On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing?
Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off?
If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here...
"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller."
The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition.
Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption.
It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption.
You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.'
Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt?
I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something.
Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told.
That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is.
Edit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me.
Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy.
You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed.
Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination.
I'm sorry, but I'm always shocked by this kind of statement from conservatives. 3 Billion is really not that small. Especially considering that it costs at most a couple million to buy a politician. I mean you're looking at ridiculous returns.
On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here...
"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller."
The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition.
Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption.
It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption.
You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.'
Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt?
I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something.
Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told.
That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is.
Edit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me.
Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy.
You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed.
Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination.
I'm sorry, but I'm always shocked by this kind of statement from conservatives. 3 Billion is really not that small. Especially considering that it costs at most a couple million to buy a politician. I mean you're looking at ridiculous returns.
Yeah, I only meant small in relation to overall energy subsidies (~10% of the subsidy pie, yet dominates the overall energy industry).
The biggest problem with Exxon only paying so much in taxes is foreign tax credit. Romney's proposed territorial tax system would get away from that nonsense.
I am going to go ahead and pose a question for everybody.
Is nationalism actually hurting the country? I have seen things like, "I like some of his policies, but I dont think he would be good for the country" or "I like this other guy, but because of these two guys I have to vote for one of them for the sake of the country". Or even something like a particular person not representing Americans... and I see them a bit more frequently now.
To me, the President isnt really supposed to represent Americans. The President is supposed to represent me. And, as long as everybody votes for the person that best represents themselves, we should have a President that most accurately reflects the country. This extends to every part of the people we elect. Yet, we dont see that and many claim it is for the good of the country. I think that maybe we are reaching a point where that does more harm than good. What do you think?
On October 28 2012 12:50 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am going to go ahead and pose a question for everybody.
Is nationalism actually hurting the country? I have seen things like, "I like some of his policies, but I dont think he would be good for the country" or "I like this other guy, but because of these two guys I have to vote for one of them for the sake of the country". Or even something like a particular person not representing Americans... and I see them a bit more frequently now.
To me, the President isnt really supposed to represent Americans. The President is supposed to represent me. And, as long as everybody votes for the person that best represents themselves, we should have a President that most accurately reflects the country. This extends to every part of the people we elect. Yet, we dont see that and many claim it is for the good of the country. I think that maybe we are reaching a point where that does more harm than good. What do you think?
I think nationalism is bad when in manifests in some forms. When it comes with economic protectionism or socialism or in some way harms efforts to have a free market economy, nationalism sucks. If it leads to magical thinking, it sucks. If it deemphasizes some differences that are real and should be acknowledged, I think it is bad. I am slow today, I am sure there are others.
Mostly I vote for petty reasons because voting is pointless. I decided today I was probably going to vote Romney just to punish liberals for the Trayvon Martin thing. Oh, and all the attack ads on Romney early on. Those tickled me funny too.
On October 28 2012 12:50 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am going to go ahead and pose a question for everybody.
Is nationalism actually hurting the country? I have seen things like, "I like some of his policies, but I dont think he would be good for the country" or "I like this other guy, but because of these two guys I have to vote for one of them for the sake of the country". Or even something like a particular person not representing Americans... and I see them a bit more frequently now.
To me, the President isnt really supposed to represent Americans. The President is supposed to represent me. And, as long as everybody votes for the person that best represents themselves, we should have a President that most accurately reflects the country. This extends to every part of the people we elect. Yet, we dont see that and many claim it is for the good of the country. I think that maybe we are reaching a point where that does more harm than good. What do you think?
I think nationalism is bad when in manifests in some forms. When it comes with economic protectionism or socialism or in some way harms efforts to have a free market economy, nationalism sucks. If it leads to magical thinking, it sucks. If it deemphasizes some differences that are real and should be acknowledged, I think it is bad. I am slow today, I am sure there are others.
Mostly I vote for petty reasons because voting is pointless. I decided today I was probably going to vote Romney just to punish liberals for the Trayvon Martin thing. Oh, and all the attack ads on Romney early on. Those tickled me funny too.
At least vote for Johnson to stick it to that bipartisan committee that shut him out of the debates.
The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one political group. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 per cent among Republicans compared with 32 per cent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.
That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 per cent of Democrats and 64 per cent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 per cent). In-depth coverage of the US presidential election
Obama faced a similar situation in 2008, the survey then found. The Associated Press developed the surveys to measure sensitive racial views in several ways and repeated those studies several times between 2008 and 2012.
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people.
In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly'' "hardworking", "violent" and "lazy", described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.
The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character.
Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
Results from those questions were analysed with poll takers' ages, partisan beliefs, views on Obama and Romney and other factors, which allowed researchers to predict the likelihood that people would vote for either candidate.
Those models were then used to estimate the net impact of each factor on the candidates' support.
Previous studies have shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer, rather than speaking with an interviewer.
So odd.... It's like things have gone full circle. You can hear progressives arguing for individualized self-interest. When someone believes in principles and supporting policies which benefit the whole of society instead of just themselves, it gets called "nationalism," like a reverse of the "communism" fear mongering. Progressives used to be the champions of altruism, now they are criticizing it as irrational, just like Ayn Rand used to do.
I understand progressives believe in a specific vision, and not in principles, which is why they are frustrated with the people who would benefit from that vision rejecting it. But at least they used to argue in principled terms instead of advocating more selfishness, so long as your selfishness is "justified."
Progressive ideology should be a positive ideology, it should focus on positive principles and attitudes, it should have a positive vision. Telling poor people to get more angry and more selfish and engage in more class warfare is a divisive, negative approach. Improving society doesn't come 100% from economic reform, it also comes from reforming the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens themselves. Selfishness and conflict may help your economic vision, but it won't create the ideal society that anyone would like to live in.
Liberalism and Marxism make for very strange bedfellows indeed.
On October 28 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: So odd.... It's like things have gone full circle. You can hear progressives arguing for individualized self-interest. When someone believes in principles and supporting policies which benefit the whole of society instead of just themselves, it gets called "nationalism," like a reverse of the "communism" fear mongering. Progressives used to be the champions of altruism, now they are criticizing it as irrational, just like Ayn Rand used to do.
I understand progressives believe in a specific vision, and not in principles, which is why they are frustrated with the people who would benefit from that vision rejecting it. But at least they used to argue in principled terms instead of advocating more selfishness, so long as your selfishness is "justified."
Progressive ideology should be a positive ideology, it should focus on positive principles and attitudes, it should have a positive vision. Telling poor people to get more angry and more selfish and engage in more class warfare is a divisive, negative approach. Improving society doesn't come 100% from economic reform, it also comes from reforming the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens themselves. Selfishness and conflict may help your economic vision, but it won't create the ideal society that anyone would like to live in.
Liberalism and Marxism make for very strange bedfellows indeed.
You may have to be a little more specific on what you're addressing because I'm a little confused. What is "nationalistic" that "benefits the whole of society" and what 'individualized self-interest" do progressives advocate?
I'm pretty sure progressives still champion altruism. It's not like every liberal's on welfare and food stamps.
On October 28 2012 12:50 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am going to go ahead and pose a question for everybody.
Is nationalism actually hurting the country? I have seen things like, "I like some of his policies, but I dont think he would be good for the country" or "I like this other guy, but because of these two guys I have to vote for one of them for the sake of the country". Or even something like a particular person not representing Americans... and I see them a bit more frequently now.
To me, the President isnt really supposed to represent Americans. The President is supposed to represent me. And, as long as everybody votes for the person that best represents themselves, we should have a President that most accurately reflects the country. This extends to every part of the people we elect. Yet, we dont see that and many claim it is for the good of the country. I think that maybe we are reaching a point where that does more harm than good. What do you think?
Now, I look at your two examples and see something else. "I like some of policies, but ..." "I like this guy, but because of these two guys I have to vote for one of them ..." It's really just a natural compromise. Like, you realize Ideal case (for me, I get an unabashedly conservative guy that's in it to set the country back on the right track and reform the Republican party), but you look at who comes out of the primary and you have some misgivings but go along with it. Bush was a big government guy, but I trusted him on the terror threat ... McCain at least wasn't Obama. Romney at least wasn't McCain (to the right of McCain) or Obama.
Primary fight is DEFINITELY for me who represents me. I don't care who are the frontrunners when my late state gets to vote for the candidate, I'm with who I want except for the extreme case of a narrow fight with someone that is dead awful.
I don't know how any of this has to do with nationalism ... initially I thought you would bring up the Us vs. Them type of deal with international politics.
On October 28 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Romney's proposed territorial tax system
Interesting, can you give me the english major version of what this is
Basically you only tax a business for their domestic operations.
wait, so this is a tax incentive to outsource things?
This could be argued both ways and probably will be. Jonny will probably say something like "Why should a company pay American taxes on money earned outside of the country, the government did not have a hand in helping create that profit and therefore should not be allowed to tax it" and then I am sure someone else will say "But this only helps the nationless financial class better exploit those below them" and so on, pick whichever side you support I geuss. But in a way, yes it does make it easier to make more money by outsourcing certain things.
The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one political group. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 per cent among Republicans compared with 32 per cent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.
That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 per cent of Democrats and 64 per cent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 per cent). In-depth coverage of the US presidential election
Obama faced a similar situation in 2008, the survey then found. The Associated Press developed the surveys to measure sensitive racial views in several ways and repeated those studies several times between 2008 and 2012.
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people.
In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly'' "hardworking", "violent" and "lazy", described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.
The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character.
Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
Results from those questions were analysed with poll takers' ages, partisan beliefs, views on Obama and Romney and other factors, which allowed researchers to predict the likelihood that people would vote for either candidate.
Those models were then used to estimate the net impact of each factor on the candidates' support.
Previous studies have shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer, rather than speaking with an interviewer.
The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one political group. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 per cent among Republicans compared with 32 per cent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.
That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 per cent of Democrats and 64 per cent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 per cent). In-depth coverage of the US presidential election
Obama faced a similar situation in 2008, the survey then found. The Associated Press developed the surveys to measure sensitive racial views in several ways and repeated those studies several times between 2008 and 2012.
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people.
In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly'' "hardworking", "violent" and "lazy", described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.
The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character.
Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
Results from those questions were analysed with poll takers' ages, partisan beliefs, views on Obama and Romney and other factors, which allowed researchers to predict the likelihood that people would vote for either candidate.
Those models were then used to estimate the net impact of each factor on the candidates' support.
Previous studies have shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer, rather than speaking with an interviewer.
Interesting little ad, adds fees everywhere, as long as they aren't called taxes they're fine.
See, that's a good ad.
However, many of those listed if you slow it down are flat fees that were likely raised due to inflation. The ad does a good job of pretending they should be treated the same.
On October 28 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Romney's proposed territorial tax system
Interesting, can you give me the english major version of what this is
Basically you only tax a business for their domestic operations.
wait, so this is a tax incentive to outsource things?
Well, that incentive already exists. The tax incentive to outsource is the foreign country having a lower tax rate than the US. The problem that exists now is that once the company goes there it stays there, because bringing the money back home would result in a big tax.
On October 28 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: So odd.... It's like things have gone full circle. You can hear progressives arguing for individualized self-interest. When someone believes in principles and supporting policies which benefit the whole of society instead of just themselves, it gets called "nationalism," like a reverse of the "communism" fear mongering. Progressives used to be the champions of altruism, now they are criticizing it as irrational, just like Ayn Rand used to do.
I understand progressives believe in a specific vision, and not in principles, which is why they are frustrated with the people who would benefit from that vision rejecting it. But at least they used to argue in principled terms instead of advocating more selfishness, so long as your selfishness is "justified."
Progressive ideology should be a positive ideology, it should focus on positive principles and attitudes, it should have a positive vision. Telling poor people to get more angry and more selfish and engage in more class warfare is a divisive, negative approach. Improving society doesn't come 100% from economic reform, it also comes from reforming the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens themselves. Selfishness and conflict may help your economic vision, but it won't create the ideal society that anyone would like to live in.
Liberalism and Marxism make for very strange bedfellows indeed.
Ah yes, all those poor people being driven to divisiveness and engaging in class warfare.
Seriously, how does a poor person engage in class warfare, I'm dying to know?
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://brainwrap.com/various/gop_rape_advisory_single_column.gif)
