You decide who's being dishonest:
First, the ad accuses Romney of being dishonest in stating "I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut," but there's no information about why it's not true. The ad simply goes on to the next subject, saying "Romney's being dishonest here too."
Now, we see a clip from a Romney TV ad with the words on screen "Who will raise taxes on the middle class?" and the voice-over saying "According to an independent non-partisan study, Barack Obama and the liberals will raise taxes on the middle class." We see a picture of Obama with Nancy Pelosi and then "$4,000 higher taxes on middle class." This section of the ad is risky for Obama. It's the Romney ad, and it's scary and effective. If Obama wants to show that, he'd better crush it hard.
What we're told though is only "The Chairman of that so-called independent group is from Romney's former company. Dick Cheney's on its board. Newt Gingrich was there too. It's not independent. It's just not true." So... what's not true? The only thing I'm seeing denied is the independence of some unnamed "group," but independence is a matter of opinion. Who else was on the board other than Cheney? Gingrich was "there." Do they mean "on the board"? On the board of what?
Look at what isn't denied! At least Romney denied that he's in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut (and the ad publicizes his denial). Obama's ad fails to deny that he'd stick middle class people with a $4,000 tax rise. We're supposed to focus on Romney as "dishonest" because he used that study. Is there some counter-study establishing something else? If the "group" — whatever it is — is technically independent and non-partisan, it's dishonest to say "dishonest." And I still don't know the name of the "group" so I can't check what it is. This whole ad depends on residual loathing of Dick Cheney!
६ ऑक्टोबर, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७६ टिप्पण्या:
I burst out laughing when I saw this ad this morning on TV (we live in Colorado, so 50% of all TV ads are political right now). I consider it a sign of panic on the part of the Obama campaign that they're now trying to link Romney with Cheney and Gingrich.
Romney's on video about a bajillion times saying he will cut taxes 20% across the board, including the top 1%. Now he say he's not. Which one is true? And if the answer is the latter, what prevents him from changing his mind so easily again?
Wow. How do they cram so much bullshit into 30 seconds?
The Obama campaign has finally thought of the perfect come-back for Romney: "The jerk store called. They're running out of you!"
"This whole ad depends on residual loathing of Dick Cheney!"
Don't you just love the smell of desperation in the morning?
@jimspice That's a good question... really a basic question you could ask of any political promise or proposal, but it doesn't go to the quality of the ad. It's more like you're saying there's a different ad that might have been made. To my eye, this ad underlined Romney's promise and Romney's attack on Obama and then just went: "Boo! Dick Cheney!" That was really dumb.
Geez Ann, is the needle on your bullshit meter heading over toward the red peg when you see the Obama advertising? Who woulda thunk it.
As for Jimspice---I know that you and Obama can't get your minds around it---but a cut in tax rates does not mean a cut in tax revenues. Witness what happened when Reagan cut tax rates---total tax revenue actually went up.
Obama actually believed his own BS ads--and when the Ropmney caricature in his advertising campaign didn't show up, Obama was caught with his debating big boy pants down around his ankles.
Sometimes organizations have too many resources and they don't take the effort to use them efficiently and effectively.
This appears to be the case with Obama's September donation haul.
Jim Spice...then why isn't your guy smart enough to use that video?
Will this Obama Approved message have an influence on your decision?
What about this list of 10 reasons snoop dog won't vote for Mitt?
Does the racism displayed in these reasons reflect poorly on the president, and therefore make it less likely for you to vote for him?
Why don't they just have an ad that says "Republicans have cooties!"?
@ jimspice
Romney says he wants to cut rates 20% across the board for everyone. He's also said he's in favor of eliminating credits & deductions & wants the end package to be "revenue neutral."
One of the things he's counting on is that the reduction in rates will spur economic growth, which will (in turn) increase revenues received from the restructured tax code. Not enough to "make up" for all the revenue "lost" by the rate reductions, but enough that, combined with simplification, the revenue coming in will be "neutral."
What Obama (and Cutter & the rest of his crew) are doing is claiming the rate reduction will "cost" $5 trillion over 10 years (more like $3.6 trillion, assuming no economic growth results) and ignoring the elimination / limitation of deductions, credits, etc. Cutter even admitted the $5 trillion # was bogus.
The other thing Romney has said is it's not his goal to reduce the total percentage of the tax burden borne by "wealthy" Americans. While I can't cite you to a specific statistic immediately, I believe the record would show the percentage of the tax burden borne by "wealthy" Americans went UP during the GW Bush presidency.
I'm at the point that I don't bother when Democrats start shrieking about dishonesty. In my experience it almost always turns out to be (1) honest disgreement, (2) a complex situation that can be read in more than one way, or (3) Democrats being dishonest.
Notice that usually Democrats don't even bother to make arguments for their claim. They just start the media drumbeat as though everyone knows and agrees: Dishonesty, Lies, Dishonesty, Lies.
Check how often our liberal trolls actually make arguments beyond the name-calling and tossing the odd web link over the transom.
It works pretty well when you've got the media in your backpocket. It's working less well now that the media has discredited itself to over half of the country.
This is like beginning of CHristmas.
Every-one at the WH and in Chicago HQ is on no-sleep till we destroy Romney pledge.
There will be ads and more ads. This is the just the beginning.
On election day, Romney = Evil Predator = Failure = Mormon Cultist , etc. We will destroy Romney.
This is like beginning of CHristmas.
Every-one at the WH and in Chicago HQ is on no-sleep till we destroy Romney pledge.
There will be ads and more ads. This is the just the beginning.
On election day, Romney = Evil Predator = Failure = Mormon Cultist , etc. We will destroy Romney.
And also, jimspice, just to respond to this: "Romney's on video about a bajillion times saying he will cut taxes 20% across the board, including the top 1%. Now he say he's not. Which one is true?"
You are missing R's point, which he made extremely clearly at the debate. He intends to stimulate growth so that a lower percentage brings in more revenue because there is more taxable income.
You are confusing loss of revenue with a change in the tax rate. Now, you can say that you don't believe it will work out that way, but R didn't contradict himself there, and it's just not "dishonest" in any normal sense. If you want to make the argument that it is dishonest in some special way, Obama needs to tell us why.
This post-debate "liar" business really seems desperate and cheap to me.
You are missing R's point, which he made extremely clearly at the debate. He intends to stimulate growth so that a lower percentage brings in more revenue because there is more taxable income.
Exactly.
But liberals will keep repeating their claim that Romney had said a bald-faced lie that anyone could see through, until many listeners will figure that Romney must have lied.
The Zero ad is classic Alinsky.
It doesn't matter what you say, just throw enough things out there in the hope something sticks.
And the line about "residual loathing of Dick Cheney" tells you it's another ad for the base.
And, yes, they have lots of reason to be worried.
That's why Choom keeps coming back to Cleveland and Akron.
"What about this list of 10 reasons snoop dog won't vote for Mitt? Does the racism displayed in these reasons reflect poorly on the president, and therefore make it less likely for you to vote for him?"
First, did Snoop Dogg really write that? I'm surprised at how neat his handwriting is! It's like a 9th grade girl wrote it.
Anyway, though it's funny in parts, there's something creepy about enjoying the fun too much, and I don't think it's helpful to the President, at least not with people who aren't already on his side. The problem is that it's funny enough to become viral and that takes it way beyond the intended audience.
Remember Obama's civility speech? He should not want to be associated with things like "Bitch I will beat the shit out of you."
"The Zero ad is classic Alinsky."
That's unfair to Alinsky, who was quite brilliant and gave excellent tips.
Don't you just love the smell of desperation in the morning?
Well, yes. Yes I do.
