On October 09 2012 16:34 Reivax wrote: I know this might sound off-topic, but there's a congressional election shortly after the presidential election, right? How does that look, opionion-wise, will the Democrats make a comeback? Because if Romney's elected and the Democrats regain some kind of majority in the houses, I think they'll be wanting some vengeance....
Which will make the american people despise congress even more, and nothing important except an increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance will be had. I.e. is Romney in danger of running into an equally obstructionist congress, that Obama has faced?
The congressional and presidential elections are on the same ballot. Also the Democrats might try to stymie Romney if they regain Congress, but they're generally less effective at being an opposition party than the Republicans are.
You had a typo there. Allow me: The congressional and presidential elections are on the same ballot. Also the Democrats might try to stymie Romney if they regain Congress, but they're amazing at making deals and then stopping the stuff they don't like while complaining they didn't get enough of what they wanted. Since we were just talking about Reagan and Bush Sr, go look at Reagan's amnesty to illegals in the US in exchange for better future enforcement and Bush Sr. breaking the no new tax pledge to get spending cuts.
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.
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.
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.
I think he meant close enough loopholes without affecting the middle class. That's how I interpreted it, at least.
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.
Just because I do not support increasing defense spending does not mean I flat out oppose it either. It isn't the most important issue to me anyway, I oppose higher taxes, abortion, among many other issues that I simply disagree with the President's position on.
On October 10 2012 02:34 NovaTheFeared wrote: I want to bring the education debate back to a question of numbers. The facts show student achievement flat for the last 30-40 years despite education spending per pupil up at least 2, and by some measures up to 3, times. The US spends nearly the most on K-12 education, per pupil, among OECD countries. If teachers are also chronically underpaid, where is the money going?
Yes, we spend more per pupil than all of the countries that are destroying us in education.
So what is the problem?
I think it lies in the family unit in the United States. It's far worse than it was 20 years ago, and at that time it was far worse than 20 years before that. I think parents are less involved in their kid's lives today and I think more parents and children prioritize things other than school in today's age. I don't think you can blame the kids either. I mean, we are under a constant barrage of media...constantly getting messages and ideas crammed up our ass...all of which don't foster the idea of education being a priority. I think kids care more about their social networking or being famous or beating call of duty or any of the various other things more of them are consumed by than a few years ago.
I think you could have one teacher and a plasma screen computer lab for every student and you would still have a growing base of kids that prioritize things other than school, and parents who are apathetic. For every gang member with a heart of gold that is changed for the better by an inspirational teacher, there are 10 gang members that are still in the gang that don't give a fuck what some white guy with reinforced elbows has to say to him about his future. And gang members account for only a small fraction of the students contributing to our numbers being so low vs other countries.
I don't know if there is a political solution. I think the only people with influence capable of evoking change are the very people that started it...the media. With the number of americans that subscribe to the "monkey-see monkey-do" mentality, do you think media fostering a different set a priorities would change anything?
On October 10 2012 02:34 NovaTheFeared wrote: I want to bring the education debate back to a question of numbers. The facts show student achievement flat for the last 30-40 years despite education spending per pupil up at least 2, and by some measures up to 3, times. The US spends nearly the most on K-12 education, per pupil, among OECD countries. If teachers are also chronically underpaid, where is the money going?
Well, to play devil's advocate, to school administrators, district employees, state education departments, and the US Department of Education. I'm not saying that currently, public school teachers aren't earning a fine wage for what they do. It's no small secret that seeking employment in education isn't a way to get rich quick (though for some, it is possible to earn 100,000$ plus depending on state, even 175$ for top administration jobs). It's just the greatest growth is in the administration positions allotted per student.
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.
Just because I do not support increasing defense spending does not mean I flat out oppose it either. It isn't the most important issue to me anyway, I oppose higher taxes, abortion, among many other issues that I simply disagree with the President's position on.
Well why are you voting for Romney? He supports and opposes abortion at the same time.
EDIT: It was funny because at first I didn't even know Romney flipflopped, I just googled "Flip flop on abortion" and little surprise Romney is going not pro-choice or pro-life but multi choice :D Feeds the idiots whatever they want to hear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I have infamously remarked many times before, I'm not trying to change anyone's minds politically here in this thread. Why should I bother? Most of the liberal posters in this thread take their news from Jon Stewart (or worse) without even an ounce of critical curiosity. All of this business about Romney lying his ass off during the debate is just the latest example of liberal delusion. It's a lost cause as far as I am concerned. So, no, I am not saying that I want this to be referendum election here on the TL boards.
