|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 27 2012 03:44 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 27 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling. Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim. Though I do agree with your second point. Rush Limbaugh lie: The truth which we've even talked about earlier in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15848 Media Matters? And you say I use bad sources...
You don't need Media Matters to tell you that that quote was a blatant lie. How about you focus on what was actually said and not who was criticizing it?
|
On October 27 2012 03:44 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 27 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling. Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim. Though I do agree with your second point. Rush Limbaugh lie: The truth which we've even talked about earlier in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15848 Media Matters? And you say I use bad sources...
Media Matter is the source of the quote. But I've edited the post to change the source of the quote: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/27/obama_has_destroyed_the_us_economy
The graphs in the post I linked, which are from FRED data prove it's a lie. Private sector employment is not down, it's very up. Government sector employment isn't up, it's very down.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x8qba.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/88KhF.png)
Source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USPRIV
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USGOVT
|
On October 27 2012 02:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On October 27 2012 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 01:19 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true. No, not really. Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets. So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS. Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true. Obama has made many statements on the topic - not just one statement in one way. The politifact article wasn't good. You can't just label a normal business expense a tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Nor can you complain about other countries having lower tax rates, and companies taking advantage of that, without explaining how you are going to tax foreign companies. And even assuming Obama can pull the tax change off what good will it do? Companies based in other countries will just move to the lower tax zone and put the US company out of business anyways. The statement Obama made which was evaluated in the politifact article was that the federal tax code had "loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas". This was perfectly true - the article mentioned such loopholes giving incentives. What other statement on the topic by Obama is, according to you, false? From the first debate: Show nested quote +It was one of the most heated and perplexing moments in the presidential debate last night. Barack Obama pledged to "close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas" and instead "provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States." As things stand, he added, "you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue." He made it out to sound like you can take some special offshoring tax deduction that the government could easily strike out. In reality you'd either need a very complicated scheme to figure out what counts as an expense related to shipping a job overseas or a simple one that only counts things like moving expenses (which would raise exactly dick for revenue). Either way you are doing exactly zero to stop businesses from offshoring. The Politifact article was misleading in outlining "loopholes" in the US tax code that encouraged jobs to go overseas. Its not the "US loophole" that creates the incentive, its the foreign country offering a lower tax rate that creates the incentive. I have no idea how Obama plans on dealing with that without creating large unintended consequences. In fact, I don't think he sees it as a genuine issue at all. I think he's just trying to get people to say "GRRRR TAXES UNFAIR! GRRRRR!!!" and get more votes that way.
This entire post is you interpreting Obama's statements to argue that what he was implying was false. The thing is, what he SAID - not implied, said - was factually correct, as the politifact article explains.
|
On October 27 2012 03:48 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:38 jdsowa wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspxLook at these numbers. Likely voters identify "Repub" 36-35%, and "Lean Repub" 49-46%. That's a massive change from '08 when it was "Dem" 39-31 and "Lean Dem" 54-42. It's hard to see Obama winning the popular vote with these numbers. That is, unless unlikely voters are likely to vote this election. He won't win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, all he cares about is the electoral college. Obviously he only cares about the electoral result. But what is your reasoning behind the statement that he won't win the popular? With one week to go, Romney is leading in three national polls by 3% and Repubs have a greater share of the likely voter pool.