I'm pretty sure jimspice is right and the Romney 20% across-the-board cut of individual tax rates is the source of the 5-trillion figure. The people pushing the "5-trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy" are getting that number (if I understand correctly) by, first, counting anyone who pays income tax at all as "wealthy" and then ignoring the part of the plan that calls for changes in exemptions, deductions, and credits. So the way they would have it is that Romney proposes a 20% cut and no other changes (which isn't his proposal at all).
Then, to make it extra scary, they multiply it ten times--so even if it were true, the 5 trillion is over ten years, but they never tell you that. I wonder why, while they are at it, they don't just project a hundred years into the future and call it "Mitt Romney's 50 trillion dollar tax cut for his wealthy cronies."
Do you think I might have a future as an Obama campaign consultant?
I hope Romney is cutting ads of Stefanie Cutter (Stephanie Cutter? I'm too lazy to check) admitting Obama is lying about Romney lying.
Sorry about the Glen Shulfer roll, but the image of Meade dancing with Althouse after Ryan's convention speech is one of the more endearing images I have of this blog.
Democrat advertising, always, now and forever, has one objective: Fool the uninformed and misinformed.
jimspice, tax revenue and tax rates are not the same thing.
George W. Bush's tax cuts skewed the share of tax revenue toward higher-income folks. Lefties don't like to see or admit that.
Now Obama would like to skew it even more so that high-income folks pay an even bigger share of taxes. That's OK. That's a policy and a mind-set. Just say so, Mr. President. You want to soak the rich. Just say so.
I was so annoyed with my doctor for bringing up Cheney when I went to him in pain like that but keeping my natural good cheer I told him I think "Uncle Cheney!" whenever I see him on teevee and the expression of horror that ran over his face was priceless so I added enthusiasticly "Uncle Rummy!" to see it again.
I gotta say that it doesn't seem like a good idea to flash a picture of Himself on screen holding Nancy Pelosi close. Maybe she's more popular in Ohio than she is with me? Also, quoting the Romney ad "Obama will raise taxes..." just reinforces the idea, even if the latter portion of the ad refutes (sort of) that notion.
Yup. Dumb ad.
In other words, I agree with your post, and really don't ad much.
Democrat advertising, always, now and forever, has one objective: Fool the uninformed and misinformed.
And ooooh....Newt Gingrich was there too!!!!
Booogety Booogety!!
Donald: Just to put the icing on the cake, counting 10 years of tax cuts is particularly dishonest when we remember that Romney will not be president for more than 8 years at most. Unless they're assuming 8 years of Romney followed by 4-8 years of Ryan, but then it would be 12 or 16 years, wouldn't it?
Romney will not be president for more than 8 years at most.
Don't be too sure of that. George W. Bush is now on his 12th year, and counting, of being responsible for everything bad that happens to the economy.
This whole ad depends on residual loathing of Dick Cheney!
Lol, that's not very hard to contribute. 13% favorability!
Almost every post of yours tries to state something novel and allegedly witty while ignoring the plain fact of why it is neither.
That's quite a talent. You must be good at forgetting things. Very important things.
At some point Obama started to believe two amazing falsehoods: one Romney actually plans to give billionaires trillions in tax breaks by taxing the middle class and the hardest to believe part, that if true Romney would run on this plan. Obama has lots of demons swimming around in his head.
It's what happens when all your Alinsky's run out. All your Alinsky's are belong to us!
None of my liberal friends know who Alinsky is. I tell them it's what Obama taught, it's the book in H. Clinton's bag at Yale. It's the Dem playbook. And they all go, "What? Never heard of it." They fall in line without knowing they're doing it convinced they're all doing good and quite stunned anyone imagines otherwise.
The group is the American Enterprise Institute.
I said hey Senorita that's astute
I said why don't we get together
And call ourselves an institute
Gumboots
I was having this discussion
In a taxi heading downtown
Rearranging my position
On this friend of mine who had
A little bit of a breakdown
I said breakdowns come
And breakdowns go
So what are you going to do about it
That's what I'd like to know
You don't feel you could love me
But I feel you could
It was in the early morning hours
When I fell into a phone call
Believing I had supernatural powers
I slammed into a brick wall
I said hey, is this my problem?
Is this my fault?
If that's the way it's going to be
I'm going to call the whole thing to a halt
You don't feel you could love me
But I feel you could
You don't feel you could love me
But I feel you could
I was walking down the street
When I thought I heard this voice say
Say, ain't we walking down the same street together
On the very same day
I said hey Senorita that's astute
I said why don't we get together
And call ourselves an institute
You don't feel you could love me
But I feel you could
You don't feel you could love me
But I feel you could
The Jim spices of the world don't care about distinctions in tax policy. They just think it is wrong and unfair if a person one more dollar than they have isn't taxed more.
You are missing R's point, which he made extremely clearly at the debate. He intends to stimulate growth so that a lower percentage brings in more revenue because there is more taxable income.
AKA: People with a lot of disposable income that is not being spent now will (not) spend even more of that disposable income if it is returned through a tax cut.
Brilliant.
Patrick said...
"Sorry about the Glen Shulfer roll, but the image of Meade dancing with Althouse after Ryan's convention speech is one of the more endearing images I have of this blog."
Heh, thanks for the memories, Patrick. Fave line: "we can never let him down,
we got to keep him in Madtown"
"Sorry about the Glen Shulfer roll, but the image of Meade dancing with Althouse after Ryan's convention speech is one of the more endearing images I have of this blog."
Don't be sorry. I needed another dance.
My wife (not a Romney voter, but maybe not an Obama voter) has promised to dance to that with me on election night if Romney wins.
She's the best.
Another funny/ pathetic thing about the ad's premise is that it's echoing-- lamely copying-- one of Romney's own points against Obama in the debate. But in the case of the ad, shallowly and dishonestly.
IIRC It was one of Romney's first effective hits. Obama cited some independent study as proof of something or other (don't remember what). In response, Romney pointed out that multiple subsequent studies had refuted *that* study-- and had a great line (I don't remember how it went) about the multiplicity of so-called studies, purporting to prove all sorts of contradictory things.
NB Romney was respectful and tactful enough not to call Obama "dishonest" for citing that "independent study" without mentioning that it had been refuted by multiple other "independent studies". But Obama's ad *is* crass and cynical enough to call Romney "dishonest." For doing something Obama had done (citing an "independent study"), except in this case (as Althouse points out) the ad doesn't explain *why* that study should be judged unreliable or dishonest, other than guilt by Cheney/Gingrich association. Whereas Romney did have a valid argument to challenge the reliability of Obama's cited "independent study" (i.e., the fact that other studies had actually contradicted it).
Too funny. Or pathetic.
Romney provides actual, you know, arguments to support his assertions. Whereas it seems the only argument the Obama campaign is capable of is ad hominem. As Althouse says: "Dick Cheney! Boo!"
It is extremely difficult for me to get my mind around the fact that either Obama actually believes his own bullshit and is that stupid or Obama is a bald face liar and is that evil. But it has to be one or the other.
He's red diaper. With a mum like that, to be on stage then next to the guy who IS everything Mum said, but isn't, that must be humbling even through hatred, paid millions in taxes willingly and then donated millions more willingly to charity. When all your own thoughts are how to scrounge and pull into for yourself. If the country advanced more people like that there'd be no need for government! We saw him shrink inside his shoe like a cartoon voop voop voop telescoping down until finally he's looking up from inside his own shoe.
And the whole world saw.
For ease, Drudge, random click foreign newspaper, search [romney obama debate]
Romney needs to refute these lies, now. He needs to get ads into swing states now.
This post-debate "liar" business really seems desperate and cheap to me.
Certainly one could make the case that if Romney doesn't know how to do math, he couldn't be lying with numbers. But that's a hard case to make, given his extra-governmental endeavors.
