Romney's The Man

[franklin]

How is it that the people in either party whether it be Democrat or Republican can't see the utter ridiculousness of the clams made be each side? Both have this extreme view of one another, and neither find that kind of strange, or odd that their opinions would be so different. They both just think the other is evil or stupid

I would say Obama is closer to center than left. Doesn't he seem to try and appease both sides?

I really I can't tell much of a difference between either side anyways. Of course they both sound a lot different but what they do seems a lot a like.

I find myself somewhere in the middle or more like a half breed.
I'm against abortion
I'm for national health care. I don't really see anything good coming from health care for profit. And it's the humane thing to do.
I'm for small goverment and low taxes. Infact, why can't we just do a flat tax? Im tired of only some pay taxes and some don't.
I don't like welfare for the rich or the poor, but I do think we need social security.
I think we should spend even more on education and improve it. Extend the public education system through college
Im for the free market but with regulations.
just to name a few

The point is that our country is a mix between both sides. Which is good I guess because it creates balance. I have always assumed that it is nature's way of creating a natural balance so that people would have to come to agreement that ends somewhere in the middle. Wouldn't it be easier though just to be a RATIONAL person and be able to work out something for both sides that is fair in the beginning and avoid the BS? And most people are closer to the middle whether they know it or not. Most people share similar values and if they don't then they usually respect their neighboor's values as long as it doesn't bother them. It's the faces and the leaders of each side that gets everyone all worked up over stuff. At times I feel like Im watching a bunch of little kids in adult bodies arguing over dumb shizz. It's embarrassing really to watch a bunch of so called grown ups fight like little babies. I just smh and move on.

Excellent post. The problem is the mixing is no longer happening to get things done.

Liberals want to tax the rich more but stop conservatives from charging them more for medicare.
Conservatives want to lower the taxes on the rich but refuse to take away the housing tax deduction from the rich.
Conservatives want to balance the budget but refuse to raise gasoline taxes with inflation at minimum (more cars + higher mpg = need for higher tax anyway) to pay for highway spending.
Liberals want a safety net to protect those who outlive their retirement savings but refuse to transform social security into a stable welfare system which actually protects the most vulnerable among us.
Conservatives want government to provide a medium of exchange but refuse to regulate banking which is an extension of that. Liberals claim to elect anti-Wall Street warriors but in reality elect *** wipes who subsidize them every chance they get in the name of helping the poor.
Conservatives and liberals both want to support innovation, science, and market based approaches, but both refuse to tax oil enough to create a market where all alternative energy subsidies are unnecessary.

 

[Scat]

I'm for national health care. I don't really see anything good coming from health care for profit. And it's the humane thing to do.

I'm for small goverment and low taxes. Infact, why can't we just do a flat tax? Im tired of only some pay taxes and some don't.

These two clash.

 

[NAOS]

No, basically he's wrong because he's wrong. It's not my opinion that Obama isn't a socialist, it's true by definition, given the meaning of socialist. So, if I were to call Romney a Nazi, and you said I was wrong, given how Nazi is defined, is that merely your opinion, or is it true by definition. Here's a hint--it's the latter.

I repeat, those who call Obama a socialist are overwhelming drawn from the more extreme, ideological wing of the Republican party, who strongly tend as well to get their information from right wing sources. So it's a reasonable inference that someone here on this board who makes this claim is (a) highly conservative Republican and (b) gets a good chunk of his/her information from right wing sources than confirm his/her pre-existing biases.

No, I attack opinions I think are stupid, bigoted, ignorant, or based on faulty information. I much less inclined to attack people who actually show evidence of independent or reasoned thought, such as Colton, with whom I disagree on the lottery issue but whom I've treated, I think, with respect. You on the other hand give every evidence of being an unreflective partisan hack so I take a more aggressive approach with you.

I mention by independence because you have on more than one occasion accused me of partisanship. Although I have opinons on matters, they are not driven by party identification or identification with a particular ideological tradition. This does not appear to be the case with you.

holy ****. I didn't see this the first time through... (read it first when Franklin responded).
This is one of the worst cases of reasoning I've ever read.

