend Obama? Even Newsweek thinks his time is past.
P.S. In response to what Samprimary said, I take back what I said to Rakeesh. Rakeesh, please do not go to Heaven.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are correct and as soon as we have a deceased Presidential candidate that exception will be highly relevant.
Didn't we almost have a dead man elected to the Senate a couple years back?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:P.S. In response to what Samprimary said, I take back what I said to Rakeesh. Rakeesh, please do not go to Heaven.
You figured out the one thing to say to make yourself sound worse!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see why we couldn't get all of Romney's records without his approval.
I don't think FERPA laws apply to androids.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait, I forgot-is Romney running on his governmental experience now? Because he hasn't been able to so far, or not to a very great extent because, hey, Romneycare. Anyway, Ron, I won't go to Narnia either. Though it is amusing that if it was possible, your consistent dishonesty and cowardice (which in light of statements you've made in the past about the importance of truth, is actually blasphemous) would certainly bar you as well. So I suppose in that light, we're both heretics by the standards of your particular fantasy:)
Still would like some sort of acknowledgement that Democrats are, in fact, willing to embrace spending cuts, as has been proven in this conversation. It's not going away, Ron. You may as well fast forward to the part where you disappear again, because I'll be pointing out your dishonesty and hypocrisy (with some satisfaction) until you do.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
You're treading close to sticks and stones territory...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: President Obama still has some serious problems. No president has been reelected with unemployment *or* the economy being at the levels they are. It's surprising the Republicans are not dominating with that narrative.
FDR
As bad as the economy is, it was in fact worse when Obama took office.
Sure. And FDR took office during the nadir and it was essentially better for the next 4 years, he got reelected and drew down federal spending which dropped things, WW2 happened, and it was rapid improvement from there. Pres Obama can certainly argue he stopped a worse drop from happening, but that's not as convincing as recovery, and right now while the recssion is officially over we are not experieng growth but stagnation. This isn't to say Obama controls the economy but historically presidents in bad times don't get reelected, presidents during wars and recoveries do.
[ August 23, 2012, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are correct and as soon as we have a deceased Presidential candidate that exception will be highly relevant.
Didn't we almost have a dead man elected to the Senate a couple years back?
In fact it has happened on several occasions that a dead person has won an election in Congress. in 2000, Mel Carnahan became the first senator posthumously elected- famously beating out John Ashcroft (later appointed AG). Carnahan had been sitting governor, and his lieutenant governor appointed his widow to his senate seat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
Evidence and honesty are cheap for a pauper in both like you, Ron.
At any rate, not only have you failed to make your case and provide evidence for your claim about Democrats and spending, you haven't even *started*. In the words of Christopher Hitchens which just seems so present in my mind whenever you begin blathering and lying and generally being spineless, "You have all you work still ahead of you."
Though admittedly it's a tall order: you claimed Democrats wouldn't embrace spending cuts, and were presented with proof established in history even though it's recent that they have been willing to do so. Then again, for someone who routinely denies and lies about history, perhaps this is familiar territory
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: President Obama still has some serious problems. No president has been reelected with unemployment *or* the economy being at the levels they are. It's surprising the Republicans are not dominating with that narrative.
I just read something this morning that discussed this in The New Yorker
The gist is that in any other country or time, the GOP would be running away with this election hands down. But the GOP isn't really a party any more.
I think there are a couple of major things sitting in their way.
First, there's a pretty big disconnect between the Republican base's perspective of what is important with the economy (deficit, debt, and getting those freeloaders off welfare) and Democrats and a large majority of independents (more and better jobs). So they're stuck in the same trap of either playing to their base or trying to appeal to everyone else.
Also, their solution to our economic problems is to pump up the stock market, increase the money rich people have, and increase company profits, all of which have happened under President Obama.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
Ron have you ever responded to my post regarding the inherent evil of Christianity and the pinnacle of evil that is Christ?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
Ron have you ever responded to my post regarding the inherent evil of Christianity and the pinnacle of evil that is Christ?
