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 10

post #361 of 1062
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

 

Agreed - outright lie may be a bit strong.  I disagree with your view that a projection contains an implicit promise. I would argue that it is not true even if you might be expected to have some control over the outcome - such as a company financial projection. When you have less control then it becomes even less reasonable to treat as a promise.

 

As for labeling  lies, I don't think the judgement is whether they are better or more justified, simply whether they are more or less untrue.

 

Well at what point and at what level of control does someone finally become responsible? Obama's mantra for the entire campaign has been "It is Bush's fault" even after he has nearly completed his first full term. The government spends one out of every four dollars in the economy. The stimulus was twice as large as the entire networth and economic contribution of Apple.

 

When does the leader become responsible for his leadership? If a CEO of a company aka the leader doesn't warn on the company, blames the prior CEO and the company is still not hitting projections made BY the company four years later, shouldn't he be gone?

 

We talk about control, it isnt' as if the projections were THRUST onto Obama. They were his projections. They contained a range and allowed for a margin of error. They were widely off.

 

But that guy Mitt Romney, he's the liar. Obama's just the guy that borrowed $5 trillion dollars and watched 80% of the green companies he gave money to go belly up. He isn't responsible at all for any of this though.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #362 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

By uncorrected, I mean actual tax revenue, with no adjustment for inflation - a pointless comparison done, presumably, so they could start with the irrelevant factor of 23 claim.

 

But he does make that correction, so your complaint amounts to complaining that he took 2-3 steps to get there. He built up one step at a time, which I see no problem with.

 

 

I'd agree if he had not made the silly factor of 23 claim in between, and if total tax revenue, adjusted or not, were even remotely related to the statement in question.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In the context of this discussion, which was about the tax burden on families, one might reasonably take the statement "so I haven't raised taxes", to refer to that overall tax burden, not to individual rates on items like tobacco or tanning salons, don't you think?

 

No I don't think, because families are made up of individuals and it is the individuals within families that pay those taxes. If we want to discuss families as the key unit here it is fine, but then it is fair to include all taxes that get paid out of that family unit because, ultimately, all taxes are individual taxes. There aren't really any "family taxes." All taxes are paid by individuals.

 

OK - but even if you want to focus on individuals within families, the discussion was about overall tax burden, not whether specific taxes within the overall burden have increased or decreased.

post #363 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

 

Agreed - outright lie may be a bit strong.  I disagree with your view that a projection contains an implicit promise. I would argue that it is not true even if you might be expected to have some control over the outcome - such as a company financial projection. When you have less control then it becomes even less reasonable to treat as a promise.

 

As for labeling  lies, I don't think the judgement is whether they are better or more justified, simply whether they are more or less untrue.

 

Well at what point and at what level of control does someone finally become responsible? Obama's mantra for the entire campaign has been "It is Bush's fault" even after he has nearly completed his first full term. The government spends one out of every four dollars in the economy. The stimulus was twice as large as the entire networth and economic contribution of Apple.

 

When does the leader become responsible for his leadership? If a CEO of a company aka the leader doesn't warn on the company, blames the prior CEO and the company is still not hitting projections made BY the company four years later, shouldn't he be gone?

 

We talk about control, it isnt' as if the projections were THRUST onto Obama. They were his projections. They contained a range and allowed for a margin of error. They were widely off.

 

But that guy Mitt Romney, he's the liar. Obama's just the guy that borrowed $5 trillion dollars and watched 80% of the green companies he gave money to go belly up. He isn't responsible at all for any of this though.

 

You are arguing past me. I was not addressing the issue of whether we should blame Obama for missing the projections, or commenting on whether his projections were any good, just pointing out that a projection is not a promise in any context that I can think of. However poor Obama's performance may have been in trying to achieve his projections, Romney was still wrong to equate projection with promise.

post #364 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'd agree if he had not made the silly factor of 23 claim in between, and if total tax revenue, adjusted or not, were even remotely related to the statement in question.

 

It absolutely is relevant. In fact it is perhaps the most relevant metric. Where do you think all of that tax revenue comes from? It is paid for by the people.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - but even if you want to focus on individuals within families, the discussion was about overall tax burden, not whether specific taxes within the overall burden have increased or decreased.

 

Fair enough. But then the burden is to prove that the overall tax burden has actually decreased or is lower than some other point in time. But Reason's analysis addresses this. Properly understood, the total tax burden to all of the people in the country can be (minimally*) characterized as all of the tax revenue that is collected regardless of the form, structure or specific rates of specific taxes. I mean where do you think all that revenue comes from?

 

 

*Minimally because all of the government spending (including that not covered by revenue...the deficit and cumulative debt) is also taxation...it's just been deferred into the future. It will either have to be paid for by higher direct taxes in the future or by debasing the currency (indirect, surreptitious taxation.)