I love it when a "liberal" person gets to be right because he's some kind of technocrat. To any radical worth his salt, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And by "right" I meant "correct". But you can take it to mean "right" as in "not left".... by a priori definition, of course.

 

[BluesRocker]

These two clash.

No, see you have taken it all out of context and you are looking at it through 1 of 2 pairs of goggles.

Small government and low taxes can coexist with national healtch care. Bloated and wasted spending are coming from other places that could be trimmed. And a fixed tax sytem would also bring in more money. There are a lot of people and companies working the system and not paying crap. While a few of us are subsidizing the rest. The government needs to be small, but only as small as it can be, and health care should be a priority. When it comes to the physical well being of your people, shouldn't that be priority number one. Especially if you go around selling yourself as the most humane country in the world, and running around playing superman and saving everybody. And especially since you need your people healthy and capable.

I always find it hilarious that some people run around cursing socialism but yet they are hopelessly addicted to it themselves.

If you don't like socialism then go move to somewhere far away form civilization. Because you are in it right now.
All the streets, cops, fire fighters, armies, highways, schools, ect, that you depend on are all forms of socialism.
I think it's pretty obvious that the one missing from that group is healthcare. Can you imagine trying to run privatized
fire fighting or cops? What, your house is on fire but you gotta give proof of insurance or run a credit app before the fire is
put out?

Give me a break!

All the important things in life should be protected by the government. And all the other non sense should be fair game.

Example: tv's are free market all day except monopolie laws, have fun people play your game of trying to get rich.
Example: Poor old lady just got hit by a car and that is somebody's grandma, sister, mother, and daughter, who cares how much money she has, somebody help her if you have a heart.


Here is an example of someone in total contradiction with themself.

A far right wing conservative is staunchly against socialized health care. He sees a car wreck and pulls over to help. He jumps out is car goes as quickly as he can to help the person in need because they know its' the right thing to do and they do it instinctively.

 

[BluesRocker]

Excellent post. The problem is the mixing is no longer happening to get things done.

Liberals want to tax the rich more but stop conservatives from charging them more for medicare.
Conservatives want to lower the taxes on the rich but refuse to take away the housing tax deduction from the rich.
Conservatives want to balance the budget but refuse to raise gasoline taxes with inflation at minimum (more cars + higher mpg = need for higher tax anyway) to pay for highway spending.
Liberals want a safety net to protect those who outlive their retirement savings but refuse to transform social security into a stable welfare system which actually protects the most vulnerable among us.
Conservatives want government to provide a medium of exchange but refuse to regulate banking which is an extension of that. Liberals claim to elect anti-Wall Street warriors but in reality elect *** wipes who subsidize them every chance they get in the name of helping the poor.
Conservatives and liberals both want to support innovation, science, and market based approaches, but both refuse to tax oil enough to create a market where all alternative energy subsidies are unnecessary.

I agree, less is getting done

It seems as though people are growing divided, and they are. I think in times like these when the country's well being is being threatened you get people taking harder stances on things, and casting blame around more. It's kind of a political war of words. Both beilieve that all the problems stem from the others philosophy. So naturally each side pushes their views a little harder.

There is a lot of bad blood and trust that has been washed away as well, but in the end a solution will be found. I would just be a lot happier if they would pull their heads out of their asses, act like adults, and work on a reasonable solution. Instead of continuing on their never ending quest dominate the world with their views, and wasting all this time. Because in the end, neither will completely win and the result will just end up being a compromise anyways.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

holy ****. I didn't see this the first time through... (read it first when Franklin responded).
This is one of the worst cases of reasoning I've ever read.

I love it when a "liberal" person gets to be right because he's some kind of technocrat. To any radical worth his salt, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And by "right" I meant "correct". But you can take it to mean "right" as in "not left".... by a priori definition, of course.

Ok, let's look at this.

