Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Since Obamaphiles worship everything he says and does, and conservaphobes despise anything said or done by a right-wing public figure, maybe we can have some fun by posting actions and quotes without attribution, so that we can actually try some critical thinking based purely on the content?

Nice sentiments....now, do we ridicule them or praise them, without knowing first who said them??

Unfortunately, I'm not going to play. You are attempting to show great positive thoughts to show that they could be advanced by anyone. Meanwhile, you're using words that work entirely against your point such as Obamaphiles, conservaphobes and Orwellian. And that's in your last two posts! So rather than use invisible language and overt facts...youre using overt language and invisible facts. This includes 'vile' presendential positions such as: President Obama is committed to making sure that the VA serves the needs of all veterans and provides a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life, and has directed his Administration to modernize the way health care is delivered and benefits are administered for our nation's veterans.

The issue here is that you are representing for more extensively what your'e railing against than most anyone else here.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

This is an "interesting" piece about Romney's relationship to the Tea Party. The premise -- that the Tea Party is toxic and Romney will need to be careful to not be boxed in by them -- is obviously debatable. But there is something heartening in the idea that an ideological group can actually affect the issues raised during the presidential campaign. Imagine if, say, Occupy had the same ability to affect the Democratic side of the race.

The Tea Party is wrong about a lot of things, and those things they are right about tend to be contradicted in their next breath ("Spending is too high. Keep the government out of my Medicare.") But both major parties are so utterly beholden to the economic elites of the country that it's nice to see somebody however awkwardly trying to break up that crap game a little.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Unfortunately, I'm not going to play. You are attempting to show great positive thoughts to show that they could be advanced by anyone. Meanwhile, you're using words that work entirely against your point such as Obamaphiles, conservaphobes and Orwellian. And that's in your last two posts! So rather than use invisible language and overt facts...youre using overt language and invisible facts. This includes 'vile' presendential positions such as: President Obama is committed to making sure that the VA serves the needs of all veterans and provides a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life, and has directed his Administration to modernize the way health care is delivered and benefits are administered for our nation's veterans.

The issue here is that you are representing for more extensively what your'e railing against than most anyone else here.

But he is an ardent liberal who strives to give the president the benefit of the doubt...why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

According to Michael Savage, the only way that Mitt Romney can win the election is if he makes Allen West his VP running mate.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Unfortunately, I'm not going to play. You are attempting to show great positive thoughts to show that they could be advanced by anyone. Meanwhile, you're using words that work entirely against your point such as Obamaphiles, conservaphobes and Orwellian. And that's in your last two posts!

I'm not quite sure I follow. Are you seriously trying to say that people do not react only to who said and did a thing?

Now, if GWB had added a few sentences at the end of the presidential biographies at whitehouse.gov, what kind of reaction would you expect from various people? and now that BHO has done it, those very same people have a different reaction. Does that not indicate that it is not the behavior, not the sentiment, but only the actor, and peoples' affiliation or lack thereof, that drives the reaction?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

According to Michael Savage, the only way that Mitt Romney can win the election is if he makes Allen West his VP running mate.

Not exactly a BWG.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I'm not quite sure I follow. Are you seriously trying to say that people do not react only to who said and did a thing?

Now, if GWB had added a few sentences at the end of the presidential biographies at whitehouse.gov, what kind of reaction would you expect from various people? and now that BHO has done it, those very same people have a different reaction. Does that not indicate that it is not the behavior, not the sentiment, but only the actor, and peoples' affiliation or lack thereof, that drives the reaction?

What if, indeed. Except Bush didn't do it and His Magnificentness did.

 

[duper]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

I can understand your frustration. Were my ego invested in a political outcome I'd be pretty frustrated too. However I expected more maturity from you than to lash out at someone else in frustration for which they bear no responsibity in causing. If the emperor is not wearing any clothes, you don't blame the person who notices, you blame the emperor.

Bull. That statement was politically one-sided and you dam well know it. You made no comment about the knee-jerk reaction that anti-liberal or anti-Obama people give, which, given how much you seem to think about what you post, was clearly intentional. That post was DESIGNED to provoke liberals. Period. It could have had no other purpose.

So, do you really believe that ANYONE is so dumb that they criticize ONLY because of the political party that the person who made the comment belongs to? If so, grow up. You present yourself as this intelligent, thoughtful person who only wants to create a good dialog, and then you clearly insinuate that Obama supporters are mindless drones, and that any Obama supporter who actually thinks is the exception rather than the rule. Then you simply write off anyone who takes issue with the ignorance of your post by assuming that he only possible reason to do so is because that person is unable to think for him or herself ("Were my ego invested in...) How does that create a dialog? How is that thought-provoking? These posts show that deep down, you are a troll. You post to get a reaction. And frankly, you come off as an arrogant sot who thinks taht he is just the smartest kid in the class.

And if you really want an answer to your "point" of course every politician says positive things. The fact that opponents don't comment on them means nothing. I, for one, would have thought exactly the same thing if Bush had amended those biographies as I do now: that it is the white house website, which is, inherently, marketing for the white house AND THE GUY IN IT. I just don't care one way or the other.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Now, if GWB had added a few sentences at the end of the presidential biographies at whitehouse.gov, what kind of reaction would you expect from various people? and now that BHO has done it, those very same people have a different reaction. Does that not indicate that it is not the behavior, not the sentiment, but only the actor, and peoples' affiliation or lack thereof, that drives the reaction?

No if W had used bios of presidents to market his strengths...I really don't think I would care. Candidates liken themselves to past presidents or congressmen daily when campaigning...and posting it on the internet does not breach my outrage threshold.

Frankly there's nothing in what you linked to thats 'Orwellian!'...and certainly not how he as president is supporting our parks system. Now if he was looking to use the US Constitution...a document designed to protect American citizens rights...to limit American rights I might feel differently. Hmmm...does that sound familiar?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Troubling numbers for Romney in the latest Fox Poll.

He scored 39% of the vote, his lowest since January 2010. And what is (by far) the most important reason they're supporting him? Because he's an ardent conservative, a man of character, his experience in the business world?

What would you say is the main reason you are supporting Mitt Romney?
(OPEN-ENDED – DO NOT READ)
(Not Obama) 43%

That'll work well...just ask President Kerry.

Other reasons for supporting Mitt:

(He’s a Republican/conservative) 14
(Positions on the issues) 10
(Jobs/economy) 8
(Business background) 5
(Same-sex marriage) 5
(Honesty/Character/Values) 4

I don't think he gets nearly enough credit for his stance on the issues. If you don't support his view, just wait a week or two and he'll flip flop back to your position again.

But there's enough nuggets in there that the talking heads on Fox "News" will be harping tonight. If I watched, I would expect them to highlight Obama's approval rating ("only" 49%) which is way down from the high of 65% back in January 2009. I wouldn't be surprised if they forget to mention that it's above his average (48) or up since last month (42). 51% disapprove of his handling of health care (I wonder if they'll remember to say that it's the lowest that number has been since October 2009). They will probably also mention

And what is the one thing Barack Obama has done as president that did the most damage to the economy? (OPEN ENDED)
(Wall Street bailouts) 15%

without mentioning that the bailouts were bipartisan and begun by President Bush.


The question they should be focused on:

Are you satisfied with the presidential candidate choices, or do you think the presidential
election ballot in November should include a “none of the above” option?
Satisfied with choices 60%
“None of the above” should be on the ballot 33
(Don’t know) 7

A solid third of the electorate want another option.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

One fascinating question in the poll was: which candidate do you want nominating the next supreme justice member? With the results 46% to 38% for Obama.

I think its pretty clear that although folks give credit and even welcome a business minded Romney...that there is huge resistance to social conservatism out there. The GOP had best be prepared to abandon its major plank of social conservatism in the next 5 years.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Not exactly a BWG.

That was Savage's whole point. He wants to eliminate the racism card. Maybe that's also why he supported Herman Cain.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So, do you really believe that ANYONE is so dumb that they criticize ONLY because of the political party that the person who made the comment belongs to?

I do. A guy who I've been playing trivia with has been trying to tell me to vote for Romney because, according to him, "A vote for someone else is a vote for Obama." He won't tolerate bad thoughts about a congresswoman that voted for NDAA and the bill that made protests a felony when the Secret Service is around. I swear he's on party lines.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So, do you really believe that ANYONE is so dumb that they criticize ONLY because of the political party that the person who made the comment belongs to?

Happens all the time.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So, do you really believe that ANYONE is so dumb that they criticize ONLY because of the political party that the person who made the comment belongs to?

Don't you Obama supporters say that all the time about Obama's detractors?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Don't you Obama supporters say that all the time about Obama's detractors?

But in that case of course it's true, as Obama detractors by definition are dumb.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

OK, here. We agree that taxes need to be higher than they are now to pay for all the bailouts, stimuli, foreign adventures, etc. that have run up the debt. My issue is that it's dishonest to call changing the tax rate from 15% to 30%, a "reduction" or "keeping it where it 'should have been'", or anything else except "an increase". You said, if a sale ends at WalMart so the price goes from $2 to $4, where it was previously, it's not an increase in price. I said, if it goes from $2 to $4 of COURSE it's an increase, it's going up. Same as if previous tax rate reductions are reversed. Taxes would increase.

How is this difficult?

Calling an increase something other than an increase won't make it easier for the people to accept. It will just make you dishonest.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

OK, here. We agree that taxes need to be higher than they are now to pay for all the bailouts, stimuli, foreign adventures, etc. that have run up the debt. My issue is that it's dishonest to call changing the tax rate from 15% to 30%, a "reduction" or "keeping it where it 'should have been'", or anything else except "an increase". You said, if a sale ends at WalMart so the price goes from $2 to $4, where it was previously, it's not an increase in price. I said, if it goes from $2 to $4 of COURSE it's an increase, it's going up. Same as if previous tax rate reductions are reversed. Taxes would increase.

How is this difficult?

Calling an increase something other than an increase won't make it easier for the people to accept. It will just make you dishonest.

You forget...all changes in tax rates should be indexed to whatever rate suits people's political position. Give them a graph and a listing of which party was in power and they'll come up with their base rate. All other arguments flow from there.

If you need help on the prevailing theme on here: If there was ever a rate in the past higher than now then clearly the current rate is too low.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

So, do you really believe that ANYONE is so dumb that they criticize ONLY because of the political party that the person who made the comment belongs to? If so, grow up.

Take some time to look at criticism of Pres. Bush's execution of the "war on terror", and look at Pres. Obama's. During the Bush years, you had Dems denouncing his tactics and denouncing the man meanwhile the Repubs were holding up his actions as The Way. Now that Pres. Obama is in office, he's excoriated by Repubs and held by Dems as the shining light of truth. What policies have changed between the two administrations in terms of executing this war? Why have the detractors and supporters switched roles?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

OK, here. We agree that taxes need to be higher than they are now to pay for all the bailouts, stimuli, foreign adventures, etc. that have run up the debt. My issue is that it's dishonest to call changing the tax rate from 15% to 30%, a "reduction" or "keeping it where it 'should have been'", or anything else except "an increase". You said, if a sale ends at WalMart so the price goes from $2 to $4, where it was previously, it's not an increase in price. I said, if it goes from $2 to $4 of COURSE it's an increase, it's going up. Same as if previous tax rate reductions are reversed. Taxes would increase.

How is this difficult?

Calling an increase something other than an increase won't make it easier for the people to accept. It will just make you dishonest.

This whole thing is a big bunch of political posturing. It's been in place long enough now that your point is well taken that people will see it as an increase, because they haven't paid the higher rate now for many years. On the other hand, because they were never made permanent (as much as anything can be permanent with the feds), technically if/when they go away, the rates will go back to the old permanent rates. All a matter of how folks want to spin it.