Who will take on Obama in 2012? [Archive] - Page 9

will.15

05-01-12, 08:16 PM

So...no response to tripping over your own "tacit approval" word parsing, huh? Yeah. I kinda thought that might happen.

Yeah, because it's a real answer to say "a little bit" and then add "he started it." :rolleyes: You don't accept that kind of response from Bush, why should I accept it from you? And even that was the fifth time I asked! So your argument is...what? That you're guilty of ignoring it four times, but not six?

I don't get the Bush comment at all. I don't see how it is analogous. The main point about the ad about Romney, it isn't outrageous, it is common stuff in political campaigns these days, and nothing to be angry about except if you are sensitive about comments directed at your candidate. Are they any different than many attacks about Obama's character? Not really. Much worse has been said about him from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

It's utterly irrelevant who you voted for. It hardly even matters how big a "deal" it was; I only mention it to show that it wasn't some obscure issue that was hardly commented on. What matters is that Obama's response to it directly contradicts his actions now. How is this a tiny hypocrisy, exactly? What would it take, other than switching parties, to make it a bigger one? How about you give me a Democratic error that you won't play down shamelessly.

It is the teeniest hypocrisy I can imagine. Because it is not about policy, but political strategy. So you are offended by the ad because of what happened four years ago, when Obama reacted to a similar attack? Do you expect me to believe that?

Do you think Obama's speaking from conviction when he says he's against gay marriage? Do you think he was speaking from conviction when he said he wanted campaigns to be publicly funded? Or when he said he wanted to close gitmo? Or when he said raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership? Or when he said putting us into large amounts of debt was unpatriotic? Or when he said we need more government transparency?
I suspect he isn't against gay marriage, but he may have had an evolving opinion about that. I used to be against gay marriage, but I changed my mind. Publicly funded csmpaigns, he was for it and for political reasons changed his mind. Every time a politician is inconsistent is not the end of the world. I said before they all do it. But nobody, nobody, does it to the extent Romney does. The other questions, well, the next three are typical when a politician goes into the White House, the reality of being in office results in not keeping some campaign promises. They all do it. No exceptions. Remember I'm a uniter, not a divider? Obama is nowhere near the worse offender. The last question, I don't even have any idea where he has a credibility problem there.

But none of that addresses what I was talking about. Romney was leveling an attack on Obama for what I suspect was political calculations, not out of deep convictions, and it resulted in the attack ad directed at him. If he wasn't completely incapable of saying what he really thinks on policy, the way John McCain can, if he wasn't the complete political animal, he may not have found himself vulnerable to the ad's attack. When you come out swinging you can get punched, too.

AKA23

05-02-12, 02:18 AM

Questioning Romney's statements on Afghanistan is fine, at least potentially. But that's not what the uproar is about. Have you seen the text of the ad? It's actually worse than just saying he wouldn't have killed Bin Laden. It says Obama made the "harder" and "more honorable" choice" and then ominously asks "What path would Romney have taken?" Is there any way to read this other than directly suggesting that Romney would have lacked the "honor" to do it? Since when it is okay for candidates to openly question each others' patriotism and honor?

I have seen the ad, and yes, as I said previously, I do believe the ad was unfair, and that it is not appropriate to question Mr. Romney and suggest that he would not have made the same choice if he were presented a similar opportunity as President.

I think "most" in this case refers to "a technical majority." I guess I'm sort of glad he committed more troops to it, but it fell significantly short of what his commanders on the ground asked for, and for all we know a half-hearted commitment might be even worse than none. I have no idea, but I'm not awarding him partial credit for only somewhat letting political considerations override military ones.

The problem with this logic is that the military is always going to want more troops to accomplish whatever their mission happens to be. I can't think of a single military engagement in recent history where military commanders have requested less troops. It's the job of the military to request the troops they feel they need. It's the job of the President to determine what the overall strategy is and to make the decisions about how many troops are needed to accomplish the scope of the mission that he envisions. That's what President Obama did. I think it's unfair to suggest that President Obama didn't give the military all they were asking for because of political calculations. He could have just as logically simply felt that for the more limited scope he envisioned the troops he authorized would be adequate.

Respectfully: what campaign are you watching? Romney has hit the President on most major issues, to be sure, but foreign policy is not "much of" the campaign. It's been overwhelming economically focused.

By "much of the campaign" I didn't mean that much of the campaign has been focused on foreign policy. I meant that Romney, when he does talk about foreign policy, is extremely critical of virtually every foreign policy decision that Obama has made. I'm sorry if that was poorly worded, but the point is still valid. The fact that President Obama has had many successes in that arena is relevant to countering this criticism. I do agree with you that what President Obama has done does go beyond the scope of that to a degree.

Finally, I do think that candidate Romney has done similar things with respect to how own statements with respect to President Obama. Candidate Romney did say "If Obama is re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If Mitt Romney is elected, they won't." While not as egregious as the ad President Obama has put forth, by saying that if Obama is re-elected Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and if Romney is elected, they won't, Romney is implicitly questioning whether Obama would have the guts to attack Iran if they do reach a nuclear capability. He isn't saying that directly, but the implication is clear. Romney will do what is necessary, whatever that is, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Obama won't. This is somewhat similar to what the ad is doing. It is positing a hypothetical situation some time in the future, and it is questioning whether Obama would make the "right" choice, while firmly stating that Romney would. All the best estimates are that Iran is at least a few years from developing a nuclear weapon, and even further out from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. The best evidence also indicates that Iran has not even decided to develop a nuclear weapon as of yet. Therefore, for Romney to assume that he would know what Obama would do if faced with the possibility of them actually obtaining a nuclear weapon, Romney is being unfair, and it is somewhat hypocritical of his campaign to question the Obama ad when he is guilty of doing something very similar.

What do you think, Yoda?

Yoda

05-02-12, 08:51 AM

I don't get the Bush comment at all. I don't see how it is analogous.
What's not to get? You said that bland or perfunctory disapproval is the same as tacit approval. So I'm saying: you've expressed bland, perfunctory disapproval of the ad, therefore you tacitly approve of the ad. Your arguments in one area are undermining your arguments in another.

The main point about the ad about Romney, it isn't outrageous, it is common stuff in political campaigns these days, and nothing to be angry about except if you are sensitive about comments directed at your candidate. Are they any different than many attacks about Obama's character? Not really.
Wha? Show me other ads that directly question another candidate's honor. Bonus points if they peer into crystal balls and dance around dead bodies. And what are these "many attacks about Obama's character," by the way? They're coming from the Romney campaign? Show me. I've had my fill of you BS-ing your way through conversations on generalities and only providing specifics when repeatedly pressed.

Much worse has been said about him from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.
And with Rush Limbaugh's recent victory in the Republican primaries, this is definitely a relevant comparison.

Seriously, a week ago you mocked the idea that Limbaugh was analagous to Sandra Fluke (even though I never suggested they were), and now you're comparing Limbaugh to the President. Again, your arguments collide.

This is what I mean by not arguing in good faith, by the way. There's no telling when your arguments on one issue will completely contradict some principle or argument you mentioned in another. You're just making this stuff up as you go. This sort of thing doesn't happen if you have (and hold to) actual political standards that you apply consistently. But it happens all the time if you're constantly willing to bend and flex those standards so that, somehow, the guy on your side is always either innocent or not as bad as the other guy.

It is the teeniest hypocrisy I can imagine. Because it is not about policy, but political strategy. So you are offended by the ad because of what happened four years ago, when Obama reacted to a similar attack? Do you expect me to believe that?
I do not. You know how you can tell? You can tell because I didn't ask you to believe it. I'm offended by the ad, not by the fact that Obama is as hypocritical as the next politician. That part's relevant to get people like yourself, who are conveniently blind to why the ad is over the line, to acknowledge that Obama's at least acting in a blatantly hypocritical way. And--shocker!--you think it's no big deal.

I meant what I said: can you show me a Democratic error you won't play down? You've been posting like crazy in here for, what, a year and a half? If you're even remotely objective, one imagines there must be a few big Democratic gaffes in there that you haven't immediately labeled "no big deal" and quickly claimed that Republicans have some worse version of, right? Show 'em to me. And if you can't, what do you think that says about your objectivity?

I suspect he isn't against gay marriage, but he may have had an evolving opinion about that. I used to be against gay marriage, but I changed my mind. Publicly funded csmpaigns, he was for it and for political reasons changed his mind. Every time a politician is inconsistent is not the end of the world. I said before they all do it. But nobody, nobody, does it to the extent Romney does. The other questions, well, the next three are typical when a politician goes into the White House, the reality of being in office results in not keeping some campaign promises. They all do it. No exceptions. Remember I'm a uniter, not a divider? Obama is nowhere near the worse offender. The last question, I don't even have any idea where he has a credibility problem there.
I wasn't really looking for your famous one-sentence political analysis. The point is that you're making a big show of your speculation that Romney said something that wasn't out of conviction, but there are a litany of things on which Obama has clearly acted primarily out of political interest. And I'm sorry, but "They all do it...but Romney does it more" is a lame, vague line of attack. And more importantly, it's not a defense. "Yes, but" is still "Yes."

But none of that addresses what I was talking about. Romney was leveling an attack on Obama for what I suspect was political calculations, not out of deep convictions, and it resulted in the attack ad directed at him. If he wasn't completely incapable of saying what he really thinks on policy, the way John McCain can, if he wasn't the complete political animal, he may not have found himself vulnerable to the ad's attack. When you come out swinging you can get punched, too.
The idea that someone who supports Obama can call his opponent a "complete political animal" without any indication of irony is highly amusing. Everything Obama does is highly calculated, and if you think otherwise, then you're still on the ride.

If your argument consists primarily of a) speculating about the candidates' inner convictions and b) saying everyone-does-X-but-Romney-does-it-worse, then you have no real argument. It's basically a formula at this point: someone comes in here with a genuine criticism of Obama, and the stale playbook of it's-not-that-bad or Romney-is-worse is immediately put into effect.

You know how you can demonstrate credibility on political issues and show you're not a partisan shill? By showing a willingness to take a swipe at your own "side" when they go too far. You've been given opportunities to do this, and you don't. Hence: freakin' shill. I had it right a dozen posts ago. I should have just left it there, because every word since has reinforced what I said then.

Yoda

05-02-12, 09:17 AM

I have seen the ad, and yes, as I said previously, I do believe the ad was unfair, and that it is not appropriate to question Mr. Romney and suggest that he would not have made the same choice if he were presented a similar opportunity as President.
I appreciate that. I ask only to point out that, while most of what you say is fine, it's not a good description of what the Obama campaign is actually doing and saying. I agree that there are plenty of other ways they could have gone about it that would've been legitimate. Or, at least, not morally objectionable.

The problem with this logic is that the military is always going to want more troops to accomplish whatever their mission happens to be. I can't think of a single military engagement in recent history where military commanders have requested less troops.
Well, right off the bat, I don't think I agree with this. It's a pretty dim view of the military to take, for one. But how would we test this idea, anyway? When you say they don't request fewer troops, my question is: fewer than what? In this case, they didn't ask for a million troops. They didn't ask for 500,000 troops. Clearly, there's some limiting principle at work here. So unless you think they always ask for too many troops, we should consider the possibility that they asked for what they needed. And didn't get it.

Also, I feel like, if anyone was going to understand how serious it is to send people to war, and not send more than was necessary, it would probably be those commanders. They're not infallible, but I think it's reasonable to say we have to assume the number they ask for is the number they feel they need, unless we have a strong reason to believe otherwise.

It's the job of the military to request the troops they feel they need. It's the job of the President to determine what the overall strategy is and to make the decisions about how many troops are needed to accomplish the scope of the mission that he envisions. That's what President Obama did. I think it's unfair to suggest that President Obama didn't give the military all they were asking for because of political calculations. He could have just as logically simply felt that for the more limited scope he envisioned the troops he authorized would be adequate.
Yup, he could have. That's possible. But given that he'd made campaign promises about troop draw downs and foreign involvement, and was under constant pressure from those on his left to bring the remaining troops home, it's hard to fathom that that didn't factor into his decision.

Remember, though, that I wasn't going after him with what I said. I was simply saying I'm not going to pat him on the back for this one, because he just sorta split the difference on it.

By "much of the campaign" I didn't mean that much of the campaign has been focused on foreign policy. I meant that Romney, when he does talk about foreign policy, is extremely critical of virtually every foreign policy decision that Obama has made. I'm sorry if that was poorly worded, but the point is still valid. The fact that President Obama has had many successes in that arena is relevant to countering this criticism. I do agree with you that what President Obama has done does go beyond the scope of that to a degree.
No worries. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, Obama's foreign policy has been a pleasant surprise in most areas. He's had to go back on a number of campaign promises on foreign policy (and a lot of those on the left are suddenly fine with all this stuff that they hated when Bush did it), but I still give him credit for doing it.

I think a lot of Presidents face a foreign policy upheaval when they actually enter the White House. There's a lot they learn as President that they probably didn't know as candidates. Which seems like a pretty good argument for candidates to stop making lots of specific foreign policy promises, frankly.

Finally, I do think that candidate Romney has done similar things with respect to how own statements with respect to President Obama. Candidate Romney did say "If Obama is re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If Mitt Romney is elected, they won't." While not as egregious as the ad President Obama has put forth, by saying that if Obama is re-elected Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and if Romney is elected, they won't, Romney is implicitly questioning whether Obama would have the guts to attack Iran if they do reach a nuclear capability. He isn't saying that directly, but the implication is clear. Romney will do what is necessary, whatever that is, to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Obama won't. This is somewhat similar to what the ad is doing. It is positing a hypothetical situation some time in the future, and it is questioning whether Obama would make the "right" choice, while firmly stating that Romney would. All the best estimates are that Iran is at least a few years from developing a nuclear weapon, and even further out from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. The best evidence also indicates that Iran has not even decided to develop a nuclear weapon as of yet. Therefore, for Romney to assume that he would know what Obama would do if faced with the possibility of them actually obtaining a nuclear weapon, Romney is being unfair, and it is somewhat hypocritical of his campaign to question the Obama ad when he is guilty of doing something very similar.

What do you think, Yoda?
I think if Romney had said "Obama doesn't have the honor to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon" or asked "What would Obama have done?" in response to an existing attack, like 9/11, it would've been beyond the pale, and I would've been really annoyed with Romney for it. But I don't have a problem with someone saying "this policy will lead to this effect." I wouldn't have a problem with an Obama ad that said the opposite sort of thing about Iran.

The problem, of course, is that Obama can't really make a policy argument, because of the link I posted before. His policies, if they'd been put into place beforehand, look like they would have squashed the intelligence that made the raid possible. So he has to restrict himself to either a completely positive ad about how great the decision was, which clearly isn't going to happen when an incumbent is facing these kinds of numbers, or he had to just slam Romney without any policy in the attack. Which is exactly what happened. It makes perfect sense when you look at it that way.

He had other options, to be sure. Just not options that worked for him as an embattled candidate.

will.15

05-02-12, 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=808580#post808580)
I suspect he isn't against gay marriage, but he may have had an evolving opinion about that. I used to be against gay marriage, but I changed my mind. Publicly funded campaigns, he was for it and for political reasons changed his mind. Every time a politician is inconsistent is not the end of the world. I said before they all do it. But nobody, nobody, does it to the extent Romney does. The other questions, well, the next three are typical when a politician goes into the White House, the reality of being in office results in not keeping some campaign promises. They all do it. No exceptions. Remember I'm a uniter, not a divider? Obama is nowhere near the worse offender. The last question, I don't even have any idea where he has a credibility problem there.

I wasn't really looking for your famous one-sentence political analysis. The point is that you're making a big show of your speculation that Romney said something that wasn't out of conviction, but there are a litany of things on which Obama has clearly acted primarily out of political interest. And I'm sorry, but "They all do it...but Romney does it more" is a lame, vague line of attack. And more importantly, it's not a defense. "Yes, but" is still "Yes."

That is real interesting. In this case you ask me a question, but you don't expect or want to hear the answer because you were making a point. It wasn't a real question. It looks like that is the real reason you keep saying I don't answer your other questions because they are just you actually doing the same thing you did here.

And we go back to what I said before. They all do it. That is how Republicans responded to the Watergate scandal. And it was true in a broad sense. But degrees matter. None of those other presidents had to resign. And Obama's flip flops are far less than Obama's and different. Compare your rather anemic list with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-HWGk1Qjk

The one about hiring illegal workers is unfair and another might be out of context, but the others are mainly Romney doing major flip flops on major issues. Many of your Obama mentions are him not keeping campaign promises, which are different. Your list of inconsistencies would be a lot smaller if you couldn't contrast what he campaigned on and what he did once elected. And that ad could be longer because Romney flip flopped more since that was released. Nobody, certainly not Obama, flip flops the way Romney does. And I will say it again. I was willing to give him a break at the beginning of the campaign cycle because four years had passed when he abandoned his moderate positions as Mass. Governor. But he starts campaigning and he does it some more, and a lot. You are going to compare Obama with Mitt Romney and say their flip flops are on an equal footing? Are you serious? Only a very partisan person would seriously make that claim. Obama's inconsistencies are average. Even John McCain did some policy reversals when he ran. It is standard. The difference is nobody ever said John McCain did not have a core. And nobody says it about Obama either. Obama as president is not dramatically different from Obama the candidate, not even on foreign policy, because if you actually paid attention to what he was saying it was nuanced. Who really is Mitt Romney? Do you really know? I sure don't. No, I don't think as some screwy right wingers think he is a liberal. But other than that, the charge he lacks a core is quite valid. Every time he opens his mouth, he proves it. He is all talking points, searching for his opponent's vulnerabilities, attack him on that, and then adjust his message if needed later. That is why he was so good in those debates, why he won so many primaries. He almost stands for nothing, he is the anti-whoever he is running against, the "better than the other guy." But Obama is a more formidable opponent than Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. And that ad hit a nerve. A little unfair? Yes, but just a little. And no worse than Romney ads where he quoted Obama quoting John McCain's campaign manager and making it sound like Obama was saying it directly. And he defended the ad and certainly did not apologize for it.
[

Yoda

05-02-12, 02:05 PM

That is real interesting. In this case you ask me a question, but you don't expect or want to hear the answer because you were making a point. It wasn't a real question. It looks like that is the real reason you keep saying I don't answer your other questions because they are just you actually doing the same thing you did here.
Er, wha? Asking you rhetorical questions somehow means none of my questions are ever real? How on earth do you figure that?

And you do realize your earlier defense about the hypocrisy thing was to say you only ignored it, like, four times, rather than six, right? You're comfortable with that defense? Because I'll gladly accept the premise that you only ignore questions very often, rather than very, very often.

And we go back to what I said before. They all do it. That is how Republicans responded to the Watergate scandal. And it was true in a broad sense. But degrees matter.
Yes, they do. Which is why "they all do it" is a weak response. The argument is not that they don't do it, but that they don't do it this badly. They don't usually do it like this. And when they do, we smack them for it. If we're being honest and consistent, that is. As ugly as campaigns get, people getting mad at their own side (or people without a horse in the race getting mad) is the only thing that stops them from getting even uglier. That moderating influence is an important part of the political culture, and when people start making excuses for this stuff, we get more. And then that new, worse level of vitriol becomes common, and then people like you start defending that stuff because "everyone does it," too.

So be a part of the solution, man, and stand up to people you otherwise agree with sometimes. I asked you for examples of this. Are there any? If not, and given how many times you've posted in here, isn't that kind of, I dunno, odd? Those last two questions are not rhetorical, by the way.

And Obama's flip flops are far less than Obama's and different. Compare your rather anemic list with this:
My list was off the top of my head. If you want more, there's plenty where that came from (http://www.gop.com/images/research/failed_promise_campaign_negative_attacks.pdf). More here (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/) and here (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/). The number of these things for all major candidates is staggering. There's so many in every direction that it stretches credulity to pretend you can do some kind of back-of-the-napkin aggregation and confidently declare that Romney is worse. I suspect those old crutches--the left one named Conventional and the right one named Wisdom--factor into this far more than any encompassing view of the facts.

But yes, I admit that you will always be able to point out minute differences and suggest that Obama's transgressions are somehow on some different plane of existence than Romney's. If you're willing to thin-slice this stuff, you can muddy the waters with enough subjectivity that the statements can't be literally contradicted. But I don't think it speaks well of an ideology when someone has to constantly fall back on ethereal arguments. Added to the fact that you seem loathe to question established narratives, and it smells an awful lot like a superficial level of engagement. EDIT: I withdraw this last part. I can only observe what you do, but it could come from being ingratiated in the political culture just as much as it could come from barely engaging with it, so it's not a conclusion I can make in good conscience.

Many of your Obama mentions are him not keeping campaign promises, which are different. Your list of inconsistencies would be a lot smaller if you couldn't contrast what he campaigned on and what he did once elected.
My God, you're right. Most of the "inconsistencies" disappear if we exclude the most important and public part of his political career. Nevermind that the campaign made up almost half of his national exposure up to that point. It just wouldn't be proper to judge a President on how well his time in office aligns with what he said he would do in office. We have to arbitrarily restrict ourselves to the whopping two years he spent in the Senate beforehand, even though he was probably exploring a run then, too. Because...Romney sucks?

Seriously, man, at this point you need your own version of Poe's Law. There's no parody of will.15 that will not be confused by an actual will.15 post by someone.

You are going to compare Obama with Mitt Romney and say their lip flops are on an equal footing? Are you serious? Only a very partisan person would seriously make that claim.
I think they're pretty much incomparable by their very natures. And I think the difference between them is ridiculously exaggerated by the way political perceptions tend to self-perpetuate over time. But I don't think any of my arguments are contingent on the idea that they're equal; just that you can't answer every Obama criticism by complaining about Mitt Romney. That's been your response to pretty much every criticism. This is starting to look like the only play in the playbook. It also happens to mirror Obama's campaign strategy perfectly: it's all offense, no defense. When you can't defend your record, just go after the other guy.

Obama's inconsistencies are average. Even John McCain did some policy reversals when he ran. It is standard. The difference is nobody ever said John McCain did not have a core. And nobody says it about Obama either. Obama as president is not dramatically different from Obama the candidate, not even on foreign policy, because if you actually paid attention to what he was saying it was nuanced. Who really is Mitt Romney? Do you really know? I sure don't.
I sure don't. But I think you're probably fooling yourself if you think you know who the real Barack Obama is, either.

That's pretty much the core of my objection here. Your response to everything Obama does wrong, every time he breaks a promise, every time he releases a misleading or outright hypocritical ad, is to sweep it right under the "everyone does it" rug and think that settles it. But you can't go on and on about how misleading all politicians are, and then turn around and try to pretend you still kinda-sorta know when Obama's being genuine, or that you're capable of parsing genuine-ness levels.

I don't know if you've considered this, but one of the benefits of someone who says a lot of stupid or inconsistent stuff is that they're clearly not slick enough to hide it. This is one of Gingrich's ironic virtues: the downside of gaffes and misstatements also has the upside of not having to worry that the candidate is capable of hiding things particularly well. And in a world where the only sensible posture is to doubt all politicians instrinsically, that can be far more valuable. And the stakes are higher, too, because if you're wrong about it the other way, you're really wrong.

Here's something else, too, that you may not have considered: while there are plenty of valid reasons to at least doubt Romney's sincerity (though like you said, he's clearly not some stealth liberal), he has at least one thing going for him that Obama doesn't. He has a substantial track record to criticize. Consistency is not just what you say, but what you say multiplied by time. Consistency is not saying something and then repeating it the next day. Someone who's been around 20 years and has an inconsistency or two on their record is actually more consistent than a political cypher who hasn't really been tested yet. It's a ratio, not a nominal comparison.

Romney's been a public figure for literally twice as long as Obama. You don't seem to account for this at all. And more than that, his ideological shift awhile back puts him under even more scrutiny than usual. It's totally fair that conservatives want to scrutinize him more for this, but the fairness of the question should not be confused for a fact about what he believes, which is how you're treating it. The reasonableness of asking if his change is genuine is a separate question from the reasonableness of suggesting he has no core.

A little unfair? Yes, but just a little. And no worse than Romney ads where he quoted Obama quoting John McCain's campaign manger and making it sound like Obama was saying it directly.[/B][
See, now I'm going to do what you always refuse to do. Please take note. That ad? Totally misleading. No qualifications. It cannot and should not be spun. It was a misleading ad, and he shouldn't have put it out. Period.

No worse than Obama's? Well, misquoting someone definitely falls under the "everyone does it" balm that you apply to every single wound. But questioning someone's honor? Look me in the virtual eye and try to tell me that happens in every campaign, coming directly from one of the candidates. Seriously. Tell me that's not different. If you're actually drinking enough of the Kool-Aid to say and/or believe that, then I'll walk away from this discussion right now and you can go back to posting selectively-chosen news items that nobody seems to want to talk about.

will.15

05-02-12, 07:20 PM

Er, wha? Asking you rhetorical questions somehow means none of my questions are ever real? How on earth do you figure that?

And you do realize your earlier defense about the hypocrisy thing was to say you only ignored it, like, four times, rather than six, right? You're comfortable with that defense? Because I'll gladly accept the premise that you only ignore questions very often, rather than very, very often.

I never ignored the question. I answered it every time. And if you aren't really asking a question you should make that clear. The difference is I never make a big deal if you don't answer my questions. I don't insist you respond to everything I say. You are the one who makes a big deal if a question isn't answered, not me.

Yes, they do. Which is why "they all do it" is a weak response. The argument is not that they don't do it, but that they don't do it this badly. They don't usually do it like this. And when they do, we smack them for it. If we're being honest and consistent, that is. As ugly as campaigns get, people getting mad at their own side (or people without a horse in the race getting mad) is the only thing that stops them from getting even uglier. That moderating influence is an important part of the political culture, and when people start making excuses for this stuff, we get more. And then that new, worse level of vitriol becomes common, and then people like you start defending that stuff because "everyone does it," too.

So be a part of the solution, man, and stand up to people you otherwise agree with sometimes. I asked you for examples of this. Are there any? If not, and given how many times you've posted in here, isn't that kind of, I dunno, odd? Those last two questions are not rhetorical, by the way.

If Obama flip flopped like serial flip flopper Mitt Romney I would criticize him. If he flip flopped to the extent I didn't know what he actually believed in, I would criticize him. But because he said he would take public finance campaign money and then changed his mind because he could raise more money without it? So frigging what? I didn't care when McCain played the game too when he got the nomination. It isn't a case of not criticizing a Democrat. It is recognizing that politicians are politicians and they will do what they have to do to be electable within reason. Makes compromises within reason. That is what Obama and McCain, Gingrich, and even Santorum do. Mitt Romney is beyond the pale. As I said before, it isn't just Democrats who criticize him for that. All politician do it to some extent. But Romney is beyond the pale. He does three hundred eighty degree turns on almost every major Republican issue. Has Obama done that on anything with regard to Democratic key issues? I don't think he has. If it was one or two, okay criticize him for it. But Romney is just incredible.

My list was off the top of my head. If you want more, there's plenty where that came from (http://www.gop.com/images/research/failed_promise_campaign_negative_attacks.pdf). More here (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/) and here (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/). The number of these things for all major candidates is staggering. There's so many in every direction that it stretches credulity to pretend you can do some kind of back-of-the-napkin aggregation and confidently declare that Romney is worse. I suspect those old crutches--the left one named Conventional and the right one named Wisdom--factor into this far more than any encompassing view of the facts.

But yes, I admit that you will always be able to point out minute differences and suggest that Obama's transgressions are somehow on some different plane of existence than Romney's. If you're willing to thin-slice this stuff, you can muddy the waters with enough subjectivity that the statements can't be literally contradicted. But I don't think it speaks well of an ideology when someone has to constantly fall back on ethereal arguments. Added to the fact that you seem loathe to question established narratives, and it smells an awful lot like a superficial level of engagement. EDIT: I withdraw this last part. I can only observe what you do, but it could come from being ingratiated in the political culture just as much as it could come from barely engaging with it, so it's not a conclusion I can make in good conscience.

My God, you're right. Most of the "inconsistencies" disappear if we exclude the most important and public part of his political career. Nevermind that the campaign made up almost half of his national exposure up to that point. It just wouldn't be proper to judge a President on how well his time in office aligns with what he said he would do in office. We have to arbitrarily restrict ourselves to the whopping two years he spent in the Senate beforehand, even though he was probably exploring a run then, too. Because...Romney sucks?

Well, the big difference is all presidents look like incredible flip floppers if you measure their record in office with their accomplishments. Obama's record isn't any worse than his predecessor George W. Bush. Obama did what Bush did, he kept some campaign promises, broke others, hedged on some. It comes from being in office is different from campaigning. You take away that contrast and how many flip flops of Obama do you have next to Romney's? Not a whole lot (See, I answer my rhetorical questions). Romney makes a habit on the campaign trail of saying something, getting heat for it, then quicky retreating. Obama did that? Romney decides to run for president than retreats from practically every fundamental Republican policy issue. Obama did that with Democrat policies? Has any politician flip flopped to the extent of Mitt Romney?

Seriously, man, at this point you need your own version of Poe's Law. There's no parody of will.15 that will not be confused by an actual will.15 post by someone.

I think they're pretty much incomparable by their very natures. And I think the difference between them is ridiculously exaggerated by the way political perceptions tend to self-perpetuate over time. But I don't think any of my arguments are contingent on the idea that they're equal; just that you can't answer every Obama criticism by complaining about Mitt Romney. That's been your response to pretty much every criticism. This is starting to look like the only play in the playbook. It also happens to mirror Obama's campaign strategy perfectly: it's all offense, no defense. When you can't defend your record, just go after the other guy.

I will say it again. Obama, contrast him with any President, and that is what you are really doing, not him flip flopping him as a candidate, continually doing about turns on the campaign trail like Mitt Romney, but examining his record as President versus what he ran on. Obama is average in keeping campaign promises. Compare his record with any President. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

I sure don't. But I think you're probably fooling yourself if you think you know who the real Barack Obama is, either.

I have no doubt who the real Obama is. None whatsoever. I didn't have a fix on him in the primaries with the grand speeches that didn't say a whole lot. But it became real clear in the general election. I could see he was a pragmatist, but that is a good thing. A politician should be a mixture of pragmatism and ideals. Even Reagan was that. There has to be a willingness to compromise, but also a floor, principles you don't completely abandon. Where is Romney's ideals? What are his principles he won't abandon? What does he believe strongly? He is all pragmatism.

That's pretty much the core of my objection here. Your response to everything Obama does wrong, every time he breaks a promise, every time he releases a misleading or outright hypocritical ad, is to sweep it right under the "everyone does it" rug and think that settles it. But you can't go on and on about how misleading all politicians are, and then turn around and try to pretend you still kinda-sorta know when Obama's being genuine, or that you're capable of parsing genuine-ness levels.

I see a difference between politics and principles. I don't criticize any politician from any party for being a politician. I also believe politics isn't a polite game. if Obama hurled the first punch, if that ad was not a reaction to a Romney attack on him, it would be different. But like I said before when you come out swinging expect to get hit. if Obama did what Mitt Romney does, make flip flopping his daily exercise, he would have had a Democratic challenger. The party would be divided because he had abandoned Democrat principles. Where is that challenger? Where was he in the primary?

I don't know if you've considered this, but one of the benefits of someone who says a lot of stupid or inconsistent stuff is that they're clearly not slick enough to hide it. This is one of Gingrich's ironic virtues: the downside of gaffes and misstatements also has the upside of not having to worry that the candidate is capable of hiding things particularly well. And in a world where the only sensible posture is to doubt all politicians instrinsically, that can be far more valuable. And the stakes are higher, too, because if you're wrong about it the other way, you're really wrong.

You funny.

Do you seriously believe this?

I don't believe you believe this.

I figured you wasn't going to answer that so I did.

Do you really want me to seriously answer that? Are you going to keep bringing up that question up over and over?

My mouth is still hanging open.

Here's something else, too, that you may not have considered: while there are plenty of valid reasons to at least doubt Romney's sincerity (though like you said, he's clearly not some stealth liberal), he has at least one thing going for him that Obama doesn't. He has a substantial track record to criticize. Consistency is not just what you say, but what you say multiplied by time. Consistency is not saying something and then repeating it the next day. Someone who's been around 20 years and has an inconsistency or two on their record is actually more consistent than a political cypher who hasn't really been tested yet. It's a ratio, not a nominal comparison.

This argument isn't completely absurd like the last one, but it is still pretty weak.

This may have had some validity four years ago, but Obama is no longer a cipher. he has been in office for more than three years. He has a record he is running against. The election will be about that.

And are you suggesting...
Someone who's been around 20 years and has an inconsistency or two on their record is actually more consistent than a political cypher
...is applicable to Mitt Romney? An inconsistency or two? Mitt Romney? Oh, is that all?

Romney's been a public figure for literally twice as long as Obama. You don't seem to account for this at all. And more than that, his ideological shift awhile back puts him under even more scrutiny than usual. It's totally fair that conservatives want to scrutinize him more for this, but the fairness of the question should not be confused for a fact about what he believes, which is how you're treating it. The reasonableness of asking if his change is genuine is a separate question from the reasonableness of suggesting he has no core.

Jesus, I can't believe you are arguing this stuff. His ideological shift from awhile back is one thing; but he keeps doing it, he will say something, get heat from conservatives, and retreats. I fail to see a difference between wondering if any position he takes is genuine and having no core. What is Romney's core? What won't he say if he became convinced saying it would get him the nomination? And then once nominated, what would he not say if he became convinced saying it would get him elected? Do I think Obama would do that? No. Nor McCain, or Bush, or Gingrich, et all. The exceptions? Bill Clinton and maybe Bush Sr (read my lips). Bill Clinton would pretty much say anything.

See, now I'm going to do what you always refuse to do. Please take note. That ad? Totally misleading. No qualifications. It cannot and should not be spun. It was a misleading ad, and he shouldn't have put it out. Period.

So how can I get outraged if an Obama ad bites him back? Why should I take Romney's outrage seriously about his integrity being questioned when he plays the same game?

No worse than Obama's? Well, misquoting someone definitely falls under the "everyone does it" balm that you apply to every single wound. But questioning someone's honor? Look me in the virtual eye and try to tell me that happens in every campaign, coming directly from one of the candidates. Seriously. Tell me that's not different. If you're actually drinking enough of the Kool-Aid to say and/or believe that, then I'll walk away from this discussion right now and you can go back to posting selectively-chosen news items that nobody seems to want to talk about.
Everyone misquotes. But this is the first time I recall quoting someone quoting someone else to criticize it was quoted as if they were making the comment himself. Romney plays dirty even by politician standards. As AKA23 pointed out, Romney said Iran will get a nuclear bomb if Obama is elected, but they won't if he is. That is extremely crass and the words of a demagogue. John McCain would never have said anything like that. Is the honor thing going too far when directed at someone who would say something as thoughtless and careless as that? If it was unfair, there was a bully in the schoolyard who started it. Did Obama have ads like that against McCain? No. This has become a dirtier fight because Romney is a dirtier fighter than McCain.

Powderfinger

05-02-12, 07:30 PM

In Australia there are 250 American troops in Darwin and they say, in about 2 years it might be 2000 troops. Our Government says it's for training purposes, though, I believe...we're next to Asia (China) "wink, wink" . That's my belief, anyway!

will.15

05-02-12, 07:34 PM

We are going to invade Australia.

We only need 2000 troops to do that.

It will be the 51st state.

Then we will rename Darwin.

Powderfinger

05-02-12, 07:47 PM

LOL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7ejSuLSU18

will.15

05-02-12, 07:55 PM

Nobody mentioned Mexico and it is right on the border.

That is because it ain't worth invading.

Powderfinger

05-02-12, 08:00 PM

I can't believe they said Canada...LOL! :D

Yoda

05-02-12, 09:27 PM

I never ignored the question. I answered it every time. And if you aren't really asking a question you should make that clear. The difference is I never make a big deal if you don't answer my questions. I don't insist you respond to everything I say. You are the one who makes a big deal if a question isn't answered, not me.
Responding is not answering, and the distinction is not a difficult one to grasp. You also seem to confuse not responding to something that is said (which is sometimes necessary and no big deal), and not responding to a direct question (which is almost exclusively your domain).

But, since you're still trying to perpetuate the fiction that this is all one big question-ignoring wash that we all do equally, here's a quick recap of the lengths you've gone to to weave around this one:

ME: "True or false: the ad is unfair and hypocritical."
YOU: "I haven't seen the ad and don't know what it says. But I can't get worked up about attack ads."
10
ME: "I asked you a straight-up question: is the ad unfair and hypocritical, or not? I didn't ask you if other politicians do it, or if you can get 'worked up' about it. Yes or no?"
YOU: "Political ads, who cares? They all lie in them and distort."
10
ME: "Does this ad lie and distort, will? I've asked you directly several times."
YOU: "I still don't know the ad. So what if it does?"
10
ME: "Four times I ask. I ask 'True or false.' I ask 'Yes or no.' And still no answer."
YOU: (nothing)
10
ME: "I keep asking you to [anwer] and you just won't do it."
YOU: "Attack ads all distort to some extent, they all lie a little. ... [Romney] started it."
10
ME: "It doesn't matter who started it, because no one's mad at Obama for defending himself. ... So, I ask again: based on the quote I gave you, is this ad hypocritical? Yes or no? 'Lots of ads are hypocritical' or 'everyone puts out hypocritical ads' are not answers, they are dodges. I'm asking you if this one is. ... If I ask you if you stole something, saying 'lots of people steal things' wouldn't be an answer, and neither is what you said."
YOU: "The ad is no bigger a deal than what they have all been doing ... This is real mild."
10
ME: ".. is the ad wrong to question Romney's honor? YES or NO? Is the ad hypocritical? YES or NO?"
YOU: "I already answered the hypocrisy of the ad many times."
So, there are two problems here. The first is that you think "lots of people do X" is somehow an answer to "is this an example of X?" It isn't. It's mealy-mouthed.

Second, you seem confused about the timeline. After being asked about this stuff a bunch of times (see above), you gave the semi-answer "This is real mild." Then you immediately pretended that you'd been answering all along, even though that was the only thing that came close, and it came after all the previous questions above.

And since I'm being thorough, what of the "tacit approval"? According to your own definition of the phrase, you're giving tacit approval to the ad. Either that, or your tortured definition of the phrase has to be abandoned. What's it gonna be?

If Obama flip flopped like serial flip flopper Mitt Romney I would criticize him. If he flip flopped to the extent I didn't know what he actually believed in, I would criticize him. But because he said he would take public finance campaign money and then changed his mind because he could raise more money without it? So frigging what?
So Obama didn't believe what he said. He jettisoned an ideal not because of new information, or because he took office and was confronted with a different situation than he'd anticipated. He jettisoned it because he wanted more money.

It isn't a case of not criticizing a Democrat.
If this is true, then when do you? I'll ask this again:

...stand up to people you otherwise agree with sometimes. I asked you for examples of this. Are there any? If not, and given how many times you've posted in here, isn't that kind of, I dunno, odd?

It is recognizing that politicians are politicians and they will do what they have to do to be electable within reason. Makes compromises within reason. That is what Obama and McCain, Gingrich, and even Santorum do. Mitt Romney is beyond the pale. As I said before, it isn't just Democrats who criticize him for that. All politician do it to some extent. But Romney is beyond the pale. He does three hundred eighty degree turns on almost every major Republican issue. Has Obama done that on anything with regard to Democratic key issues? I don't think he has. If it was one or two, okay criticize him for it. But Romney is just incredible.
Well, the big difference is all presidents look like incredible flip floppers if you measure their record in office with their accomplishments. Obama's record isn't any worse than his predecessor George W. Bush. Obama did what Bush did, he kept some campaign promises, broke others, hedged on some. It comes from being in office is different from campaigning. You take away that contrast and how many flip flops of Obama do you have next to Romney's? Not a whole lot (See, I answer my rhetorical questions). Romney makes a habit on the campaign trail of saying something, getting heat for it, then quicky retreating.
And again, your arguments collide with one another. A handful of posts ago you said these sorts of things are the "teeniest hypocrisy [you] can imagine" because it's "not about policy." Seems to me most of Romney's stuff fall under this category. So which is it? Are they everyday things, or do they make Romeny some kind of Super-Duper-Flip-Flopper (Who By The Way Is Way Worse Than Obama)?

