Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Bain & Romney & Ryan & 533 lies in 30 weeks (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Bain & Romney & Ryan & 533 lies in 30 weeks
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 539 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He should know as much as anyone who's taken a couple college econ classes, sure. Any more than that is wasted.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?
Posts: 4512 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 5645 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!
Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Both Communism and Christianity have stared into the abyss, but only Christianity had the inherent weakness to blink.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL....I didn't think it was possible for you to sound more ridiculousness, Blayne.

I stand corrected.

Posts: 15003 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne, if that was a parody, that was brilliant. If you meant that seriously, I'm very sorry that Ron broke you.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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. [Wink]

Posts: 15003 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 15003 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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"?
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
. . .
quote:
. . . He's snipped out sentences from an Obama speech and spliced the two halves back together so nobody could tell what he did.

. . .

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. . .

So, first of all, campaign ads are the worst they have ever been? Really? I just... really? Have some perspective, dude. After all, so far nobody has accused Romney of being a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man or the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.

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?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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)

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting that Gov. Romney is trying to run on his business experience and run away from it at the same time.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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. [Smile]

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. [Frown]

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?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4512 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slavim
Member
Member # 12546

 - posted      Profile for Slavim   Email Slavim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 19 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1880 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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!

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-will-be-mitt-romneys-vice-presidential-pick-heres-seven-thoughts-on-what-that-means/

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.

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hurr reid.
Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 16405 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, Tom, am I spending all my fall weekends canvassing in WI or giving it up to concentrate on Ohio or Iowa?
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2