|
|
President Obama tonight after his "airbrush" line: "Governor Romney, you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the US auto companies even if they went through Bankruptcy."
He then said that people would look it up. Well, I did and here's what I found.
Mitt Romney in his op-ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" from the New York Times in 2008
"The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. "
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Nothing is more important than arguing about semantics. Go look up the definition of "semantics"
Sometimes, I feel it would be nice to lock you inside a room full of essays written by underachieving high schoolers.
|
On October 23 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Nothing is more important than arguing about semantics. Go look up the definition of "semantics" Sometimes, I feel it would be nice to lock you inside a room full of essays written by underachieving high schoolers.
oh god the humanity
|
On October 23 2012 12:45 Souma wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if Swazi is dvorakftw or something.
Nah, they seem to be different other than the frequency of posting. Honestly, we need more conservative posters around here. I'm thinking that I am going on a bit of a TL politics vacation after the election anyway.
|
On October 23 2012 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:46 frogrubdown wrote:On October 23 2012 12:43 sam!zdat wrote:
The dictionary is irrelevant. "theft" can't be a fact. I don't think anyone is claiming that non-truth-evaluable particles of discourse, such as the word 'theft', can be a fact. Whether or not a given action constitutes a theft seems like a perfect candidate for being a fact though. Even if you misguidedly build epistemology into your definition of 'fact'. No, it can be a fact that a given action meets the definition of "theft" within a particular discursive community, but that an action is a theft cannot be a fact: it is an ethical claim and therefore not a fact by definition. edit: this is independent of the relativeness or non- of morality
"by definition". Whose definition I wonder. Not most of the definitions of 'fact' I'm familiar with, but if you want to use your own definition that is fine.
Most who would selectively deny facthood to ethics are from the empiricist and positivist tradition and they have very specific reasons for doing so. In the positivist case, they think that something is a fact only if it is possible both to confirm it and disconfirm it, which for them is equivalent to the claim being contingent. Most people don't think ethical claims are contingent (the positivists don't even think they are cognitively meanignful) so according to positivists there can't be ethical facts. I have no idea why a non-positivist/non-empiricist such as yourself would agree though.
In any case, 'theft' is what's known as a "thick" moral predicate, which is to say that it has a ton of clear descriptive in addition to normative content. Even people with empiricist leanings would generally be reluctant to deny facthood to thick moral predicates.
|
On October 23 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Nothing is more important than arguing about semantics. Go look up the definition of "semantics"
No need. I believe "Semantics" was the name of the evil roman dictator that ordered the crucifiction of our lord Jesus Christ.
Obama is a lot like Jesus. Romney is a lot like "Semantics".
Jesus repeats constantly throughout the bible about how we need a stronger middle class and that the failed policies of yesteryear are not the path to prosperity. Our economy would be vibrant and leading the world if we would just buy more stuff from the gift shops of our churches! Think of all of the tax revenue and jobs that would be created if people would just buy novelty pens and pocket bibles and give as much as they can in the collection plate! Also, we need to make sure every mormon has a 12-speed bike to ride around on in their suit to spread their message door to door. The 10-speed bikes that previous administrations have given are just not enough in today's marketplace where they have to compete with motorized scooters and the like.
Obama/Biden 2012
|
On October 23 2012 12:54 Budmandude wrote:President Obama tonight after his "airbrush" line: "Governor Romney, you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the US auto companies even if they went through Bankruptcy." He then said that people would look it up. Well, I did and here's what I found. Mitt Romney in his op-ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" from the New York Times in 2008 "The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. " Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
Guarantees on financing are not really assistance to the companies like what Obama did, they're consumer assistance. The editorial specifically cites the free market as the actor here, not government assistance.
Edit: To be clearer, if you asked Romney back then whether he believed the companies should receive government assistance during their bankruptcy his answer would probably be no.
Edit2: It's also hilarious how incorrect the first line of the editorial is.
Edit3: I think I had a later editorial on the free market citation, here it is:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120214/OPINION01/202140336
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:45 Souma wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if Swazi is dvorakftw or something. Nah, they seem to be different other than the frequency of posting. Honestly, we need more conservative posters around here. I'm thinking that I am going on a bit of a TL politics vacation after the election anyway.
Having more conservative posters would be great. The only conservative posters in this thread that I can really tolerate are you, Jonny, BluePanther and the great libertarian jd. The others either don't post enough or are dvorak level.
|
Orwell really was a prophet. It's amazing how people can accept previously abhorrent concepts if only you give them different names. Theft ceases to be theft if you merely call it taxation. You can hold a boot to someone's face and call it "social contract." "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" Quite the compelling argument.