Anyway, his sudden re-emergence as a moderate who actually, genuinely cares about the middle class and those less well-off than him is notable, at the very least. It's what threw Obama off, if anything did. When a guy shows up at a debate to suddenly agree to everything his opponent is for and nearly everything he has done, everything he convinced his base he was against for months and months, you've got to wonder about how such a person defines "disingenuous".
Romney stood up, winked at his base, and said, "Watch me convince the independents that I'm in favor of what Obama's for, the reasons they prefer him to me. You and I know it's just a ruse, though. Wink-wink."
You'll get what you vote for in this phony. His slick phoniness is certainly unsurpassable.
You've definitely got that going for the guy.
This was a constant drumbeat in 2008 Obama ads too: McCain was a lying liar mcliar who lies.
The ads didn't specify what McCain supposedly lied about or in what way these were lies. Just: McCain is a liar.
Or both.
Professor-
The Romney ad clearly sources its claim to the American Enterprise Institute.
I saw the add the other day, and my wife and I both laughed at the description as non-partisan. But as far as I know it is technically true, and they are no more partisan than many other groups that the media try to pass off as non-partisan.
If the country advanced more people like that there'd be no need for government!
Yes! Romney is his own fireman, policeman and teacher - ALL IN ONE! He's like all The Village People come to life in the personage of ONE MAN!
Which would probably be Chip's fantasy.
But obviously not the reality that flesh-and-blood people inhabit.
Underneath it all, he's really a caveman. That's the controller of the other, multiple Mitt personalities.
Multiple Miggs, Multiple Mitt.
When a guy shows up at a debate to suddenly agree to everything his opponent is for and nearly everything he has done [...] Romney stood up, winked at his base, and said, "Watch me convince the independents that I'm in favor of what Obama's for, the reasons they prefer him to me."
As I recall, it wasn't Romney but Obama who made that argument, made that argument for Romney.
E.g., it was Obama who first seized on and exploited the topic of Romneycare. It was Obama, in fact, who first praised Romneycare, and all the wonderful things about it (which he said Romney was responsible for), wonderful things that Obamacare had only copied.
Obama did that to make Romney inconsistent, or to make it difficult for him to defend against. It probably worked. Obama used the Romneycare model in MA because Democrats generally know who the GOPPERS will nominate: They tend to work on seniority - which candidate has been in it the longest and came the closest last time. They're not creative enough to decide based on other methods of leadership. And so, Obama chose.
Romney spent a good hunk of the time convincing the rabid base that did not love him that the ACA was baaaaaad! BAD! BAD! BAD! But that was to get the base. Now, of course, he needed to change his tune. There's your Etch-A-Sketch.
But even without healthcare, Romney shapeshifted into so many of Obama's other positions, it was like watching someone masturbate his way through an orgy while playing Twister with the other participants.
That's Mitt. Multiple Mitts. A veritable Plastic Man.
It's good for conservatives to finally learn the virtues of context, relativism and appropriateness. I just figured they would have done it in a more moral and integrity-informed way.
Not so.
Watching Mitt bash Obama-Romney-Care to his base, while finally, suddenly talking it up during a national debate was interesting.
He reminds me of the Palestinian leadership. Always saying something in Arabic to the most fanatical among their flock while whistling an entirely different tune to the Western leaders who fund them.
It's great stuff. Really!
Let's also remember that Obama does NOT care about raising revenue to the treasury- he only cares about fairness and fairness can only be achieved with punitive tax increases on "the wealthy".
The lie there is that democrats know they need middle class tax hikes to really get where they need to be with government control over our lives.
Obama’s big lie this campaign season is lying about Romney’s plan. Romney has stated outright he will not raise taxes on the middle class.
But even without healthcare, Romney shapeshifted into so many of Obama's other positions
Such as? You keep asserting this, without specifying what these supposed changed positions are.
I thought Romney knocked it out of the park on healthcare and Romneycare vs. Obamacare. And the beauty was, Obama pitched the ball just perfectly for him to do so.
Romney has stated outright he will not raise taxes on the middle class.
And the Paul Ryan-loving Randroid Republicans LOVE him for it. NOT!!!
I can easily find all the talk from the GOP over the last year of getting the non-0.1% to pay their "fair share".
Shitmo takes another dump.
And come on, really. For an *Obama* supporter to accuse *Romney* of being a shapeshifter is just, wow. Irony much?
I'd mention for example some recently glimpsed Obama shapes, but apparently it's "ugly" to do so.
I thought Romney knocked it out of the park on healthcare and Romneycare vs. Obamacare. And the beauty was, Obama pitched the ball just perfectly for him to do so.
The beauty is, you're a Republican who might be finally educating yourself on the virtues of universal healthcare. Good on Mitt for doing that to you.
His body language seems rather odd. Slow motion, hands shoved in his pockets, and head turned in a way that says he is disillusioned or dismayed. That visual may be that he has to say something unpleasant, or more likely, he's quit, given up, surrendering. It jumped out at me. Is he trying to look easy going somehow?
I would have had some clip depicting purposefulness, as if he can't wait to keep up the great work he thinks he is doing.
The one in the video looks opposite as if he is searching and unsure.
I'm sure that Obama adjusts his positions, but for less self-serving reasons than Romney does.
If implementation of Romney's plan works like Bush's the wealthy will pay proportionately a greater share of income taxes.
O Ritmo, it was explained many times during the primaries that what is now called "Romneycare" differs in important ways from what Romney actually tried to implement.
What he proposed made a lot of sense, in all the ways that Obamacare does not.
Avik Roy, who knows a lot about health care, health insurance, and the debates about both says this:
And while Democrats have sought to credit (or blame) Romney for the passage of Obamacare, it is more accurate to say that the federal Affordable Care Act is modeled after the Democratically implemented version of the Massachusetts law, as opposed to the one that Romney had sought.
But yeah, that Romney is a real shapeshifter. Much more so than Obama. You must be the only person who comments on politics who hasn't heard about Obama's 2007 Hampton University speech. Or Gitmo, for that matter.
Hmmmm, 'Ritmo' has apparently never heard of 'Gitmo' - is that anything?
This ad reeks of the stink of desperation on the part of the Democrat Party and their ally that made and paid for it.
I'm sure that Obama adjusts his positions, but for less self-serving reasons than Romney does.
And you conclude that on the basis of...?
Look, we're partisan, and we can't help but see the candidates' characters/ personalities at least in part through our respective partisan prisms.
I believe (judging from everything I've seen and learned about him) that Romney is a good and decent man. I don't believe Obama is. For you, it's the opposite.
It's futile to debate or argue over it, so I won't.
Well, Chip. I can count on you to point out honest, if sometimes politically less than overwhelmingly significant distinctions. I'll believe what you're saying about Mass. It might even be relevant in some future discussion of healthcare in which universality (or some other advantage of legislated quality) becomes a standard norm. But, unfortunately for Romney, it's hard to see how that's politically advantageous now. Also, he seemed to not mind taking credit when he could.
Obama's inconsistency on where he's settled regarding detainees has been pointed out multiple times. Who knows if the reasons were good ones or bad ones? It's certainly not one of the most important reasons that I saw for voting for him.
But I will say this, whether he deserves it or not, he is and will be more trusted when it comes to the perception of pursuing and safeguarding civil rights. That's a political reality that might be undeserved, or deserved. I don't think he's cynical when talking about how he views the importance of that, though - in contrast to when his predecessors did.
Well, I will say that I think Romney's goodness and decency are constrained by how such qualities are defined by certain social organizations: His church (which is unusual in how it values political leadership and business success) and his private equity career.
I happen to think that those are limiting constraints, and that individual initiative in challenging institutions like those are important determinants in one's character and moral decency.
If one is to be both a decent person and a leader, they have to know when and how to challenge any institution. And when not to.
I don't think Romney understands this. He will bend to any situation, as long as he obeys the rules of institutions whose interests are at most peripheral to the matter at hand.