What I am saying is that this election is a referendum election among the American voting public. I'm saying this as a present fact rather than a subjective wish. However, so many liberals in this thread have been too busy sniffing their own farts for the past four years that it is incomprehensible to them why a voter might say "I'd vote for a plywood board over Obama."
EDIT: Just to be clear, there are some truly excellent and interesting posters -- including liberals -- in this thread as well, which is why I do like posting here.
On October 09 2012 19:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Financial crises are different, because there is a large build up of private-sector and household debt, which has to be paid off. Households need to deleverage, as a result of their consumption during the housing boom. This deleveraging restricts their spending, leading to a fall in aggregate demand. Financial crises take a long time to recover from, because it takes a long time to deleverage.
And the solution to the problem of a large build up of private-sector and household debt is $5 trillion dollars of new public debt in just 4 years with near-trillion dollar deficits projected every year for the next decade. That's assuming he gets the projected extra $1 trillion in taxes he wants by ending the tax cuts to those greedy selfish millionaires who only want the money so they can backstroke in dollar bills in their mansion swimming pools.
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.)
Point to one place where I expressed a desire to a) throw money away on anything or b) be in good standing with liberals
On October 10 2012 02:18 dvorakftw wrote: I wanted to find a story about how Steve Jobs couldn't be a high school teacher because he lacked the proper credentials
Because steve jobs has A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Jesus why do people think he's the fucking messiah or something. No way I'd want steve jobs teaching school. for fuck's sake. He's good at making shiny white electro-crack but that's about it.
On October 09 2012 14:20 Defacer wrote:I've also met teachers that went dead inside and do the bare minimum.
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.
Don't pin any new age crap on me. What is this shit. I want school to be light years fucking harder, not no books or tests. I hate "progressive" education. I want to teach kids Latin and hit them on the knuckles with rulers when they fuck up the declension.
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!"
You may have an abhorrent ideology, but you're right about this.
On October 10 2012 02:34 NovaTheFeared wrote: I want to bring the education debate back to a question of numbers. The facts show student achievement flat for the last 30-40 years despite education spending per pupil up at least 2, and by some measures up to 3, times. The US spends nearly the most on K-12 education, per pupil, among OECD countries. If teachers are also chronically underpaid, where is the money going?
What is "student achievement"?? How are you measuring it? What are the imperatives being handed to teachers about how to teach?!
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.
Don't be obtuse. Everyone knows Israel plays a totally disproportionate role in American foreign policy.
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.
You're too much of a stooge to listen, but I wouldn't consider any of those people "Marxists." I'm a Marxist, not a Marxist-Leninist. Get your head out of your ass and go read some history.
Also, fucking Wade Giles? Are you serious? It's fucking Mao Zedong, get with the pinyin man.
On October 10 2012 03:07 sam!zdat wrote: Don't pin any new age crap on me. What is this shit. I want school to be light years fucking harder, not no books or tests. I hate "progressive" education. I want to teach kids Latin and hit them on the knuckles with rulers when they fuck up the declension.
Where the hell is the politician with this education platform!? Sign me up!
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.
Just because I do not support increasing defense spending does not mean I flat out oppose it either. It isn't the most important issue to me anyway, I oppose higher taxes, abortion, among many other issues that I simply disagree with the President's position on.
EDIT: It was funny because at first I didn't even know Romney flipflopped, I just googled "Flip flop on abortion" and little surprise Romney is going not pro-choice or pro-life but multi choice :D Feeds the idiots whatever they want to hear.
Thanks for dragging this thread even farther down into the sewer with another meaningless video.
On October 10 2012 03:07 sam!zdat wrote: Don't pin any new age crap on me. What is this shit. I want school to be light years fucking harder, not no books or tests. I hate "progressive" education. I want to teach kids Latin and hit them on the knuckles with rulers when they fuck up the declension.
Where the hell is the politician with this education platform!? Sign me up!
word to your mother xdaunt. Let's start a political party
On October 10 2012 02:34 NovaTheFeared wrote: I want to bring the education debate back to a question of numbers. The facts show student achievement flat for the last 30-40 years despite education spending per pupil up at least 2, and by some measures up to 3, times. The US spends nearly the most on K-12 education, per pupil, among OECD countries. If teachers are also chronically underpaid, where is the money going?
