or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüöď Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ūüöď Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash. - Page 3

post #81 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Obviously my post went over your head, again.

 

Perhaps this won't though. Romney went on Fox today and repeatedly stated Obama's for wealth redistribution and that he is against it. So watch this and tell me it's not wealth redistribution that Romney wants. I bet you can't and neither could our Repubs.- 

 

Uh, it's not wealth redistribution he wants?  There.  There ya go.  You know why?  Because he opposes wealth redistribution.  What you are referring to is wealth inequality.   That is a natural state of affairs (or problem, if you prefer).  You favor government "solving" that problem by forcibly taking the fruits of a person's labor and giving them to someone else.  Mitt Romney does not.  

 

Also, ditto on this:  

 

 

 

Quote: (MJ) 

Yes jazz...all that matters is how things can be characterized and twisted to fit the narrative. Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter. Only perceptions matter.

 

 

Exactly.  It doesn't matter what Romney does...you'll start a thread condemning him for it.  One has to wonder if you actually agree with President Obama, or if you just have your blue jersey on.  

 

Personally I like Stephen Colbert's joke about it " No matter how you slice it it's a black man coming for your stuff! " lol.gif Too funny! You're right though it really doesn't matter what Mr. Romney does. ( wink if I could )

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 #82 of 197

There is video of Mittens' mother talking about how his father got welfare after moving to the US.

 

 

And then there is the bailout that Mittens himself received?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

 

Good when it helps Mittens.  Bad when it helps anybody else.


Edited by Bergermeister - 9/21/12 at 6:22am

 

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 #83 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

There is video of Mittens' mother talking about how his father got welfare after moving to the US.

 

 

And then there is the bailout that Mittens himself received?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

 

Good when it helps Mittens.  Bad when it helps anybody else.

 

Let me ask you a few things:  

 

1) Do you honestly believe that Romney opposes all governmental help?  

 

2) Do you honestly think that's a fair and balanced article with a neutral point of view?  

 

3) On what basis will you reelect this President?  What has he done to earn reelection?   

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 #84 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

There is video of Mittens' mother talking about how his father got welfare after moving to the US.

 

 

And then there is the bailout that Mittens himself received?

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

 

Good when it helps Mittens.  Bad when it helps anybody else.

 

Let me ask you a few things:  

 

1) Do you honestly believe that Romney opposes all governmental help?  

 

2) Do you honestly think that's a fair and balanced article with a neutral point of view?  

 

3) On what basis will you reelect this President?  What has he done to earn reelection?   

 

I have no idea what the consensus on Romney's beliefs is, but I doubt very much if he does oppose government assistance in all forms. As a Republican, he presumably favors less government assistance than the average Democrat, but that is just an assumption. I would also guess that his recent comments were just some unwisely-made sweeping generalizations that he thought his private audience would relate to, and should not necessarily be taken as his considered thoughts on the subject. 

 

As for that article, it's clearly rather critical of him, but hard to say whether it is fair and balanced without knowing if it is accurate. It would be really nice to see a detailed response to the information presented there, or an independent assessment of its accuracy.

post #85 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I have no idea what the consensus on Romney's beliefs is, but I doubt very much if he does oppose government assistance in all forms. As a Republican, he presumably favors less government assistance than the average Democrat, but that is just an assumption. I would also guess that his recent comments were just some unwisely-made sweeping generalizations that he thought his private audience would relate to, and should not necessarily be taken as his considered thoughts on the subject. 

 

As for that article, it's clearly rather critical of him, but hard to say whether it is fair and balanced without knowing if it is accurate. It would be really nice to see a detailed response to the information presented there, or an independent assessment of its accuracy.

 

That is very reasonable, balanced answer.  I, for one, appreciate it.  As for the article, it and others on the topic are not necessarily lacking in facts.  What the authors do is draw conclusions about those facts, then report these conclusions (as well as other reporters') as "news."   We see things like Romney "showing disdain" for "half the population."  Any honest person knows he wasn't referring to people on social security, veteran's benefits, etc.  

 

This is in contrast to the "you didn't build that" comment.  President Obama was making two points 1) That someone in some way helped you build your business and your success and 2) You didn't build the supporting infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc.  Both points are off base, in my opinion.  First, if we're going to start crediting people other than ourselves for our current successes, where does it stop?  Do I have to credit my first grade teacher?  The guy who sold me my suit for 10% off?  Every teacher I've ever had?  This first comment misses the point.  While we certainly all have had influences, mentors and people who supported us, ultimately we and we alone as individuals are responsible for our successes or failures.   Secondly, his comment about infrastructure is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.  Businesses may use the infrastructure and legal systems in America for their gain.  However, neither would exist without the businesses themselves.  They are the drivers of infrastructure, not the other way around.  

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 #86 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I have no idea what the consensus on Romney's beliefs is, but I doubt very much if he does oppose government assistance in all forms. As a Republican, he presumably favors less government assistance than the average Democrat, but that is just an assumption. I would also guess that his recent comments were just some unwisely-made sweeping generalizations that he thought his private audience would relate to, and should not necessarily be taken as his considered thoughts on the subject. 

As for that article, it's clearly rather critical of him, but hard to say whether it is fair and balanced without knowing if it is accurate. It would be really nice to see a detailed response to the information presented there, or an independent assessment of its accuracy.

That is very reasonable, balanced answer.  I, for one, appreciate it.  As for the article, it and others on the topic are not necessarily lacking in facts.  What the authors do is draw conclusions about those facts, then report these conclusions (as well as other reporters') as "news."   We see things like Romney "showing disdain" for "half the population."  Any honest person knows he wasn't referring to people on social security, veteran's benefits, etc.  

This is in contrast to the "you didn't build that" comment.  President Obama was making two points 1) That someone in some way helped you build your business and your success and 2) You didn't build the supporting infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc.  Both points are off base, in my opinion.  First, if we're going to start crediting people other than ourselves for our current successes, where does it stop?  Do I have to credit my first grade teacher?  The guy who sold me my suit for 10% off?  Every teacher I've ever had?  This first comment misses the point.  While we certainly all have had influences, mentors and people who supported us, ultimately we and we alone as individuals are responsible for our successes or failures.   Secondly, his comment about infrastructure is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.  Businesses may use the infrastructure and legal systems in America for their gain.  However, neither would exist without the businesses themselves.  They are the drivers of infrastructure, not the other way around.  

I agree that the news articles critical of Romney (and Obama for that matter) often mix commentary with news, which I have never liked.

I think that way too much is also being read into Obama' comment. Personally I think it was completely clear what he was trying to convey - that everyone benefits from the public, tax-funded infrastructure that the US provides. I don't understand how anyone could seriously doubt that, even if they disagree with the level at which it is provided. Sure - one can spin the interpretation of that phrase to imply that he is trying to take credit away from people but, firstly, he clearly said in that speech that he wasn't, and secondly, why would he do that - it's a message that would please no one, and this is a campaign speech.
post #87 of 197

Mittens paid 14.1% tax in 2011... can always file an amended return later to get his money back.

 

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 #88 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens paid 14.1% tax in 2011... can always file an amended return later to get his money back.

He earns a lot! Why give your money to people who won't help themselves, but instead just want the government to provide them with all their wants? If he paid more he'd just be encouraging more victims to carry on with their lifestyle of dependency. Real Americans need to pay less in taxes, and the other people need to pay more. If Romney paid just 1% he'd have contributed more than a 145 million liberals combined, and of course he gives very generously to charity too (though less in 2011 which raised his taxes). 47% of the population won't even pay for just one bullet to defend this country. Liberals won't defend America, they may as well not be Americans.

"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 #89 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens paid 14.1% tax in 2011... can always file an amended return later to get his money back.

 

More innuendo. You guys are priceless.

 

Anyway...

 

What is the right net rate/percentage? At what rate for what amount of income will you socialists stop whining that other people aren't paying enough? So, what's the number? And why that number?


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/21/12 at 3:01pm

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 #90 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

 

What is the right net rate/percentage? At what rate for what amount of income will you socialists stop whining that other people aren't paying enough?

I'd be happy if people in his bracket paid less than a fifth of what their paying on average now. Cut the military budget by at least 80%. End the drug war. Only about 9% of prison inmates are doing time for violent crime. There's maybe another 9% who deserve to be there for other serious offences. That's a reduction of more than 80% in the prison population saving a fortune to the tax payer. Much shorter sentences too, and a 3 year appeal process for death penalty cases, instead of taking forever (though the death penalty is immoral in a civilised society and I don't condone it). No more corporate tax breaks and corporate subsidies, none, that will save hundreds of billions each year. A genuinely universal healthcare service that would cut the government expenditure by more than 70% if done with conviction, and boost employers prospects and save a vast sum in medical insurance. Make pharmaceutical companies recoup some of the 55% of the total amount spent on medical research by the government..... and scale back homeland security by 98%. And there's a lot more too.