Was that post serious or satire? Consider your answer carefully.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
It shouldn't be responded to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit (I like the way you quote yourself), I think you may be confused by the difference between legally sealed and private:
Obama's college records are not "legally sealed", they are merely "private" as are all college records. The act that legally sealed Obama's records, applies only to those records of official acts and communications since he took office. It does not apply to anything done before he took office in 2009.
quote:If Romney and Ryan had not released their college records, then why wouldn't Obama have mentioned this?
Why would he mention it? Neither Romney nor Ryan has asked to see Obama's college records. Any rational person knows that college records don't mean anything once you have a track record in the real world.
This is a non-issue except among the radical fringe that Obama is correctly choosing to ignore.
Why should Obama pay any attention to people like you? Were you satisfied when he produced his long form birth certificate? Were you satisfied when federal courts repeatedly ruled that law suits disputing his citizenship status were "without any merit"?
If Obama did release his college records and they did not show anything you claim, would you admit you were wrong or would you argue (just like you've done with his birth certificate) that the records are falsified? Is there anything you can imagine in Obama's college records that might cause you to vote for him or cause you to stop claiming that he's an imposter?
Can you point to even one instance where evidence provided by your opponents has changed your mind about anything? If you can't, then explain exactly why your opponents should provide you with any more evidence when it makes no difference.
[ August 24, 2012, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What about all the articles Obama wrote for college publications--which were published? Why are they inaccessible?
They aren't. Here is one example that is available on the web.
I found those in under 30 seconds with google. If you'd spent that amount of time trying to verify this "myth" you continue to promulgate, you'd have also found it was a blatant, bald face lie.
So now, let's see some reciprocity. Link me to some things Romney and Ryan published while they were in school. Show me the place where I can read their college transcripts or at least a news article that discuss what's on those transcripts. You claimed that Romney's college records are available to the public -- show me some evidence of that.
[ August 24, 2012, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are correct and as soon as we have a deceased Presidential candidate that exception will be highly relevant.
Didn't we almost have a dead man elected to the Senate a couple years back?
No, He wasn't almost elected. He won the election and his widow was appointed to serve in his place.
[ August 24, 2012, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
Ron have you ever responded to my post regarding the inherent evil of Christianity and the pinnacle of evil that is Christ?
Was that post serious or satire? Consider your answer carefully.
Shouldn't the answer be obvious and already answered somewhere else?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think he said you should consider your answer carefully because one of the options is specifically against the forum rules, and is furthermore one that I think management above BB has taken consistently very seriously.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, since you are well aware you won't actually reply directly and in a relevant way to Rabbit's evidence which again proves you a liar, for about the third time in this thread...
How's about skipping ahead in this process to the part where you tuck tail and run again? Note: anything that doesn't take some form of 'huh, I was wrong about that stuff about Obama' will be merely another example of your typical dishonest cowardice. Which given that this is the damned Internet, man.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:What about all the articles Obama wrote for college publications--which were published? Why are they inaccessible?
They aren't. Here is one example that is available on the web.
I found those in under 30 seconds with google. If you'd spent that amount of time trying to verify this "myth" you continue to promulgate, you'd have also found it was a blatant, bald face lie.
So now, let's see some reciprocity. Link me to some things Romney and Ryan published while they were in school. Show me the place where I can read their college transcripts or at least a news article that discuss what's on those transcripts. You claimed that Romney's college records are available to the public -- show me some evidence of that.
I'm looking forward to reading Ryan's book report for Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I found those in under 30 seconds with google.
I'm sure that in Ron's mind, it just proves that Google has a liberal bias. Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I found those in under 30 seconds with google.
I'm sure that in Ron's mind, it just proves that Google has a liberal bias.
Obviously, it does. I mean, there are no results for "obama liar communist hippie fascist radical liberal nutjob taking jobs away from hard working conservatives who don't need to pay taxes and deserve all the good things cause he's hitler".
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Snopes receives more complaints of liberal than conservative bias, but insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Talk is cheap for a pauper like you, Rakeesh.
