|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ?
not really. however, it is immoral to not do your best to alleviate the conditions, but to knowingly abide by the existing order becasue it is advantageous.
but that is neither here nor there.
the point, which is rather clear, is that romney's activities are rather dissonant from his interpretation of them.
i don't want to waste time on this stuff. let those who see see.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 14:20 Defacer wrote:Scott Brown throws Romney under the bus. Good for him. Show nested quote +One of the first Democrats to knock Mitt Romney for his charge that 47 percent of Americans are "dependent" on the federal government was Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, who told the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, "Romney just wrote off half the people in Massachusetts and half the people in America as deadbeats." Now Warren's Republican opponent, Sen. Scott Brown, has followed suit. Here's the statement he sent to The Hill on Tuesday:
"That's not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs."
Brown's not the only Republican to back away from the remarks of the party's presidential nominee. Former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, who is running for Senate in Connecticut, said in a statement Tuesday that "I disagree with Gov. Romney's insinuation that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care."
What makes Brown comments particularly noteworthy, though, is that he and Romney are both being advised by the same guy—GOP strategist Eric Fehrnstrom. (This isn't the first time Fehrstrom's candidates have been put in an awkward situation.)
The tragedy about the election in MA is only one of those candidates will win, while useless and bland representatives in uncontested districts elsewhere will also take seats.
|
On September 19 2012 12:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:01 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:53 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:51 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:50 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things)
The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent.
I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag. http://www.politifactbias.com/Here you go And I suppose I won't find any conservative bias here. Has this site won a Pulitzer prize? It is a blog exposing bias. + Show Spoiler +Great example I'll C+P for you since you won't read anything that doesn't have a "Pulitzer prize". Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few weeks in office for things he was "expected to do", does that mean he deserved it?
"Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart.com's Big Peace, pre-emptively steals my thunder on PolitiFact's ridiculous story on Mitt Romney and the statement from the American embassy in Libya.
Shapiro:
Just when you think Politifact can’t make any more of a mockery of itself than it already has – over and over and over and over again – they wade into the breach today on foreign policy. More specifically, they took issue with Mitt Romney’s statement today that “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”
PolitiFact has a history of denying that things Mitt Romney says are apologies are, in fact, apologies. Shapiro has fun with PolitiFact's method of undercutting Romney in this case:
So, what did Politifact have to say? They interviewed three “apology experts.” Seriously. First, they interviewed Professor John Murphy, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who said it wasn’t an apology because “the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word.” Second, they interviewed Lauren Bloom, “an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology.” What did she say? Romney’s “once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment.” Finally, they interviewed Professor Rhoda E. Howard-Hassman, who said the statement was “not an apology.”
But is that PolitiFact's fault? PolitiFact tried to contact a fourth expert who did not respond. By looking at the earlier fact checks we can confirm that the expert was conservative foreign policy analyst Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.
What did Gardiner have to say in PolitiFact's original story? Here it is:
Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy analyst with the the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama is definitely apologizing, and it's not good. He co-wrote the Heritage analysis, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
He noted that Obama tends to be most apologetic about how the U.S. has fought terrorism and its approach to the Iraq war. "There is a very strong partisan element to his apologies, but the biggest driving factor is Obama's personal belief that the U.S. is not an exceptional, uniquely great nation," he said.
As I noted in an earlier analysis, PolitiFact completely discounted Gardiner's statement in ruling Romney "Pants on Fire" for saying Mr. Obama went on an apology tour. PolitiFact did not explain its reasons for discounting Gardiner's expertise. If partisanship was a problem then we should expect PolitiFact to find an entirely new set of experts. Choosing the expert opinion of three liberals over one conservative looks simply like an expression of partisan bias by the fact checker when unaccompanied by a solid rationale.
In the latest apology for Obama, PolitiFact's three experts make a show of distinguishing between condemnation and apology. But that approach obscures a potential relationship between condemnation and apology.
One cannot condemn an entity and apologize for that same entity at the same time with the same statement. Those aims work against each other. But very clearly, one can easily work a condemnation into an apology: "My son was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad--a thousand times bad for breaking your window, Mrs. Jones."