"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 #91 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'd be happy if people in his bracket paid less than a fifth of what their paying on average now.

 

So you'd be happy if they paid lower tax rates?

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Cut the military budget by at least 80%. End the drug war. Only about 9% of prison inmates are doing time for violent crime. There's maybe another 9% who deserve to be there for other serious offences. That's a reduction of more than 80% in the prison population saving a fortune to the tax payer. Much shorter sentences too, and a 3 year appeal process for death penalty cases, instead of taking forever (though the death penalty is immoral in a civilised society and I don't condone it). No more corporate tax breaks and corporate subsidies, none, that will save hundreds of billions each year.

 

I agree with most of that, but most of those things won't save as much as you think they will. How much do you think corporate welfare amounts to? How do you define it?
 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

A genuinely universal healthcare service that would cut the government expenditure by more than 70% if done with conviction, and boost employers prospects and save a vast sum in medical insurance.

 

Wrong.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Make pharmaceutical companies recoup some of the 55% of the total amount spent on medical research by the government

 

I'm all in favor of the government getting out of medical research and letting private organizations do and pay for all of it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

and scale back homeland security by 98%.

 

Yes.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

And there's a lot more too.

 

Yes there is...including the 60-70% of the budget that goes to welfare type spending.

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 #92 of 197

"The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years," his trustee Brad Malt said in a note accompanying the return.

 

Mittens has also said:

 

"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney has previously said."I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-tax-return_n_1904573.html

 

 

Has he just admitted that he will do anything to look good?  Is he trying to buy the WH?  (But could recoup the losses at some time in the near future)  Is he going to amend previous returns to reduce the credit he took and thus pay more taxes?  Anyway you look at it, this is just awkward.  The timing is also perfect to try to get the attention off this less than ideal week for him.

 

Also, as Jon Stewart already pointed out, Mittens receives a major government handout with his low tax rate.

 

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 #93 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

So you'd be happy if they paid lower tax rates?

 

 

 

 

I agree with most of that, but most of those things won't save as much as you think they will. How much do you think corporate welfare amounts to? How do you define it?
 

 

 

 

Wrong.

 

 

 

I'm all in favor of the government getting out of medical research and letting private organizations do and pay for all of it.

 

 

 

Yes.


 

 

Yes there is...including the 60-70% of the budget that goes to welfare type spending.

Very happy if we could get government spending down.

 

Corporate subsidies are vast. What the amounts are is hard to tally because it's so widespread and vast. It's hundreds of billions each year. I'll try and come up with some figures in time.

 

"Wrong?" Not as wrong as you would think and also I would't try and kill the private healthcare market place.

 

Welfare spending should be reduced without hurting those who need it. Remember that as taxes are cut, the poor should benefit from that as a priority. The poor pay a lot in taxes, obviously not income tax, but plenty of others. The welfare budget could probably be halved if government spent just 20% of what we pay for now. It's a big area and it's too late for me to get into that now. But it's certainly attainable without reducing the income of anyone that currently receives government support.

"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 #94 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Very happy if we could get government spending down.

 

Well that truly surprises me. I've misread you.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Corporate subsidies are vast. What the amounts are is hard to tally because it's so widespread and vast. It's hundreds of billions each year. I'll try and come up with some figures in time.

 

I look forward to some more accurate estimates rather than just hand waves. Currently you're on record for at least $200B based on you your claim (twice now) of "hundreds of billions.) But I'll wait for you to provide some real numbers and links to back them up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"Wrong?" Not as wrong as you would think and also I would't try and kill the private healthcare market place.

 

Uh huh.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Welfare spending should be reduced without hurting those who need it.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Remember that as taxes are cut, the poor should benefit from that as a priority. The poor pay a lot in taxes, obviously not income tax, but plenty of others.

 

Many people would benefit if taxes are cut...but it would depend on how they are cut. Cut them on people who invest and it will create economic growth that will help many.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The welfare budget could probably be halved if government spent just 20% of what we pay for now.

 

Huh?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

But it's certainly attainable without reducing the income of anyone that currently receives government support.

 

Right. :roll eyes:

 

I like that you assume that anyone who receives government support right now should receive it and should continue to and should continue to receive the same amount.

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 #95 of 197

I think he needs to release his 2008-2009 returns.

 

This is the year of the amnesty for the rich who stashed their money in Swiss bank accounts.  They were allowed to just pay the taxes and go on.  No fines nor anything.  Did Mittens get caught up in that?

 

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 #96 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

He earns a lot! Why give your money to people who won't help themselves, but instead just want the government to provide them with all their wants? If he paid more he'd just be encouraging more victims to carry on with their lifestyle of dependency. Real Americans need to pay less in taxes, and the other people need to pay more. If Romney paid just 1% he'd have contributed more than a 145 million liberals combined, and of course he gives very generously to charity too (though less in 2011 which raised his taxes). 47% of the population won't even pay for just one bullet to defend this country. Liberals won't defend America, they may as well not be Americans.

 

Is there a point there?  By the way, he didn't give significantly less in 2011.  He limited his deductions, which resulted in slightly higher taxes.   He still gave something like $4,000,000.  It's an incredible percentage of his income. And his tax rate?  It's several points higher than mine.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'd be happy if people in his bracket paid less than a fifth of what their paying on average now. Cut the military budget by at least 80%. End the drug war. Only about 9% of prison inmates are doing time for violent crime. There's maybe another 9% who deserve to be there for other serious offences. That's a reduction of more than 80% in the prison population saving a fortune to the tax payer. Much shorter sentences too, and a 3 year appeal process for death penalty cases, instead of taking forever (though the death penalty is immoral in a civilised society and I don't condone it). No more corporate tax breaks and corporate subsidies, none, that will save hundreds of billions each year. A genuinely universal healthcare service that would cut the government expenditure by more than 70% if done with conviction, and boost employers prospects and save a vast sum in medical insurance. Make pharmaceutical companies recoup some of the 55% of the total amount spent on medical research by the government..... and scale back homeland security by 98%. And there's a lot more too.

 

  • Cutting the military by 80% is 100% insane. ¬†
  • We don't need to "end" the drug war...we need to change the way we fight it. ¬†Decriminalizing use would be a start. ¬†
  • The death penalty is "immoral in civilized society." ¬† Hands, it's either immoral in your view, or it's not. ¬†Morality has nothing to do with "civilized society." ¬† So which is it? ¬†Are we just to liberal and enlightened and focused on restorative justice? ¬†Or is it immoral to kill someone who has committed heinous acts? ¬†Or is it a problem of accuracy of verdicts, appeals and carrying out the sentence? ¬†
  • Please provide some evidence that "corporate tax breaks" and subsidies will save "hundreds of billions" a year. ¬†
  • Where the hell do you get these numbers? ¬†We're going to save 70% with Universal healthcare? ¬†Wait..so the government covers hundreds of millions more people than it does now, and government expenditures go down? ¬†You want to cut Homeland Security by 98%? ¬†I don't even know what the hell that means. ¬† I do know I'm glad you're not in charge. ¬†You make Obama look like Ayn Rand. ¬†
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 #97 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

  • Cutting the military by 80% is 100% insane.

 

Probably not actually. We certainly could effectively defend this country for much less than we currently spend. It probably starts with not starting wars.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

  • We don't need to "end" the drug war...we need to change the way we fight it. ¬†Decriminalizing use would be a start.

 

Huh?

 

We need to "decriminalize" use? First how is "decriminalize" different from "legalize"? Why only use?

 

No.

 

We ought to just end the war on drugs completely and immediately pardon anyone for their drug use, possession, sale, distribution or manufacture crimes. Nothing else. Violent and property (e.g., theft) crimes committed in the service of drugs are not pardonable (though these crimes will end over night once legalization passes.)

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 #98 of 197

The problem with the letter from Price Waterhouse (the more names included the better?):

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-pwc-letter-reid_n_1904543.html

 

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 #99 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
I'd gladly look at any link you have that shows the Latino/Hispanic vote going 100% Democratic or for Obama.

No you wouldn't because you are in denial. Your location says 'in the future' but I'm sorry to break it to you, you are decidedly in the past. This time around the battle states are in the northern midwest but the tide is turning my friend, You will need to retreat ever further and further north as the years proceed to find like minded individuals, until you cross the border into Canada where you will find even more liberals. Your ilk is in the minority and receding rapidly.

 

I'm in denial because you've claimed the Latino/Hispanic vote will go 100% for Obama and cannot provide a single shred of proof for your assertion. Wow.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Very nice - I see that I inadvertently gave you an angle to attack there by referring to Republicans and Democrats and failing to note the lack of exact identity with the associated voting pattern.

 

But you must have realized that I can, and will, reframe the argument without reference to party, with just the same outcome. And by the way - my statement above that you labelled as a misquote or mischaracterization - that was a deduction. As you are aware, a reasoned argument typically contains observations (in this case what was said plus other data) and deductions (what one may conclude from the observations). Do I need to label those to stop you from doing that again? I can do that.