And even cheaper for you, Ron. As you prove every single time you post this crap. I just wish we could get you a mic and a national stage. It would be the best thing to happen to the Dems in 100 years.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Today, we are publishing more than 950 pages of internal audits, financial statements, and private investor letters for 21 cryptically named entities in which Romney had invested—at minimum—more than $10 million as of 2011 (that number is based on the low end of ranges he has disclosed—the true number is almost certainly significantly higher). Almost all of them are affiliated with Bain Capital, the secretive private equity firm Romney co-founded in 1984 and ran until his departure in 1999 (or 2002, depending on whom you ask). Many of them are offshore funds based in the Cayman Islands. Together, they reveal the mind-numbing, maze-like, and deeply opaque complexity with which Romney has handled his wealth, the exotic tax-avoidance schemes available only to the preposterously wealthy that benefit him, the unlikely (for a right-wing religious Mormon) places that his money has ended up, and the deeply hypocritical distance between his own criticisms of Obama's fiscal approach and his money managers' embrace of those same policies. They also show that some of the investments that Romney has always described as part of his retirement package at Bain weren't made until years after he left the company.
Bain isn't a company so much as an intricate suite of steadily proliferating inter-related holding companies and limited partnerships, some based in Delaware and others in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and elsewhere, designed to collectively house roughly $66 billion in wealth in its many crevices and chambers. When Romney left in 1999, he and his wife retained significant investments in many of those Bain vehicles—he claims they are "passive investments" and that they are managed in a blind trust (though the trustee isn't blind enough to meet federal standards of independence). But aside from disparate snippets of information contained in his federal and Massachusetts financial disclosure forms, his 2010 tax returns, and SEC filings, the nature of those investments has been obfuscated by design.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And the people foisting this candidate upon us complain about the length of obamacare's bill.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
An infographic to present in advance for if it is indicated in any way that obama is being 'floated' or artificially sustained by 'liberal media bias.'
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I found those in under 30 seconds with google.
I'm sure that in Ron's mind, it just proves that Google has a liberal bias.
Obviously, it does. I mean, there are no results for "obama liar communist hippie fascist radical liberal nutjob taking jobs away from hard working conservatives who don't need to pay taxes and deserve all the good things cause he's hitler".
Of course there are! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That reads like a behind-the-scenes look at Clavell's Noble House, Samprimary.
Gaming the hell out of the system to keep as much earned in America as free from American taxes as possible: apparently totally kosher for private citizens, but when that sort of dodgy dare I say voodoo investment scheming is not even suggested but able to be claimed by opponents in government, it's reprehensible.
So therefore, for a man supposedly with his eyes on public service for a long time, it is therefore obviously beyond reproach. I also like how Romney can sell 'We need to reform the tax system because people game it and it's inefficient. And I should know!"
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Maybe offshore tax schemes are just what our government needs to solve the debt crisis!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:'We need to reform the tax system because people game it and it's inefficient. And I should know!"
I'd be more likely to vote for him if he ran on that.
[ August 25, 2012, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Obviously, it does. I mean, there are no results for "obama liar communist hippie fascist radical liberal nutjob taking jobs away from hard working conservatives who don't need to pay taxes and deserve all the good things cause he's hitler".
at least until Google finds this thread...
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Actually, without the quotes around that, there are 18,700 results. I... kinda want to go bury my head in the sand now. Or join Curiosity on Mars.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Even now, backers like Ms. Ryan see the Paul campaign ending in a fizzle rather than a bang at the convention. In addition to disappointments over delegates, Mr. Paul, who finished second to Mr. Romney in New Hampshire’s signature primary, will not get to address the party convention.
That reflects both sides of the movement’s new circumstances. To enhance its long-term viability among Republicans, Paul campaign leaders decided to cooperate with Romney forces for a smooth convention, while eschewing compromises that would have alienated core supporters even more.
Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.
“It wouldn’t be my speech,” Mr. Paul said. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”
¶ Mr. Paul’s campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, acknowledged the frustrations that the Paul high command had been forced to manage.
