This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'm always amazed by people who can believe in cause-and-effect (at least statistically) even down to the molecular and even sub-atomic level, but then turn around and swear that an invisible man in the sky is actually running things...
You're right - I introduced new evidence during rebuttal. I very frequently observe that what people often substitute for "critical thinking" in those cases is religion. E.g. "Sure, a policy of providing free contraception (cause) would lead to improvements in numerous social metrics (effect), but my god says that sex is bad, so I choose not to think critically about the problem and categorically reject the policy." Blind devotion to a dogma certainly isn't always about religion - but it often is.
He always starts it.
This same guy once told me "Of course you like McCain - he's a liberal."
That made the debate surreal. Did Romney not understand there is a public record of him saying exactly the opposite of nearly everything he said during the debate? Did he just count on it not mattering? Well, here we all are saying that Romney "won" the debate on the optics because he looked and sounded confident -- so maybe he was right.
Wait, I thought you said it wasn't about religion...
Of course it doesn't matter to some gun-totin' union member in Ohio if he changed his positions. What matters is how much confidence he instills today in his ability to "make things better." Right?
What this only means is that Romney's a much better politician than we thought.
Hey, I don't think anybody should underestimate Mittens' chameleon properties.
Unfortunately (for him), it looks like he just can't buy (so to speak) a break. Monthly jobs report shows unemployment has dropped to 7.8%. Good night, sweetheart, it's time to go.
When I look at the preponderance of all the Democrat advertising, it is really very harsh if not outright dishonest; at least here where I live, the Republican advertising is "only" about 60% negative about the other, 40% positive about themselves.
um, in other contexts, don't we call that "learning from experience?"
Romney's background is in business and an important part of his formative years were spent at a consulting firm. Guess what, guys, in order for consulting firms to do their job, they first have to have clients. in order to have clients, you need to close a deal; and in order to close a deal, you have to engage in salesmanship. Romney is doing the same thing now; he's trying to close a deal to bring management consultant expertise to bear on the federal government, and so he is adjusting his sales pitch based on feedback from the potential client. The client is telling him what it wants from the consultant and so the prospective consultant is telling the client, sure, we can do that.
It's not dishonest, it's not lying. Now, I can easily understand how people would dislike that, and the term "flip-flop" could well apply. there is a big difference between saying he changes his position and saying he is lying. he can be truthful in what he says about each one of the positions, and for him not to adjust in response to feedback from his potential client would make him ideologically rigid and subject to a whole host of complaints along those lines. Who are we kidding here? Partisans are going to be partisan no matter what.
By adjusting his positions, Romney is trying to give people reasons to vote for him, it at least demonstrates he's listening, no?