Just accept that it is theft, and then argue that in some cases theft can be justified. That's the sensible route. Telling people that the forcible taking of their property by other people is not theft is not sensible at all. And it's a little disturbing to me in that previously mentioned Orwellian fashion.
|
On October 23 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Nothing is more important than arguing about semantics. Go look up the definition of "semantics" Sometimes, I feel it would be nice to lock you inside a room full of essays written by underachieving high schoolers.
so you are saying you want my mom's job? (she is an english teacher haha)
|
On October 23 2012 12:55 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 12:46 frogrubdown wrote:On October 23 2012 12:43 sam!zdat wrote:
The dictionary is irrelevant. "theft" can't be a fact. I don't think anyone is claiming that non-truth-evaluable particles of discourse, such as the word 'theft', can be a fact. Whether or not a given action constitutes a theft seems like a perfect candidate for being a fact though. Even if you misguidedly build epistemology into your definition of 'fact'. No, it can be a fact that a given action meets the definition of "theft" within a particular discursive community, but that an action is a theft cannot be a fact: it is an ethical claim and therefore not a fact by definition. edit: this is independent of the relativeness or non- of morality "by definition". Whose definition I wonder. Not most of the definitions of 'fact' I'm familiar with, but if you want to use your own definition that is fine.
This is interesting but maybe not the ideal place. I'm following Habermas here, if that helps anchor the conversation. I'm distinguishing between cognitive-instrumental and moral-practical claims, which I feel is a crucial distinction.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 12:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Orwell really was a prophet. It's amazing how people can accept previously abhorrent concepts if only you give them different names. Theft ceases to be theft if you merely call it taxation. You can hold a boot to someone's face and call it "social contract." "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" Quite the compelling argument.
Just accept that it is theft, and then argue that in some cases theft can be justified. That's the sensible route. Telling people that the forcible taking of their property by other people is not theft is not sensible at all. And it's a little disturbing to me in that previously mentioned Orwellian fashion.
But then sometimes jd makes posts like these and I'm just baffled... I think comparing us to those in 1984 is a little mean...
|
On October 23 2012 12:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Just accept that it is theft, and then argue that in some cases theft can be justified. That's the sensible route. Telling people that the forcible taking of their property by other people is not theft is not sensible at all. And it's a little disturbing to me in that previously mentioned Orwellian fashion.
I think it's far more akin to extortion than theft.
|
Are we really arguing tax is just theft? Really?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:00 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:54 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
Nothing is more important than arguing about semantics. Go look up the definition of "semantics" Sometimes, I feel it would be nice to lock you inside a room full of essays written by underachieving high schoolers. so you are saying you want my mom's job? (she is an english teacher haha)
Tell your mom she has my utmost gratitude, because if there's one thing I definitely don't want to be, it's a teacher. >_>
|
What is "property" and where does it come from?
|
On October 23 2012 13:02 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Orwell really was a prophet. It's amazing how people can accept previously abhorrent concepts if only you give them different names. Theft ceases to be theft if you merely call it taxation. You can hold a boot to someone's face and call it "social contract." "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" Quite the compelling argument.
Just accept that it is theft, and then argue that in some cases theft can be justified. That's the sensible route. Telling people that the forcible taking of their property by other people is not theft is not sensible at all. And it's a little disturbing to me in that previously mentioned Orwellian fashion. But then sometimes jd makes posts like these and I'm just baffled... I think comparing us to those in 1984 is a little mean...
Everyone is guilty of double-think. Some more than others. When people start pointing to the dictionary to justify state action, it is a little scary. Actually, very scary.
|
When I become dictator I will ban dictionaries
|
On October 23 2012 13:04 sam!zdat wrote:
What is "property" and where does it come from?
Property exists independent of government, and don't try to argue otherwise. I'm sure you could find some conception of property even in the caveman days, though the actual objects would be in more frequent contention. Greater contention does not mean ownership does not exist.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:02 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 12:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Orwell really was a prophet. It's amazing how people can accept previously abhorrent concepts if only you give them different names. Theft ceases to be theft if you merely call it taxation. You can hold a boot to someone's face and call it "social contract." "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" Quite the compelling argument.
Just accept that it is theft, and then argue that in some cases theft can be justified. That's the sensible route. Telling people that the forcible taking of their property by other people is not theft is not sensible at all. And it's a little disturbing to me in that previously mentioned Orwellian fashion. But then sometimes jd makes posts like these and I'm just baffled... I think comparing us to those in 1984 is a little mean... Everyone is guilty of double-think. Some more than others. When people start pointing to the dictionary to justify state action, it is a little scary. Actually, very scary.
I agree we shouldn't point to the dictionary to justify state action, but you know full well they were just arguing semantics, and you know full well why we actually justify state action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