We cannot afford a leader who doesn't understand the difference between what's arbitrary and what's pertinent.
That's just my view, but I think it might be a, yes, "charitable" explanation for why Romney has developed a persona that seems not only financially successful, but opportunistically flexible - in a bad way.
YMMV.
Oh, yes, Obama will "more trusted when it comes to the perception of pursuing and safeguarding civil rights", as we long as we are not thinking of 2nd Amendment rights, or the 1st Amendment right to mock certain religions with poorly-made movies and cartoons, or the right to vote without being intimidated by Black Panthers with clubs, or the right to vote without having your vote canceled out by the pseudo-vote of a dead or ineligible or already-voted 'voter' in the other party. Have I forgotten any rights?
Dog whistles playing without a tune.
@Ritmo:It's certainly not one of the most important reasons that I saw for voting for him.
Romney is the only candidate in the race who has not carried out the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
(PS I was a bit hyperbolic there. I do believe, am willing to believe, that in plenty of ways Obama is a good and decent man. A good family man, for example. And I believe he genuinely believes in the goodness of his political/ideological cause(s). I find Obama's goals toxic, destructive, woefully misguided and riddled with delusion; and the means he employs duplicitous and worse. But I don't believe the man himself is evil.
Even though sometimes it feels that way.)
Diogenes of Sinope said...
It is extremely difficult for me to get my mind around the fact that either Obama actually believes his own bullshit and is that stupid or Obama is a bald face liar and is that evil. But it has to be one or the other.
Farking allah, I wish I could find it but just this morning I saw -AGAIN- a quote from Barry where he actually says he thinks he's so good that 'I believe my own bullshit'.
Romney's on video about a bajillion times saying he will cut taxes 20% across the board, including the top 1%. Now he say he's not. Which one is true?
Whichever one you want me to be true!
ROMNEY:
"Oh, in this primary you want me to be a Tea Party Champion? I'll be a Tea Party CHAMPION!"
"Oh, in this debate you want me to be the moderate caring guy that would never cut ANYTHING in Medicare or Social Security? You bet! NEVAR EVAR!!" Oh, and you don't like being denied insurance coverage because you have a pre-existing condition like diabetes? ME EITHER! Sheesh!"
"Oh, you want me to work with Democrats to try and get things done? Hell, I was a Democrat in Massachusetts!"
I just wanna beeeeeeee President so.. damn.. bad.
@garge mahal: When you apologize for trying to lie about the CNN poll maybe people will listen to anything you say.
Geez, Dr. Weevil. If Obama's actions make staunch defenders of defendants' rights out of Republicans, that can't be a bad thing. I'll take it.
As far as the rest of your self-serving and muddling rhetoric, which blurs that actual, legitimate concern with a whole host of other, largely irrelevant "culture war" nonsense, I'll let you take your warmed-over talking point. It's been done to death but I guess we've all got to decide what's important to us. I'm interested in more pertinent and serious things.
Good try, though. You might prove yourself to be a worthy armchair pundit yet.
I'm not disgusted with/by Dick Cheney. He's doing a great job as the Little Satan to W's Great Satan for the libs/progressives/etc.
I am fact-checking this post, using WaPo as my template.
Obama's ad "Dishonest" went up earlier this morning. It's now late afternoon. Few would call that 'new,' especially with the rapid pace of presidential politics. Would omelets cooked this morning be considered 'new'? Hardly. But it is an established fact that the half-life of campaign ads is eighteen minutes. Thus, several hours later, it is not new.
But perhaps when the post was written the ad was 'new.' The dictionary defines "new" as "of recent origin, production, purchase, etc."
Since experts are divided on the precise meaning of "recent," we will give Althouse some slack on this point. Many people would consider the ad "new" if they hadn't seen it before.
Four Pinocchios.
>:(
>:(
>:(
>:(
Don't mention Dick Cheney as a negative. It makes people nostalgic for better times.
I'm sure that Obama adjusts his positions, but for less self-serving reasons than Romney does.
I guess it must be reassuring to know that you're being sold out for the noblest of reasons. LOL.
That's right, Maguro. And don't you forget it. There is a difference between the mother who whores herself out to get her kid a kidney and one who does it for blow.
But of course, I don't expect you to be noble enough to actually, you know, weigh the moral costs of imperfect decisions. You're just here to shill for Romney or the talking point du jour.
I imagine that must make you feel grand.
Bad ad. Some viewers will pick up the anti-obama stuff, others will be put off or unaffected by the cliam of lying.
Also, they are leading with their chin. CNN found that Obama claim false and Obama's press flack Cutter agreed that it was not a $5 trillion dollar tax cut. Unless Romney blows it, he is going to trounce Obama on this issue.
@Ritmo: I'm interested in more pertinent and serious things.
Only one candidate in this race has spent the last four years killing brown people.
The nonprofit econtalk.org has to stop teaching economics until the election is over lest they seem to disfavor the Democrat side.
Instead they're having podcasts on raising children for the duration.
@Gabe: Stick to climate science.
Here is the link to the Cutter stipulation:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/04/cutter_concedes_5_trillion_attack_on_romney_is_not_true.html
@Ritmo: I'm interested in more pertinent and serious things.
Only one candidate in this race promised to release the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and didn't.
Only one candidate in this called $4 trillion in debt "unpatriotic" and then proceeded to double it.
Only one candidate in this race promised to stop raiding growers of medical marijuana, and didn't.
Only one candidate in this race signed the Bush tax cuts and the Patriot Act into law.
I'm interested in more pertinent and serious things.
Yeah, you're a one-issue voter--Obama has a D after his name.
@garge mahal: When you apologize for trying to lie about the CNN poll maybe people will listen to anything you say.
Listen up assface: I specifically asked you exactly what it was that I was lying about, and you then disappeared. Not my fault. And the crosstabs are pretty revelant topic these days, considering the incessant whining about sampling on this blog, don't you think?
Typically, when someone is trying to lie about a poll they don't paste a screenshot of the crosstabs.
@garage: I specifically asked you exactly what it was that I was lying about, and you then disappeared.
Check the thread again. I answered you. You lied. You cited a tiny chunk out of a large document and lied about what it meant. Because you were in such a damn hurry to post the talking point.
@garage: This is what I said to you at 10:44 PM October 4.
What you linked do was not the demographics of the survey, like you said it was. It was the way that one particular question was answered, broken down by the demographics of those who answered that way. You lied.
And you only linked to one part of a large document, hoping no one would check up on it. You were stupid.
You knew what you did, you did it on purpose.
@garage:Typically, when someone is trying to lie about a poll they don't paste a screenshot of the crosstabs.
You linked to an image of part of an 18 page pdf, claiming it represented the demographics of the whole study.
Which. Was. A. Lie.
Yeah, you're a one-issue voter
If one issue matters to me more than any other - it's the fact that I don't vote for whores. I don't respect whores. When faced with two representative options - someone who has no values or simply those to which you can convert into cash, and one who has many values, all connected to people in need, I choose the latter.
As for the comment about debt, I'd be surprised if that wasn't before Bush put us into a financial crisis. Conditions change. And good luck promoting Romney as the more enlightened candidate on weed. He told a clearly disabled man to his face that the relief he derived from medical marijuana was wrong.
Obama never told sick people that they were wrong for obtaining relief from any source they see fit. And that's because he's not a callous asshole.
Things like that matter greatly to me.
But your attempt to engage me with a hodgepodge of anti-Obama talking points is admirable. I realize that, as a Republican who actually believes in geophysics (or any science) you've got a tough and complicated row to hoe, but it's not mine. I'm largely comfortable with the political decisions I've had to make over the past several years. And I have the advantage of being able to lightly disagree (if at all) on priorities with people who are largely reasonable and decent in the first place.