I meant Obama wouldn't win the popular vote, sorry, I should have specified.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 02:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:On October 27 2012 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 27 2012 01:19 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 26 2012 17:42 kwizach wrote:On October 26 2012 12:09 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 12:06 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:
wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite. I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details. They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists. False. Obama's statement was true. No, not really. Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets. So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS. Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true. Obama has made many statements on the topic - not just one statement in one way. The politifact article wasn't good. You can't just label a normal business expense a tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Nor can you complain about other countries having lower tax rates, and companies taking advantage of that, without explaining how you are going to tax foreign companies. And even assuming Obama can pull the tax change off what good will it do? Companies based in other countries will just move to the lower tax zone and put the US company out of business anyways. The statement Obama made which was evaluated in the politifact article was that the federal tax code had "loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas". This was perfectly true - the article mentioned such loopholes giving incentives. What other statement on the topic by Obama is, according to you, false? From the first debate: It was one of the most heated and perplexing moments in the presidential debate last night. Barack Obama pledged to "close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas" and instead "provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States." As things stand, he added, "you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue." He made it out to sound like you can take some special offshoring tax deduction that the government could easily strike out. In reality you'd either need a very complicated scheme to figure out what counts as an expense related to shipping a job overseas or a simple one that only counts things like moving expenses (which would raise exactly dick for revenue). Either way you are doing exactly zero to stop businesses from offshoring. The Politifact article was misleading in outlining "loopholes" in the US tax code that encouraged jobs to go overseas. Its not the "US loophole" that creates the incentive, its the foreign country offering a lower tax rate that creates the incentive. I have no idea how Obama plans on dealing with that without creating large unintended consequences. In fact, I don't think he sees it as a genuine issue at all. I think he's just trying to get people to say "GRRRR TAXES UNFAIR! GRRRRR!!!" and get more votes that way. This entire post is you interpreting Obama's statements to argue that what he was implying was false. The thing is, what he SAID - not implied, said - was factually correct, as the politifact article explains.
Jonny, I thought you didn't like it when people analyzed a quote on what was "implied" and not what was actually "said." o_O
In any case, I believe Obama wants to deal with it by not allowing companies who move overseas to take advantage of as many (or any) deductions. I mean, they're already overseas - why should we give them tax deductions? He can then use that bit of money saved to fund tax incentives for companies who would move jobs back home or something to that effect. That's how I see it anyway.
|
On October 27 2012 04:11 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:48 jdsowa wrote:On October 27 2012 03:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:38 jdsowa wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspxLook at these numbers. Likely voters identify "Repub" 36-35%, and "Lean Repub" 49-46%. That's a massive change from '08 when it was "Dem" 39-31 and "Lean Dem" 54-42. It's hard to see Obama winning the popular vote with these numbers. That is, unless unlikely voters are likely to vote this election. He won't win the popular vote, but that doesn't matter, all he cares about is the electoral college. Obviously he only cares about the electoral result. But what is your reasoning behind the statement that he won't win the popular? With one week to go, Romney is leading in three national polls by 3% and Repubs have a greater share of the likely voter pool. I meant Obama wouldn't win the popular vote, sorry, I should have specified.
I disagree. He will win the popular vote.
|
We should be able to liquidbet on this election, would be entertaining.
|
On October 27 2012 04:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 03:44 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 27 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 27 2012 02:48 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 02:33 Leporello wrote:
No, Swazi. Let's fact-check the Magic School Bus books while we're at it.
I don't even find it the least bit humorous to suggest this thread or anyone reading it would benefit from listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading his transcript. If he made a point you liked, make it and source it yourself, and be sure it isn't something completely misleading or flat-out false. Following that logic, you liberals can never post anything from Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other left-wing source. All of those base their statements on facts and logical interpretations. Limbaugh does neither. The man blatantly lies and has never seriously debated someone that opposed his views so that they can actually be scrutinized. I'll even throw out MSNC, since they're the most left-wing out of the bunch. Regardless of this, there's absolutely no reason to post an entire transcript and just leave it at that. Links to news articles are made here, not transcripts to what are essentially pundits rambling. Yet again you have failed to provide evidence that Limbaugh is a "blatant liar" as you continuously claim. Though I do agree with your second point. Rush Limbaugh lie: The truth which we've even talked about earlier in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15848 Media Matters? And you say I use bad sources... + Show Spoiler +
Hey you know the Republicans new catch phrase. His comments weren't meant to be taken as factual.
|
Obama winning the election while loosing the popular vote would be an absolute disaster for the usa.
