|
|
On July 04 2012 06:25 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:On July 03 2012 22:30 sunprince wrote:On July 03 2012 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow. I'm sure in Epocalypse's view, the air and water belong to any citizen who manages to utilize them (the same way other natural resources do, according to Rand worshippers). Hello, tragedy of the commons! What? That makes no sense in terms of everything being privately owned. Someone would own the air or water before anyone uses it. The idea that "we own what we use" is, if anything, a communist idea. And that's just downright confusing. And I believe the politically correct term is Randroid. I believe the idea is that resources belong to whoever exploits them and therefore "gives them value". For example, to a hardcore Randroid an unowned patch of forest has no value and belongs to no one, but when you chop it down then the resulting lumber has value and belongs to you. In other words, Randroids respect individual rights but completely fail to understand public goods or externalities.
You are pretty much spot on, as one of the goals of Rand's philosophy is to inexorably tie considerations of value to a purely subjective and individual standard united in opposition to the very concepts of sacrifice and perspectivism. Here's a great workup of general Objectivism. (the source is old, but for better or for worse the philosophy has remained fairly static for many years now)
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifices of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash -- that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.[49]
http://www.oocities.org/athens/Olympus/2178/rand.html
|
On July 04 2012 06:48 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:41 DannyJ wrote:
41% didn't know the SCOTUS upheld it, I know that.
If you aren't aware or care about major news like that you obviously have no idea what's going on in general. 59% of Americans don't vote either, and those two groups probably overlap heavily.
You'd think so, but I fear otherwise...
|
On July 04 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:38 xDaunt wrote:Those are pretty good numbers for Romney -- particularly the numbers among independents. I dunno, it's not like Romney is the anti-Obamacare candidate. Honestly, now that it's constitutional it seems like a strict win for Obama because Romney has to be pretty disingenuous when trying to criticize.
Though I tend to think that Obamacare being upheld is a better result for Obama than the law being struck down, I don't think I'd call it a "win" in the strict sense of the word. As I mentioned earlier, the law is still unpopular, and the Supreme Court declaring it Constitutional (especially given how it arrived at that conclusion) is not really going to change that (which is reflected in Gallup's numbers). Until Obama is able to convince Americans that Obamacare is good for them, it's going to remain an anchor on his reelection bid. Keep in mind that the decision has absolutely infuriated the conservative base, which is going to drive up the conservative turn out during the election (and drive up Romney's fundraising).
|
On July 04 2012 06:50 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:48 sunprince wrote:On July 04 2012 06:41 DannyJ wrote:
41% didn't know the SCOTUS upheld it, I know that.
If you aren't aware or care about major news like that you obviously have no idea what's going on in general. 59% of Americans don't vote either, and those two groups probably overlap heavily. You'd think so, but I fear otherwise...
Can't disagree with the fear, since it's pretty legitimate given how incredibly ignorant voters have proven to be time and again. Just look at the recent Prop 28 in my state, where idiot voters were tricked into functionally extending term limits when they thought they were doing the opposite.
Whenever I encounter people promoting voter turnout and encouraging apathetic people to vote, I want to rear naked choke them. Hey geniuses, why exactly do we want more ignorant voters easily manipulated by elites to have a bigger voice instead of people who actually care/study the issues?
|
Yeah i really don't think the upholding is a major win for either side. Really all it did was make the election far more substantive and clear cut when it comes to the issues. If Obamacare was still up in the air constitutionally it would have been a really murky subject.
Convervatives will now be hell bent on taking down what they see as the taxing tyrant that is Obama. Liberals will see him as a defender of the weak and helpless and try to keep him in office to ensure their holy grail of (near) universal healthcare stays in place. It's gonna be fun!
Add in the ironic facts that Romney practically did Obamacare before Obama and Obamacare is now officially a tax (despite them fervently denying it) and it makes it all even more fun!
|
On July 04 2012 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 04 2012 06:38 xDaunt wrote:Those are pretty good numbers for Romney -- particularly the numbers among independents. I dunno, it's not like Romney is the anti-Obamacare candidate. Honestly, now that it's constitutional it seems like a strict win for Obama because Romney has to be pretty disingenuous when trying to criticize. Though I tend to think that Obamacare being upheld is a better result for Obama than the law being struck down, I don't think I'd call it a "win" in the strict sense of the word. As I mentioned earlier, the law is still unpopular, and the Supreme Court declaring it Constitutional (especially given how it arrived at that conclusion) is not really going to change that (which is reflected in Gallup's numbers). Until Obama is able to convince Americans that Obamacare is good for them, it's going to remain an anchor on his reelection bid. Keep in mind that the decision has absolutely infuriated the conservative base, which is going to drive up the conservative turn out during the election (and drive up Romney's fundraising).
Sure, but the focus on healthcare at all makes Americans more apathetic toward Romney than they were already.
Hating Obama just isn't enough. You actually have to get people to like Romney. The people who like Obamacare will like Obama for it. The people who hate Obamacare don't like Romney because he can't really be very vicious to it at all. I don't think it's going to be anchor at all, simply because his opponent is Romney. It would be "Vote for Obama, or don't bother to vote" situation.
On July 04 2012 06:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 06:25 sunprince wrote:On July 03 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:On July 03 2012 22:30 sunprince wrote:On July 03 2012 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:
Not that I want to feed Epocalypse more, but the individual right to property doesn't mean that all property is privately owned (I have no idea how this would apply for things like air and water). It doesn't negate the idea of public property. That just doesn't logically follow. I'm sure in Epocalypse's view, the air and water belong to any citizen who manages to utilize them (the same way other natural resources do, according to Rand worshippers). Hello, tragedy of the commons! What? That makes no sense in terms of everything being privately owned. Someone would own the air or water before anyone uses it. The idea that "we own what we use" is, if anything, a communist idea. And that's just downright confusing. And I believe the politically correct term is Randroid. I believe the idea is that resources belong to whoever exploits them and therefore "gives them value". For example, to a hardcore Randroid an unowned patch of forest has no value and belongs to no one, but when you chop it down then the resulting lumber has value and belongs to you. In other words, Randroids respect individual rights but completely fail to understand public goods or externalities. You are pretty much spot on, as one of the goals of Rand's philosophy is to inexorably tie considerations of value to a purely subjective and individual standard united in opposition to the very concepts of sacrifice and perspectivism. Here's a great workup of general Objectivism. (the source is old, but for better or for worse the philosophy has remained fairly static for many years now) Show nested quote +The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifices of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash -- that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.[49] http://www.oocities.org/athens/Olympus/2178/rand.html
Objectivism is a "closed system." It lives and dies with Ayn Rand, so it's going to be about as static as a philosophy can be.
|
Sure, but the focus on healthcare at all makes Americans more apathetic toward Romney than they were already.
Hating Obama just isn't enough. You actually have to get people to like Romney. The people who like Obamacare will like Obama for it. The people who hate Obamacare don't like Romney because he can't really be very vicious to it at all. I don't think it's going to be anchor at all, simply because his opponent is Romney. It would be "Vote for Obama, or don't bother to vote" situation.
Hating Obama and the Democrats was enough to give Republicans the largest Congressional victory in 60 years in 2010, while they (Republicans) were still largely unpopular as a whole.
What you're saying is the same thing that was being said before those elections as well. With the ruling in Sebelius (Obamacare) the consistently higher (according to polls) motivation and excitement among conservatives is going to at the least be maintained.
Any incumbent that can't get above 50% except in a few outlier polls for months and months on end is in trouble. Keep telling yourself Romney is so unattractive he can't possibly win and you're going to be rudely surprised in November.
Objectivism is a "closed system." It lives and dies with Ayn Rand, so it's going to be about as static as a philosophy can be.
Pretty much all anyone needs to know about Objectivism and Objectivists doesn't have to come from anywhere but a satirical play script. All you gotta know is that Mozart Was a Red.
|
On July 04 2012 12:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Sure, but the focus on healthcare at all makes Americans more apathetic toward Romney than they were already.
Hating Obama just isn't enough. You actually have to get people to like Romney. The people who like Obamacare will like Obama for it. The people who hate Obamacare don't like Romney because he can't really be very vicious to it at all. I don't think it's going to be anchor at all, simply because his opponent is Romney. It would be "Vote for Obama, or don't bother to vote" situation. Hating Obama and the Democrats was enough to give Republicans the largest Congressional victory in 60 years in 2010, while they (Republicans) were still largely unpopular as a whole. What you're saying is the same thing that was being said before those elections as well. With the ruling in Sebelius (Obamacare) the consistently higher (according to polls) motivation and excitement among conservatives is going to at the least be maintained. Any incumbent that can't get above 50% except in a few outlier polls for months and months on end is in trouble. Keep telling yourself Romney is so unattractive he can't possibly win and you're going to be rudely surprised in November. Show nested quote +Objectivism is a "closed system." It lives and dies with Ayn Rand, so it's going to be about as static as a philosophy can be. Pretty much all anyone needs to know about Objectivism and Objectivists doesn't have to come from anywhere but a satirical play script. All you gotta know is that Mozart Was a Red.
Well it's a little different for congressional races imo. But I get what you're saying.
I'm mostly basing my experience on what happened with Kerry vs Bush (not that I really kept up with politics back then). But maybe Bush wasn't as unpopular as Obama is right now.
|
As an American I hate elections and politics in general. It's all such a farce it's pathetic. Democrat, Republican, they are all politicians in the end.
|
On July 04 2012 13:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 12:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sure, but the focus on healthcare at all makes Americans more apathetic toward Romney than they were already.
Hating Obama just isn't enough. You actually have to get people to like Romney. The people who like Obamacare will like Obama for it. The people who hate Obamacare don't like Romney because he can't really be very vicious to it at all. I don't think it's going to be anchor at all, simply because his opponent is Romney. It would be "Vote for Obama, or don't bother to vote" situation. Hating Obama and the Democrats was enough to give Republicans the largest Congressional victory in 60 years in 2010, while they (Republicans) were still largely unpopular as a whole. What you're saying is the same thing that was being said before those elections as well. With the ruling in Sebelius (Obamacare) the consistently higher (according to polls) motivation and excitement among conservatives is going to at the least be maintained. Any incumbent that can't get above 50% except in a few outlier polls for months and months on end is in trouble. Keep telling yourself Romney is so unattractive he can't possibly win and you're going to be rudely surprised in November. Objectivism is a "closed system." It lives and dies with Ayn Rand, so it's going to be about as static as a philosophy can be. Pretty much all anyone needs to know about Objectivism and Objectivists doesn't have to come from anywhere but a satirical play script. All you gotta know is that Mozart Was a Red. Well it's a little different for congressional races imo. But I get what you're saying. I'm mostly basing my experience on what happened with Kerry vs Bush (not that I really kept up with politics back then). But maybe Bush wasn't as unpopular as Obama is right now.
Obama is on very similar polling ground compared to Bush circa June 2004.
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/2h7ih5g.png)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Edit: After the Romney tax haven thread was closed, where was I to go to blather on about politics :D
|
So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase.
In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax.
Source
|
On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. Show nested quote +In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source
StealthBlue, you missed the best part of that story:
Update, 3:44PM: In further excerpts of the interview Romney argued that while he agreed with the Supreme Court that the federal mandate was a tax, his state mandate in Masschusetts was not.
|
Somewhere, at some 4th of July BBQ, Santorum is thinking,
"PICK. A. FUCKING. ARGUMENT."
|
Herein lies the problem: the Republican party is too indecisive as a whole for a candidate to be able to pick an argument and stick to it.
|
I like Romney's logic. If Obama does it, it's bad. If I do the same thing, it's good.
The USA is so screwed...
|
On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. Show nested quote +In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source
It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it.
But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate.
|
On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate.
Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense.
|
Not incredibly noteworthy, but Obama is visiting my hometown today! NW Ohio is the perfect place to tout the benefits of an auto bailout that Romney is summarily against, and polling numbers indicate a lead for Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio, both auto manufacturing centers.
MAUMEE, Ohio—President Barack Obama kicks off his first bus tour of the 2012 campaign on Thursday with news meant to cheer struggling Rust Belt voters: His administration is taking on China over an allegedly unfair trade practice.
Hours before the president was due in Ohio, the White House sent reporters a Toledo Blade report that the Obama administration would take aim at Chinese duties on some American-made cars and SUVs "including the Toledo, Ohio-made Jeep Wrangler." (Eerily excellent timing.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-launches-2012-campaign-bus-tour-announces-trade/story?id=16716707#.T_WxV45U448
|
On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. Show nested quote +In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source
Semantics.
While legally the Obamacare mandate is a tax and the Romneycare mandate isn't, there is no difference between them in terms of the real world effect on humans.
In both cases, a person must pay money to the government if they do not purchase health insurance.
Thus, saying that the Obamacare mandate is a tax and that the Romneycare mandate isn't is a disingenuous appeal to emotion, to Trojan horse the negative connotations of the word "tax" into the debate. It's shameless politicking.
Ultimately, the mechanics of either mandate and the effect on people in reality, which is what actually matters, is the same. What word you use to label the mandate does not change this.
|
On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense.
Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