I apologize if this has not been your experience. But I don't apologize for the fact that it has been mine.
@garage: I don't watch Olbermann or read TPM, but they were the ones who misread the polltabs and most likely you got it from them. And you tried to do the same thing here
TPM has since acknowledged the mistake. You have not. In fact you're still repeating it.
It's interesting to have demonstrated that you do not care at all about what is true and what is not. You never bothered to try to find out for yourself; you were happy to spread a lie.
@Ritmo: The moral indignation was a pose. That's all I want to point out.
When you said Bush shredded the Constitution and imbued his hands with the blood of brown people you didn't mean any of it, because your guy has done the same and you don't care.
Because you are a primate and you are flinging feces at the primates who don't smell like you. I'd like to see you evolve into a man.
You're wrong, I'm not a Republican. But I acknowledge I am a lot more in sympathy with them. And I call them out when I think they are wrong, and I take a lot of heat for it, because I care deeply about what is true.
Not all of us do.
Its amusing to see the slow lefties figuring out they have a battle on their hands. I was hoping they would be lulled into sleepy complaceny into the end of october. Cuddling up to Nate Silvers jiggered polling. I guess watching their jugged eared jesus getting his ass kicked up and down the field for 90 minutes has sobered them up.
@Ritmo:If one issue matters to me more than any other - it's the fact that I don't vote for whores. I don't respect whores.
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
National Amusements Inc $563,798
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Either you recognize these numbers or you don't. Either way, you don't care at all about what they mean.
If you care about what is true then you could point to this instance of me supposedly saying something about "Bush", "the constitution", and "the blood of brown people", because I certainly don't remember saying any of that. You must have me confused with someone else.
My primary problem with Bush is that he promoted his MBA experience and crashed an economy. That's astoundingly incompetent, hypocritical, what have you. My feelings about war and the imperfect ways in which it is inevitably pursued and prosecuted are a bit more fleeting.
I think other Republicans think that racism is something that either never occurs in America or should never be referred to, but that was not Bush's problem. At least, it wasn't as far as I knew.
People are important. Stop being so personal with me while trying to accuse me of holding priorities or positions that I never did.
Thanks.
Either way, you don't care at all about what they mean.
I think it means that Obama:
1. Refuses to unilaterally disarm his campaign of funds,
2. Accepts that a strong financial sector is important for national and economic reasons, moreso than for reasons of patronage.
When Romney tells us which types of financial regulation he'd credibly support, then I'll consider that he may, as well.
Romney never complained of enriching "fat cats" at the expense of the rest of economy. Obama did. But I guess the obvious conclusion to draw from that (and a conclusion that many drew) deviates from today's talking point for you.
@Ritmo:As for the comment about debt, I'd be surprised if that wasn't before Bush put us into a financial crisis.
Bush hasn't been President for four years, and the crisis that you allude to has been long over.
This is your guy. You don't actually care. You just want your guy to win. I'd ask you to come clean about it, but everyone here already knows.
The government's fiscal 2012 has now come to a close and the score is in. The budget deficit for 2012 was $1.1 trillion, the fourth year of trillion-dollar deficits under President Obama.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that the $1.1 trillion shortfall, based on Treasury statements, was about $200 billion less than in fiscal 2011. But part of this difference is due to a timing shift that put some final payments in 2011 because Oct. 1, 2011 fell on a weekend.
Without the assistance from the calendar, the deficit in 2012 would have been $30 billion larger than reported.
The deficit has become a major issue in the presidential campaign.
Obama pledged to cut the annual deficit in half in his first term, and during Wednesday night’s debate, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney took him to task for the ballooning shortfalls.
Honesty Billy Joel
@Ritmo:I think it means that Obama...
acts from the highest of motives, regretting some things done by the way, but always keeping his eye on the higher good.
Of course.
yashu said...
This was a constant drumbeat in 2008 Obama ads too: McCain was a lying liar mcliar who lies.
The ads didn't specify what McCain supposedly lied about or in what way these were lies. Just: McCain is a liar.
================
That is all Dave Axelrod and his Team of progressive jewish writers that feed the ads and what Obama reads off his TelePrompter.
Basic Alinsky stuff.
Romney should do a refutation ad, one that mainly focuses on all Obama's broken promises
Close GITMO
Cut the Deficit in Half
Work Across the Aisle
Create Masssive numbers of new jobs and help the middle class.
Create 5 million "Green Jobs!!"
And close with Romney saying that every day in his business career and in running the OLympics and being Governor of Massachusetts - he was only as good as other people's perception of his integrity anllowed him the ability to lead.
As President, I will not say what a team of writers believes will best help my popularity. I will say what I believe needs to be done. I will not abandon my integrity and values and make dozens of false promises. President Obama has done has made many such promises, perhaps not from a lack of integrity but overestimation of his ability to deliver on what his speeches promised America. Does anyone believe after all his false promises, he and his scriptwriting team will reform themselves and they will suddenly be straight with America if they return to the White House next year??"
Does anyone else find it amusing that Ritmo claims (5:27pm) that he won't vote for Romney because "not [being] a callous asshole" is something that "matter[s] greatly" to him? You'd think he'd try it some time if he thought it was that important.
@Ritmo: Stop being so personal with me while trying to accuse me of holding priorities or positions that I never did.
You're right, it would be wrong of me to confuse your position with someone else's. So just to clarify, what do you think of the PATRIOT act and the tax cuts? Do you support them, or just consider them unimportant?
The immediate crisis is over, but the better housing and lending conditions that preceded it have not been resolved. Either that, or capitalists refuse to hire as part of a vendetta against Obama. Achieving a new, healthy economic "set-point" was never going to occur overnight - and it's taken even longer since Republicans fought for a 1% higher unemployment rate by laying off government employees in the middle of a recovery.
No way I'm voting for them. Mitch McConnell said that their priority was to limit him to one-term, and the Republicans on this website tell me it wouldn't have been treasonous for them to hold back the economic recovery for political reasons. So fuck them. I think that is unconscionable.
But apparently they don't. So I take them, and McConnell, at their words.
And accordingly, I blame the Tea Party.
acts from the highest of motives
It's certainly a more credible argument to make. Not that you made one to the contrary in refuting my points.
You're a lot like your climate science-denying allies here; they just bury their heads in the sand on different things than the things you choose to bury your head in the sand on.
Its amusing to see the slow lefties figuring out they have a battle on their hands. I was hoping they would be lulled into sleepy complaceny into the end of october.
Don't mistake the leftard losers here for O's campaign staff.
The latter group have a couple of working brain cells, and they know they're going to have to steal votes to win.
I don't consider PATRIOT unimportant, but I don't think it's worth debating from a partisan standpoint. I have no problem with hearing it debated; I just don't see a partisan stake in it worth taking one way or another.
I think the tax cuts are worth debating -- as long as one is sane enough to acknowledge that a recovery now is worth the debt now that a surplus later (along with a return to more traditional rates at that time) would pay for.
The problem is, the Republicans have a HORRIBLE record on paying down debt. They're basically just anti-revenue and talk about low taxes just as a political move. The data bears this out consistently.
I don't buy what they're selling. To do so would be utterly unempirical.
Ritmo, you are even dumber than shiloh.
And, clearly, you have nothing to do.
Usually, you just soil the bottom of comments threads with your stupidity. What made you decide to disgrace yourself at the top of threads today?
I suggest you go back to bottom feeding.
@Ritmo:You're a lot like your climate science-denying allies here...
Back to the feces-flinging again. I'd had hopes for a moment. But I notice you didn't answer about the "Bush"--now Obama--tax cuts and the "Bush"--now Obama--PATRIOT Act.
Ann, the Snoop Dogg list, if genuine, was funny to me except for one point. One line item was "He (meaning Mitt) looks like the kind of guy who would say n*****."