 

Anyway, to reframe:

 

Romney said that 47% of the electorate paid no taxes etc., and would never vote for him {OBSERVATION: QUOTE}. You said he was 100% correct {OBSERVATION: QUOTE}. Since that 47% is the set of people who pay no taxes etc. {OBSERVATION: DATA} that requires that everyone who would vote for him must be a taxpayer {DEDUCTION}. But that is clearly untrue; even the most cursory study of demographic data shows that many committed Republican voters are poor and non-taxpaying {OBSERVATION: DATA}. Reductio ad absurdum {DEDUCTION}.

 

Ergo his statement was incorrect. I invite you to refute.

 

When this discussion started I was not really focussed on that point at all, since I thought it was too obvious to argue about, but more specifically on the further conclusion that since many people in the non-taxpayer 47% would, in fact, be expected to vote for Romney (possibly even the majority of them based on demographic data that those who vote democrat have higher average education levels and higher average incomes), it seemed a mistake for him to have labeled them as self-entitled victims who would never vote for him. I'm sure that would not alienate all of them, but it's not going to help motivate them to get out and vote for him.

 

 

Edit: corrected an autocorrect error.

 

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are complaining that his generalization, like all generalizations can break down if applied in a very specific manner?

 

That really can't be what you are claiming though right because that is true of all generalizations. They are generalizations for a reason.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I have no idea what the consensus on Romney's beliefs is, but I doubt very much if he does oppose government assistance in all forms. As a Republican, he presumably favors less government assistance than the average Democrat, but that is just an assumption. I would also guess that his recent comments were just some unwisely-made sweeping generalizations that he thought his private audience would relate to, and should not necessarily be taken as his considered thoughts on the subject. 

 

As for that article, it's clearly rather critical of him, but hard to say whether it is fair and balanced without knowing if it is accurate. It would be really nice to see a detailed response to the information presented there, or an independent assessment of its accuracy.

 

Having read the article, it is rather hard to understand what it is trying to allege. It seems to suggest that Romney took actions but then assign ill and malicious intent to all the actions while the actions themselves were never illegal or even decried within their timeframe. I also find it sort of hilarious that these actions were from quite a while ago and the people presenting them are the same people declaring that the video of Obama and his support for redistribution of wealth doesn't really count because it was so long ago. Did you know Romney is alleged to have bullied a boy when he was 16, but Obama's adult statements while serving as a state senator are off limits.

 

When is a politician's own record ever off limits?!?! Obama defenders will go to any depth to support their candidate. Certainly you can see the absurdity and hypocrisy there right?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens paid 14.1% tax in 2011... can always file an amended return later to get his money back.

 

Only Republicans can amend their tax returns. Obama could never amend his return if voted out of office to use more aggressive bookkeeping. Perhaps you are implying Obama has used the most aggressive bookkeeping he could be with his tax return and thus while legal, ethically cheated the federal government out of their rightful money?

 

Is that it, are you declaring Obama a tax cheat since he paid so little that his amended return could never pay less?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I think he needs to release his 2008-2009 returns.

 

This is the year of the amnesty for the rich who stashed their money in Swiss bank accounts.  They were allowed to just pay the taxes and go on.  No fines nor anything.  Did Mittens get caught up in that?

 

He has already released more than required. There hasn't been a single claim about his tax returns that has proven true in any form or fashion. The Democratic leaders calling for their release won't follow in kind or follow their own demands. End of story.

"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 #100 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Very nice - I see that I inadvertently gave you an angle to attack there by referring to Republicans and Democrats and failing to note the lack of exact identity with the associated voting pattern.

 

But you must have realized that I can, and will, reframe the argument without reference to party, with just the same outcome. And by the way - my statement above that you labelled as a misquote or mischaracterization - that was a deduction. As you are aware, a reasoned argument typically contains observations (in this case what was said plus other data) and deductions (what one may conclude from the observations). Do I need to label those to stop you from doing that again? I can do that.

 

Anyway, to reframe:

 

Romney said that 47% of the electorate paid no taxes etc., and would never vote for him {OBSERVATION: QUOTE}. You said he was 100% correct {OBSERVATION: QUOTE}. Since that 47% is the set of people who pay no taxes etc. {OBSERVATION: DATA} that requires that everyone who would vote for him must be a taxpayer {DEDUCTION}. But that is clearly untrue; even the most cursory study of demographic data shows that many committed Republican voters are poor and non-taxpaying {OBSERVATION: DATA}. Reductio ad absurdum {DEDUCTION}.

 

Ergo his statement was incorrect. I invite you to refute.

 

When this discussion started I was not really focussed on that point at all, since I thought it was too obvious to argue about, but more specifically on the further conclusion that since many people in the non-taxpayer 47% would, in fact, be expected to vote for Romney (possibly even the majority of them based on demographic data that those who vote democrat have higher average education levels and higher average incomes), it seemed a mistake for him to have labeled them as self-entitled victims who would never vote for him. I'm sure that would not alienate all of them, but it's not going to help motivate them to get out and vote for him.

 

 

Edit: corrected an autocorrect error.

 

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are complaining that his generalization, like all generalizations can break down if applied in a very specific manner?

 

That really can't be what you are claiming though right because that is true of all generalizations. They are generalizations for a reason.

 

I've no idea what generalization you are talking about. All I've done is address the specific statements that he made, and drawn conclusions from them. Are you arguing now that my conclusions are wrong because he didn't mean specifically what he said, rather than that what he said was correct? 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I have no idea what the consensus on Romney's beliefs is, but I doubt very much if he does oppose government assistance in all forms. As a Republican, he presumably favors less government assistance than the average Democrat, but that is just an assumption. I would also guess that his recent comments were just some unwisely-made sweeping generalizations that he thought his private audience would relate to, and should not necessarily be taken as his considered thoughts on the subject. 

 

As for that article, it's clearly rather critical of him, but hard to say whether it is fair and balanced without knowing if it is accurate. It would be really nice to see a detailed response to the information presented there, or an independent assessment of its accuracy.

 

Having read the article, it is rather hard to understand what it is trying to allege. It seems to suggest that Romney took actions but then assign ill and malicious intent to all the actions while the actions themselves were never illegal or even decried within their timeframe. I also find it sort of hilarious that these actions were from quite a while ago and the people presenting them are the same people declaring that the video of Obama and his support for redistribution of wealth doesn't really count because it was so long ago. Did you know Romney is alleged to have bullied a boy when he was 16, but Obama's adult statements while serving as a state senator are off limits.

 

When is a politician's own record ever off limits?!?! Obama defenders will go to any depth to support their candidate. Certainly you can see the absurdity and hypocrisy there right?

 

I think it's obvious what they are alleging - that he actually did a lousy job rescuing the company and accepted substantial government help in the process. If that were true then it would be very relevant, given his position on this subject, recent comments, and that one of his selling points in standing for president is his economic and business acumen. The question is whether or not it is true. I suspect that the reality is not as bad as they portray.

 

Once again I'm disappointed that you can't discuss this without going off on another rant about Obama. Yes - we know that you can't stand the guy, and that you believe that there are double standards in the way that they are treated, but it is still possible to debate one without bringing up the other. But if you want to compare the two cases in question, I think it is a poor comparison, because it contrasts an isolated sound bite from an Obama speech with a significant set of actions in Romney's career. A much better comparison would be with Obama's voting record as a Senator, for example.

 

Additionally, I would argue that the Obama clip criticism is a bit desperate:

 

Quote:
"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."

If he is referring to anything more sinister than our existing systems of taxation to fund infrastructure and social programs for the poor then I'm not seeing it. Not that I'm expecting the more right-wing elements to agree with it, but it fits well within mainstream Democratic principles.

post #101 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are complaining that his generalization, like all generalizations can break down if applied in a very specific manner?

 

That really can't be what you are claiming though right because that is true of all generalizations. They are generalizations for a reason.

 

I've no idea what generalization you are talking about. All I've done is address the specific statements that he made, and drawn conclusions from them. Are you arguing now that my conclusions are wrong because he didn't mean specifically what he said, rather than that what he said was correct? 

 

Mitt was speaking to a group of fundraisers and was not giving speaking exclusively about the nature of voters and their motivations. He used a generalization. Everyone has to use generalizations because we do not have enough time in our day to rationalize every conclusion we present.

 

Almost every generalization breaks down when exceptions are found. As an example when Obama declares that the "rich" don't pay their fair share, does he really mean 100% of all rich people all the time?

 

Certainly you understand what a generalization is and how to use them. Are you honestly claiming Mitt's claim about 47% of the population was a long, detailed and rationalized statement instead of a generalization?

 

Quote:
I think it's obvious what they are alleging - that he actually did a lousy job rescuing the company and accepted substantial government help in the process. If that were true then it would be very relevant, given his position on this subject, recent comments, and that one of his selling points in standing for president is his economic and business acumen. The question is whether or not it is true. I suspect that the reality is not as bad as they portray.