Yes, we spend more per pupil than all of the countries that are destroying us in education.
So what is the problem?
I think it lies in the family unit in the United States. It's far worse than it was 20 years ago, and at that time it was far worse than 20 years before that. I think parents are less involved in their kid's lives today and I think more parents and children prioritize things other than school in today's age. I don't think you can blame the kids either. I mean, we are under a constant barrage of media...constantly getting messages and ideas crammed up our ass...all of which don't foster the idea of education being a priority. I think kids care more about their social networking or being famous or beating call of duty or any of the various other things more of them are consumed by than a few years ago.
I think you could have one teacher and a plasma screen computer lab for every student and you would still have a growing base of kids that prioritize things other than school, and parents who are apathetic. For every gang member with a heart of gold that is changed for the better by an inspirational teacher, there are 10 gang members that are still in the gang that don't give a fuck what some white guy with reinforced elbows has to say to him about his future. And gang members account for only a small fraction of the students contributing to our numbers being so low vs other countries.
I don't know if there is a political solution. I think the only people with influence capable of evoking change are the very people that started it...the media. With the number of americans that subscribe to the "monkey-see monkey-do" mentality, do you think media fostering a different set a priorities would change anything?
To most people abroad the fixation on ensuring education to those, who are best at certain sports seem like a strange priority. It has worked out somewhat in the past, but it might not be as much of a succes for the educational system when the standards are increasing!
I think there is a lot to be said about cultural differences as you mention. If you look at it from an overall view the educational systems are very diverse in Europe, but a few common ideas are behind it. Most schools in Europe are generally based around an idea of "nobody is stronger than their weakest link" and "prioritize a lot on helping the weakest pupils". I think that is a big part of why Europe is doing so well in the international tests. Less socialist-fobia and therefore a better assurance of minimum-standards instead of focusing on the strongest is probably the biggest difference between the EU and US educational system.
When that is said, the media is probably exactly the place to start. If educational standards should be made by the states or the government is a very small issue in that debate and so are teachers unions!
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.
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.
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.
If only Romney could match the substance of Obama's campaign! Like the brave defense of the multi-million dollar enterprise of Sesame Street! Oh wait, no. Big Bird told Obama to get lost.
Still. Can you imagine cutting funding to public broadcasting? Whatever would become of the children?
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.
Just because I do not support increasing defense spending does not mean I flat out oppose it either. It isn't the most important issue to me anyway, I oppose higher taxes, abortion, among many other issues that I simply disagree with the President's position on.
EDIT: It was funny because at first I didn't even know Romney flipflopped, I just googled "Flip flop on abortion" and little surprise Romney is going not pro-choice or pro-life but multi choice :D Feeds the idiots whatever they want to hear.
Thanks for dragging this thread even farther down into the sewer with another meaningless video.
Sorry a president that claims he supports every single side and a video to prove it seems rather meaningful. Sorry if showing how Romney is full of shit is doesn't apply to a Repubican. :D
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.
Just because I do not support increasing defense spending does not mean I flat out oppose it either. It isn't the most important issue to me anyway, I oppose higher taxes, abortion, among many other issues that I simply disagree with the President's position on.
EDIT: It was funny because at first I didn't even know Romney flipflopped, I just googled "Flip flop on abortion" and little surprise Romney is going not pro-choice or pro-life but multi choice :D Feeds the idiots whatever they want to hear.
Thanks for dragging this thread even farther down into the sewer with another meaningless video.
Sorry a president that claims he supports every single side and a video to prove it seems rather meaningful. Sorry if showing how Romney is full of shit is doesn't apply to a Repubican. :D
Oh sorry, I didn't realize those videos contained full context and were in a reasonable time frame of each other. It matters because otherwise they'd be meaningless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And here we see the average American before actually seeing and hearing Romney at the first debate.
On October 10 2012 02:56 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Feeds the idiots whatever they want to hear.
Who are the "idiots" you refer to?
Anyone who goes "Romney supports this!" "Romney will cut 5Trillion because he said so!" "Romney will support abortion!"
No one knows what Romney will do because he flips more than a fish out of water. He's a man who says "The sky isn't falling" to those who believe it and "The sky is falling" to those who want to hear that. Whatever his opinions really are he's a coward who only voices the ones people want to hear.
EPT