Some true believers want to “dress in black, stand on a hill and say, ‘Smash the state,’ ” said Mr. Benton, who is married to one of Mr. Paul’s granddaughters. But “it’s not our desire to have floor demonstrations. That would cost us a lot more than it would get us.”
quote:Many clubs have taken out ads inviting GOP delegates "to party like a liberal" in a city where the "poles are open all night." City officials say the convention, expected to draw more than 50,000 visitors, could be Tampa's biggest party ever. Imagine all those rainmakers.
A strip club with a spaceship on the roof seems an odd place to expect Republicans. At first blush, one might not equate lap dances with the political party that wraps itself in buttoned-down family values.
But at convention time, even upstanding men seem to seek out undressed women. When the Christian group Promise Keepers held a convention in Tampa a couple of years ago, attendees flooded the 2001 Odyssey, co-owner Jim Kleinhans recalls. They had such a good time that "they kept their promise to come back the next night."
Many male convention-goers, regardless of political stripe, are drawn to the sexual underground, according to a study conducted by Baylor University business professor Scott Cunningham. He examined sex ads placed online around the time of the 2008 conventions in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Denver. Ads for prostitutes and escorts jumped 25% to 40%. Cunningham offers a range of possible explanations -- chief among them anonymity, or what he calls "the reduced likelihood of future shaming."
Many clubs have taken out ads inviting GOP delegates "to party like a liberal" in a city where the "poles are open all night." City officials say the convention, expected to draw more than 50,000 visitors, could be Tampa's biggest party ever. Imagine all those rainmakers.
A strip club with a spaceship on the roof seems an odd place to expect Republicans. At first blush, one might not equate lap dances with the political party that wraps itself in buttoned-down family values.
But at convention time, even upstanding men seem to seek out undressed women. When the Christian group Promise Keepers held a convention in Tampa a couple of years ago, attendees flooded the 2001 Odyssey, co-owner Jim Kleinhans recalls. They had such a good time that "they kept their promise to come back the next night."
Many male convention-goers, regardless of political stripe, are drawn to the sexual underground, according to a study conducted by Baylor University business professor Scott Cunningham. He examined sex ads placed online around the time of the 2008 conventions in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Denver. Ads for prostitutes and escorts jumped 25% to 40%. Cunningham offers a range of possible explanations -- chief among them anonymity, or what he calls "the reduced likelihood of future shaming."
Not throwing this out to ~score political points~ or whatever, I think adults should be able to go to strip clubs if they so choose without shame. I am just surprised that the gap is so large between democrat stripclubbin' and republican stripclubbin' even if the mechanisms behind it could be analyzed and put forth in frank terms.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The gap is in money spent, though, right? Republicans have more money. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That and incredible amounts of repressed sexual energy.
All the finger wagging they do isn't sufficient relief.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
28 Aug 2012 11:20 AM Quote For The Day
“We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” - Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.
quote:The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" awarded Romney's ad "four Pinocchios," a measure Romney pollster Neil Newhouse dismissed.
"Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," he said. The fact-checkers — whose institutional rise has been a feature of the cycle — have "jumped the shark," he added after the panel.
This cannot be embellished to make it better.
Conservatives: take a good long look at yourselves as a group, and how you ended up with the candidate you deserve.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've been noticing this attitude a lot recently—this weird sort of factual relativism that seems to at least tacitly acknowledge that it's biased, while claiming that the other side is biased too, so it all somehow balances out.
For example, a while back my mom posted a link to a story on Fox News about how Obama was ceding a huge portion of the southwest to Mexico. (I think there was a Hatrack discussion on it.) I said that it was utterly bogus and linked to the actual website of the national wildlife refuge in question, which said that the report was false and that all that happened was that they'd closed off a small strip along the border to the public.
Then my cousin's husband posted a comment on how that site seemed to be biased too. I was flabbergasted. Fox News was saying some things that were just flat-out factually incorrect and a lot of other things that were at the very least highly misleading. The official website in question laid out the facts in a simple and straightforward way. How do you discuss things with someone who dismisses facts as a mere difference of opinion?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
We need Bible Study on "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness."
It seems a lot more important than who other people are sleeping with.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jon, honestly? You make such positions socially unacceptable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pretty much. Once someone is a grown adult and can't be graded on that sort of thing, there's really nothing stopping them from claims such as 'non-partisan fact-checkers are biased', especially when the rest of the choir cheers that claim. It has to be held onto. A guy at work tried it over and over again just today, actually, when he was chanting 'Romney Romney!' (This from the same numbskull who claims the Book of Mormon was inspired by Satan). He mentioned the welfare thing, and when I explained that it was actually a handoff of control to governors and that every serious non-partisan fact checking organization in the country graded it a flat out lie, he abruptly tried to shift to 'proof' that Democrats caused the recession as evidenced by when they took office.
Even tried to make use of the word 'fact' after I brought in fact checkers. I pointed out to him that mentioning one fact and then claiming a link to an opinion doesn't actually make the opinion a fact at all, and then insisted he move back to the welfare thing. Grudgingly, about ten minutes later, the closest he got was 'everyone fudges words in politics'. It was like pulling teeth to get the jackass (a seriously Bible thumping Christian with multiple assault convinctions and charges) to admit there was deception, only to promptly pivot back to equivalence.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Jon, honestly? You make such positions socially unacceptable.
And then you get lambasted for being intolerant. The more you attack those positions, the more their persecution complex sets in.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm torn here, because I don't think non-partisan fact checkers should be given a free pass. Politifact labeled the claim that the Ryan Medicare reform plan "ends Medicare as we know it" the "lie of the year," because the plan takes a decade or so to end Medicare as we know it rather than doing it instantaneously.
They may not be biased, but they can certainly be stupid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Certainly not a free pass, and if the only support for the claim that those ads are lying was fact check groups backup then it would be a problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Jon, honestly? You make such positions socially unacceptable.
And then you get lambasted for being intolerant. The more you attack those positions, the more their persecution complex sets in.
I wish I could say. I'm currently trying the patient approach with my own extended family, and they seem to ascribe it a weakness. My siblings get me better, my aunts and uncles just laugh uproariously.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We banned this sort of talk in my family the year my cousin and I got into an argument on carbon dating over Thanksgiving.
She thinks the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
We never got around to discussing who hid all the dinosaur bones underground.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:And then you get lambasted for being intolerant.
Proclaim that you're indeed intolerant of lies and liars, and that they should be ashamed if they're not as intolerant of lies as you are.
Embrace your intolerance. Don't tolerate lies and liars. EVER. Not even those liars that happen to be allied with the political causes your favour. Especially not them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I couldn't agree more. I post more negative comments on my friend's facebook posts (usually huffpo articles or some such) than any conservative stuff.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I find that when laughed at for questioning an unproven (and even un-evidenced) first principle the best thing to do is frankly and skeptically say something to the effect of, "I'm not actually hearing any kind of answer or evidence. Laughter doesn't count. If it's so obvious, you must be able to point to some things to verify it."
I do wish conservatives didn't hold such a majority on willful ignorance in this country right now, because my examples lately come from one side of the fence, the liberal secular side. For example, when proudly (smugly) told that America is and was meant to be a Christian nation: "C'mon, the Founders were Christians, everyone was more religious then, you just need to read what Barton says on the topic, etc.," I would bluntly ask, "What actual evidence did Barton offer to support that claim?" When and if he actually had an answer, it would be off to the races.
Someone who believes such willfully ignorant things may very well leave a conversation still determined to believe them, but what I can do is make it very clear that the actual facts and evidence on the matter don't support their claim at all. Even if all that happens is that they lose confidence in their certainty, that's a win.
It's not nice, it's not polite, but it *is* a good thing to do, because that sort of willful ignorance doesn't just screw things up for everyone else, it does for the person who believes it, too.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Krugman:
quote:So there it is: the draft Republican platform says of Medicare and Medicaid,
The first step is to move the two programs away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model.
That means that instead of Medicare as we know it, which pays your medical bills, you’d get a lump sum which you can apply to private insurance — they’ll yell when we call it a voucher, but that’s what it is.
No doubt I and others will have much more to say about this, but let’s just ask the question: why is this “fiscally sound”?