 

How can it be true or false when what they allege isn't about law but about intentions, and state of mind? They aren't saying the law has been broken. The government help was restructuring loans with a bank and the bank had been take over by the FDIC.

 

Here's the Washington Post on the matter.

 

Meanwhile, Bain & Company also owed $38 million to the Bank of New England. But the Bank of New England had made many bad loans, faltered and by early 1991 had been seized by the federal government. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sold the bank to Fleet Financial, a Rhode Island bank, and a Fleet subsidiary was tasked with trying to collect on the outstanding loans.

After months of negotiations, the outstanding loan was reduced by $10 million, including forgone interest.

 

The FDIC deals with this problem constantly when it seizes banks, figuring out how it can get the most money out of distressed loans. Changing the terms or reducing the loan is fairly typical, as the FDIC indicates in its Guide to Bank Failure.

 

The FDIC’s Resolution Handbook also says (page 80):

Restructuring a loan for a financially distressed borrower is normally more productive for the receiver than foreclosing on the collateral or initiating lawsuits to collect the debt. Maximizing recovery on failed institution assets is the receiver’s responsibility, and litigation expenses can very rapidly consume any funds recovered

 

The FDIC tries to collect as much as possible, but ultimately has to make good on deposits at least up to $250,000. (In the Bank of New England case, the limit was $100,000 at the time, but the agency decided to guarantee all deposits.) But any shortfall is made up through assessments made on FDIC-member banks.

That‚Äôs right ‚ÄĒ no taxpayer money is involved. The FDIC prides itself on not taking taxpayer funds.

 

So does this qualify as a ‚Äúbailout‚ÄĚ? The dictionary definition of bailout refers to ‚Äú rescue from financial distress.‚ÄĚ By that standard, some of the Bain Capital deals so heavily criticized by the Obama campaign, such as Ampad and GS Industries, might qualify as ‚Äúbailouts.‚ÄĚ A more proper term ‚ÄĒ the one used by the FDIC ‚ÄĒ is ‚Äúloan restructuring.‚ÄĚ

 

Cutter‚Äôs statement is cleverly and carefully worded, since it never mentions taxpayer funds. But her introductory sentence ‚ÄĒ ‚ÄúMitt Romney knows better than anyone that business can‚Äôt always do it alone‚ÄĚ ‚ÄĒ certainly suggests taxpayer funds were involved. The clear implication is that he benefited from a bailout like the Wall Street banks during the financial crisis.

 

That‚Äôs not the case, though one can get into a theoretical argument as to whether the FDIC‚Äôs money, once collected from banks, is actually then ‚Äúgovernment money.‚ÄĚ

 

Quote:

Once again I'm disappointed that you can't discuss this without going off on another rant about Obama. Yes - we know that you can't stand the guy, and that you believe that there are double standards in the way that they are treated, but it is still possible to debate one without bringing up the other. But if you want to compare the two cases in question, I think it is a poor comparison, because it contrasts an isolated sound bite from an Obama speech with a significant set of actions in Romney's career. A much better comparison would be with Obama's voting record as a Senator, for example.

 

Additionally, I would argue that the Obama clip criticism is a bit desperate:

 

People are citing sources that are biased, misleading and clearly engaging in a double-standard. Rolling Stone has as political news, Sarah Silverman cracking jokes about Voter ID and other such nonsense.

 

It isn't news but people treat the claims of these writings that should barely even considered as opinion pieces, as facts. On the flip side they are disavowing factual and first hand statements by the actual president of the United States as "too old."

 

That doesn't show desperation on my part, it shows desperation on their part. Look at the title of their threads. They are strawmen from the very beginning. They've been listening to Obama set them up for so long that a logical fallacy is actual logic to them now. Obama uses this prop in every speech. "Some say...." and then he knocks it down. It's practically a verbal tic with the man.

 

As for comparisons, we know Obama's voting record as a State Senator. It was voting "present" and also supporting doctors who don't help babies born alive during botched abortions. However what difference will that make to you or his supporters who rationalize it away as "too old" or as a "poor comparison."

 

I highly doubt there will ever be a comparison that will not qualify as "poor" to you because you haven't even been willing to concede that Romney is allowed to use generalizations which again, is what all political speech uses.

Quote:
If he is referring to anything more sinister than our existing systems of taxation to fund infrastructure and social programs for the poor then I'm not seeing it. Not that I'm expecting the more right-wing elements to agree with it, but it fits well within mainstream Democratic principles.

 

It isn't about agreement or disagreement. The claim was that it couldn't be considered because it was "too old" and thus even though it was a first person source, shouldn't be considered for political discussion or thought.

 

Some of us also remember Joe the Plumber from 2008 and spreading the wealth around which of course isn't from 1998.

 

Obama talks continually about the Clinton tax rates and how good everything must have been with them but always fails to mention the rates were higher for those earning less than $250k as well. If, as Democrats claim, the majority of the tax cuts went to the rich, and if as they claim, the tax cuts for the poor and middle class amounted to almost nothing, since what they pay not is often nothing, why not just let the extension expire and watch the economy march on?

 

I mean sure Joe the Plumber pays an extra $24 a month or something along those lines but the claim is they get extra millions to billion from the rich. Shouldn't that be a reasonable compromise from anyone who isn't a pure partisan or an extremist with their class warfare rhetoric?

"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 #102 of 197

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are complaining that his generalization, like all generalizations can break down if applied in a very specific manner?

 

That really can't be what you are claiming though right because that is true of all generalizations. They are generalizations for a reason.

 

I've no idea what generalization you are talking about. All I've done is address the specific statements that he made, and drawn conclusions from them. Are you arguing now that my conclusions are wrong because he didn't mean specifically what he said, rather than that what he said was correct? 

 

Mitt was speaking to a group of fundraisers and was not giving speaking exclusively about the nature of voters and their motivations. He used a generalization. Everyone has to use generalizations because we do not have enough time in our day to rationalize every conclusion we present.

 

Almost every generalization breaks down when exceptions are found. As an example when Obama declares that the "rich" don't pay their fair share, does he really mean 100% of all rich people all the time?

 

Certainly you understand what a generalization is and how to use them. Are you honestly claiming Mitt's claim about 47% of the population was a  instead of a generalization?

 

OK - fine, if you want to call his comments a generalization rather than the "100% correct" that you called them earlier, then we can do that. In which case I will argue that his generalization was not even a good one. Of the 47% that he referred to as self-entitled victims and who would never vote for him, demographic voting data indicate that, in fact, he could expect a significant fraction to vote for him. So as a generalization it was still both incorrect and rather insulting to many of his own supporters.

 

So no, it was not a "long, detailed and rationalized statement", it was a comment to supporters, but whether ones chooses to take it literally or as a generalization, it was incorrect and, in my opinion, ill-judged. It's not going to wreck his campaign, but frankly it would be better if he and his supporters just wrote it off as an ill-conceived mis-statement of his views than trying to defend it as true.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
I think it's obvious what they are alleging - that he actually did a lousy job rescuing the company and accepted substantial government help in the process. If that were true then it would be very relevant, given his position on this subject, recent comments, and that one of his selling points in standing for president is his economic and business acumen. The question is whether or not it is true. I suspect that the reality is not as bad as they portray.

 

How can it be true or false when what they allege isn't about law but about intentions, and state of mind? They aren't saying the law has been broken. The government help was restructuring loans with a bank and the bank had been take over by the FDIC.

 

Here's the Washington Post on the matter.

 

It would need to be about the law if it were alleging illegality, but it isn't. It does not need to be about the law to be factual. It is primarily an account of his actions and performance, not his intentions or state of mind.


Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Once again I'm disappointed that you can't discuss this without going off on another rant about Obama. Yes - we know that you can't stand the guy, and that you believe that there are double standards in the way that they are treated, but it is still possible to debate one without bringing up the other. But if you want to compare the two cases in question, I think it is a poor comparison, because it contrasts an isolated sound bite from an Obama speech with a significant set of actions in Romney's career. A much better comparison would be with Obama's voting record as a Senator, for example.

 

 

Additionally, I would argue that the Obama clip criticism is a bit desperate:

 

 

People are citing sources that are biased, misleading and clearly engaging in a double-standard. Rolling Stone has as political news, Sarah Silverman cracking jokes about Voter ID and other such nonsense.

 

 

It isn't news but people treat the claims of these writings that should barely even considered as opinion pieces, as facts. On the flip side they are disavowing factual and first hand statements by the actual president of the United States as "too old."

 

That doesn't show desperation on my part, it shows desperation on their part. Look at the title of their threads. They are strawmen from the very beginning. They've been listening to Obama set them up for so long that a logical fallacy is actual logic to them now. Obama uses this prop in every speech. "Some say...." and then he knocks it down. It's practically a verbal tic with the man.