Socialism, by definition, means state ownership of the means of production and/or an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually. A socialist is someone who believes in or adheres to socialism. Obama does not believe in communal or state ownership of the means of production nor of property. He is, therefore, by definition not a socialist.

True or false? Show me where this argument is wrong.

The poster to whom I was replying said that this was my opinion, but as I've shown, it's not my opinion, it's true by definition. My example of calling Romney a Nazi demonstrates this point by highlighting a similar example that I am confident the original poster would agree with, even if he were reluctant to concede the argument applied to Obama. Romney is clearly not a Nazi if one understand how a Nazi is defined.

Ok, please show me how this is poor reasoning.

Second, I argued that those who call Obama a socialist are overwhelmingly drawn from the more extreme, ideological wing of the Republican party, who strongly tend as well to get their information from right wing sources.

Actually, I may be wrong here, large swaths of Republicans appear to think Obama is a socialist, not necessarily just the fringe (see for example https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/large-portion-of-gop-thin_n_445951.html). But even if this assumption was wrong, my conclusions followed logically from my premise, and it doesn't negate the broader point that people who think Obama is a socialist come predominantly from the right.

The rest of the post I concede was crap, I shouldn't have personalized it toward someone who didn't deserve it.

But as I said, I'm curious. Please do point out to me just where this is one of the worst cases of reasoning you've ever seen. Surely you have some specific standards, other than you just didn't like the style or the conclusions. So state your standards and show how you apply them. You seem to portray yourself as a great champion of reasoning skill, so please teach me.

So, I get to be right because I'm some kind of technocrat? What the hell does that mean? A really brilliant piece of insight. And this is a trait common to Liberals? Of course it is, everyone knows this. Liberals are all like this. This isn't at all some kind of pull it out your backside generalization. Yes, this is one example of pretty damned good reasoning. I see why you are so cocky, the power of your reasoning skills is just overwhelming.

 

[NAOS]

Ok, let's look at this.

Socialism, by definition, means state ownership of the means of production and/or an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually. A socialist is someone who believes in or adheres to socialism. Obama does not believe in communal or state ownership of the means of production nor of property. He is, therefore, by definition not a socialist.

True or false? Show me where this argument is wrong.

The poster to whom I was replying said that this was my opinion, but as I've shown, it's not my opinion, it's true by definition. My example of calling Romney a Nazi demonstrates this point by highlighting a similar example that I am confident the original poster would agree with, even if he were reluctant to concede the argument applied to Obama. Romney is clearly not a Nazi if one understand how a Nazi is defined.

Ok, please show me how this is poor reasoning.

Second, I argued that those who call Obama a socialist are overwhelmingly drawn from the more extreme, ideological wing of the Republican party, who strongly tend as well to get their information from right wing sources.

Actually, I may be wrong here, large swaths of Republicans appear to think Obama is a socialist, not necessarily just the fringe (see for example https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/large-portion-of-gop-thin_n_445951.html). But even if this assumption was wrong, my conclusions followed logically from my premise, and it doesn't negate the broader point that people who think Obama is a socialist come predominantly from the right.

The rest of the post I concede was crap, I shouldn't have personalized it toward someone who didn't deserve it.

But as I said, I'm curious. Please do point out to me just where this is one of the worst cases of reasoning you've ever seen. Surely you have some specific standards, other than you just didn't like the style or the conclusions. So state your standards and show how you apply them. You seem to portray yourself as a great champion of reasoning skill, so please teach me.

So, I get to be right because I'm some kind of technocrat? What the hell does that mean? A really brilliant piece of insight. And this is a trait common to Liberals? Of course it is, everyone knows this. Liberals are all like this. This isn't at all some kind of pull it out your backside generalization. Yes, this is one example of pretty damned good reasoning. I see why you are so cocky, the power of your reasoning skills is just overwhelming.