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 #365 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'd agree if he had not made the silly factor of 23 claim in between, and if total tax revenue, adjusted or not, were even remotely related to the statement in question.

 

It absolutely is relevant. In fact it is perhaps the most relevant metric. Where do you think all of that tax revenue comes from? It is paid for by the people.

 

 

I completely disagree. It is only relevant when normalized against population, inflation and wages. As a trivial example of that reasoning, if the population had remained the same, but inflation had halved the value of the dollar and wages had doubled, with similar tax rates the tax revenue would have doubled. Are you arguing that the tax burden would have doubled?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - but even if you want to focus on individuals within families, the discussion was about overall tax burden, not whether specific taxes within the overall burden have increased or decreased.

 

Fair enough. But then the burden is to prove that the overall tax burden has actually decreased or is lower than some other point in time. But Reason's analysis addresses this. Properly understood, the total tax burden to all of the people in the country can be (minimally*) characterized as all of the tax revenue that is collected regardless of the form, structure or specific rates of specific taxes. I mean where do you think all that revenue comes from?

 

 

*Minimally because all of the government spending (including that not covered by revenue...the deficit and cumulative debt) is also taxation...it's just been deferred into the future. It will either have to be paid for by higher direct taxes in the future or by debasing the currency (indirect, surreptitious taxation.)

 

That's the same argument again. More people implies more tax revenue. Inflation implies more tax revenue. That is trivially obvious, and says nothing about the tax burden per family or per individual per unit income. Now if you want to argue that increased deficits will consequentially increase taxation in the future, that's a different discussion, and not what the article was about.

post #366 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I completely disagree.

 

Fine.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I completely disagree. It is only relevant when normalized against population, inflation and wages. As a trivial example of that reasoning, if the population had remained the same, but inflation had halved the value of the dollar and wages had doubled, with similar tax rates the tax revenue would have doubled. Are you arguing that the tax burden would have doubled?

 

Reason handled the first two. We can discuss the wages aspect. The starting point there would be tax revenue against GDP. This is about the only way that Obama's statement might stand. This is complicated by the inclusion of government spending as a component of GDP. Plus this is probably more likely a function of the crappy economy. If you don't have a job, you're paying less in taxes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's the same argument again. More people implies more tax revenue. Inflation implies more tax revenue. That is trivially obvious, and says nothing about the tax burden per family or per individual per unit income.

 

Again, Reason's analysis factored those in.


Edited by MJ1970 - 10/2/12 at 10:13am

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 #367 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You are arguing past me. I was not addressing the issue of whether we should blame Obama for missing the projections, or commenting on whether his projections were any good, just pointing out that a projection is not a promise in any context that I can think of. However poor Obama's performance may have been in trying to achieve his projections, Romney was still wrong to equate projection with promise.

 

No, I'm not arguing past you. I'm arguing directly at your point about projection and promise not being the same with regard to leadership and President Obama.

 

Projection isN'T being applied here like a weather forecast. Instead financial projections involve dollars spent and outcomes for those who miss those projections. That failure to perform carries with it a promise to perform. No one can be found negligent if all that happened was a projection was missed. That are stakes, and that means those projections carry with them an implicit promise and responsibility.


Edited by trumptman - 10/2/12 at 11:45am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #368 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You are arguing past me. I was not addressing the issue of whether we should blame Obama for missing the projections, or commenting on whether his projections were any good, just pointing out that a projection is not a promise in any context that I can think of. However poor Obama's performance may have been in trying to achieve his projections, Romney was still wrong to equate projection with promise.

 

No, I'm not arguing past you. I'm arguing directly at your point about projection and promise not being the same with regard to leadership and President Obama.

 

Projection is being applied here like a weather forecast. Instead financial projections involve dollars spent and outcomes for those who miss those projections. That failure to perform carries with it a promise to perform. No one can be found negligent if all that happened was a projection was missed. That are stakes, and that means those projections carry with them an implicit promise and responsibility.

 

Then we simply disagree.

post #369 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's the same argument again. More people implies more tax revenue. Inflation implies more tax revenue. That is trivially obvious, and says nothing about the tax burden per family or per individual per unit income.

 

Again, Reason's analysis factored those in.

 

No, it didn't because it ignored income and used a very strange correction for inflation. Then it moved on to income tax rates, and used an inappropriate rate for a typical family. In any case, if, as appears to be the case, our disagreement hinges on your choice to interpret Obama's "tax burden on American families" as "total tax revenue", then I have no more to add to the discussion.

post #370 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, it didn't because it ignored income and used a very strange correction for inflation. Then it moved on to income tax rates, and used an inappropriate rate for a typical family.

