or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 27

post #1041 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It is interesting to note that from your 13 examples, I only see 2 black Republicans elected to political office. The rest are mostly appointees, a couple of unsuccessful candidates and one of Asian descent.

lol.gif Not the most honest ones either. Unelected Claude Allen- 

 

"Allen resigned February 9, 2006, stating he wanted to spend more time with his family. On March 10, 2006, news broke that Allen had been repeatedly stealing from retail stores Target and Hecht's by engaging in a personal refund scheme. Allen was cited by police for shoplifting on January 2, 2006, which triggered an investigation that resulted in Allen's arrest on felony counts of theft on March 9, 2006.[2] On August 4, 2006, as part of a plea bargain, Allen pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of theft.[3]

Allen, a longtime evangelical Christian, is married, with four children. He was earning $161,000 per year in his federal job at the time of his shoplifting and subsequent resignation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allen

 

The eighth one in, finally an elected black. And this is what we get-

"The New York Times reported that Carroll's tenure as lieutenant governor was "marred by scandal and poor judgment" and she was "increasingly viewed as an embarrassment to the man who chose her for the job."[5] She resigned her post as lieutenant governor on March 12, 2013, following allegations that she was involved in an effort to steer money towards Internet cafes that are fronts for gambling, the subject of federal and state criminal investigations.[6][7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Carroll 

So obviously bad character doesn't disqualify them from office. Maybe indeed it's seen as a plus given the above.

His tenth one in ran and lost, and was never elected to anything. He got just 10% of the vote when he did run, to the winners 80%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Faulkner

His 12th example is the first one on the list to be elected to congress. He served from 1991-1997. The article says this-

"Franks was the first black Republican to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives since Oscar Stanton De Priest won his last term on the South Side of Chicago in 1932."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Franks

So one elected lieutenant governor and one elected congressman who left office in 1997. None of the others were ever elected, as you point out. 

 


Edited by Hands Sandon - 3/28/13 at 7:31am
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1042 of 1062

If BR is done masturbating tonton, can we get back to the fact that tonton claims that those who disagree with him on social policy "want us to let the poor people starve to death."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1043 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It is interesting to note that from your 13 examples, I only see 2 black Republicans elected to political office. The rest are mostly appointees, a couple of unsuccessful candidates and one of Asian descent.

 

Why is that "interesting?" The claim is about this widespread Republican racism. But the fact that (elected) Republicans actually appoint black people (and other races)...and to some fairly important positions...appears to put a bit of a dent in this hypothesis.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1044 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It is interesting to note that from your 13 examples, I only see 2 black Republicans elected to political office. The rest are mostly appointees, a couple of unsuccessful candidates and one of Asian descent.

 

Why is that "interesting?" The claim is about this widespread Republican racism. But the fact that (elected) Republicans actually appoint black people (and other races)...and to some fairly important positions...appears to put a bit of a dent in this hypothesis.

 

That's a good point that I thought you might raise. However, if you look at the nature of the ongoing debates within the GOP about the path forwards, a consistent observation is that the party leadership seems to embrace the need for change, while the grassroots elements do not - or at least less so. So it is not that surprising (at least to me) that political appointees would reflect the more progressive leadership stance, while candidate selection, which is more determined on a local basis, would reflect the broader party attitudes.

post #1045 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If BR is done masturbating tonton, can we get back to the fact that tonton claims that those who disagree with him on social policy "want us to let the poor people starve to death."

 

I really think that you should let that argument go. His statement clearly did include an "or" that you have somehow contrived to continue to ignore, and which means, even if you regarded it as a false dilemma (a much more credible criticism), that you absolutely cannot constrain it to the meaning of the partial quote. He did not say that, no matter how stridently you keep insisting that he did.

post #1046 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I really think that you should let that argument go. His statement clearly did include an "or" that you have somehow contrived to continue to ignore, and which means, even if you regarded it as a false dilemma (a much more credible criticism), that you absolutely cannot constrain it to the meaning of the partial quote. He did not say that, no matter how stridently you keep insisting that he did.