I have no problem with the idea that actually taking office inevitably causes each President to change positions on a few things. I think it's still fair game to criticize them for pandering and making promises they couldn't keep, but you expect some of this. But you don't get to pretend it doesn't "count" for purposes of comparison.

Obama did that? Romney decides to run for president than retreats from practically every fundamental Republican policy issue. Obama did that with Democrat policies? Has any politician flip flopped to the extent of Mitt Romney?
I can't understand that second sentence. Though the question about Obama is kind of meaningless; he was never under any serious pressure to. Not being in a position where your convictions are tested isn't the same thing as having strong convictions. Having it out over Romney is one thing, but pretending this somehow means Obama's demonstrated strong convictions is another. I think he's displayed, at best, very ordinary convictions for a politician.

I will say it again. Obama, contrast him with any President, and that is what you are really doing, not him flip flopping him as a candidate, continually doing about turns on the campaign trail like Mitt Romney, but examining his record as President versus what he ran on. Obama is average in keeping campaign promises. Compare his record with any President. So you are comparing apples and oranges.
That's exactly what I just said. You're now simultaneously comparing them to tell me that Romney's worse, and then telling me you can't compare them. Romney and Obama do indeed come from different circumstances, but that can't be played up when talking about Obama's broken promises, and played down when talking about Romney's perpetual candidacy or the length of his career.

I have no doubt who the real Obama is. None whatsoever. I didn't have a fix on him in the primaries with the grand speeches that didn't say a whole lot. But it became real clear in the general election. I could see he was a pragmatist, but that is a good thing. A politician should be a mixture of pragmatism and ideals. Even Reagan was that. There has to be a willingness to compromise, but also a floor, principles you don't completely abandon. Where is Romney's ideals? What are his principles he won't abandon? What does he believe strongly? He is all pragmatism.
Really? You think there's even the smallest chance that Romney is going to change his positions on core Republican issues at this point? C'mon.

Franky, this seems to be almost your entire argument: the idea that, because Romney's shifted on major issues before, like six years ago, that he's liable to do it again. I don't think there's any actual chance of that, and I don't think you do either.

I see a difference between politics and principles. I don't criticize any politician from any party for being a politician. I also believe politics isn't a polite game. if Obama hurled the first punch, if that ad was not a reaction to a Romney attack on him, it would be different.
Whoa whoa, hold up. The ad would be offensive or beyond the pale if it had just shown up, but it somehow isn't because it's a response? How does that make sense? Either it's okay to question someone's honor, or not. Either the ad is a reasonable policy argument and is justified inherently on those grounds, or it's only justifiable as a counter-punch. Which is it?

Also, what Romney attack was it a response to?

But like I said before when you come out swinging expect to get hit. if Obama did what Mitt Romney does, make flip flopping his daily exercise, he would have had a Democratic challenger. The party would be divided because he had abandoned Democrat principles. Where is that challenger? Where was he in the primary?
Primary challengers are unheard of even with deeply unpopular incumbents. The fact that Obama didn't have one really doesn't tell us anything about his convictions to Democratic principles. He has, however, made plenty of Democrats mad. And in the cases he hasn't, sometimes the salient question is why they aren't, given the proportion of things they hated before but turn a blind eye towards now.

You funny.

Do you seriously believe this?

I don't believe you believe this.
Believe it? I defy you to argue with it. Though it's worth preemptively pointing out that I didn't say campaign gaffes are an inherently good thing; merely that the flip side of of a politician who puts their foot in their mouth is that they're probably not capable of putting one over on you. It's a happy side effect.

George Burns once said that "The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made." There's a difference between a politician who's consistent and sincere, and one who's just very slick, or very careful. A lot of people think Obama is an exceptional politician; I see no reason to give him some special benefit of the doubt here. God knows you're not giving any to Romney.

This may have had some validity four years ago, but Obama is no longer a cipher. he has been in office for more than three years. He has a record he is running against. The election will be about that.
He's not a cipher, but he has less time in national politics than most candidates, and he still has half as much as Romney. That's a big deal, and I don't think you can just shrug it off, especially when you want to discount the majority of that record simply because he's the President.

An inconsistency or two? Mitt Romney? Oh, is that all?
I wasn't referring to Mitt Romney. I was using a hypothetical example to illustrate how time is a factor in measuring consistency.

His ideological shift from awhile back is one thing; but he keeps doing it, he will say something, get heat from conservatives, and retreats.
Hold on. When you say his shift "is one thing"--what do you mean? Because in other parts of this post, you seem to treat it like some kind of normal series of flip-flops you can just enumerate. You need to clarify this, because you seem to switch back and forth between admitting it's more like one general change in his beliefs, to treating it like a series of outright contradictions.

Also, what are these other retreats you're talking about? You don't need to document them all, but give me an example or two so I know what you're talking about.

I fail to see a difference between wondering if any position he takes is genuine and having no core.
Well, for one, the former is a statement about us (we wonder), and the latter is a statement about him. We can wonder about a guy who's perfectly genuine. In fact, that's exactly what we would do with someone whose ideology has shifted over time. Even if it's a completely genuine shift that they believe in wholeheartedly, we'd still wonder about it, and we'd be right to do so.

This, by the way, is why I'm asking for some examples. Because I suspect the things he's going back on aren't really "positions" so much as careless rhetoric. Saying you're for something and then conveniently changing your mind with no mea culpa or explanation is generally a flip-flop. Saying something careless and then walking it back the next day isn't. For example, Obama's goofy complaints about the health care law and the Supreme Court, where he said a "strong majority" passed it (nope), and that overturning it would be "unprecedented" (double nope). He had to walk that back. Flip-flop? Or just talking carelessly? If you want to parse Romney's genuineness, you need to explain how you're using these terms. Because I'm pretty sure you're using them interchangably.

So how can I get outraged if an Obama ad bites him back? Why should I take Romney's outrage seriously about his integrity being questioned when he plays the same game?
I didn't ask you to take Romney's outrage seriously. You keep lapsing into campaign mode and losing sight of the question in front of you. I said the ad was offensive and hypocritical. It's a low blow. I didn't ask you if you thought Romney was genuinely outraged, or if you think he does the same thing, or any other of the dozen answers you've offered as answers to questions I never asked.

Is the honor thing going too far when directed at someone who would say something as thoughtless and careless as that?
Yes (see, that's how you answer a direct question). Of course. Questioning someone's honor is fundamentally different from even the harshest of policy critiques. People get mad about the latter. They used to fight flippin' duels over the former. They're two different categories of attack.

Everyone misquotes. But this is the first time I recall quoting someone quoting someone else to criticize it was quoted as if they were making the comment himself.
That's fine, but Obama's done things just as bad, if not identical in their nature of misquoting, both in the last campaign (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/19/barack-obama/limbaughs-not-a-mccain-spokesman/) and in this one (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/11/barack-obama/barack-obama-campaign-says-romney-perry-gingrich-w/). It's all terrible, of course, but no, it's not unprecedented. And it doesn't justify questioning someone's honor. That's a whole new line.

AKA23

05-02-12, 10:09 PM

AKA23

05-02-12, 10:11 PM

will.15

05-02-12, 11:31 PM

Will, I think the point here is that when someone asks you a direct and easily understandable question, you have to answer it if you are seeking to have an honest debate. If someone says, is Obama's ad offensive and hypocritical, you have to either answer yes, that it is, or no, that it's not, and give reasons why. You can't just say this happens in every campaign, because while that is true, it isn't responsive to the question. It's also totally irrelevant to point out how there were other ads that were egregious in the past, like the Swift Boat ads, or to recount how Bush did or didn't respond when similar charges of dishonor were made about Kerry. 2012 isn't about Kerry and Bush. It's about Obama and Mitt Romney. The things Mitt Romney has done and said, and the attacks he has leveled against Obama, are relevant to whether the ad is wrong or should be seen as offensive, but what other people do in other campaigns is not. It is relevant to bring up past examples from previous campaigns because Yoda was creating a fiction the Obama ad was the worst of the worst, when it pales to the Kerry attack, and that was a direct reply to a Yoda remark that the Obama attack was the first time a presidential candidate's honor was questioned. Then what does he do? He defends Bush's attempt to have it both ways, to take advantage of the ads while mildly, just mildly, distancing himself from the most direct charge. The Kerry attacks actually lied about Kerry's service record. The Romney ad questioned what Romney might do in a specific situation when there were comments from him that strongly suggested he wouldn't have ordered the strike without informing the Pakistan government. One ad was an outright lie. The other's only transgression was the decision would have been motivated by honor. So is that the problem with the ad, one word? I suppose they could have worded the ad better, and Romney most probably still have complained, but the overall point is valid, based on what Romney has actually said.

wintertriangles

05-02-12, 11:36 PM

I wonder how short this thread would be with a nice diversion trimmer

7thson

05-03-12, 05:48 AM

No one here has the balls to admit their elected "leader" is or was screwed up. Well not many anyway. I can personally bash Bush about many things, and I have right here on this forum. I have also touted a few things about Obama, he has albeit silently, admitted that many Bush policies are in retrospect quite needed.

The failure to recognize failure is akin to being blind. I see the articulate way many debate on here and I also notice the need for a desire to let one's convictions become tantamount to logic - but please open your eyes to reality. The media is running this country and the media is run by those that own them. Quite a select few it you boil it down.

wintertriangles

05-03-12, 11:06 AM

I have also touted a few things about Obama, he has albeit silently, admitted that many Bush policies are in retrospect quite needed.Not to mention is overall pretty similar in many ways.

No one here has the balls to admit their elected "leader" is or was screwed up.
The failure to recognize failure is akin to being blind.
The media is running this country and the media is run by those that own them. Post this everywhere

will.15

05-08-12, 08:38 PM

Another Mitt Romney flip-flop:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-auto-industry_n_1498520.html

Yoda

05-08-12, 08:52 PM

It is relevant to bring up past examples from previous campaigns because Yoda was creating a fiction the Obama ad was the worst of the worst
Yup, past examples are fair game. Though "worst of the worst" is a silly exaggeration of what I said. What I said is that Obama's ad is a low blow.

when it pales to the Kerry attack, and that was a direct reply to a Yoda remark that the Obama attack was the first time a presidential candidate's honor was questioned.
I didn't say first, and the important qualifier is "by another candidate." Everyone has their honor questioned when they run for President. The candidates just don't usually do it themselves, because that's cheap.

Then what does he do? He defends Bush's attempt to have it both ways, to take advantage of the ads while mildly, just mildly, distancing himself from the most direct charge.
Yeah, he "mildly" directly contradicted it. Pfft. Is this at all like showing "silent approval" by expressing out-loud disapproval? Please, stop torturing the English language. He doesn't know anything.

I'm just going to keep saying this until it gets through: Bush didn't say it, and even if you want to slam him for giving a bland condemnation, that isn't in the same universe as actually orchestrating the attack yourself. That's unmitigated nonsense. It'd be nonsense to even say that keeping totally silent is the same as initiating the attack, and it's some wholly new level of nonsense to say that not giving a forceful enough condemnation is. You have absolutely no argument here.

Yoda

05-08-12, 09:16 PM

Yoda, I think that you are downplaying the egregious nature of that Romney ad. Romney took a quote from Obama that he never actually said and acted like he was the one who said it. That's just flat out dishonest. At least in Obama's ad, he used Romney's own statements and policy positions that he had actually advanced to attack him. I think an argument can be made that what Romney did was actually worse. He made it seem like Obama said something he never actually did. Obama was merely quoting someone else. That, to me, is arguably even more offensive than Obama's ad, because at least Obama used Romney's actual words to level his attack. It is wrong to extrapolate from those words that Romney would not have made the same decision Obama made in similar circumstances, but the foundation of his attack was sound. Romney's was not.
It's a terrible ad. But terrible ads about policy are still in an entirely different spheres than ads that take aim at someone personally.

Consider the following hypothetical: you could make an ad about someone's family that was entirely accurate, and people would still think it was below the belt, and far worse than a policy ad even if the policy ad were highly misleading. This is the same sort of situation, albeit not to the same extreme. An ad that goes after a candidate on a personal level is automatically on another level than even a really cheap policy ad like Romney's. Which should not be mistaken for any kind of defense of Romney's ad, mind you.

I also think it's inaccurate for you to somehow pretend that Romney is not in a class by himself with regards to the level he is willing to go to become the President of the United States. All politicians do engage in flip flopping at this kind of level, but Romney's penchant for abandoning his positions in exchange for more politically expedient ones is off the charts.
I mentioned this the last time we discussed Romney, but there's a big difference between changing your mind on a host of issues, and changing your ideology in general. Something like six years ago, Romney's ideology shifted. It happened on a number of issues and is consistent with someone who started seeing the world differently as a whole. People are well within their rights to wonder about his sincerity, but it's simply not correct to pretend that each part of this shift is its own example of his lack of principles. They're part of a single whole.

Not only has Romney changed his mind on fundamental issues of conscience more than once, there are times when he changes his position within the same day. For example, when Romney commented on question 2, Governor Kasich's anti-union legislation in Ohio, Romney said "I'm not going to comment on Question 2." Then only hours later, his position became "I strongly support Governor Kasich's Question 2."
Yeah, see, these are the weakest examples of supposed "flip-flops." It doesn't even fit the technical definition: he didn't take one stance and then another, he just said he didn't want to talk about it. Then people hounded him to answer, so he answered. Being forced to answer something when you'd rather not is very common. For an example see: every other politician, ever. For a highly relevant and recent example, see: Obama's bizarre, confused stance on gay marriage, which he might be forced to speak openly about again soon.

You wanna talk about political calculation...Obama's wink-wink, nod-nod reference to his "evolving" views on gay marriage is as craven as it gets. He's practically admitted that he supports it, but can't say so before the election. It's incredibly blatant.

When he was asked what his position was on the Blunt amendment, which would have exempted organizations from the healthcare law on "moral" grounds, which is quite ambiguous, and could be for pretty much any reason, Romney stated "of course he wasn't for that." Then, a few hours later, he pretended that he did not understand the question, which was fully clear, and in no way confusing, and strongly voiced support for the Blunt amendment.
This is absolutely false. The question he was asked misrepresented the amendment. Here's the exact phrasing:

"The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it?"
The amendment doesn't do anything close to "banning" contraception. It doesn't stop any one from buying contraception, ever. The phrase "ban providing" alone is an absolute mess and a horrendous rhetorical contortion.

Let's be clear on the nature of most so-called "flip-flops," too: saying something and then almost immediately walking it back, or clarifying, or whatever, isn't really a flip-flop. It's not political calculation, because it's too stupid. It serves little political purpose. It's not taking one position when it's popular, then abandoning it when it's unpopular. That's what flip-flopping is.

Moreover, candidates who have any kind of reputation for it have it worst, because any time they misstep, it feeds right into that narrative. This is true for everyone. If Obama says something haughty, it gets way more play than if he says something dumb, because one feeds into a narrative and one doesn't. With Bush, it's the opposite: something that makes him sound elitist gets no attention. Something that makes him sound dumb, does.

He also said when speaking on illegal immigration that "of course he couldn't hire illegal immigrants because he was running for President." This, again, is a window into his thinking and the lengths he is willing to go to gain the power of the Presidency. He didn't say "of course I wouldn't hire an illegal immigrant, that's wrong and fundamentally against what I believe in." He said he wouldn't do it because he's running for President and could not have illegal immigrants working for him.
This is another really bad example of a supposed "flip-flop." His response was perfectly reasonable: he's saying "would I really be dumb enough to knowingly hire illegal immigrants if I'm running for President?" Which is a perfectly solid argument. This only becomes a "window into his thinking" if you want it to be.

Maybe you can find better examples than this, but I think you've managed to pick three of the worst examples of Romney's flip-flops.

When it comes to making craven political calculations and abandoning principled positions to seek votes, Romney is in an exclusive club of which he is the only member.
Do you have an appreciation for how incredibly encompassing this statement is? It's one thing to say the guy's been inconsistent, and to wonder about him. It's another to keep exaggerating this tendency until you've essentially labeled him the least principled politician in modern history. Which is, er, a bit much.

Yoda

05-08-12, 09:20 PM

Another Mitt Romney flip-flop:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-auto-industry_n_1498520.html
Here's Obama giving cop-out answers on gay marriage (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-07-18-24-15).

If Romney did this, it would be another example of how unprincipled and pandering he is. But as we've seen from your highly selective posting of links, it only counts when the other guy does it.

will.15

05-08-12, 10:03 PM

AKA23

05-08-12, 10:11 PM

I mentioned this the last time we discussed Romney, but there's a big difference between changing your mind on a host of issues, and changing your ideology in general. Something like six years ago, Romney's ideology shifted. It happened on a number of issues and is consistent with someone who started seeing the world differently as a whole. People are well within their rights to wonder about his sincerity, but it's simply not correct to pretend that each part of this shift is its own example of his lack of principles. They're part of a single whole.

I think this is a legitimate argument, but his swing to the right six years ago was in a direction that greatly advantaged him politically. Romney has really never flip flopped in a direction that would actually hurt him, which would display political courage and demonstrate that he was a man of principle. I would really have a lot more respect for Romney if he told the truth, which is this: Romney has always been a conservative. Romney went to the hospital to convince a woman not to have an abortion. He was a leader in the Mormon Church, which is the most politically conservative religious group in the United States. Then he ran as a liberal in Massachusetts. The reason that he did that was because he simply could not win as a conservative in Massachusetts. If he told people that he was pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, and that he was a "severely conservative" person, he would have lost. He wanted to win, so he pretended to be something that he wasn't. When he was faced with the actual job and had to make decisions with respect to protecting the sanctity of life, he found that he could not in good conscience continue to advocate for liberal policies that he didn't believe in. When he saw the real-world impacts that his policies would have, he decided to revert back to his conservative nature. Now he's actually running as a conservative, which reflects his true beliefs. He never had a conversion. He's pretended to have one, and that's the problem. If he said that, I would have respect for the guy, and I think a lot of people would. I think he could actually spin that in a way that would actually demonstrate strength of character and principles. What he has chosen to do is to pretend that he has "evolved" over time to become more conservative, and that his entire evolution is in the direction of politically advantageous positions, but that's nonsense.

Yeah, see, these are the weakest examples of supposed "flip-flops." It doesn't even fit the technical definition: he didn't take one stance and then another..

While this is a legitimate argument for these particular examples, they are part of a narrative, as you have admitted, and that narrative has a lot to support it. Your retorts take these things in isolation, but they can't be viewed in isolation. They must be viewed in context. For the best example of this tendency, Romney instituted the model of Obamacare in Massachusetts. He instituted a healthcare mandate in his state, which he says works and that he is proud of, but continues to try to pretend that a national insurance mandate is unconstitutional, and that he has always believed that, when there are numerous examples of Romney extolling the virtues of what he did in Massachusetts, and how it can and should be a national model. This is a huge flip flop. Trying to argue that there is something inherently different about what Obama did in comparison to what he did, when they both did exactly the same thing, is a distinction without a difference. The only reason that he won't flip flop entirely on his entire healthcare plan is because it is currently the only thing that he doesn't appear willing to throw completely under the bus. If he flipped on this, it would feed into the existing narrative and be the clearest example that he is craven and unprincipled.

You wanna talk about political calculation...Obama's wink-wink, nod-nod reference to his "evolving" views on gay marriage is as craven as it gets. He's practically admitted that he supports it, but can't say so before the election. It's incredibly blatant.

I agree with you on this. Obama should come out and say that he is for gay marriage, because he is. The notion that he is "evolving" is ludicrous, and a craven political calculation. At the same time, on a policy level, every policy decision Obama has made has been in the direction of supporting marriage equality. Contrast this with Romney where he is taking totally different positions than during his time as Governor. The only thing calculating about Obama is his rhetoric. The actual policies he advocates and promotes have been quite consistent on this issue.

This is absolutely false. The question he was asked misrepresented the amendment. Here's the exact phrasing:

The contraception issue dominated the political conversation for weeks. It is simply not credible to pretend that Romney did not understand what the Blunt amendment was. Everyone who was paying attention knew what it was. The question may have been misleading, but the general issue was quite clear, and Romney had to have known what it was all about. If he failed to pay attention to the major issue dominating the campaign at the time then I don't think he's qualified to be the President of the United States

What say you, Yoda?

Yoda

05-08-12, 10:14 PM

Obama is being fuzzy on gay marriage. He is not being direct. But he is not flip flopping.

And it is not a pressing national government issue. It is a state thing unless you are talking about a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and Obama has always been opposed to that. He says his position is evolving. This may be partly due to political expediency, but many, many Americans have had an evolving position on gay marriage including myself.

And it is hardly in the same league of Romney's huge flip flops in general and this rather spectacular one where he takes credit for something he earlier denounced. Your problem with your "Obama does it, too" is he doesn't do it in any way, shape or form on the grand scale Romney does.
I didn't say he was flip-flopping. I said he's giving a cop-out answer for political reasons. To say this "may be partly" due to political expediency is giving him a comical amount of credit. Unless you think his principles just happen to line up with what's most politically convenient just perfectly. And if you believe that, you should have no problem believing in Mitt Romney's change of heart on other issues.

I repeat my previous statement: if Romney were doing this, you'd undoubtedly and immediately point to it as another example of his lack of principles. But because it doesn't fit the narrative, it doesn't "count." This is what partisanship looks like. This is what I mean when I talk about posting things selectively.

Yoda

05-08-12, 10:30 PM

I think this is a legitimate argument, but his swing to the right six years ago was in a direction that greatly advantaged him politically. Romney has really never flip flopped in a direction that would actually hurt him, which would display political courage and demonstrate that he was a man of principle. I would really have a lot more respect for Romney if he told the truth, which is this: Romney has always been a conservative. Romney went to the hospital to convince a woman not to have an abortion. He was a leader in the Mormon Church, which is the most politically conservative religious group in the United States. Then he ran as a liberal in Massachusetts. The reason that he did that was because he simply could not win as a conservative in Massachusetts. If he told people that he was pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, and that he was a "severely conservative" person, he would have lost. He wanted to win, so he pretended to be something that he wasn't. When he was faced with the actual job and had to make decisions with respect to protecting the sanctity of life, he found that he could not in good conscience continue to advocate for liberal policies that he didn't believe in. When he saw the real-world impacts that his policies would have, he decided to revert back to his conservative nature. Now he's actually running as a conservative, which reflects his true beliefs. He never had a conversion. He's pretended to have one, and that's the problem. If he said that, I would have respect for the guy, and I think a lot of people would. I think he could actually spin that in a way that would actually demonstrate strength of character and principles. What he has chosen to do is to pretend that he has "evolved" over time to become more conservative, and that his entire evolution is in the direction of politically advantageous positions, but that's nonsense.
This is a perfectly plausible (and interesting) theory. I'll have to think about it.

If it's true, I find it less troubling than the usual narrative, though, because it describes a guy who was too casual about his beliefs and, as he governed, realized how serious this stuff was. That's not great, but I care a lot more about whether or not he believes in what he's saying right now than I do whether or not he believed what he said before. I only care about the latter insofar as it informs the former.

While this is a legitimate argument for these particular examples, they are part of a narrative, as you have admitted, and that narrative has a lot to support it. Your retorts take these things in isolation, but they can't be viewed in isolation. They must be viewed in context.
That's fine, but if you can knock down each of these things individually, then it means the narrative as a whole has been distorted. People can't say that Romney is unprincipled and then, when a lot of the examples of this claim don't add up, say "well, we all know he is, so it doesn't matter if he wasn't in those cases." Even if that's true, it shows that he gets stuck with far more transgressions than he's actually committed. Which is exactly what happens with political narratives in the way I described before. Once a politician has a reputation for something, any example of anything even remotely like that thing gets ten times the attention. So Bush mispronounces a word, and it goes on the "Bush is dumb" pile. Obama says something dismissive, and it goes on the "Obama is an elitist" pile. And Romney stutters or says something vague or confusing, and it goes right on the "Romney has no core" pile.

For the best example of this tendency, Romney instituted the model of Obamacare in Massachusetts. He instituted a healthcare mandate in his state, which he says works and that he is proud of, but continues to try to pretend that a national insurance mandate is unconstitutional, and that he has always believed that, when there are numerous examples of Romney extolling the virtues of what he did in Massachusetts, and how it can and should be a national model. This is a huge flip flop. Trying to argue that there is something inherently different about what Obama did in comparison to what he did, when they both did exactly the same thing, is a distinction without a difference. The only reason that he won't flip flop entirely on his entire healthcare plan is because it is currently the only thing that he doesn't appear willing to throw completely under the bus. If he flipped on this, it would feed into the existing narrative and be the clearest example that he is craven and unprincipled.
But he's completely right: there's a fundamental legal difference between state mandates and federal ones. That's not even remotely a flip-flop, or a terribly unusual position. States have a police power; the federal government doesn't. The federal government is a government of enumerated powers, which is completely different from the state.

Now, Romney is absolutely wrong when he says the two laws differ in their wisdom or effectiveness. But his legal argument is entirely sound--it's just not enough to defend his law on other grounds. And it seems to me that, when arguing about the difference, he's probably just wrong rather than trying to fake anything. I think he's wrong about a few things.

Frankly, I think, with the health care plan, you've actually refuted the rest of your post. His health care plan is something that it might have been better for him to abandon, to thrown under the bus, and he didn't do it. Maybe he felt he didn't have a choice, but a good argument can be made that there was plenty of reason for him to back off from it during the Republican primaries this year, and he didn't. And it could have very well cost him the nomination. I dunno if this was an act of political bravery or not, but it certainly seems to counter the narrative.

I agree with you on this. Obama should come out and say that he is for gay marriage, because he is. The notion that he is "evolving" is ludicrous, and a craven political calculation. At the same time, on a policy level, every policy decision Obama has made has been in the direction of supporting marriage equality. Contrast this with Romney where he is taking totally different positions than during his time as Governor. The only thing calculating about Obama is his rhetoric. The actual policies he advocates and promotes have been quite consistent on this issue.
Doesn't that make it worse? Not only does it mean he isn't being honest about what he believes, but it means he's taking political action completely contrary to what he told people he believed. That makes it seem a lot more calculated, to me.

The contraception issue dominated the political conversation for weeks. It is simply not credible to pretend that Romney did not understand what the Blunt amendment was. Everyone who was paying attention knew what it was. The question may have been misleading, but the general issue was quite clear, and Romney had to have known what it was all about. If he failed to pay attention to the major issue dominating the campaign at the time then I don't think he's qualified to be the President of the United States
We have a huge disagreement here, then. I don't think it was remotely obvious; Romney's explanation was that he thought the reporter might be alluding to some obscure state legislation. This is awfully plausible, given the inane questions the candidates received during the ABC debate asking them about completely hypothetical state bans on contraception.

If I'm Romney, and I get that question, and I'm at all confused about it, I err on the side of what the guy actually said to me, and what the guy said was way off base. Factor in the fact that Romney stood to gain absolutely nothing by this flip-flop--which is pretty important, because the whole point of a craven political calculation is to gain political points somehow--and I don't see how someone could really claim that this was anything more than temporary confusion. Machiavelli himself would have no reason to say that only to flip on it the next day.

That's something that I feel gets left out of the majority of the "flip flop" accusations. If he stands to gain almost nothing by it, and walks it back immediately, it's probably not a flip flop. And it sure isn't a political calculation. If it is, he's doing it wrong.

will.15

05-08-12, 10:49 PM

I didn't say he was flip-flopping. I said he's giving a cop-out answer for political reasons. To say this "may be partly" due to political expediency is giving him a comical amount of credit. Unless you think his principles just happen to line up with what's most politically convenient just perfectly. And if you believe that, you should have no problem believing in Mitt Romney's change of heart on other issues.

They all do that, all politicans do it, including John McCain, finesse positions. In my case about gay marriage, I was never strongly opposed to it, but I felt it was a tradition that should be maintained because I am instinctvely resistant to change. That was my only real reason. Once the momentum went the other way I didn't see a deep principle involved to oppose it. Obama always had a muted position on opposing gay marriage. He, like most Democrat politicians, never took a hard position like Republicans, supporting civil unions and the like. How on earth can you compare that to the complete and much more numerous and extensive flip flops of Mitt Romney?

I repeat my previous statement: if Romney were doing this, you'd undoubtedly and immediately point to it as another example of his lack of principles. But because it doesn't fit the narrative, it doesn't "count." This is what partisanship looks like. This is what I mean when I talk about posting things selectively.

No. I wouldn't. I really wouldn't. Did you ever hear me criticize John McCain for his changes in the last election? He did the political two step, they all do it, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody does it to the extent of Mitt Romney where it is impossible to know what he believes.

AKA23

05-08-12, 10:52 PM

This is a perfectly plausible (and interesting) theory. I'll have to think about it.

I'd love to get your further thoughts on this when you've had an opportunity to reflect a bit more.

That's fine, but if you can knock down each of these things individually, then it means the narrative as a whole has been distorted.

I do think that the narrative is distorted and exaggerated. At the same time, I don't see any politician in recent history that has had this kind of reputation. The narrative is the narrative for a reason on Romney. I think there are some people who are looking for every possible reason to hate on Romney, and who try to fit everything he does into a global picture of how he's the worst person ever, but I think I have shown through my analysis thus far that I am not that kind of person, and even I believe the narrative. That tells you something.

Frankly, I think, with the health care plan, you've actually refuted the rest of your post. His health care plan is something that it might have been better for him to abandon, to thrown under the bus, and he didn't do it...And it could have very well cost him the nomination.

I don't think his failure to abandon his signature achievement as Governor does counter the narrative that he is unprincipled. The narrative that he is unprincipled is based off the impression that he changes positions in a direction that is politically advantageous to him. Contrary to what the media may have us believe, Romney was never, at any point, in danger of losing the Republican nomination. At every stage of the process he had more delegates than any other candidate. At every stage of the process, he had by far the most institutional support. He had a huge monetary advantage, and he had the most well developed get out the vote operations across the country. Romney was never in danger of losing the nomination. Even if he were, which the evidence indicates he was not, a very good argument could be made that abandoning his signature achievement as Governor would be even more damaging to him politically. You don't run against your signature achievement. Attempting to do so would not only have fed into the narrative that there is nothing that he won't throw under the bus if it will help him politically, it would also undermine his entire narrative for running, which is that he was a successful governor in Massachusetts and that his experience as Governor, and in the private sector, have given him the judgment needed to govern on a national level.

Factor in the fact that Romney stood to gain absolutely nothing by this flip-flop--which is pretty important, because the whole point of a craven political calculation is to gain political points somehow--and I don't see how someone could really claim that this was anything more than temporary confusion.

He does have something to gain from this flip flop. By not supporting extreme right-wing legislation he appeals to the moderates that he will need to win the Presidency. By going back on this, he shores up his conservative support which he needed, at the time, to win the nomination. By expressing two different positions at two different times he reassures both camps. The moderates will believe he really doesn't support this kind of extreme legislation. The conservatives will believe he was merely "confused."

I think the narrative on Romney is there for a reason.

will.15

05-08-12, 11:18 PM

Yup, past examples are fair game. Though "worst of the worst" is a silly exaggeration of what I said. What I said is that Obama's ad is a low blow.

I didn't say first, and the important qualifier is "by another candidate." Everyone has their honor questioned when they run for President. The candidates just don't usually do it themselves, because that's cheap.

Bullcrap. Do it direct. At least that is honest. Bush was being yellow.

Yeah, he "mildly" directly contradicted it. Pfft. Is this at all like showing "silent approval" by expressing out-loud disapproval? Please, stop torturing the English language. He doesn't know anything.

I'm just going to keep saying this until it gets through: Bush didn't say it, and even if you want to slam him for giving a bland condemnation, that isn't in the same universe as actually orchestrating the attack yourself. That's unmitigated nonsense. It'd be nonsense to even say that keeping totally silent is the same as initiating the attack, and it's some wholly new level of nonsense to say that not giving a forceful enough condemnation is. You have absolutely no argument here.
Of course I have an argument. Bush was being a coward. He was, and his campaign was, covertly supporting the ads. Total independence is a fiction. If Bush denounced the ads in a real way the ads would have lost its effectiveness. He could have made them disappear. How? Do what John McCain would have done. I am going to put words in his mouth, but if McCain had been running that year, this is what he would have said, basically: "Those ads are reprehensible. They shouldn't be on the air. They have nothing to do with my campaign, I cannot take them off the air, but i will write formally to them that they be removed."

Did Bush do anything like that?

No, he had that smug little expression of his when he made his bland comments.

Yoda

05-09-12, 10:11 AM

They all do that, all politicans do it, including John McCain, finesse positions. In my case about gay marriage, I was never strongly opposed to it, but I felt it was a tradition that should be maintained because I am instinctvely resistant to change. That was my only real reason. Once the momentum went the other way I didn't see a deep principle involved to oppose it. Obama always had a muted position on opposing gay marriage. He, like most Democrat politicians, never took a hard position like Republicans, supporting civil unions and the like. How on earth can you compare that to the complete and much more numerous and extensive flip flops of Mitt Romney?
Are you even reading this stuff? I said you're selective about what you pay attention to and simply don't "count" the stuff you don't like. And it's very telling, by the way, that you always want to pivot away from each specific dispute and just fall back on the broader Romney narrative. But given that one of the arguments is that the larger narrative is built on some dubious examples, that doesn't work.

"Muted" position? He said he's against it, and he's clearly not. And he's hinted strongly that he'll come out against it when he's on the other side of the election. You can't pretend--as you seem to be trying to--that this is about whether or not it's reasonable for someone's position to "evolve." That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it's reasonable to pretend it's evolving when he's clearly changed his mind already.

No. I wouldn't. I really wouldn't. Did you ever hear me criticize John McCain for his changes in the last election? He did the political two step, they all do it, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody does it to the extent of Mitt Romney where it is impossible to know what he believes.
Again, you misrepresent what Obama's actually doing. This isn't standard political maneuvering; it's shameless pandering. We're not talking about massaging his positions from the primary to seem more palatable in the general. This is an exceptional instance of political dissembling.

I don't know that there's a truly comparable McCain position to this. But either way, I don't buy it. You've laid into Romney for everything; the idea that you'd overlook something as blatant as what Obama's doing stretches credulity. Nothing in your post history says you would.

Yoda

05-09-12, 10:22 AM

Bullcrap. Do it direct. At least that is honest. Bush was being yellow.
Uh, he didn't do it. He didn't say it. He didn't fund it. There are laws against it, there was an investigation, and nothing of the sort was found.

Of course I have an argument. Bush was being a coward. He was, and his campaign was, covertly supporting the ads. Total independence is a fiction. If Bush denounced the ads in a real way the ads would have lost its effectiveness. He could have made them disappear. How? Do what John McCain would have done. I am going to put words in his mouth, but if McCain had been running that year, this is what he would have said, basically: "Those ads are reprehensible. They shouldn't be on the air. They have nothing to do with my campaign, I cannot take them off the air, but i will write formally to them that they be removed."

Did Bush do anything like that?

No, he had that smug little expression of his when he made his bland comments.
You really need to make up your mind about what you're arguing. On one hand, you started arguing that Bush's condemnation wasn't strong enough. And that's a pretty terrible argument, because as I keep pointing out, the idea that not condemning something strongly enough is on par with doing the thing is crazy talk.

I kept hammering on that point, and now you're implying that Bush was actually responsible, not tacitly responsible. Which would certainly address the sharp distinction between not condemning enough and doing it yourself, I suppose...except that now you're making an accusation you can't back up and which is belied by a formal investigation.

I suspect you know you've stretched on this, because you say that "Total" independence is a fiction. Which means you're going to use tenuous connections with former campaign staffers, yadda yadda yadda, to try to equate the two. Wild conspiratorial conjecture is not argument, however.

Bush absolutely could have been more forceful in denouncing the ads. You can save your energy arguing that point, because I already agree with it. But he did denounce them. He flatly contradicted them, too. And he didn't orchestrate his campaign to compliment or reinforce their message in any way. The exact opposite, in fact. This makes the notion that it's on par with the candidate directly initiating and sustaining the attack as part of a campaign strategy absolutely laughable. There is no equivalence, and the fact that you have to posit a conspiracy that eluded the FEC's investigation in order to claim otherwise tells me all I need to know about how duct-taped together this argument is.

Yoda

05-09-12, 10:26 AM

Still nothing about the bizarre definition of "tacit approval," right? Because you issued "bland" and "perfunctory" condemnations of Hilary Rosen's comments, as well as the Bin Laden ad.

So by your own logic, you tacitly approve of both. Hell, worse, because at least Bush's "tacit approval" contained an outright contradiction of the content of the Kerry attack. But in both of these cases, you only condemned the style or method, and even that had to be dragged out of you.

Yoda

05-09-12, 10:41 AM

I do think that the narrative is distorted and exaggerated. At the same time, I don't see any politician in recent history that has had this kind of reputation. The narrative is the narrative for a reason on Romney. I think there are some people who are looking for every possible reason to hate on Romney, and who try to fit everything he does into a global picture of how he's the worst person ever, but I think I have shown through my analysis thus far that I am not that kind of person, and even I believe the narrative. That tells you something.
I agree, I don't think you're searching around for reasons to hate him. But I do think you buy into the narrative. See below for more on the narrative thing, since you make another statement on it.

I don't think his failure to abandon his signature achievement as Governor does counter the narrative that he is unprincipled. The narrative that he is unprincipled is based off the impression that he changes positions in a direction that is politically advantageous to him. Contrary to what the media may have us believe, Romney was never, at any point, in danger of losing the Republican nomination. At every stage of the process he had more delegates than any other candidate. At every stage of the process, he had by far the most institutional support. He had a huge monetary advantage, and he had the most well developed get out the vote operations across the country. Romney was never in danger of losing the nomination. Even if he were, which the evidence indicates he was not, a very good argument could be made that abandoning his signature achievement as Governor would be even more damaging to him politically. You don't run against your signature achievement. Attempting to do so would not only have fed into the narrative that there is nothing that he won't throw under the bus if it will help him politically, it would also undermine his entire narrative for running, which is that he was a successful governor in Massachusetts and that his experience as Governor, and in the private sector, have given him the judgment needed to govern on a national level.
Well, it's easy to say now that he was always going to win. Sure didn't seem like that before, though, and he had to make a decision about how to approach the RomneyCare issue quite early on. He wasn't able to punt the issue until it was clear he was going to win.

Regardless, it's clear that RomneyCare hurt him. It would've been more damaging to completely abandon it, sure, but there are lots of ways he could have tried to split the difference and play it down more. Frankly, I thought he probably would. He stood by it far more strongly than I expected, or than he had to. It's easy to forget now, but this was one of the first issues that popped up when the campaign started, and he definitely could've spared himself some of that heat (which matters a lot in the earlygoing) if he'd backed off of it more.

I'm not saying he's brave, because he couldn't outright abandon it. But I am saying there was an opportunity to take a more political expedient tack than he ultimately did.

He does have something to gain from this flip flop. By not supporting extreme right-wing legislation he appeals to the moderates that he will need to win the Presidency. By going back on this, he shores up his conservative support which he needed, at the time, to win the nomination. By expressing two different positions at two different times he reassures both camps. The moderates will believe he really doesn't support this kind of extreme legislation. The conservatives will believe he was merely "confused."
I think there are two big problems with this.

The first is that the legislation is not "extreme" at all. What's extreme is telling Catholic organizations they have to help pay for someone else's birth control. I'll gladly argue this issue separately, because the distortion surrounding it is massive. Exceptionally so. There is way, way more misunderstanding and disinformation around this issue than most others.