 

You're reaching. "A very strange correction for inflation?" He converted everything to use the same value of the dollar for a given year. What's strange about that? He tried to take inflation out of the equation (as he should) to compare apples to apples.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In any case, if, as appears to be the case, our disagreement hinges on your choice to interpret Obama's "tax burden on American families" as "total tax revenue", then I have no more to add to the discussion.

 

And if you fail to see that the total revenue (all taxes collected) of the government is, in point of fact, a tax burden on all Americans then I guess we don't have any more to discuss.

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 #371 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

No SDW. It's like I said the only ones who like him are the Republicans. And even not all of them like him. Part of it is he has no plan or more over the same old tired plan the GOP has been pedaling for years now.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

 

 

Maybe I should have said Republicans and other conservatives. As for proof just watch election night as I'm pretty sure anything else I might submit you'd question. ( wink if I could )

 

That is false.  Romney enjoys much better GOP support and conservative support than did McCain, for example.  Republican turnout will be much heavier than in 2008, as the base is highly motivated to defeat Obama.  If Romney loses, it will be because of the moderate/independent vote along with a higher-than-expected Democratic turnout.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wish we had instant fact-checking at these debates and that the moderators would not let a lie go unchallenged.

 

No, you don't.  Not at all.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It actually would be rather beneficial for Obama to agree to such terms given Romney's track record of doubling down on lie after lie after lie.  I at least would like to see Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in the debates to provide some more balance on the left with regard to social programs, green energy, and individual freedoms.

 

LOL.  Obama has engaged in lie after lie after lie.  His administration is currently embroiled in a massive lie regarding Libya and the state of Al-Qaeda.  He offered a different assessment of the attack than his own Secretary of State...on the same day.   His campaign has spread vicious lies about Romney, most notably when they blamed him for a woman dying of cancer.  You don't wish there were fact checkers at all.  That way, your guy might have to explain why we are objectively so much worse off than we were four years ago.  

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 #372 of 1062

The moderator are the ones often telling the lies. 

post #373 of 1062

So this is Fringe when the two universes collapsed into one and SDW comes from a completely different timeline.  That's the only way to explain how he can say that we are "objectively so much worse off than we were four years ago." 

 

“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 #374 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So this is Fringe when the two universes collapsed into one and SDW comes from a completely different timeline.  That's the only way to explain how he can say that we are "objectively so much worse off than we were four years ago." 

 

That would explain Biden's remark:

 

Biden tells audience middle class has been 'buried' last four years

 

Biden's office clarified (they have to be used to "clarifying" the stuff that spews forth from Biden's pie hole by now) and, of course, blamed it on Bush.

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 #375 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It actually would be rather beneficial for Obama to agree to such terms given Romney's track record of doubling down on lie after lie after lie.  I at least would like to see Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in the debates to provide some more balance on the left with regard to social programs, green energy, and individual freedoms.

 

LOL.  Obama has engaged in lie after lie after lie.  His administration is currently embroiled in a massive lie regarding Libya and the state of Al-Qaeda.  He offered a different assessment of the attack than his own Secretary of State...on the same day.   His campaign has spread vicious lies about Romney, most notably when they blamed him for a woman dying of cancer.  You don't wish there were fact checkers at all.  That way, your guy might have to explain why we are objectively so much worse off than we were four years ago.  

 

Personally I detested the super-PAC's cancer ad, and it was undoubtedly vicious, but just out of curiosity, what was the lie? The criticism was mostly just personal opinion. And to be perfectly clear, I thought that the debate was about what the candidates have said, not the campaign BS from their varied supporters.

 

On the Libya/Al Qaeda issue, I'm not sure that contradictory assessments from Government departments constitute a massive lie either, so much as poor communication. I don't know if you have spent much time involved with such entities, but that's not generally the MO when they want to cover stuff up.

post #376 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

That would explain Biden's remark:

 

Biden tells audience middle class has been 'buried' last four years

 

Biden's office clarified (they have to be used to "clarifying" the stuff that spews forth from Biden's pie hole by now) and, of course, blamed it on Bush.

 

Beat me to it.  His gaffes are beyond legendary.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Personally I detested the super-PAC's cancer ad, and it was undoubtedly vicious, but just out of curiosity, what was the lie? The criticism was mostly just personal opinion. And to be perfectly clear, I thought that the debate was about what the candidates have said, not the campaign BS from their varied supporters.

 

On the Libya/Al Qaeda issue, I'm not sure that contradictory assessments from Government departments constitute a massive lie either, so much as poor communication. I don't know if you have spent much 

 

What was the lie? How about the fact that the woman (Mrs. Soptic) had health insurance and didn't die until 2006?  The ad makes it seem like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital took away this woman's health insurance, which ultimately led to inferior treatment and detection of her cancer, leading to her death.  It's an absolute lie.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
On the Libya/Al Qaeda issue, I'm not sure that contradictory assessments from Government departments constitute a massive lie either, so much as poor communication. I don't know if you have spent much time involved with such entities, but that's not generally the MO when they want to cover stuff up.

 

AYFKM?  The President of the United States saying something different than the Secretary of State on the same day?  The President saying something different than a top general in a national interview?  Sending Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to claim the attack was motivated by the video and was spontaneous, all while the Libyan interim President publicly disagrees?  Obama going to the U.N. and blaming the attacks on the video over and over again?  Come on.  This is a massive cover up of the President's utterly failed Middle East policy.  It's absolutely disgusting and infuriating.  

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 #377 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Personally I detested the super-PAC's cancer ad, and it was undoubtedly vicious, but just out of curiosity, what was the lie? The criticism was mostly just personal opinion. And to be perfectly clear, I thought that the debate was about what the candidates have said, not the campaign BS from their varied supporters.

 

On the Libya/Al Qaeda issue, I'm not sure that contradictory assessments from Government departments constitute a massive lie either, so much as poor communication. I don't know if you have spent much 

 

What was the lie? How about the fact that the woman (Mrs. Soptic) had health insurance and didn't die until 2006?  The ad makes it seem like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital took away this woman's health insurance, which ultimately led to inferior treatment and detection of her cancer, leading to her death.  It's an absolute lie.  

 

I'm not defending the ad, and I agree it gave a misleading impression, but that is not the same as a lie. I did make several points in that post, and you addressed one of them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
On the Libya/Al Qaeda issue, I'm not sure that contradictory assessments from Government departments constitute a massive lie either, so much as poor communication. I don't know if you have spent much time involved with such entities, but that's not generally the MO when they want to cover stuff up.

 

AYFKM?  The President of the United States saying something different than the Secretary of State on the same day?  The President saying something different than a top general in a national interview?  Sending Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to claim the attack was motivated by the video and was spontaneous, all while the Libyan interim President publicly disagrees?  Obama going to the U.N. and blaming the attacks on the video over and over again?  Come on.  This is a massive cover up of the President's utterly failed Middle East policy.  It's absolutely disgusting and infuriating.  

 

No I'm not. What you describe is confusion, as is common after events like this, not a "massive cover up". A massive cover up would have included everyone telling the same story. And I can tell that you are frustrated and infuriated, but your conclusions are a real stretch. You believe that admitting it was an Al Qaeda operation in Libya would have been damaging somehow? I thought that was the kind of thing they need to justify continue actions in Afghanistan.

post #378 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm not defending the ad, and I agree it gave a misleading impression, but that is not the same as a lie. I did make several points in that post, and you addressed one of them.

 

 

No I'm not. What you describe is confusion, as is common after events like this, not a "massive cover up". A massive cover up would have included everyone telling the same story. And I can tell that you are frustrated and infuriated, but your conclusions are a real stretch. You believe that admitting it was an Al Qaeda operation in Libya would have been damaging somehow? I thought that was the kind of thing they need to justify continue actions in Afghanistan.

 

1.  I think it's absolutely the same as a lie.  Even if it weren't, the Obama campaign lied about the ad.  Stephanie Cutter claimed she didn't know the facts in the ad, and refused to denounce it.  The problem was that a two months earlier she had hosted a conference call detailing the ad's charges specifically.  

 

2.  Everyone did tell the same story for about a week (at least in the administration). "It was the video.  It was not a planned attack."  That was the line.  Then, they changed the line completely.  You tell me my conclusions are a stretch, but you're asking me to believe a truly incredible story.  First, we had an attack that "wasn't pre-planned" and was a "spontaneous reaction to the demonstrations in Egypt."  This itself flies in the face of all reason, as people were showing up with RPGs and machine guns, attacking a U.S. Embassy in waves.  Then, I'm asked to believe that the "investigation" we conducted changed our conclusions over a week's time, even though the Libyan President was disavowing our official line the entire time.  As if this weren't bad enough, I'm asked to believed the the President, SecState and various high ranking officials were just confused, which is why they made such contradictory statements in public...some on the same day.   Come on, muppetry.  

 

3.  Of course admitting it was terrorism would be damaging.  The Democrats spent a week in Charlotte spiking the football over the bin Laden operation.  "Bin Laden's dead, GM's alive."  That was their slogan.  On top of this, such anti-Americanism and violence is proof positive that Obama's Middle East policy is in tatters.  This is the man that said relations with the Arab world would improve dramatically just by virtue of him being elected.  He Gave A Speech™ in Cairo and chose to be contrite on the world stage.  He criticized our policies as he stood on Egyptian soil, hoping that doing so would buy us goodwill in the Middle East.  He supported the Arab Spring without fully understanding the movement.  We are now seeing the result.  A successful terrorist attack (multiple attacks, actually) doesn't exactly bode well for his policies.  

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 #379 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not defending the ad, and I agree it gave a misleading impression, but that is not the same as a lie.

 

Merriam-Webster says you're wrong:

 

 

Quote:
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

 

 

So does Dictionary.com:

 

 

Quote:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

 

 

And Wikipedia:

 

 

Quote:
To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.

 

 

You could claim they had no intent and were ignorant of all the facts, but I suspect that's a pretty unlikely case.

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 #380 of 1062
Thread Starter 
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 #381 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

No SDW. It's like I said the only ones who like him are the Republicans. And even not all of them like him. Part of it is he has no plan or more over the same old tired plan the GOP has been pedaling for years now.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

 

 

Maybe I should have said Republicans and other conservatives. As for proof just watch election night as I'm pretty sure anything else I might submit you'd question. ( wink if I could )

 

That is false.  Romney enjoys much better GOP support and conservative support than did McCain, for example.  Republican turnout will be much heavier than in 2008, as the base is highly motivated to defeat Obama.  If Romney loses, it will be because of the moderate/independent vote along with a higher-than-expected Democratic turnout.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wish we had instant fact-checking at these debates and that the moderators would not let a lie go unchallenged.

 

No, you don't.  Not at all.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It actually would be rather beneficial for Obama to agree to such terms given Romney's track record of doubling down on lie after lie after lie.  I at least would like to see Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in the debates to provide some more balance on the left with regard to social programs, green energy, and individual freedoms.

 

LOL.  Obama has engaged in lie after lie after lie.  His administration is currently embroiled in a massive lie regarding Libya and the state of Al-Qaeda.  He offered a different assessment of the attack than his own Secretary of State...on the same day.   His campaign has spread vicious lies about Romney, most notably when they blamed him for a woman dying of cancer.  You don't wish there were fact checkers at all.  That way, your guy might have to explain why we are objectively so much worse off than we were four years ago.  

 

By SDW : That is false. Romney enjoys much better GOP support and conservative support than did McCain, for example. Republican turnout will be much heavier than in 2008, as the base is highly motivated to defeat Obama. If Romney loses, it will be because of the moderate/independent vote along with a higher-than-expected Democratic turnout. 

 

Quote:

By jimmac  :No SDW. It's like I said the only ones who like him are the Republicans. And even not all of them like him.  Maybe I should have said Republicans and other conservatives

Roll eyes! lol.gif

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 #382 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm not defending the ad, and I agree it gave a misleading impression, but that is not the same as a lie. I did make several points in that post, and you addressed one of them.

 

 

No I'm not. What you describe is confusion, as is common after events like this, not a "massive cover up". A massive cover up would have included everyone telling the same story. And I can tell that you are frustrated and infuriated, but your conclusions are a real stretch. You believe that admitting it was an Al Qaeda operation in Libya would have been damaging somehow? I thought that was the kind of thing they need to justify continue actions in Afghanistan.

 

1.  I think it's absolutely the same as a lie.  Even if it weren't, the Obama campaign lied about the ad.  Stephanie Cutter claimed she didn't know the facts in the ad, and refused to denounce it.  The problem was that a two months earlier she had hosted a conference call detailing the ad's charges specifically.  

 

2.  Everyone did tell the same story for about a week (at least in the administration). "It was the video.  It was not a planned attack."  That was the line.  Then, they changed the line completely.  You tell me my conclusions are a stretch, but you're asking me to believe a truly incredible story.  First, we had an attack that "wasn't pre-planned" and was a "spontaneous reaction to the demonstrations in Egypt."  This itself flies in the face of all reason, as people were showing up with RPGs and machine guns, attacking a U.S. Embassy in waves.  Then, I'm asked to believe that the "investigation" we conducted changed our conclusions over a week's time, even though the Libyan President was disavowing our official line the entire time.  As if this weren't bad enough, I'm asked to believed the the President, SecState and various high ranking officials were just confused, which is why they made such contradictory statements in public...some on the same day.   Come on, muppetry.  

 

3.  Of course admitting it was terrorism would be damaging.  The Democrats spent a week in Charlotte spiking the football over the bin Laden operation.  "Bin Laden's dead, GM's alive."  That was their slogan.  On top of this, such anti-Americanism and violence is proof positive that Obama's Middle East policy is in tatters.  This is the man that said relations with the Arab world would improve dramatically just by virtue of him being elected.  He Gave A Speech™ in Cairo and chose to be contrite on the world stage.  He criticized our policies as he stood on Egyptian soil, hoping that doing so would buy us goodwill in the Middle East.  He supported the Arab Spring without fully understanding the movement.  We are now seeing the result.  A successful terrorist attack (multiple attacks, actually) doesn't exactly bode well for his policies.  

 

1.  Well that's uncool if she said that - and that would be a lie.

 

2.  Just to be clear - I am not disputing that it was a planned attack. My experience simply tells me that confusion and poor organization is generally a more likely explanation than conspiracy. That plus the obvious observation that if it turned out to be a planned attack (as it did), there was no way they could have imagined that they would be able to hide that for any length of time (e.g. until after the election), even if they wanted to, so why bother to try.

 

3.  So I just don't quite understand the line of reasoning that says one terrorist attack against a relatively soft target in Libya means that our Middle East Policy is in tatters. The US has been the target of such attacks for several decades now. We have done pretty well with mitigation and intervention recently. I have no problem with his policy of trying to divide the radicals from mainstream Islam by emphasizing who the fight is with. It's had mixed success, but I would not have expected anything else. 

post #383 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not defending the ad, and I agree it gave a misleading impression, but that is not the same as a lie.

 

Merriam-Webster says you're wrong:

 

 

Quote:
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

 

 

So does Dictionary.com:

 

 

Quote:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

 

 

And Wikipedia:

 

 

Quote:
To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.

 

 

You could claim they had no intent and were ignorant of all the facts, but I suspect that's a pretty unlikely case.

 

Thanks for the definitions. They seem broader than I expected. I would have defined it more narrowly as "knowingly to make a false statement", as opposed to "deliberately create a misleading impression", but I'm not about to argue with those dictionaries. To clarify - I have no doubt that the makers of the ad had that intent, so that does make the ad a lie.

post #384 of 1062

Some more recent information on the statements on the Embassy attack from Reuters. The delay until releasing the existence of intel suggesting an organized terrorist attack does seem unusually long - longer than one might expect to be needed just to confirm the information, and longer than is easily put down to confusion. I wonder what was going on behind the scenes to lead to that?

post #385 of 1062

From an operations stance, I'm not so worried about the lack of info early on.  No need to tip your hand unnecessarily.

 

Eventually, it does need to come out and to be clear, but only after its release has been determined not to impede on any operations.

 

 

 

The infrastructure in Libya is not great at the moment and none of us arm-chair generals knows what the actual on the ground situation is (for example, who can and can't be trusted).


Edited by Bergermeister - 10/3/12 at 4:14am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #386 of 1062

When did AI become a political site?

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #387 of 1062
Originally Posted by techno View Post
When did AI become a political site?

 

Looks like roundabout 6/17/04.

post #388 of 1062

I'll probably watch the debate later on, purely for entertainment value.

 

I wonder if Obama is going to put on a fake black accent and blame whitey, like he's been known for doing when Obama is channeling his mentor, the racist and anti-USA lunatic Reverend White? I wonder how Obama is going to do without using mechanical speaking aids which he depends on?

 

I am hoping to see Obama get demolished tonight, I haven't seen a good comedy in a while. The facts remain that the last four years have not been pretty, and that is on Obama, no matter how much lying Obama supporters attempt to spin it.

 

Obama is an intellectual lightweight, a serial liar, a poor politician and an even worse President.

post #389 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1.  Well that's uncool if she said that - and that would be a lie.

 

2.  Just to be clear - I am not disputing that it was a planned attack. My experience simply tells me that confusion and poor organization is generally a more likely explanation than conspiracy. That plus the obvious observation that if it turned out to be a planned attack (as it did), there was no way they could have imagined that they would be able to hide that for any length of time (e.g. until after the election), even if they wanted to, so why bother to try.

 

3.  So I just don't quite understand the line of reasoning that says one terrorist attack against a relatively soft target in Libya means that our Middle East Policy is in tatters. The US has been the target of such attacks for several decades now. We have done pretty well with mitigation and intervention recently. I have no problem with his policy of trying to divide the radicals from mainstream Islam by emphasizing who the fight is with. It's had mixed success, but I would not have expected anything else. 

 

1.  Uncool?  If?  She said it.  It was a lie.  Period.  

 

2.  I'm not alleging a conspiracy at all.  I'm saying the President and Administration clearly have a vested interest in portraying this as a spontaneous attack vs. a planned terrorist action.  Jay Carney even stated the protests/attacks were "not directed at the United States...or the administration, or out Middle East policy.   The evidence is overwhelming here.  There is not going to be confusion between the Sec State, President and UN Ambassador.  They deliberately sent Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to parrot the admin line.  Then their story changed.  And frankly, if there is that ind of confusion between high ranking officials, someone needs to be fired immediately.  Maybe, uh, the person in charge of all these people?

 

3. Multiple embassies were attacked around the world, with the black flag of Al-Qaeda flying above some.  A US ambassador has been murdered, along with several other Americans.  They are burning the American flag in 20 countries, screaming "Death to America."  Iran's President continues to threaten Israel, and the Iranian regime refuses to give up its obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Egypt is run by the Muslim Brotherhood.  All this despite Obama promising that just by virtue of him being elected, things would improve.  Anti-Americanism would recede.  HIs Cairo speech was a new beginning.  He tasked the head of NASA with Muslim outreach as one of his main objectives.  He apologized for policies we had undertaken just months prior.  He withdrew too quickly and precipitously in Iraq, and set a hard withdrawal date in Afghanistan.   He relied on less human intelligence and the capture of terrorists and prisoners, and relied on tactical drone strikes.  Everything he did sent the message of contrition.   America was sorry, and we'd make things better by being nicer.  Of course, that only applied when we weren't violating the War Powers Resolution to bomb Libya.  Oh, and the killing bin Laden thing.  We're proud of that one too.  

 

Look at the results and tell me his policies have been anything other than a complete disaster.  

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 #390 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1.  Well that's uncool if she said that - and that would be a lie.

 

2.  Just to be clear - I am not disputing that it was a planned attack. My experience simply tells me that confusion and poor organization is generally a more likely explanation than conspiracy. That plus the obvious observation that if it turned out to be a planned attack (as it did), there was no way they could have imagined that they would be able to hide that for any length of time (e.g. until after the election), even if they wanted to, so why bother to try.

 

3.  So I just don't quite understand the line of reasoning that says one terrorist attack against a relatively soft target in Libya means that our Middle East Policy is in tatters. The US has been the target of such attacks for several decades now. We have done pretty well with mitigation and intervention recently. I have no problem with his policy of trying to divide the radicals from mainstream Islam by emphasizing who the fight is with. It's had mixed success, but I would not have expected anything else. 

 

1.  Uncool?  If?  She said it.  It was a lie.  Period.  

 

2.  I'm not alleging a conspiracy at all.  I'm saying the President and Administration clearly have a vested interest in portraying this as a spontaneous attack vs. a planned terrorist action.  Jay Carney even stated the protests/attacks were "not directed at the United States...or the administration, or out Middle East policy.   The evidence is overwhelming here.  There is not going to be confusion between the Sec State, President and UN Ambassador.  They deliberately sent Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows to parrot the admin line.  Then their story changed.  And frankly, if there is that ind of confusion between high ranking officials, someone needs to be fired immediately.  Maybe, uh, the person in charge of all these people?

 

3. Multiple embassies were attacked around the world, with the black flag of Al-Qaeda flying above some.  A US ambassador has been murdered, along with several other Americans.  They are burning the American flag in 20 countries, screaming "Death to America."  Iran's President continues to threaten Israel, and the Iranian regime refuses to give up its obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Egypt is run by the Muslim Brotherhood.  All this despite Obama promising that just by virtue of him being elected, things would improve.  Anti-Americanism would recede.  HIs Cairo speech was a new beginning.  He tasked the head of NASA with Muslim outreach as one of his main objectives.  He apologized for policies we had undertaken just months prior.  He withdrew too quickly and precipitously in Iraq, and set a hard withdrawal date in Afghanistan.   He relied on less human intelligence and the capture of terrorists and prisoners, and relied on tactical drone strikes.  Everything he did sent the message of contrition.   America was sorry, and we'd make things better by being nicer.  Of course, that only applied when we weren't violating the War Powers Resolution to bomb Libya.  Oh, and the killing bin Laden thing.  We're proud of that one too.  

 

Look at the results and tell me his policies have been anything other than a complete disaster.  

 

1.  I was accepting your information and agreeing with you - no need to keep hammering.

 

2.  By definition that would be a conspiracy to cover up the situation.

 

3.  The problem is that we have no metric by which to judge the results. The existing policies can only be judged a disaster if we can conclude that other policies would have been much better, and at this stage it is entirely conjecture. You are effectively arguing that we have been too soft - while almost everyone else posting here is arguing that the US should cut military spending and stop interfering abroad. There is no obvious correct solution. In my opinion, on balance, the current approach was worth trying; it has had some successes and some failures and I think it is premature to abandon it. I doubt that the recent political changes in the Middle East can be credited to US policy. I also doubt if Romney would make any significant changes in the short term.

post #391 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by techno View Post
When did AI become a political site?

 

Looks like roundabout 6/17/04.

Actually it goes back much farther than that. We used to have a thing called the " Fire Side Chat " which turned into PO. Even before that all the way back to before the blackout in the early 2000s to 1999 there was political stuff here.

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 #392 of 1062

Wow for an old guy he really covers a lot of ground!

post #393 of 1062

I have no idea how it may change the dynamic of the election, but that was quite a beating that Romney managed to put on Obama tonight. Wow.

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 #394 of 1062

And the truth.  Wow, that took a HUGE beating from both candidates.  Romney really tore into the truth like a tornado of arms, fists, and teeth.  Obama kicked it a few times after it was already down.

 

“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 #395 of 1062

Are you going to complain that the Sun rose in the east tomorrow morning?

 

It's a U.S. Presidential Debate. You can't be surprised each side had their own version of fact.

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 #396 of 1062
There is no fucking such thing as version of fact. Romney sounded more confident and forceful, but he also lied is motherfucking ass off as per usual with him. He is not entitled to his own alternate reality. Obama sounded tired and went for some cheap half-truths and misleading statistics. Romney tied the truth to a pole and shit directly into its mouth.

 

“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 #397 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I am hoping to see Obama get demolished tonight, I haven't seen a good comedy in a while. 

 

It certainly seems as if my wish came true. lol.gif

 

This was one of the most lopsided Presidential debates ever and Romney came off as cool, in control, and in charge, while Obama came off as tired, bored, aloof and he kept looking down, like a defeated and shrunken, little man. Obama got demolished. The media has been shielding him for years now, but once the teleprompters are removed and his corrupt little cheerleaders in the media can't deflect for him, the man has to speak for himself and defend his policies, and he did a rather poor job at it, may I add. Obama's policies haven't been very good for the USA these past four years, to put it rather mildly.

 

Obama is also going to get destroyed in the remaining debates, especially the one about foreign policy. This is the "great orator" that delusional people on the left worship? Mitt Romney wiped the floor with him. lol.gif

post #398 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There is no fucking such thing as version of fact. Romney sounded more confident and forceful, but he also lied is motherfucking ass off as per usual with him. He is not entitled to his own alternate reality. Obama sounded tired and went for some cheap half-truths and misleading statistics. Romney tied the truth to a pole and shit directly into its mouth.

 

 

Sorry but Obama doesn't get his own version of the facts for Romney's plans, especially when one of his complaints is that they are not detailed or complete enough.

 

Romney parried that back amazingly well. I've got principles and they will be the foundation of negotiations of solutions with Congress. Obama is the one who looks hapless and helpless when confronted with the facts of his own outcomes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #399 of 1062
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1.  I was accepting your information and agreeing with you - no need to keep hammering.

 

2.  By definition that would be a conspiracy to cover up the situation.

 

3.  The problem is that we have no metric by which to judge the results. The existing policies can only be judged a disaster if we can conclude that other policies would have been much better, and at this stage it is entirely conjecture. You are effectively arguing that we have been too soft - while almost everyone else posting here is arguing that the US should cut military spending and stop interfering abroad. There is no obvious correct solution. In my opinion, on balance, the current approach was worth trying; it has had some successes and some failures and I think it is premature to abandon it. I doubt that the recent political changes in the Middle East can be credited to US policy. I also doubt if Romney would make any significant changes in the short term.

 

1. Fair enough. 

 

2.  I don't know...I'm more saying it's spin.  It might be even unintentional.  

 

3.  What other policies?  All we can judge is the results that occur after certain policies are put in place.  Those results have not been mixed, they've been disastrous.   

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 #400 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

1.  I was accepting your information and agreeing with you - no need to keep hammering.

 

2.  By definition that would be a conspiracy to cover up the situation.

 

3.  The problem is that we have no metric by which to judge the results. The existing policies can only be judged a disaster if we can conclude that other policies would have been much better, and at this stage it is entirely conjecture. You are effectively arguing that we have been too soft - while almost everyone else posting here is arguing that the US should cut military spending and stop interfering abroad. There is no obvious correct solution. In my opinion, on balance, the current approach was worth trying; it has had some successes and some failures and I think it is premature to abandon it. I doubt that the recent political changes in the Middle East can be credited to US policy. I also doubt if Romney would make any significant changes in the short term.

 

1. Fair enough. 

 

2.  I don't know...I'm more saying it's spin.  It might be even unintentional.  

 

3.  What other policies?  All we can judge is the results that occur after certain policies are put in place.  Those results have not been mixed, they've been disastrous.   

 

That's really my point. Aside from the fact that "disastrous" is a relative term, since I could certainly envisage much worse things that could have happened, we have no way of knowing whether they could have done any better with a different strategy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win