I have a high tolerance for edgy humor. Love it. Snoop's line doesn't bother me. However, in our diversity-uber-alles kind of world, I know it's something that can stick, and ruin a career. Snoop doesn't seem to get that white people have been conditioned, heavily, to treat that word even harsher than 'child molester'. It's an unfair claim, and unfortunate if it is fairly representative of Democrat thought.
@Ritmo: I spoke to soon, you did answer. Consider my last post retracted. Except for the feces-flinging part--that's all "your climate science denying allies" is.
When I think they are right, I tell them so, and when they are wrong, I disagree and tell them so.
Guilt by association is feces-flinging.
@Ritmo:The problem is, the Republicans have a HORRIBLE record on paying down debt.
And you're voting for the only guy who has done worse.
Gabe: The answer is that the Bush tax rates are now in place. You have to be conservative enough to accept that the timing of changes to that are what matters. It wasn't necessary to implement them during a surplus (as Bush did), but it wouldn't be a good idea to repeal them while recovery is not yet strong.
Stop with the obsession over "feces" and just accept that you could stand to read up on things like economics to the same degree that you do on physics. It won't kill you. Even me and Dust Bunny Queen can manage to agree on a lot of this stuff.
No, it's not "flinging feces" to point out where you're uninformed.
And you're voting for the only guy who has done worse.
In the aftermath of the greatest economic calamity since The Great Depression? Consider that mine and his acknowledgement of economic reality. Yes, actions have to adjust to conditions. Why shouldn't they?
That's why what Bush and Co. presided over when this ship was happily coasting toward the iceberg was so tragic, and yes, politically unforgiveable. They still don't take account for the magnitude and intractability of this mess. Housing/credit bubbles are massive messes and they take a while to sort out. Last time this happened was the depression.
Please account for quantities when assessing political reactions. The action is appropriate to the scale of what was done - whether people here want to admit that or not. It's no ordinary recession. It wasn't your father's recession.
Hey Gabe - have a good one and I'll return to this later. I did intend to get out for a bit earlier and got sidetracked for a spell. I'll check it out in a bit. Cheers.
@Ritmo:No, it's not "flinging feces" to point out where you're uninformed.
It is to say "climate science denying allies".
just accept that you could stand to read up on things like economics to the same degree that you do on physics.
I can derive the Keynesian multiplier from the harmonic series. Can you? And then there's the Extreme Value Theorem, which some call the Laffer Curve when applied to taxes and revenue, but it's really just calculus.
That I disagree with you doesn't make me uninformed.
But every dollar spent now has to be paid back later with taxes, or inflated away--and both of those depress the economy. Obama is spending a lot of our future prosperity trying to start today's recovery. Do you think another $1.1 trillion will get 'er done, or another $8 trillion?
@Ritmo:Please account for quantities when assessing political reactions. The action is appropriate to the scale of what was done - whether people here want to admit that or not. It's no ordinary recession. It wasn't your father's recession.
The debt incurred was not my father's government debt either.
When you come back--at what point do you say we've done all we should? $8 trillion? $16 trillion? $32 trillion? Until we elect a guy with R after his name?
Ann Althouse said...
The Zero ad is classic Alinsky.
That's unfair to Alinsky, who was quite brilliant and gave excellent tips.
That may well be, but that was still his philosophy.
I'm trying to improve the intellectual quality of my life by ignoring this discussion and watching "Hot Tub Time Machine" on Netflix.
Gabe, check it out.
Or even here.
HTTM is a pretty fun movie, or so I heard.
"Only 9 percent of respondents said such programs are appropriate to make up for past discrimination, while 28 percent agreed that they are justified to increase diversity on a college campus or in the workplace, the survey found."
Racism is everywhere, and to deny that is not racist.
28% minus 9% equals W. H. A. T. ? ? ?
jimspice said...
Romney's on video about a bajillion times saying he will cut taxes 20% across the board, including the top 1%
Can't find these videos, can you drop a link, please.
Anyway, Obana made more than enough promisses on which he did not deliver. Sy are we talking about promisses that Romney is to deliver, or not, in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want media for once talk about Obama, his broken promisses and his non-show of any achievements (teleprompter skills aside) at home and abroad before they try to argue that Romney does not deliver on what he is planning to do.
What plans Obama has? Are they viable? Should I believe, again, that Obama can deliver on his promises, deliver anything, except speeches on teleprompter? Where are questions to Obama?
It's the same old show we were given 4 years ago. Media would talk about anybody and anything, except Obama, because they can't even say that Obama is a great orator any longer.
You guys are really into politics.
I was in DC this week for work. I don't care for DC. I stayed in this new hood that sprung up like 5 years ago. It is called NOMA-gag-north of mass ave.
This area has tons of new buildings and new office and new everything-it is totally sterile. It reminded me of Kendall Square in Cambridge but instead of Biotech companies these companies were all government contractors....except CNN which is located there.
My impressions of DC is...it is really fucking black, everyone works in government or as a government contractor and it feels a little southern. Also, the people were much more friendly than Boston and that made me nervous and suspicious.
I did see Sherrod Brown at St. Reagan Airport and I was shocked at how thin and put together he looked. When I have seen him on tv he looks like an overweight schlep. He isn't. He had a fantastic Brooks Brother suit on, his hair wasn't looking like it usually does-The Bride of Frankenstein, and he looked actually fab-it was fucking weird. My impression of him was fat, sloppy, libtard. He actually looked almost doable-I was going through the scanner after him and he has great eyes. I kind of felt like he was checking me out too which was even weirder. Afterwards, I thought the camera does really put the weight on you. There is an entire terminal for the special fabulous flights from Boston-NYC-Washington, via US Air. I have to admit as soon as you cross into that terminal there are hotties everywhere-it was nice to be separate from the ugly state destinations too.
tits.
Romney is going to cut taxes by five trillion? Please God let it be true!
"That's unfair to Alinsky, who was quite brilliant and gave excellent tips."
He just abridged Lenin's works on subversion.
My other thought after seeing Sherrod Brown was why was he all alone and going to NYC? And why is one of the most liberal members of senate going to likely win the swing state of Ohio? I think it is his voice-he sounds like a normal guy...who went to Harvard.
Shouldn't he be at a rally in Youngstown?
Sherrod Brown went to Yale...never mind.
I'm not sure many undecided voters know who Cheney and Gingrich are. I'm pretty sure many undecideds are "low information voters".
Romney shooting Bird would probably play better with them.
Ritmo, I've seen your work here enough to know that you won't take my advice, but: Gabriel Hanna handed you your ass on a platter this evening. Everyone who's read the thread knows it, even garage, although I'm sure he wouldn't admit it. Consider cutting your losses.
ritmo's logic:
I don't like liars.
Romney is a liar.
My evidence that Romney is a liar is that Obama says he is a liar.
Obama tells the truth.
The evidence that Obama tells the trust is that he says he is.
Therefore, Obama is telling the truth when he says Romney is a liar.
Therefore I don't like Romney.
Anyone who says differently is a liar.
ritmo epitomizes epistemic closure.
Of course, so does garage mahal.
Romney says he wants to cut rates 20% across the board for everyone. He's also said he's in favor of eliminating credits & deductions & wants the end package to be "revenue neutral."
Bullshit.
Romney stood up, winked at his base, and said, "Watch me convince the independents that I'm in favor of what Obama's for, the reasons they prefer him to me. You and I know it's just a ruse, though. Wink-wink."
This takes as it's presumption that Obama's agenda is something we should want.
You linked to an image of part of an 18 page pdf, claiming it represented the demographics of the whole study.
Which. Was. A. Lie.
That's not what I was claiming and you are a doucherocket.
Obama's gift to the middle class.
Obama wouldn't know honesty if it bit him in the butt.