 

As for comparisons, we know Obama's voting record as a State Senator. It was voting "present" and also supporting doctors who don't help babies born alive during botched abortions. However what difference will that make to you or his supporters who rationalize it away as "too old" or as a "poor comparison."

 

I highly doubt there will ever be a comparison that will not qualify as "poor" to you because you haven't even been willing to concede that Romney is allowed to use generalizations which again, is what all political speech uses.

 

 

Of course people are citing biased sources - there are precious few unbiased ones around. But you can't just dismiss information because you don't like the source; dispute the information itself, not its provenance.

 

Yes - there are all kinds of stupid strawman threads here on both sides, but if you think that you are above that then you are deluding yourself. If you see them, knock them down directly - don't go of on a tangent. And don't try to use the tactic that there is no point arguing specifics because you opponents will just dismiss them. Use them anyway.

 

Your very last sentence contains a perfect example of a strawman. You suddenly labeled Romney's statement as a generalization, and then accused me of not allowing him to use them. I had neither said that, nor implied it, nor even mentioned generalizations. If you choose to consider it as such then, as I argued above, I think what he said was not even a good generalization, but I have no problem with anyone using them. Furthermore, arguing that I would never accept a comparison between Romney and Obama because I would not allow Romney to use generalizations is a non sequitur piled on top of a strawman. If you really want a discussion you need to stop doing that. And I had already suggested that Obama's record in the Senate would be a reasonable comparison.

 

 

 

post #103 of 197

Have you ever noticed how loud mouthed liberals in favor of wealth redistribution like Obama, never actually open up their own wallets and give much?

 

The liberals and the corrupt liberal media were whining about Romney's tax returns for a while now, and as usual, now that the facts are out, it turns out that Romney has paid more than he had to and he even gave a considerable portion of his income to charity, far greater than the stingy Obamas have ever given.

post #104 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Probably not actually. We certainly could effectively defend this country for much less than we currently spend. It probably starts with not starting wars.

 

 

 

Huh?

 

We need to "decriminalize" use? First how is "decriminalize" different from "legalize"? Why only use?

 

No.

 

We ought to just end the war on drugs completely and immediately pardon anyone for their drug use, possession, sale, distribution or manufacture crimes. Nothing else. Violent and property (e.g., theft) crimes committed in the service of drugs are not pardonable (though these crimes will end over night once legalization passes.)

 

1.  We could not "effectively" defend this country with 80% less money for the military.  What we could do is maintain a very minimal force that could only really be used for defending the continental U.S., if that.  We could afford probably one or two carrier battlegroups, a 50 ship Navy, a few hundred aircraft and maybe 100,000 ground forces total.  We would not be able to project power anywhere.  If we or one of our allies were attacked, we'd have no real way to respond (other than what remaining nukes we had left).  Other powers would know this, and would take advantage.  This is why weakness invites attack.  But by all means, keep pretending we live in a world where everyone gets along and the U.S. provokes all conflict.  

 

2.  While I don't like the government telling adults what they can put into their bodies, I do think that we have a public health and safety concern in preventing widespread drug use.   The drug business brings crime and violence with it.  Widespread use/abuse also has devastating impacts on the lives of the citizenry.  The question, to me, is how to reduce drug use and associated crime.  I think decriminalizing (or legalizing if you prefer) use is the way to go, so long as it is coupled with a massive public effort to prevent and treat drug use.  The only crime would be for distribution of the most dangerous substances (meth, crack, et al) and perhaps for large scale distribution of less dangerous substances (marijuana comes to mind).  That said, I do think there is an argument for legalizing marijuana and other various natural substances entirely.  I think they key is to flip the ratio in terms of what we spend fighting the drug war.  Right now its 2/3 enforcement and 1/3 prevention and treatment...the opposite should be the case.  There is also no reason someone should go to jail because he's got a few 8 balls of coke on his person while be stopped on a traffic violation.   This would lead to far fewer non-violent drug offenders in jail.   The only problem I see is that it may boost demand, leading to an even more profitable drug industry.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Have you ever noticed how loud mouthed liberals in favor of wealth redistribution like Obama, never actually open up their own wallets and give much?

 

The liberals and the corrupt liberal media were whining about Romney's tax returns for a while now, and as usual, now that the facts are out, it turns out that Romney has paid more than he had to and he even gave a considerable portion of his income to charity, far greater than the stingy Obamas have ever given.

 

Same old story.  The hypocrisy is amazing.  Ever see John Edwards' house?  Mr. Two Americas certainly lived in the first one.  When I saw this picture of his 28,000 SQFT mansion, I thought it was something from The Onion.  But hey, Mitt Romney is a rich guy that hates poor people.  Right? 

 

 

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 #105 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What we could do is maintain a very minimal force that could only really be used for defending the continental U.S., if that.  We could afford probably one or two carrier battlegroups, a 50 ship Navy, a few hundred aircraft and maybe 100,000 ground forces total.

 

Do you have sources for these estimates?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We would not be able to project power anywhere.

 

Good. That's part of the problem.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If we or one of our allies were attacked, we'd have no real way to respond (other than what remaining nukes we had left).

 

I'll wait for you to substantiate your claims above before addressing any more of this. Absent any substantiation, I'll just have to assume this is just a bunch of bluster from another neo-conservative statist hawk.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The drug business brings crime and violence with it.

 

Correction: Drug prohibition brings crime and violence with it. I would think that anyone who studied any US history at all would see this and the examples we have from the past. See also: Alcohol prohibition.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Widespread use/abuse also has devastating impacts on the lives of the citizenry.

 

I'll wait for you to prove that legalization would result in widespread use/abuse. Until then you're simply begging the question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The question, to me, is how to reduce drug use and associated crime.

 

Education and legalization.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think decriminalizing (or legalizing if you prefer) use is the way to go, so long as it is coupled with a massive public effort to prevent and treat drug use.

 

Well I don't agree with the "massive public (by which you mean government, of course) effort to prevent a treat drug use."

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The only crime would be for distribution of the most dangerous substances (meth, crack, et al) and perhaps for large scale distribution of less dangerous substances (marijuana comes to mind).

 

Use isn't legal but manufacture, distribution and sale is. That's just fucking stupid. Stop trying to dictate what people can or can't do.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That said, I do think there is an argument for legalizing marijuana and other various natural substances entirely.

 

Well that's a start. That marijuana is illegal is criminally stupid.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think they key is to flip the ratio in terms of what we spend fighting the drug war.

 

I think the key is for people to stop thinking they have the right to dictate what other people can and can't do with drugs.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right now its 2/3 enforcement and 1/3 prevention and treatment...the opposite should be the case.

 

No. The case should be the separation of government and drugs.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The only problem I see is that it may boost demand, leading to an even more profitable drug industry.  

 

Actually just the opposite! That drugs are illegal makes them much more profitable, hence the violence and crime and cartels. It's a black market. It's worth all of that for the profits. Black markets tend to be highly profitable. See also: Alcohol prohibition. In fact in my own state, where medical marijuana dispensaries were made legal, not long after this happened, vendors started complaining that profit margins plummeted. And some were having a hard time staying in business. In that business (like every other) profit margins would seeks a stasis of around 10%-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 #106 of 197
Quote:

 

 

Same old story.  The hypocrisy is amazing.  Ever see John Edwards' house?  Mr. Two Americas certainly lived in the first one.  When I saw this picture of his 28,000 SQFT mansion, I thought it was something from The Onion.  But hey, Mitt Romney is a rich guy that hates poor people.  Right? 

 

 

 

I can't say that I'm surprised. 

 

You have these liberal journalists and news anchors making millions of dollars a year, and they're all piling on Romney because he's "rich", as if being successful is a bad thing. Liberalism is the height of hypocrisy.

post #107 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - fine, if you want to call his comments a generalization rather than the "100% correct" that you called them earlier, then we can do that. In which case I will argue that his generalization was not even a good one. Of the 47% that he referred to as self-entitled victims and who would never vote for him, demographic voting data indicate that, in fact, he could expect a significant fraction to vote for him. So as a generalization it was still both incorrect and rather insulting to many of his own supporters.

 

So no, it was not a "long, detailed and rationalized statement", it was a comment to supporters, but whether ones chooses to take it literally or as a generalization, it was incorrect and, in my opinion, ill-judged. It's not going to wreck his campaign, but frankly it would be better if he and his supporters just wrote it off as an ill-conceived mis-statement of his views than trying to defend it as true.

 

 

It is correct that 47% of the population is likely to support Obama. People who want government money already have their candidate. People who want government to take even more and do even more already have their candidate.

 

I still really don't think you understand generalization vs rationalization. You make it sound like a press release from his campaign vs private comments to a private group at a private residence. People use shortcuts in life. He was trying to portray to those donating money that the president has strong support and that is absolutely true. He can't give an hour long speech on the aspirations and motivations of Obama supporters.