I'll concede that your reasoning is good according of the standards laid down by Plato (not because I want to justify its goodness or badness, but because I just want to move on to something (anything) else)..... oh many thousands of years ago.... Yes, please fix everything in the freeze-mold of a static conception. Like a Priest telling me what is and what will always be. Socialism! Nazism! Then, because it is apparently lots of fun for you, compare and contrast these freeze molds. And then, please use your results as weapons against those who disagree with you.

When you get tired of this, there is a method of philosophizing that is both rigorous and much more compassionate. (Hint: its principles are based on the fact that nothing exists in a static way; everything moves. It also places the power of your reason in its appropriate place, i.e. as small and limited).

BTW, I don't believe Obama is a socialist or a communist. Despite his drumroll for change, he is a neoliberal ****tard, or so it seems.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'll concede that your reasoning is good according of the standards laid down by Plato (not because I want to justify its goodness or badness, but because I just want to move on to something (anything) else)..... oh many thousands of years ago.... Yes, please fix everything in the freeze-mold of a static conception. Like a Priest telling me what is and what will always be. Socialism! Nazism! Then, because it is apparently lots of fun for you, compare and contrast these freeze molds. And then, please use your results as weapons against those who disagree with you.

When you get tired of this, there is a method of philosophizing that is both rigorous and much more compassionate. (Hint: its principles are based on the fact that nothing exists in a static way; everything moves. It also places the power of your reason in its appropriate place, i.e. as small and limited).

BTW, I don't believe Obama is a socialist or a communist. Despite his drumroll for change, he is a neoliberal ****tard, or so it seems.

That's precisely one of the primary 'problems' with politic, economic, etc. discourse, etc. is that people treat systems as static and not dynamic. People posit straight lines of cause and effect (often based on faulty assumptions) and ignore that change inevitably sets off a chain of events that are both predictable and unpredictable. There's very little willingness to concede that complex systems are, well, complex and one cannot simply manipulate complex systems as easily as people think. Economic and political systems are like living organisms, introduce change in them, and they find new ways to adapt and survive. This is, I think, one of the greatest dangers of ideology--it implies a rigid static state of affairs that always conform to an overly simplistic set of rules and relationships.

I get what you're saying. My work involves managing and monitoring complex systemic change, so you're saying nothing new. On a discussion board like this, however, it's difficult to talk in such complex terms. I'm interested in how your propose to do it. People don't think that way, and they get annoyed at people who do. I try to use some careful logical reasoning, with mixed success I concede, and I get excoriated for it (by God, I used the word 'empirical'--how pretentious!). Do you really think that engaging in moral philosophy on this board, or any political discussion board, is a winning approach? That's not how most people approach politics. In any case, I also get that it's a matter of style and I have mine, you have yours, and some like em, some don't.

Yep, neoliberal to be sure, for the most part. Obama's a mixed bag. I'll vote for him for no other reason than to keep the extremists on the right from seizing even more power, which is what will happen I think if Romney is elected. But I'd prefer to have a better reason.

 

[Scat]

Obama has made several comments that should cause concern:

“Our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.”

"People Are Frustrated I Can't Force My Will On Congress"

"We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

And I would define Obama as more a Marxist than a Socialist.

 

[NAOS]

That's precisely one of the primary 'problems' with politic, economic, etc. discourse, etc. is that people treat systems as static and not dynamic. People posit straight lines of cause and effect (often based on faulty assumptions) and ignore that change inevitably sets off a chain of events that are both predictable and unpredictable. There's very little willingness to concede that complex systems are, well, complex and one cannot simply manipulate complex systems as easily as people think. Economic and political systems are like living organisms, introduce change in them, and they find new ways to adapt and survive. This is, I think, one of the greatest dangers of ideology--it implies a rigid static state of affairs that always conform to an overly simplistic set of rules and relationships.

I get what you're saying. My work involves managing and monitoring complex systemic change, so you're saying nothing new. On a discussion board like this, however, it's difficult to talk in such complex terms. I'm interested in how your propose to do it. People don't think that way, and they get annoyed at people who do. I try to use some careful logical reasoning, with mixed success I concede, and I get excoriated for it (by God, I used the word 'empirical'--how pretentious!). Do you really think that engaging in moral philosophy on this board, or any political discussion board, is a winning approach? That's not how most people approach politics. In any case, I also get that it's a matter of style and I have mine, you have yours, and some like em, some don't.