And using Andrea Mitchell and NBC News as "news sources" is beyond ridiculous.
Racism Radar isn't Gaydar.
Only because of the text marks.
A rose is NOT but a BenLaBoltReggieLove by another name, at least insofar as there is no BenLaBoltReggieLove by another name.
Here's some breaking news:
New poll shows Obama's lead in Wisconsin down to two points
President Barack Obama's lead in Wisconsin has narrowed to 2 points over Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the latest Public Policy Poll released Saturday.
Obama led by 49% to 47% in the survey of 979 likely Wisconsin voters. The poll was conducted Thursday through Saturday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Two weeks ago, PPP showed Obama leading Romney by 52% to 45%
First, did Snoop Dogg really write that? I'm surprised at how neat his handwriting is! It's like a 9th grade girl wrote it.
Hah. Didn't say he wrote it, but it would be funny. I should have only said "It's his list," and "he's promoting it."
Anyway, though it's funny in parts, there's something creepy about enjoying the fun too much, and I don't think it's helpful to the President, . . .The problem is that it's funny enough to become viral and that takes it way beyond the intended audience.
Well, at least you aren't saying you are less likely to vote for
Romney because I shared that Snoop Dog post with you. Of course, Snoop Dog, like Obama helps cement a racist view towards whites by blacks. As you point out, there isn't a whole lot of value to either from the perspective of changing anyone's mind in the presidential election, but both are damaging and execrable.
I suppose it has something to do with being in the middle, or something. It's OK for some to stir up racial resentments, or affirm them, but not for others to point out when it's done. It's a confusing position to me, and I fail to see how it is justifiable to any fair minded person.
At this point the only people who are going to vote for Obama are those who are fearful for their lady parts.
This is especially true of the men.
There's nothing funnier than a guy who can't state a single reason for why something should be so, yet insists that it must be. Hell, everyone (or so he insists) must also be sure that this is so. It's the kind of unreasoning espoused by street people everywhere. The end is near!
Ergo, Gabe Hanna, who doesn't live anywhere near me, whom I never met, who didn't bring up any point I couldn't engage and/or refute, somehow "handed me my ass on a platter this evening." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but perhaps I will run it by Charlie Sheen and see if he can help me interpret it.
You guys sure like your sexualized violence metaphors. Sometimes I wonder if the alter ego for the commentariat is embodied in the spirit of the Marquis de Sade.
Will Cate wrote:
Wow. How do they cram so much bullshit into 30 seconds?
'Cause the shovel they bought to dig their grave is HUGE.
Cheers,
Victoria
Doucherocket is kind of a cool insult. Hard to picture, but I
I think I will use it sometime.
President Barack Obama's lead in Wisconsin has narrowed to 2 points
The road to my cabin up north in a fairly liberal county had only a couple signs for each candidate last weekend. It's about 10:1 Romney signs this weekend.
It's about 10:1 Romney signs this weekend
Back when I had my blogged, I used to take photos and keep a tally of all the campaign yardsigns I saw in my neck of the SoFla woods. Back in 2004, there were even-stevens Bush/Kerry yardsigns, even in the affluent neighbourhoods like Pinecrest and Coral Gables. In 2008, Obama outpaced McCain yardsigns there.
But today? In 2012...I have yet to see ONE Obama yardsign. Even in the homes which had them in 2008.
They may not be voting for Romney, in those homes, but they sure as hell don't want to be associated with Obama now.
This whole ad depends on residual loathing of Dick Cheney!
Inside the buzzing beehive of Progressive hate Cheney is very high on their list of devils - just below Bush. Cheney's casual refusal to appear apologetic or guilty of anything infuriates the left. So this ad is Pauline Kaelish in one of its fundamental errors, being that Progressives actually believe that since they all hate Cheney everyone else must also hate Cheney. This aside from the fact that the ad is weakly based on innuendo. But it must somehow be effective since I assume focus groups are obligatory for these ads.
Ritmo said:
There's nothing funnier than a guy who can't state a single reason for why something should be so, yet insists that it must be.
Crap, Ritmo, you just described the overwhelming majority of your posts.
That should help you understand why everyone laughs at you and your posts.
How dumb?
How stupid doodad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nIvBI2_hSY
What matters most to Sen. Gerry and M. Core Le One, and I?
O Ritmo Segundo accuses "you guys" (apparently the entire right half of the political spectrum) of being too fond of "sexualized violence metaphors" because one of us said that one of the others had 'handed him his ass on a platter'. His own metaphors may not be violent, but they're more sexual, more obscene, and in some cases more disgusting.
For instance, I am blessedly unfamiliar with what it would be like "watching someone masturbate his way through an orgy while playing Twister with the other participants", but Ritmo (this thread, 3:42pm) seems to presume knowledge of such scenes in his readers.
Just today, he's also called Romney a "callous asshole" on this thread, and called one regular commenter "STD", suggested that he "ride a bike, (while taking care to preserve your penile circulation)", and accused him of "finding new and creative ways to wave his decrepit, old dick at" him (all on the "Does Barack Obama really want to be president?" thread).
Ritmo needs to either get his own mind out of the gutter or shut the Hell up about others' language. Otherwise, he runs the risk of looking like a hypocritical fool.
I can envision frenetic typing, leaving bloody fingerprints all over the keyboard, as the commenter digs deeeep for insults to murder the object of his ire.
P.S. I'm still puzzled how Ritmo can think that talk of 'handing him his ass on a platter' can be counted among "sexualized violence metaphors". When I see a rump roast on a platter, sex is not the first, second, or third thing that comes to mind. I shudder to think what Ritmo does with his meat dishes. Then again, his 3:42pm comment suggests he is intimately familiar with uses of a Twister set that had not occurred to me, either.
Prediction: SNL will make fun of Romney's debate performance tonight. The gag will be Romney dishonestly contradicting his known positions, and poor, reasonable Obama being flustered in response.
I suppose one expects a craftsman in any area to fit things together in a logical and coherent manner. One can criticize the estimation involved in one of the variables though to say that it is "dishonest" when Romney relies on the assessment of a like minded group in the construction of the variable is a pretty perfectionistic position. This seems especially so when the one criticizing has promised 'green jobs' but 1/2 a billion dollars was lost on Solyndra and it's he Chinese who are taking off on production of solar panels, when 'Afghanistan is the real front in the War on terror' and we have to back off from our allies because they are killing us. Not to mention 'bridging the partisan divide and cutting the deficit in half.' It seems like maybe more than small bore criticism from an evidence standpoint might be necessary for a reaction more than 'really punkin, is that how you feel'?
" ritmo's logic:
I don't like liars.
Romney is a liar.
My evidence that Romney is a liar is that Obama says he is a liar.
Obama tells the truth.
The evidence that Obama tells the trust is that he says he is.
Therefore, Obama is telling the truth when he says Romney is a liar.
Therefore I don't like Romney.
Anyone who says differently is a liar.
ritmo epitomizes epistemic closure.
Of course, so does garage mahal.
10/6/12 7:47 PM
Blogger Alex said...
Romney says he wants to cut rates 20% across the board for everyone. He's also said he's in favor of eliminating credits & deductions & wants the end package to be "revenue neutral."
Bullshit."
Maybe you are too young to remember 1986 when Reagan did this. Or maybe you are too stupid to realize this is not a new idea and it works. Of course, the Democrats come along later and screw it up with tax increases and favors for donors but the idea works.
When I see a rump roast on a platter, sex is not the first, second, or third thing that comes to mind.
So according to your illogic, the same thoughts apply to the sight of a human "ass" on a platter. Fascinating. And what will you be having for dinner, Dr. Lecter?
Then again, his 3:42pm comment suggests he is intimately familiar with uses of a Twister set that had not occurred to me, either.
You need to get out more. Or at least learn how to have more fun when staying in.