No not because of bush.
Because i think that this will polarise the usa internal politics even way more so then during the 1st obama term.
The republicans will feel strenghtend and make it impossible for obama to get annything done and create problems wherever possible.(fiscal cliff)
At the same time it might (and i think will) also further devide the american society.
I think it is realy important that one of the 2 candidates wins both the electoral college as well as the popular vote.
(i might be wrong off course).
|
On October 27 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
Obama winning the election while loosing the popular vote would be an absolute disaster for the usa.
Why? Because Bush was?
|
On October 27 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
Obama winning the election while loosing the popular vote would be an absolute disaster for the usa.
No, it wouldn't.
|
Yeah, sounds like sweet revenge to me...
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 27 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
Obama winning the election while loosing the popular vote would be an absolute disaster for the usa.
How so? This has happened several times before. It'd more just be funny, because Democrats are the one who cry out for rigged elections every time this happens. Remember the crying when Bush Jr. was elected that way?
|
Eh those elections were sketchy as fuck. I'm a Floridian and there were all kinds of questionable things happening back then........
|
On October 27 2012 04:36 Probe1 wrote:
Eh those elections were sketchy as fuck. I'm a Floridian and there were all kinds of questionable things happening back then........
![[image loading]](http://www.infoplease.com/images/cig/supreme-court/1592571492_img_371.png)
lol good memories
|
Yeah the chad debacle is what the national media clung on to but a lot of ballots mysteriously weren't counted. Tl;dr most people here believe Bush rigged it.
Edit: Of course if there was any conclusive evidence I wouldn't be offering a bitter personal opinion. And there came a point when pursuing the claims would do more harm than good. Namely, right after Bush took that 90 day vacation in his first year of office and we were attacked.
|
Another day, another poll of Wisconsin. 49-49. Yesterday, a tie in Michigan. 48-48.
Wisconsin. Michigan. Tied. How people think Obama can win this election when Romney is tied with him in Wisconsin and Michigan is a mystery. Those are (or used to be) deep blue states. Even if the polls are flawed and with the margin of error let's say Obama is really in front 5 points in each state, that's less than half his win percentages in 2008. Any which way you look at it those two states are toss-ups.
If Michigan and Wisconsin are toss-ups, anyone thinking Obama is going to carry enough swing states to win is drinking the kool-aid.
|
On October 27 2012 04:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
Obama winning the election while loosing the popular vote would be an absolute disaster for the usa.
How so? This has happened several times before. It'd more just be funny, because Democrats are the one who cry out for rigged elections every time this happens. Remember the crying when Bush Jr. was elected that way?
Many Democrats were crying more about how Florida handled their counting to be fair, and many others simply hung their head and waited. Waited for elections like the one coming up 
DEB, not everyone uses the same sources you do, so speaking high and mighty atop your pedestal of chosen information is still about as appealing as when you first did it, oh 100s of pages ago. Thanks though.
|
Polls are always subjective and flawed. People expect a poll to somehow be foolproof. Not to mention the margin for error is usually a landslide for either candidate ^_~
|
On October 27 2012 04:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 04:35 BluePanther wrote:On October 27 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote:
Obama winning the election while loosing the popular vote would be an absolute disaster for the usa.
How so? This has happened several times before. It'd more just be funny, because Democrats are the one who cry out for rigged elections every time this happens. Remember the crying when Bush Jr. was elected that way? Many Democrats were crying more about how Florida handled their counting to be fair, and many others simply hung their head and waited. Waited for elections like the one coming up
Democrats were crying because Al Gore's unconstitutional plan to only do a recount of the three most liberal counties in Florida wasn't accepted by the Supreme Court as being obviously fair and right. Bush offered a full statewide recount, Gore said no. Of course Gore would have lost a full recount which he probably knew, which is why he tried to sneak his way through the back door. Yet it was Bush who rigged or stole the election. Fucking hi-larious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