 

Quote:

It would need to be about the law if it were alleging illegality, but it isn't. It does not need to be about the law to be factual. It is primarily an account of his actions and performance, not his intentions or state of mind.

 

No it was alleging hypocrisy and not even about his actions and performance. Hypocrisy is about values and being at odds with them. It was nothing more than a smear piece because as the WP piece mentioned, it was in no way any action that would be described as a government bailout by any reasonable person. It requires several logical leaps to even try to get into the realm of thinking that by subjective and profoundly biased opinion pieces from pretend news sources can try to get there.

Quote:
Of course people are citing biased sources - there are precious few unbiased ones around. But you can't just dismiss information because you don't like the source; dispute the information itself, not its provenance.

 

I didn't get dismiss it. I refuted it with a source that got the facts. However I will dismiss any source that tries to get into state of mind instead of facts because claiming to know such a thing is nonsense.

Quote:
Yes - there are all kinds of stupid strawman threads here on both sides, but if you think that you are above that then you are deluding yourself. If you see them, knock them down directly - don't go of on a tangent. And don't try to use the tactic that there is no point arguing specifics because you opponents will just dismiss them. Use them anyway.

 

Tangents come up when people don't understand reasoning or things like generalizations. I mean if I say the sun will come up tomorrow and it will be a new day and you want to argue what sun, what is a day, what constitutes tomorrow, what does rise mean if you aren't on the ground on this particular planet, then sure tangents will occur.

 

I accepted the generality. You wanted to hyper-rationalize it. It's just bad form to do that and then complain about tangents, I mean really, come on.

 

Quote:
Your very last sentence contains a perfect example of a strawman. You suddenly labeled Romney's statement as a generalization, and then accused me of not allowing him to use them. I had neither said that, nor implied it, nor even mentioned generalizations. If you choose to consider it as such then, as I argued above, I think what he said was not even a good generalization, but I have no problem with anyone using them. Furthermore, arguing that I would never accept a comparison between Romney and Obama because I would not allow Romney to use generalizations is a non sequitur piled on top of a strawman. If you really want a discussion you need to stop doing that. And I had already suggested that Obama's record in the Senate would be a reasonable comparison.

 

I didn't suddenly label it as such. I realized when you were trying to rationalize it in a dozen different ways that you didn't treat it as such and then I chose to label it that way to help you out. It is a sign of bias though that you haven't gone around hyper-rationalizing Obama statements. That's just the truth. When Obama declares that the rich don't pay their fair share, you aren't along sniping that he couldn't possibly have meant Democratic rich, or 100% of the rich, or what have you.

 

If you had no problem with Romney using them, then you wouldn't have attempted to declare it wrong by rationalizing it. In comparing Romney and Obama you DO NOT allow Romney use of generalizations because you have spent this entire thread attacking his generalization. You've engaged in no similar actions towards Obama even though he trashes entire classes of people daily and with no qualifiers.

 

We don't need Obama's record in the Senate I don't need you to determine what is a reasonable or unreasonable comparison. You've been given no post that I or anyone else should yield to with regard to conferring such things. Obama has a failed record as a president and rationalizing away generalities, distorting Romney's record at Bain nor will declaring that Republicans secretly hate puppies and kittens change that record of failure.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Have you ever noticed how loud mouthed liberals in favor of wealth redistribution like Obama, never actually open up their own wallets and give much?

 

The liberals and the corrupt liberal media were whining about Romney's tax returns for a while now, and as usual, now that the facts are out, it turns out that Romney has paid more than he had to and he even gave a considerable portion of his income to charity, far greater than the stingy Obamas have ever given.

 

Oh don't worry, Obama's tax return is Romney's fault too.

"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 #108 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - fine, if you want to call his comments a generalization rather than the "100% correct" that you called them earlier, then we can do that. In which case I will argue that his generalization was not even a good one. Of the 47% that he referred to as self-entitled victims and who would never vote for him, demographic voting data indicate that, in fact, he could expect a significant fraction to vote for him. So as a generalization it was still both incorrect and rather insulting to many of his own supporters.

 

So no, it was not a "long, detailed and rationalized statement", it was a comment to supporters, but whether ones chooses to take it literally or as a generalization, it was incorrect and, in my opinion, ill-judged. It's not going to wreck his campaign, but frankly it would be better if he and his supporters just wrote it off as an ill-conceived mis-statement of his views than trying to defend it as true.

 

 

It is correct that 47% of the population is likely to support Obama. People who want government money already have their candidate. People who want government to take even more and do even more already have their candidate.

 

No one is disputing that. The point is that it is not the same 47% who pay no tax, which is what Romney claimed. How can this simple distinction be so hard to understand?

 

 

Quote:
I still really don't think you understand generalization vs rationalization. You make it sound like a press release from his campaign vs private comments to a private group at a private residence. People use shortcuts in life. He was trying to portray to those donating money that the president has strong support and that is absolutely true. He can't give an hour long speech on the aspirations and motivations of Obama supporters.

 

I know what both are. I don't know why you are portraying them as alternatives. Generalizing and using logic are not mutually exclusive, and generalizations should be rational. In any case, I agree with you on why he said what he said, I just don't think it was well said, because it was inaccurate and incorrect as a generalization. I'm sure he wanted to convey what you said above, and reassure them that he wants to minimize the tax burden on them. He just seems to have forgotten that many of his supporters also fall into the 47% pay no tax group.

 

Quote:

Tangents come up when people don't understand reasoning or things like generalizations. I mean if I say the sun will come up tomorrow and it will be a new day and you want to argue what sun, what is a day, what constitutes tomorrow, what does rise mean if you aren't on the ground on this particular planet, then sure tangents will occur.

 

I accepted the generality. You wanted to hyper-rationalize it. It's just bad form to do that and then complain about tangents, I mean really, come on.

 

 

Hyper-rationalize? What does that mean? Something like "please don't analyse my arguments too deeply because they won't stand up to such scrutiny", perhaps? Generality does not imply irrationality, so if your generalizations are illogical I will call you on it. Please feel free to do the same. You supported Romney's statement that none of the 47% that constitutes non-taxpayers would ever vote for him. That is obviously not remotely close to true - but you want me to let it go because it's a "generalization".

 

So - to be clear - are you saying that it is bad form for me to analyze an argument, demonstrate its flaws, and complain when you go off on a tangent rather than address my criticisms?

 

Quote:
I didn't suddenly label it as such. I realized when you were trying to rationalize it in a dozen different ways that you didn't treat it as such and then I chose to label it that way to help you out. It is a sign of bias though that you haven't gone around hyper-rationalizing Obama statements. That's just the truth. When Obama declares that the rich don't pay their fair share, you aren't along sniping that he couldn't possibly have meant Democratic rich, or 100% of the rich, or what have you.

 

As I said - it makes no difference whether it is a generalization or not - it was untrue and I pointed that out. And again, just calling it a generalization does not excuse it being plain wrong.

 

And correct - I've made no criticisms here at all about Obama's statements, because that wasn't the subject of the thread. I also haven't criticized Ryan, or any other Republicans. It's off topic.

 

Quote:

If you had no problem with Romney using them, then you wouldn't have attempted to declare it wrong by rationalizing it. In comparing Romney and Obama you DO NOT allow Romney use of generalizations because you have spent this entire thread attacking his generalization. You've engaged in no similar actions towards Obama even though he trashes entire classes of people daily and with no qualifiers.

 

No, I  have no problem with him using generalizations, but this one (if that is what it was) was wrong. So I criticized him for using an incorrect generalization, not just for using a generalization. Totally different.

 

Quote:
We don't need Obama's record in the Senate I don't need you to determine what is a reasonable or unreasonable comparison. You've been given no post that I or anyone else should yield to with regard to conferring such things. Obama has a failed record as a president and rationalizing away generalities, distorting Romney's record at Bain nor will declaring that Republicans secretly hate puppies and kittens change that record of failure.

 

That's fine - I never said that you did need me to determine that - but you accused me of not permitting comparison and you are now misrepresenting my response. I was pointing out that I disagreed with the validity of that particular comparison, I was not arguing that there could be no comparison, and to illustrate that I suggested a comparison that I thought was reasonable. I was not insisting that you should agree with my suggestion.

post #109 of 197

muppetry: 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

No one is disputing that. The point is that it is not the same 47% who pay no tax, which is what Romney claimed. How can this simple distinction be so hard to understand?

 

I understand the distinction, but I'm not so sure it's accurate or entirely accurate.  While it seems unlikely that it's all the same people, I'd bet that most people that don't pay taxes won't support Romney.  The two exceptions might be those who get SS and pay no taxes (living entirely on it), and those on some sort of veterans' or disability benefits.  However, I'd bet that the vast majority of that 47% are people who, because of deductions and exemptions relative to their incomes, pay nothing in federal income tax.  In fact, I'm quite sure that we have people making $40,000 a year who pay nothing.  That 47% also includes people who live exclusively on welfare and food stamp benefits, with no intention of ever getting off of them.  These are the people Romney was talking about, and he was spot on.  The Left refers to this latter group as "less fortunate."  Romney doesn't believe in able-bodied and able-minded people being permanently less fortunate.  And he's right.  

