|
|
On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet
I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money.
|
On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money.
Oh. If that's the case, then your point is just facile. What else would government do but decide how to spend money? (edit: I guess you could change what things are legal, that's the other thing)
|
On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money.
That's an incredibly simplistic analysis of some incredibly complicated issues. For example, for someone arguing about the immorality of a soldier dying in Iraq, the issue of money is the furthest thing from their mind.
|
On October 09 2012 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money. That's an incredibly simplistic analysis of some incredibly complicated issues. For example, for someone arguing about the immorality of a soldier dying in Iraq, the issue of money is the furthest thing from their mind.
It's money again. Most on the right want to increase military spending, most on the left want to minimize it.
It is simple.
|
On October 09 2012 11:37 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money. That's an incredibly simplistic analysis of some incredibly complicated issues. For example, for someone arguing about the immorality of a soldier dying in Iraq, the issue of money is the furthest thing from their mind. It's money again. Most on the right want to increase military spending, most on the left want to minimize it. It is simple.
No it is not money, it is someone saying that having our boys die over in some yonder desert is not right no matter what the money says.
"There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast." -Andrew Carnegie
As much as you might like to think money is the be all and end all, it is not. As summed up nicely by this quote by Mr. Carnegie
|
On October 09 2012 10:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 10:42 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 09:58 Souma wrote:On October 09 2012 09:48 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote:
Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth.
Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted. rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote #
You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping. 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. Irrelevant. He said he wasn't going to fire teachers, when it actuality he said he was going to fire teachers. We can keep going.  Sure. Let's have a mock debate where I will be the Lefty and you can be Right. Me: Because teachers and firefighters and police are essential to society, I propose we raise taxes just a teeny tiny bit on only the very richest wealthiest Americans who let's be honest don't deserve so much money in the first place to hire 100 million new teachers and 100 million new policemen and 100 million new firefighters. My opponent thinks this is a bad idea. He thinks we can't afford it. Why does he hate kids?* *Slight exaggeration for effect. Let's have a real debate on when we're going to deal with real issues like the runaway train that is social security, medicare, medicaid, and 'defense spending'. When are our politicians going to address these concerns? Oh sorry, I forgot that they're not popular with anybody, so nobody in our one-party system is going to talk about them.
Ryan has a bipartisan plan to reform entitlements. The Democrats responding with an ad of him literally throwing an old woman off a cliff.
I'm actually okay with less defense spending but Mitt is merely interested in keeping it at a historical norm - http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/us-military-spending.jpg
|
On October 09 2012 11:37 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money. That's an incredibly simplistic analysis of some incredibly complicated issues. For example, for someone arguing about the immorality of a soldier dying in Iraq, the issue of money is the furthest thing from their mind. It's money again. Most on the right want to increase military spending, most on the left want to minimize it. It is simple.
HAHA thank god you've solved politics for us
Politics is just people having arbitrary ideas about money going up or down
(edit: now that I think about it maybe you're right. carry on)
|
On October 09 2012 11:38 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:37 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money. That's an incredibly simplistic analysis of some incredibly complicated issues. For example, for someone arguing about the immorality of a soldier dying in Iraq, the issue of money is the furthest thing from their mind. It's money again. Most on the right want to increase military spending, most on the left want to minimize it. It is simple. No it is not money, it is someone saying that having our boys die over in some yonder desert is not right no matter what the money says.
The cynic in me would say that decision is still based in money (weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or oil?)
But, I'll steer this back to my original comment. Almost every argument that has happened in this thread can be boiled down to whether or not you think US citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for federally funded programs that benefit poor.
|
On October 09 2012 11:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:37 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:35 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:32 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:29 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:28 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:21 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 11:07 rogzardo wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. All this debate is pointless. The argument is:
I want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
OR
I don't want to pay more in taxes so everybody can have food, health care, education, etc.
Both sides have merit. All the details are semantics. I'm part of the 47%. I don't pay taxes. I don't want people who do pay taxes to pay more. I don't fall into your dichotomy. And the details are not semantics, they are the crux of the argument. Not everyone thinks in your simple-minded "what about my money" mentality. You do. It's about money. If it was solely about big vs. little government, you couldn't agree with right social views. EDIT: Both sides have a point. I like my money. I don't like seeing it wasted. Who said I agree with right social views? What are you even saying? The debate between the right and the left is about big vs. small government. That means money, and social issues. The right wants small fiscal government, and big government regarding the social issues. The left is the opposite. But really its just money. It's how you spend it, and how you think others should be obligated to spend it. Your foot is in your mouth. The dude is like the most hardline libertarian you'll ever meet I don't think so. I think the argument is as simple as where you want to spend your money. Look at every debate thats been on this board: health care, the deficit, unemployment, welfare. It's just money. That's an incredibly simplistic analysis of some incredibly complicated issues. For example, for someone arguing about the immorality of a soldier dying in Iraq, the issue of money is the furthest thing from their mind. It's money again. Most on the right want to increase military spending, most on the left want to minimize it. It is simple. HAHA thank god you've solved politics for us Politics is just people having arbitrary ideas about money going up or down (edit: now that I think about it maybe you're right. carry on)
No need to get snippy. Go read back through the 700 pages of this thing. Then tell me what percentage was about how or if citizens are obligated to pay for programs that benefit the poor.
|
On October 09 2012 11:41 rogzardo wrote:
But, I'll steer this back to my original comment. Almost every argument that has happened in this thread can be boiled down to whether or not you think US citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for federally funded programs that benefit poor.
Sure! This is the basic contradiction of our age. Capitalism produces the necessity of the welfare state, and the welfare state is doomed to failure!
Clearly, we must be more creative in imagining our options
edit: sorry for being snippy
|
On October 09 2012 11:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:41 rogzardo wrote:
But, I'll steer this back to my original comment. Almost every argument that has happened in this thread can be boiled down to whether or not you think US citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for federally funded programs that benefit poor.
Sure! This is the basic contradiction of our age. Capitalism produces the necessity of the welfare state, and the welfare state is doomed to failure! Clearly, we must be more creative in imagining our options edit: sorry for being snippy
Ok, I'm no genius for noticing. It's just hard to not feel like your bashing your head against a wall reading the same shit over and over.
|
On October 09 2012 11:46 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:41 rogzardo wrote:
But, I'll steer this back to my original comment. Almost every argument that has happened in this thread can be boiled down to whether or not you think US citizens have an obligation to pay taxes for federally funded programs that benefit poor.
Sure! This is the basic contradiction of our age. Capitalism produces the necessity of the welfare state, and the welfare state is doomed to failure! Clearly, we must be more creative in imagining our options edit: sorry for being snippy Ok, I'm no genius for noticing. It's just hard to not feel like your bashing your head against a wall reading the same shit over and over.
brother, do I ever know how that feels...
|
On October 09 2012 10:56 bkrow wrote:
Ok - agree to disagree because i have "no interest in knowing who Romney truly is." Please enlighten me?
There's nothing I can show you that hasn't been on display for months now.
The fact you think you "truly know" a politician; particularly one that has lied like Romney (and Obama) has is pretty hilarious.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080414160906AAXtyn2
|
On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote:
And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival.
And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise.
|
On October 09 2012 11:12 Bigtony wrote:
Giving teachers more work and less resources will surely raise test scores and student achievement.
At this point I think it's worth a try!
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mdu356WGDA4/TknR6JaiMYI/AAAAAAAAECk/0aNrymveUiM/s400/education+spending+vs+test+scores.jpg)
|
On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote:
And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise.
Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy.
EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I have him blocked so I can't read his stuff. Happy days have returned!
|
On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote:
And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times.
Teacher's UNIONS, not teachers. No one loves war, no one wants starvation, no one hates teachers, "war on women,"... But all this hyperbole is about money, right?
|
On October 09 2012 11:19 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 10:37 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2012 10:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote:On October 09 2012 09:19 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 08:38 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 08:35 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 08:04 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, except, no. While you can attempt to spin your way out of the tax cut flip-flop, there's no breaking out of the other blatant flip-flops. Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits) ![[image loading]](http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/education-cato.jpg) The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions. 1. Lol at that graph proving anything. Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us! Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth. Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted. Romney never said we need to cut back on teachers. Here is the full quote: he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people. he is opposing a stimulus, not the act of hiring more teachers. at the most, you could say that he is not being accurate in this quote. he clearly means that "more teachers" is not a good enough excuse for another stimulus. only a completely biased point of view could perceive this statement as being inconsistent with his debate statement. Stop it. The mere suggestion that a highly edited video off the internet isn't giving me the whole, truthful story is turning my world upside down. Point taken. Still, it is impossible to argue that Romney hasn't flopped 180 degrees on many issues. That isn't bias, that's just reality. i'm not even saying that this isn't true. i would just like a couple of examples of it. so far: pre-existing conditions:+ Show Spoiler +Romney's plan does cover pre-exisitng conditions. first, let's take his debate quote: Let — well, actually — actually it's — it's — it's a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan. the obama argument is that Romney's plan doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so he must be "flip-flopping". well, that isn't accurate. his plan maintains current protections for people with pre-existing conditions. he also reforms the system so as to deal with the people who have pre-existing conditions but are not currently or continuously insured. this article explains it all in better detail that i can: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329661/debating-pre-existing-conditions-james-c-caprettaagain, let's take Romney's actual debate quote: Well, first, I love great schools. Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. And the key to great schools: great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don't believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own. now let's take his other quote: (Obama) wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people. in this quote he is clearly opposing the stimulus, and not the act of hiring more teachers. Hoo boy dude.... + Show Spoiler +
hoo boy indeed!
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1061166055
+ Show Spoiler +this isn't a flip-flop, or even a discussion about policy. this is an attack on Romney as a person, and it uses no statements or facts about policy to make it's point.
http://mittromneyflipflops.com/
+ Show Spoiler +this is just a site that gives me two statements completely at random. many of them are not even about policy, and as far as i can tell, none of them are about the debate. we are not provided context for the quotes either. even if i accept that some of these are legitimate flip-flops, they don't address the issue, which is the debate version of policy vs. the campaign version of policy and whether there was any contradictions.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/26/mitt-romney-cites-massachusetts-health-care-law-sign-his-empathy/eYeBDy9suhfQxDwSjXEZ5H/story.html
+ Show Spoiler +again, this is not about the debate or even about policy, but i'll still address it: Romney never said that he doesn't support a state having a system like the Mass. system. he says that he doesn't support the federal government having a system like that.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romneys-biggest-flip-flops-20120801
+ Show Spoiler +again... a lot of these are not from the debate, or even from the current campaign. some of them aren't even from the 2008 primary... in fact, many of these were statements that were years apart, and he has addressed most of them as legitimate changes of his personal beliefs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-flip-flops-20120914,0,749715.story
+ Show Spoiler +alright, well at least this is from this campaign (and century), but still not really policy-oriented. i'll still address it: Romney attacked the response to the attackers because it did not condemn the violence, but only condemned the video. him also thinking the video was stupid does not preclude thinking that our response was weak.
http://elections.americablog.com/2012/09/romney-flip-flops-4-times-on-health-care-reform-in-past-24-hours.html
+ Show Spoiler +finally, a relevant quote (though STILL not from the debate...) okay here is his original quote: I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people. here is his aide's quote: in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features. he is clearly saying that he will not propose a federal mandate to require these things, but that he still likes a plan that tries to deal with the issue of these people (young and pre-existing conditions) and gets them insured. no flip-flop. his later statement that they took issue with was just explaining the point like i just did.
http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/mitt-romney-flip-flops.html
+ Show Spoiler +once again, these are random quotes, many of them from the last century. let's keep things on-topic. debate or policy.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170424/romneys-flip-flop-center-continues-foreign-policy#
+ Show Spoiler +i'm starting to see a pattern here. like two of the things mentioned in this article were from the debate, and neither of those gave me specific quotes. i'll keep on going through these articles, but next time, please do try to get relevant information and don't just mass-post stuff that looks right.
http://www.newshounds.us/mitt_romney_flip_flops_on_47_i_was_completely_wrong_10042012
+ Show Spoiler +he was trying to make a point about his campaign strategy and it came out completely wrong. admitting that you put your own foot in your mouth is not flip-flopping. oh, and the link is broken. i've just seen this particular "flip-flop" on like every single one of the other links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/mitt-romney-deferred-action_n_1931845.html
+ Show Spoiler +sigh.... not from the debate. but i'll still address it: there is no flip-flop. Romney is simply saying that he won't revoke visas that have already been given out. he doesn't support giving them out like that, but won't just jack em. this is an example of moderation and intelligence, not flip-flopping.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/romneys_latest_flip_flop_flip/
+ Show Spoiler +i should have made myself clearer. FROM THE DEBATE! also, i already addressed this one. see the election blogs link.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107049/romney-pre-existing-condition-obamacare-repeal-gregory-meet-the-press
+ Show Spoiler +the exact same story as above. this is why you shouldn't mass post.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/
+ Show Spoiler +not from the debate. many of them not from the campaign.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107049/romney-pre-existing-condition-obamacare-repeal-gregory-meet-the-press#
+ Show Spoiler +again with the meet the press comment! he didn't flip-flop here, and even if he did, it wasn't in the debate, it was two months before the debate.
thus ends our journey, and as of yet, i STILL do not have a goddamn flip-flop from the debate.
|
On October 09 2012 12:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:19 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 10:37 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2012 10:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote:On October 09 2012 09:19 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 08:38 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 08:35 dvorakftw wrote:[quote] Teachers - the difference is between more and better teachers in a better education system (a la Romney) compared to simply spending more money on what we have now (a la Wisconsin and Chicago's failed teacher union gambits) The health care issue as I understand it and explained earlier, he supports being able to change insurance with pre-existing conditions. 1. Lol at that graph proving anything. Are you disputing the giant rise in education spending in the United States? Do you believe American students are far and away better at reading, riting, and rithmetic than ever before? Enlighten us! Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth. Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted. Romney never said we need to cut back on teachers. Here is the full quote: he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people. he is opposing a stimulus, not the act of hiring more teachers. at the most, you could say that he is not being accurate in this quote. he clearly means that "more teachers" is not a good enough excuse for another stimulus. only a completely biased point of view could perceive this statement as being inconsistent with his debate statement. Stop it. The mere suggestion that a highly edited video off the internet isn't giving me the whole, truthful story is turning my world upside down. Point taken. Still, it is impossible to argue that Romney hasn't flopped 180 degrees on many issues. That isn't bias, that's just reality. i'm not even saying that this isn't true. i would just like a couple of examples of it. so far: pre-existing conditions:+ Show Spoiler +Romney's plan does cover pre-exisitng conditions. first, let's take his debate quote: Let — well, actually — actually it's — it's — it's a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan. the obama argument is that Romney's plan doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, so he must be "flip-flopping". well, that isn't accurate. his plan maintains current protections for people with pre-existing conditions. he also reforms the system so as to deal with the people who have pre-existing conditions but are not currently or continuously insured. this article explains it all in better detail that i can: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329661/debating-pre-existing-conditions-james-c-caprettaagain, let's take Romney's actual debate quote: Well, first, I love great schools. Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. And the key to great schools: great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don't believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own. now let's take his other quote: (Obama) wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people. in this quote he is clearly opposing the stimulus, and not the act of hiring more teachers. Hoo boy dude.... + Show Spoiler + hoo boy indeed! http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1061166055+ Show Spoiler +this isn't a flip-flop, or even a discussion about policy. this is an attack on Romney as a person, and it uses no statements or facts about policy to make it's point. this is just a site that gives me two statements completely at random. many of them are not even about policy, and as far as i can tell, none of them are about the debate. we are not provided context for the quotes either. even if i accept that some of these are legitimate flip-flops, they don't address the issue, which is the debate version of policy vs. the campaign version of policy and whether there was any contradictions. again, this is not about the debate or even about policy, but i'll still address it: Romney never said that he doesn't support a state having a system like the Mass. system. he says that he doesn't support the federal government having a system like that. again... a lot of these are not from the debate, or even from the current campaign. some of them aren't even from the 2008 primary... in fact, many of these were statements that were years apart, and he has addressed most of them as legitimate changes of his personal beliefs. alright, well at least this is from this campaign (and century), but still not really policy-oriented. i'll still address it: Romney attacked the response to the attackers because it did not condemn the violence, but only condemned the video. him also thinking the video was stupid does not preclude thinking that our response was weak. finally, a relevant quote (though STILL not from the debate...) okay here is his original quote: I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people. here is his aide's quote: in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features. he is clearly saying that he will not propose a federal mandate to require these things, but that he still likes a plan that tries to deal with the issue of these people (young and pre-existing conditions) and gets them insured. no flip-flop. his later statement that they took issue with was just explaining the point like i just did. once again, these are random quotes, many of them from the last century. let's keep things on-topic. debate or policy. i'm starting to see a pattern here. like two of the things mentioned in this article were from the debate, and neither of those gave me specific quotes. i'll keep on going through these articles, but next time, please do try to get relevant information and don't just mass-post stuff that looks right. he was trying to make a point about his campaign strategy and it came out completely wrong. admitting that you put your own foot in your mouth is not flip-flopping. oh, and the link is broken. i've just seen this particular "flip-flop" on like every single one of the other links. sigh.... not from the debate. but i'll still address it: there is no flip-flop. Romney is simply saying that he won't revoke visas that have already been given out. he doesn't support giving them out like that, but won't just jack em. this is an example of moderation and intelligence, not flip-flopping. i should have made myself clearer. FROM THE DEBATE! also, i already addressed this one. see the election blogs link. the exact same story as above. this is why you shouldn't mass post. not from the debate. many of them not from the campaign. again with the meet the press comment! he didn't flip-flop here, and even if he did, it wasn't in the debate, it was two months before the debate. thus ends our journey, and as of yet, i STILL do not have a goddamn flip-flop from the debate.
You are even more bored than I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2458
755
353
EPT