Yep, neoliberal to be sure, for the most part. Obama's a mixed bag. I'll vote for him for no other reason than to keep the extremists on the right from seizing even more power, which is what will happen I think if Romney is elected. But I'd prefer to have a better reason.

I'll rep this post.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't get on my high horse and talk **** around here.

I think the best way to avoid the oft-cited problems with political, economic, aesthetic, etc. debates is to try to engage with ideas in a way that is agnostic about any ideological preconceptions. Get into the stream of how those ideas and sensations are constructed; try to understand your interlocutors' experience of them rather than quickly closing them off with a meaning. Difficult? Yes.

 

[franklin]

BTW, I don't believe Obama is a socialist or a communist. Despite his drumroll for change, he is a neoliberal ****tard, or so it seems.

He's more or less governed as one. I'll chalk that up to money getting to him.

Neoliberalism is the disease that grew out of conservatives trying to work with progressives to use government in a way that minimizes perverse incentives while yielding to progressives the power they had been fighting for. The welfare state has grown as has crony capitalism. What a handshake huh?

My issue with those who attack this is their willingness to reign in the monied side while trying to grow the welfare state. No. It has to be both ends or neither or it won't work. Let's go back to regulated wealth accumulation and hard knock life with basic welfare for those who need it. No more perpetuating generational poverty and enriching the guys at the top by doing so.

That's precisely one of the primary 'problems' with politic, economic, etc. discourse, etc. is that people treat systems as static and not dynamic. People posit straight lines of cause and effect (often based on faulty assumptions) and ignore that change inevitably sets off a chain of events that are both predictable and unpredictable. There's very little willingness to concede that complex systems are, well, complex and one cannot simply manipulate complex systems as easily as people think. Economic and political systems are like living organisms, introduce change in them, and they find new ways to adapt and survive. This is, I think, one of the greatest dangers of ideology--it implies a rigid static state of affairs that always conform to an overly simplistic set of rules and relationships.

True, and you seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding your own wisdom at the same time when you're busy demonizing the political right. Boiled down, the right says we cannot predict and control the outcomes of our tampering so we try to minimize that tampering. That theory just happens to coincide nicely with the notion of liberty.

Granted, the right are learning the hard way (again) the outcomes of not controlling things at all. The problem they have (as BluesRocker partially pointed out), is lack of trust combined with what they perceive as an attack on their way of life. Creeping socialism is easy to see, and the talking heads on the left have become quite radicalized toward communistic tendencies just as the talking right has become radicalized toward Laissez-faire tendencies.

 

[NAOS]

He's more or less governed as one. I'll chalk that up to money getting to him.

Neoliberalism is the disease that grew out of conservatives trying to work with progressives to use government in a way that minimizes perverse incentives while yielding to progressives the power they had been fighting for. The welfare state has grown as has crony capitalism. What a handshake huh?

My issue with those who attack this is their willingness to reign in the monied side while trying to grow the welfare state. No. It has to be both ends or neither or it won't work. Let's go back to regulated wealth accumulation and hard knock life with basic welfare for those who need it. No more perpetuating generational poverty and enriching the guys at the top by doing so.



True, and you seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding your own wisdom at the same time when you're busy demonizing the political right. Boiled down, the right says we cannot predict and control the outcomes of our tampering so we try to minimize that tampering. That theory just happens to coincide nicely with the notion of liberty.

Granted, the right are learning the hard way (again) the outcomes of not controlling things at all. The problem they have (as BluesRocker partially pointed out), is lack of trust combined with what they perceive as an attack on their way of life. Creeping socialism is easy to see, and the talking heads on the left have become quite radicalized toward communistic tendencies just as the talking right has become radicalized toward Laissez-faire tendencies.

this is why we are friends.