Also, this entire blog is an exercise in political sado-masochism.
Weevil, have you ever considered removing the stick from your ass?
but Ritmo (this thread, 3:42pm) seems to presume knowledge of such scenes in his readers.
I presume that if they lack one, they may benefit from my own blessedly creative imagination.
A mind as uncreative as yours couldn't conjure the idea of a ray of sunlight in the middle of the Mojave desert.
Continuing on a theme here...
Michael K epitomizes mental masturbation.
@Ritmo: I looked at your pie charts, but of course I've seen them before. They are predicated on several fallacious assumptions, but the most critical one is this:
Money is fungible. When the government spends more than it takes in, every dollar that was spent is equally responsible.
The next most critical one: The charts all assume that the government could have collected X number of dollars if there had been no tax cut. But keeping the tax rates higher would have affected the economy in ways that are not obvious to calculate and that 'missing' revenue is not certain. Spending, in contrast, results from concrete decisions taken in absolute dollar amounts.
Government revenue increased in almost every year after the tax cuts in 2003.:see page 33 of the White House pdf. Every year government spending increased even more than that.
@garage:That's not what I was claiming and you are a doucherocket.
Don't lie about the lie.
Apparently the entire survey was white, 50+, and from the South. And no liberals. Internals here. Now that's real skewing!
While I may be a doucherocket, you were still caught lying. You lied about what you linked to. You said it was the demographics of "the entire survey", and you linked to one page out of about a dozen crosstabs.
You got this from Olbermann or TPM--they originally misread the crosstabs. TPM has acknowledged they were mistaken. You have doubled down.
@garage: Time to man up and admit you lied.
Late Update: We’ve dug in a little deeper on this, and there seems to be a straightforward non-nefarious explanation. It appears that where the subgroups within CNN’s representative sample of 430 voters were too small to yield statistically valid conclusions about the subgroups themselves, CNN declined to publish those results simply because they were not reliable on their own. We’re seeking confirmation from CNN, but this is the most likely explanation — one that is valid. —dk
Later Update: CNN provided us with the internals of the poll, and the demographics of the poll respondents are very much line with normal standards for randomized sampling. -dk
@Ritmo: I noticed you never answered the question I asked. How many trillions should we spend on the recovery?
Remember the projections of what would happen with and without the stimulus?
So if the trillions already spent didn't do it, how many more should it take? How many more can it take before we should stop spending tomorrow's prosperity in the hope of today's recovery?
Because it's starting to look an awful lot like the martingale strategy in roulette--double your bet when you lose, so you can recover your former losses.
Of course, you can take refuge in "the economy would have been so much worse without the stimulus", which of course is impossible to prove or disprove. But you deny that refuge to people who say that the economy would have done worse without the Bush tax cuts when you are talking about government revenue. When you are talking about recession and the Obama tax cuts, you embrace that point, and did so in this very comment thread.
Obama is very fond of saying, when defending his own policies, "every expert agree that [x]"
It is the lamest appeal to authority, thoughtlessly enlisting EVERY expert to support Obama, and yet no one scrutinizes these lazy claims he makes.
But keeping the tax rates higher would have affected the economy in ways that are not obvious to calculate and that 'missing' revenue is not certain.
And yet, you seem "certain" that revenue would have gone missing instead of being increased - a completely speculative assumption that economists not only disagree over, but that is refuted by the higher growth rates seen during the tax rates in place during the Clinton and other administrations.
If you insist on taking Laffer as gospel, consider that his ideas might be more applicable to third-world economies that have yet to experience the industrialization and social stratification that we already accomplished long ago.
I noticed you never answered the question I asked. How many trillions should we spend on the recovery?
Ask an economist, dude. Unlike the Pajamahadeen, NYT actually employs a few, one of whom even has the credibility of a Nobel Prize to his name - despite the recent and strange decision of conservatives to disparage those sorts of accomplishments.
Of course, you can take refuge in "the economy would have been so much worse without the stimulus", which of course is impossible to prove or disprove.
Sounds like you're fond of an impossibly high bar for proving things. But of course, the Keynesians still have the advantage of better evidence on their side.
But you deny that refuge to people who say that the economy would have done worse without the Bush tax cuts when you are talking about government revenue.
Their evidence is worse.
When you are talking about recession and the Obama tax cuts, you embrace that point, and did so in this very comment thread.
Dude, just because you can be abstruse enough to work some calculus into your understanding of economics doesn't make it reasonable to deny the basic concepts. Both lower taxation and increased spending can stimulate the demand that's missing in a downturn, while neither make sense once a recovery's taken place.
How do we apply that principle to the current situation? Simple. Profits have never been higher, so business owners are obviously not using them to invest in in the labor capital to decrease unemployment. Ergo, the lower rates at the highest margin aren't doing any good. The low demand that has stalled the economy is a function of unemployment, not because business owners can't hire, but because there won't be enough growth/demand to justify it. Find a way for people to spend more, to encourage demand, and you've actually addressed the problem under discussion. There are multiple ways to do this - giving their employers more money that they won't (and already aren't) spending isn't one of them. It's foolish to continue what, for easily explained and entirely logical reasons, isn't working.
Don't continue to increase debt in the targeted ways that can't logically do anything. Unless, of course, you prefer to increase debt for no reason...
There are reasons for going into debt and reasons for avoiding it. I suggest you apply Occam's razor to supply, demand and a growing, healthy economy to help yourself learn how rational people prioritize between them.
Gabe, I realize here that I'm deviating from a precaution earlier against repealing the "Bush rates" in toto... the point is that some of them might make sense to keep, others don't seem to, and that if you want to be entirely conservative, you would try to avoid touching anything until the recovery's strong enough to support full employment as debt is not the short-term problem that low growth/demand is. Debt is a long-term problem that you tackle over the long-term, not overnight. Responding to the business cycles is the constant sort of short-term response that helps avoid an unjustifiable accumulation of debt in the first place.
Just out of curiosity, do you also dispute the financial costs of Bush's glorious wars? Do you feel that his tax cuts stimulated growth (and cut debt) before the 2007 recession?
Just trying to see about getting on a logical track of discussion here. There is a bigger picture to which these little conceptual details can (and should) be applied.
Jesus Christ Ann. Romney's been hawking that $5trillion thing for months. The rest of your post is just bullshit.
Is that what Meade is cooking for dinner?
"Romney's been hawking that $5trillion thing for months"
Here, Lindsey - a hot pile of Half Truth. Steaming. Carefully seasoned. Eat it.
Personally, I love Dick Cheney.
He knows his stuff and how to get things done right, and legal, tough but true to principle.
If obama would have wanted to be the True, Transparty President, he could have won the Prize easily and dramatically by naming Cheney and one of his daughters to a Czar status to address the military 's Don't Ask don't Tell Policy.
can you imagine?! I would have certainly thought to vote for Obama for a first time had he been able to be that Big!
Obama would have trumped Nixon to China, causing A Most Outstanding Republican to help open new doors by sharpening the Contract on Living with Gays in America.
We would All be better off now, had Cheney been so empowered, and Obama had been even a BIT like his promises to be Radically New and Good.
Maybe this next election will bring us true "New and Good".
I'm in Colorado and I CAN'T be the only one who's noticed that a lot of the Obama funded ads against Romney have planes with "TRUMP" plastered all over them the background?
Who else can we tie to the presidential nominee? Newt... no, Cheney! Or better- BOTH!
I'm in Colorado and I CAN'T be the only one who's noticed that a lot of the Obama funded ads against Romney have planes with "TRUMP" plastered all over them the background?
Who else can we tie to the presidential nominee? Newt... no, Cheney! Or better- BOTH!
Ran across this thread via search and felt proud that I once inspired discussion. I'm ignored here more often than not.
Oh, now, now, Jim, we still love you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा