EPTand of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 718
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote: it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine. and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote: You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote: You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. whether he is actually pushing his policies doesn't matter here. biden needs only to remind the viewer of them. it doesn't matter for romney if he actually holds any positions, so it should not matter for biden as a standard of fairness to his opponent. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote: Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote: Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 12:37 sam!zdat wrote: dvorak, why do you think the only point of education is SAT scores? Well first of all while the chart I posted on California's lack of success at buying an education for its students did look at SAT results, the previous chart I posted several times did not deal with SAT scores. That's okay I don't remember much about chart reading from my public education either. Second, you may think increasing spending indiscriminately with no tangible indication of getting anything back for the money is a good idea and it will keep you in good standing with liberals but I promise you the days of blaming leaky roofs and lack of computers in classrooms are over. Parents already know they aren't getting a good return from public education and if you look at what happened with the Chicago teachers strike you'll see that the low pay excuse is just about played out. (Don't worry, you don't need to admit it out loud.) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote: Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 10 2012 02:07 dvorakftw wrote: Well first of all while the chart I posted on California's lack of success at buying an education for its students did look at SAT results, the previous chart I posted several times did not deal with SAT scores. That's okay I don't remember much about chart reading from my public education either. Second, you may think increasing spending indiscriminately with no tangible indication of getting anything back for the money is a good idea and it will keep you in good standing with liberals but I promise you the days of blaming leaky roofs and lack of computers in classrooms are over. Parents already know they aren't getting a good return from public education and if you look at what happened with the Chicago teachers strike you'll see that the low pay excuse is just about played out. (Don't worry, you don't need to admit it out loud.) For once I agree with you. You do not get an improvement in education my just throwing money at it (at least at a primary and secondary level). The most important thing to having a good education isn't fancy and expensive computers, libraries, facilities, or whatever new gimmick they buy, it's simply having good teachers. Increasing spending on primary and secondary school is very likely a complete waste of money, and will not lead to better results and smarter students (it would improve the economy in the short run though, since it acts as stimulus). Although, just throwing money at tertiary education is a good idea, and would likely lead to improvement (not that it's really needed, the US has the best tertiary system in the world by light years). | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote: Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 10 2012 02:09 farvacola wrote: xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle. My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance. I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 13:02 sam!zdat wrote: It's high school. Why would you need a degree in that field to teach it? What were the subjects and the backgrounds of each of those teachers, and how long had they been teaching that subject? For example, no way you need a degree in mathematics to teach math. I have a degree in English and I could teach a high school history curriculum, for example, with a little prep time. AP government? I could teach that (lol, imagine me teaching american government) Maybe also they were bad teachers. There are certainly some of those. But just saying that it's bad they don't have a degree in that subject is silly. High school is just high school, teaching skill matters more than the subject (although of course expertise in a subject doesn't hurt, that's not my point) That's all well and good and reasonable but for Heaven's sake don't let the teacher unions hear you say that! Artificially high barriers and strictly controlled job eligibility is a cornerstone of union tactics to make themselves seem more important and special than they really are. I wanted to find a story about how Steve Jobs couldn't be a high school teacher because he lacked the proper credentials but I couldn't find it (maybe it was Bill Gates or someone like that, I dunno) so have this instead where he predicts Obama being a one-termer. I think the education reform ideas mentioned are excessive and possibly misguided but at least he knows better than to complain about money. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 14:22 sam!zdat wrote: Teaching can be deadening, especially when you are teaching for dvorak's standardized tests. Having a healthier educational system as a whole will help reduce teacher burnout. Perhaps they would have more fun if they blue themselves and didn't worry about things like reading. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 10 2012 02:26 jdseemoreglass wrote: I don't think referendum or plans or record even matters anymore. We've reached the stage of pure identity politics. You vote based upon whatever group you are convinced to identify yourself with. Split people up by race, by language, by class, by region, by religion, by age... That's why the "vote against their interests" argument is so popular. "You are part of the lower classes, you are SUPPOSED to vote Democrat!" I disagree. Performance matters. Democrats were voted into office in 2006 and 2008 because Bush and the republicans had done so poorly. Republicans and conservatives were discouraged from voting. Liberals and democrats were motivated. Since then, Obama and the democrats have been governing abysmally, so the dynamics are reversed. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 10 2012 02:15 xDaunt wrote: My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance. I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him. If you want this to be a referendum on Obama, you actually have to give us a better alternative to the Obama that you are trying to sell. Until you can convince anyone that Romney is actually a good candidate (which entails that he actually takes a concrete position, doesn't constantly lie, and supports plans that are mathematically possible), we aren't going to make this election merely a referendum on Obama. There has to be a good choice besides Obama to make it that, and there's nothing to say that Romney is a good choice. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 14:35 Mindcrime wrote: Reagan sucked. Take it from Murray Rothbard.  No, seriously, if you're really into "less government" you should read what Rothbard has to say about Reagan. I tried. Honest I did, even after seeing it was something posted on Lew Rockwell. But is there a summary or a nice quote you can pull? I could overlook calling Bush Sr. an heir to Reagan even though anyone who knows anything about the two would realize that "successor" is the proper term. (Kemp and Cheney are Reagan contemporaries. Ryan and Palin and the Tea Party are part of the new generation of politicians that are the true Reagan heirs.) But when that is followed up with the tired discredited character assassination of Reagan it seems clear there is nothing but demagoguery ahead. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7222 Posts
| ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 15:22 jalstar wrote: it's also ludicrous to say romney wouldn't operate on those same goals, the enemy would likely be iran because that's what israel wants. Your theory of a Jewish-Mormon conspiracy intrigues me. Can you tell me more? I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 16:01 sam!zdat wrote: See? You think Romney's gonna listen to that? His buddies are in the defense industry. This cranky Marxist is more on your side than he is! edit: which is to say, if I gotta live in the empire, I'd rather live in an empire with a small, efficient military than this military-industrial complex bullshit I'd like to know an example of the military-friendly Marxist. We can skip over the obvious embarrassments of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung because everyone knows when things go bad it wasn't really Marxism but something else. | ||
| ||