Bear in mind that health expenses will still have to be mainly paid for by some kind of insurance; that’s in the nature of medical care, with its high but unpredictable cost. So what we’re doing here is replacing government insurance with a program that gives people money to buy private insurance — that is, adding an extra layer of middlemen. Why would this save money? I guess the answer is supposed to be the magic of the marketplace — but we have the experience of Medicare Advantage, plus studies of Medicaid versus private insurance, plus the raw fact that America relies more on private insurance than any other nation and also has by far the highest costs. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the record suggests that this will do anything other than make health care less efficient.
And for those demanding documentation, it’s coming; too busy today.
So where are the savings? The answer is, it’s basically a way to deny health care to people while denying that you’re doing so. You don’t say, “we won’t pay for this care”, you just hand people a voucher and let them discover that it won’t buy adequate insurance. It’s health-care rationing — but by money instead of deliberate choice.
It would be far more cost-effective, not to say humane, to make actual choices — to decide that Medicare won’t pay for procedures of little or no medical value. (As always, individuals who can afford it can buy whatever care they want). And Obamacare makes a start on that. But hey, that’s death panels.
So instead of making choices, we’ll let people die because of inadequate assets. Fiscal responsibility!
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Jon, honestly? You make such positions socially unacceptable.
And then you get lambasted for being intolerant. The more you attack those positions, the more their persecution complex sets in.
Oh don't I know it. I had a long time family friend, about my age, nearly de-friend on facebook, after I gave a vigorous critique of her substance free support of the drug-testing in Florida (which spiralled into a more general discussion of things). We did agree to disagree, and I told her I wouldn't respond to any more of her political posts, because as you note, it can close off any future discussion on anything.
I don't know, in retrospect, if "attack" is necessary. I think firm disagreement and defense, _without compromise_ can be enough. I think moderate liberals in particular have a tendency to compromise to avoid conflict and/or because they believe it somehow builds up brownie points for future compromise.
I don't think that's how it works anymore with the vociferous Right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When talking to a local crackpot who has run for local school board three times and been crushed all three times (after multiple moves to be eligible for different seats, after losing a lawsuit against the school board, and being what seems to basically blacklisted), I asked him what his actual plan was to enact some of his policies to improve local schools. His response: refuse to discuss anything but spending cuts or firing administrators until the FCAT is removed. I asked him how a junior new school board member would possibly make that a reality, and he had no response. But he still stuck to his no-compromise idea, was in fact proud of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Destineer -
In fairness, that IS fiscally responsible.
It's just not morally responsible. That's the argument Republicans never want to have.
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
On top of the moral argument, there's a difference between short-term and long term fiscal responsibility. If you fire every teacher in the US, it'll save a lot of money. For a few years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
It’s remarkable to behold.
One of the weirder aspects of this for me is watching this unfold in the politically conservative culture of my evangelical world. The most partisan evangelical conservatives are also those most likely to rant against “relativism” and to trumpet their status as defenders of “absolute truth.” Those same folks will dismiss this post — and all 30 of Benen’s posts above — as mere partisan attacks without ever bothering to examine the 533 factual instances of Mitt’s mendacity, chronicled.
That’s the only cognitive defense they have, I guess. Jam fingers in ears and shout la-la-la-you’re-being-partisan!
Because, you see, the fact that Mitt Romney said something he knew to be false is a partisan fact. And the fact that he has done this at least 533 times in the past 30 weeks is also partisan.
I suppose the other approach for Romney defenders who cannot bear to face the fact of those 533 facts will be to angrily pore over all of Benen’s lists, reading each one with a lawyerly eye.
Have at it. Please. Cherry-pick. Spin. Split hairs. Hand-wave away whichever lies you wish as mere misdemeanors and not full-fledged felonies against honesty.
But how many of those charges do you think you can get dismissed? 10 percent? 20 percent? Maybe, if you’re that sort of person and you work really hard at it — if you’re willing to get even more pedantic and semantic and technical than even you are usually comfortable with — maybe you could half convince yourself that 50 percent of those lies somehow shouldn’t really count against Romney.
That still leaves more than 260 lies. That still leaves Mitt Romney as a convicted liar, 260 times over. And at that point you’ll have to join your friends with their fingers in their ears.
But you’ll still know.
Because everyone knows. Mitt Romney lies. A lot. That is what he does. That is who he is. And friend or foe, he does not care if you know it.
There's about 40 links in the text of the article proper; it made for some good (if baffling) reading.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, Obama hasn't exactly been Mr. Truthful himself lately, though I don't think it's nearly on the Romney scale of falsehood.
I would like to see a similar treatment done to Obama.
I also wonder how much of it is him merely repeating the same lie over and over, and how many distinct lies he actually has.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've looked pretty deep at that in advance because you absolutely always know — almost like there's a guarantee — that the equivalence arguments and the "the other side is just as bad" are quick to be the reply.
Even in the depths of my biased favorability (oh no, i'm partisan!) there's just no comparison. Click through the roman numerals. It's not even really that there's no comparison between Obama and Mitt, it's that there's no comparison between Mitt's campaign and any other serious political contender's campaign in living memory. An analyst who's been in the biz, which I quoted earlier, said as much and noted when Mitt's claim about Obama dropping work requirements for welfare came about, it was a radical departure into absolute mendacity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thought this was interesting:
quote:We already have the most unequal society of any rich nation, and TPC's 2015 projections imply it will only get worse. Even if the Bush tax cuts expire, our post-tax Gini coefficient will rise to 0.531 from 0.45 in 2007. That would increase to 0.544 under Romney's tax plan, and as much as 0.557 in the $144 billion shortfall case. It's the difference between us merely having Rwandan levels of inequality and having Bolivian levels of inequality. For comparison's sake, remember that Denmark and Japan are the world's most equal societies with 0.25 Gini coefficients.
quote:The upshot is this: Romney's tax plan does not work under remotely plausible growth projections. It either increases middle class taxes or increases the deficit. If Romney is serious about doing neither, then he has to be unserious about his growth projections. The rich have to get almost impossibly rich to make up for the lost revenue in Romney's tax plan. Realistically, their incomes would need to be 7.7 to 11.3 percent higher than TPC predicts -- that is, we should not ignore the corporate income tax cuts. To put that in perspective, that's between $377 and $548 billion additional dollars flowing to the top 5 percent of households.
Romney may not like this, but that just means he does not like his own tax plan. These numbers are the inescapable conclusion of a plan that relies on a giant magic asterisk to add up.
The problem is laying out something that wonkish to the general public.
I think it requires an attention span that's too demanding for most people.
Obama would just boil it down to "he'll have to raise your taxes!" and then it's just name calling.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That's ok, I was more thinking along the lines of:
In the case where he actually has a plan and isn't just making stuff up (a small probability maybe), here is a rational way of reconciling everything. It isn't like one can accuse Romney of being against a plan to severely ramp up income inequality and benefit his peers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that's how it would play-that it was just name-calling-but I also think it would be a true, legitimate charge. There would have to be something pretty incredible and innovative in the great big pile of stuff he hasn't explained about what his actual plans are for it to work without 'widening the tax base'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's already made his plan pretty clear.
He plans to keep it a secret until he's hashing it out with Congress in the Oval Office.
What don't you get about that? ----
The fact that he sincerely offers that as his plan is both hilarious and depressing. Who seriously thinks that saying "I'll figure it out later" is a good plan? Who thinks that's a plan at all?
The only thing more depressing than watching this election is watching other countries talk about it. We're the laughing stock of the world and yet the candidates STILL unabashedly espouse American Exceptionalism with a straight face.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There's a very good chance Mitt Romney's tax returns were copied a few days ago.
Again, there's no smoking gun, but I was incredulous that this didn't happen sooner. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was in fact a leak.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm very skeptical. I'd give good odds on betting its a hoax.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm very skeptical. I'd give good odds on betting its a hoax.
If you win, will you be reporting your winnings on this year's forms? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am a bit surprised no leaks on the tax returns have happened before, actually. Publicized claims and denials of theft, anonymous publicized extortion? Wouldn't say I expected that.
I admit it is amusing, though, since it could all have been avoided had Romney actually applied his supposed conservative principles on this matter, or his supporters insisted he do so.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)