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 #110 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

muppetry: 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

No one is disputing that. The point is that it is not the same 47% who pay no tax, which is what Romney claimed. How can this simple distinction be so hard to understand?

 

I understand the distinction, but I'm not so sure it's accurate or entirely accurate.  While it seems unlikely that it's all the same people, I'd bet that most people that don't pay taxes won't support Romney.  The two exceptions might be those who get SS and pay no taxes (living entirely on it), and those on some sort of veterans' or disability benefits.  However, I'd bet that the vast majority of that 47% are people who, because of deductions and exemptions relative to their incomes, pay nothing in federal income tax.  In fact, I'm quite sure that we have people making $40,000 a year who pay nothing.  That 47% also includes people who live exclusively on welfare and food stamp benefits, with no intention of ever getting off of them.  These are the people Romney was talking about, and he was spot on.  The Left refers to this latter group as "less fortunate."  Romney doesn't believe in able-bodied and able-minded people being permanently less fortunate.  And he's right.  

 

If you look at the voting demographics from any number of different sources, it is apparent that a significant fraction of that 47% vote Republican. I'm sure Romney did not intend to include them in that group, but he invoked the 47% and they are there nonetheless. That is the mistake that I believe he made. As for those who live permanently on benefits without really trying to escape that plight - I've no quarrel with Romney on his views there. However, on that issue, neither has Obama. I'm not aware that anyone supports permanent welfare for such people as opposed to trying to get them back to work, and the current system to deal with them is no different to that under previous Republican administrations.

post #111 of 197

I think it is clear by the efforts the GOP is going to to twist and spin Mittens' comments that they are more than aware that he misspoke and might have blown the election.  They really seem to be i panic mode at the moment and if they're not careful, they will do it again.

 

Ann said, "Stop it.  This is hard."  To her own party.  

 

Mittens manipulates his tax return, and by his own statement about if he pays more than legally required he is unfit, declares himself unfit for the WH.

 

And the Right continues to twist and spin.

 

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 #112 of 197

Obama is just talk with no action period. So is Michelle another phony! Two hypocrites that really hate America.
 

post #113 of 197
Romney: 47% are dependent on government and won't vote for me

The 47%: How rude. I won't vote for Romney.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, or reality?

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 #114 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Romney: 47% are dependent on government and won't vote for me

The 47%: How rude. I won't vote for Romney.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, or reality?

Stupidity for Romney even opening his mouth.

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 #115 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No one is disputing that. The point is that it is not the same 47% who pay no tax, which is what Romney claimed. How can this simple distinction be so hard to understand?

 

You are right there are not perfectly aligned. The point with a generalization is that it doesn't have to be specific and exact. A human's body temperature is 98.6 degrees F. Only it isn't. It varies throughout the day. The same is true of your body weight. Everything in life is an approximation because real life isn't a snap shot. Even language itself is an abstraction. What isn't hard to understand is that you only care about this distinction one way.

 

 

 

Quote:

I know what both are. I don't know why you are portraying them as alternatives. Generalizing and using logic are not mutually exclusive, and generalizations should be rational. In any case, I agree with you on why he said what he said, I just don't think it was well said, because it was inaccurate and incorrect as a generalization. I'm sure he wanted to convey what you said above, and reassure them that he wants to minimize the tax burden on them. He just seems to have forgotten that many of his supporters also fall into the 47% pay no tax group.

 

Which politicians doesn't risk alienating some small percentage, and have some degree of lack of specificity when speaking in generalities? Obama talking about bitter and clinging. He talks about the rich and their fair share. I don't bring that up to distract. I bring it up to show how you have a problem with what is common. This is the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.

 

Quote:

 

Hyper-rationalize? What does that mean? Something like "please don't analyse my arguments too deeply because they won't stand up to such scrutiny", perhaps? Generality does not imply irrationality, so if your generalizations are illogical I will call you on it. Please feel free to do the same. You supported Romney's statement that none of the 47% that constitutes non-taxpayers would ever vote for him. That is obviously not remotely close to true - but you want me to let it go because it's a "generalization".

 

So - to be clear - are you saying that it is bad form for me to analyze an argument, demonstrate its flaws, and complain when you go off on a tangent rather than address my criticisms?

 

I've given multiple examples. Hyper-rationalize simply means to rationalize down to a level where it isn't useful or helpful. If I ask you what you weigh and you weigh a pound more in the afternoon than in the morning, it would be stupid of me to accuse you being a liar or of ill intent. If I demanded your weight hourly to prove you aren't lying, it really wouldn't provide anymore useful information. It would just generate a bunch of additional work and information that wouldn't add anymore to any discussion.

 

Romney was quickly trying to explain the level of Obama support and the motivations of his voters. He had probably a minute to 90 seconds. Of course a deeper and longer discussion would be more SPECIFIC but it wouldn't have yielded any deeper motivation for Romney fundraisers nor would it have been a good use of his time.

 

 

Quote:

As I said - it makes no difference whether it is a generalization or not - it was untrue and I pointed that out. And again, just calling it a generalization does not excuse it being plain wrong.

 

And correct - I've made no criticisms here at all about Obama's statements, because that wasn't the subject of the thread. I also haven't criticized Ryan, or any other Republicans. It's off topic.

 

Can you name for me a generality that cannot be broken down if applying every possibility to it? By your reasoning, all generalizations are true when not applied as generalizations. That is why I have said I really don't think you understand what they are because you keep declaring "when I apply this generality in this very specific way, it fails."

 

No shit it fails. Almost all generalities fail if applied specifically and using the criteria that any exception when applied specifically is proof of failure. Using your reasoning, anyone who declares body temp is 98.6 F is a liar or plainly wrong.

 

Quote:

No, I  have no problem with him using generalizations, but this one (if that is what it was) was wrong. So I criticized him for using an incorrect generalization, not just for using a generalization. Totally different.

 

Try again.

 

 

Quote:

That's fine - I never said that you did need me to determine that - but you accused me of not permitting comparison and you are now misrepresenting my response. I was pointing out that I disagreed with the validity of that particular comparison, I was not arguing that there could be no comparison, and to illustrate that I suggested a comparison that I thought was reasonable. I was not insisting that you should agree with my suggestion.

 

There isn't a comparison because you don't hammer Obama for anything let alone silly nonsense like "well 47% don't pay taxes and 47% take benefits but it might not be 100% overlap and let's take a couple hours to discuss that when you've got 15 seconds.

 

President Obama said Egypt wasn't an ally. He didn't over-generalize. He didn't engage in a hasty generalization. He was outright wrong. How many votes do you reckon that loses him?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you look at the voting demographics from any number of different sources, it is apparent that a significant fraction of that 47% vote Republican. I'm sure Romney did not intend to include them in that group, but he invoked the 47% and they are there nonetheless. That is the mistake that I believe he made. As for those who live permanently on benefits without really trying to escape that plight - I've no quarrel with Romney on his views there. However, on that issue, neither has Obama. I'm not aware that anyone supports permanent welfare for such people as opposed to trying to get them back to work, and the current system to deal with them is no different to that under previous Republican administrations.

 

 

Let's have fun with your own hyper-rationalization. What do you mean by significant fraction? How often have they voted Republican? What percentage will now not vote for him and is that significant and if it is, then what constitutes significant?

 

You declared the current system to deal with them is no different than under previous Republican administrations. Please prove that generalization and if I can show specific instances like the Obama work-waiver then are you horribly wrong even if you are right 90% of the time? Please completely rationalize and explain that 10% different that has lead to millions of people joining SS disability and growing the ranks of those receiving food stamps. The alignment isn't perfect and you've got plenty of time so get started.

"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 #116 of 197
Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No one is disputing that. The point is that it is not the same 47% who pay no tax, which is what Romney claimed. How can this simple distinction be so hard to understand?

 

You are right there are not perfectly aligned. The point with a generalization is that it doesn't have to be specific and exact. A human's body temperature is 98.6 degrees F. Only it isn't. It varies throughout the day. The same is true of your body weight. Everything in life is an approximation because real life isn't a snap shot. Even language itself is an abstraction. What isn't hard to understand is that you only care about this distinction one way.

 

I agree that a generalization will never, by definition, be exact, but my argument, as has been noted by many others, is that they are not even nearly aligned, and that there are many of his supporters in that 47%. I realize that you believe that not to be the case, which baffles me, because it is easy to verify, but I accept that we disagree on that.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

I know what both are. I don't know why you are portraying them as alternatives. Generalizing and using logic are not mutually exclusive, and generalizations should be rational. In any case, I agree with you on why he said what he said, I just don't think it was well said, because it was inaccurate and incorrect as a generalization. I'm sure he wanted to convey what you said above, and reassure them that he wants to minimize the tax burden on them. He just seems to have forgotten that many of his supporters also fall into the 47% pay no tax group.