The second is that I don't see how this is supposed to work as strategy. I can't fathom a more liberal voter who is "reassured" by Romney saying he's against it and then the very next day saying "no, I misunderstood the question, I'm for it." I don't think anyone thinks that way, or would be fooled by that.

There are, indeed, things a politician can do to try to have it both ways, but I don't see how this is an example of it. It would be a really terrible attempt at political calculation, for one, and the question was horribly confusing and echoed the debate question about state contraception bans, too. This one seems pretty clear to me.

I think the narrative on Romney is there for a reason.
Aye. The problem is, part of that reason is that he changed his ideology (which, again, gets triple-counted by his critics most of the time), and part of the reason is that reporters need something to write about, and people like to boil down their candidates to a few traits. So Obama's articulate and snobby. Bush is dumb but tough. Romney is competent but unprincipled. Is there some truth to all these things? Probably, but like all generalizations, they're pretty distorted.

You can probably thank the 24-hour news cycle for this. Things get reprocessed and reinforced constantly.

Anyway, the underlying argument here is this: the Romney narrative can't be defended just by the virtue of it being the narrative. The whole argument is about whether or not the narrative is built out of a lot of shaky examples. I'm sure we'll find some that aren't. But I think we'll find a whole lot that are, or are at least arguable. Or we'll find plenty from other candidates who don't have that reputation. And that's the point underneath all this: not that Romney hasn't changed his mind, just that that isn't the defining thing about the man, and that we've gone from Romney changing his ideology six years ago to people trying to tell me, with a straight face, that they can accurately deduce that he's the least principled politician in a decade.

Yoda

05-09-12, 11:34 AM

By the way: the gay marriage stuff has forced Obama to schedule a sit-down interview with ABC News today. Glad his hand was forced; it would've been pretty ridiculous if he'd been able to coast through the election taking a half-position. I can already see people praising him for being "brave" even though anyone following the story knows this is damage control on an issue he was avoiding like the plague.

AKA23

05-09-12, 02:11 PM

Since we are talking about Obama's gay marriage "evolution" in this thread, I thought this commentary from Chris Matthews was relevant. He is an Obama supporter, and a liberal on most issues, but he has solid political credentials, and I do think that he makes a fairly convincing argument for the wisdom of Obama's position.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47345694

will.15

05-09-12, 02:14 PM

Uh, he didn't do it. He didn't say it. He didn't fund it. There are laws against it, there was an investigation, and nothing of the sort was found.

You really need to make up your mind about what you're arguing. On one hand, you started arguing that Bush's condemnation wasn't strong enough. And that's a pretty terrible argument, because as I keep pointing out, the idea that not condemning something strongly enough is on par with doing the thing is crazy talk.

I kept hammering on that point, and now you're implying that Bush was actually responsible, not tacitly responsible. Which would certainly address the sharp distinction between not condemning enough and doing it yourself, I suppose...except that now you're making an accusation you can't back up and which is belied by a formal investigation.

I suspect you know you've stretched on this, because you say that "Total" independence is a fiction. Which means you're going to use tenuous connections with former campaign staffers, yadda yadda yadda, to try to equate the two. Wild conspiratorial conjecture is not argument, however.

Bush absolutely could have been more forceful in denouncing the ads. You can save your energy arguing that point, because I already agree with it. But he did denounce them. He flatly contradicted them, too. And he didn't orchestrate his campaign to compliment or reinforce their message in any way. The exact opposite, in fact. This makes the notion that it's on par with the candidate directly initiating and sustaining the attack as part of a campaign strategy absolutely laughable. There is no equivalence, and the fact that you have to posit a conspiracy that eluded the FEC's investigation in order to claim otherwise tells me all I need to know about how duct-taped together this argument is.
Did i say he was directly responsible at any time? No.

But I will say this.

It is obvious Bush's comments were prepared comments from his campaign if he was asked about it. They were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were a prepared reaction so they could take advantage of the ads.

Why do I say that?

Because Dick Cheney said essentially the same thing when asked. That was their officially prepared statement to react to the ads.

Bush and Cheney could not directly endorse the ads because they were never in Viet Nam. The ads were designed to take care of their weakness there. Trash Kerry's Nam record because they had none at all.

And I will say it again. These ads that are not directly funded are never completely independent. Not then, not now, not ever, because they are done to support one candidate over the other. It doesn't matter if there is direct input before they come out or not. The candidate can always make ads that they actually have a problem with disappear even if it doesn't come directly from their campaign.

Actually denouncing ads that lie and asking they be removed is really a minimal thing for a candidate to do. And Bush never did that. That is tacit approval.

Yoda

05-09-12, 02:20 PM

Er, yes, I'm sure they did get together and choose a statement. Not only is this not at all sinister, but they have it in common with any serious campaign for anything, ever. I didn't suggest the remarks were off-the-cuff (how many statements in a campaign are?), nor is anything I'm saying affected by the idea.

And there's a clear line of demarcation between saying the organizations are totally independent and implying that the candidates they support are somehow culpable for their actions. They are legally, financially, and strategically independent. Of course they have agendas, and it's probably very easy for them to guess what they can do that would benefit from the campaign. But that doesn't make the campaign complicit; that'd be a false equivalence even if the campaign were completely silent, and it's some new stratosphere of false when the campaign doesn't reinforce the message with their own strategy and specifically contradicts it.

Obama's attack is coming from the campaign itself; they put out an ad, Biden said it outright, and Obama echoed it shortly thereafter. Think they didn't get together and decide all that, too?

AKA23

05-09-12, 02:31 PM

Actually denouncing ads that lie and asking they be removed is really a minimal thing for a candidate to do. And Bush never did that. That is tacit approval.

Will, you keep pointing to examples of how other politicians did similar things to Obama and that that is simply how the game is played. You seem to believe that by repeating how other politicians did similar things in the past that that somehow makes Obama doing the same dishonest things okay. The problem with this argument, even if true, is that Obama ran as a different kind of politician who would change politics in Washington and who would run a campaign based on ideas and a vision for the future. He didn't run as "slightly better than the other guy." He ran as someone who would be radically different than everybody else. When people like Yoda point out examples where he is doing much the same thing that other politicians have done in other campaigns, it significantly undermines his entire rationale for governing, which is that he would be a different kind of politician, who would run on ideas and vision instead of attacking his opponent through dishonest smears and personal attacks. If people wanted politics as usual, they would have voted for Hilary Clinton. They didn't. They voted for Obama. Now Obama is acting like every other politician out there, and you're defending that as okay. It isn't. Not when Obama told us that he'd be better.

will.15

05-09-12, 03:09 PM

Will, you keep pointing to examples of how other politicians did similar things to Obama and that that is simply how the game is played. You seem to believe that by repeating how other politicians did similar things in the past that that somehow makes Obama doing the same dishonest things okay. The problem with this argument, even if true, is that Obama ran as a different kind of politician who would change politics in Washington and who would run a campaign based on ideas and a vision for the future. He didn't run as "slightly better than the other guy." He ran as someone who would be radically different than everybody else. When people like Yoda point out examples where he is doing much the same thing that other politicians have done in other campaigns, it significantly undermines his entire rationale for governing, which is that he would be a different kind of politician, who would run on ideas and vision instead of attacking his opponent through dishonest smears and personal attacks. If people wanted politics as usual, they would have voted for Hilary Clinton. They didn't. They voted for Obama. Now Obama is acting like every other politician out there, and you're defending that as okay. It isn't. Not when Obama told us that he'd be better.
I am bringing up a specific example and I am responding to Yoda's comments defending Bush.

Yeah, I know there were expectations in some places Obama would not be another politician. That was not my expectation. I guess I wanted politics as usual because I voted for Hilary. I thought he was an articulate load of crap at the time. Being a clever politician, which is how he has emerged as president was a good thing. Otherwise he would be lame duck like Jimmy Carter.

will.15

05-09-12, 03:20 PM

will.15

05-09-12, 03:30 PM

I will respond to some of those other Yoda posts later. I need more time to read a link with John McCain's 61 flip flops from four years ago. A cursory read shows he did it a lot more than I thought and certainly Obama at the very least isn't any worse than him. I will have to compare the two.

But Romney, gee, like I said, nobody can compare to him on complete reversals of important policy issues.

Yoda

05-09-12, 03:32 PM

They did denounce it. And they specifically contradicted the content of the claim. I keep saying this.

And again: not denouncing something as strongly as they could have is not the same as DOING THE THING BEING DENOUNCED. If you don't get that distinction, then this discussion is utterly pointless. I cannot make evident what should be self-evident.

will.15

05-09-12, 03:35 PM

Yoda

05-09-12, 03:41 PM

Sedai

05-09-12, 05:12 PM

"Hi, I repeal due process, exponentially increase remote bombing power, globalize Guantanamo, assassinate under the cloak of state secrecy and am building the world's largest surveillance center, but it's all good - I support gay marriage." #FAIL

will.15

05-09-12, 05:22 PM

They denounced all 527 ads. And they specifically contradicted the ad's claims. It's not remotely their job to defend their opponent from attacks, but they contradicted it anyway.

You can say they secretly liked it, and you can say they could have contradicted it more fervently, but you can't translate that into complicity. They did not support it in any way: not with money, not with personnel, not with a complimentary campaign strategy, and not with any statement. Their only actions were to disagree with it.

The idea that this is somehow equal to engaging in the act themselves, deliberately and repeatedly and strategically, is either wildly disingenuous or a complete breakdown of perspective.
They did not denounce it. They distanced themselves from it.

These committees are specifically formed to create harder hitting ads that a candidate can disassociate himself from while reaping the benefits. It is more upfront and honest to make your own direct attacks and take responsiblity for them. Defend them or apologize, not hide and play games like Bush did.

People responsible for the ads often worked directly previously for the candidate the ads are supporting.

That was the case with that ad campaign as well.

will.15

05-09-12, 05:29 PM

Yoda

05-09-12, 05:39 PM

They did not denounce it. They distanced themselves from it.
False. Bush condemned all soft money ads, then contradicted the claims about Kerry, saying he "served honorably." According to your bizarre logic, this is somehow identical to him creating the ad and airing it himself. Read those last two sentences again. That's actually the position you've staked out. Seriously.

It is more upfront and honest to make your own direct attacks and take responsiblity for them. Defend them or apologize, not hide and play games like Bush did.
Yeah, Obama was "more upfront and honest" for orchestrating the character attacks himself, while Bush dishonestly had nothing to do with them, and dishonestly said they shouldn't have any ads of that type, and then dishonestly contradicted the claims of the ad by dishonestly complimenting his opponent.

Unfreakingbelievable.

will.15

05-09-12, 05:49 PM

Like I said, Bush plays games:

Bush urges Kerry to condemn attack ads (http://www.movieforums.com/2004-08-23/politics/bush.kerry_1_swift-boat-ads-political-ads-attack-ads?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)

August 24, 2004
President Bush on Monday called for the so-called 527 groups to stop airing political ads, but he did not directly condemn commercials by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that have attacked Sen. John Kerry's war record. Speaking to reporters at his Texas ranch, Bush said he has repeatedly condemned 527 ads. These groups are named for the federal provision that makes such organizations tax exempt and allows them to accept unlimited donations. One reporter cited the swift boat ads and asked, "When you say that you want to stop all --" "All of them," Bush responded.

Yoda

05-09-12, 05:56 PM

Maybe you missed the part in that article where Bush condemns all 527 ads. You know, after saying that before and specifically contradicting the one in question. No? Not getting through? Okay. I tried.

We're done here. I've had my fill trying to untwist the ridiculous pretzels you argue yourself into.

will.15

05-09-12, 05:58 PM

We shouldn't be replaying something that happened eight years ago but Yoda is deliberately misrepresenting what Bush said and did.

Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'

August 20, 2004

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.
"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.
"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

The (http://www.The) group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has aired the ads in question in the likely November battleground states of Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia.
It is independent of the Bush campaign but is heavily funded by Republican contributors from Bush's home state of Texas, according to federal records.
"They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce them tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work," Kerry told a cheering crowd.
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt emphasized that Bush has not criticized Kerry's military service in Vietnam.
"Senator Kerry knows President Bush has called his service in Vietnam noble ... and the Bush campaign has tried to have a debate about the future, not the past," Schmidt said.
In Crawford, Texas, White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that Democrats were guilty of the same practice -- watching as other groups hurl charges at the opposition.
McClellan noted that Bush has been the subject of several critical ads by outside groups. For example, the group MoveOn has spent millions of dollars on ads that are sharply critical of Bush.
"The president has condemned all of the ads by the shadowy groups," McClellan said. "We have called on Senator Kerry to join us in calling for an end to all the unregulated soft money activity that is going on in this campaign."
In the swift boat commercials, former sailors accuse Kerry of lying to receive two of his five combat decorations, a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star, and criticize his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam. He also received a Silver Star and two Purple Hearts for other actions.
The ad includes Larry Thurlow, who commanded one of five swift boats in the Mekong Delta during an incident March 13, 1969, for which Kerry was decorated and Thurlow himself earned a Bronze Star.

Yoda

05-09-12, 06:08 PM

Bush said Kerry served honorably. Bush said all 527 ads should be off the air. Bush even said Kerry was "more heroic" than him.

Read these sentences. Then read them again. Keep reading them until they sink in. When that day comes, a few years from now, let me know, and we'll laugh about it.

Until then: you're a shill.

will.15

05-09-12, 06:26 PM

I have provided specific sources from back then that said Bush did not denounce the ads.

His statement about soft ads was political baseball directed at Kerry to denounce all soft ads as well. It was the opposite of denouncing a specific ad, IT WAS AN EFFORT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

He said Kerry served honorably. That is very nice, but, no, that does not qualify as denouncing the ads. He did not denounce the ads. It could be argued the ads did not contradict that either. They questioned the medals he received. It didn't say he should have been court martialed or dishonorably discharged.

Kerry did denounce a soft ad charge aginst Bush, and specifically did it directly, unlike Bush.

AKA23

05-09-12, 10:35 PM

Well, it's easy to say now that he was always going to win. Sure didn't seem like that before, though

I don't think any serious, objective observer of the Republican nomination battle could legitimately claim that Romney was ever in real danger of losing the nomination. He always had the most delegates. He had the most money. He had the most institutional support and he had the organization. In addition to all of that, he never had a credible, serious challenger. Nobody ever led Romney in the polls for more than a few weeks, at most, and those that did kept changing. I think it's pretty clear, and always has been, that Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. I may buy the narrative that Romney is unprincipled, and I may be criticized for that, but you seem to buy into a different narrative, which is that Romney was ever in any real danger of losing the Republican nomination. That narrative is a false one, and pretty much all the available evidence supports that point of view. If you decry me for believing in the conventional wisdom on Romney, I would urge you to take a look at your own beliefs regarding the fiction that Romney was ever not going to be the Republican nominee.

Regardless, it's clear that RomneyCare hurt him. It would've been more damaging to completely abandon it, sure...but I am saying there was an opportunity to take a more political expedient tack than he ultimately did.

It seems like you're trying to have it both ways here, Yoda. He either demonstrated political courage and principles by failing to completely abandon his healthcare reform plan, or he didn't. If you admit that it would have been more damaging to completely abandon his signature achievement in office, as you have admitted here, than you can't turn around and say that the fact that he didn't abandon Romneycare was reflective of a deep and principled nature. If, as you seem to admit, abandoning Romneycare would have been more damaging to him politically than defending it would be, than defending it doesn't counter the narrative of him embracing things that are politically expedient and being unprincipled. It is yet more evidence that when faced with two difficult choices, he chose the one that was most politically expedient, which was to support his signature achievement in office, when failing to do so would have been even more politically damaging.

I'm also not sure what this mysterious third way is that you are advocating Romney could have taken but chose not to do so. He said that major changes were made by Democrats that he didn't support, he decried the individual mandate which he championed in his own reform, and he said that what he did in Massachusetts should not be used as a national model, when before he started running this time around he stated repeatedly that it was fabulous and could serve as a national model for others to follow. I don't see how he could be any less supportive of his own reform without throwing it under the bus entirely. If you do, what am I not seeing?

And that's the point underneath all this: not that Romney hasn't changed his mind, just that that isn't the defining thing about the man, and that we've gone from Romney changing his ideology six years ago to people trying to tell me, with a straight face, that they can accurately deduce that he's the least principled politician in a decade.

What is the "defining thing about the man, Yoda? I honestly don't know. Beyond his commitment to his Mormon faith, and his love for his family, I don't see anything that he won't cast aside if it becomes clear to him that it will cost him power and the capacity to become President. What is it that Romney will defend? What defines Romney? I really have no idea.

What politician has turned his back on as many positions as Romney? I can't think of a single politician who has so radically changed his political ideology in such a short period of time, can you? If not, than there is some evidence to substantiate the fact that Romney is one of the last principled politicians in modern American history. Who else comes close?

You can make an argument that President Obama has not accomplished everything that he said he would during his campaign for President in 2008. You can make an argument that Obama has not been as ardent a defender for the principles he said he would fight for as President, but you can't make an argument that he's radically shifted his positions on as many issues as Romney. Everyone knows that Obama is constitutionally a liberal, and always has been. The debate, and it is a fair one, is about how liberal President Obama is. Is he a socialist radical hellbent on radically altering our way of life, or is he a middle of the road pragmatist who is liberal but is mostly centrist in his orientation? The question on Obama is how liberal he is, not whether or not he is a liberal at all, or what he truly believes. We can't say the same about Romney. So, I ask again, if you don't believe that Romney is one of the least principled politicians in modern American history, who else comes close?

I can't think of a single politician in modern American history about whom that kind of narrative could be written.

will.15

05-10-12, 12:29 AM

Well, Romney is not a crook so in that sense he is more prinicipled than some governors (mostly from Illinois) sitting in jail.

will.15

05-11-12, 01:13 PM

7thson

05-11-12, 03:39 PM

Dhimmitude

AKA23

05-11-12, 04:02 PM

People criticizing Mitt Romney for tackling a gay kid in high school and cutting his hair are wrong.

They are ignoring the positive.

It shows Mitt Romney is a leader.

It was his idea, he organized it, and successfully executed it.

That is what this country needs.

Leadership.

MITT ROMNEY
He might not be able to give a straight answer,
But he sure knows how
To cut hair.

This is amusing, but this issue is ridiculous. Romney has a record. Obama has a record. They both are advancing different visions for moving this country forward. Let's debate that, rather than talking about things that happened 40 years ago. Countless people do exactly what Romney may have done, and Romney is the only one who has a national media campaign devoted to covering it. Barring some outrageous transgression that has yet to come to light, I frankly don't really give a damn what Mitt Romney did more than 40 years ago. Let's focus on the real issues here people, get rid of these distractions, and quit trying to pretend that these childish pranks are worthy of news coverage.

AKA23

05-12-12, 11:43 PM

Barack Obama has come out in support of gay marriage. I think it's courageous of him to do so, given that his support is not a political winner for him. I do find it amusing that when Mitt Romney changes his mind on a political issue, he's called a "flip flopper," but when President Obama does it, the media calls it "evolving." Defenders of President Obama can dress it up any way they want to, but that sounds like a double standard to me ;)

wintertriangles

05-13-12, 12:54 AM

He did it for votes, and since when is having the correct viewpoint courageous?

honeykid

05-13-12, 02:01 AM

Maybe since he's running in a country where a lot of people wouldn't see it as "the correct viewpoint?" Not that I think he's being courageous either.

will.15

05-13-12, 02:46 AM

Meanwhile, Romney is the flop that keeps on flipping:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/603864/thumbs/s-MITT-ROMNEY-GAY-ADOPTION-large.jpg
Mitt Romney walked back (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433104-503544/romney-backs-away-from-same-sex-adoptions/) on his earlier comment that it's "fine" for gay couples to adopt, saying he will "simply acknowledge" that gay adoption is legal.

"Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago," Romney told (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433104-503544/romney-backs-away-from-same-sex-adoptions/) Charlotte, North Carolina's WBTV on Friday. "So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

Romney's thoughts on gay adoption came up just one day earlier in an interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/mitt-romney-gay-couples-adopt_n_1507567.html) with Fox News' Neil Cavuto. Romney appeared on the show to discuss President Barack Obama's recent support (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html) of same-sex marriage when he made a comment on gay couples' parenting.

"I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home," Romney said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/mitt-romney-gay-couples-adopt_n_1507567.html). "I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

AKA23

05-13-12, 05:16 PM

He did it for votes, and since when is having the correct viewpoint courageous?

President Obama's support of gay marriage in an election year is courageous because it is not politically advantageous of him to do so at this time. The fact that he has chosen to support something that polls suggest will actually cost him votes is counter to his interests. Doing so is therefore courageous.

I think that to say that gay marriage is the "correct viewpoint" is incredibly arrogant. The unwillingness and inability to confer respect on someone who holds a different point of view is poisoning our culture and making it almost impossible for us to get anything of value done. It needs to be changed. Saying that President Obama's viewpoint is the "correct viewpoint" confers disrespect on the almost half of Americans who happen to hold a different point of view. 31 states have voted, and all of them have voted against gay marriage, including in very liberal states such as California. It is far from clear that gay marriage is "correct." Half of the society says that it is not. In the future, I would encourage you to make more an effort to confer respect upon people's viewpoints with which you happen to disagree. You will never, ever convince anyone of the merits of your own position if you do not first demonstrate that you respect theirs. Demonizing conservatives, or liberals, who happen to hold a different point of view, and proclaiming your own as the only one that has merit, is tremendously misguided, and completely counterproductive to the efforts of sincere and passionate people to come together to actually get things done in our society.

cinemaafficionado

05-14-12, 01:26 AM

[quote=AKA23;811194]President Obama's support of gay marriage in an election year is courageous because it is not politically advantageous of him to do so at this time.]

I think it just shows him for the hypocrite that he is. Nothing corageous about the move; just an attempt to garner the gay vote. Obviously he feels it will make a difference and that's why he changed his original position. He calls it an " evolution " in his thinking. All this from a guy that evolved us into the current economic crises we find ourselves in and no , just like the majority of Americans, I don't appreciate sociolized medecine being showed down my throat.
On the other front, I for one dread the thought of him being at the helm another four years with Iran, North Korea, Yemen and Somalia getting out of control.

Deadite

05-14-12, 06:43 AM

AKA23

05-14-12, 01:13 PM

Not trying to prevent consenting adults from marrying is the correct viewpoint. It's pretty difficult to respect the opposing viewpoint when it is clearly bigotry. Why should gays tolerate bigots telling them they can't get married if they choose?

Nope, sorry, basic common sense wins out here. You don't get to whine that your viewpoint isn't being treated equally if you're acting like a nazi.

I understand that you are passionate about this issue, but comments like this are part of the problem. Half the society disagrees with gay marriage. Do you honestly believe that half the society has a hatred for gay people comparable to the Nazis? Seriously, do you actually believe that? If you do, than I would suggest that you would benefit from a serious examination of your perspective. Political opinions are driven by feelings and emotions and competing values and visions about the world and what it should be. If you don't make an effort to try to understand the reasons for conservatives point of view on this, or any other issue, than you will fail to to discover the underlying rationale for why they feel the way that they do. If you do not understand the underlying rationale, you will never be able to successfully bring about a change in perspective. If you attack the viewpoints of those who disagree so stridently than you will cut off debate, and miss the valuable opportunity to discover the underlying values and concerns that bring about their contrary perspective. By doing so, you won't be able to engage in a dialogue that exposes the underlying flaws in their arguments. If you disagree with the actual merits of opposing gay marriage, and feel that the premises are flawed, argue them, but don't seek to demonize people. Don't call them evil or bigoted or compare their actions to Nazis.

You say that gay marriage is obviously the correct viewpoint. That's currently all the rage in liberal circles, and it's a legitimate point of view, but I would ask you to consider another social issue that conservatives feel just as strongly about. Conservatives would say that protecting the sanctity of life is clearly the correct viewpoint too. People decide to have sex. That's a choice. They decide not to use protection. That's another choice. Then they want to abort the children that they created, which result from their own failure to be responsible. Rather than protecting and defending the right of the unborn to exist, liberals are encouraging and promoting the devaluing of life and encouraging people's own poor lifestyle choices. Liberals seek to protect killing unborn children. That's the conservative viewpoint on abortion. And that's not all. It gets worse. The notion that we should be able to abort developing children that are 7 or 8 months in gestation who could, if given the chance, live and breathe on their own is tantamount to murder, conservatives say. It's obviously "correct" to value life and punish murder. Do you see how these judgments are not helpful? This is exactly what you are doing with your comments on gay marriage. It's just in reverse. I bet you have a different point of view on abortion, but it doesn't really matter what you believe, because you're clearly supporting murder. You call those who oppose gay marriage bigots. Well, conservatives would say that you're a murderer. Which is worse?

wintertriangles

05-14-12, 02:08 PM

I understand that you are passionate about this issue, but comments like this are part of the problem. Half the society disagrees with gay marriage. Do you honestly believe that half the society has a hatred for gay people comparable to the Nazis?1) Society tends to be wrong ALL THE TIME. World's flat, but don't make fun of them! We're in the center of the universe, but don't call us narcissistic! Stupidity deserves to be lambasted, this is beyond opinions and irrelevant to "passionate issues." 2) Hyperbole dude, chill out on the nazi thing, it's a fair, semi-tongue-in-cheek comparison in that sense.

If you don't make an effort to try to understand the reasons for conservatives point of view on this, or any other issue, than you will fail to to discover the underlying rationale for why they feel the way that they do. If you do not understand the underlying rationale, you will never be able to successfully bring about a change in perspective. If you attack the viewpoints of those who disagree so stridently than you will cut off debate, and miss the valuable opportunity to discover the underlying values and concerns that bring about their contrary perspective. By doing so, you won't be able to engage in a dialogue that exposes the underlying flaws in their arguments. If you disagree with the actual merits of opposing gay marriage, and feel that the premises are flawed, argue them, but don't seek to demonize people. Don't call them evil or bigoted or compare their actions to Nazis. This paragraph epitomizes the social sissiness today. Can you imagine if you tried to say this about slavery today? What about sacrificing to the gods? I can use your argument for those things as well but I'd be one hell of a black sheep. You're missing the point here. People can have a dialogue about these things, but that doesn't change the bigotry on one side.

Conservatives would say that protecting the sanctity of life is clearly the correct viewpoint too.Conservatives are warmongers along with the liberals, they don't care about sanctity of life at all, it just sounds nice. It's also incredibly hypocritical to deny someone's sanctity of choice to preserve one's own dogmatic perspective. That's how politics works.

Yoda

05-14-12, 02:23 PM

wintertriangles

05-14-12, 02:27 PM

will.15

05-14-12, 02:34 PM

It wasn't that long ago we had Jim Crow laws.

Social conservative's hostility to gays goes beyond marriage. Many of their positions are pure bigotry.

Romney and most of the GOP doesn't just oppose gay marriage, but also civil unions.

Deadite

05-14-12, 06:14 PM

Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much the bigot cries foul.

Deadite

05-14-12, 06:57 PM

I sure can't imagine anyone saying that about slavery today. But then, until these last few posts I couldn't really imagine someone having the gall to say that being against gay marriage is like owning slaves or being a Nazi, either.

Nobody should be able to stop two adults from getting married if they want to. It's that simple.

Gay people are going to be gay no matter how badly bigots treat them, and no matter how many rights are taken from them. Bigots can't shame gays out of being who they really are. Bigots will never get rid of them no matter how many anti-gay rules bigots make.

So bigots better start learning tolerance of other people's rights.

honeykid

05-14-12, 07:06 PM

Nobody should be able to stop two adults from getting married if they want to. It's that simple.
^^This^^

So bigots better start learning tolerance of other people's rights.
Neeeeeever gonna happen. IMO, all you can do is educate people and hope that they learn.

Deadite

05-14-12, 07:26 PM

I know. I know. I still try to give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they can be better because otherwise it would be just too depressingly hopeless for me.

Powderfinger

05-15-12, 03:45 AM

AKA23

05-15-12, 02:03 PM

AKA23

05-15-12, 02:08 PM

Nobody should be able to stop two adults from getting married if they want to. It's that simple.

Gay people are going to be gay no matter how badly bigots treat them, and no matter how many rights are taken from them. Bigots can't shame gays out of being who they really are. Bigots will never get rid of them no matter how many anti-gay rules bigots make.

So bigots better start learning tolerance of other people's rights.

It may be convenient, and personally satisfying, for you to caricature everyone who doesn't support gay marriage into the narrow box of a bigoted, intolerant, thoughtless homophobe, but that doesn't make it true. To give you a data point, I'll use myself as an example. Throughout my life, I have had three friends of mine express to me that they were gay or lesbian. When they told me they were gay or lesbian, I didn't abandon them. I stayed their friend. I never tried to convince them that what they were doing, or who they were, was wrong. If they asked me my opinion, I told them my views. If they didn't, I didn't. I even helped counsel one of my friends about how to deal with her parents, who had difficulty accepting the fact that she was gay. I offered to support her in any way that I could. One of these friends of mine I actually lived with after my graduation from college. Before I agreed to live with her, I knew that she was gay. At the time that I did live with her, she was actively in a relationship with another woman. I never said anything derogatory about their relationship. I have never used an anti-gay slur. I don't think teacher's should be fired from schools because they are gay. I don't think being gay is a choice. I'd even go so far as to accept some form of civil union, because I do think that it is discriminatory for the law to treat gays and lesbians differently because they engage in a lifestyle that some people find morally objectionable.

I don't, however, support gay marriage. To say that I'm a bigot, or that I am intolerant of other people's lifestyles, is provably false. I don't think racists in the South would freely befriend black people, counsel them on how to deal with their family, agree to live with them, or support legal recognition of their unions. From my reading of history, I seem to remember them hanging black people from trees, trying to prevent them from voting, or enslaving them, but I missed those stories of Ku Klux Klan members living with blacks in harmony, supporting rights for them, or sharing the same home. I also remember a lot about Jews being thrown into concentration camps and burned in ovens, but I seem to not remember a whole lot about the Nazis and the Jews living side by side in peace. Since you seem to be so knowledgeable about these things, maybe you could point those stories out to me. I may have missed them ;)

I only use myself as an example because it's a good one, not because I feel a need to defend myself from your ridiculous accusations. I don't frankly care much what you think. I know who I am, and what I believe, and I know that I have no hatred or intolerance for gays and lesbians. So, now that the entire premise of your argument has been completely destroyed by actual evidence of someone who doesn't fit your stereotype of those who don't support gay marriage, what do you have to say for yourself, Deadite?

Deadite

05-15-12, 04:54 PM

Deadite

05-15-12, 05:51 PM

I feel I could add a bit more...

Tolerance is very important and I always aspire to be as tolerant as possible. I've had friends who had this or that problem with gay people, I've had friends who were racist against this or that race or more, I've had friends all my life who had all kinds of varied beliefs.

I do my best to accept them even when I disapprove of their bigotry, their narrow-minded attitudes, or simply disagree over an issue that isn't directly of consequence but still debatable (eg. intelligent life in the universe).

I look for the good in people, and the truth is that most of the time it was there. In some form or another. I don't believe any of them were truly evil. Not a one. Some of them were very hateful, or had sick ideas about this or that, but I think ignorance is the source of most if not all of it.

The problem is when bigotry is institutionalized and people help to maintain bigotry actively or passively, no matter how they try to squirm out of responsibility or talk past the truth.

Deadite

05-15-12, 06:48 PM

Deadite

05-15-12, 07:09 PM

Conservatives are warmongers along with the liberals, they don't care about sanctity of life at all, it just sounds nice. It's also incredibly hypocritical to deny someone's sanctity of choice to preserve one's own dogmatic perspective. That's how politics works.

I don't even much bother addressing conservative/liberal and other such labels that tend to overgeneralize ideological schisms to the point of uselessness, to be honest. I myself have some views that many people could and would call conservative. I can't see much point in arguing at a stereotype, even if there are people who fit it.

AKA23

05-15-12, 10:53 PM

I'm not caricaturing anyone. It's none of your business if two people choose to get married, regardless of whether their genitals are the same. If you support a bigoted rule or bigoted system, then you're a bigot by default.

I can sympathize to an extent with people who don't want to face what some of their beliefs really say about them, but I sympathize more with the people who are the targets of bigotry.

With respect, by saying that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot and comparing those who oppose gay marriage to the Nazis, you are most certainly caricaturing people. You are taking an entire class of people, and making judgments about them, without any examination whatsoever of the underlying reasons for their position or any discussion of the soundness of their arguments. That is the very definition of a caricature.

I find it curious that you haven't responded to any of the points that I've made in this thread. You merely fall back on your stock answer, regardless of what I say, or the arguments that I make. You make no actual attempt to engage in a debate or discuss the merits of the arguments that I have put forth. That, again, is the very definition of a caricature.

If you're interested in hearing why conservative Americans might have problems with gay marriage, I'm happy to have that discussion with you, but you don't seem to be interested in an actual discussion. You seem to be only interested in caricaturing people who disagree with you, and then denying that you are doing so. I find that regrettable, and very sad.

Deadite

05-15-12, 11:11 PM

Deadite

05-15-12, 11:25 PM

If you're interested in hearing why conservative Americans might have problems with gay marriage, I'm happy to have that discussion with you, but you don't seem to be interested in an actual discussion. You seem to be only interested in caricaturing people who disagree with you, and then denying that you are doing so. I find that regrettable, and very sad.

I'm not calling anyone a bigot to insult them. I'm calling discrimination against homosexuals bigotry because it is.

I'm sorry that you're sad but we must start with the truth or we'll just be wasting time sidestepping the crux of the matter with pointless niceties.

But please do feel free to explain your views on homosexuality and why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. I've probably heard it all before from bigoted friends and family members who I still cared about and loved in spite of their bigotry toward homosexuals.

AKA23

05-15-12, 11:27 PM

No, I'm not caricaturing anyone. A caricature is an exaggeration. You may or may not want to exterminate a group of people but you do have one thing at least in common with nazis. What is it? Why, it's bigotry!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

It's not an exaggeration to call a person a bigot who believes homosexuals should be discriminated against.

If you oppose homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals, then YOU

are

a bigot. :)

Maybe I misread your posts. Do you oppose same-sex marriage or not?

How far does this viewpoint go? Using your logic, anyone who opposes any choice of another person, no matter how destructive, is a bigot. If someone opposes abortion, they're a bigot. It you want to pass laws against drugs and prostitution, you're a bigot. If you want to teach values and character in classrooms, you're a bigot. All of these require making personal value judgments about people's behavior, and seeking to advance a society that is consistent with your own personal views about what society can and should be. After all, if you're against abortion, you don't have to get one. If you're against using drugs, don't use them. If you don't like prostitution, don't go to one. We shouldn't teach values in schools because whose to say which values are right, and whose are wrong. In your view, society should treat everyone's values as entirely equal, regardless of the social cost, the values they promote, or whether those ideas are constructive or destructive for society. The problem with these arguments, in my view, is that the values we hold as a society do matter. What we choose to incentivize through tax policy, and what we criminalize or allow, does have an effect on who does what in our society. It sends a signal about what kind of society we want to be and what behaviors we seek to promote. It seems to me that under your view of the world, we shouldn't have any laws regulating the personal behavior of individuals at all. If that is your position, I personally disagree with it. If it is not, than your view is logically inconsistent, and there is no reason that gay rights should be given a special place in society. There is no reason that it should be blindly accepted without debate and discussion, or without an honest consideration of the values we hold and the kind of society which we seek to promote.

Deadite

05-15-12, 11:43 PM

Do you think homosexuality should be criminalized?

AKA23

05-15-12, 11:50 PM

No. I don't, but I do think that whether we should change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, is a legitimate issue, which should be discussed and debated, and not merely granted without any discussion or debate on the issue.

As for criminalization, I would be totally against that. For what it's worth, the Supreme Court's ruling in "Lawrence v. Texas" already settled that issue, as they stated unequivocally that homosexual relations cannot and should not be criminalized. I think they made the right call on that one :)

Deadite

05-15-12, 11:52 PM

How far does this viewpoint go?

It applies to consenting adults who want to get married.

The rest of your post is just mental contortions of you trying to justify bigotry.

Deadite

05-16-12, 12:04 AM

honeykid

05-16-12, 12:14 AM

No. I don't, but I do think that whether we should change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, is a legitimate issue, which should be discussed and debated, and not merely granted without any discussion or debate on the issue.
Who's definition? The Churches? Because, if so, then I don't think there's much of a problem, as marriage was around long, long before the Church itself. Let alone when it started to intrude and regulate people's relations. Now, if homosexuals want to get married in a church, that's the Churches business and if they don't want to allow it, that's up to them IMO. Is it also not true that marriage is both a civil right and a legal contract? Neither of which are reliant on the consent or permission of any religion.

Powderfinger

05-16-12, 01:27 AM

Who's definition? The Churches? Because, if so, then I don't think there's much of a problem, as marriage was around long, long before the Church itself. Let alone when it started to intrude and regulate people's relations. Now, if homosexuals want to get married in a church, that's the Churches business and if they don't want to allow it, that's up to them IMO. Is it also not true that marriage is both a civil right and a legal contract? Neither of which are reliant on the consent or permission of any religion.

My Father and Mother couldn't be married in a Church..Why? lol! :D Because my Father is a Catholic and my Mother is Church of England (That cracks me up! :D)

4 brothers are Catholics and a sister who is Church of England. I'm Catholic. My relatives on my Father's side and very religious...2 were Priests..they're dead now.

Deadite

05-16-12, 01:29 AM

A few more questions: Should someone who had a sex change operation be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex? Should homosexuals not be allowed any other heterosexual rights? Is allowing a religion the power to legally define marriage the same as passing a law respecting an establishment of religion? Should heterosexuals be allowed to marry for any reason other than producing children? Is oral sex a sin? If a man's penis touches his wife's anus accidentally or intentionally at any point during sex, then does that nullify their marriage? Are "honor rapes" and "honor killings" a legitimate exercise of freedom of religious expression? Would same-sex marriage impede heterosexuals from marrying? How far does protecting "sanctity of marriage" go? :suspicious:

Powderfinger

05-16-12, 01:36 AM

If a man's penis touches his wife's anus accidentally or intentionally at any point during sex, then does that nullify their marriage

The Greeks use do that if the girl was a virgin :D No ****! :D

Deadite

05-16-12, 08:15 AM

EDIT: NOTE LANGUAGE...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/416935_2789228617372_1458057420_31966747_2053247815_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/560759_3645055601790_1136392460_3393271_699160687_n.jpg

AKA23

05-16-12, 11:54 AM

Why shouldn't homosexuals be able to marry, if as you say homosexuality isn't a criminal act?

Is it for religious reasons? Which religion?

For me, it is not for religious reasons, but to answer the substance of your question, pick your religion. Every major world religion, from Christianity, to Islam, to Judaism, to Buddhism, to Mormonism and Bahai, is disapproving of homosexuality. This is one of the major impediments to the recognition of homosexual marriage. Any devout follower of any major world religious tradition cannot in good conscience support the moral permissibility of homosexuality. If someone does not happen to believe that these religious traditions came from God, and reflected His wishes and His Word, I respect that, and that is a legitimate point of view, but if someone does, I cannot see how any reasonable reading of any of these religious texts can legitimately support homosexuality as a morally permissive lifestyle. They can't. They don't. Those who support homosexual marriage are grasping at straws trying to distort the religious text in order to find support where it simply does not exist, in my view.

A few more questions...:Should homosexuals not be allowed any other heterosexual rights?
I personally believe that homosexuals who seek to form unions should be allowed to do so, and that those unions should be legally recognized in order to ensure fairness and equal treatment under the law. I personally would strongly support hospital visitation the rights, the ability of homosexual domestic partners to be on each other's health insurance plans, and the right of inheritance and survivorship benefits. I would not be in favor of redefining marriage to include homosexuals, but would support some form of civil union.

Is allowing a religion the power to legally define marriage the same as passing a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Marriage has had a definition for thousands of years. This definition has been of a man and a woman. The idea of redefining marriage to include homosexuals is a relatively new idea. It is not something that has been recognized by any major industrialized nation until extremely recently. The first nation was the Netherlands, which happened in 2001. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that marriage has, for any society even remotely analogous to our own, ever had any other definition. It is not a matter of allowing religion to define marriage. Marriage has a historical definition, and that definition, in most, if not all, major world powers has been exclusively heterosexual in nature

Are "honor rapes" and "honor killings" a legitimate exercise of freedom of religious expression?

No. Honor rapes and honor killings are not a legitimate exercise of freedom of religious expression. Firstly, they pose direct bodily harm to others, including those who may not be members of the religion. Killing someone deprives them of their life. This is in no way analogous to being against gay marriage. There are a whole host of non-religious reasons to be opposed to gay marriage, and failing to grant a group of people a previously unrecognized privilege is very different from depriving someone of their life, which always has been recognized in our nation as a right.

I hope this post helps to answer some of your question, and I look forward to your reply.

Yoda

05-16-12, 12:05 PM

Deadite: you say it's "none of your business" if two consenting adults want to get married. But there are problems with this. The first is that this argument is about whether or not this is true; no purpose is served by merely asserting your conclusion. The argument that gay couples should be allowed to marry because it's none of your business if they marry is a clearly circular one.

The second is that, if the government is going to be involved in the issue of marriage at all, then it's every citizen's business. You are free to call their stance bigoted, foolish, inconsistent, whatever. Then we have the cultural debate. But you can't dismiss it out of hand, as if the mere raising of the issue is somehow out of bounds. Everything the government licenses and regulates is all of our business, collectively.

The third is that you keep saying that "two" adults should not be stopped from getting married. Why only two? It seems an entirely arbitrary number. The principles you've offered in support of gay marriage logically apply just as much to polygamy. Now, I rather expect that you probably do support polygamy, but given that far fewer people support polygamy than support gay marriage, this is a hugely important implication.

The fourth problem is a very large one. You say it's "none of [our] business" if two consenting adults want to get married. And I know why you make this argument: it's a powerful one. It's particularly powerful in American politics, where the default position is to let people do what they will and only intervene when it can clearly be shown to harm others. That's a good general principle, and it's embedded deep in our culture's DNA. It's a potent framing of the position.

However, there's a problem with this argument: it's completely false. And I don't mean it's false in a vague "we all have an interest in preserving cherished institutions" way (though that's not nothing). I mean it's literally false. The makeup of our current anti-discrimination laws puts the lie to it; a Christian wedding photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding was sued for discrimination (and lost!) (http://scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/). And this in a state where gay marriage isn't even legal, mind you. The legal reality here simply does not allow for the "none of your business" argument.

Having made those arguments, I'd like to pose a few questions, if I might:

1) How do you distinguish between gay marriage and civil unions? I think it's pretty clear that the state, not being religiously-oriented, must agree to recognize some form of civil unions. Is this what you mean by "marriage"? If not, aren't you essentially advocating that the government grant the rights that most people support (even many of those against gay marriage), but that they officially use the word "marriage" to describe it? If so, why? Should the government be in the habit of defining words for us, as opposed to merely protecting rights? If there is little to no legal difference, then the issue is clearly one of social acceptance, which you certainly can't force through judicial or legislative fiat.

2) Please define the word "bigot."

3) If your position is that we have no right to prevent anyone from getting married, why doesn't that extend to the entire practice of marriage licensing? If they have no business restricting such things, what business do they have licensing them at all? Everything else the government licenses, it does for the express purpose of allowing some people to do something, but not others. Instances in which anyone can do something without restriction don't need to be licensed at all.

I have more, actually, but this post is enough to nudge the conversation in a useful direction, I think.

cinemaafficionado

05-16-12, 12:11 PM

I think the main issue here is semantics. For thousands of years societies all over the world called marriage a union of man and woman.
Gays should not be denied domestic partnerships or any other legal entitlements which a marriage provides but their union should not be called marriage. It can be called anything else ,but we should not have to redefine the meaning of language to accomodate a necessary social ammendment.

will.15

05-16-12, 01:01 PM

Deadite: you say it's "none of your business" if two consenting adults want to get married. But there are problems with this. The first is that this argument is about whether or not this is true; no purpose is served by merely asserting your conclusion. The argument that gay couples should be allowed to marry because it's none of your business if they marry is a clearly circular one.

The second is that, if the government is going to be involved in the issue of marriage at all, then it's every citizen's business. You are free to call their stance bigoted, foolish, inconsistent, whatever. Then we have the cultural debate. But you can't dismiss it out of hand, as if the mere raising of the issue is somehow out of bounds. Everything the government licenses and regulates is all of our business, collectively.

The third is that you keep saying that "two" adults should not be stopped from getting married. Why only two? It seems an entirely arbitrary number. The principles you've offered in support of gay marriage logically apply just as much to polygamy. Now, I rather expect that you probably do support polygamy, but given that far fewer people support polygamy than support gay marriage, this is a hugely important implication.

The fourth problem is a very large one. You say it's "none of [our] business" if two consenting adults want to get married. And I know why you make this argument: it's a powerful one. It's particularly powerful in American politics, where the default position is to let people do what they will and only intervene when it can clearly be shown to harm others. That's a good general principle, and it's embedded deep in our culture's DNA. It's a potent framing of the position.

However, there's a problem with this argument: it's completely false. And I don't mean it's false in a vague "we all have an interest in preserving cherished institutions" way (though that's not nothing). I mean it's literally false. The makeup of our current anti-discrimination laws puts the lie to it; a Christian wedding photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding was sued for discrimination (and lost!) (http://scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/). And this in a state where gay marriage isn't even legal, mind you. The legal reality here simply does not allow for the "none of your business" argument.

Having made those arguments, I'd like to pose a few questions, if I might:
1) How do you distinguish between gay marriage and civil unions? I think it's pretty clear that the state, not being religiously-oriented, must agree to recognize some form of civil unions. Is this what you mean by "marriage"? If not, aren't you essentially advocating that the government grant the rights that most people support (even many of those against gay marriage), but that they officially use the word "marriage" to describe it? If so, why? Should the government be in the habit of defining words for us, as opposed to merely protecting rights? If there is little to no legal difference, then the issue is clearly one of social acceptance, which you certainly can't force through judicial or legislative fiat.

2) Please define the word "bigot."

3) If your position is that we have no right to prevent anyone from getting married, why doesn't that extend to the entire practice of marriage licensing? If they have no business restricting such things, what business do they have licensing them at all? Everything else the government licenses, it does for the express purpose of allowing some people to do something, but not others. Instances in which anyone can do something without restriction don't need to be licensed at all.
I have more, actually, but this post is enough to nudge the conversation in a useful direction, I think.
While I don't think someone opposed to gay marriage is necessarily a bigot., certainly not AKA23, the bigots are out there and a major presidential contender, Rick Santorum, is one of them. He has actually said it should be legal for government to outlaw homosexual acts. He is completely intolerant of gays and that is a bigot. Most of the presidential candidates said they wanted to bring back Don't Ask, Don't Tell even though the new policy has been working fine. Romney flip flopped on that also. And a large number of Republicans are even opposed to civil unions, all kinds. And Mitt Romney, as is usual with him, is rather vague on exactly where he stands, saying he supports some civil union rights , whatever that means. The mainstream of the Republican Party has gone from conservative to reactionary, taking hard lines on opposing pretty much all civil rights protection for gays and and opposing any kind of immigration reforms that would allow undocumented workers to stay in the country legally. They are a far cry from the party that went to war to stop slavery and voted for civil rights legislation in the sixties.

Yoda

05-16-12, 01:16 PM

We're talking about gay marriage and whether being against it makes you a bigot, not whether or not anyone is a bigot, and not whether or not Mitt Romney flip-flops, and not where you think the Republican party is headed (spoiler alert! You think it's headed in the wrong direction).

The fact that almost nobody seems interested in responding to your selective political monologuing, wherein you show far more fascination with Romney's character defects than our $15 trillion debt, is not an open invitation to try to steer completely unrelated discussions back to those topics. Take a hint. Not everything can be made into a pivot point that can turn the conversation back to the same three things you want to post about all the time.

will.15

05-16-12, 01:37 PM

You are discussing who is and isn't a bigot with regard to gay marriage and the reality is a large number of Republicans who are opposed to gay marriage are also opposed to practically all gay rights. And the discussion is taking place in a thread involving the presidential race so it is hardly irrelevant to bring up Mitt Romney's position and the position of Republicans regarding gays.

Yoda

05-16-12, 01:45 PM

Hey everyone, check out this news article about wine (http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410287,00.html); now they're saying it's good for you! Awhile back people used to think it wasn't. What a flip-flop. Hey, you know who else flip-flops? That Mitt Romney. He probably has to, since the Republicans are becoming a reactionary party and have been hijacked by the Tea Party. What's that? We were talking about wine? Why, so am I. Didn't you see my segue?

Okay, okay, we'll talk about something else. How about ice cream? Ice cream sells better in the summer. Every summer, around Memorial Day, I stop wearing shoes and switch to flip-flops. HEY. You know what that reminds me of?

Wait, where are you going? Come back! I wasn't trying to talk about Mitt Romney! I was talking about wine and ice cream and what fish do when they're out of water. Come baaaaaaaaack!

will.15

05-16-12, 01:51 PM

Go ahead and have your fun, but the positive benefits of wine is not comparable to gay rights.

Yoda

05-16-12, 01:55 PM

Yeah, because that was my point. That wine is like gay rights.

will.15

05-16-12, 02:11 PM

Hardly, unless you think gay marriage is a big joke.

I didn't even click on that link, but that wine thing is hardly new. Is this what it says? A couple glasses of wine daily is good for the heart? They have been saying that for decades.

7thson

05-16-12, 09:58 PM

I think I lost an IQ point or two reading the last few posts or did I?

AKA23

05-17-12, 01:52 PM

I think that there's a lot of misinformation and unfair marginalizing of people on both sides of this debate, but a lot of the things that I've been hearing in this thread really do concern me. Firstly, I think some liberals equate homophobia with honest and sincere personal convictions which question the moral permissibility of homosexuality. Someone who is homophobic is someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals, but a lot of conservatives don't have a fear of homosexuality. They have a a conviction, grounded in part in religion, which is almost universally hostile to homosexuality, or in a fundamental and honest disagreement about what kind of society we should be. If you are a sincere Christian, Muslim, Jew, or devout follower of another religious faith, and your interpretation of your religion leads you to question whether homosexuality is a moral lifestyle, I don't think that it follows that you are necessarily homophobic. Homophobia is based on fear, not sincere and honest personal convictions. Some who morally disagree with homosexuality are homophobic, like those who bully gay people, who seek to pass laws to discriminate against gays in hiring, or shield them from anti-discrimination laws, or those who spend inordinate amounts of time thinking of the devastation that they think will result from homosexual unions. But I don't think these views describe all people, or even most, who oppose gay marriage. If you live and work with gay people, and count them among your friends, and want the best for them in their lives, I don't think you are homophobic just because you question whether the homosexual lifestyle is morally appropriate and because you are reluctant to grant marriage rights to a group of individuals who have never before been given the privilege, and who don't meet the historical definition of marriage.

honeykid

05-17-12, 08:57 PM

I think that there's a lot of misinformation
Yes, like there being a God.

Firstly, I think some liberals equate homophobia with honest and sincere personal convictions which question the moral permissibility of homosexuality.
"The moral permissibility of homosexuality"? Holy ****. Who the hell are you?

Someone who is homophobic is someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals, but a lot of conservatives don't have a fear of homosexuality. They have a a conviction, grounded in part in religion,...
In part? I know a few homophobes and none of them think whether gay people should marry or not is any of their business. But then, they just don't like homosexuals, they're not religious.

... which is almost universally hostile to homosexuality,
Of course it is. It doesn't produce followers.

If you are a sincere Christian, Muslim, Jew, or devout follower of another religious faith, and your interpretation of your religion leads you to question whether homosexuality is a moral lifestyle, I don't think that it follows that you are necessarily homophobic.
No. It follows that your brain's been warped by religion.

Homophobia is based on fear, not sincere and honest personal convictions. Some who morally disagree with homosexuality are homophobic, like those who bully gay people, who seek to pass laws to discriminate against gays in hiring, or shield them from anti-discrimination laws, or those who spend inordinate amounts of time thinking of the devastation that they think will result from homosexual unions. But I don't think these views describe all people, or even most, who oppose gay marriage.
In my experience, this is absolutely true.

If you live and work with gay people, and count them among your friends, and want the best for them in their lives, I don't think you are homophobic just because you question whether the homosexual lifestyle is morally appropriate...
I can understand that. People are making choices you don't agree with and you worry about them. That's good. :)

... and because you are reluctant to grant marriage rights to a group of individuals who have never before been given the privilege, and who don't meet the historical definition of marriage.
Oh for ****s sake. :facepalm:

cinemaafficionado

05-17-12, 09:16 PM

I really wonder if this thread has become counter-productive to some MOFO members.
Way too much time has allready been spent discussing " gay marriage " .
Suddenly, it has immerged as the most significant topic of the decade.
All pros and cons aside for the above mentioned, I would focus more on the rising cost of gasoline.

Yoda

05-17-12, 09:33 PM

Yes, like there being a God.
More like saying there isn't! Oh, snap! Meaningless contradictions are fun. And so easy! Why, anyone can do them at any time without having to put any thought into it at all. I totally get why you're so fond of them. ;)

"The moral permissibility of homosexuality"? Holy ****. Who the hell are you?
He's a person deciding what he believes is moral. Why, do you let somebody else decide for you?

honeykid

05-17-12, 09:39 PM

I was going to mention how waylaid the thread had become yesterday, but Yoda made a post that made me think otherwise, so I didn't. I'd also argue that, in the UK anyway, gay marriage really isn't a big issue among 'the gay community'. Some of the more 'right on' politically minded may go on about it, but it doesn't seem to be something that anyone else is too bothered whether it's marriage or civil union. At least, not for the moment.

As for the price of fuel, that's just going to climb and climb. OK, it may dip a little or plateau for a while, but it's going to keep climbing because the good ol' days are over. Cheap fuel and food, at least as we knew it, seem to be gone.

honeykid

05-17-12, 09:42 PM

More like saying there isn't! Oh, snap! Meaningless contradictions are fun. And so easy! Why, anyone can do them at any time without having to put any thought into it at all. I totally get why you're so fond of them. ;)
Look, we know where this is going. You believe because you have faith, I don't because I don't. That's why facts and scientific theory work better for me. ;)

He's a person deciding what he believes is moral. Why, do you let somebody else decide for you?
Well, if he's basing it on religious dogma, I'd argue that he's been told what to believe. Whereas I was allowed to make up my own mind.

TheUsualSuspect

05-17-12, 09:46 PM

Religion and Politics should never mix. :sick:

Yoda

05-17-12, 09:51 PM

Look, we know where this is going.
With you not making an argument no matter how many times I ask you to? ;)

You believe because you have faith, I don't because I don't. That's why facts and scientific theory work better for me. ;)
Oh, heavens no. Believing because you have faith is circular. That's like saying you believe because you believe. I believe because I think that's where the preponderance of evidence lies.

I'm pretty sure you've made this false dichotomy between science and religion before. But not only is there no mutual exclusivity between the two, but there can't be, by definition. Suggesting that science is the antithesis of religion shows a pretty thorough misunderstanding of both science and religion.

Well, if he's basing it on religious dogma, I'd argue that he's been told what to believe. Whereas I was allowed to make up my own mind.
Except for the part where he makes up his own mind whether or not to subscribe to the dogma.

honeykid

05-17-12, 10:15 PM

I believe because I think that's where the preponderance of evidence lies.
Oh, please. You have to show me the evidence.

Except for the part where he makes up his own mind whether or not to subscribe to the dogma.
It's true that I'm playing the odds here. Most people who believe are brought up in or with the faith, therefore, it's not really a choice.

However, he's still thinking as he's told whether he chose his religion or not. For the most part, faith and religion comes down to when, where and to whom you're born.

will.15

05-17-12, 11:22 PM

I think that there's a lot of misinformation and unfair marginalizing of people on both sides of this debate, but a lot of the things that I've been hearing in this thread really do concern me. Firstly, I think some liberals equate homophobia with honest and sincere personal convictions which question the moral permissibility of homosexuality. Someone who is homophobic is someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals, but a lot of conservatives don't have a fear of homosexuality. They have a a conviction, grounded in part in religion, which is almost universally hostile to homosexuality, or in a fundamental and honest disagreement about what kind of society we should be. If you are a sincere Christian, Muslim, Jew, or devout follower of another religious faith, and your interpretation of your religion leads you to question whether homosexuality is a moral lifestyle, I don't think that it follows that you are necessarily homophobic. Homophobia is based on fear, not sincere and honest personal convictions. Some who morally disagree with homosexuality are homophobic, like those who bully gay people, who seek to pass laws to discriminate against gays in hiring, or shield them from anti-discrimination laws, or those who spend inordinate amounts of time thinking of the devastation that they think will result from homosexual unions. But I don't think these views describe all people, or even most, who oppose gay marriage.

It describes a large number of Republicans. It describes Rick Santorum who was the choice of social conservatives as the presidential nominee. And they shape the Republican agenda, to the point it was recently reported Romney had to drop an openly gay advisor on foreign policy. And this stuff about bigotry is motivated by irrational fear instead of religious conviction is bogus. The Taliban terrorized women in the streets because of religious conviction. Religious sincerity doesn't get you off the hook for being a hatemonger. That is what a bigot is, a hatemonger. And if you get your hate because of the way you read your bible instead of just from your gut, you're still a hatemonger.

AKA23

05-18-12, 01:23 AM

Yes, like there being a God.

"The moral permissibility of homosexuality"? Holy ****. Who the hell are you?

The existence or non-existence of God is really not something that can be proven, or disproven, by evidence. Therefore, I don't really understand the certainty on the part of people like yourself that there is no God. I, and 85-90% of Americans believe that there is a God. You believe that is a figment of our imaginations. Because this cannot be proven or disproven, it's really not a legitimate topic of conversation, and there is no reason for you to be so dogmatic about something that we just don't know about either way.

As for the larger issue of gay marriage, here are my thoughts on that:

While I understand the passion this issue generates, I just don't believe that large-scale social change should be imposed on society by the courts. The best way to change people's views on these issues is for them to meet and get to know gay people in their own community. It's for people all across America to reach out in love, kindness, and friendship, and for us all to realize that gay people are no different than anyone else. They all want to be loved and accepted for who they are. I personally don't support gay marriage, but I do support gay people, and I think that we should all treat them with respect and dignity. The imposition of large-scale social change by courts does not work. Roe v. Wade was decided almost 40 years ago, and half of our society still vehemently disagrees with it. You can't change people's hearts by writing a court opinion. All it does is sow discord and division. The day may come when people all across this nation rise up to support gay people's right to marry, but that day is not today, and I don't think that day will come any more quickly because a few smart people in a robe tell us all that it should.

AKA23

05-18-12, 01:23 AM

I think that when fundamental rights are infringed upon by the masses, the court should intervene to stop that, but I don't believe that the law should be used as a focal point to change people's morals and values and what they deem to be acceptable and not in society. In CA, gays and lesbians have exactly the same fundamental legal rights as any any other couple. The only difference is that they call their union a marriage, but if they choose to engage in a domestic partnership, their rights are exactly the same. From a legal standpoint, and that is the role of a court, in my judgment, their rights are protected. It is not, in my judgment, the role of a court to force the society to accept a gay union as having the same moral equivalency as a marriage between a man and a woman. That is the primary purpose of this movement in CA, where I am from.

I don't think the society at large is going to be any more willing to confer moral legitimacy on same sex unions by reading a court opinion about it. That struggle involves a lot more than changing the minds of a few unelected judges. It involves changing the minds of many in our society whose religion and values tell them that gay unions are simply not the same as a marriage. None of that will change by use of the courts.

The role of the court is to protect people's constitutionally guaranteed rights. If all of your rights, other than the name, on the state level, are protected and conferred upon your union, it is not the court's place to step in and seek to change a definition of marriage that has been in place for thousands of years when no rights are being infringed. If the people down the line seek to redefine marriage because they have gotten to know gays and lesbians, and they realize that their hopes and dreams and aspirations are exactly the same as everyone else, and they feel at that time that it is right to confer upon them the same moral legitimacy as any other union, they have the right to do so under our Constitution. The proper place for these conversations is at the kitchen table, not a court room. If the people seek to change the law, the legislature is capable of doing that. It's not the court's role. Attempting to change people's beliefs and values through the courts is not going to work. Forcing people to accept something they do not believe in will sow hatred and resentment, not understanding and empathy. Imposing such things on a society will effect exactly the wrong kind of change, and do very little to foster love and acceptance of gay people and their unions. Doing so will only sow discord and division, and make it even more unlikely that their unions will ever be accepted.

Yoda, if you want to move all of these gay marriage posts to its own thread, you are welcome to do so, if others feel that they no longer would like to participate in this discussion in this thread.

Powderfinger

05-18-12, 10:41 AM

For Yoda, I know I shouldn't ask you who are you voting for in the election, but, do you a prefence at the moment?

will.15

05-18-12, 10:51 AM

He is voting for Obama.:)

Powderfinger

05-18-12, 11:24 AM

He is voting for Obama.:)

Cheers will, though things can appen at the polling booth, I'm just saying :D

Silas

05-18-12, 08:15 PM

Irish so cant vote but im a left pink liberal so I would be voting for Barack O' Bama. Far from perfect though.

Yoda

05-19-12, 01:50 PM

Oh, please. You have to show me the evidence.
Gladly. But whenever I start to do this your only response seems to be "Yeah, but SCIENCE!" And if you've somehow convinced yourself that this is even close to an argument, then we've got to take a machete to that thicket of confusion before we can even have the argument you're already trying to run right on by. Because right now it's the equivalent of saying you believe in rain instead of marmalade.

You'd also need to define "evidence." Because I'll wager your definition is circular.

It's true that I'm playing the odds here. Most people who believe are brought up in or with the faith, therefore, it's not really a choice.
Man, that's some pretty busted logic. It's a choice if they choose to abandon what they were taught, but not if they don't? What if they're raised by atheists and become atheists? Is that not a choice? What if they're raised religious and hate their parents, which taints that religious belief and causes them to become atheists? What if they're raised atheist but surrounded by religious friends? Please, game out the equations here so I can mark down which decisions are choices and which are not.

However, he's still thinking as he's told whether he chose his religion or not. For the most part, faith and religion comes down to when, where and to whom you're born.
So, if I told you to think like an atheist, and you do, are you thinking like you're told? Have I robbed you of your choice? Or is it only if it happens when you're young? Is there a cutoff? What about reinforcing believe?

I find it hard to accept that you believe in "facts and scientific theory" when you abandon this kind of rigorous thinking the moment we start talking about religious people. There's a difference between believing in the scientific process, and just not liking religion and thinking you can use science as a club to beat it up with.

will.15

05-19-12, 02:15 PM

The latest speculation is Romney will not select Marco Rubio as VP because he wants someone a little safer, too many things in his background could create controversy and distract from his message, "it's the economy, stupid."

And Romney's strong denunciation of reports of an action committee bringing up Obama's association with Pastor Wright again show what happens when candidates do that, that plan was dropped like it was radioactive. It would have been a stupid thing to do anyway at this point. He has been president for four years and you are going to try to convince voters now Obama hates whites?

will.15

05-20-12, 01:36 AM

The Mississippi state lawmaker who cited a Bible passage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/andy-gipson-mississippi-gays_n_1528716.html?ref=topbar) on Facebook calling for gay men to be "put to death" has taken to the social networking site again to refuse to apologize for the remark.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) went on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/andygipsonms?sk=wall) Friday to say that although he has been receiving emails and calls from around the country about his citation of Leviticus 20:13 (http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm), as well as Romans 1:26-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A26-28&version=NIV), in a May 10 Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/andygipsonms?sk=wall) on President Barack Obama's endorsement of gay marriage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html), he will not say he's sorry. The emails have come in response to a petition calling on the lawmaker to issue an apology and to meet with LGBT groups in Mississippi.

"To be clear, I want the world to know that I do not, cannot, and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God's Word. It is one thing that will never 'change,'" Gipson wrote. "Anyone who knows me knows I also believe that all people are created in God's image, and that all people are loved by God, so much so that He gave us the truth of His Word which convicts us of the reality and guilt of our sin, and He gave us His Son Jesus who paid the full penalty for all our sins, by His grace through our faith in Him as we repent of our sin. John 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=NIV). It is this message that I preach every Sunday. I sincerely pray God will reach someone through this message."

Gipson is a Baptist minister and a business lawyer when not serving in the Legislature. He notes in his official state biography (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/members/house/gipson.xml) that his family are "of the Christian faith, and are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention."

The passage from Leviticus that Gipson first cited reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

On Facebook at least, Gipson has received overwhelming support for his original comments and his refusal to apologize. Eighty-three people have "liked" his post, and he's received dozens of supportive comments, including praise for supporting God and sticking to his original message.

"I stand with you my friend. ... GOD is in control ... no place for Gays," Ted W. Cole wrote (https://www.facebook.com/andygipsonms?sk=wall).

tramp

05-21-12, 08:44 PM

I find it interesting right now that I'm teaching about the Renaissance and how the humanists of the time were rejecting what the church had been telling them for a 1,000 years. The first 500 of those years are actually called the "Dark Ages."

The Renaissance was the birth of science, a rebirth of art, theatre! Interesting what happened in the world when many starting questioning the dogma they had been exposed to for so long....when people desire to do their own thinking, look what happens?!!

I was reading the thread and I thought of this.... :)

Yoda

05-21-12, 09:18 PM

I find it interesting that some people call it the Dark Ages instead of the Middle Ages, which follows the more common habit of using historical terms in value-neutral ways.

Anyway, any attempt to sum up a 500-year period in a single word, sentence, or thought is going to be more than a little reductionist, and this is no exception. As much as people like to pretend that there was some sudden cultural explosion during the Renaissance, the reality is not as conveniently demarcated. The "Dark" Ages saw things like the invention of algebra, the creation of the first Universities, the literature of the Byzantine empire, and some of the most stunningly beautiful and ornate architecture that the world has ever seen.

Examples like this may not fit neatly into any preexisting beliefs or boxes, but it's my experience that reality usually doesn't.

Dogma, indeed, can be a very dangerous thing. But that's true of any type of dogma: both the kind that would have people accept religious claims on authority alone, and the kind that would propagate an overly simple historical narrative with pejorative labels.

Yoda

05-21-12, 09:42 PM

Also, it's worth pointing out that, in modern usage, a "dark age" denotes several things, including a lack of available historical records. In that context, "dark" is about visibility.

What history was preserved was largely preserved in monasteries, by the way. So you can thank those backwards dogmatic old monks for it. ;) And for preserving Latin, too. One shudders to think of the knowledge and history that would've been lost if not for them.

tramp

05-21-12, 09:45 PM

Of course. But we all know those that hold knowledge, hold the power (over the people, that is.)

:)

Ooops, sorry, didn't see your first post... the "Dark" ages is the first 500 years -- probably from 500 to 1000 roughly.

And you're right about architecture, algebra, etc.... but I think you caught my point. ;)

AKA23

05-23-12, 08:53 PM

I can't believe what happened with Corey Booker the other day. The idea that the Obama campaign would put someone on "Meet the Press" as a surrogate without first checking that he agreed with and would competently communicate the campaign's core theme and message is shocking to me. Whoever did that should be fired immediately.

I think this whole controversy over Mitt Romney's business record is pretty crazy. Mitt Romney made his "business experience" the centerpiece of his campaign for President. He was Governor of Massachusetts for 4 years too, which is a lot more relevant to being President of the United States, but he almost never talks about that. His whole campaign boils down to "I'm a business person. I spent 25 years in the private sector. I created jobs. I know how the economy works. Obama is a lightweight on the economy. I know how to turn this economy around. If you elect me, I'll fix things." The idea that the Romney campaign would balk at this "business experience" being examined and scrutinized, as they are now doing, is ludicrous.

As voters we should take a hard look at what this "business experience" actually consisted of, and question his record of "creating jobs" to determine if the rhetoric matches reality. That's not "character assassination." It's just common sense. If you're going to make your whole campaign about ill-defined and ambiguous "private sector" experience and how you created tens of thousands of jobs, you should be ready to defend your own record when a close examination of it leads to a strong body of evidence that you made most of your money by downsizing companies, firing people, and reselling the companies for profit.

That's not to say that Mitt Romney is a horrible human being for having done that. I personally find it unseemly that the Obama administration is now running ads of people who had benefits cut and jobs outsourced, because these kinds of things are par for the course in business, and Mitt Romney's job was to make companies profitable, not to create jobs as he is now claiming. At the same time, I do think it's relevant to point out that this "business experience" is not exactly analogous to running a nation. This is something that I don't understand, and which my conservatives friends cannot really answer. Mitt Romney knows how to turn around failing companies and make money for his investors. How exactly does that translate to running an entire nation, and what value does that experience have in helping us to emerge from an economic crisis? The roles don't seem even remotely analogous, yet the narrative is that Romney is the man for the job. Why? What has he actually done to give us that confidence, and how does that experience make him uniquely qualified to run our nation? Government isn't a business. In government, you have to work together to accomplish goals. In business, you can unilaterally decide what you want to do and implement it. In government, your ability to persuade and advocate your ideas is as important as the quality of the ideas themselves. In business, your primary charge is to be profitable. In government, profit is not your primary responsibility. What is the "experience" in business that should give me confidence that Romney understands the difference in these roles, and why should Romney's experience in the private sector give me confidence that he could do a better job that our current President in running our nation?

will.15

05-23-12, 11:09 PM

"For every dollar Mitt Romney's Bain Capital invested in Ampad, it received $20 back in profit—a 2,000 percent return—even though the company went bankrupt.
For every dollar Ampad's creditors were owed its when the company bankrupt, they received two-tenths of a cent, $0.002—a 0.002 percent return.
In all, Bain made $100 million on its $5 million investment. Creditors were paid $330,000 of the $170 million they were owed."

Yoda

05-23-12, 11:58 PM

The idea that the Romney campaign would balk at this "business experience" being examined and scrutinized, as they are now doing, is ludicrous.
Well, are they actually doing this? Balking at what's being said is not the same as balking at the idea that people are scrutinizing his business record.

The problem is not examining his record, the problem is shamelessly vilifying private equity. I'm seeing the ads on every other video I play on YouTube, and they're trying to exploit a general ignorance about what private equity is. They make it sound like they just roll into town and disrupt a perfectly happy situation, when in reality their entire function is to take on companies that are already distressed.

Not only are the ads themselves ignorant, but they're blatantly hypocritical. Swooping in, restructuring a company and laying people off to try to save the organization is exactly what the Obama Administration did with the automakers. Exactly. Except they did it with with other people's money and subverted bankruptcy law. It's incredible that they have the gall to go after Romney for doing the same thing, except having secured his own investors and within normal bankruptcy proceedings.

will.15

05-24-12, 12:45 AM

Well, are they actually doing this? Balking at what's being said is not the same as balking at the idea that people are scrutinizing his business record.

The problem is not examining his record, the problem is shamelessly vilifying private equity. I'm seeing the ads on every other video I play on YouTube, and they're trying to exploit a general ignorance about what private equity is. They make it sound like they just roll into town and disrupt a perfectly happy situation, when in reality their entire function is to take on companies that are already distressed.

Not only are the ads themselves ignorant, but they're blatantly hypocritical. Swooping in, restructuring a company and laying people off to try to save the organization is exactly what the Obama Administration did with the automakers. Exactly. Except they did it with with other people's money and subverted bankruptcy law. It's incredible that they have the gall to go after Romney for doing the same thing, except having secured his own investors and within normal bankruptcy proceedings.
I have news for you. Romney and Bain Capitol did it with other people's money as well, by leverging the companies with more debt, and paying themselves high mangement fees even when the companies were failing. And when they failed creditors did a lot worse than they did at General Motors and Chrysler.

Yoda

05-24-12, 12:52 AM

Uh yeah, and that money was specifically given to them to make these kinds of investments with. And sometimes, it worked and they saved the company. Sometimes they didn't, and when they didn't they went through normal bankruptcy proceedings. So unless you think Romney slapped on a fake mustache and posed as the bankruptcy judge, your complaint is nonsensical.

There's not a leg to stand on here. Obama's attacking Romney for doing the exact same thing he did with the automakers, except Romney did it within existing bankruptcy law and using the money of people who specifically entrusted it to him for that purpose. Political hypocrisy doesn't get clearer than this.

will.15

05-24-12, 01:30 AM

No, Romney is not criticizing Obama for doing the same thing.

He is criticizing him for for failing and making sure he made money even when it is quite possible if his top priority wasn't taking large sums out of the company even when it was failing he might have rescued them.

Obama's top priority was to rescue GM and Chrysler. Romney's was to make money. If he could save the companies and do it, fine. But if there was a conflict between making money and saving the companies, making money won.

Romney's whole argument for being president is he can do a better job than Obama because of his business background.

If what Obama did is the same as Romney, why, using Romney's argument, should anyone vote for him? Obama did it more successfully.

will.15

05-24-12, 01:37 AM

I wrote the first sentence wrong.

Sould be Obama, then Romney.

Yoda

05-24-12, 01:55 AM

Obama's top priority was to rescue GM and Chrysler. Romney's was to make money. If he could save the companies and do it, fine. But if there was a conflict between making money and saving the companies, making money won.
Once again you make my argument for me. Obama's entire argument is about magically divining Romney's priorities and intent, not actions. It has to be, because if it's about actions he doesn't have a leg to stand on, because he did the exact same thing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-private-equity-king/2012/05/23/gJQAFolLkU_story.html). Worse, actually (http://cafehayek.com/2012/05/but-both-are-successful-movies.html). There's no getting around this.

If what Obama did is the same as Romney, why, using Romney's argument, should anyone vote for him? Obama did it more successfully.
Except he didn't, and you really have no business parroting this line when I can easily link you to a half-dozen posts on the topic you've never managed to answer. I know you really, really don't want to concede that point, but there's a reason every one of those arguments ends the same way.

Even ignoring all those pesky little facts about the automaker restructuring (or the distinction between risking public and private capital, which is a massive distinction), by what measure was it "more successful"? Romney's investments were quite successful on the whole. So either you're cherry-picking, or else you have no idea if this is true.

This is a losing argument. You'd have a lot less of those if you ditched the kneejerk partisan contrarianism.

will.15

05-24-12, 02:01 AM

will.15

05-24-12, 06:05 AM

"Even ignoring all those pesky little facts about the automaker restructuring (or the distinction between risking public and private capital, which is a massive distinction), by what measure was it "more successful"? Romney's investments were quite successful on the whole. So either you're cherry-picking, or else you have no idea if this is true.

This is a losing argument. You'd have a lot less of those if you ditched the kneejerk partisan contrarianism."

From where I am sitting you are being the partisan contrarian. Because your arguments here make no sense, saying what Obama did is comparable to Romney and actually worse. It defies logic. If Romney chooses to argue this in a debate he is going to be in big trouble. He has a case to make, but it sure isn't that one.

It was more successful because GM and Chrysler are in the best shape they have been in years, and during a serious recession. Romney failed at turning around that company and may have worsened its chances by draining money out of the company instead of using it to keep it going.

Romney's investments were successful as a whole. Yes, and that one was also, for Romney and Bain, but not for the company they bought. But the question I have, and I don't know the answer, did they have a good record of turning around struggling companies? Because the example his people came up with to counteract that failing steel company is not comparable. The other one was a start-up, not an existing company, and Bain was strictly an investor, and not the only one, and not involved in management. They didn't collect a management fee. They probably would have had a fit if the management team paid themselves the kind of money Bain did in running a firm. They made a good pick, but that is far different than directly trying to turn around a failing company.

Yoda

05-24-12, 10:22 AM

I think you are still confusing your ideology with results. It makes no sense in this comparison of Romney's record versus Obama. Obama rescued Chrysler and GM. Romney failed at the company being spotlighted in the ads.
And they're cherry-picking it to use a stand-in for his private equity work in general. We're talking about distressed companies; of course they fail sometimes. That's not an argument. That's not damning. Which is probably why the ad is filled with cheap personal observations, like an employee saying that he can tell by the way Romney "talks and walks" that he doesn't care about ordinary people. It's simply not a substantive ad.

By the logic you're advancing here, if Obama can argue against Romney's private equity work by finding an instance in which he failed, Romney can argue against Obama's entire government record by pointing to the spectacular failure that was Solyndra. There's no angle from which any of these comparisons are flattering to the President.

Yoda

05-24-12, 10:35 AM

From where I am sitting you are being the partisan contrarian. Because your arguments here make no sense, saying what Obama did is comparable to Romney and actually worse. It defies logic.
It really doesn't, and I'm still waiting for you to explain why it does. Obama's actions are roughly indistinguishable from that of a private equity firm. The only difference (again, if we grant Obama a +1 on the auto bailout, for the sake of argument) is whether or not they succeeded. Which means the only way the ad makes sense is if you somehow think it's both reasonable and relevant that sometimes investments in distressed firms don't salvage the company.

The only argument about whether or not what they did was comparable is whether or not the comparison is fair to Romney, who made his decisions using money specifically entrusted to him for the purpose, and didn't circumvent the rule of law to benefit his political allies. I'm just going to keep saying this until I hear a counterargument.

It was more successful because GM and Chrysler are in the best shape they have been in years, and during a serious recession.
Answered this already: the problem is with how you're defining "success." If you want to argue this, then go argue it (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=797919). I even summarized it down to the key issues that need to be answered. If you don't want to discuss it, don't discuss it, but don't just go around repeating it.

Romney's investments were successful as a whole. Yes, and that one was also, for Romney and Bain, but not for the company they bought. But the question I have, and I don't know the answer, did they have a good record of turning around struggling companies? Because the example his people came up with to counteract that failing steel company is not comparable. The other one was a start-up, not an existing company, and Bain was strictly an investor, and not the only one, and not involved in management. They didn't collect a management fee. They probably would have had a fit if the management team paid themselves the kind of money Bain did in running a firm. They made a good pick, but that is far different than directly trying to turn around a failing company.
I assume you're referring to Staples. Staples is, indeed, not an example of a distressed company. But it's certainly an example of "job creation," and it's one of several things that private equity firms do. So it's still a counter-argument to what Obama's saying.

Private equity firms are important. Nobody who even remotely understands economics would say otherwise. Companies fail, and when that happens it's good to either a) salvage them or b) disperse their assets. Both either create jobs or preserve what jobs are still feasible. Even the latter, which tends to anger people, ensures that all the factories and stocks and other things don't just vanish, but are more likely to get to other businesses that can use them.

This is all really simple, really obvious stuff, and it's clearly highly necessary. It makes the economy better, and more efficient, and makes the best of bad business situations. But it also gives people who lose their jobs when these companies fail a nice, convenient pinstriped boogieman to complain about. That's what Obama's ad exploits. The latent fear of complicated business entities. It's preying on ignorance.

will.15

05-24-12, 11:54 AM

will.15

05-24-12, 12:10 PM

It really doesn't, and I'm still waiting for you to explain why it does. Obama's actions are roughly indistinguishable from that of a private equity firm. The only difference (again, if we grant Obama a +1 on the auto bailout, for the sake of argument) is whether or not they succeeded. Which means the only way the ad makes sense is if you somehow think it's both reasonable and relevant that sometimes investments in distressed firms don't salvage the company.