 

He did say that quite clearly. But, whatever. The or is important but not sufficient to eliminate the implication that someone wants (which is the moronic claim here) poor people to starve to death. No one wants that. It is a moron statement and claim.

 

If he had said something more honest and respectful like:

 

 

Quote:
"but those who do not support the social policy that I subscribe to are relying only on the kindness and good intentions and generosity of private individuals and groups, which I believe will be insufficient and result in poor people starving to death."

 

Then we don't have these silly and moronic and offensive claims that someone wants to let people starve to death. No one wants that. It's fucking stupid (and he knows it and you know it.)

 

Then we could have a rational (possibly) discussion about whether the belief that private charity would be sufficient to prevent poor people from starving to death or not.

 

But no, we have this false dilemma between someone wanting poor people to starve to death (moronic claim) or the (un-stated, but clearly present) implication and assumption that private charity, ipso facto, would result in this situation.

 

This is a variation on a very common line of thinking among that is formulated like this:

 

 

Quote:
"You don't support X government program/policy, you must want (or note care) about Y assumed negative consequence of not having X policy/program in place."

 

Examples:

 

- You oppose government schools? You must want (or not care about) millions of illiterate people!

- You oppose government regulation of healthcare? You must want (or not care about) everyone getting harmed by shoddy healthcare services!

- You oppose government-run healthcare? You must want (or not care about) millions dying from lack of healthcare!

 

And so on.

 

It is, simply and succinctly, moronic and insulting and should be called out as such (loudly) until it stops.

 

If tonton truly wanted to have a discussion about this, his statement would have been formulated more like what I suggest above and considerably less troll-ish.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1047 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I really think that you should let that argument go. His statement clearly did include an "or" that you have somehow contrived to continue to ignore, and which means, even if you regarded it as a false dilemma (a much more credible criticism), that you absolutely cannot constrain it to the meaning of the partial quote. He did not say that, no matter how stridently you keep insisting that he did.

 

He did say that quite clearly. But, whatever. The or is important but not sufficient to eliminate the implication that someone wants (which is the moronic claim here) poor people to starve to death. No one wants that. It is a moron statement and claim.

 

If he had said something more honest and respectful like:

 

 

Quote:
"but those who do not support the social policy that I subscribe to are relying only on the kindness and good intentions and generosity of private individuals and groups, which I believe will be insufficient and result in poor people starving to death."

 

Then we don't have these silly and moronic and offensive claims that someone wants to let people starve to death. No one wants that. It's fucking stupid (and he knows it and you know it.)

 

Then we could have a rational (possibly) discussion about whether the belief that private charity would be sufficient to prevent poor people from starving to death or not.

 

But no, we have this false dilemma between someone wanting poor people to starve to death (moronic claim) or the (un-stated, but clearly present) implication and assumption that private charity, ipso facto, would result in this situation.

 

This is a variation on a very common line of thinking among that is formulated like this:

 

 

Quote:
"You don't support X government program/policy, you must want (or note care) about Y assumed negative consequence of not having X policy/program in place."

 

Examples:

 

- You oppose government schools? You must want (or not care about) millions of illiterate people!

- You oppose government regulation of healthcare? You must want (or not care about) everyone getting harmed by shoddy healthcare services!

- You oppose government-run healthcare? You must want (or not care about) millions dying from lack of healthcare!

 

And so on.

 

It is, simply and succinctly, moronic and insulting and should be called out as such (loudly) until it stops.

 

If tonton truly wanted to have a discussion about this, his statement would have been formulated more like what I suggest above and considerably less troll-ish.

 

I'm not going to argue whether or not the posters on this forum should be less inflammatory in their posting language, because you all indulge in similar methods. Yes - your example wording is kinder - but you are in no position to criticize on that score.

 

And just to revisit my point - an "or", or even an "and/or", does not imply that both statements are true to any degree. I can state, perfectly accurately, that the sky right now is red or blue (at least at my location), with absolutely no requirement that it be even slightly red. Your insistance on that interpretation is not helpful.

post #1048 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I really think that you should let that argument go. His statement clearly did include an "or" that you have somehow contrived to continue to ignore, and which means, even if you regarded it as a false dilemma (a much more credible criticism), that you absolutely cannot constrain it to the meaning of the partial quote. He did not say that, no matter how stridently you keep insisting that he did.

 

Both parts of the statement separated by the "or" were false. Quoting one or both of them does nothing to change the fact that the statement was false. It does nothing to change the purpose of the statement, which was to demonize those with whom he disagreed in a pitiful attempt to justify his support for a regime that indefinitely detains and assassinates people without due process.

 

Quibbling over the manner in which his statement was quoted while pointing this out is nothing more than a distraction.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1049 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I really think that you should let that argument go. His statement clearly did include an "or" that you have somehow contrived to continue to ignore, and which means, even if you regarded it as a false dilemma (a much more credible criticism), that you absolutely cannot constrain it to the meaning of the partial quote. He did not say that, no matter how stridently you keep insisting that he did.

 

Both parts of the statement separated by the "or" were false. Quoting one or both of them does nothing to change the fact that the statement was false. It does nothing to change the purpose of the statement, which was to demonize those with whom he disagreed in a pitiful attempt to justify his support for a regime that indefinitely detains and assassinates people without due process.

 

Quibbling over the manner in which his statement was quoted while pointing this out is nothing more than a distraction.

 

That would make it a false dilemma, as I pointed out earlier.  But in fact I retract my earlier analysis for a different reason. On closer inspection what was being ORed were not two different beliefs but rather two possible outcomes from one belief - implying that a person holding that belief would indeed have to be willing to accept either outcome. So in that sense you and MJ were correct, although I still don't like selective partial quotes.

post #1050 of 1062

It doesn't imply that they would have to accept either outcome.  They may accept one and believe that the other will never truly happen--utterly rejecting the other-- even if they are wrong about that assessment.  

 

Of course, there was also this:

 

 

 

Quote:

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

 

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1051 of 1062

Republicans still haven't learned.  Shocking.  It is ludicrous to claim that 47% pay no income taxes and thus have "no skin in the game" without recognizing the payroll taxes that are paid and the fact that the 47% number includes children, the elderly, the disabled, and the ultrapoor.  Of course, the logical conclusions to the "no skin in the game" comment is to raise taxes on the poor or disenfranchise their votes.  Gee, those are the two things that Republicans have been doing for quite a while now.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #1052 of 1062

The general point is that a huge number of Americans pay no income tax whilst constantly calling for income taxes to be raised.

 

If you can't see the problem there, you deserve the national sales tax you're about to get hit with.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1053 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Republicans still haven't learned.  Shocking.  It is ludicrous to claim that 47% pay no income taxes and thus have "no skin in the game" without recognizing the payroll taxes that are paid and the fact that the 47% number includes children, the elderly, the disabled, and the ultrapoor.  Of course, the logical conclusions to the "no skin in the game" comment is to raise taxes on the poor or disenfranchise their votes.  Gee, those are the two things that Republicans have been doing for quite a while now.

I'm not sure what the point of that article is. Romney was referring to the electoral math. It appeared in the video that he linked those who don't pay federal income taxes with those who vote for Obama automatically. That was the problem. Even though it was a private event and there was some truth to what he was saying, it gave the Democrats a huge hammer in their Rich Out of Touch White Guy Toolbox, one which they used effectively. Whether he was right or not really doesn't matter at this point to either side. It certainly doesn't bolster the GOP's rationale for tax and spending reform. On the other hand it doesn't do anything to add to your "Republicans don't learn" mantra.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1054 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Republicans still haven't learned.  Shocking.  It is ludicrous to claim that 47% pay no income taxes and thus have "no skin in the game" without recognizing the payroll taxes that are paid and the fact that the 47% number includes children, the elderly, the disabled, and the ultrapoor.  Of course, the logical conclusions to the "no skin in the game" comment is to raise taxes on the poor or disenfranchise their votes.  Gee, those are the two things that Republicans have been doing for quite a while now.

I'm not sure what the point of that article is. Romney was referring to the electoral math. It appeared in the video that he linked those who don't pay federal income taxes with those who vote for Obama automatically. That was the problem. Even though it was a private event and there was some truth to what he was saying, it gave the Democrats a huge hammer in their Rich Out of Touch White Guy Toolbox, one which they used effectively. Whether he was right or not really doesn't matter at this point to either side. It certainly doesn't bolster the GOP's rationale for tax and spending reform. On the other hand it doesn't do anything to add to your "Republicans don't learn" mantra.

The pont of the article was that Romney was shooting his mouth off about the very people who vote people into office. Hence he paid for it. Nuff said.1wink.gif

 

Ps. The same will happen to those who do similar things in the future.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1055 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The pont of the article was that Romney was shooting his mouth off about the very people who vote people into office. Hence he paid for it. Nuff said.1wink.gif

Ps. The same will happen to those who do similar things in the future.
I wasn't clear. What I meant was I'm not sure what the point of defending the comments is. It makes no difference if he was "right." It never did. He shouldn't have said it, and the pro-Obama media went absolutely nuts with it. I actually think he could have sprained himself better by simply saying the words didn't come out the right way and that what he really meant was (insert whatever political answer you want). I personally thought it was a throw away comment made at a fundraising dinner and didn't mean much. Clearly there is some truth to what he said...people that tend not to pay taxes and are receiving benefits are or were more inclined to vote for Obama (well, that's what I think he meant...it could also have been taken to mean he meant people on SS, etc.). But overall it's pointless to defend the comments now. The election is over and we have bigger problems.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1056 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The general point is that a huge number of Americans pay no income tax whilst constantly calling for income taxes to be raised.

If you can't see the problem there, you deserve the national sales tax you're about to get hit with.
It's a totally bullshit point. Those people pay no (income) taxes because employers **** them up the ass and offer them a laughable pittance (in comparison to the salaries and profits of upper management and corporations) for hard honest work. They have EVERY fucking right to say, well, you don't pay us enough, so in order for us to live comfortably, you'll just have to make up a fair difference in taxes. Every right.
post #1057 of 1062

How do you know this if you are an American living abroad ? Do you pay taxes yourself?
 

post #1058 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

How do you know this if you are an American living abroad ? Do you pay taxes yourself?

 
How do I know what? That working class people are underpaid while (upper) management is overpaid? How do I know Lake Michigan is filled with water?
post #1059 of 1062

You always favor Americans I see. Why are you not living in the states yourself? In Hong Kong ?
 

post #1060 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


It's a totally bullshit point. Those people pay no (income) taxes because employers **** them up the ass and offer them a laughable pittance (in comparison to the salaries and profits of upper management and corporations) for hard honest work. They have EVERY fucking right to say, well, you don't pay us enough, so in order for us to live comfortably, you'll just have to make up a fair difference in taxes. Every right.

 

Yes, this is how it works in a country that elected a community organizer as President.

 

In a proper functioning country, they have the right to say that they don't get paid enough, so they'll go out and start their own company.

 

You know, like what I and many others have done.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1061 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's a totally bullshit point. Those people pay no (income) taxes because employers **** them up the ass and offer them a laughable pittance (in comparison to the salaries and profits of upper management and corporations) for hard honest work. They have EVERY fucking right to say, well, you don't pay us enough, so in order for us to live comfortably, you'll just have to make up a fair difference in taxes. Every right.

Yes, this is how it works in a country that elected a community organizer as President.

In a proper functioning country, they have the right to say that they don't get paid enough, so they'll go out and start their own company.

You know, like what I and many others have done.
Good for you for starting your own business. Do you believe everybody in the world is capable of doing so if they set their mind to it? Do you believe everybody is capable of setting their mind to it?

And for those around the world who are incapable, perhaps you might suggest they start a business whose business plan is to collect the combined labor force in a particular industry and approach the businesses who need labor and tell them that you are offering them your labor as individuals, but only if they meet your price, otherwise the people in your business will refuse to work for them (and are under contract with the business to do so).

Would you describe that as a sound business plan?
post #1062 of 1062

A quick reminder of the politics of fear and reckless prognostications.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win