 

Which politicians doesn't risk alienating some small percentage, and have some degree of lack of specificity when speaking in generalities? Obama talking about bitter and clinging. He talks about the rich and their fair share. I don't bring that up to distract. I bring it up to show how you have a problem with what is common. This is the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.

 

Here I agree with you entirely that they accept the risk of alienating small fractions. This was not a small fraction though. I realize that you disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

 

Hyper-rationalize? What does that mean? Something like "please don't analyse my arguments too deeply because they won't stand up to such scrutiny", perhaps? Generality does not imply irrationality, so if your generalizations are illogical I will call you on it. Please feel free to do the same. You supported Romney's statement that none of the 47% that constitutes non-taxpayers would ever vote for him. That is obviously not remotely close to true - but you want me to let it go because it's a "generalization".

 

So - to be clear - are you saying that it is bad form for me to analyze an argument, demonstrate its flaws, and complain when you go off on a tangent rather than address my criticisms?

 

I've given multiple examples. Hyper-rationalize simply means to rationalize down to a level where it isn't useful or helpful. If I ask you what you weigh and you weigh a pound more in the afternoon than in the morning, it would be stupid of me to accuse you being a liar or of ill intent. If I demanded your weight hourly to prove you aren't lying, it really wouldn't provide anymore useful information. It would just generate a bunch of additional work and information that wouldn't add anymore to any discussion.

 

Romney was quickly trying to explain the level of Obama support and the motivations of his voters. He had probably a minute to 90 seconds. Of course a deeper and longer discussion would be more SPECIFIC but it wouldn't have yielded any deeper motivation for Romney fundraisers nor would it have been a good use of his time.

 

Actually it doesn't mean that - it appears to be a completely made up compound word. But I understand what you mean by it, and that is not what I am doing because I regard his generalization as deeply flawed, rather than just not 100% accurate. 

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

As I said - it makes no difference whether it is a generalization or not - it was untrue and I pointed that out. And again, just calling it a generalization does not excuse it being plain wrong.

 

And correct - I've made no criticisms here at all about Obama's statements, because that wasn't the subject of the thread. I also haven't criticized Ryan, or any other Republicans. It's off topic.

 

Can you name for me a generality that cannot be broken down if applying every possibility to it? By your reasoning, all generalizations are true when not applied as generalizations. That is why I have said I really don't think you understand what they are because you keep declaring "when I apply this generality in this very specific way, it fails."

 

No shit it fails. Almost all generalities fail if applied specifically and using the criteria that any exception when applied specifically is proof of failure. Using your reasoning, anyone who declares body temp is 98.6 F is a liar or plainly wrong.

 

Are you actually arguing that no generalization can ever be wrong? If so then it rather ends the discussion. If not, then even if you disagree with me, I'm arguing that this one is wrong. It's more analogous to someone claiming that body temperature is, say, 130 F, and me arguing that is wrong.

 

So it's clear where we disagree; not on what constitutes a generalization, but that you think his generalization was accurate enough to be a reasonable generalization, whereas I think it was so inaccurate as to be a very poor generalization, and an unwise one because it amounts to belittling a different group of his own supporters than the one he was addressing. Not an issue, of course, unless the word gets out, which it did.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

No, I  have no problem with him using generalizations, but this one (if that is what it was) was wrong. So I criticized him for using an incorrect generalization, not just for using a generalization. Totally different.

 

Try again.

 

Try what again?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

That's fine - I never said that you did need me to determine that - but you accused me of not permitting comparison and you are now misrepresenting my response. I was pointing out that I disagreed with the validity of that particular comparison, I was not arguing that there could be no comparison, and to illustrate that I suggested a comparison that I thought was reasonable. I was not insisting that you should agree with my suggestion.

 

There isn't a comparison because you don't hammer Obama for anything let alone silly nonsense like "well 47% don't pay taxes and 47% take benefits but it might not be 100% overlap and let's take a couple hours to discuss that when you've got 15 seconds.

 

President Obama said Egypt wasn't an ally. He didn't over-generalize. He didn't engage in a hasty generalization. He was outright wrong. How many votes do you reckon that loses him?

 

I do not understand your argument here. Are you saying that I cannot validly criticize Romney because I do not equally criticize Obama? What does that imply for all the stuff that you post about Obama? I haven't seen a single post of yours criticizing Romney. Do you believe somehow that events cannot be discussed on their own merits? What does Obama's comment on Egypt have to do with Romney's comment on US welfare?

 

If you are asking what I think of Obama's comment on Egypt (although I doubt you care at all what I think), then I think that he was sending a message to pressure the new Egyptian Government into thinking carefully about where their best interests may lie. I would suspect the message was received. His statement was factually incorrect, as confirmed by the State Department, because Congress had designated Egypt as an ally in 1989. Was it a wise comment - I think it was too strong, and devalued by the fact that it was incorrect. Will it lose him votes? Probably not - I doubt many Americans care enough about Egypt to let it influence their vote, and I would expect that more are likely to resonate with a blunt message to Egypt at this time than care about whether it was accurate.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you look at the voting demographics from any number of different sources, it is apparent that a significant fraction of that 47% vote Republican. I'm sure Romney did not intend to include them in that group, but he invoked the 47% and they are there nonetheless. That is the mistake that I believe he made. As for those who live permanently on benefits without really trying to escape that plight - I've no quarrel with Romney on his views there. However, on that issue, neither has Obama. I'm not aware that anyone supports permanent welfare for such people as opposed to trying to get them back to work, and the current system to deal with them is no different to that under previous Republican administrations.

 

Let's have fun with your own hyper-rationalization. What do you mean by significant fraction? How often have they voted Republican? What percentage will now not vote for him and is that significant and if it is, then what constitutes significant?

 

You declared the current system to deal with them is no different than under previous Republican administrations. Please prove that generalization and if I can show specific instances like the Obama work-waiver then are you horribly wrong even if you are right 90% of the time? Please completely rationalize and explain that 10% different that has lead to millions of people joining SS disability and growing the ranks of those receiving food stamps. The alignment isn't perfect and you've got plenty of time so get started.

 

So why have fun with "hyper-rationalizing" if you don't approve of it. Is that just an easy way to avoid addressing my points? Never mind - let's address your questions anyway, even though no doubt you already know the answers. As I'm sure you have already researched, estimates of the fraction vary. None that I have seen are less than 30% of the 47%, which I would regard as significant, but you may not. Some are over 50%, which is significant by definition. I started with Wikipedia and then checked a number of national news sources that had researched the same question. I'll leave it to you to find a data source that you trust. How often they have voted Republican was not included in the data that I saw. Asking how many will change their vote is not useful, since that is not yet knowable.

 

To go back to your original point on the welfare issue - that Romney does not support the idea of permanent welfare for able workers - do you believe that the Democrats or Obama do support that?

 

We may have exhausted this discussion, since not only do we obviously disagree on the subject of the discussion, but apparently we don't even agree on how to have a discussion. It doesn't seem to me that you are really even here for a discussion so much as to find a soapbox. I'll respond again if you have anything more substantive to add than yammering on at me about generalizations and "hyper-rationalization".

post #117 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

We may have exhausted this discussion, since not only do we obviously disagree on the subject of the discussion, but apparently we don't even agree on how to have a discussion. It doesn't seem to me that you are really even here for a discussion so much as to find a soapbox. I'll respond again if you have anything more substantive to add than yammering on at me about generalizations and "hyper-rationalization".

Yeah. Very difficult to discuss something with someone who can't engage in the normal logic of debate.
post #118 of 197

The ones who do not pay taxes are the loafers on welfare and food stamps. Which is Obama's way to create more laziness among these type of people.Hopefully Romney will get rid of this crap when he becomes our next president.
 

post #119 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

The ones who do not pay taxes are the loafers on welfare and food stamps. Which is Obama's way to create more laziness among these type of people.Hopefully Romney will get rid of this crap when he becomes our next president.
 

 

If you hadn't noticed, the 47% includes disabled veterans, and YOU, when you retire. 

 

1) Why do you hate disabled veterans so much? 

 

2) When you (no doubt a tax-payer) work all your life, paying your social security, and retire, and pay no tax, will YOU be a "loafer"? Will you be "lazy"? Will you be part of the "crap" to "get rid of" by a future president?

 

You've not though this through, have you?

post #120 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

The ones who do not pay taxes are the loafers on welfare and food stamps. Which is Obama's way to create more laziness among these type of people.Hopefully Romney will get rid of this crap when he becomes our next president.
 

Stop it.  Just stop.  You aren't real.  Stop it.

 

‚ÄúThe 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.‚Ä̬†
-Sagan
Reply

 

‚ÄúThe 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.‚Ä̬†
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüöď Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash.