quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Noted how he doesn't even seem to know how the pill works?
Limbaugh has long been confused about how pills of all kinds work. Dosage, when to stop taking them, etc.
I remember reading those leaked emails between him and his housekeeper, 7 or 8 years ago. And I remember thinking: you know, his followers aren't going to care that he's a hypocritical, lying drug addict, and a criminal. And you know, they didn't!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So besides "Why I am no longer right wing" being from 2009, I would imagine the answer is that some guys got right winger than me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Or, you know, pay for contraception yourself (that's what I do). Or get it at a free clinic. Or wait until your not ovulating.
Option #1 makes little sense to me, if you have insurance coverage that covers other prescriptions, why should it not cover this one? Leaving aside those of us with endometriosis, PCOS, and the various other medical conditions that require "contraceptive" pills for reasons other than contraception.
#2 is fine, if that's how you get all your medical care. Otherwise, back to my answer for #1.
I agree birth control is important; I'd like my employer to offer a plan that covered it. But I disagree with Schumer (and others) that not offering an insurance plan that covers contraception is equivalent to a ban on contraception. I feel that a lot of the rhetoric around the issue has significantly overstated the impact the amendment would have had on women's (and men's!) ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
<edit>I hasten to add that of all the overblown rhetoric around the issue, Limbaugh's was far and away the worst. I don't mean to excuse Limbaugh's absurd assertions by pointing out the significantly less absurd (but still somewhat ridiculous) rhetoric on the other side of the issue.</edit>
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
There's no mandate. The Media is driven by the idea that candidates need to capture a clear mandate from the masses. There's also an enthusiasm gap. The places where Romney is losing are places Republicans need big turnout, and he's won a bunch of big states by the barest of margins. His win in Michigan was way less than it probably should have been, and he won in Ohio by a sliver. He's just barely winning in a lot of places. It indicates a general "meh" feeling that doesn't really rouse the troops heading into General Election season.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I agree birth control is important; I'd like my employer to offer a plan that covered it. But I disagree with Schumer (and others) that not offering an insurance plan that covers contraception is equivalent to a ban on contraception.
I'm still not hearing why it should be ok for an insurer (or employer) to treat coverage for it any differently than other prescriptions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it's a heinous violation of religious freedom for employees to insist employers who administer their health care plans not to be making medical decisions for them, but not a violation of personal freedoms for an employer to intervene in the medical decisions of employees whose health care plans they administer but don't actually own?
Wait, it sounds...sketchy when I say it like that!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are Christian Scientists employers allowed to deny coverage entirely and also be exempt from paying the penalty enacted under the new health care law?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
There's no mandate. The Media is driven by the idea that candidates need to capture a clear mandate from the masses. There's also an enthusiasm gap. The places where Romney is losing are places Republicans need big turnout, and he's won a bunch of big states by the barest of margins. His win in Michigan was way less than it probably should have been, and he won in Ohio by a sliver. He's just barely winning in a lot of places. It indicates a general "meh" feeling that doesn't really rouse the troops heading into General Election season.
I hear what you're saying, but I think there are two different questions. One is how strong Romney's position is in the primary and the other is what his performances might say about him as a general candidate. I think the first is evident; he's in a very strong position, and there are very few vectors in which he doesn't win the primary. To the second, I think primary performance, particularly in a multi-way primary like this one, tends to be a fairly weak predictor of general election performance. If the "Romney's weak" articles are about the first, then they're wrong. If they're about the second, then I'd say they're stating a tenuous effect more significantly more strongly than it deserves.
Comparing, for instance, to the Dem 2008 cycle, after Super Tuesday 27 states had allocated delegates (not counting Michigan and Florida); Obama had captured 50.5% of them. Romney, on the other hand, has captured (depending on how you count) 52.3-55.9% of the delegates (even more if you don't count non-binding caucuses). Of course, Obama was the non-establishment candidate, so the comparison certainly isn't perfect, but I think the media's coverage of Romney is driven more by its need for a continuing battle and, to a lesser extent, Obama's increasing electoral strength due to the improving economy, rather than being based on objective analysis of the primary results.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I agree birth control is important; I'd like my employer to offer a plan that covered it. But I disagree with Schumer (and others) that not offering an insurance plan that covers contraception is equivalent to a ban on contraception.
I'm still not hearing why it should be ok for an insurer (or employer) to treat coverage for it any differently than other prescriptions.
I don't think it's good for them not to, but I don't see why they shouldn't have that right if they choose to do so. I feel the same way about any potential prescription an employer chose not to include in provide health coverage. As a (relatively poor and prone to leading the discussion in the wrong direction) example, if the government didn't compel all employers to cover prescriptions for treating erectile dysfunction I wouldn't feel it was justified to say the government wants to keep old men from having sex.
That's what I've been talking about, but I don't know if this is exactly what you're asking, though. Is this a correct restatement of your question: "If the government has a law that says employers must provide health insurance that covers all prescriptions, why should any employer receive an exemption for the special case of birth control prescriptions?" If so, I guess I would say that, for certain employers there are strongly felt ethical implications to providing birth control. I'm not aware of any other prescription medications which elicit similar levels of demonstrated ethical distress from employers. So if there were going to be an exemption, it would make sense that it would be the prescription which elicits the greatest level of ethical discomfort from a sufficient number of employers.
But I'm not really that interested in that question, because I think the premise (that the government should mandate employers provide insurance that covers all prescriptions) is bad policy in the first place.
<edit>And really I don't even care that much about the government mandate. I think it's bad policy, but I don't think it's a sufficiently big deal to really get angry about.
I originally poked my head into the discussion to say that equating an amendment that would allow employers to provide healthcare that didn't cover birth control with a ban on birth control is ridiculous. The rest is me trying to explain a position that I don't feel very strongly about.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think the premise (that the government should mandate employers provide insurance that covers all prescriptions) is bad policy in the first place.
Actually, that's not accurate. The current situation is that the government encourages (not mandates) employers to offer insurance that meets certain criteria. It's not a premise; it is the current state of affairs. (I'm not in favor of it either, but I suspect you and I have fairly opposite notions about where we should move from there.)
There is a significant difference between an insurer not covering a specific drug (new, expensive, etc.) and not covering an entire class of them. I have no problem with the former, and huge problems with the latter. If the insurer/employer has "ethical distress", then they need to find alternate methods of distribution. They don't get to not cover a class of medications that 10-20% of the time are medically necessary.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I originally poked my head into the discussion to say that equating an amendment that would allow employers to provide healthcare that didn't cover birth control with a ban on birth control is ridiculous.
Hyperbolic, I'll grant. Given the rate at which clinics are closing due to funding cuts, I disagree with "ridiculous".
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
SR, I think we can deal with that very directly: should employers be allowed to make exceptions in what will and will not be covered by their private health insurance. Ethical discomfort aside, if we allow private employers to dictate the quality of coverage, and this does eventually come down to quality, instead of upholding a minimum standard of what should be offered (the direction Obama's plan takes us), then we can essentially throw out the rule book. Ethical exceptions against psychiatric treatment, drug dtreatment, stem cell therapy, blood transfusion... The point being that anyone can take exception to most anything if there is money in it for them.
So we really shouldn't be asking whether it is right to force an employer to pay for any kind of coverage. Rather, we should ask whether it is right to give an employer any say in the content of e coverage that they will be required to offer. For my part, I believe health care coverage, either employer based or public, should be required for all citizens, and should be held to a minimum standard established by statute, in congress. Not by the du juor whims of a private company. We've subjected ourselves to that kind of system for decades, and anyone can agree the results are suboptimal.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
There's no mandate. The Media is driven by the idea that candidates need to capture a clear mandate from the masses. There's also an enthusiasm gap. The places where Romney is losing are places Republicans need big turnout, and he's won a bunch of big states by the barest of margins. His win in Michigan was way less than it probably should have been, and he won in Ohio by a sliver. He's just barely winning in a lot of places. It indicates a general "meh" feeling that doesn't really rouse the troops heading into General Election season.
I hear what you're saying, but I think there are two different questions. One is how strong Romney's position is in the primary and the other is what his performances might say about him as a general candidate. I think the first is evident; he's in a very strong position, and there are very few vectors in which he doesn't win the primary. To the second, I think primary performance, particularly in a multi-way primary like this one, tends to be a fairly weak predictor of general election performance. If the "Romney's weak" articles are about the first, then they're wrong. If they're about the second, then I'd say they're stating a tenuous effect more significantly more strongly than it deserves.
Comparing, for instance, to the Dem 2008 cycle, after Super Tuesday 27 states had allocated delegates (not counting Michigan and Florida); Obama had captured 50.5% of them. Romney, on the other hand, has captured (depending on how you count) 52.3-55.9% of the delegates (even more if you don't count non-binding caucuses). Of course, Obama was the non-establishment candidate, so the comparison certainly isn't perfect, but I think the media's coverage of Romney is driven more by its need for a continuing battle and, to a lesser extent, Obama's increasing electoral strength due to the improving economy, rather than being based on objective analysis of the primary results.
You're also discounting overall turnout. Obama might have squeeked by in most cases, but the overall turnout from him and Clinton skyrocketed the total vote count. Estimates this year are that turnout is even lower than it was in 2008, let alone 2010, which suggests neither Romney nor his competitors are really driving people to the polls. That's the real problem I have with all this percentage-based win crap. He could win an election where only five people voted by a 4-1 margin and the media would call it a blowout. At some point, REAL numbers actually matter, and many who are calling him a weak candidate are looking at turnout number and worrying, because primary turnout IS a pretty good predictor of how a General can go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the press was written when the headline was Romney 4, Santorum 3. I know because I read them back then. CNN's "Why Romney Can't Win big" is especially symptomatic of having been written while Santorum was leading in Ohio for a few hours last night. Yet it's still on the main page. It appears to have been written by a Brit who doesn't know the states very well. I could be wrong on that, but, yeah.
It's actually a better position for Romney at this point, because if he were all pumped up the press would be about how Santorum was hobbled in Virginia and Ohio, and not that Santorum could have been a contender had he been better organized.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read at least two stories talking about Santorum's failure to capitalize on better organization that seems to suggest Romney is only winning because he has money and organization rather than actual appeal.
Which is actually a pretty damning story to write about a politician, since usually money and organization is all it takes to win anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [P]rimary turnout IS a pretty good predictor of how a General can go.
Is it? I don't know that there's much serious study of the question; there might be.
A quick Google search turns up this article which casts some doubt on the matter. Using the estimates from the article, we can sort elections with contested primaries on both sides by the ratio of GOP primary turnout to Dem primary turnout and label them according to which side won the popular vote in the ensuing election*:
If the hypothesis that primary turnout is predictive of general election turnout were correct, the GOP should be more likely to win contests at the top of the list, and less likely to win contests at the bottom. I don't think you can really adduce much from such a small sample, but if you have to make some sort of statement about what the data indicate I don't think it would be that primary turnout correlates strongly with turnout for the general election.
*Maybe it's not fair to throw the 2000 election to the Dems on the basis of their win the popular vote; I think it's justifiable since the turnout argument is about GotV rather than electoral strategy, but I could understand those who would choose to differ.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fairly big monkey wrench: there are no democratic primaries, and thus there is no pre indication of dem turnout. Nothing to compare your numbers to.
And anyway, Lyr's point, I think, was not that it was necessarily statistically rational correlation between voter turnout (only one of many factors) in the primaries and the general. There are a load of predictors involved: turnout, age and sex and race of likely voters, voter enthusiasm for specific candidates, key issues, etc.
It's not just numbers of votes, is my point.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there are Democratic primaries. I voted in one just a couple days ago...
But that SP clearly listed years when both parties nominations were contestedcontested (no incumbent).
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question, there is a wide spread assumption that Romney's experience running successful businesses means he will be good at managing the economy. What's the reasoning?
The kinds of things businesses do to make a profit just aren't that similar to anything the government might do to stimulate the economy. Can anyone tell me what kinds of things a successful CEO does that are relevant to the kinds of economic decisions a President needs to make?
Is there something I'm missing or is this just one of these intuitive "truths" that don't actually hold any water when subject to scrutiny?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a question, there is a wide spread assumption that Romney's experience running successful businesses means he will be good at managing the economy. What's the reasoning?
The kinds of things businesses do to make a profit just aren't that similar to anything the government might do to stimulate the economy. Can anyone tell me what kinds of things a successful CEO does that are relevant to the kinds of economic decisions a President needs to make?
Is there something I'm missing or is this just one of these intuitive "truths" that don't actually hold any water when subject to scrutiny?
I've read a couple of smart articles that deconstruct this myth, and I think the Daily Show or Colbert Report did a segment on it awhile back. It's a delightful fabrication. I will say that having business acumen is valuable, but the idea that it makes you uniquely suited to fix an economy measured in the tens of trillions of dollars that is so complex people spend their lifetimes studying it is sort of bizarre to me. I'm not even convinced Romney knows the plight of small business owners, since all he ever did was buy up small companies and hack them apart to find their sellable bits. Downsizing the US economy Romney-style certainly isn't going to bring back jobs.
The problem is that this is one of those things he's just plain never challenged on. Some of his opponents might have sniped at it a bit, but you're unlikely to hear the media or Obama go at it much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it, running a business, even a very large business, is mostly an issue of microeconomics. Government economic policy deals entirely with macroeconomics. The two don't really have much in common.
There are probably some exceptions, large banks and stock exchanges for example involve macro-economic issues but they are exceptions. Macroeconomic concerns just aren't that relevant to most business decisions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not even convinced Romney knows the plight of small business owners, since all he ever did was buy up small companies and hack them apart to find their sellable bits. Downsizing the US economy Romney-style certainly isn't going to bring back jobs.
Downsize the US economy? No.
I guess it's worth reminding you that there is a pretty large subset of Republicans/libertarians/etc. who might think that downsizing the US government Romney-style could bring back jobs.
In fact, if they actually thought he planned to do that, I think he'd probably be a lot more popular among his base.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Romney have a style when it comes to downsizing government? News to me.
It's good you said 'Romney-style', though, because one thing needs to be clear (not that you disagree): the people he's courting now, and the voters who would likely if he were to win be most responsible for the victory don't actually want to 'downsize government'. That's much too broad a statement to apply to conservative Republicans-and even a helluva lot of self-styled libertarians I've spoken to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No more than he has a "style" when it comes to downsizing the US Economy.
Also... not sure what you mean. Just 'cause there are still government departments Republicans/libertarians won't want to cut, or...?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That he doesn't have a 'style' when it comes to downsizing things that aren't various American privately owned businesses, or boosting the profits of larger American privately owned businesses, was my point.
As for what I meant about small government, would you say the Republican platform of 2012 is one of small government when it comes to social issues, law enforcement powers, military spending? That was what I was getting at-it doesn't serve as an indictment of Republican stances on any of those, but it's not correct to call it 'small government' and simply leave it at that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: the argument that a businessman would make a good Prime Minister
Depends on the government I`d think. In Canada, you could see the argument that a businessman Prime Minister (ex: Paul Martin) would run the Crown corporations more efficiently, so things like Canada Post, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the various pension investment boards, etc. In China, the state owned enterprises are even bigger, so that argument would be even more applicable there.
With the US, there have been good arguments that the bank bailouts should basically have been downsizing the financial sector in what we're calling "Romney"-style, so I think it depends. (Not that I have any illusions that Romney would actually have done that)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Okay. Lyr made a jab, that claims of Romney's business acumen as it applies to being President could only translate to an ability to downsize the US Economy. You saw that, right?
I think that his crack, while being a clever bit of anti-Romney wit, is even more baseless than the idea that his business skill might actually show itself in an ability to slash/downsize the US government and its budget. That's all I was saying. Taken in context, as a response to Lyr's witticism as opposed to an assertion of Romney's skill, does it make more sense?
As far as Republicans being for small government... well, yeah. Of course they are. That there are some exceptions (such as military spending for non-Ron Paul Republicans, or certain forms of social spending for Santorum Republicans, though even then most of their so-con comes out in policies that have little to do with budget, such as gay marriage and abortion) doesn't really diminish the fact that they're the ones pretty consistently talking about a need to scale back the size and scope of government.
They ain't perfect, and I agree that calling them small government and leaving it at that is sort of pointless and flawed. But even if we were just to run down the issues doing a simple comparison between the two parties, do you really think the Republicans wouldn't end up on the slash-government side of the equation more often than the Democrats? Aside from military spending, on what issue are Democrats more inclined to try to cut government spending/programs/etc.?
I mean, people generally criticize stuff like the Ryan plan because it's heartless and evil and cuts government so deeply that it's the equivalent to throwing old ladies off of cliffs. Not because it doesn't cut anything. Ditto for, say, Christie and the NJ budget. He was a heartless monster who destroyed schools and spat on teachers. Why would they say that if he didn't, well, cut things from the budget?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Republicans are only small government in the sense that they want it to be so broken that it doesn't work, so they keep being voted in on the lie that they'll keeping making cuts to "fix" things by letting the invisible hand of the market take over, and yet spending the country into the ground in helping businesses, paying for the military etc. It is all about a Galtian war on the poor.
And they aren't particularly small government when it comes to the power of government to police peoples private lives, or on the use of force against the country's own citizens.
IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for that incredibly coherent and insightful analysis, Blayne. It was very objective.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, you seem to be saying that the size of government is only measured by what they spend. And not counting military spending.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wait, is this discussion about who *claims* to be small-government, or about which party is by any amount smaller government than the other? Because that's a very different conversation.
Sign me up with those who say that social policy as enacted by government is very much a part of whether government is big or small, and not at all something that can just be excused aside.
Aside from insisting it's good that citizens be required to show papers on the suspicion of law enforcement? Aside from inserting itself into the bedroom and the prayer meeting? Aside from a foreign and military policy that has profound impacts on our lives and safety? Aside from not being 'small government' in those areas...
Yeah, sure, the GOP as it exists now could be said to be small government, perhaps.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Thank you for that incredibly coherent and insightful analysis, Blayne. It was very objective.
Damn straight, as by possessing an outsider view I am in the natural position to have an objective view. And the objective viewpoint is that the GOP is destroying and looting the country for political gain.
IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't by default confer objectivity, nor does your own belief confirm it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Do you have any reason to believe that a informed foreigner isn't in the position to criticize your political system? That by being foreign this keeps them outside of partisan culture war mindset is not in fact useful to being more objective?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a question, there is a wide spread assumption that Romney's experience running successful businesses means he will be good at managing the economy. What's the reasoning?
The kinds of things businesses do to make a profit just aren't that similar to anything the government might do to stimulate the economy. Can anyone tell me what kinds of things a successful CEO does that are relevant to the kinds of economic decisions a President needs to make?
I think being the CEO of any reasonably sized company requires a firm grasp of macroeconomic principles. They may not embrace your flavor of macroeconomic theory but that's a different debate. A successful CEO must understand - or surround him/herself with people who understand - market climate, business cycles (growth rate, peak, downturn, recession, expansion - a major part of macroeconomic theory), allocation of funds and reappropriation of capital, delegation of responsibilities, and downsizing (which is different in kind but isn't entirely dissimilar to downsizing the level of government intervention in the country's economy). The CEO (or president or any upper management position, depending on their responsibilities) is concerned with the future of the company and is privy to a broad and detailed range of information which aids in fulfilling this responsibility. It's necessary to accurately predict and forecast the current position of the company as well as it's future position, then strategize and develop effective policies to guide the business in the desired direction, and finally, to oversee the implementation of the chosen polices (though CEOs of large corporations are often less involved with the direct managerial and operational side of business). Depending on the size and type of business, the CEO is also occupied with developing and maintaining strategic partnerships, further illustrating the importance of skills in diplomacy and negotiation.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have any reason to believe that a informed foreigner isn't in the position to criticize your political system? That by being foreign this keeps them outside of partisan culture war mindset is not in fact useful to being more objective?
Why, the answer to your question that nobody asked or even suggested is 'no'. That you would ask that question is actually a pretty elegant example on why your objectivity and fair-mindedness on American politics is...questionable: you began arguing with scarecrows less than a few lines into a discussion.
And please, to hopefully avoid any tantrums, note that people are questioning whether you are objective on American politics. That is all. When remembering that, please also remember that probably none of the people questioning would call themselves objective, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And at the same time remember that criticizing whether one can be objective doesn't eliminate the validity of the points raised. You can exclaim my lack of objectivity until the cows come home but they don't do anything more than to temporarily deflect the argument raised, one raised several times here previous by other posters than myself. That the GOP is abusing its position to damage the US for political gain. Targeting whether I am being "objective" about it is just being pedantic.
So I imagine you can continue to derail the topic into the matter of personality conflicts between posters and side track it into a pedantic discussion regarding objectivity or you can actually address the arguments raised if you disagree with them.
Do you disagree with the above assessment? If yes, then provide a counter argument, if not why are you being a terrible poster?
quote: I think being the CEO of any reasonably sized company requires a firm grasp of macroeconomic principles. They may not embrace your flavor of macroeconomic theory but that's a different debate. A successful CEO must understand - or surround him/herself with people who understand - market climate, business cycles (growth rate, peak, downturn, recession, expansion - a major part of macroeconomic theory), allocation of funds and reappropriation of capital, delegation of responsibilities, and downsizing (which is different in kind but isn't entirely dissimilar to downsizing the level of government intervention in the country's economy). The CEO (or president or any upper management position, depending on their responsibilities) is concerned with the future of the company and is privy to a broad and detailed range of information which aids in fulfilling this responsibility. It's necessary to accurately predict and forecast the current position of the company as well as it's future position, then strategize and develop effective policies to guide the business in the desired direction, and finally, to oversee the implementation of the chosen polices (though CEOs of large corporations are often less involved with the direct managerial and operational side of business). Depending on the size and type of business, the CEO is also occupied with developing and maintaining strategic partnerships, further illustrating the importance of skills in diplomacy and negotiation.
posted
Blayne, you declared you were objective and then gave absurd reasons why we should just take your word for it. The one who brought the substance of your objectivity? Blayne Bradley. If you don't want to talk about it anymore-and I wouldn't be surprised-that's fine, but don't try and whine that other people are being 'terrible posters' because they discuss what you proclaimed.
Especially since, when your objectivity was derided, your support was 'I'm a foreigner, and therefore obviously objective. Now on to the objective view.' No one is saying you're wrong about your political opinions-though geeze, those discussions always end up well, just that you're not objective. That's it. Very few people are, and you ain't one of them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: None of which applies to Mittens.
?
Aw. If that was really his nickname, how could anyone not vote for him? He should adopt it.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne, you declared you were objective and then gave absurd reasons why we should just take your word for it. The one who brought the substance of your objectivity? Blayne Bradley. If you don't want to talk about it anymore-and I wouldn't be surprised-that's fine, but don't try and whine that other people are being 'terrible posters' because they discuss what you proclaimed.
Especially since, when your objectivity was derided, your support was 'I'm a foreigner, and therefore obviously objective. Now on to the objective view.' No one is saying you're wrong about your political opinions-though geeze, those discussions always end up well, just that you're not objective. That's it. Very few people are, and you ain't one of them.
You are not however debating the substance of my post, but nitpicking the method of my post, which was, a reply to Dan_Frank's obviously sarcastic content-less elaborationless reply to my criticism of the GOP.
He implied that my post wasn't objective, so I reply that by being non-American I am inherently more objective than he is being, do you get it now?
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, as a fellow foreigner, I can say that, whether or not your argument is valid, being foreign *in itself* usually just means you're less well informed, not that you're intrinsically more objective on the subject of another country's political situation.
You can have just as many political opinions and biases as a citizen, if not more so - you're just not entitled to vote.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He implied that my post wasn't objective, so I reply that by being non-American I am inherently more objective than he is being, do you get it now?
Oh, we all get it. The problem is, it takes more than non-residence to be objective. Being an outsider doesn't, in and of itself, confer objectivity. That you claim it does demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
But, hey, this is yet another opportunity for you to hear a wide variety of people from a variety of ideologies and backgrounds suggest that perhaps maybe you're mistaken about something, but because you can't tolerate nearly any criticism from some of them, disregard the whole concern. Totally cool and outstandingly objective.Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Blayne is more absorbed in Chinese culture than most people here, his opinion on the matter is more biased and less valuable.
I know nothing about Chinese culture though, so my lack of bias allows me to confidently and accurately state that China is aiming for world domination by putting sedatives in Chinese food to make Americans lazy and apathetic.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:He implied that my post wasn't objective, so I reply that by being non-American I am inherently more objective than he is being, do you get it now?
Oh, we all get it. The problem is, it takes more than non-residence to be objective. Being an outsider doesn't, in and of itself, confer objectivity. That you claim it does demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
But, hey, this is yet another opportunity for you to hear a wide variety of people from a variety of ideologies and backgrounds suggest that perhaps maybe you're mistaken about something, but because you can't tolerate nearly any criticism from some of them, disregard the whole concern. Totally cool and outstandingly objective.
By being foreign, I am in a better position to look at both sides of the issue then someone who has bought into the local cultural baggage and can only see the world in those terms. Much like who Randians is essential a purely American phenomenon as it easily adapts itself to the ideals American Exceptionalism that have knee capped egalitarianism for years now.
The only real counter argument to this would be arguing that I am less informed to the extant that it negates any advantages gained from being less biased; however it should be very cleared that I am informed and take ample steps to be more informed.
Again I ask, do you believe that Dan is correct that I am not being "objective"? Do you believe that this "lack" of objectivity undermines my post? Have I made any mistakes that could be attributed to being less informed than the median? How has my post been undermined?
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