The criticism beyond success, and that is important, is how it was done. Obama negotiated changes involving workers, Bain did it by fiat. Obama was trying to save the companies. Romney was trying to make money. That meant making decisions that were counter productive to the company's survival. Bain cut costs by defunding pensions and closing plants. Fine. But they didn't cut their fees for making those decisions. The fees were huge for a struggling company. Romney has even half apologized for those management fees.

The only argument about whether or not what they did was comparable is whether or not the comparison is fair to Romney, who made his decisions using money specifically entrusted to him for the purpose, and didn't circumvent the rule of law to benefit his political allies. I'm just going to keep saying this until I hear a counterargument.

Did they do roughly the same thing? Of course. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying trying to turn around a struggling company is a bad thing. Nobody is saying you you shouldn't make hard decisions about closing plants and eliminating jobs. The issue is how it was done and the success record.

I'll get to your other points later.

Yoda

05-24-12, 12:16 PM

I wasn't referring to Staples.

It was the company they have been using in ads. It was a steel company like the one in the Obama ads.

The man who started the company for 48 hours was on all the conservative shows and while he praised Bain, it was clear what he was talking about was entirely different. Though he said it in a cheerful way, it was clear he thought he and his team was responsible for the company's success and minimized Bain's contribution ecxcept they took a calculated risk backing him.

Okay, I looked it up. It was Steel Dynamics. And I made that conclusion by hearing the CEO or whoever he was on one radio show, and when I google I see other entries like Romney is dreaming if he thinks he was responsible fo SD's success and Bain's involvement was minor.
"Except they took a calculated risk backing him." You make it sound like an insignificant detail. Investors are necessary for the success of companies like this--and they're especially instrumental for startups and distressed companies.

Moreover, if this is the standard people want to apply--that Romney's just the money guy and not responsible for the actual results--then they need to apply that standard consistently. It's entirely possible he's not the reason that Steel Dynamics succeeded...or the reason other companies failed. They can't say he's always standing close enough to get some mud on him when they don't work out, but far enough away not to be in the photo when they succeed.

This is all fairly irrelevant, though, because my entire point is that picking random examples is just a way to muddy the water and get bogged down in some uber-parsing of who gets what credit. The bottom line is that private equity is a necessary part of the economy, and on the whole it preserves jobs by making sure resources are either salvaged or efficiently dispersed. The ad in question exploits people's ignorance on the topic by making it out to be sinister, which is why it's filled with nebulous personal anecdotes about Romney's alleged thought process and mannerisms. It's cheap, and not a serious or substantive argument.

will.15

05-24-12, 12:27 PM

"Except they took a calculated risk backing him." Is that all? Sheesh. That's crucial. Investors are necessary for the success of companies like this--and they're especially instrumental for startups and distressed companies. The fact that they didn't manage shifts at the factories doesn't change that. Their decision to back these companies is not some minor, incidental detail.

Moreover, if this is the standard people want to apply--that Romney's just the money guy and not responsible for the actual results--then they need to apply that standard consistently. It's entirely possible he's not the reason that Steel Dynamics succeeded...or the reason other companies failed. They can't say he's always standing close enough to get some mud on him when they don't work out, but far enough away not to be in the photo when they succeed.

This is all fairly irrelevant, though, because my entire point is that cherry-picking examples is just a way to muddy the water and get bogged down in some uber-parsing of who gets what credit. The bottom line is that private equity is a necessary part of the economy, and on the whole it preserves jobs by making sure resources are either salvaged or efficiently dispersed. The ad in question exploits people's ignorance on the topic by making it out to be sinister, which is why it's filled with nebulous personal anecdotes about Romney's alleged thought process and mannerisms. It's cheap, and not a serious or substantive argument.
It is relevant because this is all about Romney making a big deal about his business background as a reason he should be president. He keeps saying he created jobs when he was at Bain although it has been proven the number he came up with came out of his ass. Hey, it is great he made good bets with companies he backed, but wasn't directly involved in. But how is that relevant to what he is campaigning on? His direct record, Obama's versus his in a similar situation, is Obama won and Romney lost, unless you count making money while the company you are not turning around is going down in flames a win.

Yoda

05-24-12, 12:30 PM

The criticism beyond success, and that is important, is how it was done. Obama negotiated changes involving workers, Bain did it by fiat.
Calling it a negotiation doesn't make it so; the government had subverted the process, for crying out loud, and the automakers had to come back with an "acceptable" plan. Shockingly, the outcome of this "negotiation" was to build more cars in line with the administration's energy policy, and a restructuring that just happened to disproportionately benefit the administration's supporters. Do I really need to point out that 1 + 1 = 2?

And to say that the guy who actually had legal control over the company, and not the one who subverted normal bankruptcy law, is the one who did something by "fiat," is pretty preposterous (and funny, seeing as how Fiat bought a stake in Chrysler). What's the implication, exactly? That he should have held elections? That's what this whole line of argument can't do: it can't actually articulate what it's complaining about in a coherent way. It can just say or juxtapose things in a way that sounds sinister...so long as you don't stop to think about them for very long.

Obama was trying to save the companies. Romney was trying to make money. That meant making decisions that were counter productive to the company's survival. Bain cut costs by defunding pensions and closing plants. Fine. But they didn't cut their fees for making those decisions. The fees were huge for a struggling company. Romney has even half apologized for those management fees.
They're probably huge regardless; that's what creates the incentive in the first place. Investing in dying companies is risky; there need to be greater rewards to make it even remotely viable. If it isn't, then you either get a) salvage attempts at people who don't know what they're doing or b) no salvage attempts and an inefficient dispersal of assets.

Did they do roughly the same thing? Of course. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying trying to turn around a struggling company is a bad thing. Nobody is saying you you shouldn't make hard decisions about closing plants and eliminating jobs. The issue is how it was done and the success record.
When you make an emotionally manipulative ad that talks about people being laid off and says they "just wanted to make money," then yeah, you pretty much are saying people shouldn't make hard decisions about closing plants and eliminating jobs. You're not literally saying it, but there's not a lot of subtlety there.

will.15

05-24-12, 12:33 PM

I'm going to take a break for now. You type too fast for me. I'll respond when you are not here.

Yoda

05-24-12, 12:40 PM

It is relevant because this is all about Romney making a big deal about his business background as a reason he should be president. He keeps saying he created jobs when he was at Bain although it has been proven the number he came up with came out of his ass. Hey, it is great he made good bets with companies he backed, but wasn't directly involved in. But how is that relevant to what he is campaigning on?
It's perfectly relevant in the aggregate. What's not relevant is "hey, check out this distressed company that didn't turn around. We're not going to actually say this is a stand-in for this entire career, because we can't defend that, but we're sure going to imply the hell out of it."

His direct record, Obama's versus his in a similar situation, is Obama won and Romney lost, unless you count making money while the company you are not turning around is going down in flames a win.
Except they've picked exactly one "similar situation," when there are others to choose from. This isn't especially similar--what Obama did with the automakers is like private equity in general, not especially like this one example of it. Not that one guy risking his own investment capital is on the par with the President risking tax dollars, anyway.

And as I said before, if you think it's somehow legitimate to take on Romney's entire business career by spotlighting a failed investment (a ridiculous notion, but I'll go with it for a moment), then there's no reason you can't discredit Obama's entire economic intervention philosophy by pointing to Solyndra, which cost us half a billion dollars, a totally sunk cost for taxpayers.

Yoda

05-24-12, 12:41 PM

I'm going to take a break for now. You type too fast for me. I'll respond when you are not here.
I'll leave for a flippin' week if it gets you to actually take on the questions in the last auto bailout discussion.

AKA23

05-24-12, 02:58 PM

Yoda, I do think that the Romney campaign is balking at a full examination of his record. It's not just the tone of the campaign that the Romney campaign objects to. It's the substance as well. I have yet to see a Romney surrogate, or Romney himself, provide any kind of credible defense to the messaging of the Obama campaign. All I hear coming from the campaign is Romney saying "I've been successful. I'm not going to apologize for being successful. I want more people to be in the position to be successful like me." That's not a credible argument in response. The point you make about Obama doing a similar thing with the auto bailout sounds like its legitimate, although I do think there are a few things that do distinguish it, but I don't even hear Romney making those comparisons.

As voters we should take a hard look at what this "business experience" actually consisted of, and question his record of "creating jobs" to determine if the rhetoric matches reality. That's not "character assassination." It's just common sense. If you're going to make your whole campaign about ill-defined and ambiguous "private sector" experience and how you created tens of thousands of jobs, you should be ready to defend your own record when a close examination of it leads to a strong body of evidence that you made most of your money by downsizing companies, firing people, and reselling the companies for profit.

I do think it's relevant to point out that this "business experience" is not exactly analogous to running a nation. This is something that I don't understand, and which my conservatives friends cannot really answer. Mitt Romney knows how to turn around failing companies and make money for his investors. How exactly does that translate to running an entire nation, and what value does that experience have in helping us to emerge from an economic crisis? The roles don't seem even remotely analogous, yet the narrative is that Romney is the man for the job. Why? What has he actually done to give us that confidence, and how does that experience make him uniquely qualified to run our nation?

What do you have to say on these points, Yoda?

Government isn't a business. In government, you have to work together to accomplish goals. In business, you can unilaterally decide what you want to do and implement it. In government, your ability to persuade and advocate your ideas is as important as the quality of the ideas themselves. In business, the people will the control can implement the ideas whether the public at large likes them or not. In government, you can't. In business, your primary charge is to be profitable. In government, profit is not your primary responsibility. What is the "experience" in business that should give me confidence that Romney understands the difference in these roles, and why should Romney's experience in the private sector give me confidence that he could do a better job that our current President in running our nation?

And this one?

I'll be looking forward to reading your replies.

7thson

06-11-12, 08:11 PM

May I ask what is wrong with removing ineligible voters from voting?

will.15

06-12-12, 03:00 AM

What inelgible voters?

They never seem to find more than a few and that is with all out efforts.

will.15

06-12-12, 12:48 PM

It might be better if Mitt Romney wins because we are probably heading for a double dip recession with the European mess and China's economy heading for a slowdown.

Then the Republicans in control of all three branches will make it worse and their rant about cutting taxes for the rich is all it will take to turn things around will be proven once and for all to be nonsense.

Better to let them royally screw things up quickly than this slow torture of divided government with a stalled economy.

Yoda

06-12-12, 01:18 PM

Yoda

06-12-12, 02:34 PM

Meanwhile, because will won't post anything that isn't about what a soulless money-eating golem Mitt Romney is, I guess I'll have to be the one to ridicule this:

Obama said, in a speech about the economy, that the private sector was "doing fine." Romney has correctly pounced on this, not only because it's wrong and tone deaf (though it's both), but because Obama specifically criticized McCain for saying something similar ("the fundamentals of our economy are strong") back during the 2008 election. Just like with the Bin Laden ad, Obama is criticizing his opponent for the doing the exact same sort of thing he did four years ago. That's kinda becoming a thing with him.

Obama has issued the hilariously boilerplate defend that the remark was "taken out of context." Here's the whole paragraph:

The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy, have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
Hmmm. I see a comparison between the private and public sectors, and the suggestion that the latter is worse, but nope, nothing that modifies the meaning of the statement.

Also, please note the convenient word substitution at the end: when he says the federal government has more "flexibility," he means they can run deficits and print money, whereas most local governments have strict limits on the former. So make sure to update your Obama-to-English dictionary: running trillion-dollar deficits is to be referred to as "flexibility," effective immediately.

I now welcome any response, which I assume will either be a) crickets, or b) another platitude about how this is just what politicians do. Because remember, kids: every Obama walkback is just how the game is played, but every Romney walkback is a window into the hollow shell of a man he really is.

will.15

06-12-12, 02:59 PM

Yeah, total nonsense. Except, wait...they did in 2003 and it totally worked. Unemployment dropped and we had years of solid growth. Neither of which we got when we cut taxes for everyone but the rich in 2001, as part of a compromise. Hmmm.

I always find it highly amusing when you try to talk about economics. Remember the whole discussion about monopolies, or the minimum wage? Goodtimes. Methinks you should stick to the conveniently subjective stuff. Your ability to defend a position is inversely correlated to its proximity to empirical data.
I have a news bulletin for you. Sometimes under the right circumstances tax cuts work. But we also got huge deficits under Bush, which put us on this road we are on now and now Republicans want to slash government spending and cut taxes only for the rich, they are not talking about across the board tax cuts. They can't because it would create more deficits, which they say they are now against. The Bush tax cuts was during a very mild downturn, and I am talking about, if it happens, a double dip deep recession caused by problems out of the United States control. Where are the jobs going to come from if Europe and China can't buy American goods? What would be the point of tax cuts under that scenario for business? Meanwhile, if Republicans are in contol of all three branches they will deregulate big time and create more of the mess that resulted in governemnt bailouts, only this time there will be no bailouts and it will be an even bigger mess.

Yoda

06-12-12, 03:11 PM

will.15

06-12-12, 03:15 PM

Meanwhile, because will won't post anything that isn't about what a soulless money-eating golem Mitt Romney is, I guess I'll have to be the one to ridicule this:

Obama said, in a speech about the economy, that the private sector was "doing fine." Romney has correctly pounced on this, not only because it's wrong and tone deaf (though it's both), but because Obama specifically criticized McCain for saying something similar ("the fundamentals of our economy are strong") back during the 2008 election. Just like with the Bin Laden ad, Obama is criticizing his opponent for the doing the exact same sort of thing he did four years ago. That's kinda becoming a thing with him.

Obama has issued the hilariously boilerplate defend that the remark was "taken out of context." Here's the whole paragraph:

Hmmm. I see a comparison between the private and public sectors, and the suggestion that the latter is worse, but nope, nothing that modifies the meaning of the statement.

Also, please note the convenient word substitution at the end: when he says the federal government has more "flexibility," he means they can run deficits and print money, whereas most local governments have strict limits on the former. So make sure to update your Obama-to-English dictionary: running trillion-dollar deficits is to be referred to as "flexibility," effective immediately.

I now welcome any response, which I assume will either be a) crickets, or b) another platitude about how this is just what politicians do. Because remember, kids: every Obama walkback is just how the game is played, but every Romney walkback is a window into the hollow shell of a man he really is.
Well, the economy is not doing fine, and Presidents of both parties have that tendency of downplaying bad news and spinning it their way when they are in office. But he is right about the federal government having more flexibility because they can print money. It is how economics works. The federal government doesn't need to balance the budget, actually shouldn't balance the budget, but they also shouldn't have trillion dollar deficits. If Republicans get to completely run the show, with the Tea Party calling the shots, we will see how popular their solution of gutting Social Security and Medicare and cutting Unemployment Insurance will be as a remedy to cut the deficit while reducing the capital gains tax. Probably as popular as austerity programs in Greece and France are.

will.15

06-12-12, 03:24 PM

I get a kick out of it when you say you have "news" for me. Especially since the thing you say next is almost always something I already know.

We actually didn't get huge deficits under Bush; fairly big ones, sure, but they were generally about a third of the size of the ones we're now running every. Single. Year. I've pointed this out to you a lot, but you seem to think that all big numbers are the same. Problem is, that extra zero? Kind of a big deal.

Well, now, that is semantics, they were big, but not huge. And why do we have larger deficits now? Well, the economy tanked under Bush, so I guess those tax cuts or whatever he was doing wasn't perfect. Bush inherited a very mild recession, and he gave to Obama the biggest mess this country has been in since 1929.

Re: "they are not talking about across the board tax cuts." Yeah they are. The Bush tax cuts were for every single rate, and the Republicans are pushing to have them extended.
Oh, well, then their numbers are not adding up very well in how they are going to reduce the deficit,and cut taxes, and how that is going to grow the economy if China is close to recesession, and Europe is in a bigger hole than they are now.

Neither party has the courage to do what needs to be done. They are all cowards because we are cowards. Nobody wants to make the hard choices.

Yoda

06-12-12, 03:34 PM

Well, the economy is not doing fine, and Presidents of both parties have that tendency of downplaying bad news and spinning it their way when they are in office.
Yet I feel safe assuming that your basic opinion of Obama remains unchanged, yes? So what criteria do you use (other than straight party affiliation) to determine which screwups are relatively unimportant in evaluating the candidate, and which aren't?

But he is right about the federal government having more flexibility because they can print money. It is how economics works.
That's what they can do by law; it's the effects that are economics. And the effects are that printing money reduces its value. Which means printing money to cover deficits is inherently deceitful. It pays for things immediately with money that will only be devalued later, over time. It specifically devalues any move that is saved, or tied up in existing contracts or loans. This isn't the ranting of some Paulite with a bunch of gold buried underneath his shed. This is the actual effect of using inflation to cover up exorbitant spending.

The point, however, is not that he's technically wrong. The point is the Orwellian use of language. It would be diasterous to say "state governments can't make up money out of thin air to pay for things...but we can! Wheeee!" So he says they have "flexibility." It's like talking about giving people "access" to something when they really mean "public funding."

The federal government doesn't need to balance the budget, actually shouldn't balance the budget, but they also shouldn't have trillion dollar deficits.
Yet, that's kinda what we do now. Though, to be fair, they're not technically trillion dollar deficits. They're actually a little more than a trillion. So there's that.

If Republicans get to completely run the show, with the Tea Party calling the shots, we will see how popular their solution of gutting Social Security and Medicare and cutting Unemployment Insurance will be as a remedy to cut the deficit while reducing the capital gains tax. Probably as popular as austerity programs in Greece and France are.
Ah yes, I've seen this pivot many times. We'll be talking about what ideas are good or bad, and when we shift to the long-term insolvency of entitlements, suddenly we're not talking about what's right or necessary, but about what's popular.

Yes, we can look to Greece to see how popular austerity is. We can also look to them to see what will happen if we don't suck it up and do it anyway. So tell me: which of the two parties has made even a moderately serious attempt to curtail entitlement spending? And which has villified the other for trying?

Yoda

06-12-12, 03:44 PM

Well, now, that is semantics, they were big, but not huge.
They were generally around $400 billion (there's one exception, which I can expound on if necessary), and now they're consistently $1.3 trillion. Tripling the deficit is not a matter of "semantics."

If you want to call Bush's deficits "huge," hey, whatever. You just need to use an even bigger word to describe the current ones. Triplehuge, perhaps. The point is that you can't just say "hey, really big number!" and then fail to distinguish further.

And why do we have larger deficits now? Well, the economy tanked under Bush, so I guess those tax cuts or whatever he was doing wasn't perfect. Bush inherited a very mild recession, and he gave to Obama the biggest mess this country has been in since 1929.
This particular idea is a really nice litmus test to figure out who understands economics and who doesn't. Recoveries are stronger after worse recessions, not weaker. Growth is relative, which means it's more difficult when it comes after more growth, and easier when it comes after less. This is why developing economics grow at such insane rates.

I'm not sure what would make the tax cuts "perfect." This feels like one of those times someone puts one event next to another, and can't show any link between them, but just sort of expects their proximity to imply it for them. Are you actually going to try to argue that Bush's tax cuts led to the financial crisis? I think I'd pay money to see that.

Oh, well, then their numbers are not adding up very well in how they are going to reduce the deficit,and cut taxes, and how that is going to grow the economy if China is close to recesession, and Europe is in a bigger hole than they are now.
You'll have to be a lot more specific about "their numbers," but if I recall correctly things like the Ryan plan take for granted that we're going to have to run large deficits for awhile, even if we make significant cuts.

But hey, speaking of numbers not adding up, remember how we were supposed to halve the deficit by now? And how unemployment was supposed to be as high as it is now if we didn't pass the stimulus? Whaddya say, will: should we maybe exhibit a little more skepticism towards what Obama's saying is going to happen next if we do X versus Y?

Also, the part about China and Europe is confused. The question is whether or not tax cuts will grow the economy relative to how it would grow without them. Whether or not there is another external factor that will send us into recession is a separate question. If times were good, a tax cut might make good growth great. If bad, it might make a recession into merely tepid growth. What about this underlying equation is supposed to change based on these other factors? It's not enough to just through a bunch of potential pitfalls out there and assume they will assemble themselves into an argument about how to proceed.

Neither party has the courage to do what needs to be done. They are all cowards because we are cowards. Nobody wants to make the hard choices.
I suppose they're all cowards in the sense that nobody is proposing a completely thorough, comprehensive solution to our long-term entitlement problems. But one of them's proposing some curtailing on it, and the other is accusing them of trying to feed senior citizens cat food for it whenever they do it.

will.15

06-12-12, 04:11 PM

Yet I feel safe assuming that your basic opinion of Obama remains unchanged, yes? So what criteria do you use (other than straight party affiliation) to determine which screwups are relatively unimportant in evaluating the candidate, and which aren't?

The screwup you are talking about here is rhetoric, a president trying to make his record look a little better than it is. What a horrible thing to do. He can be criticized for it, sure, but if this is the worst thing Obama ever did, it isn't much. You want to compare that with Romney's convoluted flip flopping so it is hard to know what he thinks except Obama is bad and I will do better, but don't ask me for specifics, except I was a great businessman and that's how.

That's what they can do by law; it's the effects that are economics. And the effects are that printing money reduces its value. Which means printing money to cover deficits is inherently deceitful. It pays for things immediately with money that will only be devalued later, over time. It specifically devalues any move that is saved, or tied up in existing contracts or loans. This isn't the ranting of some Paulite with a bunch of gold buried underneath his shed. This is the actual effect of using inflation to cover up exorbitant spending.

And it is what has been done since the 1930s, and mainstream economists all think it is a better way to run things than in previous years where economic downturns were more frequent and severe.

The point, however, is not that he's technically wrong. The point is the Orwellian use of language. It would be diasterous to say "state governments can't make up money out of thin air to pay for things...but we can! Wheeee!" So he says they have "flexibility." It's like talking about giving people "access" to something when they really mean "public funding."

Yeah, so? it is not Orwellian, it is factual.

Yet, that's kinda what we do now. Though, to be fair, they're not technically trillion dollar deficits. They're actually a little more than a trillion. So there's that.

Uh-huh.

Ah yes, I've seen this pivot many times. We'll be talking about what ideas are good or bad, and when we shift to the long-term insolvency of entitlements, suddenly we're not talking about what's right or necessary, but about what's popular.

Yes, we can look to Greece to see how popular austerity is. We can also look to them to see what will happen if we don't suck it up and do it anyway. So tell me: which of the two parties has made even a moderately serious attempt to curtail entitlement spending? And which has villified the other for trying?
Because the Republican parties agenda isn't cutting spending, it is cutting programs they don't like, not really to reduce deficits, which they can't do while they are also cutting taxes, but to subsidize their tax cuts. All the objective studies of Romney and Ryan's proposals show the numbers don't add up. They are taking from Peter to pay Paul. Oh, and if it was left up to them, they would increase defense spending, not cut at all, and so cut entitlement spending even more.

And what is most likely going to happen in Greece and will happen in France? A changing of parties that will roll back the changes. If the Republican party under tea party does exactly what they say they want to do, they will be out of the House and Senate in two years. And watch Mitt Romney looking at his poll numbers turn into the second term coming of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

will.15

06-13-12, 01:39 AM

They were generally around $400 billion (there's one exception, which I can expound on if necessary), and now they're consistently $1.3 trillion. Tripling the deficit is not a matter of "semantics."

If you want to call Bush's deficits "huge," hey, whatever. You just need to use an even bigger word to describe the current ones. Triplehuge, perhaps. The point is that you can't just say "hey, really big number!" and then fail to distinguish further.

This particular idea is a really nice litmus test to figure out who understands economics and who doesn't. Recoveries are stronger after worse recessions, not weaker. Growth is relative, which means it's more difficult when it comes after more growth, and easier when it comes after less. This is why developing economics grow at such insane rates.

Oh, really?

I am not an economist, so I don't know if that is gospel or not, but my observation has been, the bigger the hole you get into, the longer it takes. This is the nastiest downturn in modern times since the 1930s. Growth in a major way didn't happen until World War II. Third worse was the Ford/Carter/Reagan years and the economy never actually became a rocket until Clinton was in office.

China's insane growth is partly illusion, assisted by government manipulation.

I'm not sure what would make the tax cuts "perfect." This feels like one of those times someone puts one event next to another, and can't show any link between them, but just sort of expects their proximity to imply it for them. Are you actually going to try to argue that Bush's tax cuts led to the financial crisis? I think I'd pay money to see that.

Yeah, I think an argument could be made tax cuts were a contributing factor to the financial crisis. Not by itself, but by putting more money into the system without regulatory oversight creating a Wild West mentality. Something similar happened under Reagan with the savings and loan debacle.

You'll have to be a lot more specific about "their numbers," but if I recall correctly things like the Ryan plan take for granted that we're going to have to run large deficits for awhile, even if we make significant cuts.

I'd have to go and get all the links, but studies have show Ryan's own numbers don't add up, that the deficits would be far larger than he is projecting.

But hey, speaking of numbers not adding up, remember how we were supposed to halve the deficit by now? And how unemployment was supposed to be as high as it is now if we didn't pass the stimulus? Whaddya say, will: should we maybe exhibit a little more skepticism towards what Obama's saying is going to happen next if we do X versus Y?

I guess so. He was too optimistic. But does that mean we should be less skeptical of Republican solutions and predictions when their track record historically is equally dubious?

Also, the part about China and Europe is confused. The question is whether or not tax cuts will grow the economy relative to how it would grow without them. Whether or not there is another external factor that will send us into recession is a separate question. If times were good, a tax cut might make good growth great. If bad, it might make a recession into merely tepid growth. What about this underlying equation is supposed to change based on these other factors? It's not enough to just through a bunch of potential pitfalls out there and assume they will assemble themselves into an argument about how to proceed.

Well, no, a tax cut during a deep recession might not bring any growth at all becaue it doesn't create jobs. People are not using the tax cuts for accelerated spending and more importanly entreupeners are not investing because there is no export market or they are weary the economy is in a sinkhole. Bush's tax cuts were not enough to get banks to loan during the housing collapse or for investors to invest. And you are slashing under Republicans goverment spending, programs and jobs and the markepplace can't absorb the jobs into the private sector so you might get more unemployment not less. The more complicated the economic malaise, the more complicated the solution. Tax cuts is not a band-aid that instantly solves all economic conditions.

I suppose they're all cowards in the sense that nobody is proposing a completely thorough, comprehensive solution to our long-term entitlement problems. But one of them's proposing some curtailing on it, and the other is accusing them of trying to feed senior citizens cat food for it whenever they do it.
Did I specifically say entitlements? No. I was talking about the deficit in general. And Obama in deficit talks was willing to be more flexible, to put everything on the table. But the other party wouldn't even discuss taxes. Oh, occasionally some of their politicians had a proposal that had some kind of tax increases, and the noise was so deafening from the tea party peanut gallery, those ideas disappeared.

DexterRiley

06-13-12, 02:01 AM

http://i54.tinypic.com/16atpjd.jpg

will.15

06-13-12, 04:23 AM

Yoda

06-13-12, 10:24 AM

The screwup you are talking about here is rhetoric, a president trying to make his record look a little better than it is. What a horrible thing to do.
So if I go back through the earlier posts in this thread, I definitely won't find a dozen times where you posted about Romney's rhetorical screwups, right?

And it is what has been done since the 1930s, and mainstream economists all think it is a better way to run things than in previous years where economic downturns were more frequent and severe.
Define "mainstream economists." Who are they? How are you determining who is mainstream? Have you read anything to the contrary? Have you looked for anything to the contrary? How many economists saying the opposite do I have to produce to get you to admit this is wrong?

One of these days I'd like to talk to you about economics and not find a big, conspicuous generalization underneath everything.

Yeah, so? it is not Orwellian, it is factual.
Not only are the two not mutually exclusive, but the latter is necessary for the former. The whole point about Orwellian political language is that it's technically factual. It substitutes words that convey harsh reality with ones that soften it.

Uh-huh.
I love that the tiny little fact of trillion-dollar deficits gets a six-character shrug, whereas Romney saying something tone-deaf generally geta a few paragraphs. By jove, it's enough to make me think your complaints aren't always actually about policy! *drops monocle in shock*

Because the Republican parties agenda isn't cutting spending, it is cutting programs they don't like, not really to reduce deficits, which they can't do while they are also cutting taxes, but to subsidize their tax cuts.
Of course they cut programs they don't like. Who would cut programs they think are great? This is not remarkable or sinsister. It's also not imcompatible with genuinely wanting to cut spending. If you conclude you have to cut spending, you're going to start with programs that you don't think are any good. I'm positive I've said it to you before.

And yeah, you can reduce the deficit while cutting taxes. Not immediately, but eventually, through economic growth. Treasury receipts in 2007 and 2008 were the highest on record. I can list more examples. Though I guess you could firebomb all the data by telling me mainstream economists don't think it's possible, or something. Then I'd be in a pickle.

All the objective studies of Romney and Ryan's proposals show the numbers don't add up.
Tell me truthfully: do you have any of these studies in mind? Do you know their methodology? Because one of the biggest disputes about this sort of thing is the way studies have to take positions on disputed economic theory. A model that assumes government spending, for example, will stimulate the economy, will show that X amount of spending should stimulate Y amount. Which ultimately tells us nothing, since the basis for the model is what's under dispute. There's a lot of that going on. So, "all the objective studies," (I like that you put the word objective in there, so when I show you one that says otherwise you can say it doesn't count. Nice!) do they start with the assumption that cutting taxes can't reduce the deficit long-term? Do they start with the assumption that government spending is necessary to stimulate growth?

Do you scrutinize this sort of thing, or do you just see some passing reference to a study and assume it's accurate? And before your answer, is there any way I can wager a very large sum of money on the latter?

And what is most likely going to happen in Greece and will happen in France? A changing of parties that will roll back the changes. If the Republican party under tea party does exactly what they say they want to do, they will be out of the House and Senate in two years. And watch Mitt Romney looking at his poll numbers turn into the second term coming of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
So your argument is not that they're wrong to want to do this, but that they shouldn't do it because they'll get voted out? Wha? Sounds like you're saying they'll actually follow through and be hated for it. Which I'm pretty sure is not a criticism of them at all, but more like praise. Is that what you intended?

You're kinda dancing here, so I'll just ask all this as bluntly as possible (not that that usually works or anything): are long-term entitlements insolvent? If so, do we need to cut them? If so, which party is trying to cut them, and which is making political hay out of the other for trying? It's okay, I already know the answer, you can say it.

Powderfinger

06-13-12, 11:00 AM

Are you Guys campaign agents for your chosen political field? :D Lol!

Yoda

06-13-12, 12:08 PM

Oh, really?

I am not an economist, so I don't know if that is gospel or not, but my observation has been, the bigger the hole you get into, the longer it takes. This is the nastiest downturn in modern times since the 1930s. Growth in a major way didn't happen until World War II. Third worse was the Ford/Carter/Reagan years and the economy never actually became a rocket until Clinton was in office.
In absolute terms, yes. IE: yearly GDP is $11 trillion, we lose $3 trillion, and it takes a long time to get back to $11 trillion. But that's not the metric we're using: we're talking about growth rate. That's what the GDP number each quarter is; it's annualized growth percentage, which is relative. That's metric pretty much everyone uses here, and it should be growing faster after a deeper recession, not slower.

China's insane growth is partly illusion, assisted by government manipulation.
Agreed, but this only illustrates the point. China's growth is remarkable not because of its speed, but because of its speed relative to its size.

Yeah, I think an argument could be made tax cuts were a contributing factor to the financial crisis. Not by itself, but by putting more money into the system without regulatory oversight creating a Wild West mentality. Something similar happened under Reagan with the savings and loan debacle.
That would be a pretty awful argument. Two huge problems with this, one in general, and one for you, specifically. In general: by this logic, anything that creates economic growth, any tax cut, any anything that puts "more money into the system" (tax cuts don't actually do that, but whatever) could be said to contribute to any way in which someone misuses that money. Which is pretty silly. For you, specifically: you just got done telling me that it's totally mainstream economics, man, to inflate your way out of problems. Inflation is literally putting more money into the system. Ergo, inflation now is contributing to whatever bad thing people do with money next?

I'd have to go and get all the links, but studies have show Ryan's own numbers don't add up, that the deficits would be far larger than he is projecting.
I'm perfectly willing to argue about Ryan's numbers. I'm not even saying they do add up. But the question, you might remember, is which party is actually cutting entitlements. So pointing out that you think his projected deficits are going to be larger actually has nothing to do with that. The correct answer to the question is "Why, the Republicans are trying to address entitlements, Chris. Jolly good point. I wish my own party would get on board instead of trying to scare old people."

I guess so.
will on trillion-dollar deficits: "Uh-huh." will on Obama spending $1 trillion to stimulate the economy and being hopelessly wrong about its effects: "I guess so."

Your insouciance in the face of major political failures is a sight to behold. And look at the juxtaposition: you're more worked up about projections from Republicans than you are about the actual numbers under Obama.

He was too optimistic.
Has "optimistic" become a synonym for "wrong"? When someone says something will do X, and it doesn't even come close to doing X, I suppose you can stubbornly say that they just didn't do enough of it. Or you can consider the possibility that the underlying assumptions are false.

But does that mean we should be less skeptical of Republican solutions and predictions when their track record historically is equally dubious?
Yeah, it isn't, but to answer your broader question: you should be skeptical of both. Doesn't really seem like you are, though. Seems like the Republican stuff is enough to start something, and the Democratic stuff all goes in the "hey, that's how all politicians are" bin. Which is getting pretty full.

But hey, if you think both parties have equally dubious histories, that works for me: the solution is to not argue about parties and personalities, but ideas. You may have noticed that I'm pretty much always trying to get you to do this.

Well, no, a tax cut during a deep recession might not bring any growth at all becaue it doesn't create jobs. People are not using the tax cuts for accelerated spending and more importanly entreupeners are not investing because there is no export market or they are weary the economy is in a sinkhole.
Leaving aside the fact that "there's no export market" is an insanely huge exaggeration, the question becomes: what convinces investors to invest anyway? What incentivizes them? Tax cuts do that. They increase the reward of successful investment, which makes more investments financially viable.

Bush's tax cuts were not enough to get banks to loan during the housing collapse or for investors to invest. And you are slashing under Republicans goverment spending, programs and jobs and the markepplace can't absorb the jobs into the private sector so you might get more unemployment not less. The more complicated the economic malaise, the more complicated the solution. Tax cuts is not a band-aid that instantly solves all economic conditions.
That's great, but I wasn't arguing that it was. I'm saying it's generally a good idea, and it's a good idea now.

You say people won't invest. Okay. So why aren't you for a capital gains tax cut? Do you deny that people would invest more if investments were taxed less? Because that's about as basic as economic theory gets. Tax something, you get less of it.

Did I specifically say entitlements? No. I was talking about the deficit in general. And Obama in deficit talks was willing to be more flexible, to put everything on the table. But the other party wouldn't even discuss taxes. Oh, occasionally some of their politicians had a proposal that had some kind of tax increases, and the noise was so deafening from the tea party peanut gallery, those ideas disappeared.
Yeah, we've already had this argument, and it always ends the same way: with you trying to equate actual Republican proposals to cut entitlement spending (which they've been actually criticized for proposing) to Democrats saying they'll consider things, with no actual guarantee that they will, and no track record of doing so. That's a joke.

When I point out a blatant hypocrisy, you often admit that politicians do that sort of thing, or that politicians of all parties will say whatever they think they have to. Which is true. So let's apply that conclusion to this situation: why are you willing to admit that politicians do this, yet unwilling to apply that skepticism to Democrats who say they'll consider these changes? Why do they get credit for talking and not doing? What are you brush-offs about normal political behavior worth if they can be called up to explain away Democratic mistakes, but dismissed when you want to start handing out gold stars for merely "putting things on the table"?

Yoda

06-13-12, 12:11 PM

Oh, and Republicans are not actually talking about more tax cuts, but making existing temporary tax cuts permanent, which is not quite the same thing. They are also proposing new tax cuts that only apply to the wealthy like reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax.
I agree that extending a tax cut is not the same thing as cutting taxes, but not extending it is basically the same thing as raising them. Congress has control, so the idea that their action is different when it's inaction doesn't really wash.

Re: capital gains. Yeah, they do want to do that, and they should. But you might remember that the context of this discussion is you saying that Republicans only want to cut taxes for the wealthy. And the idea that investments are primarily something wealthy people have is an insanely outdated one. Over half of American households have some form of investment. Cutting capital gains taxes effects far more people than just the rich. Though right off the bat, I can't help but notice that the framing of the accusation actually made no attempt to dispute the idea that it would spur growth.

Powderfinger

06-13-12, 12:13 PM

Again! Lol! :D

AKA23

07-29-12, 07:12 PM

I saw this interview Romney gave on NBC, and I have to say, it was yet another example of Mitt Romney's inauthenticity. It is absolutely inconceivable that Romney would not know what day his wife's prize horse competes in the Olympics. He claims to have no knowledge of the sport whatsoever, and said he doesn't even know when the competition is. This despite being involved with the sport in the past, including, according to this article, picking the music the horse danced to at the World Cup. This is just not believable. He is spending a great deal of money on this effort. Not only that, he has been married to his wife for more than 40 years, who he genuinely loves, and this sport is her passion. There's just no way he knows nothing about the sport, or of the horse's competition in the Olympics.

Some may say this is a small lie on a small issue, and on that, I agree, but I think it does highlight why I believe Romney is going to lose in November. Not because of this, obviously, as this is very small, but because of his tendency to be so inauthentic. I just don't believe the country is going to vote for someone like that. Why is he very likely lying about this? Most likely, because he doesn't want to portray himself as a wealthy elitist who races horses, but that's what he is. He's a very very wealthy guy. Trying to run away from who he is, by not releasing his tax returns, and by very likely lying about things like this, is simply not going to work.

What do you think, Yoda? Do you agree that he is very likely lying about this? If so, what are your thoughts on that?

http://www.nationalmemo.com/romney-pretends-not-to-enjoy-dressage/

Yoda

07-29-12, 07:42 PM

Ugh. This is a thing? Really?

No, I don't agree it's very likely. For two reasons. First, because I think it'd be a dumb thing to lie about; whether or not he knows the exact date isn't going to make anyone like him much more or less, and I think he probably knows that. Second, he's a Presidential candidate three months from the election. He is one of the two most beset-upon men in the world right now, so I'd believe him if he told me he didn't know where he was going to be tomorrow.

But mainly, I absolutely, positively, do not care. It's absurd that people can effectively and cynically exploit the fact that some candidates are wealthy, but obviously it can work sometimes, and as long as that's true it bothers me not at all if they have to play that down in response. I have a bigger problem with the craven campaigning that encourages it than I do candidates playing their biographies up or down. It's depressing that this is what passes for a campaign issue, when we have real problems. But then, we've known for a long time that this is the kind of campaign Obama would have to run to win. Everybody predicted it.

will.15

07-29-12, 07:53 PM

Oh, and Obama is making a campaign issue about those comments about Romney's wife's horse?

This a campaign. You get to make the other guy the issue and he does it to you. Its politics. The public decides what is relevant to them and not.

AKA23

07-29-12, 08:16 PM

Yoda: Ugh. This is a thing? Really?

No, I don't agree it's very likely. For two reasons. First, because I think it'd be a dumb thing to lie about; whether or not he knows the exact date isn't going to make anyone like him much more or less, and I think he probably knows that. Second, he's a Presidential candidate three months from the election. He is one of the two most beset-upon men in the world right now, so I'd believe him if he told me he didn't know where he was going to be tomorrow.

So, do you believe him, or don't you? I don't really care much either about this particular issue, but I do care about Romney's inauthenticity, and if he's not telling the truth, this is an example of that. Is this issue important? No, and I've said as much, but is the larger issue important, which it highlights, I think that it is.

But mainly, I absolutely, positively, do not care. It's absurd that people can effectively and cynically exploit the fact that some candidates are wealthy, but obviously it can work sometimes, and as long as that's true it bothers me not at all if they have to play that down in response.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself here. Do you believe what he is saying about the horse, or don't you? He's either telling the truth or he's "playing [his] biography down." He can't be doing both.