In the above example we have an apology and a condemnation in the same sentence. It works because the apology is directed at one entity (Mrs. Jones) while the condemnation is directed at a third party (the son). By throwing a natural ally under the bus for breaking the window, the condemner sends a clear implicit message of regret to the offended party, Mrs. Smith.
It's important to emphasize the role of an apology in both personal and international relations: An apology is an attempt to smooth things over with the offended party. Condemning the breaking of the window sends a message to Mrs. Jones that something will be done to the window breaker to help balance the scales of justice. Absent that implication, condemning the window-breaker isn't likely to sooth Mrs. Jones' ire.
In the case of the Libyan embassy, embassy officials clearly released the statement with the aim of defusing anger at the United States. One can claim that it was a condemnation rather than an apology, but that's obfuscation.
It was a classic apology, delivered by implicit means." And it's biased itself. Not arguing it's a perfect website. You say politifact has liberal bias. I say your blog has conservative bias. What's the difference? You're arguing Obama made a bunch of promises he didn't keep and is a liar. This site suggests that you at best are oversimplifying things, and at worst don't have your facts straight. Not only that, you aren't even contesting the facts they put forth, you're very generally implying a bias, and trying to put forth a conservative-biased critique as evidence. Not a very compelling defense of your claim per Obama. Notwithstanding the "liberal biased" website has won a Pulitzer prize, which isn't exactly handed out like toilet paper. No, I was responding to the person who said "Paul Ryan is a liar" with a "well what does that make Obama with all of these unkept promises?" quip. I was not immediately suspicious of bias from the website and have actually found some really good information on it once you look past the truth-o-meters, but they're CLEARLY making a strong case for Obama when you go to the pants on fire page and see like 30 republicans to every 3 or 4 democrats.
So we have the following claims from Politifact:
Republicans are lying far more than Democrats,
And instead of pulling out any evidence for this claim being incorrect or for Politifact showing clear liberal bias in their identification of what is a lie, you simply say, "They label Republicans as lying more than Democrats; therefore, they are liberally biased."
This takes an underlying assumption; that Republicans are in fact not lying as much as Democrats. However, you offer absolutely no evidence to this statement. Of course, getting this evidence will be difficult, mostly because the vast majority of independent fact checkers have been showing over the past couple months that the GOP lies significantly more than the Democrats.
Alternatively, your statement could be implying that uneven reported cases of lying automatically implies bias. However, this is just a completely absurd notion.
Go back, take an introductory philosophy course so you can properly learn how to structure an argument, and then please come back and restate your argument clearly.
|
|
|
On September 19 2012 14:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book. To the bold part; it's hard to take you seriously when you completely fail to understand what Socialism is. You make a (fairly) true statement in saying that Socialism is opposed to Libertarianism, but then you suggest that Obama is a Socialist, which is factually incorrect and incredibly ignorant.
Would a more fair description of Obama and his economic goals be that he is an interventionist, corporatist, statist, big government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor?
|
On September 19 2012 14:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:08 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 12:01 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:53 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:51 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:50 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go..
Barack Obama PROMISED to:
*list of things*
Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag. http://www.politifactbias.com/Here you go And I suppose I won't find any conservative bias here. Has this site won a Pulitzer prize? It is a blog exposing bias. + Show Spoiler +Great example I'll C+P for you since you won't read anything that doesn't have a "Pulitzer prize". Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few weeks in office for things he was "expected to do", does that mean he deserved it?
"Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart.com's Big Peace, pre-emptively steals my thunder on PolitiFact's ridiculous story on Mitt Romney and the statement from the American embassy in Libya.
Shapiro:
Just when you think Politifact can’t make any more of a mockery of itself than it already has – over and over and over and over again – they wade into the breach today on foreign policy. More specifically, they took issue with Mitt Romney’s statement today that “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”
PolitiFact has a history of denying that things Mitt Romney says are apologies are, in fact, apologies. Shapiro has fun with PolitiFact's method of undercutting Romney in this case:
So, what did Politifact have to say? They interviewed three “apology experts.” Seriously. First, they interviewed Professor John Murphy, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who said it wasn’t an apology because “the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word.” Second, they interviewed Lauren Bloom, “an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology.” What did she say? Romney’s “once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment.” Finally, they interviewed Professor Rhoda E. Howard-Hassman, who said the statement was “not an apology.”
But is that PolitiFact's fault? PolitiFact tried to contact a fourth expert who did not respond. By looking at the earlier fact checks we can confirm that the expert was conservative foreign policy analyst Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.
What did Gardiner have to say in PolitiFact's original story? Here it is:
Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy analyst with the the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama is definitely apologizing, and it's not good. He co-wrote the Heritage analysis, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
He noted that Obama tends to be most apologetic about how the U.S. has fought terrorism and its approach to the Iraq war. "There is a very strong partisan element to his apologies, but the biggest driving factor is Obama's personal belief that the U.S. is not an exceptional, uniquely great nation," he said.
As I noted in an earlier analysis, PolitiFact completely discounted Gardiner's statement in ruling Romney "Pants on Fire" for saying Mr. Obama went on an apology tour. PolitiFact did not explain its reasons for discounting Gardiner's expertise. If partisanship was a problem then we should expect PolitiFact to find an entirely new set of experts. Choosing the expert opinion of three liberals over one conservative looks simply like an expression of partisan bias by the fact checker when unaccompanied by a solid rationale.
In the latest apology for Obama, PolitiFact's three experts make a show of distinguishing between condemnation and apology. But that approach obscures a potential relationship between condemnation and apology.
One cannot condemn an entity and apologize for that same entity at the same time with the same statement. Those aims work against each other. But very clearly, one can easily work a condemnation into an apology: "My son was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad--a thousand times bad for breaking your window, Mrs. Jones."
In the above example we have an apology and a condemnation in the same sentence. It works because the apology is directed at one entity (Mrs. Jones) while the condemnation is directed at a third party (the son). By throwing a natural ally under the bus for breaking the window, the condemner sends a clear implicit message of regret to the offended party, Mrs. Smith.
It's important to emphasize the role of an apology in both personal and international relations: An apology is an attempt to smooth things over with the offended party. Condemning the breaking of the window sends a message to Mrs. Jones that something will be done to the window breaker to help balance the scales of justice. Absent that implication, condemning the window-breaker isn't likely to sooth Mrs. Jones' ire.
In the case of the Libyan embassy, embassy officials clearly released the statement with the aim of defusing anger at the United States. One can claim that it was a condemnation rather than an apology, but that's obfuscation.
It was a classic apology, delivered by implicit means." And it's biased itself. Not arguing it's a perfect website. You say politifact has liberal bias. I say your blog has conservative bias. What's the difference? You're arguing Obama made a bunch of promises he didn't keep and is a liar. This site suggests that you at best are oversimplifying things, and at worst don't have your facts straight. Not only that, you aren't even contesting the facts they put forth, you're very generally implying a bias, and trying to put forth a conservative-biased critique as evidence. Not a very compelling defense of your claim per Obama. Notwithstanding the "liberal biased" website has won a Pulitzer prize, which isn't exactly handed out like toilet paper. No, I was responding to the person who said "Paul Ryan is a liar" with a "well what does that make Obama with all of these unkept promises?" quip. I was not immediately suspicious of bias from the website and have actually found some really good information on it once you look past the truth-o-meters, but they're CLEARLY making a strong case for Obama when you go to the pants on fire page and see like 30 republicans to every 3 or 4 democrats. So we have the following claims from Politifact: Republicans are lying far more than Democrats, And instead of pulling out any evidence for this claim being incorrect or for Politifact showing clear liberal bias in their identification of what is a lie, you simply say, "They label Republicans as lying more than Democrats; therefore, they are liberally biased." This takes an underlying assumption; that Republicans are in fact not lying as much as Democrats. However, you offer absolutely no evidence to this statement. Of course, getting this evidence will be difficult, mostly because the vast majority of independent fact checkers have been showing over the past couple months that the GOP lies significantly more than the Democrats. Alternatively, your statement could be implying that uneven reported cases of lying automatically implies bias. However, this is just a completely absurd notion. Go back, take an introductory philosophy course so you can properly learn how to structure an argument, and then please come back and restate your argument clearly.
I have taken philosophy thank you, and interestingly you are the one making alot of assumptions in my line of thinking and trying to posit my argument in a direction I was not even remotely going in. It brought SUSPICION to bias when I noticed the amount of Republican liars opposed to the number of Democratic liars, but I NEVER stated this was proof of such. After I noticed this, I did some RESEARCH and found a LARGE number of controversial things within their system, on top of having read HUNDREDS of their reports and found their assessments to be unfair (to BOTH sides) and inconsistent in its own principles.
Here from wikipedia:
"Criticism of specific fact checks
Barack Obama's Saturday Night Live campaign promises
In October 2009, PolitiFact.com fact-checked a skit on the sketch comedy television show Saturday Night Live that showed President Obama stating that he had not accomplished anything thus far;[13] PolitiFact's appraisal was then reported on CNN. Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto called the fact-checking "a bizarre exercise", and added, "PolitiFact does not appear to have done the same for past "SNL" sketches spoofing Republican politicians ... It's as if CNN and the St. Petersburg Times are trying to reinforce the impression that they are in the tank for Obama.".[14]
Obama's statement on the Recovery Act
In February 2010, PolitiFact.com rated President Obama's statement that the Recovery Act had saved or created 2 million jobs in the United States as "half true", stating that the real figure was 1 million according to several independent studies.[15] Economist Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation responded that such a statement "belongs in an opinion editorial – not a fact check", since "there is no way to determine how the economy would have performed without a stimulus."[16]
Huffington Post
In July 2010, Huffington Post blogger Ayo Adeyeye criticized them for labelling a statement by Arianna Huffington that the company Halliburton was "defraud[ing] the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars" as half-true, instead of fully true.[17]
Health care legislation
Taranto of the Wall Street Journal said PolitiFact was "less seeker of truth than servant of power", after it ranked as "Lie of the Year" Sarah Palin's claim that health care legislation would set up "death panels".[18][19] A Wall Street Journal editorial said that PolitiFact is "part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles."[20]
Rachel Maddow
In February 2011, Rachel Maddow criticized PolitiFact for incorrectly stating that she denied that there was a budget shortfall in Wisconsin, providing a clip of herself explicitly stating that there was a budget shortfall on her own show.[21]
Ron Paul’s statement about Defense Department definitions of al-Qaeda and Taliban
After Republican Ron Paul stated that in the U.S. Department of Defense "budget, they have changed the wording on the definition of al-Qaeda and Taliban. It's (now) anybody associated with (those) organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated – so that makes all Americans vulnerable. And now we know that American citizens are vulnerable to assassination", PolitiFact concluded that Paul's statements were "mostly false". Author, blogger and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald, in the politically progressive Salon.com, criticized PolitiFact's determination: "It undermines its own credibility when it purports to resolve subjective disputes of political opinion under the guise of objective expertise", he wrote, saying that the sources it cited in this particular analysis were "highly biased, ideologically rigid establishment advocates" and presented "as some kind of neutral expert-arbiters of fact."[22][23]
Republican budget proposal – Medicare
In 2011, PolitiFact concluded that a statement by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that a budget proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan passed by Republicans in the House and Senate meant that "Republicans voted to end Medicare and charge seniors $12,000" was "pants on fire" false.[24] This conclusion was criticized at the time by Talking Points Memo[25] and left-wing blogs including the Daily Kos[26] and Firedoglake.[27] After it was named the Lie of the Year, the choice was criticized by commentators including Paul Krugman, who wrote that the DCCC statement was true and was chosen only because PolitiFact, having criticized conservatives in the two previous years, had "bent over backwards to appear 'balanced'" 28] Steve Benen, who called the decision "credibility-killing"29] Jonathan Chait, who called PolitiFact a "shoddy, not-very-smart group"30] and David Weigel.[31] The characterization was also criticized by conservative commentators, such as Taranto and Ramesh Ponnuru, who called the DCCC statement incorrect but a matter of opinion, not a lie.[32][33] PolitiFact noted that reader responses to their selection of this statement as the 2011 Lie of the Year were almost entirely negative, saying, "Of roughly 1,500 e-mails we received, nearly all criticized our choice."[34] PolitiFact responded to the flood of comments, saying "We've read the critiques and see nothing that changes our findings. We stand by our story and our conclusion that the claim was the most significant falsehood of 2011. We made no judgments on the merits of the Ryan plan; we just said that the characterization by the Democrats was false", and noted that competitors Factcheck.org and FactChecker came to similar conclusions.[35]
State of the Union 2012
In January 2012, commentators such as Maddow and Daily Kos criticized PolitiFact for rating a statement in President Obama's State of the Union Address about private sector job growth as "Half True" despite acknowledging that the statement was factually correct. In response to the criticism, PolitiFact altered their rating to "Mostly True", which was criticized as still being inaccurate.[36][37] In the same speech, Obama stated that consumption of imported liquid fuel had dropped below fifty percent; PolitiFact called this "Half True",[38] since, despite its accuracy, it was falsely implying that this had happened due to Obama's actions. Maddow criticized this rating as well.[39]
Conservatism in America
In February 2012, PolitiFact rated a statement by Senator Marco Rubio that the majority of Americans are conservative as "Mostly True", despite acknowledging that only 40% of Americans, not a majority, were conservative, according to a recent poll.[40] Maddow criticized this rating, saying that PolitiFact was "a disaster" and should shut down its operations.[41] Adair responded to this criticism by saying that 40% "wasn't quite a majority, but was close", and still represented a plurality. Politico and the Daily Kos both criticized this rebuttal, with the former saying that Adair had actually confirmed Maddow's point and the latter noting that in the past PolitiFact had made a clear distinction between plurality and majority when rating a similar statement by Congressman Ron Paul as "False".[42][43]
G.I. Bill
That month, PolitiFact also rated a statement by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, that critics of the G.I. Bill had "called it welfare", as "Mostly False", because they found no evidence that the word "welfare" had ever been used. Mediaite commentator Tommy Christopher criticized this, saying that "criticism of the bill was unquestionably in the spirit of modern welfare politics, and then some." Christopher also noted that PolitiFact reviewed only a limited sample of the contemporary criticism of the G.I. Bill, and said that what they did review "not only supports the spirit of O’Donnell’s claim, it renders it an understatement."[44]
Tax Foundation
On March 16, 2012, Nashville Bureau Chief Tom Humphrey of the Knoxville News Sentinel wrote an article for PolitiFact Tennessee that gave a beer excise tax map graphic posted by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation a "False" rating for statements about Tennessee's tax burden on beer the graphic never claimed.[45][46] The same day, the Tax Foundation's Joseph Henchman countered in a blog post on the organization's website that PolitiFact should have rated the statement a "True but not comprehensive" and claiming "their author doesn't understand the difference between excise taxes and other taxes, or that our map looks at just one tax and is not a comprehensive look at the entire tax system of a state".[47] PolitiFact Tennessee published a revised ruling on March 20 rating the map "Half True", taking exception with the source of data used.[48]
National Right to Life Committee
On May 8, 2012, PolitiFact rated a claim by the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee that the White House Visitors Office does security screening of the unborn babies of pregnant women visitors as "Mostly False". PolitiFact noted that the NRLC inaccurately described the policy, which was designed to accommodate babies expected to be born after registration but before the date of the White House tour.[49] Rachel Maddow criticized PolitiFact for rating the claim "Mostly False" instead of "False" after PolitiFact agreed that the claim "wildly misconstrued" White House policy. Maddow remarked, "You can get something, quote, wildly wrong, and still only be mostly wrong about it? What does it take to get a false rating on PolitiFact? False, as in you got it wrong." She had previously criticized PolitiFact in recent months for its errors in fact-checking, and predicted the death of the organization as a credible resource.[50]"
User was warned for this post
|
On September 19 2012 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:02 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change. Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had. No there isn't. Economists from across the board have argued that one of the most important problems right now is a lack of consumer demand. In fact, in a survey published in February of this year, small business owners pointed to "weak consumer demand" as the most important problem they were facing - and by far. Businesses can create demand. They can lower prices or change the products / services they offer. Ex. 1 Apple has the products people want and sees plenty of demand. Ex. 2 Nat gas prices have fallen very low and that has spurred new demand. I wonder why small business owners did not think of magically solving the weak demand problem by selling something else or lowering their prices. Hmm... Because its not "magic" - changing your product and service offerings isn't cheap and isn't easy. Cutting prices carries risk of a profit destroying price war. Some will pull it off and succeed and others will either follow or stagnate / die. I was being sarcastic to point out that your "solution" to weak consumer demand isn't a real solution at all. Yeah, because we all know that putting an item on sale to increase business is just 'crazy talk.'
It's crazy talk when it's supposed to be the solution to a nationwide problem of lack of demand, yes.
|
On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him.
Scary day that people are voting because of the ability to "dethrone" and not for Romney's policies.
|
On September 19 2012 15:11 kmillz wrote:In 2011, PolitiFact concluded that a statement by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that a budget proposal by Congressman Paul Ryan passed by Republicans in the House and Senate meant that "Republicans voted to end Medicare and charge seniors $12,000" was "pants on fire" false.[24] This conclusion was criticized at the time by Talking Points Memo[25] and left-wing blogs including the Daily Kos[26] and Firedoglake.[27] After it was named the Lie of the Year, the choice was criticized by commentators including Paul Krugman, who wrote that the DCCC statement was true and was chosen only because PolitiFact, having criticized conservatives in the two previous years, had "bent over backwards to appear 'balanced'" 28] Steve Benen, who called the decision "credibility-killing" 29] Jonathan Chait, who called PolitiFact a "shoddy, not-very-smart group" 30] and David Weigel.[31] The characterization was also criticized by conservative commentators, such as Taranto and Ramesh Ponnuru, who called the DCCC statement incorrect but a matter of opinion, not a lie.[32][33] PolitiFact noted that reader responses to their selection of this statement as the 2011 Lie of the Year were almost entirely negative, saying, "Of roughly 1,500 e-mails we received, nearly all criticized our choice."[34] PolitiFact responded to the flood of comments, saying "We've read the critiques and see nothing that changes our findings. We stand by our story and our conclusion that the claim was the most significant falsehood of 2011. We made no judgments on the merits of the Ryan plan; we just said that the characterization by the Democrats was false", and noted that competitors Factcheck.org and FactChecker came to similar conclusions.[35] State of the Union 2012
I really didn't read your whole post, your past ones hve been pretty rough and poor quality. The smiley faces caught my eye in this paragraph (oooo shiny things), so I read it, and I really interpret this paragraph as evidence that PolitiFact actually is non-partisan...
Do you even read the shit that you spam copy and paste on? Politifact criticized the democrats here, the Democrats whined and bitched, but Politifact stuck to their guns and didn't back down.
You shot yourself in the foot....
Maybe I'm really missing something here. I dunno, it's definitely possible. But I just don't get how this paragraph is evidence for a supposed anti-republican pro-democrat bias at politifact.
|
On September 19 2012 15:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book. To the bold part; it's hard to take you seriously when you completely fail to understand what Socialism is. You make a (fairly) true statement in saying that Socialism is opposed to Libertarianism, but then you suggest that Obama is a Socialist, which is factually incorrect and incredibly ignorant. Would a more fair description of Obama and his economic goals be that he is an interventionist, corporatist, statist, big government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor?
I hope you're kidding. If not you should probably stay away from political discussions because you obviously have no clue what any of those big words mean. I'd also take a look the mod note, where it says '2) Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar.'.
|
On September 19 2012 21:20 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 15:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 14:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book. To the bold part; it's hard to take you seriously when you completely fail to understand what Socialism is. You make a (fairly) true statement in saying that Socialism is opposed to Libertarianism, but then you suggest that Obama is a Socialist, which is factually incorrect and incredibly ignorant. Would a more fair description of Obama and his economic goals be that he is an interventionist, corporatist, statist, big government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor? I hope you're kidding. If not you should probably stay away from political discussions because you obviously have no clue what any of those big words mean. I'd also take a look the mod note, where it says '2) Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar.'.
: P I was surprised it didn't go "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, anti-Christ" to be honest. Hopefully he falls to the ban hammer because of the mod edit you noted.
|
On September 19 2012 15:01 kmillz wrote:
Would a more fair description of Obama and his economic goals be that he is an interventionist, corporatist, statist, big government progressive?
If you'd left it at this, then yes.
|
On September 19 2012 15:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book. To the bold part; it's hard to take you seriously when you completely fail to understand what Socialism is. You make a (fairly) true statement in saying that Socialism is opposed to Libertarianism, but then you suggest that Obama is a Socialist, which is factually incorrect and incredibly ignorant. Would a more fair description of Obama and his economic goals be that he is an interventionist, corporatist, statist, big government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor?
Well if you put it that way, Mitt Romney is an even more interventionist, even more corporatist, even more statist in social options, big government in practice conservative that also hates free markets and favors social policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.
I mean come on, Romney is so far from a libertarian on social and foreign policy at this point it's unbelievable, and the only real power the president will 100% have is over foreign policy. He's not even an economic libertarian because I can almost guarantee he wouldn't have actually have let the auto companies die.
Edit: I mean, it's one thing to say you're going to vote third party for Gary Johnson because you are a libertarian. That makes perfect sense. But for an actual libertarian to vote for Mitt Romney? Heck, I'm not sure Ron Paul would even vote for Romney at this point if he had to choose between Obama and Romney, though of course we'll never know.
|
On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ?
Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor.
It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there.
Not something you want to do if you're then going to turn and ask him for your vote for President.
Thankfully for the Republican campaign, a vast majority of the American population is still ignorant of what Globalization (and de-industrialization as well for that matter) is and so they can continue trying to sell the idea that the reason the economy is bad is because Obama ruined it. (Which in my opinion STILL doesn't work because the economy was bad when Obama took office and is even in recovery as we speak, slow recovery, but still recovery.)
Were the population truly educated about those economic and social concepts, there's no way that approach would fly.
|
On September 19 2012 21:20 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 15:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 14:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2012 10:01 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:46 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting. Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him. Yea, you're independent. And I thought Paul Ryan was a liar. You challenge my political stance? I am a libertarian, the OPPOSITE of a socialist. I want LESS government. LESS taxes. LESS involvement in things the government has NO BUSINESS in. The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is. If you think Paul Ryan is a liar, than why don't you tell me what you think of my list of BROKEN PROMISES by OBAMA the LIAR OF THE YEAR in my book. To the bold part; it's hard to take you seriously when you completely fail to understand what Socialism is. You make a (fairly) true statement in saying that Socialism is opposed to Libertarianism, but then you suggest that Obama is a Socialist, which is factually incorrect and incredibly ignorant. Would a more fair description of Obama and his economic goals be that he is an interventionist, corporatist, statist, big government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor? I hope you're kidding. If not you should probably stay away from political discussions because you obviously have no clue what any of those big words mean. I'd also take a look the mod note, where it says '2) Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar.'.
Labelling Obama as "marxist leninist", you really need to have balls of steel. It's hard to know if people are completely ignorant or if they have god like inflammatory hyperbolic skills when they say something THAT non sensical....
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
only thing inflamed by that is prob lenin's head, as he's turning it in his grave.
|
On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there.
Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society.
|
On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society.
So the conclusion is clear.
The only way for us to win in the global economy is to accept Chinese working conditions and wages.
Makes sense.
Here's the thing. In a post-industrial society. Most of the "making" is done by machines. Americans still make some of the best shit in the world, when it's stuff that actually requires some semblence of skill to make.
Other crap, the stuff that literally ANYONE can make. The Chinese make because their workers get treated like slaves.
So unless we WANT to work like Chinese workers, we have to come up with another way to compete in a global economy.
There's no way we can ever cut regulations to the point where businesses are going to stop outsourcing, because even in an unregulated economy American workers will still never accept the same working conditions that the Chinese have.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
turning that argument on its head, one may say the owners should not expect to derive 99% of the labor product if they were to avail themselves of the american consumption market. but this is rather too direct, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
