President Obama Re-Elected - Page 710

On October 09 2012 09:50 Defacer wrote:


"Whitewash". What do you mean by that? I think you're using the word in a different way than I normally do ...

On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote:
This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.

There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light that the "scandal" appears.

It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!

On October 09 2012 09:55 bkrow wrote:

I mean, Ryan is going to be the 'winner' regardless of what he says because he presents far more eloquently and confidently than Biden.

On October 09 2012 09:55 Defacer wrote:


There's actually a statement in the video that he makes that is arguably worse ... He admits in the video that he believes the economy will improve, even without any changes to economic policy.

It's basically a tacit admission that he believes his own candidacy is irrelevant to economy. I'm surprised that that hasn't exploded over the internet.

On October 09 2012 09:55 bkrow wrote:

I mean, Ryan is going to be the 'winner' regardless of what he says because he presents far more eloquently and confidently than Biden.

On October 09 2012 09:48 dvorakftw wrote:




Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.

On October 09 2012 09:56 sam!zdat wrote:


"whitewash" means to take something unpleasant and make it look nice by painting it white

On October 09 2012 09:56 sam!zdat wrote:


"whitewash" means to take something unpleasant and make it look nice by painting it white

On October 09 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:


It is also a derogatory way of describing ethnic cleansing or gentrification of other people's culture. Ex. Disney whitewashed the story of Pocahontas.

On October 09 2012 09:51 sam!zdat wrote:
This whole 47% Romney scandal thing is absurd. It is a perfect example of ideological blinders. Romney is caught saying something secretly that is supposed to be scandalous, but in fact EVERYBODY KNOWS ALREADY that both candidates write off their opponents' bases and work on a) mobilizing their bases by vilifying that of their opponent and b) pandering to those swing state voters too stupid to yet have an opinion or too marginal to belong to either base.

There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light and forces a confrontation with the repressed Real that the "scandal" appears.

It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom!

On October 09 2012 09:41 bkrow wrote:
He called them victims, who feel entitled and don't take personal responsibility for their lives.

How are you possibly trying to rationalise that as an intelligent thing to say during an election? Or at all, at any time?

On October 09 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:


Jeezes dude. He wasn't just writing off Democrats, he was writing off Republicans as well. Poor people don't only vote Democrat. A huge chunk of them vote Republican. That's one reason why it was so bad.

On October 09 2012 10:02 dvorakftw wrote:

It's hyperbole but generally accurate.


Again, an example of why politics is so bad. You turn a genuine political philosophy based on history that shows excessive government spending and welfare can do more harm than good and it is turned into "Romney hates poor people". You change half a dozen words in the full quote and you have absolutely nothing to use against him. But because he was speaking extemporaneously he didn't say it perfectly word for word and now it's the centerpiece of Obama's campaign.

On October 09 2012 09:57 Defacer wrote:


I'm actually not so sure. In his RNC speech and 60 minutes interview, I found him quite mechanical. It seemed like he was having trouble reconciling his own political beliefs with the Romney campaign's move to center.

At the same time, Joe Biden is blabbermouth with no inner monologue. So who knows?

On October 09 2012 10:06 bkrow wrote:
Nobody would argue against excessive welfare causing harm, not even Obama, so I'm not sure about your point.

On October 09 2012 10:06 bkrow wrote:

My interpretation is obviously different to yours.

To me, it showed a belief that the "47%" don't actually matter to him. Be they Democrat, Republican, or anything else. It projected that Romney is not capable of thinking about the middle - lower class; if you don't own a business or you aren't rich, you don't matter.

Nobody would argue against excessive welfare causing harm, not even Obama, so I'm not sure about your point.

On October 09 2012 10:03 sam!zdat wrote:


Yeah, that's part of the ideology.

edit: which is to say, I claim that everybody already knows that republican ideology is about making people vote against their own interests. The scandal of "many of these people vote republican" is already part of the ideology

On October 09 2012 10:08 Souma wrote:


Republicanism is not about making people vote against their self-interests. It just happens to be that way right now.

On October 09 2012 09:48 dvorakftw wrote:




Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart.

Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.

Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments.

(The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.