I have a bigger problem with the craven campaigning that encourages it than I do candidates playing their biographies up or down. It's depressing that this is what passes for a campaign issue, when we have real problems. But then, we've known for a long time that this is the kind of campaign Obama would have to run to win. Everybody predicted it.

I agree with this, and I've said so. Some Obama supporters I know have gotten upset at me for it, though the negative campaigning goes both sides. Romney is doing it too. He totally took Obama's "you didn't build that" comment out of the context in which Obama was speaking. He was referring to roads and bridges, and the idea that if you are successful, the individual's resolve alone is not what makes you so. Romney made it out to seem like he was attacking small business people and saying that Obama said that they didn't build their own businesses, which is absurd.

Did you see Obama's last commercial "The Choice?" That was a pretty positive ad, and its one of his most recent.

DexterRiley

07-29-12, 08:56 PM

Yoda

07-31-12, 11:43 AM

This a campaign. You get to make the other guy the issue and he does it to you. Its politics. The public decides what is relevant to them and not.
"The public decides"? We're the public, guy. We're deciding right now. And it doesn't magically become a meaningful issue if it happens to work, unless you believe there's no such thing as a cheap (but effective) campaign tactic.

Defending trivial nonsense with some hoary old cliche about how the electorate gets to decide if it matters is, at this point, pretty much a full admission that the thing in question is, in fact, trivial nonsense. Just trivial nonsense you hope works in your favor.

Yoda

07-31-12, 11:59 AM

So, do you believe him, or don't you?
I'm largely guessing, but insofar as I have to guess, I believe him. Even if I think of him as Machiavelli himself, I don't think it'd make a lot of sense.

That said, this could be one of those situations where he deliberately avoids knowing so he doesn't have to lie. You see that in politics a lot, where the Press Secretary tries to shield the President from commenting on something by literally making sure he doesn't ask him about it, or somesuch. I could buy that. But I'd feel absurd acting like it mattered enough to think about it much more.

I don't really care much either about this particular issue, but I do care about Romney's inauthenticity, and if he's not telling the truth, this is an example of that. Is this issue important? No, and I've said as much, but is the larger issue important, which it highlights, I think that it is.
This argument always goes in circles. I can provide you, right now, with a half dozen examples of Obama being "inauthentic" on way more meaningful topics than this. Topics of life and freakin' death, of billions or trillions of dollars. And you'll brush them off. They won't make a dent. You'll say they're bad, sure, because you're a reasonable guy. But you won't actually start thinking of Obama as less authentic.

These are a priori assumptions about candidates, and they determine what events you think are indicators of something, and which ones never really stick. This can help or hurt all candidates. If Obama says something that sounds really dumb (which he's done plenty), it's not a story, because nobody's going to believe he's a dumb guy. If Bush says the same thing, it gets passed around the Internet for a year. If Bush says something that sounds a little collectivist, a few conservatives raise their eyebrows but it doesn't become a big deal, because nobody thinks he's got major collectivist leanings. If Obama says the same thing, it's a conservative trope in a week, because it feeds into that preexisting narrative.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself here. Do you believe what he is saying about the horse, or don't you? He's either telling the truth or he's "playing [his] biography down." He can't be doing both.
Eh? Where's the contradiction between saying I believe him, but if I'm wrong, I don't care?

I agree with this, and I've said so. Some Obama supporters I know have gotten upset at me for it, though the negative campaigning goes both sides.
Well, yes, in the very generic sense of the word "negative." But generally "negative campaigning" tends to have the connotation of personal attacks, rather than policy ones. It's not the same, for example, for Obama to go after Mitt Romney's personal finances, as it is for Romney to go after Obama's economic record. They're both "negative," but one is substantive and relevant. One is about ideas, and the other is about a person. And we know what Eleanor Roosevelt said (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html) about that.

Romney is doing it too. He totally took Obama's "you didn't build that" comment out of the context in which Obama was speaking. He was referring to roads and bridges, and the idea that if you are successful, the individual's resolve alone is not what makes you so. Romney made it out to seem like he was attacking small business people and saying that Obama said that they didn't build their own businesses, which is absurd.
Oh boy. No, it is not absurd at all, and it's been incredible watching people try to squirm around this. First, his word choice was totally ambiguous. He said "that." He can swear up and down he meant "roads and bridges," and you know what? I believe him. I think that's what that meant. But let's not pretend there's some kind of smoking gun. It's utterly ambiguous.

Second, the full context of the speech mirrors the quote as it's being used, anyway. People who provide more context often provide an extra sentence or two, but what they almost never do is provide the whole speech. And it's obvious why they don't, because in it, he does, in fact, pooh-pooh the degree to which business owners actually deserve the credit for their businesses:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, 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 because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.
Why say this, exactly? To justify taxing them more, right? To imply that the fruits of their labor are not only their fruits, so you have to take more of those fruits. These things might be okay as platitudes, but we know he's saying them to sell a higher tax rate.

And by the by, it warms the cockles (is it cockles? Sure, let's go with cockles) of my heart to see Obama's defenders flipping out about context, when they were pouncing all over Romney's "I like to be able to fire people" just a few months ago. Even that's being generous, because a lot of them didn't even quote him accurately (they often leave out the "be able to" part). At least conservatives are directly quoting the President, and doing so in a way consistent with the entire context of his argument. And it's about his actual philosophy, too, not some personal jab. Another idea/people argument divide.

will.15

07-31-12, 12:47 PM

"The public decides"? We're the public, guy. We're deciding right now. And it doesn't magically become a meaningful issue if it happens to work, unless you believe there's no such thing as a cheap (but effective) campaign tactic.

Defending trivial nonsense with some hoary old cliche about how the electorate gets to decide if it matters is, at this point, pretty much a full admission that the thing in question is, in fact, trivial nonsense. Just trivial nonsense you hope works in your favor.
There are two separate things here. You were inferring this was actually a campaign issue, the horse thing, and as far as I can tell, it was merely a long line of things Romney has said that he has gotten bad press for, which is not the same thing. He has been a walking mouth disaster lately with the recent Olympics comments. Is any of this fatal to his campaign? No. But going back to the even worse verbal gaffes of Rick Perry, you have a tendency to dismiss Republican presidential candidate gaffes as trivial, to bemoan people pay attention to them and it can affect their electability, but you don't seem so forgiving if Obama makes some.

I am actually willing to give him a pass on this because he is running for president and probably doesn't care too much or paying too much attention about what his wife's horse is doing, but he has A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM, AND THAT IS HIS FAULT, NOT THE PRESS, OR OBAMA'S, OR DEMOCRATS (hit the cap lock again by mistake). And this particular comment may be trivial, but the fact he keeps doing this, keeps going off message and making himself the focal point instead of his campaign message, isn't. He does sound like he is lying even when he may not be, and Obama always sounds sincere and forthright when he may not be, and that is a situation you may think is trivial, but it isn't. People just don't vote because of the issues, but also character, and if voters decide they don't like Romney's, it isn't trivial or meaningless.

Yoda

07-31-12, 01:13 PM

There are two separate things here. You were inferring this was actually a campaign issue, the horse thing, and as far as I can tell, it was merely a long line of things Romney has said that he has gotten bad press for, which is not the same thing. He has been a walking mouth disaster lately with the recent Olympics comments.
Correct, Obama has not made an issue of it. A perfectly fair distinction. I'm bemoaning that it's an issue to anyone, and pointing out that the Obama campaign is focusing on lots of relatively trivial things in general. I don't think even the President's supporters could say, with a straight face, that he's running a substantive campaign.

Is any of this fatal to his campaign? No. But going back to the even worse verbal gaffes of Rick Perry, you have a tendency to dismiss Republican presidential candidate gaffes as trivial, to bemoan people pay attention to them and it can affect their electability, but you don't seem so forgiving if Obama makes some.
Do you have any examples? Because I'm pretty sure my tendency is to dismiss gaffes that are just verbal slip-ups, or something stated inelegantly, and seize on the ones that actually have a connection to a policy. For example, I don't give a crap that Obama said during the 2008 campaign that he visited "all 57 states." I only trot that out as an example of how people tend to deflect little screw-ups that don't fit a candidate's narrative, and absorb the ones that do. But when he deliberately chastises someone for doing something in one campaign that he's now doing himself?

Basically, it's a gaffe if it could have been very easily phrased in a different way without changing the meaning of the idea and been almost entirely uncontroversial as a result. If the idea itself is controversial, though, and the phrasing merely draws attention to it, that's a legitimate issue.

I am actually willing to give him a pass on this because he is running for president and probably doesn't care too much or paying too much attention about what his wife's horse is doing, but he has A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM, AND THAT IS HIS FAULT, NOT THE PRESS, OR OBAMA'S, OR DEMOCRATS (hit the cap lock again by mistake). And this particular comment may be trivial, but the fact he keeps doing this, keeps going off message and making himself the focal point instead of his campaign message, isn't. He does sound like he is lying even when he may not be, and Obama always sounds sincere and forthright when he may not be, and that is a situation you may think is trivial, but it isn't. People just don't vote because of the issues, but also character, and if voters decide they don't like Romney's, it isn't trivial or meaningless.
Then I will make a distinction: it's trivial because it shouldn't matter. It's trivial because whether or not someone sounds earnest is a highly unreliable way to determine whether or not they are. It's not trivial in the sense that it won't necessarily matter. All sorts of ridiculous things go into how people vote. I wouldn't ever deny that. I'm denying that it ought to. I'm denying that it's a good thing to base one's decision on.

For the record, Romney does sound dishonest, because he's kind of a stilted guy. And Obama usually sounds more forthright. And maybe that's enough to win. But let's not confuse that for a substantive way to make a judgment, even if a lot of voters have. I mean, are we talking about oughts here at all? Are we allowed to say that X is a good campaign issue, and Y is a cheap, superficial one? Or do we have to restrict ourselves to merely describing the campaign as if we were mere detached observers, and give an idea credence just because some of the electorate does?

Yoda

07-31-12, 01:14 PM

Regarding CAPS LOCK: that's fine, and I'll just assume as much the next time I see randomly capital letters, but do you not read your post while you're typing it? Do you keep your eyes on the keyboard and only look up when it's done?

will.15

07-31-12, 01:18 PM

Yes.

Or I would make even more typos than I do when I am looking at the keys and that is plenty.

Yoda

07-31-12, 01:35 PM

Critics

07-31-12, 01:35 PM

If Randy Blythe gets out of jail I heard that he wants to become president.

AKA23

07-31-12, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by AKA23
Romney is doing it too. He totally took Obama's "you didn't build that" comment out of the context in which Obama was speaking. He was referring to roads and bridges, and the idea that if you are successful, the individual's resolve alone is not what makes you so. Romney made it out to seem like he was attacking small business people and saying that Obama said that they didn't build their own businesses, which is absurd.
Oh boy. No, it is not absurd at all, and it's been incredible watching people try to squirm around this. First, his word choice was totally ambiguous. He said "that." He can swear up and down he meant "roads and bridges," and you know what? I believe him. I think that's what that meant. But let's not pretend there's some kind of smoking gun. It's utterly ambiguous.

Second, the full context of the speech mirrors the quote as it's being used, anyway. People who provide more context often provide an extra sentence or two, but what they almost never do is provide the whole speech. And it's obvious why they don't, because in it, he does, in fact, pooh-pooh the degree to which business owners actually deserve the credit for their businesses:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, 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 because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.

What Obama was saying is what most liberal thinkers have believed for decades, and there is a lot of evidence to back it up. The basic idea, which you probably understand, but which I'll say anyway, is that wealthy, successful people often seem to believe that they got that way almost entirely due to their own initiative, hard work, etc, and that they therefore deserve everything that they have. They often wonder why other people can't achieve success themselves, and usually put that down to other people's laziness or a deficit of the qualities that led them to be so successful. In doing so, they make success, or failure, personal. They believe that everybody has the same opportunity to be successful, and that the fact that some people are, and others aren't, isn't really a function of a broken system or socio-economic inequality. The problem with this theory is that it is largely total nonsense. While it is true that many wealthy people work hard, are intelligent, and have qualities which make them successful, which are personal in nature, it is also equally true that for many of them, they had significant advantages over others who are less successful. They either came from wealthy parents, or they obtained a high level of education, or they know people who are well-connected that can help to give them a leg up. These are things that the poor and the disadvantaged usually don't have. All Obama is saying in that clip is that there are other factors which helped to make those who are successful, successful, and that it isn't entirely about their personal qualities and characteristics. It's about a system that systematically advantages some above others, and which gives opportunities to some much more easily than it does to others. The fact that that is unfair, and that government should do something about that, is a common liberal argument. By saying government has a role to play in helping people to be successful, whether it be through building roads and bridges, or helping to make higher education more affordable, Obama is merely acknowledging the reality, which is that these opportunities are far from being equal, and that it is that inequality, and lack of opportunity, that is the main driver of the gap between rich and poor, and not a monopoly on intelligence, handwork, and the personal qualities that breed success. This is a reality that conservative Americans often deny, or significantly discount.

will.15

07-31-12, 09:58 PM

I see. I'm fortunate in that I was given typing programs from a young age. I imagine it's kind of like a second language, in that it's much harder (though not impossible) to be "fluent" if you start as an adult.
I took a course in junior high and never got the hang of it, never got past thirty words a minute, and again in high school. But in those days we just had typewriters.

I used to type the proper way, but I gave it up.

Yoda

08-01-12, 11:28 AM

What Obama was saying is what most liberal thinkers have believed for decades, and there is a lot of evidence to back it up.
What evidence, to back what up, specifically?

The basic idea, which you probably understand, but which I'll say anyway, is that wealthy, successful people often seem to believe that they got that way almost entirely due to their own initiative, hard work, etc, and that they therefore deserve everything that they have. They often wonder why other people can't achieve success themselves, and usually put that down to other people's laziness or a deficit of the qualities that led them to be so successful. In doing so, they make success, or failure, personal. They believe that everybody has the same opportunity to be successful, and that the fact that some people are, and others aren't, isn't really a function of a broken system or socio-economic inequality. The problem with this theory is that it is largely total nonsense.
Can we stop doing this thing where we argue about the extreme, straw man version of the idea, rather than the version most people believe in? It may be "total nonsense" to say that everybody is 100% responsible for how their lives turn out. But it's also "total nonsense" to say that people generally think that number is actually 100%. And of course, it doesn't have to be.

True or false: the majority of the time, each person is the primary determinant in their success or failure in life.

While it is true that many wealthy people work hard, are intelligent, and have qualities which make them successful, which are personal in nature, it is also equally true that for many of them, they had significant advantages over others who are less successful. They either came from wealthy parents, or they obtained a high level of education, or they know people who are well-connected that can help to give them a leg up.
What is "many" of them? How is that being determined? It's my understanding that the vast majority of wealthy people were not born to privilege. And if you want to make the distinction, that sounds like an argument for the Estate Tax, not for higher tax rates in general, which make no distinction between those who inherit and the self-made types.

Also, let's keep in mind that for the purposes of the actual policy debate this feeds into, "wealthy" seems to mean anyone making over $250,000 a year. And almost nobody making that amount of money just inherited it.

These are things that the poor and the disadvantaged usually don't have. All Obama is saying in that clip is that there are other factors which helped to make those who are successful, successful, and that it isn't entirely about their personal qualities and characteristics.
Yes and no. "Entirely" is a straw man. The free market position doesn't change if you decide that they're only mostly responsible. And possibly not even then, because how likely people are to achieve success is a different question than what actually encourages it. Remember, whether or not you think they did it all themselves is an entirely separate question from what actually creates growth.

Also, this all has to be viewed in the context of the argument being made. As I said before, this isn't just Obama pointing out the degree to which everybody needs somebody sometiiiiiimes. This isn't a good-natured chorus of "Lean on Me." He's saying this to sell a specific idea: higher taxes on the wealthy. And he's doing it by suggesting they deserve less credit for their successes, too, which gives the argument a very insulting, very personal tone. There's a very important difference between "hey, people need help, and you've got money, so we're taxing you more" and "we're taxing you because you didn't really deserve all of this money in the first place."

And the "things that the poor and the disadvantaged don't have" aren't the things Obama cited: roads and bridges and the Internet. Virtually everyone has access to these things, so why mention them? And since when were these things just gifted to the wealthy? Last I checked they paid most of the taxes that built that infrastructure in the first place! So how can he turn around and suggest that the wealthy owe society for their use?

Yoda

08-01-12, 01:21 PM

wintertriangles

08-01-12, 01:33 PM

will.15

08-01-12, 05:41 PM

By the way, did anyone see the Harry Reid interview where he articulated a rumor from an anonymous source that Romney "didn't pay taxes for a decade"? He couldn't provide a name, or any evidence, and admitted he couldn't confirm it, but says if Romney wants to refute it he can release his taxes. Seriously. He said that. In an unrelated story, I heard Harry Reid has an embarrassing tattoo on his inner thigh. If he wants to disprove it, he can take his pants off in public. Why wouldn't he? WHAT'S HE HIDING?

But wait, that's actually not the cheapest thing he said during the interview. He also said that Romney's dead father would be ashamed of him.

Your Democratic Senate Majority Leader, ladies and gentlemen. Can we now cease any talk about mutually negative campaigning, as if the two sides are both going at each other the same way? Because this is as ugly as it gets. This is the kinda stuff that usually comes out through untraceable robocalls, not the head of the Senate.
Uh-huh, it is those awful Democrats who are being unfairly mean to poor billionaire Mitt Romney, and he and his fellow Republicans are not hitting back.

They do hit back, but they are clumsier at it, and everything they try to come up with is old stuff Republicans used four years ago because there is nothing new to hit Obama with.

Like this from:

Mitt Romney's most obstinate surrogate John Sununu (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/ladies-and-gentleman-john-sununu-128553.html) is slamming the Obama campaign for its use of the word "felon" while alleging that Chicago politicians may be deserving of the very same charge.
"This is a really dumb White House and a dumb campaign," Sununu said on Fox News this morning. "For them to use the word 'felon' into the discoure reminds people that the president came out of that murky soup of politics in Illinois where, as I've said before, 'politician' and 'felon' are almost synonymous.”

Should Reid aplogize? Yes, because he had no evidnce no taxes were paid.

But, again, Romney is bringing this on himself because he refuses to do what all previous candidates in recent years have done, release past tax returns. Why? There must be something there he doesn't want us to see. And as long as this goes on, we are getting hilarious theater.

AKA23

08-01-12, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Yoda:
What Obama was saying is what most liberal thinkers have believed for decades, and there is a lot of evidence to back it up.
What evidence, to back what up, specifically?

There is a lot of emerging evidence that upward mobility in the U.S. is declining. Contrary to popular belief that we are a mostly classless society, and that everyone has an opportunity to succeed if they work hard and make good choices, the evidence is showing that there's a whole lot more to it than that. The idea that if you work hard and make good choices you can and likely will rise above your station in life is one of the foundations of conservatism. Although this may be true in a select few cases, and does have some merit as an idea, the notion that this is likely, or even possible, for many Americans, is a fallacy. Emerging research is showing that far from being a classless society, the U.S. has less upward mobility than many other nations, including the British, the Canadians, and the Europeans, and the problem is getting worse. Even those societies that have a reputation for having stark class differences, and limited upward mobility, have more of it than we do. This, again, provides quite convincing evidence that the conservative philosophy on upward mobility is seriously flawed. Statistics, such as those in this article, show that people tend to remain in the socio-economic class they were born into. The wealthy remain wealthy. The poor remain poor. Only 8% of our citizens are able to move from the lowest quintile to the top quintile. The "rags to riches story," which is legion in conservative circles, represents a very small percent of the population. This substantiates that class differences, and socioeconomic status, have a lot to do with how "successful" one is, which supports the liberal argument that it's not all about, or even mostly about, working hard, making the right choices, and moving up in our society.

For more on this, please read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

What do you think, Yoda?

will.15

08-01-12, 05:50 PM

Is Mitt Romney going to ask for an apology from Obama for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk

Flimmaker1473

08-01-12, 06:02 PM

Is Mitt Romney going to ask for an apology from Obama for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk
Part of me wonders why Mitt Romney is even running for president. This guy makes more money than Barack does (last time I checked it was $200,000 a year to be President). He just wants what any rich person does: power. It is almost as bad as if Donald Trump actually was going to run for president.

Funny thing is he has no real chance of winning. I am a Obama Supporter and I think he has been a decent president considering the mess that George W. Bush left it in. But I also think he should have done more than what he has. But if Romney were to become president I am going to Canada.

Yoda

08-01-12, 06:05 PM

Uh-huh, it is those awful Democrats who are being unfairly mean to poor billionaire Mitt Romney, and he and his fellow Republicans are not hitting back.
Well, first, he's not a billionaire. And your sarcasm is inane, because Mitt Romney being wealthy has literally nothing to do with whether or not he's being treated fairly.

They do hit back, but they are clumsier at it, and everything they try to come up with is old stuff Republicans used four years ago because there is nothing new to hit Obama with.
You mean other than the things he's done as President? Because that's what they spend the overwhelming majority of the time talking about.

Mitt Romney's most obstinate surrogate John Sununu (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/ladies-and-gentleman-john-sununu-128553.html) is slamming the Obama campaign for its use of the word "felon" while alleging that Chicago politicians may be deserving of the very same charge.
"This is a really dumb White House and a dumb campaign," Sununu said on Fox News this morning. "For them to use the word 'felon' into the discoure reminds people that the president came out of that murky soup of politics in Illinois where, as I've said before, 'politician' and 'felon' are almost synonymous.”
Yeah, see, this is another thing: Democrats want to compare actual campaign ads and the Leader of the United State Senate to, say, Romney surrogate speaking off the cuff, which is a false equivalence for a number of reasons (without even getting into the fact that he apologized (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/sununu-apologizes-for-obama-remarks-129263.html)).

Should Reid aplogize? Yes, because he had no evidnce no taxes were paid.
How about for the father comment? That sounds like a really low blow.

But, again, Romney is bringing this on himself because he refuses to do what all previous candidates in recent years have done, release past tax returns.
Nyet. Not releasing your tax returns doesn't mean you "bring it on yourself" when people make accusations without evidence.

Why? There must be something there he doesn't want us to see.
I'm sure you employed this same logic when it took Obama as long as it did to release his long-form birth certificate, right? Or maybe politicians don't like jumping through every hoop their crazy opponents order them to jump through.

There are plenty of boring reasons Romney wouldn't want to release more tax returns. Ridiculously, people like to make his wealth some kind of negative, so any hard detailing of what that wealth looks like can be manipulated and churned through for a few news cycles.

Yoda

08-01-12, 06:08 PM

Is Mitt Romney going to ask for an apology from Obama for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk
He should; the outsourcing stuff is false (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/). It's also economically ignorant, and, given that some of the stimulus money went overseas, hypocritical to boot. It's probably the least defensible attack they've lobbed at Romney so far.

I look forward to you trying to ignore all of these arguments with a really biting, sarcastic remark about how rich he is.

Yoda

08-01-12, 06:21 PM

There is a lot of emerging evidence that upward mobility in the U.S. is declining. Contrary to popular belief that we are a mostly classless society, and that everyone has an opportunity to succeed if they work hard and make good choices, the evidence is showing that there's a whole lot more to it than that. The idea that if you work hard and make good choices you can and likely will rise above your station in life is one of the foundations of conservatism. Although this may be true in a select few cases, and does have some merit as an idea, the notion that this is likely, or even possible, for many Americans, is a fallacy. Emerging research is showing that far from being a classless society, the U.S. has less upward mobility than many other nations, including the British, the Canadians, and the Europeans, and the problem is getting worse.
You're claiming far more than the link shows. For example, you're taking a relatively modest fact--that upward mobility isn't as high as in some other places--and blowing it up into "it's not even possible for many Americans to rise above their station." That's not what the data say.

Another problem is that upward mobility is completely relative. If all of our objective wealth instantly doubled, nobody would actually "improve" according to that measure, because it's only about your income (not even wealth, just income) relative to others in your country. Given the total wealth and standard of living in America, this information might cause you to conclude that higher income mobility is as much as a product of lower total wealth as anything else. It's easier to get to "the top" when "the top" is lower. But it ceases to be as valuable to do so.

This is a theme that comes up in ideological arguments again and again: are you for having more, or having more than the next guy? Is it more important that people get wealthier, or that they get wealthier faster than the people above them?

Even those societies that have a reputation for having stark class differences, and limited upward mobility, have more of it than we do. This, again, provides quite convincing evidence that the conservative philosophy on upward mobility is seriously flawed.
I think that would depend on what you think the "conservative philosophy" is. So far you've implied that it says everyone has complete control over their own level of success, so forgive me if I ask you define this more explicitly.

Also, even if upward mobility is lower here, it doesn't follow that our situations improve when government tries to rectify it for us. That's another leap between data and claim.

Statistics, such as those in this article, show that people tend to remain in the socio-economic class they were born into. The wealthy remain wealthy. The poor remain poor. Only 8% of our citizens are able to move from the lowest quintile to the top quintile.
"Only"? That's a jump from the very bottom to the very top! How high should that number be, do you think? I'm shocked it's that high.

A simple question: how are these statistics not completely consistent with the idea that people in longer income brackets do not strive sufficiently to reach higher levels? I'm not suggesting this is the case, but everything you've cited fits equally as well with that idea as it does with the idea that the deck is stacked against them.

And while I'm not going to be a stickler about every little point, I would like to hear your thoughts in response to some of the other things I asked. Specifically, the questions about what the primary determinant of success actually is, and about Obama referring to "roads and bridges" even though the wealthy already pay for infrastructure.

will.15

08-01-12, 06:49 PM

Well, no, he's not a billionaire. And your sarcasm is inane, because Mitt Romney being wealthy has literally nothing to do with whether or not he's being treated fairly.

Okay, he is not a billionaire, and, yes, his wealth is an issue here because he has plenty of money and plenty of money from billionaire backers to defend himself, and so far he is doing a piss poor job of it. If you are unfairly attacked, explain why the attacks are unfair, and oh, he is not doing a very good job doing that, is he, because the attacks are based on substantive things like overseas tax havens and a record at Bain involving making money while the companies he bought were bled dry with high management fees and driven into bankruptcy.

You mean other than the things he's done as President? Because that's what they spend the overwhelming majority of the time talking about.

And four years ago he wasn't president and it was about if he was born in Hawaii, what church he went to, whose house house he had dinner at, and stuff like that.

The Bain controversy is more relevant than any of the personal stuff Republicans dredged up four years ago against Obama because Romney has not been running on his record as Governor, but his experience in the private sector, he says he will bring that experience and ability to the White House if he is elected, so it is perfectly legitimate to make that a campaign issue.

Yeah, see, this is another thing: Democrats want to compare actual campaign ads and the Leader of the United State Senate to, say, Romney surrogates, which is a false equivalence.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Harry Reid speaks for Harry Reid, he is not on Obama's campaign staff. Sununu is a spokesman for Romney, that is what a surrogate is.

How about for the father comment? That sounds like a really low blow.

Maybe he should apologize for that too, although I haven't heard the comments so the context may matter. It depends on what he said he would be ashamed of him for.

Nyet. Not releasing your tax returns doesn't mean you "bring it on yourself" when people make accusations without evidence.

He brought it on himself because he made his tax returns an issue. Why doesn't he want to release his returns? All other candidates do it routinely. It is wrong to make accusations without evidence. But if Reid had said instead, " Why won't he release his tax returns? Maybe he didn't pay any taxes." That would have been okay, he is just asking a question, he is not repeating a flimsy rumor.

I'm sure you employed this same logic when it took Obama as long as it did to release his long-form birth certificate, right? Or maybe politicians don't like jumping through every hoop their crazy opponents order them to jump through.

It isn't routine for candidates to release their long-form birth certificate, which still hasn't satisfied the crazies like that nutty sheriff. This is a legitimate issue, the unreleased tax returns, that wasn't, because Hawaii already affirmed he was born there.

There are plenty of boring reasons Romney wouldn't want to release more tax returns. Ridiculously, people like to make his wealth some kind of negative, so any hard detailing of what that wealth looks like can be manipulated and churned through for a few news cycles.
Well, the only thing people cared about on his last tax returns was the tax havens and the speculation has been he used to have more of his money overseas and he transferred much of it over here when he decided to run again. I suspect that is more likely than one of your boring reasons.

will.15

08-01-12, 07:03 PM

He should; the outsourcing stuff is false (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/). It's also economically ignorant, and, given that some of the stimulus money went overseas, hypocritical to boot. It's probably the least defensible attack they've lobbed at Romney so far.

I look forward to you trying to ignore all of these arguments with a really biting, sarcastic remark about how rich he is.
When did he leave Bain? He was still listed as working there when the outsourcing happened. Was he completely out of the loop as he claims or was he still being consulted as he was still an officer in the company? The people he put in place, his team, were responsible for those decisions.

There is a big difference in some of the stimulus money going overseas and shipping jobs overseas and investing in companies that specialize in it.

Yoda

08-01-12, 07:12 PM

Okay, he is not a billionaire, and, yes, his wealth is an issue here because he has plenty of money and plenty of money from billionaire backers to defend himself, and so far he is doing a piss poor job of it.
Irrelevant. Whether or not he's able to defend himself doesn't have anything to do with whether or not some of the attacks are fair. That's like saying it's okay to punch someone in the face because they're a pretty good boxer.

If your only response to this stuff is to sarcastically point out that Romney is wealthy, then you don't have a substantive response.

If you are unfairly attacked, explain why the attacks are unfair, and oh, he is not doing a very good job doing that, is he, because the attacks are based on substantive things like overseas tax havens and a record at Bain involving making money while the companies he bought were bled dry with high management fees and driven into bankruptcy.
I don't know if he's doing a good job or not, but I know neither you nor the Obama administration can actually defend them properly. And definitely not in a way that won't be contradicted by their own stimulus policies. And they sure as hell aren't "substantive." You've got to be pretty mixed up to think this sort of thing is substantive when we've got 8+ percent unemployment and trillion dollar deficits.

I said it before, and I'm going to say it again: this entire line of attack preys on people's ignorance about private equity. It is ruthlessly ignorant about both finance and economics, and cynically exploits people's ignorance of both. I can refer you to the last round of posts on this matter if you need a refresher.

And four years ago he wasn't president and it was about if he was born in Hawaii, what church he went to, whose house house he had dinner at, and stuff like that.
It was a fundraiser, not dinner. His first fundraiser, I believe. I have to know: do you deliberately try to shift these sorts of things to something more flattering and hope people won't notice? Or does your mind just do it automatically/without you realizing? Honest question. Because it happens a lot, and always in the one direction.

The Bain controversy is more relevant than any of the personal stuff Republicans dredged up four years ago against Obama because Romney has not been running on his record as Governor, but his experience in the private sector, he says he will bring that experience and ability to the White House if he is elected, so it is perfectly legitimate to make that a campaign issue.
This is sloppy reasoning. Running on your business record makes it fair game to critique that record. That doesn't mean that any critique made in any way is automatically fair game. Obama's outsourcing attacks are flat-out false, and even the technically accurate things are nowhere near "substantive." The first ad they ran in heavy rotation was almost entirely workers talking about how Romney seemed, or walked, or acted. There is no conception of the word under which this has been a substantive attack.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Harry Reid speaks for Harry Reid, he is not on Obama's campaign staff. Sununu is a spokesman for Romney, that is what a surrogate is.
I was referring to the campaign ads. And the leader of the Senate is more significant than a campaign surrogate. Not to mention that Sununu was responding in kind to the campaign's charge (and still walked it back), and Reid was just spouting off completely unprovoked.

Also, you didn't answer my question, though I asked it twice: what about the comment about his father? How is that not a cheap shot?

He brought it on yourself because he made his tax returns an issue. Why doesn't he want to release his returns? All other candidates do it routinely. It is wrong to make accusations without evidence. But if Reid had said instead, " Why won't he release his tax returns? Maybe he didn't pay any taxes." That would have been okay, he is just asking a question, he is not repeating a flimsy rumor.
I already answered this: "bringing it on yourself" implies responsibility. Not releasing tax returns does not give people license to speculate randomly about them without evidence. You can say he has the power to end it, but he did not "bring it on himself."

And while your hypothetical Reid statement (which is irrelevant, because it's not what he said) would be better, it wouldn't be much better. Putting "maybe" in front of a serious accusation doesn't make it a question, especially in a campaign.

It isn't routine for candidates to release their long-form birth certificate, which still hasn't satisfied the crazies like that nutty sheriff. This is a legitimate issue, the unreleased tax returns, that wasn't, because Hawaii already affirmed he was born there.
So you're saying the birth certificate issue was legitimate during the 2008 campaign, before he'd released any birth certificate (not just the long-form one)?

Well, the only thing people cared about on his last tax returns was the tax havens and the speculation has been he used to have more of his money overseas and he transferred much of it over here when he decided to run again. I suspect that is more likely than one of your boring reasons.
That would, in fact, be a boring reason, at least to people who aren't deeply cynical and/or ignorant about economics and finance.

The point being, there's all sorts of relatively unimportant stuff that people could still cheaply exploit. And God knows the Obama campaign has shown that they're willing to cheaply exploit this stuff so far.

AKA23

08-01-12, 07:15 PM

True or false: the majority of the time, each person is the primary determinant in their success or failure in life.

False. The individual, by making good choices, and working hard, is able to influence to some degree their success in life. If you make bad choices, by becoming a drug addict, or not graduating from high school, or being unwilling to work hard, you will not have a good life. This is within your control. The data shows that a lot of people that don't make any of these choices, however, are poor. They work hard, they try to do what they can, but they are not successful. They are not able to rise above their station in life. For these reasons, I would say that the primary determinant of success is your class and family background, not your individual personal characteristics, and like this article shows, there is a lot of evidence to back that up.

An example of this evidence is this, which is from the article I referenced earlier:

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

The top stay at, or near the top. The bottom stay at, or near, the bottom. It couldn't be clearer that socio-economic differences are one of the most important factors for someone's success in life. The conservative ethic is that everyone, or most people, if they make the right choices, will succeed in life. That is the basis of the "American dream." It was what our country was founded upon. It is, however, not actually true. When 65% of those born at the bottom stay at or near the bottom, it's pretty clear that this is a myth more than a fact. When 65% of the people at the top, stay at the top, it can't be all down to them working harder and being better citizens than everyone else. It can't be because they're smarter. It can't be just because they made better choices. Surely, you can see that.

As for the infrastructure issue, Obama's comments were designed to highlight this larger disparity. Infrastructure is a proxy for these other issues. While this may not be immediately obvious from these particular sentences, this is a larger theme, popularized by liberals, that Obama has spoken about. The idea is that if you are successful, you are successful in large measure due to factors other than your personal characteristics. In many cases, these are factors beyond your control. Infrastructure is an example of the larger issue, that there are a lot of things that wealthy people benefit from, and that contribute to their success, that they either do not acknowledge at all or significantly minimize their impact. In order to finance programs that are going to help everyone to be more successful, and minimize the importance of these class differences, somebody has to pay for these programs, somebody has to pay to provide the kinds of things that can help others, who were not so lucky, to get ahead. The best people to provide the source for these social improvements are the people who have the disposable income to do so. That is the wealthy.

Yoda

08-01-12, 07:17 PM

When did he leave Bain? He was still listed as working there when the outsourcing happened. Was he completely out of the loop as he claims or was he still being consulted as he was still an officer in the company? The people he put in place, his team, were responsible for those decisions.
He says 1999, and the Fact checkers seem to back him. He was running the Olympics at the time, too. And frankly, if he could still manage Bain while doing that, then we should just make him President right now, because that'd be freakin' incredible.

There is a big difference in some of the stimulus money going overseas and shipping jobs overseas and investing in companies that specialize in it.
Is there a big difference when the White House tries to defend that money going overseas by saying it benefits us economically here? And then refuses to explain how that doesn't contradict the substance of the campaign's argument by referring all such questions to the campaign?

Even your question is misleading, because some of the investments in question were about mere hiring overseas, not "shipping" them. Like hiring Chinese workers for a Chinese company they invested in. That's not "shipping jobs overseas" in any sense of the phrase.

Yoda

08-01-12, 07:35 PM

False. The individual, by making good choices, and working hard, is able to influence to some degree their success in life. If you make bad choices, by becoming a drug addict, or not graduating from high school, or being unwilling to work hard, you will not have a good life. This is within your control. The data shows that a lot of people that don't make any of these choices, however, are poor. They work hard, they try to do what they can, but they are not successful. They are not able to rise above their station in life. For these reasons, I would say that the primary determinant of success is your class and family background, not your individual personal characteristics, and like this article shows, there is a lot of evidence to back that up.
How do you make a distinction between "family background" and individual characteristics? If you're raised to be financially prudent and value education, is that an individual characteristic, or something you "inherited"?

An example of this evidence is this, which is from the article I referenced earlier:

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.
But again, you're coming to conclusions that the evidence does not actuallu support. Saying there is less income mobility tells us absolutely nothing about why this is, just that it is. How are you getting from the fact of lower income mobility to your claims about the cause? As I asked before, which of these statistics is inconsistent with the idea that lower income classes don't behave in a way conducive to upward mobility? I'm not even saying I believe this, but everything you cite is explained just as well by that belief as by yours.

The conservative ethic is that everyone, or most people, if they make the right choices, will succeed in life. That is the basis of the "American dream." It was what our country was founded upon. It is, however, not actually true. When 65% of those born at the bottom stay at or near the bottom, it's pretty clear that this is a myth more than a fact. When 65% of the people at the top, stay at the top, it can't be all down to them working harder and being better citizens than everyone else. It can't be because they're smarter. It can't be just because they made better choices. Surely, you can see that.
Same question I asked before: how do you measure success? Absolutely, or relatively? Because you seem to be defining success not in terms of what people have, but what they have compared to the next guy. And that's just bailing out a boat with a hole in it, because no matter how rich we all get, there will always be a "top fifth" and a "bottom fifth."

As I pointed out before, if everyone's wealth doubles instantly, the stats on "income mobility" wouldn't change at all. Yet it'd be a tremendous benefit for everyone, right? So why is income mobility the Holy Grail of economic policy?

As for the infrastructure issue, Obama's comments were designed to highlight this larger disparity. Infrastructure is a proxy for these other issues.
You're sure reading a lot into what look like very literal, straightforward comments to me. Do you actually believe this? Or is it more likely he just made a poor argument?

Infrastructure is an example of the larger issue, that there are a lot of things that wealthy people benefit from, and that contribute to their success, that they either do not acknowledge at all or significantly minimize their impact.
Alright. Like what?

ChuckDee

08-01-12, 07:57 PM

Obama vote here

will.15

08-01-12, 08:38 PM

Irrelevant. Whether or not he's able to defend himself doesn't have anything to do with whether or not some of the attacks are fair. That's like saying it's okay to punch someone in the face because they're a pretty good boxer.

If he can't defend himself against unfair attacks that are causing him problems, if he can't effectively explain why they are unfair, he has no business running. If the questions about him that come from the attacks remain, then maybe they are not unfair attacks.

If your only response to this stuff is to sarcastically point out that Romney is wealthy, then you don't have a substantive response.

Again, if you have the money to get your message out, if the reason you can't respond is your opponent has more money than you do, which, by the way, is what Mitt Romney did to Newt Gingrich, that is one thing. But Romney has the money and resources to respond, and the attacks don't go away and keep causing him problems. Because people see something in them; they don't seem baseless. They bring up issues that resonate with voters. The attacks are tied in to questions about Mitt Romney, and that comes from him, the attacks exploit his weaknesses, they are not air that came out of a vacuum. Romney wouldn't have the nomination now if he didn't have a lot more money than his opponents and didn't go in attack dog mode when one of the other guys were catching on. He isn't a little lamb. He is a tough player who ran plenty of ads that were perceived by his opponents to be unfair and distorted their record.

I don't know if he's doing a good job or not, but I know neither you nor the Obama administration can actually defend them properly. And definitely not in a way that won't be contradicted by their own stimulus policies. And they sure as hell aren't "substantive." You've got to be pretty mixed up to think this sort of thing is substantive when we've got 8+ percent unemployment and trillion dollar deficits.

Yes it is substantive because the issue isn't things are bad and could be better. It is can Romney as President do better? And Romney has been emphasizing his business background as a reason to vote for him. He actually threw out an inflated figure of jobs he created, which included jobs created at Bain long after he left. So we have typical double talking from Mitt Romney. He wants to take credit for jobs created after he left Bain, but doesn't want to take credit for jobs shipped overseas after he resigned.

I said it before, and I'm going to say it again: this entire line of attack preys on people's ignorance about private equity. It is ruthlessly ignorant about both finance and economics, and cynically exploits people's ignorance of both. I can refer you to the last round of posts on this matter if you need a refresher.

Well, that is your perception, it is based on people's ignorance. And you are entitled to think that. But the public makes the decision what is unfair, not you, and Romney has plenty of money to educate them about finance and economics.

It was a fundraiser, not dinner. His first fundraiser, I believe. I have to know: do you deliberately try to shift these sorts of things to something more flattering and hope people won't notice? Or does your mind just do it automatically/without you realizing? Honest question. Because it happens a lot, and always in the one direction.

It doesn't matter if he was just eating dinner with him or at a fundraiser. You think that is more important than what Romney did at Bain? People heard it all four years ago and they didn't care.

This is sloppy reasoning. Running on your business record makes it fair game to critique that record. That doesn't mean that any critique made in any way is automatically fair game. Obama's outsourcing attacks are flat-out false, and even the technically accurate things are nowhere near "substantive." The first ad they ran in heavy rotation was almost entirely workers talking about how Romney seemed, or walked, or acted. There is no conception of the word under which this has been a substantive attack.

They are not flat-out false, they may be misleading because it is not clear what role rOMNEY HAD IN bAIN AFTER HE RESIGNED TO MANAGE THE uTAH OLYMPICS, BUT WAS STILL AN OFFICER THERE. But because it was his management team it is not unreasonable to associate Bain's direction immediately after he left as a continuation of his policies. Was Romney critical of those decisions after he left? I haven't heard that, so I assume at the very least they had his tacit approval. How ordinary people who are unscripted talk in commercials, those are their feelings. From their perception, because the actions Bain took when under Romney's direction, they came to those conclusions. It is up to the viewer to decide if what they are saying is substantive or not. Personally, i don't much care what those characters say.

I was referring to the campaign ads. And the leader of the Senate is more significant than a campaign surrogate. Not to mention that Sununu was responding in kind to the campaign's charge (and still walked it back), and Reid was just spouting off completely unprovoked.

No, you weren't mainly referring to the campaign ads, although you mentioned them in that sentence, because this all started because you were reacting to what Harry Reid said. And the leader of the Senate is more significant as a Democrat Leader in the Senate, but he is not a spokeman for Obama, not working on his campaign staff, so he is not significant when discussing Obama's campaigign. If Mitt Romney wants to ask for an apology, he won't ask this time for it from Obama when a woman who worked for Obama said something Mitt Romney didn't like. He will have to ask Harry Reid directly.

Also, you didn't answer my question, though I asked it twice: what about the comment about his father? How is that not a cheap shot?

I did answer it. I don't know what he said, just what you said he said. YOU GIVE ME A COMPLETE QUOTE AND I WILL TELL YOU IF HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE OR NOT.

I already answered this: "bringing it on yourself" implies responsibility. Not releasing tax returns does not give people license to speculate randomly about them without evidence. You can say he has the power to end it, but he did not "bring it on himself."

Yes, he did. When you decide not to release something that is routinely released, it invites speculation you are hiding something.

And while your hypothetical Reid statement (which is irrelevant, because it's not what he said) would be better, it wouldn't be much better. Putting "maybe" in front of a serious accusation doesn't make it a question, especially in a campaign.

There wouldn't be any controversy if he worded it that way. But claiming somebody close to Romney who he wouldn't name told him that, that is what made it a news item.

So you're saying the birth certificate issue was legitimate during the 2008 campaign, before he'd released any birth certificate (not just the long-form one)?

I have no idea what your point here is. it was always a non issue in terms of relevancy, but because it wouldn't go away he released the long form.

That would, in fact, be a boring reason, at least to people who aren't deeply cynical and/or ignorant about economics and finance.

The point being, there's all sorts of relatively unimportant stuff that people could still cheaply exploit. And God knows the Obama campaign has shown that they're willing to cheaply exploit this stuff so far.
What could be there that is worse on previous tax returns than last year's returns? A lot of Republicans were urging Romney to release them so the controversy would go away. If it is truly boring, it will at best be a three day story. His refusal to do so under such pressure only increases the speculation he has something to hide that would not be so boring.

AKA23

08-01-12, 08:46 PM

How do you make a distinction between "family background" and individual characteristics? If you're raised to be financially prudent and value education, is that an individual characteristic, or something you "inherited"?

I think that these characteristics are in part personal, but they are largely due to socio-economic class and family background. If you grow up in a household which prizes education, that's as much cultural and socio-economic as it is an individual characteristic. What we value, what we don't, and our ethics in life are largely influenced by where we came from. My Dad, for example, is a physician. I have six physicians in my family, on both sides. I don't think you can compare my background, and the advantages that I had in life, to a poor black kid in the ghetto who didn't have anyone in his family, or many even in his community, go to college. Conservatives seem to believe that these things are largely individual choices, but in reality, it's a lot more complicated than that. Many of these things are rooted in class differences.

But again, you're coming to conclusions that the evidence does not actuallu support. Saying there is less income mobility tells us absolutely nothing about why this is, just that it is. How are you getting from the fact of lower income mobility to your claims about the cause? As I asked before, which of these statistics is inconsistent with the idea that lower income classes don't behave in a way conducive to upward mobility? I'm not even saying I believe this, but everything you cite is explained just as well by that belief as by yours.

Do you really believe that people who are wealthier as a class consistently choose to behave in ways that are conducive to upward mobility, and that the evidence indicates that the poor don't? That's very similar to saying that people who are wealthy simply have better values. They make better choices. They work harder. They are more intelligent. Do you really believe that? If you don't, why are you making this argument, because these inferences are not too far away from this position that you're outlining. If you don't believe that, what do you think accounts for these differences? Why do 65% of the wealthy remain wealthy, and the 65% of the poor, remain poor?

Same question I asked before: how do you measure success? Absolutely, or relatively? Because you seem to be defining success not in terms of what people have, but what they have compared to the next guy. And that's just bailing out a boat with a hole in it, because no matter how rich we all get, there will always be a "top fifth" and a "bottom fifth."

I think both are important, but this comparison is a little disingenuous. This claim intimates that the top fifth are doing just fine, and they are growing proportionally to the wealthy, but the facts just don't bear this out. In the past 30 years, the income of the wealthiest grew by 275%. The income of the bottom income sector grew by 18%. Whether you measure economic growth in a relative or absolute sense, it's pretty much the same, although if you are interested, social science research shows that relative income is much more important to a person's satisfaction and happiness in life than absolute income. If you have a choice, it's much better for you to be doing better than your peers, rather than worse. If you are given a choice between the two, relative income is more important. This belies an important point, though, which is this: The wealthy keep getting wealthier. The poor keep getting poorer. Why do you think this is? Do you really believe the wealthiest are working 275% harder or are 275% smarter or have 275% better values than the poorest among us? That would be the only explanation for this being a result of individual, personal differences, rather than class-based, socio-economic ones.

You're sure reading a lot into what look like very literal, straightforward comments to me. Do you actually believe this? Or is it more likely he just made a poor argument?

I believe in the argument, and I think Obama believes in the argument too. Whether he articulated it well or not in that speech, no, I don't think that he did.

Alright. Like what?

The profound effects of economic inequality, and class differences, on the ability of someone to become successful in life, and the degree to which those differences advantage the wealthy to maintain their wealth and cause the poor to continue to remain poor. This is pretty basic stuff. Surely, you know this, yes? So, why are you pretending that you don't?

will.15

08-01-12, 10:46 PM

Oh, and Sununu didn't really apologize, he walked back from some of the comments, saying what he meant was...

But he didn't apoligize in any way for the comments I quoted him on. He was most criticized for the other comments, what I quoted I thought was worse, he didn't apologize for them in the least.

And this notion you have Romney has only criticized Obama for the economy. They have been doing the same thing you accuse Obama and his campaign of doing, throwing the pancake up to see what will stick to the ceiling. But what they have been coming up with, accusing Obama of cronyism, hasn't caught the public fancy the way the Romney attacks have. We have seen all this before, but usually it is Republicans that are throwing the bombs, against Kerry and Dukakis and Clinton, but I guess you only get upset when a Republican is getting zinged.

Yoda

08-01-12, 11:03 PM

If he can't defend himself against unfair attacks that are causing him problems, if he can't effectively explain why they are unfair, he has no business running. If the questions about him that come from the attacks remain, then maybe they are not unfair attacks.
Yeah, first off, you're completely ignoring my point. Like, completely. Your comments about Romney's wealth and ability to defend himself in no way, shape, or form, demonstrate that they are fair or reasonable. I keep saying this, and you keep saying...stuff that doesn't answer it in any way. So I'll point out one more time that you response of "boo hoo the poor millionaire" was incredibly vapid.

Second, the claim that somebody has "no business running" if they can't parry every attack is bizarre. Sometimes, cheap tactics and superficial arguments work. That doesn't mean they aren't cheap and superficial. In fact, those last two sentences serve as an adequate reply to 90% of what you're posting right now.

Again, if you have the money to get your message out, if the reason you can't respond is your opponent has more money than you do, which, by the way, is what Mitt Romney did to Newt Gingrich, that is one thing. But Romney has the money and resources to respond, and the attacks don't go away and keep causing him problems. Because people see something in them; they don't seem baseless. They bring up issues that resonate with voters. The attacks are tied in to questions about Mitt Romney, and that comes from him, the attacks exploit his weaknesses, they are not air that came out of a vacuum. Romney wouldn't have the nomination now if he didn't have a lot more money than his opponents and didn't go in attack dog mode when one of the other guys were catching on. He isn't a little lamb. He is a tough player who ran plenty of ads that were perceived by his opponents to be unfair and distorted their record.
Yeah, I've noticed that when you're asked to defend something cheap or ignorant, you like to fall back on "well, the voters will decide that." So I've just started taking that as code for "I can't actually defend that but don't want to condemn it."

Yes it is substantive because the issue isn't things are bad and could be better. It is can Romney as President do better? And Romney has been emphasizing his business background as a reason to vote for him. He actually threw out an inflated figure of jobs he created, which included jobs created at Bain long after he left. So we have typical double talking from Mitt Romney. He wants to take credit for jobs created after he left Bain, but doesn't want to take credit for jobs shipped overseas after he resigned.
Except that actually makes sense; you get credit for starting or saving a business because that's a general thing that makes its future possible. But the specific decision to outsource is not an intrinsic part of that business the way its creation was. It's pretty simple.

Also, as I mentioned before, the commercial isn't just wrong about the dates; it's also wrong about what it calls "outsourcing." It uses the term "outsourcing" to refer to jobs that were never here to begin with. There is no angle from which this is defensible. The ad is flat-out wrong. Misleading is the nicest possible word you could use to describe it.

Well, that is your perception, it is based on people's ignorance. And you are entitled to think that. But the public makes the decision what is unfair, not you, and Romney has plenty of money to educate them about finance and economics.
Ding! "The public makes the decision." Everyone do a shot.

And sorry, but there's lots of money pushing that ignorance on the other side. It's not possible to fight it back completely, or even in general, if people are intellectually lazy about these issues. That doesn't make it legitimate, or substantive. Just effective. So unless your position is that everything that works is therefore a good, high-minded, relevant campaign issue (is it?), then all these vox populi handwaves fall flat.

They are not flat-out false, they may be misleading because it is not clear what role rOMNEY HAD IN bAIN AFTER HE RESIGNED TO MANAGE THE uTAH OLYMPICS, BUT WAS STILL AN OFFICER THERE. But because it was his management team it is not unreasonable to associate Bain's direction immediately after he left as a continuation of his policies. Was Romney critical of those decisions after he left? I haven't heard that, so I assume at the very least they had his tacit approval.
Some of these decisions were years later. Do you actually have any idea what Bain's "management team" looked like at that point, or are you just guessing? Also, I'm guessing the Obama campaign wouldn't have put an ad out if it had to be based on "tacit approval" after the fact. Without bending the truth (to put it nicely), there's no ad.

How ordinary people who are unscripted talk in commercials, those are their feelings. From their perception, because the actions Bain took when under Romney's direction, they came to those conclusions.
Uh, you know they don't film campaign commercials by leaving a camera on and walking away and letting people say whatever they want, right? They decide what type of ad to air, pick people, sometimes write a script, and then edit it a certain way. The content of the ad is not just chosen, it's crafted meticulously.

It is up to the viewer to decide if what they are saying is substantive or not. Personally, i don't much care what those characters say.
Up to the viewer! Drink!

I did answer it. I don't know what he said, just what you said he said. YOU GIVE ME A COMPLETE QUOTE AND I WILL TELL YOU IF HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE OR NOT.
“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Yes, he did. When you decide not to release something that is routinely released, it invites speculation you are hiding something.
Do you really not understand the difference between inviting speculation and "bringing it upon yourself"? The latter implies responsibility or wrongdoing.

I have no idea what your point here is. it was always a non issue in terms of relevancy, but because it wouldn't go away he released the long form.
My point is that Obama hesitated to release his birth certificate initially, even though there was nothing to hide in it. So the mere fact that a politician doesn't jump through some hoop doesn't mean there's something lurking there. If you had applied the same reasoning to Obama's situation as you have to Romney's, you'd have been wrongly suspicious of him. But I'm guessing you weren't, because this is a post hoc rationalization.

What could be there that is worse on previous tax returns than last year's returns? A lot of Republicans were urging Romney to release them so the controversy would go away. If it is truly boring, it will at best be a three day story. His refusal to do so under such pressure only increases the speculation he has something to hide that would not be so boring.
As I keep saying, there are a lot of very cynical ways to make relatively benign financial details look sinister. Look at the ads they're already running. They make outsourcing sound like treason.

will.15

08-01-12, 11:25 PM

Amother example of how Romney's ads are all fair and high-minded:

Posted at 08:39 AM ET, 07/19/2012 TheWashingtonPost The Morning Plum: Romney video deceptively edits Obama speech to make it sound anti-business

By Greg Sargent (http://www.movieforums.com/greg-sargent/2011/02/24/ABvj85M_page.html)

So here’s where this is going. The Romney campaign is out with a new Web video hitting Obama over the “don’t build that” quote (http://www.mittromney.com/forms/these-hands0). It features a business owner who is angry at Obama for supposedly insulting his hard work. “My hands didn’t build this company?” the man asks. “Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it?”
But the video deceptively edits Obama’s remarks to seamlessly link up two different parts of the speech, removing a chunk in order to make Obama’s remarks seem far worse than they are. Here is how Obama’s speech — which you hear in the background while pictures of the man driving flash on the screen — is represented in the video:
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. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.In the video, the speech is made to sound as if Obama continued straight from “let me tell you something” to “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” But here are the words that Obama said between those two sentences that were cut out (the missing sentences are in bold):
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. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.Romney supporters will respond that the parts of the speech that were included in the Web video are objectionable on their own. I don’t agree with that, but it’s a debatable point. However, there is no question that this edit is highly misleading. It deliberately removes multiple sentences about the broader theme of Obama’s speech that preceded the “you didn’t build that” quote in order to deprive it of its actual meaning as Obama plainly intended it. And it creates the false impression of a seamless transition from the first sentences about successful business people into the key line about them — a recontextualization that turns it into a direct insult.
This line is going to be a major target for the Romney campaign — similar to Obama’s 2008 remark about spreading the wealth — but in order to have maximum political value, it needs to be removed from context in a highly misleading way, which the Romney camp is happy to do. Don’t be surprised if this line is up in ads in the swing states within days, edited in just this fashion. If the larger context is supposedly no help to Obama, as Romney backers insist, then why the need to edit the quote this way?

Yoda

08-01-12, 11:36 PM

I think that these characteristics are in part personal, but they are largely due to socio-economic class and family background. If you grow up in a household which prizes education, that's as much cultural and socio-economic as it is an individual characteristic. What we value, what we don't, and our ethics in life are largely influenced by where we came from. My Dad, for example, is a physician. I have six physicians in my family, on both sides. I don't think you can compare my background, and the advantages that I had in life, to a poor black kid in the ghetto who didn't have anyone in his family, or many even in his community, go to college. Conservatives seem to believe that these things are largely individual choices, but in reality, it's a lot more complicated than that. Many of these things are rooted in class differences.
I feel you answered my question in a literal sense, but might have missed what I was getting at. You keep suggesting that people can't help their station in life when they start, and that it largely determines where they're going to end up. It's easy to imagine things that might make this true, like health problems, abuse, etc. But things like having the value of education or hard work instilled in you are different, because there's literally nothing stopping anyone from figuring that out, or from taking it upon themselves to do it. It obviously helps tremendously to be taught that, but there is no tangible barrier to it, either.

You don't have to explain to me, for example, the difference between someone whose parts put them up in a good college, and someone who has to make their own way. That's an obvious difference. But that's a measurable, material difference that no amount of ingenuity or diligence can completely erase. But if you decide that even the attitude people take towards work, education, and life, is something they "inherit," you've removed personal initiative completely. If you discount people's ability to look around and see what works and try to emulate it, then you're basically treating them like automatons who just play whatever hand they're dealt and have no real say in their future.

Do you really believe that people who are wealthier as a class consistently choose to behave in ways that are conducive to upward mobility, and that the evidence indicates that the poor don't? That's very similar to saying that people who are wealthy simply have better values. They make better choices. They work harder. They are more intelligent. Do you really believe that? If you don't, why are you making this argument, because these inferences are not too far away from this position that you're outlining.
Well, first off, I'm making the argument to show you how the evidence you're providing doesn't actually entitle you to draw the conclusions you're drawing. The evidence is equally as consistent with a completely different conclusion.

But to answer your question: yes, they absolutely make better choices. We can argue about why, and how much you want to credit or blame each side, but I don't think that's a very controversial idea. I've lived in poor neighborhoods most of my life (I live in one right now, too), and I've seen numerous examples of it. Most of the mistakes are understandable, but almost all of them are avoidable. I can elaborate on this, but the hoary old cliches about what people are not willing to go without are pretty accurate, in my experience. Few people are really, genuinely frugal.

If you don't believe that, what do you think accounts for these differences? Why do 65% of the wealthy remain wealthy, and the 65% of the poor, remain poor
I'd need to know a bit more about the statistics to answer this, because if "the wealthy" includes all wealthy people, then it's obvious, isn't it? If you have the habits and skills that help you become wealthy in the first place, those are probably going to help you stay wealthy.

I think both are important, but this comparison is a little disingenuous. This claim intimates that the top fifth are doing just fine, and they are growing proportionally to the wealthy, but the facts just don't bear this out.
You're actually getting ahead of the point I'm making. I'm pointing out that relative wealthy is a really crappy way to measure success. By definition, no matter how wealthy we get, there will always be a "bottom fifth." So its mere existence doesn't tell us much of anything.

In the past 30 years, the income of the wealthiest grew by 275%. The income of the bottom income sector grew by 18%. Whether you measure economic growth in a relative or absolute sense, it's pretty much the same
That's not the same at all! You're telling me that everyone got richer, but rich people got richer faster. That's a hugely significant distinction. It means that one generation's middle class is the previous generation's rich, and so on.

although if you are interested, social science research shows that relative income is much more important to a person's satisfaction and happiness in life than absolute income. If you have a choice, it's much better for you to be doing better than your peers, rather than worse. If you are given a choice between the two, relative income is more important.
Let's assume this is what the social research says. Do you think this is fair, or rational? You're basically telling me that it's better for everyone to get $1 than for one guy to get $2 and the other $5. But in that scenario everyone has less than they otherwise would have. That just sounds like envy to me. And we shouldn't be making policy based on it.

This belies an important point, though, which is this: The wealthy keep getting wealthier. The poor keep getting poorer.
No they don't! You just said yourself they make 18% more than they used to! And while you didn't say what statistic, specifically, you were using, I'll bet it wasn't even real wages, because those have probably grown even more. That's another thing upward mobility fails to take into account.

Why do you think this is? Do you really believe the wealthiest are working 275% harder or are 275% smarter or have 275% better values than the poorest among us? That would be the only explanation for this being a result of individual, personal differences, rather than class-based, socio-economic ones.
I think they provide 275% more value to other people, either through investments, products, services, or some combination.

And I'd like to point out that, when people use the phrase "work harder" in discussions about income equality, they usually make the mistake of equating work with effort. I could go out into a random field and start crushing rocks with a hammer, and I'd probably be working about as hard as anyone else in the nation. I'd be making lots of effort. But I wouldn't be providing any value to anyone, so I'll make a lot less than someone sitting in a nice air-conditioned room typing, even though I'm ostensibly "working harder." And as a web programmer, let me tell you, a lot of work isn't physical and isn't about sheer effort. As an aspiring lawyer, you already know this, I'm sure. Work is about providing value to other people somehow.

So I'll turn the question around and ask you: how do you think they're getting that 275%? Are they stealing it? Tricking people? Or providing value? And if they're providing value commensurate with that figure, then why would it perturb you?

The profound effects of economic inequality, and class differences, on the ability of someone to become successful in life, and the degree to which those differences advantage the wealthy to maintain their wealth and cause the poor to continue to remain poor. This is pretty basic stuff. Surely, you know this, yes? So, why are you pretending that you don't?
No no, I wasn't asking you about the vague effects of being in a lower economic class. You said there are a "lot of things wealthy people benefit from." I'm asking you for specific examples of how people get ahead in life without necessarily deserving it. And, ideally, some evidence that these actually describe and account for a significant number of successful people.

Yoda

08-01-12, 11:38 PM

Amother example of how Romney's ads are all fair and high-minded:
I already addressed this with AKA. The ad isn't remotely misleading; the full context of the speech is, if anything, more damning from the perspective of playing down business owner's contributions to their success. Which the article you just posted mentions, even. Though I notice that, in its attempts to provide "context," it actually leaves out the other damning part. Ha. Context, indeed! But only a little more context. Not all of it...

But hey, maybe we should just let the "voters decide" if it's fair.

Yoda

08-01-12, 11:41 PM

More fun from Harry Reid (http://washingtonexaminer.com/reid-romney-is-guilty-of-tax-evasion-until-he-proves-hes-innocent/article/2503802?custom_click=rss):

Reid accused Romney of what amounts to tax fraud, but he doesn’t think he to provide evidence for the charge. “I don’t think the burden should be on me,” Reid told reporters on a conference call, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?”
Yeah! Doesn't he know the burden of proof is on the person being accused?

Once again, America: your Senate Majority Leader. You can't make this stuff up. Unless you're Harry Reid...then you can make up all sorts of stuff.

Powderfinger

08-01-12, 11:42 PM

Just to comment, it's going to be a classic when Mitt Romney & Tony Abbott are Leaders of U.S.A. & Australia....a tike (Catholic) & a Mormon...lol! Both religious nuts!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskOC8/SHInTejj83I/AAAAAAAALck/JYBas0JBNbs/s400/JohnMcCainBigLaugh.jpg

will.15

08-02-12, 12:30 AM

Yeah, first off, you're completely ignoring my point. Like, completely. Your comments about Romney's wealth and ability to defend himself in no way, shape, or form, demonstrate that they are fair or reasonable. I keep saying this, and you keep saying...stuff that doesn't answer it in any way. So I'll point out one more time that you response of "boo hoo the poor millionaire" was incredibly vapid.

I am not ignoring it. Your whole claim Romney is getting attacked unfairly (oh, and he is isn't swinging back the same way, which he has, but with less success). I am pointing out he haS THE MEANS TO RESPOND to ATTACKS WITH HIS FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM UNFAIR ATTACKS. IF HE IS HAVING DIFFICULTY, THEN MAYBE THEY ARE NOT UNFAIR ATTACKS.

Second, the claim that somebody has "no business running" if they can't parry every attack is bizarre. Sometimes, cheap tactics and superficial arguments work. That doesn't mean they aren't cheap and superficial. In fact, those last two sentences serve as an adequate reply to 90% of what you're posting right now.

NOT EVERY ATTACK. sOME HIT A THUD OUT OF THE STARTING GATE AND YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO THEM. BUT THOSE THAT ARE PERCEIVED TO BE EFFECTIVE, YOU BETTER RESPOND TO THEM AND QUICKLY.

Yeah, I've noticed that when you're asked to defend something cheap or ignorant, you like to fall back on "well, the voters will decide that." So I've just started taking that as code for "I can't actually defend that but don't want to condemn it."

Romney plays hard and dirty also. He isn't a choir boy and what you are calling "unfair" is weak tea really. It is extremely debatable they are unfair. It is the Romny camp, not from Obama, that we now have had two ads where they edit or misquote Obama to make it sound like he said something he didn't say. That is a much more deliberate distortion than the Bain ads, but you, as a voter, are not bothered by those ads and that is your right. The voters will decide which ads and information is relevant to them.

Except that actually makes sense; you get credit for starting or saving a business because that's a general thing that makes its future possible. But the specific decision to outsource is not an intrinsic part of that business the way its creation was. It's pretty simple.

You gotta be kidding. He was so criticized for the jobs creation credit number he stopped making it. You should write his speeches so he can say that and see how that goes over.

Also, as I mentioned before, the commercial isn't just wrong about the dates; it's also wrong about what it calls "outsourcing." It uses the term "outsourcing" to refer to jobs that were never here to begin with. There is no angle from which this is defensible. The ad is flat-out wrong. Misleading is the nicest possible word you could use to describe it.

But does it? Are you saying they didn't ship jobs overseas? My understanding it did happen at Bain financed companies. If your larger point is some of the jobs that were created in China were never here, nothing in the ad contradicts that.

Ding! "The public makes the decision." Everyone do a shot.

And sorry, but there's lots of money pushing that ignorance on the other side. It's not possible to fight it back completely, or even in general, if people are intellectually lazy about these issues. That doesn't make it legitimate, or substantive. Just effective. So unless your position is that everything that works is therefore a good, high-minded, relevant campaign issue (is it?), then all these vox populi handwaves fall flat.

Some of these decisions were years later. Do you actually have any idea what Bain's "management team" looked like at that point, or are you just guessing? Also, I'm guessing the Obama campaign wouldn't have put an ad out if it had to be based on "tacit approval" after the fact. Without bending the truth (to put it nicely), there's no ad.

Most of what they are talking about happened when Romney still had formal ties to the company, The question is how directly involved was he at the time. Was he completely out of the loop or was there some consultation?

EDIT:

Well, there is now evidence he didn't completely sever ties with Bain
when he claimed:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROMNEY_BAIN_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Uh, you know they don't film campaign commercials by leaving a camera on and walking away and letting people say whatever they want, right? They decide what type of ad to air, pick people, sometimes write a script, and then edit it a certain way. The content of the ad is not just chosen, it's crafted meticulously.

I don't believe those people were scripted, but certainly they pick the people they want and select the comments they want. They probably asked them off camera questions.

Up to the viewer! Drink!
“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.

Is it worse than the other comment? No, the other comment is worse. Even if the guy Reid spoke to was a Bain investor, how does he know what is on Romney's tax returns? That father comment is just stupid the way it is worded. His father is dead so how can he be embarrassed? Was Reid drinking when he gave that interview? A low blow? No, just stupid because who can take it seriously, but he should apologize for all the remarks in that interview and not do the Sununu dance.
Do you really not understand the difference between inviting speculation and "bringing it upon yourself"? The latter implies responsibility or wrongdoing.

By not releasing his tax returns it invites people to speculate why. He is not responsible for Reid saying what a Bain investor told him. But if he released them, none of this would be an issue, wondering what is on them. He brought the controversy on himself and without that you don't get Harry Reid making a jackass out of himself, who may look foolish, but did in his bumbling way highlight what a lot of people have been saying, including right wing talk show hosts, that maybe Romney didn't pay any taxes for certain years. The more popular number seems to be two years instead of ten, but where any of these numbers come from I have no idea.

My point is that Obama hesitated to release his birth certificate initially, even though there was nothing to hide in it. So the mere fact that a politician doesn't jump through some hoop doesn't mean there's something lurking there. If you had applied the same reasoning to Obama's situation as you have to Romney's, you'd have been wrongly suspicious of him. But I'm guessing you weren't, because this is a post hoc rationalization.

The difference is the Obama birth certificate was always a non issue because Hawaii certified he was born there. Only the right wing crazies were making a big deal about it. Releasing tax returns is something, as Reid pointed out, even Romney's father did when he ran for president. That was okay to say. Bringing up the ashamed part is where he went too far.

As I keep saying, there are a lot of very cynical ways to make relatively benign financial details look sinister. Look at the ads they're already running. They make outsourcing sound like treason.
And most political analysts, including Republicans, thought he should release them, take his lumps, and let it die and move on. But they don't know what is in those returns. Only Romney does.

Yoda

08-02-12, 01:24 PM

I am not ignoring it. Your whole claim Romney is getting attacked unfairly (oh, and he is isn't swinging back the same way, which he has, but with less success). I am pointing out he haS THE MEANS TO RESPOND to ATTACKS WITH HIS FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM UNFAIR ATTACKS. IF HE IS HAVING DIFFICULTY, THEN MAYBE THEY ARE NOT UNFAIR ATTACKS.
This isn't logically sound reasoning. Whether or not Romney is a fully competent campaigner has literally nothing to do with the substance of the attacks. Insofar as you keep repeating that he's able to hit back, then, yeah, you're ignoring that fact.

NOT EVERY ATTACK. sOME HIT A THUD OUT OF THE STARTING GATE AND YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO THEM. BUT THOSE THAT ARE PERCEIVED TO BE EFFECTIVE, YOU BETTER RESPOND TO THEM AND QUICKLY.
Romney plays hard and dirty also. He isn't a choir boy and what you are calling "unfair" is weak tea really. It is extremely debatable they are unfair. It is the Romny camp, not from Obama, that we now have had two ads where they edit or misquote Obama to make it sound like he said something he didn't say. That is a much more deliberate distortion than the Bain ads, but you, as a voter, are not bothered by those ads and that is your right. The voters will decide which ads and information is relevant to them.
What I'm getting at here is that delegating this question to "the voters" is another way of admitting there's no answer for it. It also implies that voters always focus on meaningful things, which we know isn't true.

True or false: some campaign attacks are cheap, cynical, exploitative, and superficial. True or false: somethings those attacks work anyway.

Unless you think something magically becomes substantive just because it works, then all this stuff about the voters deciding is a completely sidestepping of the argument. If your entire response is "it's debatable" and "people will decide for themselves," then there's no use in even responding.

But does it? Are you saying they didn't ship jobs overseas? My understanding it did happen at Bain financed companies. If your larger point is some of the jobs that were created in China were never here, nothing in the ad contradicts that.
Yes it does. That's what "outsourcing" is. It's jobs that were American being sent overseas.

Most of what they are talking about happened when Romney still had formal ties to the company, The question is how directly involved was he at the time. Was he completely out of the loop or was there some consultation?
Even if we assume there was "some consultation," where's the evidence that it was anything approaching decision-making about hiring? The ad is four steps removed from any actual evidence. It takes questionable dates, speculates about involvement even assuming those dates, and still misuses terms. It's been corrected by multiple fact check organizations. It's simply not a defensible ad.

I don't believe those people were scripted, but certainly they pick the people they want and select the comments they want. They probably asked them off camera questions.
Yup. Which means they deliberately wanted to make an ad about Romney's manner and personality. They're trying to portray him as weird and rich. What an important, high-minded debate.

And most political analysts, including Republicans, thought he should release them, take his lumps, and let it die and move on. But they don't know what is in those returns. Only Romney does.
Maybe he should release them. Maybe the plan is to let people work themselves into a huge lather and then look foolish when there's nothing in them. I'm quite open minded about what the right move is politically. But I know that, whether there's anything serious in there or not, it's going to be pounced on and cynically exploited, because apparently calling your opponent rich is apparently a campaign strategy now.

Look, we both know what's going on here. This is cheap, negative, campaigning and it's being very loose with the facts. It's highly personal because Obama can't dream of running on his actual record. If people could defend it, they would, but they can't. All they can do is sort of look the other way and say the voters will decide. As if anything the voters decide to care about automatically becomes substantive. Do you think voters are never duped by sideshow issues?

Yoda

08-02-12, 01:29 PM

More on the infrastructure question (http://washingtonexaminer.com/this-is-why-we-cant-build-that/article/2503752) (emphasis added):

In 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent of income earners earned 13.4 percent of income in the U.S., but paid 22.3 percent of all federal taxes. Given that the government collected $2.1 trillion of revenue in 2009, this would translate into roughly $468 billion in taxes paid by the top 1 percent. That same year, according to the CBO, the federal government spent $87 billion on transportation and water infrastructure. Put another way, the taxes paid by the top 1 percent in 2009 were more than five times what the federal government spent on infrastructure that year -- which includes some stimulus spending.
The "roads and bridges" part of the speech is absolute gibberish. So the selective context people keep wanting to ad (but remember, only a little context! Not the whole section!) would, at best, leave them to defend a completely nonsensical argument, anyway.

will.15

08-02-12, 01:38 PM

More on the infrastructure question (http://washingtonexaminer.com/this-is-why-we-cant-build-that/article/2503752) (emphasis added):

The "roads and bridges" part of the speech is absolute gibberish. So the selective context people keep wanting to ad (but remember, only a little context! Not the whole section!) would, at best, leave them to defend a completely nonsensical argument, anyway.
Which is my point, you don't think the ad as written is a baseles attack, Other people do, and based on the views of many observers the distortion has Obama saying something he didn't say, and your paragraph doesn't change that. It is not a rebuttel to his actual comment.

will.15

08-02-12, 02:46 PM

This isn't logically sound reasoning. Whether or not Romney is a fully competent campaigner has literally nothing to do with the substance of the attacks. Insofar as you keep repeating that he's able to hit back, then, yeah, you're ignoring that fact.

What I'm getting at here is that delegating this question to "the voters" is another way of admitting there's no answer for it. It also implies that voters always focus on meaningful things, which we know isn't true.

Again, you want to be the arbiter of what is a meaningless attack. I don't think the Bain attacks in general are meaningless. There may be specific comments that have been made that are, but when a candidate emphasizes his business background as a reason he is qualified to be President, it is not unreasonable for one side to present their case why that record has problems, and the other side can explain why it isn't. A flagrant lie is baseless, but interpreting facts or seeing it through a different ideological prism doesn't constitute a baseless attack.

True or false: some campaign attacks are cheap, cynical, exploitative, and superficial. True or false: somethings those attacks work anyway.

Usually, truly cheap shots don't work because the other side responds to counter them. When they can be effective is when one side has a lot more money to get their ads and message out, or the last minute cheap shot in the closing days of the campaign, and neither is relevant here.

Unless you think something magically becomes substantive just because it works, then all this stuff about the voters deciding is a completely sidestepping of the argument. If your entire response is "it's debatable" and "people will decide for themselves," then there's no use in even responding.

Well, yes, what you think are cheap shots, general Bain criticism, that is debatable. What Harry Reid did, saying someone he won't name made an accusation against Romney without backing it up, that is a cheap shot. But was it effective? No, it is accepted Reid went too far.

Yes it does. That's what "outsourcing" is. It's jobs that were American being sent overseas.

Are you understanding what I said? Under Bain there was actual outsourcing and also jobs that were created overseas that were not outsourced. So the ad is not misleading. It said jobs were ousourced to China under Bain and they were. I didn't go back to look at the ad, but i don't believe they came up with a specific jobs number, and if they didn't there is no distortion making that statement.

Even if we assume there was "some consultation," where's the evidence that it was anything approaching decision-making about hiring? The ad is four steps removed from any actual evidence. It takes questionable dates, speculates about involvement even assuming those dates, and still misuses terms. It's been corrected by multiple fact check organizations. It's simply not a defensible ad.

It means he knew what was going on, he didn't oppose the decisions the company was making. He was not out of the loop as he implied.

Fact check.org is the main reputable organization for saying the ads are misleading. They had a strict definition about defining the Romney years. They also found inaccurate Romney's claims he created all those jobs he was claiming. So if we use Romney's thinking, he certainly would be responsible for Bain's record shortly after he left (and he wanted to take credit for Bain's entire track record long after he departed). But this is new evidence, more proof he didn't completely sever ties with the company after he stepped down as chairman, so the earlier claims of inaccuracy don't matter. Fact Check will probably revisit the claims taking in account the new information and may come to a different conclusion or a revised one.

Yup. Which means they deliberately wanted to make an ad about Romney's manner and personality. They're trying to portray him as weird and rich. What an important, high-minded debate.

That is how you interpret it. ii is not the way I see it. It isn't about him being weird and rich. It is, according to these people, he didn't care what his decisions did to them, he was only interested in making money. There is nothing weird about making money. Now you may think that is unfair to Romney, but that is what those ads are saying.

Maybe he should release them. Maybe the plan is to let people work themselves into a huge lather and then look foolish when there's nothing in them. I'm quite open minded about what the right move is politically. But I know that, whether there's anything serious in there or not, it's going to be pounced on and cynically exploited, because apparently calling your opponent rich is apparently a campaign strategy now.

It always was. And Republicans do it also. Remember the hue and cry that Kerry's wife wouldn't release her tax returns? He released his, but she had investments separate from his because she married well before him. That wasn't coming from Democrats.

Look, we both know what's going on here. This is cheap, negative, campaigning and it's being very loose with the facts. It's highly personal because Obama can't dream of running on his actual record. If people could defend it, they would, but they can't. All they can do is sort of look the other way and say the voters will decide. As if anything the voters decide to care about automatically becomes substantive. Do you think voters are never duped by sideshow issues?
Is it negative? Sure, it is. But that is what presidential campaigns have become, extremely negative on both sides. Romney wouldn't have the nomination if he didn't attack his opponents in fierce terms in ads they didn't have the resources to counter with. And he goes negative against Obama also. Is it cheap? Most of it isn't. The Bain criticism overall is valid and best left to voters to decide if it matters to them. You want it to be all about Obama's record and the Obama campaign wants to make Romney's record as a businessman, which is how he is running, not on his moderate liberal record as governor, an issue as well.

AKA23

08-02-12, 07:23 PM

More fun from Harry Reid (http://washingtonexaminer.com/reid-romney-is-guilty-of-tax-evasion-until-he-proves-hes-innocent/article/2503802?custom_click=rss):

Yeah! Doesn't he know the burden of proof is on the person being accused?

Once again, America: your Senate Majority Leader. You can't make this stuff up. Unless you're Harry Reid...then you can make up all sorts of stuff.

I don't know what to think of this. Harry Reid is claiming that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years. My opinion would depend on whether Harry Reid got this information from a credible source. If this is someone that he knows and trusts, or he has been given some kind of evidence that leads him to have confidence in this source, I think it's a fair claim. On the other hand, if he got it from some random source, and he hasn't been given any kind of evidence to substantiate this claim from this unknown source, it seems unfair. So, before I can evaluate that, I'd need to know more. I do think that it is inappropriate to announce this claim, not provide the source, and not provide any kind of evidence for it. Whether it's a fair claim or not, I don't know. It very well could be. I find it hard to believe that the Senate Majority leader would blatantly lie about something this important, and there is clearly something inappropriate about Romney's tax returns that would be politically damaging. Common sense dictates that if there were nothing objectionable to be found, he would have already released his tax returns. The fact that he has not done so, in the face of so many telling him that he should, including prominent Republican leaders, leads me to believe that there must be something in them that could really harm his candidacy.

Yoda

08-02-12, 07:41 PM

Which is my point, you don't think the ad as written is a baseles attack, Other people do, and based on the views of many observers the distortion has Obama saying something he didn't say, and your paragraph doesn't change that. It is not a rebuttel to his actual comment.
He loses the argument either way. The context doesn't change the meaning (he's clearly denigrating the degree to which people are responsible for their success, and he's clearing pointing these things out to advocate taking more of their money), no matter what "many observers" say, and even if you decide to cherry pick your additional context, his argument is still nonsense on a factual level.

will.15

08-02-12, 08:47 PM

Here is what he actually said. What on earth is insulting and wrong about what he actually said? Republicans and Romney especially seized on one sentece out of context. To say to business owners you didn't build that bridge or road you use alone, goverment did, that is controversial? So it is pretty clear you only interpret attacks on Romney as unfair.

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, 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 because 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. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

I suppose what he should have said was you didn't build that on your own.But really, the surrounding comments makes clear what he is saying and the quote in the ad is a deliberate distortion. And, again, your rebuttal had nothing to do with the actual comments.

But if Romney thinks misquoting Obama is effective rebuttal against why he won't release previous tax returns and taking credit for all the jobs created at Bain after he left, but not the job losses, hey, fine.

Yoda

08-02-12, 08:51 PM

Again, you want to be the arbiter of what is a meaningless attack.
Uh, yeah. I have opinions about this, and I'm making arguments. Why on earth would you reply to the arguments just to tell me they're my opinion?

I am advancing arguments about what is and is not a meaningful attack. It seems to me your two options are to engage those arguments, or direct your attention elsewhere. The only thing that doesn't make sense is to engage them only to point out that they are, in fact, my arguments. I knew that already.

I don't think the Bain attacks in general are meaningless. There may be specific comments that have been made that are, but when a candidate emphasizes his business background as a reason he is qualified to be President, it is not unreasonable for one side to present their case why that record has problems, and the other side can explain why it isn't.
I don't have any problem with the mere fact that they're asking questions about Bain. Not at all. It's the way they're doing it that's the problem. And we're not getting a sprinkling of negativity or personal stuff mixed into a largely substantive campaign. It's pretty much all the cheap stuff.

Usually, truly cheap shots don't work because the other side responds to counter them. When they can be effective is when one side has a lot more money to get their ads and message out, or the last minute cheap shot in the closing days of the campaign, and neither is relevant here.
That's not what I asked. I asked you if there are such a thing as cheap shots. Sounds like you're agreeing that, yes, there are. Great.

Well, yes, what you think are cheap shots, general Bain criticism, that is debatable. What Harry Reid did, saying someone he won't name made an accusation against Romney without backing it up, that is a cheap shot. But was it effective? No, it is accepted Reid went too far.
Yeah, again, I'm not asking you to accept that the Bain stuff is cheap. I'm asking you to acknowledge that something being effective doesn't tell you whether or not it's cheap or superficial. Thus, "the voters will decide" is not a valid defense of anything. They will indeed decide, and sometimes they decide to care about superficial things. Therefore, what the voters decide tells us nothing about whether or not something is superficial. This is a pretty simple point.

Are you understanding what I said? Under Bain there was actual outsourcing and also jobs that were created overseas that were not outsourced. So the ad is not misleading. It said jobs were ousourced to China under Bain and they were. I didn't go back to look at the ad, but i don't believe they came up with a specific jobs number, and if they didn't there is no distortion making that statement.
No, it makes false statements either way. In the ad with the shot of the beach, it says he outsourced jobs to China and Mexico. Both are false in that Romney wasn't involved in either decision making process, but the China example is false even if you decide (sans any real evidence) that he was still genuinely running Bain until 2002, because it refers only to a small division of the company that was shut down altogether. The positions weren't moved overseas.

There's another ad that's much more specific that's just riddled with misleading assumptions. For example, they call something as benign as buying parts from foreign companies as "outsourcing," even though they're not moving any existing jobs overseas and there's no evidence that they started purchasing any more of these products after Bain took over than they had before they did.

Some claims are outright false, and all the rest lack sufficient evidence, which pretty much comes to the same thing. The nicest thing you could say about all this is that the whole campaign has been really, really sloppy, and extremely casual with the truth.

It means he knew what was going on, he didn't oppose the decisions the company was making. He was not out of the loop as he implied.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. The only thing we know is that he maintained a legal role. But there's absolutely no evidence that he was in a management role and made these decisions, and he was, what, over 2,000 miles away at the time, saving the Olympics? He's not obligated to oppose something to prove he doesn't support it, either.

They have no evidence and, therefore, no argument. If you can't defend accusations with evidence, you don't get to make them. It's as simple as that.

That is how you interpret it. ii is not the way I see it. It isn't about him being weird and rich. It is, according to these people, he didn't care what his decisions did to them, he was only interested in making money. There is nothing weird about making money. Now you may think that is unfair to Romney, but that is what those ads are saying.
Except that the word "weird" repeatedly showed up in interviews (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/calling-romney-weird-code-mormon/41022/) describing him in the early going. Eventually Politico got ahold of the story and Axelrod had to explicitly warn campaign staffers not to use it, but before that it was cropping up a lot. Obama's defenders are free to pretend this is coincidental if they want, I suppose.

Regardless, random workers talking about how Romney just wants to make money is not substance. Anyone is free to speculate about each candidate's psychological state or motives, but that's not evidence in any sense of the word. And though it's, of course, technically accurate that private equity firms exist to make money, the implication that there's something sinister about this, or disqualifying for a potential leader, is a highly silly position. So we'll say that this ad isn't false, it's just absurd, and has nothing to do with his qualifications or abilities.

It always was. And Republicans do it also. Remember the hue and cry that Kerry's wife wouldn't release her tax returns? He released his, but she had investments separate from his because she married well before him. That wasn't coming from Democrats.
I don't have a problem with Democrats saying he should release his tax returns. I have a problem with the ignorant stuff that will follow if he does.

Is it negative? Sure, it is. But that is what presidential campaigns have become, extremely negative on both sides.
I don't have a problem with negative campaigning. At all. I have a problem with cynical, superficial campaigning. I have a problem with campaigns that aren't about policy.

And he goes negative against Obama also.
You're categorizing ads as positive or negative. The distinction that matters is superficial and substantive. When Obama runs an ad about how Mitt Romney just likes to make money, that's not the same thing as Mitt Romney running an ad about the terrible shape the economy's in. Both ads are "negative," but the latter is substantive. The former is not.

You want it to be all about Obama's record and the Obama campaign wants to make Romney's record as a businessman, which is how he is running, not on his moderate liberal record as governor, an issue as well.
Talking about Romney's record as a businessman is fine. Saying he only cared about making money isn't talking his "record as a businessman." You keep trying to defend specific allegations under the general umbrella of questioning his business career, but that's not the issue. The broad idea is fine. The specific execution is not.

Yoda

08-02-12, 08:58 PM

Here is what he actually said. What on earth is insulting and wrong about what he actually said?
Two things. First, this part:

"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else."
Second, the fact that he's not just saying it. He's not making a heartwarming observation about the interconnectedness of humanity, will. He's arguing for a policy of higher taxes on the wealthy. He's saying you didn't do it on your own...which entitles us to more of your money.

I suppose what he should have said was you didn't build that on your own.But really, the surrounding comments makes clear what he is saying and the quote in the ad is a deliberate distortion. And, again, your rebuttal had nothing to do with the actual comments.
It really isn't. The specific phrasing is perfect for a bumper sticker, which is why it's what gets used. But the surrounding context doesn't change anything. It has him directly arguing that other people need help and didn't build things themselves, therefore they're entitled to keep less of what they make. Oh, and kindly ignore the fact that they already pay for all those things they get from others, because that would totally screw up the argument.

will.15

08-02-12, 09:13 PM

It is amazing how you keep shifting gears about what you object to. It isn't the negative itself that bothers you now, it is the cheap shots, but you only see cheap shots hurled at Romney. Romney ads and Romney comments have gone beyond criticizing the economy. But that was always his preferred focus because he seems to have a real problem articulating what he will actually do if he is elected. Even Republicans have criticized him for this. And the personal stuff against Obama came fast and thick four years ago and you clearly don't have a problem with that as you think based on previous comments it is a big deal what church Obama went to and the fact he knew a former terrorist after he served his time. You are not the final arbiter of what a cheap shot is. The public is. And true cheap shots, not your definition of them, are rarely effective. Determining what a worker says about Romney in an ad who lost his job at his company are not regarded by most people as a cheap shot. You can argue it is not substantive with more credibility, but that is light years from a cheap shot. You seem to arbitrarily mix the two.

Yoda

08-02-12, 09:34 PM

It is amazing how you keep shifting gears about what you object to. It isn't the negative itself that bothers you now, it is the cheap shots, but you only see cheap shots hurled at Romney.
Shift? My complaint has been about the substance of the claims the entire time.

Romney ads and Romney comments have gone beyond criticizing the economy.
Sometimes, sure. That admittedly always happens, at least on a very low level ("Candidate X thinks..."). But I think you know what I'm talking about. Do you really want to try to tell me that there's any comparison here? Do you want to dispute the idea that Obama's are overwhelmingly about Romney on a personal level, and Romney's ads are overwhelmingly about the economy?

And the personal stuff against Obama came fast and thick four years ago and you clearly don't have a problem with that as you think based on previous comments it is a big deal what church Obama went to and the fact he knew a former terrorist after he served his time.
I'm not against all personal critiques, either, provided they tie into something more substantive on some level. Or if the personal failing is major enough that reasonable people can believe it speaks badly of their leadership. So I don't mind someone suggesting, for example, that Obama tolerated political radicals on multiple areas of his life to facilitate his personal advancement. But even if I thought this were a valid point, it sure shouldn't be the centerpiece of a campaign.

I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about every character ad. I think they generally suck, but aren't usually a huge deal. What really gets me is when the whole damn campaign is based around them, and when it's clearly happening only because there's so little substance to run on.

You are not the final arbiter of what a cheap shot is. The public is.
Okay, but...did I black out and proclaim myself the Final Arbiter of anything? Because I have no memory of that. I'm making arguments. I'm telling what I think is cheap, and why. Forever repeating that the public will decide for themselves has bleep-all to do with that. The public is perfectly capable, as I already pointed out, of deciding they care about something cheap and superficial, so their own verdict on the issue doesn't demonstrate anything.

Determining what a worker says about Romney in an ad who lost his job at his company are not regarded by most people as a cheap shot. You can argue it is not substantive with more credibility, but that is light years from a cheap shot. You seem to arbitrarily mix the two.
Well, show me examples, and I'll be glad to sort them out. The ad about the guys losing their jobs is not, for the record, a cheap shot. It's just really superficial and not substantive.

will.15

08-02-12, 09:57 PM

And how did Romney counter the ads where people are complaining about losing their jobs because of Bain?

With an ad showing people praising Bain for giving them a job. But it wasn't a company Bain tried to rescue, but a start-up they only put money in and they were not the sole investor or even the main one.

So everybody plays games with ads.

I don't think the Bain ads are personal, any more than the Romney ads about Obama. Romney is saying vote for me because i am a businessman, I know how to fix the econmy. He was bragging about his Bain success. And who first criticized Romney for his Bain record? Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry! So it is really a terrible thing Obama is doing, having more success with that attack than they because it resonates more with swing Democrats and independents than Republicans.

AKA23

08-02-12, 10:00 PM

I feel you answered my question in a literal sense, but might have missed what I was getting at. You keep suggesting that people can't help their station in life when they start, and that it largely determines where they're going to end up. It's easy to imagine things that might make this true, like health problems, abuse, etc. But things like having the value of education or hard work instilled in you are different, because there's literally nothing stopping anyone from figuring that out, or from taking it upon themselves to do it. It obviously helps tremendously to be taught that, but there is no tangible barrier to it, either.

In many ways, I absolutely believe that your socio-economic status, and your family background, have a profound effect on your station in life. In addition to instilling within you the values and habits that lead to success, which are not trivial things, and which are not as easy to acquire as you may purport to believe, there are a whole host of things that are directly dependent on your circumstances that play powerful roles in your life and future success that you as an individual can't do anything about. For example, being raised by a single parent is profoundly damaging, for many, to their future success. People raised by single parents do worse on pretty much every measure than those who grow up with two-parent, intact families, including being dramatically more likely to end up in poverty as adults. All of these are real tangible barriers to success, and they can't just be glossed over in favor of an argument that everybody has a theoretical capacity to internalize the values that lead to success. They have profound influences on a person's ability to internalize the values you seem to believe everyone has the same capacity to acquire.

Originally Posted by AKA23
Do you really believe that people who are wealthier as a class consistently choose to behave in ways that are conducive to upward mobility, and that the evidence indicates that the poor don't? That's very similar to saying that people who are wealthy simply have better values. They make better choices. They work harder. They are more intelligent. Do you really believe that? If you don't, why are you making this argument, because these inferences are not too far away from this position that you're outlining.

Well, first off, I'm making the argument to show you how the evidence you're providing doesn't actually entitle you to draw the conclusions you're drawing. The evidence is equally as consistent with a completely different conclusion.

The evidence is theoretically consistent with any number of possible conclusions, but the one you have advanced is very unlikely. By advancing this, you are stereotyping anyone who didn't grow up with privilege, or who does not make a certain income, as not having the values that breed success. Of not valuing education, of not believing in hard work, of being less worthwhile citizens. That's pretty unfair. Saying that the socio-economic status of many, and the lack of opportunity they therefore experience, has profound impacts on their ability to internalize these values, and make these good choices, is a far more reasonable conclusion from this evidence than the one you have outlined.

You're actually getting ahead of the point I'm making. I'm pointing out that relative wealthy is a really crappy way to measure success. By definition, no matter how wealthy we get, there will always be a "bottom fifth." So its mere existence doesn't tell us much of anything.

I am sure that you are aware that many are concerned that this may be the first generation to live in worse conditions than their parents. This totally contradicts your stated claim that relative wealth is a poor measure of success, and that the vast disparity between rich and poor is improving, or is somehow not indicative of massive problems. Your argument makes it seem like everyone is doing better, and that the wealthy are doing better too, but this misses the point: The wealthy are doing astronomically better, the poor and middle class are barely improving at all. An 18% increase compared to a 275% increase is not a proportional system where everyone is benefitting equal to their contributions. It's a system that is tremendously unfair where almost all the benefits go to a few percentage of the population while everyone else is left scrambling to get by and satisfy their basic necessities. The world that you outline is not the one that we live in today.

Originally Posted by AKA23
In the past 30 years, the income of the wealthiest grew by 275%. The income of the bottom income sector grew by 18%. Whether you measure economic growth in a relative or absolute sense, it's pretty much the same
That's not the same at all! You're telling me that everyone got richer, but rich people got richer faster. That's a hugely significant distinction. It means that one generation's middle class is the previous generation's rich, and so on.

This is a significant distinction, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Only a generation ago, if that, everyone who had a job was able to feed their families and have a roof over their head. Everyone, even if they didn't have an education, if they worked hard, could do okay. Now, even those with advanced degrees have no guarantee that they will be able to pay their bills and have a good life. It's simply not true that one generation's middle class is the previous generation's rich. In years past, most everyone who worked hard and did a job was able to survive. In most cases, they were not just able to survive, they were able to have a relatively comfortable, and secure, middle class life. That isn't the world we live in today. If anything, the "middle class" of yesteryear have become the poor of today. The relationship you outline is actually backwards.

Originally Posted by AKA23
Why do you think this is? Do you really believe the wealthiest are working 275% harder or are 275% smarter or have 275% better values than the poorest among us? That would be the only explanation for this being a result of individual, personal differences, rather than class-based, socio-economic ones.
I think they provide 275% more value to other people, either through investments, products, services, or some combination.

You can't possibly believe this. There are all sorts of things that people do to become wealthy. The amount of wealth someone often has very little to do with their added value to society. Are you telling me that all those investors on Wall Street who were making especially risky investments which led to the collapse of our economy, those bankers who bet with other people's money, those people were adding more value to society than a teacher or a social worker? This is a shocking claim. What about the casino mogul who makes millions off of exploiting people's weakness, and ends up manipulating the vulnerable and destroying families in the process? Is the casino mogul adding value to society, and is that value to society proportional to their wealth? The answer to that is a resounding no. What about a primary care doctor who makes $200K a year? Is that person adding less value to society than Tom Cruise who makes $20 million a movie? I am surprised at you, Yoda. You usually make quite strong claims, but this is an extremely weak argument.

And I'd like to point out that, when people use the phrase "work harder" in discussions about income equality, they usually make the mistake of equating work with effort. I could go out into a random field and start crushing rocks with a hammer, and I'd probably be working about as hard as anyone else in the nation. I'd be making lots of effort. But I wouldn't be providing any value to anyone, so I'll make a lot less than someone sitting in a nice air-conditioned room typing, even though I'm ostensibly "working harder." And as a web programmer, let me tell you, a lot of work isn't physical and isn't about sheer effort. As an aspiring lawyer, you already know this, I'm sure. Work is about providing value to other people somehow.

This is a fair point. At the same time, I think this overvalues some type of work and undervalues others. If you are working two jobs to feed your family, one as a clerk at Walmart, and the other as a waitress, in which category does this fall? Would you equate this with going into a field and banging on rocks? Surely it may not add as much value as some other jobs, but isn't an honest day's job enough? Do you think it's fair that this person who works two jobs goes home and isn't able to feed her kids and pay her medical expenses? And, why should she have to work two jobs to feed her family? Shouldn't one job be enough? Why should the casino mogul get to keep more of his money, when he's exploiting people, while this well-intentioned mother is struggling to get by? Do you really think that's a fair, or just, system?

will.15

08-02-12, 10:16 PM

What’s True and False in Obama’s Bain Attacks [Updated]

By Jonathan Chait (http://nymag.com/author/jonathan%20chait)
http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.pnghttp://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/07/13/13-mitt-romney-bain-capital.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

The debate over Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is strange and discomfiting because it is a nonsense argument within a nonsense argument. The original nonsense argument is Mitt Romney’s claim that his business experience lends him unique insight into solving the economic crisis. In fact, the considerable skills Romney displayed in business tell you nothing about whether his economic policies would address the recession. Rather than make that complicated point, President Obama and his allies instead have attacked Romney’s record itself. And what they’re saying is, on the basis of the facts available to us, untrue.

Given the centrality this has taken within the campaign, I wish I had focused on it sooner, because the most narrow point here is the most important: The ads attacking Romney are based on pure conjecture. Obama has an ad (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-obamas-newest-anti-romney-ad/2012/06/20/gJQAGux6qV_blog.html) saying of Romney, “he shipped jobs to China and Mexico.” But Bain Capital did those things after Romney stopped running the company. It would be accurate to say that Romney’s firm did those things, and fair — in my opinion — to hold Romney largely responsible for his firm’s work. But Obama isn’t saying Romney’s firm shipped jobs overseas, he’s saying Romney shipped jobs overseas.

That depends on showing that Romney was more involved in the company than he says, and that his former partners say. Reporting by Talking Points Memo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/no_romney_didnt_leave_bain_in_1999.php), Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mystery-mitt-romney-exit-bain-stericycle) and the Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-12/politics/32633322_1_bain-capital-mitt-romney-financial-disclosure) has shown that Romney’s formal ties to Bain Capital did continue even after he took a leave of absence, and the Huffington Post today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html) shows that Romney participated in board meetings of a Bain-owned firm. Romney has so far refused to say (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FEF9F993-C6AC-4C11-B676-2AC980D522AB) whether he held meetings or made decisions after officially stepping down. But the best explanation so far is the one Intel Kevin made yesterday (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/running-vs-running-a-private-equity-firm.htmlhttp:/nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/running-vs-running-a-private-equity-firm.html) (and was bolstered by John King’s reporting (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html)): When he officially stepped down, Romney remained the titular head of Bain Capital, legally responsible but not making any managerial decisions.

The existence of a “larger truth” does not justify the Obama campaign’s ads that assume a role that they haven't proven and probably isn't accurate. But there is a larger truth here. Ben Wallace-Wells’s narrative about Romney’s business career (http://nymag.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-2011-10/) explains how pivotal a role he played in reshaping the face of the American economy. (The piece is extremely fair and in many ways flattering to Romney — National Review’s Reihan Salam (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/281187/ben-wallace-wells-romney-economy-reihan-salam) praised it fulsomely.) In the quarter century after World War II, the economy grew rapidly and also grew more equal, and workers grew accustomed to job security in a world where social ties bound executives (like George Romney) from ruthlessly paring their workforce or paying themselves exorbitantly. Ben quotes Neil Fligstein, an economics-sociology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who told him that Romney and his Bain colleagues “were agents of the shareholder value revolution.” This is a way of saying they helped transform the economy into a place where the owners of capital were able to extract every last drop of value from their firms, which made the face of the business world both more productive and more cruel.

Now, what this development tells you about governing the country is another matter altogether. My conclusion is that, as businesses found they either didn’t need to or could no longer afford to carry the burden of social responsibility to their communities they once carried, the job of doing so has to fall upon the government. That is, you can be a pro-Bain liberal. There are other conclusions one could draw, of course, as Romney seems to have done. But the main point is that the role of business is different than the role of government — even if you deny that businesses have social responsibilities, government still does. (That's a point Obama himself made yesterday (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-romneys-bain-experience-wont-help-him-think).)

Romney’s political problem is that the changes to the business world he helped unleash are unpopular. Whether or not the old world of benevolent corporations of the sort his father ran are justifiable or can survive in a global economy, people liked them. The notion that businesses have no obligation save making money for their shareholders is a hard sell, both conceptually and in the practical outcomes it creates, like mass layoffs. Romney is attempting to portray his business experience as “creating jobs,” but he was actually in the business of creating wealth. Obama has every right to expose that contradiction. He doesn’t have a right to make things up in the process.

Update: Numerous revelations today (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/13/romney_admitted_in_2002_he_never_cut_ties_to_bain.html) cast severe doubt on Romney's claim to have abandoned any role with Bain in 1999. I'll reevaluate again soon, but as of now it looks like the rigid distinction between Bain's work before his leave of absence and after -- the distinction that forms the basis of all the fact-checkers' judgments that Obama's ad is false -- has crumbled

planet news

08-02-12, 10:39 PM

@AKA

Capital re-presents value. It does not present value. Value is always first presented in some way (whatever this might be), and then capital allows two people to agree upon a representation of this value that can be abstracted into a universal value, and this abstract value is very useful.

Let's say there are five presented values. Two people come along and agree on a representation of four out of the five values. This leftover value might occur for any number of reasons. Perhaps those two people were just not interested in the fifth. Again, that's why capital is a representation. It is derivative from something else. It might or might not encompass all of that something else. The representation is free to take what it wants from the presentation.

My point here is basically all of your arguments are variations of the question: WHAT ABOUT THE FIFTH VALUE?!?!

For example, the way you point out how a person's wages don't seem to always connect with that person's 'real worth' -- like how the highest paid people aren't always the hardest working, most intelligent, etc.

So essentially, you're showing the disconnect between the presented and the represented. You're showing how the fifth value is unrepresented.

===

Where is this all going to lead you to? Simply the idea that we need to find a way to represent the fifth value somehow. You will say that the way to do this is to move around capital -- now abstracted -- so that it can account for this extra un-represented value.

Why is this a dead end? Why are you wrong to do this? Because you will always have to deal with the fact that the capital you are using to account for the extra value is ALREADY REPRESENTING FOUR OTHER VALUES, and every time you use it to represent the fifth, you are depleting the proper representation of the other four.

===

So, every time you argue that the fifth should be accounted for. Yoda will reply that you cannot use the capital from the first four because that capital is DOING WORK already.

This is the general form of all of these discussions. The inevitable conclusion is always the following deadlock:

1) The fifth value is still unaccounted for (the bleeding hearts of liberals).
2) The other four values are perfectly accounted for (the beautiful mechanism of the market).

Do we sacrifice the fifth value or the other four? There is no answer to this, so you will argue forever.

will.15

08-02-12, 10:58 PM

Do we sacrifice the fifth value or the other four? There is no answer to this, so you will argue forever.

I can't argue with that.

Yoda

08-02-12, 11:39 PM

In many ways, I absolutely believe that your socio-economic status, and your family background, have a profound effect on your station in life. In addition to instilling within you the values and habits that lead to success, which are not trivial things, and which are not as easy to acquire as you may purport to believe, there are a whole host of things that are directly dependent on your circumstances that play powerful roles in your life and future success that you as an individual can't do anything about. For example, being raised by a single parent is profoundly damaging, for many, to their future success. People raised by single parents do worse on pretty much every measure than those who grow up with two-parent, intact families, including being dramatically more likely to end up in poverty as adults. All of these are real tangible barriers to success, and they can't just be glossed over in favor of an argument that everybody has a theoretical capacity to internalize the values that lead to success. They have profound influences on a person's ability to internalize the values you seem to believe everyone has the same capacity to acquire.
That's a whole lot of words, but I feel like you just described the concepts without actually answering the question. The question is: how do you distinguish between things within someone's control, and things outside of it? If someone isn't raised to appreciate the value of education, is it their choice not to do so, or not? And if it's not, what is?

The evidence is theoretically consistent with any number of possible conclusions, but the one you have advanced is very unlikely. By advancing this, you are stereotyping anyone who didn't grow up with privilege, or who does not make a certain income, as not having the values that breed success. Of not valuing education, of not believing in hard work, of being less worthwhile citizens. That's pretty unfair. Saying that the socio-economic status of many, and the lack of opportunity they therefore experience, has profound impacts on their ability to internalize these values, and make these good choices, is a far more reasonable conclusion from this evidence than the one you have outlined.
You're jumping far past what I actually said. The point is that if the evidence is consistent with many other conclusions, then it's not evidence for your conclusion, specifically.

I am sure that you are aware that many are concerned that this may be the first generation to live in worse conditions than their parents.
They are? Based on what metric? I don't think any of the major ones are even close.

This totally contradicts your stated claim that relative wealth is a poor measure of success, and that the vast disparity between rich and poor is improving, or is somehow not indicative of massive problems.
I don't see how. The claim that this generation is going to be worse off than their parents is a claim about objective wealth, not relative wealth.

Perhaps it would be useful to go over what these terms mean. Objective wealth is what you have. Relative wealth is what you have compared to others. Thus, I am not relatively wealthy compared to the other people alive in the United States right now. But I am objectively wealthy compared to the people all over the world, and the people of previous generations.

Your argument makes it seem like everyone is doing better, and that the wealthy are doing better too, but this misses the point
Well, it is my point. It may not be the same as your point, but hey, we both get to have our own points. Everyone is doing better. Inarguably. The poor are not "getting poorer." I'm amazed that people can say that with a straight face.

The wealthy are doing astronomically better, the poor and middle class are barely improving at all. An 18% increase compared to a 275% increase is not a proportional system where everyone is benefitting equal to their contributions.
The nature of globalization is such that the best of the best in a given field will have a larger potential market. This has two effects. The first is that people at the absolute top of their fields make more than ever, because they can provide some service or good to more people than ever. The other effect is that people all over the world have access to that good or service where they didn't before.

Here's an example: if everyone were in a little village and cut off from the rest of the world, you might be able to get a job as a singer because you're the best singer in your village. But that doesn't mean you're all that good, because you'd only have to beat out, say, 200 other people. If all those villages combine, all of a sudden you're competing with Pavarotti. So, on the down side, you don't get to be a professional singer any more, because there are no more barriers that restrict your competition. On the other hand, everybody in the world gets to enjoy Pavarotti. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Sounds like a good thing to me.

This, by the way, is free trade in a nutshell.

It's a system that is tremendously unfair where almost all the benefits go to a few percentage of the population while everyone else is left scrambling to get by and satisfy their basic necessities.
It depends on who's creating those benefits. You make vague reference to "the benefits" as if they poof into existence and then we just decide to divvy them up, but obviously that's not what happens. If it were, yeah, it'd look bad if some people got more than others. But the question is who creates benefit, because by and large, it's pretty hard to get your hands on money without convincing people that you're doing something good for them. So that's what you need to address: where the benefits come from.

This is a significant distinction, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. Only a generation ago, if that, everyone who had a job was able to feed their families and have a roof over their head. Everyone, even if they didn't have an education, if they worked hard, could do okay. Now, even those with advanced degrees have no guarantee that they will be able to pay their bills and have a good life.
What the what? I don't know what this is based on (please tell me), but I doubt it has ever been true. My parents worked their butts off when I was growing up, and we were very poor at times. There have always been people working hard and trying to make ends meet.

It's simply not true that one generation's middle class is the previous generation's rich.
I phrased that a bit confusingly. I'm not saying this is true of the immediately preceding generation. It takes longer than that. But it undeniably happens. What is wealthy in one age is eventually considered poor. Middle-class people today have access to tremendous luxuries that no amount of wealth could buy even 50 or 60 years ago.

In years past, most everyone who worked hard and did a job was able to survive. In most cases, they were not just able to survive, they were able to have a relatively comfortable, and secure, middle class life. That isn't the world we live in today. If anything, the "middle class" of yesteryear have become the poor of today. The relationship you outline is actually backwards.
By what metric is the previous generation's middle class poor today? The only one you've cited was "income" (personal income? Disposable? Real? You didn't say), and it's gone up, so that can't be it.

You can't possibly believe this. There are all sorts of things that people do to become wealthy. The amount of wealth someone often has very little to do with their added value to society.
This is why I asked you how you think they got it. Tricks? Cheating? Stealing? How do they get it? Is it your experience that lots of people often give their hard-earned money away in exchange for nothing of value?

Are you telling me that all those investors on Wall Street who were making especially risky investments which led to the collapse of our economy, those bankers who bet with other people's money, those people were adding more value to society than a teacher or a social worker? This is a shocking claim. What about the casino mogul who makes millions off of exploiting people's weakness, and ends up manipulating the vulnerable and destroying families in the process? Is the casino mogul adding value to society, and is that value to society proportional to their wealth? The answer to that is a resounding no. What about a primary care doctor who makes $200K a year? Is that person adding less value to society than Tom Cruise who makes $20 million a movie? I am surprised at you, Yoda. You usually make quite strong claims, but this is an extremely weak argument.
Well, how about we examine it? Let's take the casino mogul. People want to gamble, right? He makes it easy for them to do it. That doesn't mean they should want to gamble, but he provides them value. He gives people something they want. The onus to want the right things is on us. It's no different than manufacturing Snickers bars. It'd be fair to say that pretty much nobody should ever eat one, but sometimes they want to, and it provides value to give them the option to do it if they want.

It might be helpful to define the word value. It's not just contribution, it's contribution relative to scarcity. For example, water is more valuable than chocolate, because we need water, right? But that doesn't mean it costs more, because it's also very abundant. And that's how salaries are determined, too: it's the utility of the skill, multiplied by how rare the skill is. If you do something valuable, but lots of other people can do it, then it doesn't pay much. If you do something less valuable, but you're the only human being capable of it, then you probably get paid more. You say this is shocking? It'd only be shocking if it were otherwise.

I am sympathetic to the idea that our flaws as human beings mean we sometimes want things that aren't good for us in the long-term. But I also believe we have the right to indulge in those things, anyway. And despite these examples, most rich people are not casino moguls and movie stars. I think if we started going through real-world examples, you'd find even the moral argument about people wanting things they shouldn't would go out the window.

This is a fair point. At the same time, I think this overvalues some type of work and undervalues others.
According to...your own personal feelings about how valuable various types of work are?

You see my point, I'm sure. You keep implying that some things are more valuable than others, but why would you feel comfortable saying that on behalf of others? If people are willing to pay for one thing, but not another, why is your own conception of value better than all of theirs combined?

I am not implying, of course, that we can't have opinions about whether or not society ought to value this or that. But when we've also begun to advocate that we dictate that value through law, the statement becomes a lot more than an opinion.

If you are working two jobs to feed your family, one as a clerk at Walmart, and the other as a waitress, in which category does this fall? Would you equate this with going into a field and banging on rocks? Surely it may not add as much value as some other jobs, but isn't an honest day's job enough?
Enough for what? It's enough to live off of, even somewhat comfortably. But not enough to raise five kids, for example. Is your position that X amount of effort should always translate into Y amount of wealth whether it's valuable enough to other people to warrant it or not?

Do you think it's fair that this person who works two jobs goes home and isn't able to feed her kids and pay her medical expenses? And, why should she have to work two jobs to feed her family? Shouldn't one job be enough? Why should the casino mogul get to keep more of his money, when he's exploiting people, while this well-intentioned mother is struggling to get by? Do you really think that's a fair, or just, system?
I think it's fairer and juster than a system that purports to tell people what they value and doesn't let them decide for themselves.

Yoda

08-02-12, 11:56 PM

Regarding that Chait piece: if the campaign were making arguments have as substantive as the ones he tries to make at the end there, I wouldn't be calling them superficial. Wrong, maybe, but not superficial. But if they want to make a pro-Bain, pro-government argument, let them make it. That'd be a substantive argument. Unfortunately, the ads as they actually exist aren't within a million miles of that.

will.15

08-03-12, 04:10 AM

Political ads are never substantive.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/new-romney-ad-hits-obama-on-auto-bailout/

Yoda

08-03-12, 10:07 AM

Political ads are never substantive.
Except for this this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZn-PKuObc&feature=player_embedded#!), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKNuaC7mds&feature=player_embedded#!), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0etEmiCL8M&feature=player_embedded#!), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIajeW6xPnI&feature=player_embedded), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZe3hBcpYRI&feature=player_embedded#!), and this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdF-cR66V8&feature=player_embedded).

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/new-romney-ad-hits-obama-on-auto-bailout/
Given that Obama likes to go around saying he "saved" the industry, and leaving out all the layoffs and union giveaways that apparently entails, it seems pretty substantive to me. Romney hasn't pretended to be that kind of savior; he often mentions that plenty of businesses failed under Bain. It's the nature of the business.

And, of course, there's the teeny, weeny little matter of the President bailing out businesses with taxpayer money, rather than money specifically invested for the purpose.

will.15

08-03-12, 11:24 AM

Except for this this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZn-PKuObc&feature=player_embedded#!), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKNuaC7mds&feature=player_embedded#!), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0etEmiCL8M&feature=player_embedded#!), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIajeW6xPnI&feature=player_embedded), this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZe3hBcpYRI&feature=player_embedded#!), and this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdF-cR66V8&feature=player_embedded).

Let us take the first one.

He focused on obamacare instead of jobs.

False.

He did both.

The unemployment rate in Florida today is substantially lower today than it was at its peak, which was brought on by the recession when Bush was President.

It isn't substantive at all. It is just focused on the economy and wants to blame Obama for it.

And it is negative.

Did you hear any reason in that commercial to vote for Mitt Romney except Obama is bad?

No, it isn't substantive at all.

Because thirty second ads can't be.

And Romney does the same stuff you accuse Obama of.

You say those Bain ads kept using the word "weird." And what does Romney do, his surrogates, and his ads repeatedly say about Obama? He doesn't understand America or some variation of that. Maybe one of your other "this ones" does that. Coincidence? No. I don't recall anyone saying that about Clinton or any other Democrat. it is to remind people about Obama's childhood and even subtly bring up the controversy about where he was born.

And Florida has low taxes and is a very business friendly state. Why is it one of the states with the highest unemployment? According to Republican logic about what will cure the country, it should be more like the supposed "Texas miracle."

Given that Obama likes to go around saying he "saved" the industry, and leaving out all the layoffs and union giveaways that apparently entails, it seems pretty substantive to me. Romney hasn't pretended to be that kind of savior; he often mentions that plenty of businesses failed under Bain. It's the nature of the business.

See, you define substantive in a way that is partisan. When my guy does it it is substantive, when the other guy does it, it isn't. The guy bitching would have lost his dealership anyway if the bailout hadn't happened and actually a lot more would have gone under. Now if the ad specifically made your point, comparing job losses at Bain to the auto bailout, that would have been substantive, but as it is, it is just another ad that distorts or simplifies to get its point across. Romney plays by the same rulebook as Obama.

And why doesn't the ad remind people about Bain, in making the comparison you did so the ad makes some kind of sense? Because Romney doesn't want to remind people he was ever there, not in a thirty second commercial.

And, of course, there's the teeny, weeny little matter of the President bailing out businesses with taxpayer money, rather than money specifically invested for the purpose.

Does Romney have an ad that makes that point or is it all Obama doesn't understand America and it is Obama's fault for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression started under Bush?

It seems you want to write for Romney some political ads.

Because his don't say what you want them to.

Yoda

08-03-12, 11:37 AM

Let us take the first one.

He focused on obamacare instead of jobs.

False.

He did both.

The unemployment rate in Florida today is substantially lower today than it was at its peak, which was brought on by the recession when Bush was President.

It isn't substantive at all. It is just focused on the economy and wants to blame Obama for it.

And it is negative.

Did you hear any reason in that commercial to vote for Mitt Romney except Obama is bad?

No, it isn't substantive at all.

Because thirty second ads can't be.

And Romney does the same stuff you accuse of Obama.
Every single one of those ads--every single one--is centered around the economy. They all contrast Obama's rhetoric or positions with actual economic statistics that demonstrate the failure of his policies. That makes them substantive; because they're about actual ideas and policies.

You say those Bain ads kept using the word "weird." And what does Romney do, his surrogates, and his ads repeatedly say about Obama? He doesn't understand America or some variation of that. Maybe one of your other "this ones" does that. Coincidence? No. I don't recall anyone saying that about Clinton or any other Democrat. it is to remind people about Obama's childhood and even subtly bring up the controversy about where he was born.
Wow, now it's code for birtherism? :rolleyes: What's next, the race card?

As I said before, I don't have any problem with "Candidate X thinks..." or "Candidate X doesn't get it." I have a problem when that's the whole campaign, and not accompanied by any argument about policy. You can have that sizzle as long as it's coming off of a steak.

And Florida has low taxes and is a very business friendly state. Why is it one of the states with the highest unemployment? According to Republican logic about what will cure the country, it should be more like the supposed "Texas miracle."
A fine question. I'd be perfectly willing to look into it, come back, and make a bunch of thorough arguments that you will almost certainly ignore. But this has nothing to do with whether or not the ad is substantive.

See, you define substantive in a way that is partisan. When my guy does it it is substantive, when the other guy does it, it isn't.
Er, no. If Obama comes out with an ad that says Massachusetts ranked poorly in job creation during Romney's tenure, that would be substantive. Misleading, but substantive. It would be an argument about ideas and policy and reality, not personality. How do you still not get this?

The guy bitching would have lost his dealership anyway if the bailout hadn't happened and actually a lot more would have gone under. Now if the ad specifically made your point, comparing job losses at Bain to the auto bailout, that would have been substantive, but as it is, it is just another ad that distorts or simplifies to get its point across. Romney plays by the same rulebook as Obama.
I'm starting to think you don't know what the word "substantive" means. It doesn't mean "makes an ironclad argument" or "isn't selective or misleading." Something does not cease to be substantive simply because you think it's arguable.

Does Romney have an ad that makes that point or is it all Obama doesn't understand America and it is Obama's fault for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression started under Bush?
I'm pretty sure the ads say that Obama's policies have failed. And under the metrics Obama himself set out for himself, that's inarguably true. Which is probably why both you and he are so very desperate to talk about anythign else.

It seems you want to write for Romney some political ads.

Because his don't say what you want them to.
Really? Because here was what I've been saying, repeated again: almost all of Romney's ads are about the economy and contrast Obama's words with his record. That makes them substantive ads. Almost all of Obama's ads are about Romney as a person. That makes them superficial.

Boom. That's the argument. So far, you haven't come within a mile of disputing or refuting it.