Everybody ready? Popcorn all popped, glasses full, internet rage on full-auto?
Then let's go ahead and dedicate a 1st Debate Thread, we can talk about it if you are watching and share our thoughts. We can copy-paste our favorite pundits telling us why we should rage. Or we could not care.
I will be working tonight, so I might catch it on the TV in patients rooms as I am doing my job. Will probably see if it is on YouTube later tonight.
Meanwhile, for those fortunate enough not to work:
for romney add redistribution of wealth and entitlements. Take out the part of the troops. he didn't mention them during his RNC speach, I doubt he'll acknowledge them now.
He's really not doing a good job being forceful at shutting them down, but to be fair...
He's letting Obama put it to that smirking git. I'm fine with that.
Especially given that Romney is still trying to play the "Look over there! What were we discussing?" card. And the "I like ____" card as well, anytime he gets called on his bollocks.
d-usa wrote: Get them up to the moderator table and make them arm wrestle!
Forget that, I want to see a chainsaw deathmatch for a debate. That might actually be interesting enough to watch.
But seriously, is anyone really expecting anything of substance to happen here? We all know their positions and honestly at this point if you're still undecided you're probably too stupid to figure out how to vote anyway. Is there really any point to these debates besides hopefully giving the comedians something to laugh at?
Peregrine wrote: [We all know their positions and honestly at this point if you're still undecided you're probably too stupid to figure out how to vote anyway. Is there really any point to these debates besides hopefully giving the comedians something to laugh at?
Well, Romney was anti regulation until about 10 minutes ago it appears. So I don't know his position
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sounds like Romney only has the same 3 attacks over and over again.
"We are talking about education? You gave money to green jobs!"
- on Healthcare and Social Security debate. I'd say that Romney is more convincing that Obama does. Obama did arrogantly defense his 'Obamacare' and simply bluffed that 'Romney can't do that!' . Romney has been a man of action YEARS before Obama enters politics.
- on Federal business regulations thing. Obama simply attacked Romney as 'a greedy baron trying to alter business regulations in its own favor'. Romney's response does not quite convincing either. except that "Wall Street has regulations and i'm not working against it"
A night earlier. Modernine evening news anchor (a la femme) doesn't conduct a proper pre-news research on to the U.S. .She cited that 'Detroit is in Ohio' !!! :lol: :lol: :lol: very hillarious! Ohio is next to Erie lake yes! but Detroit is in Michigan, which also next to Erie lake.
Lone Cat wrote: - on Healthcare and Social Security debate. I'd say that Romney is more convincing that Obama does. Obama did arrogantly defense his 'Obamacare' and simply bluffed that 'Romney can't do that!' . Romney has been a man of action YEARS before Obama enters politics.
Actually this is true. Romney can't claim to have accomplished anything similar because his health care accomplishment was too close to "Obamacare". Instead he has to hide in shame from his record so his far-right base don't stay home on election day.
- on Federal business regulations thing. Obama simply attacked Romney as 'a greedy baron trying to alter business regulations in its own favor'.
I'd say that's a pretty convincing attack. You know, since it's true.
Kanluwen wrote: And Romney held his sons up as examples of liars.
I chuckled.
That was a good line. I also liked Obama saying 'I don't mind the term' when Romney feigned apology for saying Obamacare.
Other than that the limited amount of the debate I heard was pretty decent. Seemed a decent amount of substance, and both candidates seemed to be doing a reasonable job, considering neither of them are top tier debaters.
But note I only heard about 15 minutes of the debate on the way to work.
- on Healthcare and Social Security debate. I'd say that Romney is more convincing that Obama does. Obama did arrogantly defense his 'Obamacare' and simply bluffed that 'Romney can't do that!' . Romney has been a man of action YEARS before Obama enters politics.
What's arrogant in defending your own policy?
And what's a man of action? Is that like a GI Joe figure or something?
I'd have to go Obama, simply for the fact that someone shook the etch a sketch and he's now once again flopped on all his positions. basically lying through his teeth to appeal to those 47% he doesn't care about.
Okay... from my twitter feed... "When you've lost Bill Maher... “@billmaher: i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter” "
Good debate, I suppose. Still voting for Obama, even though Romney held up alright.
I think Romney has the wrong ideas in just about every issue. He claims a lot about not raising taxes and increasing deductions, but somehow wants to pull money out of thin air to pay for things. The money isn't there, and without raising taxes, you aren't going to put a lid on the defecit, even if you end up paying for these magical programs.
This was his chance to set things straight and cement his plans and ideas in the hearts of the american people, and he did, but in a way that totally discredits him.
Romney will 'win' the debate according to pundits because of expectations. Provided Romney didn't walk out on stage drunk--this was at the least going to be a close debate--if not Romney leaning.
Personally, I would say Romney won the debate on style--but he sold a lot of views to win this. President Obama didn't just let him deflect/pivot and nailed him on some strange policy calls. Overall, both of them were weak and missed opportunities.
However, I have no doubt the real loser was Jim Lehrer. He just got ran over and did a horrible job moderating---I think he's done.
Yeah, Jim Lehrer wasn't forceful enough. He let Romney walk all over him, and Obama as well (although Obama was a little more polite about it, and wrapped up his points quicker and neater)...
Felt bad for the fella, but it's his own fault. Apparently he was a Marine. Maybe it's silly, but I figured he would try a little bit harder to get Romney to shut up.
I seriously doubt a Marine, regardless of training, could ever shut up a politician. Even if someone broke Romney/Obama's jaw, he'd still keep talking. He'd just be incomprehensible.
Keep the candidates on point and be forceful about time Don't let candidates deflect and spout an unrelated talking point Ask pertinent questions
He failed at least the first two---and really I'm not too sure on the third---as he let the candidates (Mostly Romney) setup the next question. IIRC, even Lehrer said something to the affect "I'm not sure how the debate was moderated..".
Aren't there two more debates this month? Hopefully they stay on point, and address some other issues.
The situations occurring abroad in the middle east were ignored, probably deliberately. Romney will show his true colors on these issues. I can't wait.
All these domestic things are nice and whatever, but I must admit I'm more interested to see how they debate about foreign issues.
*shrug*, I don't know the statistical model--but I wouldn't be shocked if incumbents typically lose (or perform poorly) on their first debate. Of course, as a rather affable pundit might say;
"That don' matter! You win debates if you're rusty or not, you're the President!"
Romney won it, was able to get specific points across better and Obama was on the defensive most of the time. I think Obama was unprepared because of the last several weeks of Romney gaffs, whereas Romney was trying to make this the decisive moment.
Even though I'm an Obama supporter, Both of them seemed overly weak to me.
The Pres just didn't seem like he wanted to be there, kinda distant and mopy, and the Gov just seemed too defensive and angry or me to like either one of them.
While the Political analyzers say Romney won, They both lost IMO.
Harriticus wrote: Romney won it, was able to get specific points across better and Obama was on the defensive most of the time. I think Obama was unprepared because of the last several weeks of Romney gaffs, whereas Romney was trying to make this the decisive moment.
If by "specific points", you mean "specific generalities".
Samus_aran115 wrote: Yeah, Jim Lehrer wasn't forceful enough. He let Romney walk all over him, and Obama as well (although Obama was a little more polite about it, and wrapped up his points quicker and neater)...
Felt bad for the fella, but it's his own fault. Apparently he was a Marine. Maybe it's silly, but I figured he would try a little bit harder to get Romney to shut up.
bolded for emphasis. Obama actually got 4:30 minutes more speaking time than Romney so quicker and neater isn't actually true.
It's always interesting to me how people call winners and losers out of these debates based on who seemed more confident, or didn't stumble on their words or whatever. I've never been able to figure out how that stuff matters.
Surely all that matters is who sounds like they've got policies that appeal?
Samus_aran115 wrote: Aren't there two more debates this month? Hopefully they stay on point, and address some other issues.
The situations occurring abroad in the middle east were ignored, probably deliberately. Romney will show his true colors on these issues. I can't wait.
All these domestic things are nice and whatever, but I must admit I'm more interested to see how they debate about foreign issues.
This debate was scheduled to be entirely on domestic policy. The next two debates will be on both domestic and foreign policy, and the last debate will be on foreign policy exclusively.
Harriticus wrote: Romney won it, was able to get specific points across better and Obama was on the defensive most of the time. I think Obama was unprepared because of the last several weeks of Romney gaffs, whereas Romney was trying to make this the decisive moment.
If by "specific points", you mean "specific generalities".
Indeed. I have no idea where people are getting 'Romney was more specific' from when he was quite vague on a lot of things. He has "what I want to do" down, to some extent, but I never really hear the important 'this is how I'm going to do it". It is just "I will get rid of Obamacare", which he can't just do, and doesn't say how he plans to do it.
Obama said his own policies were Clinton era and Romney's would be a return to Bush era.
Romney replied that his policies would be new and different then anything done before.
They both did a good job (Jim included) about keeping Obamacare tied to the countries economic situation. Romney didn't deny that Obama's policies have been a return to a Clinton style economy. So either Romney would be a return to a Bush style economy or something completely new and unknown depending on which canidate you choose to believe. During the Clinton administration the economy was booming with his policies in full force during his second term, no doubt about it, and that was after Bush Sr. raised taxes after his "read my lips" statement. Then GW came in and tanked the economy after 8 years of deregulation, and lets face it, the wars. So we still have the war situation, but we have the Obama/Clinton economic policies in place. The economy isn't tanking. Obama said he would fight for the middle class and he demonstrated everytime how his policies worked to do that. A lot of the time his policies look like entitlements for the lower income at the expense of upper income brackets and I think that demonstrates his putting the middle class first. If you own a private jet you should pay the frieght, to paraphrase. Romney wants to go back to what Bush was doing if you believe Obama. Doesn't really sound appealing and even Romney said he didn't want to go there. So Romney said he thinks the Obama/Clinton style economic governance is taking the country in the wrong direction and he wanted to do something new and different. No thanks. Sounds risky. Call me conservative. I don't want to take a chance on his policies especially when they are as unclear and simple as, "something new and different." I'm voting to stay the course for the middle class. It worked with Clinton and it will and is working with Obama. Good debate.
Seaward wrote: I'd expect the race to tighten considerably
I'd expect that after all the noise has gone down that almost nothing has changed. I don't think that anyone is changing their vote based on the debates.
Pretty good debate, though Lehrer did get run over.
I don't think you can say either man won it in a real debate style; but Romney will benefit more from this one.
Especially after last election, everyone's expectations of Obama were high, and he missed or deliberately passed on some juicy opportunities. Mitt's comment on needing a better accountant was leading with the chin for a comment in taxes, paying fair share, tax break for millionaires like himself and Trump, anything like that. Obama didn't mention the 47% stuff either. It really looked like he was trying for the high road, but I think the audience needs a little more red meat and a little more fight.
Romney has an established reputation for stiffness, especially after the Primaries, so if he conducted himself better than he did in the Primaries he'd definitely make himself look better. Which he did. He seemed more relaxed and natural overall, but still got aggressive in some of his language and arguments. He also gets a bump just for appearing on the same stage as the President as an equal. So this will certainly help him. He also got the last word and went fairly aggressive in his closing statements, knowing that Obama wouldn't have the chance to call him on his more sweeping or misleading comments there.
Overall definitely an improvement in his position. I'll look forward to Biden/Ryan too, but not as much as I will to Romney/Obama II. I look forward to seeing how Obama adjusts now that he's got a better sense of what Romney's bringing to the stage.
Seaward wrote: CNN's instant polling results indicate the majority believe Romney pretty well crushed Obama in this one.
I'd expect the race to tighten considerably (if it's not already absurdly tight; using 2008 voting models is a little ridiculous).
Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?
Meanwhile, there's been little to no use of prior turn out models for about a month now. The only major firm still using it is Rasmussen, I believe, and they're rather ludicrously using the 2010 turnouts. Most firms have switched to turnout models based on direct questions of responders (did you vote last election etc). This show Obama with a lead of about 4%, and trending higher.
The debates might change that, something else might change that. But pretending Obama isn't holding a solid lead is inventing your own reality.
Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?
I wouldn't know. My presidential voting record goes Bush - Kerry - Obama. The Republicans know better than to call me.
Meanwhile, there's been little to no use of prior turn out models for about a month now. The only major firm still using it is Rasmussen, I believe, and they're rather ludicrously using the 2010 turnouts. Most firms have switched to turnout models based on direct questions of responders (did you vote last election etc). This show Obama with a lead of about 4%, and trending higher.
No, they're still using ludicrously optimistic D/R/I splits.
The debates might change that, something else might change that. But pretending Obama isn't holding a solid lead is inventing your own reality.
Oh look, it's that myth again. The Republican leadership is really shilling that one to its loyal little soldiers, isn't it?
I wouldn't know. My presidential voting record goes Bush - Kerry - Obama. The Republicans know better than to call me.
Meanwhile, there's been little to no use of prior turn out models for about a month now. The only major firm still using it is Rasmussen, I believe, and they're rather ludicrously using the 2010 turnouts. Most firms have switched to turnout models based on direct questions of responders (did you vote last election etc). This show Obama with a lead of about 4%, and trending higher.
No, they're still using ludicrously optimistic D/R/I splits.
The debates might change that, something else might change that. But pretending Obama isn't holding a solid lead is inventing your own reality.
We'll see, I suppose.
Always amazed at how the people making random phonecalls know just how to call the right ratio of D/R/I to get the favorable polls.
Latest poll results: 100% of media owners were going to call it a Romney victory unless Romney utterly failed, just for the sake of keeping the race "interesting".
Betting markets have Obama moving from about 80% to win into the low 70s, on the back of this debate.
Seaward wrote: I wouldn't know. My presidential voting record goes Bush - Kerry - Obama. The Republicans know better than to call me.
Uh, it doesn't work by having Romney ring up every single person somewhat favourable to him. Its about pundits going on air and selling whatever it is the campaign wants them to sell that particular week. The true believers here it, and they repeat, and it works its way down the line.
You may not be a true believer, but you somehow got told that surveys were using 2008 splits (so don't lose enthusiasm).
No, they're still using ludicrously optimistic D/R/I splits.
You're. Just. Wrong.
They're using splits based on who is likely to vote, based on past voting behaviour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: Indeed. Even the [sarcasm]noted conservative news bastion The L.A. Times is peddling this Republican propaganda[/sarcasm]
Ah, maybe go back and read through the thread again. The Republican peddled myth is over the claim that Obama's present lead in the polls is due to using dodgy likely voter numbers. Your article is over who won the debate, which is something I'm not debating - I haven't even seen the whole of the debate, so I can hardly call a winner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Latest poll results: 100% of media owners were going to call it a Romney victory unless Romney utterly failed, just for the sake of keeping the race "interesting".
To be fair, non-partisan polling immediately after the results showed people giving the result to Romney by a very strong margin.
Okay so what is the truth about the $5 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut Comment? Where is this number derived?
Plus has Mitt Romney published his Tax returns? (Talking about sacking his accountant?) We already know he doesn't care about the bottom 47%? Was he challenged about this? Obama could have buried him, instead he let him off easy.
I have a real problem with the US Media and people in general getting at Cold hard facts. As a long time listener of BBC Radio 4, I am used to having factual well written programmes by professional Journalists (admittedly the BBC is slightly leftward leaning but you can take that into account). I struggle to follow where the line of truth is or even facts? Therefore how can people make an informed decision on who to vote for?
Everything you hear is bent and distorted.
It's just a popularity debate, because without facts how can you make a good decision?
sebster wrote: I've never been able to figure out how that stuff matters.
It doesn't, not statistically anyway. Over time debates have no significant relevance with respect to electoral results, or even generic candidate approval. The main reason being that no one watches them aside from people who have already decided, and a contingent of political junkies. The Nielsen HHS% has, however, gone up lately.
Hell, I don't even watch them. I might read the transcript, but most likely I won't unless someone else starts making noise about it.
Seaward wrote: Yes. Including 2008 voting behavior, which saw turnout we are simply not going to see again anytime soon.
It doesn't mean purely 2008. And there's a range of other questions as well.
feth. Just go read about it. Learn. Don't just sit here hitting reply time after time trying to argue your way out of knowing something new.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mwnciboo wrote: It's just a popularity debate, because without facts how can you make a good decision?
The idea is that for each figure that you feel is important, you go out and read about what fact checkers have to say about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: It doesn't, not statistically anyway. Over time debates have no significant relevance with respect to electoral results, or even generic candidate approval. The main reason being that no one watches them aside from people who have already decided, and a contingent of political junkies. The Nielsen HHS% has, however, gone up lately.
Hell, I don't even watch them. I might read the transcript, but most likely I won't unless someone else starts making noise about it.
Fair point, but I meant in terms to policy. It just seems like if one guy is sitting there talking about sacrificing first born children, and the other guy says 'umm, that's a bad idea because, umm, it's murder' that a lot of people walk away saying 'gee that second was weak because he said umm a lot'.
I don't know if maybe a lot of the detail goes over people's heads so they just go with whoever sounds more confident and leaderly.
On your point more specifically, people are suggesting Obama's strategy here was to do no harm. Get through without giving up any quote that Romney can use in the next few weeks. I'm not sure that is so great a strategy to be honest, as Romney himself proved when he tried to play it safe with his own lead during the primary.
Yes. Including 2008 voting behavior, which saw turnout we are simply not going to see again anytime soon.
Regardless of whether 2008 turnout divisions are unrepeatable, refusing to account for them in any manner is foolish. You might weight them lowly, but you don't just discard them, particularly given how voter turnout in 2008 wasn't anomalous.
The real story is that only about 50% of voters presently identify with a party, according to ANES.
sebster wrote: To be fair, non-partisan polling immediately after the results showed people giving the result to Romney by a very strong margin.
Yeah, I'm talking about the media coverage of the debate. Unless the debate was such an obvious Romney failure that nobody could say "Romney won" with a straight face the coverage was going to be about how Romney did well and can expect to regain some poll numbers, no matter what Obama did. After all, which brings in more sales/advertising money:
"Romney gaining on Obama after solid debate performance, you'd better keep watching us 24/7 so you don't miss a moment of this REALLY EXCITING ELECTION!"
or
"Romney meets low expectations, still a horrible candidate and still going to lose the election, seriously we can't believe there are people who actually think voting for him is a good idea."
There's a limit to how many times you can run a story about "BREAKING NEWS: ROMNEY CAMPAIGN NOT A JOKE, WE ACTUALLY FOUND SOMEONE DUMB ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HIM" before everyone gets bored of the whole thing and stops watching. The media needs to portray it as a close race right up until election day.
Seaward wrote: As for "losing hope," I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, so I'm not particularly hopeful either way.
Seriously, why? This seems like an election where if you're even halfway informed about the issues it's pretty easy to figure out which candidate and party best represent your position. What are you still undecided on?
Seriously, why? This seems like an election where if you're even halfway informed about the issues it's pretty easy to figure out which candidate and party best represent your position.
Not really, no. I don't like voting for unelectable candidates, and I'm a libertarian.
Peregrine wrote: Seriously, why? This seems like an election where if you're even halfway informed about the issues it's pretty easy to figure out which candidate and party best represent your position. What are you still undecided on?
For me part of the problem is that there are so many positions and only two candidates to have an opinion on all of them. So if you are even remotely moderate you are going to have to figure out which areas you are willing to compromise on.
Seaward wrote: Not really, no. I don't like voting for unelectable candidates, and I'm a libertarian.
Oh. I'm sorry. Perhaps you should change your position to a political system that actually works?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: For me part of the problem is that there are so many positions and only two candidates to have an opinion on all of them. So if you are even remotely moderate you are going to have to figure out which areas you are willing to compromise on.
See, I don't understand how that can be true when you have a center-right candidate running against a far-right candidate (sadly the center-left and far-left options are kind of lacking). If you're a moderate you obviously vote for Obama, since he's the only one taking moderate positions. Well, currently at least, I suppose if it was Obama vs. Governor Romney it might be a tough call for someone in the middle of the two, but 2012 Romney? Not really.
See, I don't understand how that can be true when you have a center-right candidate running against a far-right candidate (sadly the center-left and far-left options are kind of lacking). If you're a moderate you obviously vote for Obama, since he's the only one taking moderate positions. Well, currently at least, I suppose if it was Obama vs. Governor Romney it might be a tough call for someone in the middle of the two, but 2012 Romney? Not really.
Obama's not center-right, and Romney's not far-right. You can pretend like you're European all you like, I suppose, but it's useful to use political terms as they operate in this country.
Seaward wrote: I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Ron Paul's not a libertarian, for the record.
It means exactly what I said: libertarianism is a broken political system. It's nice if you're rich and love Ayn Rand*, but libertarianism's ideology would be horrible for a country as a whole. So, you have two options:
The republican party will give you the economic half of libertarianism, but won't give you the social issues. IOW, all of the bad parts but none of the good.
The democratic party will give you some of the social issues, but not the economic ones. IOW, some of the good but none of the bad.
I think the choice is pretty obvious: vote democrat, and give up on your broken ideology.
*Or if you're one of those people who thinks that rebelling against the two-party system by calling yourself a libertarian is cool, but don't actually know what the libertarian party platform is.
Peregrine wrote: Obama's not center-right, and Romney's not far-right. You can pretend like you're European all you like, I suppose, but it's useful to use political terms as they operate in this country.
Except it's not just in European terms. People in the US who are actually on the left of the scale don't like Obama, he's accomplished almost nothing of a real left-wing agenda while pursuing quite a few right-wing policies. At best Obama is a centrist who worships "bipartisanship" too much to hold the center. We only keep voting for him (and other democrats) because the alternative is even worse.
*Or if you're one of those people who thinks that rebelling against the two-party system by calling yourself a libertarian is cool, but don't actually know what the libertarian party platform is.
Wait, you think a political libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party are necessarily the same thing?
Seaward wrote: Wait, you think a political libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party are necessarily the same thing?
Of course not. The Libertarian Party would never be an accurate representation of libertarian beliefs....
Since we've run into the inevitable "no two libertarians agree on what 'libertarianism' consists of" problem, how about you explain what your positions on the major issues are?
Since we've run into the inevitable "no two libertarians agree on what 'libertarianism' consists of" problem, how about you explain what your positions on the major issues are?
Why does it matter? Neither Obama nor Romney encompasses them.
On your point more specifically, people are suggesting Obama's strategy here was to do no harm. Get through without giving up any quote that Romney can use in the next few weeks. I'm not sure that is so great a strategy to be honest, as Romney himself proved when he tried to play it safe with his own lead during the primary.
There's a difference. Romney is down in polls and Obama has incumbent advantage, there is a natural incentive, in this case, to bait the opponent. This has been effective in the sense that Romney has been forced to outline an economic plan.
There is a ton of campaign fodder in Romney's responses that wasn't present before, but very little in Obama's. Romney's trickle-down quote is, to be frank, fething gold.
"So, you don't believe that trickle-down policies are effective?"
According to the London Evening Standard, so many postal votes have already been cast in Florida and Ohio, that the election perhaps was decided before the debates have begun.
Easy E wrote: So, are you saying Romney had to clarify his message more than he has before, and this has left him open to a bludgeoning by the President?
Sort of. Romney needed to make up ground, which basically means appealing to the party, relatively extreme ideological concepts, or a nondescript claims to boost the economy. That's fine, but in doing so he has given the President quite a bit of ammunition.
Another gold line:
But our training programs right now, we got 47 of them housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies.
Apparently private policy affects only private land!
Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land.
1) Regulation is good and there are places where banking reform didn't have enough regulations.
2) The $50,000 standard deduction slip.
3) I will repeal Obamacare, and let the states get Romneycare.
mwnciboo wrote: Okay so what is the truth about the $5 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut Comment? Where is this number derived?
Plus has Mitt Romney published his Tax returns? (Talking about sacking his accountant?) We already know he doesn't care about the bottom 47%? Was he challenged about this? Obama could have buried him, instead he let him off easy.
Wait! I've heard that Obama doesn't willing to do a debate. he wants to celebrate the 20th year of marriage with Michel Obama. If this debate is scheduled next week. are you sure that Obama will 'bury' Romney by then?
sebster wrote: The Republican peddled myth is over the claim that Obama's present lead in the polls is due to using dodgy likely voter numbers. Your article is over who won the debate, which is something I'm not debating
The post in which you brought up myths was in response to a quote from Seaward in which he mentioned who won the debate, though.
mwnciboo wrote: Okay so what is the truth about the $5 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut Comment? Where is this number derived?
Plus has Mitt Romney published his Tax returns? (Talking about sacking his accountant?) We already know he doesn't care about the bottom 47%? Was he challenged about this? Obama could have buried him, instead he let him off easy.
Wait! I've heard that Obama doesn't willing to do a debate. he wants to celebrate the 20th year of marriage with Michel Obama. If this debate is scheduled next week. are you sure that Obama will 'bury' Romney by then?
God help me, I tried to make sense of this. Any takers?
mwnciboo wrote: Okay so what is the truth about the $5 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut Comment? Where is this number derived?
Plus has Mitt Romney published his Tax returns? (Talking about sacking his accountant?) We already know he doesn't care about the bottom 47%? Was he challenged about this? Obama could have buried him, instead he let him off easy.
Wait! I've heard that Obama doesn't willing to do a debate. he wants to celebrate the 20th year of marriage with Michel Obama. If this debate is scheduled next week. are you sure that Obama will 'bury' Romney by then?
God help me, I tried to make sense of this. Any takers?
Have you ever heard of King Double Knives?
Romney released a summary of his tax returns, there's really nothing there for Obama to use. He looked bored, like Bush in the 90's.
Easy E wrote: So, are you saying Romney had to clarify his message more than he has before, and this has left him open to a bludgeoning by the President?
Sort of. Romney needed to make up ground, which basically means appealing to the party, relatively extreme ideological concepts, or a nondescript claims to boost the economy. That's fine, but in doing so he has given the President quite a bit of ammunition.
Yeah, Romney's remained vague on details all along because as soon as clarifies things like which tax deductions he's going to end, he'll start giving ammo to the Dems and start losing votes.
I half-think his camp should have avoided creating even the deductions fairy tale and stayed even vaguer, claiming he can do all of the above just because he's that damn good. I kid, but sharing virtually nothing about details at least makes you slippery and hard to pin down.
If elected, I tend to think one of the unnamed deductions Romney will change is the one for mortgage interest. Which will slam this middle class guy pretty good, I can tell you that.
anniversaries, grandmother's and children were mnetioned. You could form up a regular family reunion with all the family nonsense both of them spat out.
Frazzled at the debate:
Opponent: "Well, we are having our anniversary today. Hi wife!"
Frazzled:" Way to suck up there Bob. What a wuss. "
Moderator: "and now candidate X. "
Frazzled interjecting: "just call him candidate PW'd."
Moderator: "er, as I was sayi"
Frazzled: "girly boy."
Moderator: "er, Mr. Frazzled"
Frazzled:"probably wears a skirt at home."
Moderator: "um"
Frazzled: "TBone's gonna make you his girlfriend."
Moderator: "thats it, I'm out."
Frazzled:"Just you and me now boy. You sure got a purty mouth."
Candidate concedes.
AustonT wrote: Romney released a summary of his tax returns, there's really nothing there for Obama to use. He looked bored, like Bush in the 90's.
You mean the summary going way back to 2011? And, I think either Romney and Obama can find something besides Tax returns to harp on about; it seems a bit odd to plant the axis of the discussion on that.
Everyone knew it was his anniversery so I don't think it was that big of a deal to say it. I think what is important is that his daughters weren't there, o that must mean they hate him, and will sway many votes.
Do you think the accusations of Romney being soft on Wall St, tough on Sesame St. will have any impact ?
For me I think the only people this was likely to swing are either A. Not old enough to vote or B. Going against him anyway, their "loss" already having been calculated.
From the clips got to say this is the first time that Romney came across as actually being really capable of doing the job and perhaps more importantly even wanting the job.
I don't think it was a disaster for Obama -- although I would suggest he lost "on points" on the night, perhaps, -- but I think it's somewhat telling that there seems almost like a sense of relief that Romney didn't screw up which I don't think bodes well overall for him.
But if he can do as well, or better in the next 2 appearances then I think he's given himself at least a fighting chance. Which given that at times his campaign has looked so dead that the Mormon church was going to baptise it ,is a positive for him.
AustonT wrote: Romney released a summary of his tax returns, there's really nothing there for Obama to use. He looked bored, like Bush in the 90's.
You mean the summary going way back to 2011?
What rock have you been under?
LA Times wrote:Mitt Romney will release his 2011 tax return Friday, as well as a summary of his returns for the past two decades, the campaign announced.
AustonT wrote: Romney released a summary of his tax returns, there's really nothing there for Obama to use. He looked bored, like Bush in the 90's.
You mean the summary going way back to 2011?
What rock have you been under?
Sorry, misread that you meant he actually released the returns, not a summary. It has been discussed already why a summary isn't the same thing and how it still really doesn't change the fundamental point of the accusations being leveled.
AustonT wrote: Romney released a summary of his tax returns, there's really nothing there for Obama to use. He looked bored, like Bush in the 90's.
You mean the summarygoing way back to 2011?
What rock have you been under?
Sorry, misread that you meant he actually released the returns, not a summary.
uh huh.
It has been discussed already why a summary isn't the same thing and how it still really doesn't change the fundamental point of the accusations being leveled.
What fundamental point was that? That he hadn't paid taxes in 10 years, pretty sure that was bunked pretty clearly by the summary.
Y'know, I remember sitting in the pizza shop watching the VP debates in highschool. I found these so great. but this election seems so stale and full of empty promises from both side.
I didnt even bother to watch this.
Although Romney will have to deal with hordes of angry mothers if he cancels Sesame street.
labmouse42 wrote: I grew up with Sesame street. I cannot image it ever getting cancelled. My kids today love it.
Romeny said a lot of things I was on board with -- but this was a deal breaker for me.
The CBP only puts up about 15% of funding for public broadcasters. Removing Federal funding is not a death nell to PBS or NPR. If education or public safety get cut to balance budgets CBP should not be sacrosanct.
whembly wrote: Okay... from my twitter feed... "When you've lost Bill Maher... “@billmaher: i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter” "
K... going back to work...
The thing is, Obama had a 'gimmie' at this debate. All he had to do was attack the Romney who spoke during the Republican primaries and not what Romney said at the debate.
If Romney said "That's not my plan", Obama should have replied "Really? On date 'X', you said 'Y'. Are you flip-flopping?"
Romney has been so inconsistant in his past that painting him to look bad is not hard.
The problem is Obama just kept repeating his talking points instead of going after the other guy -- where Romney was not afraid to do so. That's why Obama lost this debate IMHO.
Sadly, Romney lost me when he went after Big Bird. I could agree with a lot of his points, but why kill PBS, when instead we could remove ONE A-10 from our fleet to cover a year of PBS. PBS is a bargin for what it provides.
Believe what you want, but I was reading multiple things at once and screwed up the reading. It said summary, but when I scanned it I read it as returns in my head. Not being a top multitasker today, and I admitted my error. No need to attribute to malice that which explained by a moment of stupidity.
AustonT wrote: What fundamental point was that? That he hadn't paid taxes in 10 years, pretty sure that was bunked pretty clearly by the summary.
See, this may be where we were referring to two different things. You are thinking of the idiotic Harry Reid statement where I am referring to the accusations that he is hiding money overseas instead of 'trickling down' his golden shower, as well as showing all the loopholes and deductions.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Debates wise I think it's clear that Romney won this one. Which is to say he won the "Special Olympics of Debating"
How did we end up with either of these clowns for the highest public office in the land?
I doubt either of these punks could last a single thread in the Dakka OT
Note that neither can take a "WAAC" approach to "winning" the debate, because that's not the point. The point is getting elected, and to that end each candidate is coming into the debate with his own goals.
labmouse42 wrote: I grew up with Sesame street. I cannot image it ever getting cancelled. My kids today love it.
Romeny said a lot of things I was on board with -- but this was a deal breaker for me.
Then why don't you support it directly instead of depending on other people to do it?
Big Bird is a smokescreen like candidate X wanting to killgrandmothers and candidate Y wanting to eat babies. Ok maybe not the baby part.
labmouse42 wrote: The thing is, Obama had a 'gimmie' at this debate. All he had to do was attack the Romney who spoke during the Republican primaries and not what Romney said at the debate.
If Romney said "That's not my plan", Obama should have replied "Really? On date 'X', you said 'Y'. Are you flip-flopping?"
Romney has been so inconsistant in his past that painting him to look bad is not hard.
The problem is Obama just kept repeating his talking points instead of going after the other guy -- where Romney was not afraid to do so. That's why Obama lost this debate IMHO.
He didn't need to at this point. He just needed to state his own positions clearly here. No sense in playing the flip-flop card this early and letting him turn it back to you on the last debate. You nail the other guy on flip-flopping in the last debate, just before the election. Let that be the last thing that the undecideds remember.
I agree with what either Dogma or Ahtman said earlier, it doesn't really matter at this point. The people that watched last night pretty much know who they're voting for or are debate/election junkies.
I've been sticking all my spare money on Obama whenever it gets to the end of a month and I've got spare cash in my paddy power account.
I got £230 on him at 4/7 and 2/5... the last few months, I think I started betting in about May and I got the idea after....er.. Biccat I think... Said he would bet a battle force with someone that Romney would win, and then I checked the odds online and thought "feth it, thats worth some cash!"
He's now 1/4 so betting has stopped, It ain't THAT certain.
Anyway, I have more faith in Americans than the rest of Europe after knowing them so well. I backed Obama last time and he came in, I'm hoping for the same again.
Which is sad really.. because I'm pretty right wing. I lean very Conservative, but however you slice it, the Republican Party in America is a whole different animal, it has now been hijacked by Religious zealots, and Religious zealots only make up about 30% of Americans. Ergo, I believe that Obama will still win regardless of defeat in the debate, I think that 99% of people know who they are now going to vote for anyway, so I really don't think that they make too large a difference to the end result.
At least I hope not, I'll have less money for booze this Christmas!
Is this the point in the conversation where you just unilateral decide to start being a dick again?
Probably.
I'm sorry that I was reading multiple things at once and got ahead of myself and screwed up, and then had the temerity to admit that I did something wrong.
You made an excuse that doesn't really jive with what I see, so I highlighted it.
I can only hope that you will never know what it is like to be in error, as obliviously you are without sin, being perfect in both word and deed.
Indeed, many is the person who has commented I may be the second coming of Jesus.
AustonT wrote: What fundamental point was that? That he hadn't paid taxes in 10 years, pretty sure that was bunked pretty clearly by the summary.
See, this may be where we were referring to two different things. You are thinking of the idiotic Harry Reid statement where I am referring to the accusations that he is hiding money overseas instead of 'trickling down' his golden shower.
Oh those are separate now?
Harry Ried wrote:"Instead of owning up to his use of secret offshore tax havens in places like Bermuda and Switzerland to enrich himself, Mitt Romney parsed words to try and convince the American people that he did not benefit from these havens - when in fact, he appears to have made millions from them over the course of his career,"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: I backed Obama last time and he came in, I'm hoping for the same again.
PHILISTINE!
Religious zealots only make up about 30% of Americans. Ergo, I believe that Obama will still win regardless of defeat in the debate
Not all of those religious zealots vote R eitherm only increasing your odds.
Yes. The difference being that one was a question multiple people were asking, and the other was the fever dream of Harry Reid. I don't think any reasonable person believed that Romney never paid any taxes.
Yes. The difference being that one was a question multiple people were asking, and the other was the fever dream of Harry Reid. I don't think any reasonable person believed that Romney never paid any taxes.
Right, totally unrelated /rollseyes. Will you be making some sort of point? Or are you just angry the Mittens makes money and pays taxes on it?
Frazzled wrote: anniversaries, grandmother's and children were mnetioned. You could form up a regular family reunion with all the family nonsense both of them spat out.
Frazzled at the debate:
Opponent: "Well, we are having our anniversary today. Hi wife!"
Frazzled:" Way to suck up there Bob. What a wuss. "
Moderator: "and now candidate X. "
Frazzled interjecting: "just call him candidate PW'd."
Moderator: "er, as I was sayi"
Frazzled: "girly boy."
Moderator: "er, Mr. Frazzled"
Frazzled:"probably wears a skirt at home."
Moderator: "um"
Frazzled: "TBone's gonna make you his girlfriend."
Moderator: "thats it, I'm out."
Frazzled:"Just you and me now boy. You sure got a purty mouth."
Candidate concedes.
Mate, Its alright for you Yank soldiers. I don't think I ever met a single Dem in all my time amongst you, but we Brits can't handle all that Jesus! I might be pretty right wing, but I detest organised Religion, I think it is the worst thing plaguing the world at this moment in time, especially in America. The problem is, you can be right wing in the UK, and still believe in the core of that ethos (being tough on crime and immigration, minimising the welfare state, being fiscally conservative, having a strong military etc) and still believe in liberty, not so in the "land of the free" where the word conservative has been hijacked by Christianity.
Can you honestly say that the most Religious Republicans agree with things like a womans right to choose or gay rights? They are fundamentally linked. If you are a proper Church going Christian in America and you are 100% behind equality for the LGBT community, or 100% behind a woman's right to have an abortion, then you are basically cracking your own detail and making your own Religion up.
They can equivocate and fence sit and water down your answers much as they like, the facts are on my side. These are issues that the Religious lobby in the States are absolutely crystal clear about. Also, 35-40% of Americans believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old. Can you really bring yourself to side with them?
Now, I like John McCain despite it all. We were voting for him up until Mungo (Palin) turned up and my missus had to scratch her vote, she went for an independant cos she liked Hilary.
So no big fans of BO here... but this time around, Its Obama all the way, much as I dislike the man.
At the end of the day, Its the choice between a relatively normal guy I don't like at all, and an MMM, who leads a party that has a genuinely sizeable percentage of members want to turn America into a Theocracy. Oh sure they love to harp on about freedom and liberty, until they get the opportunity to go on and on and on about Jesus. If it was down to people like Roy Blunt or Tom Coburn or Roger Wicker they would gleefully ban abortions for everyone, make it illegal.
And "liberty" be damned.
And I can't even keep a straight face with Mormons. I find it even more amusing that they think they can mock scientologists, when the latter is only 0.1% more ridiculous than the former.
Mate, Its alright for you Yank soldiers. I don't think I ever met a single Dem in all my time amongst you, but we Brits can't handle all that Jesus!
I've met a few Dems, but for obvious reasons I've just met a lot more US soldiers. Thinking back the last chaplain I knew on active duty was an Anglican, which I thought was kind of weird. Beside the point. The first thing he said in front of our BN was to ask who was from Michigan and jokingly (I hope) damned them to hell. I think in the .mil we tolerate religion more than we accept it, I'd have to say from my experience that religion was less prevalent than what I have experienced in civilian life since leaving.
Can you honestly say that the most Religious Republicans agree with things like a womans right to choose or gay rights? They are fundamentally linked. If you are a proper Church going Christian in America and you are 100% behind equality for the LGBT community, or 100% behind a woman's right to have an abortion, then you are basically cracking your own detail and making your own Religion up.
They can equivocate and fence sit and water down your answers much as they like, the facts are on my side. These are issues that the Religious lobby in the States are absolutely crystal clear about. Also, 35-40% of Americans believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old. Can you really bring yourself to side with them?
I can't speak for most Religious Republicans, but I'll say for my own part I don't 100% support abortion or gay rights. I'm no particular friend to the gay community. I don't understand nor do I particularly approve of homosexuality nor do I find abortion morally acceptable. I still support, almost militantly, the right to choose abortion and equal rights and protections for gays. I believe as many before me did that politics and religion make strange bedfellows. You are correct in saying I cannot support certain causes 100% and maintain my belief system, you are incorrect in saying I have to choose one or the other. There are plenty of pro-life and pro-gay Christian Democrats.
I don't identify with the Religious lobby and no I can't side with people who genuinely believe the earth is 6000 years old and then take their kids to the museum to see the dinosaurs. It takes a special kind of idiot...
What's especially dangerous to me, is that there is a growing Religious Left. I fear that the growth of such a group may cause the Democrats to move right rather than the Republicans to move left. In a perfect world ( or a parliamentary democracy) the Religious lobby could splinter off into it's own party centered around the abrogation of rights, bigotry, and other nonsense. Back in the real world the Republicans are wearing the anchor of the religious right around their ankle and wading into the ocean, while the Democrats are on the beach stripping and hooking up the religious left.
AustonT wrote: Back in the real world the Republicans are wearing the anchor of the religious right around their ankle and wading into the ocean, while the Democrats are on the beach stripping and hooking up the religious left.
I like that quote.
The point is, I suppose I'm what you lads call a libertarian. Obviously I'm not gay, or interested in any of the scene or anything, I like bitter, dingy pubs with no juke box and war movies. Not flamboyance and wigs.
I just don't think if you aren't Religious you can possibly give that much of a gak about what other people get up to.
I don't really understand the whole LGBT thing at all, but the point is, if something is between two consenting adults, or just involves you and your family, then I don't see what that has got to do with anyone else.
As I said, I identify myself as being conservative, firmly centre of the right, and from getting to know you on here, we probably agree on 99% of points politically, but that anchor you are talking about is what makes the Republicans in the States unelectable for a centre right conservative like me. The more right of centre parties in the UK just don't have that Religious anchor involved in the equation. I find three individual things particularly repellent for example, and that is the Christian (and therefore the upper echelons of the Republican party) views on gays, abortion and euthanasia. All three of those things I feel extremely strongly about because I think they only involve the individuals. A person suffering from cancer wants to die? That's their decision. A bird wants an abortion? Thats her decision. 5 gay men want to lube up, put on some Right Said Fred, spank their parts with a hot baguette and then daisy chain around their apartment? Nothing to do with me.
And isnt sticking your fething nose in on gak like that the exact opposite of "freedom" and "liberty" doesn't it make a mockery of their claims about "small government" when they think they can tell you what you can do with your own ovaries, what you can stick your own balls in, and when your allowed to end your own life?!
I identify and agree with a great many things that the American right say, I agree with less assistance from the state, I constantly slate the waste of the British NHS and the welfare state. I support that "get up and go" mentality they have in the States far more than the "I hope the government can help me" attitude of the left, I just can't get past that narrow interpretation of the Bible that stands in front of the Republicans, and therefore support the dishonest and charmless Mr Obama.
Really, a cursory Google and a number of websites fact check debates.
Also, politicians tend to be good at telling the truth---politically. So, like all of the forwards a person receives from dear Auntie May--there is enough truth sprinkled in the lie that any declaration that is was a 'lie' can be obfuscated by repeating the kernel of truth. Pointing out why the half truth is essentially false takes time and energy, something most working folks/parents do not have enough of.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, I'm talking about the media coverage of the debate. Unless the debate was such an obvious Romney failure that nobody could say "Romney won" with a straight face the coverage was going to be about how Romney did well and can expect to regain some poll numbers, no matter what Obama did.
It isn't that bad. But I agree with the general idea that Romney's win will be overstated in the next week or so, because it's a better story than 'debate happened, won't change anything'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Ron Paul's not a libertarian, for the record.
No-one with any meaningful political power ever is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: There's a difference. Romney is down in polls and Obama has incumbent advantage, there is a natural incentive, in this case, to bait the opponent. This has been effective in the sense that Romney has been forced to outline an economic plan.
There is a ton of campaign fodder in Romney's responses that wasn't present before, but very little in Obama's. Romney's trickle-down quote is, to be frank, fething gold.
"So, you don't believe that trickle-down policies are effective?"
Yeah, it made me think of Carter v Ford, the meaningful part to come out of those debates was Ford saying Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet domination. No-one picked up on it at the time, the debate just moved on. Even in the post-debate coverage no-one mentioned it.
But then the Carter campaign picked up on it, made it a thing, and Ford handled it badly in the following weeks, and it became the part of the debates that really mattered.
Romney's efforts last night, 'clarifying' a lot of his positions by basically backing away from stuff he'd said previously, well it got him a good result on the night, but I suspect it might leave the door open for Obama to really hammer him on the etcha sketch thing from now on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: The post in which you brought up myths was in response to a quote from Seaward in which he mentioned who won the debate, though.
But the myth I specifically mentioned was the claim that polls are misleading because the turnout estimates are skewed, so keep faith troops, and keep making those calls and knocking on those doors.
I mean, just go back and read my response, its quite clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: anniversaries, grandmother's and children were mnetioned. You could form up a regular family reunion with all the family nonsense both of them spat out.
At some point some genius figured out that candidates that appeared human and more like us we're more likely to score the votes of idiots. Ever since then we've been getting press releases about the name of the President's family pet, and wedding anniversaries and whatever else.
God damn, I long for the days when the president could be a closet homosexual, and no-one would know or care to find out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: The CBP only puts up about 15% of funding for public broadcasters. Removing Federal funding is not a death nell to PBS or NPR. If education or public safety get cut to balance budgets CBP should not be sacrosanct.
And that amount is utterly trivial in the context of the national debt. I couldn't believe it when Romney started talking about such pointless non-money amounts. Like if I asked the wife how we were going to get the household budget in order and she said she was going to stop buying cotton wipes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote: Sadly, Romney lost me when he went after Big Bird. I could agree with a lot of his points, but why kill PBS, when instead we could remove ONE A-10 from our fleet to cover a year of PBS. PBS is a bargin for what it provides.
Exactly. Romney wants 2 trillion more in defence expenditure, but thinks you can't afford Sesame Street.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Right, totally unrelated /rollseyes. Will you be making some sort of point? Or are you just angry the Mittens makes money and pays taxes on it?
Jesus dude, the guy made a mistake then owned up to it. Stop being an ass.
Exactly. Romney wants 2 trillion more in defence expenditure, but thinks you can't afford Sesame Street.
To be fair, there is a good argument that PBS would be better off if it didn't take government money because it wouldn't have to deal with being a political football. The same for NPR.
Exactly. Romney wants 2 trillion more in defence expenditure, but thinks you can't afford Sesame Street.
To be fair, there is a good argument that PBS would be better off if it didn't take government money because it wouldn't have to deal with being a political football. The same for NPR.
Yeah... then they can do whatever they want... oh, wait!
IOW, our government's gift to the insurance industry, and pretty much what the republican party wanted until they realized they could use it against Obama in 2010.
But yeah, we'd better get rid of it ASAP, we can't have people actually getting treatment they couldn't otherwise afford. We'd better make sure they die so we can spend that money on expanding the military. After all, the US navy is at its smallest since WWI, and we can't let a mere weak economy stop us from buying more battleships!
IOW, our government's gift to the insurance industry, and pretty much what the republican party wanted until they realized they could use it against Obama in 2010.
But yeah, we'd better get rid of it ASAP, we can't have people actually getting treatment they couldn't otherwise afford. We'd better make sure they die so we can spend that money on expanding the military. After all, the US navy is at its smallest since WWI, and we can't let a mere weak economy stop us from buying more battleships!
Are there any other private products you'd be comfortable with the government mandating you must purchase just because you choose to continue to keep living?
If you want everyone to have health insurance, hand everyone health insurance. A half-assed, chickengak measure like the ACA, though? feth that.
After all, the US navy is at its smallest since WWI, and we can't let a mere weak economy stop us from buying more battleships!
Didn't we mothballed all our Battleships? Besides once we pull out of Afghanistan all the "plus up" brigades will deactivate and go back to the 10 divisions (Army) that Clinton implemented. As for the funding to support two wars it was borrowed money.
Seaward wrote: If you want everyone to have health insurance, hand everyone health insurance. A half-assed, chickengak measure like the ACA, though? feth that.
I agree that the ACA sucks and we need to just have a national health care system. However, it's the best our spineless representatives were able to get, and far better than nothing. Repealing ACA because it's not good enough is just acting out of childish spite, especially since the law also included some extremely important reforms along with the mandatory insurance.
Jihadin wrote: Didn't we mothballed all our Battleships? Besides once we pull out of Afghanistan all the "plus up" brigades will deactivate and go back to the 10 divisions (Army) that Clinton implemented. As for the funding to support two wars it was borrowed money.
Of course, that's exactly the point. Romney's claim that the navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 is painfully stupid. However, since he thinks that the 1917 navy is better, it's not entirely unreasonable to think that he'd like to commission some new battleships with the savings from all the social programs he wants to kill. Why let a trivial detail like the fact that battleships are worthless get in the way of anything?
Peregrine wrote: I agree that the ACA sucks and we need to just have a national health care system. However, it's the best our spineless representatives were able to get, and far better than nothing. Repealing ACA because it's not good enough is just acting out of childish spite, especially since the law also included some extremely important reforms along with the mandatory insurance.
I don't want to repeal it because it's not good enough, I want to repeal it because it's a gross violation of personal liberty.
Peregrine wrote: I agree that the ACA sucks and we need to just have a national health care system. However, it's the best our spineless representatives were able to get, and far better than nothing. Repealing ACA because it's not good enough is just acting out of childish spite, especially since the law also included some extremely important reforms along with the mandatory insurance.
I don't want to repeal it because it's not good enough, I want to repeal it because it's a gross violation of personal liberty.
And this is why libertarianism is a broken political system, it puts abstract ideas like "personal liberty" above whether or not the results of something are good. It's the reason why pragmatic politicians run the government, and libertarians just post on internet forums.
Pragmatic politicians? What planet are you living on? Politicians in the United States only exist to increase their personal power and wealth. They give not one single damn about you or any one else in this country.
Peregrine wrote: And this is why libertarianism is a broken political system, it puts abstract ideas like "personal liberty" above whether or not the results of something are good.
Sort of like the Constitution.
It's the reason why pragmatic politicians run the government, and libertarians just post on internet forums.
Yeah, I don't think you want to go down the "pragmatic politicians seeking 'good' outcomes" route, unless you haven't bothered to think it through. Bush gave us the Patriot Act and justifications for the use of torture in search of a good outcome. McCarthy gave us HUAC infamy in search of a good outcome. Some pragmatic guys over in Europe and Asia have tried that line of reasoning before, too. You've heard of them.
If you, as you say, genuinely don't value personal liberty, that's fine. Hopefully you'll understand my disdain at needing the government to get you where you want to go in life.
dogma wrote: To be fair, there is a good argument that PBS would be better off if it didn't take government money because it wouldn't have to deal with being a political football. The same for NPR.
Which is a reasonable argument for improving NPR and PBS. But as answer to the deficit...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Voting for Romney and hoping he has long, broad coattails is, unfortunately, the only way the ACA has a prayer of being repealed.
"If you don't like the ACA and believe in magic then vote for Romney!"
"What if I don't believe in magic and understand it is beyond the powers of a president to repeal legislation already signed into power by congress?"
"Well then you're fethed."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I don't want to repeal it because it's not good enough, I want to repeal it because it's a gross violation of personal liberty.
Yeah, see, that thing where you choose ideological purity over and above things that work in the real world? That's why libertarians are irrelevant.
Meanwhile, there's a significant problem in the US with private insurers denying coverage to people on any grounds they can muster (usually pre-existing conditions), once they see the cost of coverage is more than they'd like to pay, or just because their genetic make up looks like they'll cost too much in the long run. The solution is to stop insurers denying coverage to people who have such pre-existing conditions. Unforunately, that means people can just wait until they're sick before they get coverage, so there's a system in place to make sure healthy people who haven't taken out insurance pay into the system.
You have a problem with this, because you don't like having to pay money when government tells you to. So what's your alternative solution?
Exactly. The Constitution is a useful document, nothing more. It has value so long as it accomplishes useful things, but absolutely none in any inherent sense. People who worship it as the absolute truth and god's gift to his chosen people are just as bad as libertarians, and just as irrelevant.
Yeah, I don't think you want to go down the "pragmatic politicians seeking 'good' outcomes" route, unless you haven't bothered to think it through. Bush gave us the Patriot Act and justifications for the use of torture in search of a good outcome. McCarthy gave us HUAC infamy in search of a good outcome. Some pragmatic guys over in Europe and Asia have tried that line of reasoning before, too. You've heard of them.
Ok, so what harm does the ACA cause that's comparable to torture? Having to pay a tax if you don't buy insurance, alongside all of your other taxes?
If you, as you say, genuinely don't value personal liberty, that's fine. Hopefully you'll understand my disdain at needing the government to get you where you want to go in life.
I value personal liberty when personal liberty accomplishes a beneficial goal. I don't value personal liberty just for the sake of personal liberty. That's the kind of reasoning I leave for the idiots who oppose seatbelt laws because they deprive them of the "personal liberty" to die (or worse, be horribly injured) in a car crash.
Peregrine wrote: Exactly. The Constitution is a useful document, nothing more. It has value so long as it accomplishes useful things, but absolutely none in any inherent sense. People who worship it as the absolute truth and god's gift to his chosen people are just as bad as libertarians, and just as irrelevant.
At this point, I'd recommend a remedial Civics class. The Constitution has considerably more weight in the governance on this country than as a useful document that can be discarded at a moment's notice when we want to do something that runs contrary to it. I say this in all seriousness: if you're unaware of the Constitution's role in law-making in this country, you need to go into class tomorrow and smack your teachers.
Ok, so what harm does the ACA cause that's comparable to torture? Having to pay a tax if you don't buy insurance, alongside all of your other taxes?
Precedent is the harm that it sets.
I value personal liberty when personal liberty accomplishes a beneficial goal. I don't value personal liberty just for the sake of personal liberty. That's the kind of reasoning I leave for the idiots who oppose seatbelt laws because they deprive them of the "personal liberty" to die (or worse, be horribly injured) in a car crash.
Are you under the impression that we're desperately lacking humans on this planet or something? That we have to work to keep our population up?
So, in not valuing personal liberty for the sake of personal liberty, let me put this hypothetical to you: if I could guarantee you a utopian society in return for the surrendering of your right to free speech, you'd take that deal?
Seaward wrote: At this point, I'd recommend a remedial Civics class. The Constitution has considerably more weight in the governance on this country than as a useful document that can be discarded at a moment's notice when we want to do something that runs contrary to it. I say this in all seriousness: if you're unaware of the Constitution's role in law-making in this country, you need to go into class tomorrow and smack your teachers.
Congratulations on missing the point. I'm well aware of how it's been used in the past, that doesn't mean it has some inherent value beyond the fact that it's been a useful tool in governance so far, or that anything that seems to violate the constitution is automatically wrong.
Precedent is the harm that it sets.
Precedence for WHAT? What exactly does ACA allow that isn't already allowed?
Are you under the impression that we're desperately lacking humans on this planet or something? That we have to work to keep our population up?
No, which is why I support proper sex education, availability of birth control, and efforts to improve standards of living (which tends to drop birth rates). I strongly oppose the idea that we should allow insurance company profits to act as a form of population control where people who can afford health care live, while anyone who can't dies in horrible ways.
So, in not valuing personal liberty for the sake of personal liberty, let me put this hypothetical to you: if I could guarantee you a utopian society in return for the surrendering of your right to free speech, you'd take that deal?
No, because that wouldn't be a utopian society.
Is it really that hard to tell the difference between valuing personal liberty that benefits me and making a pointless ideological stand for personal "liberties" like the right to refuse to wear a seatbelt and die?
Peregrine wrote: Congratulations on missing the point. I'm well aware of how it's been used in the past, that doesn't mean it has some inherent value beyond the fact that it's been a useful tool in governance so far, or that anything that seems to violate the constitution is automatically wrong.
Anything that violates the Constitution is, in fact, automatically wrong, under our system of law. That's largely why we have the Supreme Court - to determine if something is constitutional or not. Again, I would strongly suggest learning how our government functions and the principles upon which it was established.
Precedence for WHAT? What exactly does ACA allow that isn't already allowed?
Government mandates to purchase products from private companies for no other reason than existing.
No, which is why I support proper sex education, availability of birth control, and efforts to improve standards of living (which tends to drop birth rates). I strongly oppose the idea that we should allow insurance company profits to act as a form of population control where people who can afford health care live, while anyone who can't dies in horrible ways.
And so you think forcing everyone to buy health insurance regardless is a good solution? I'd laugh, but I'm terribly afraid you're serious.
No, because that wouldn't be a utopian society.
Why would it not be a utopian society? I told you it would be utopian; you would not need to speak out against anything in a utopian society, so what good would free speech do you?
Is it really that hard to tell the difference between valuing personal liberty that benefits me and making a pointless ideological stand for personal "liberties" like the right to refuse to wear a seatbelt and die?
Yes, it is, because it's an extremely short-sighted and naive view. Threats to liberties we value in this country - speech, religion, whatever you choose to name - never come as big, monolithic changes. They're small, and quiet. A suspension of habeus corpus under Lincoln here, a decision that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is acceptable under Bush there. They're always one step in a path, never a leap.
There's always a rationale for the common good to get rid of damn near any personal liberty out there. Many have been used, in this country and in others, successfully. If we used your "for the good of society" test to determine whether or not we're free to do as we like, the list of things we would NOT be allowed to do would be massive.
Seaward wrote: Anything that violates the Constitution is, in fact, automatically wrong, under our system of law. That's largely why we have the Supreme Court - to determine if something is constitutional or not. Again, I would strongly suggest learning how our government functions and the principles upon which it was established.
Legalism is a terrible ethical system. I don't care if it's legal, what I'm talking about is whether it is right.
And so you think forcing everyone to buy health insurance regardless is a good solution? I'd laugh, but I'm terribly afraid you're serious.
Do you even know what the ACA does?
Why would it not be a utopian society? I told you it would be utopian; you would not need to speak out against anything in a utopian society, so what good would free speech do you?
Because freedom of speech is part of utopia, in my opinion. It's like saying "imagine a utopian society in which you are tortured constantly", you might call it "utopian" but it isn't.
Yes, it is, because it's an extremely short-sighted and naive view. Threats to liberties we value in this country - speech, religion, whatever you choose to name - never come as big, monolithic changes. They're small, and quiet. A suspension of habeus corpus under Lincoln here, a decision that wiretapping Americans without a warrant is acceptable under Bush there. They're always one step in a path, never a leap.
And there you go again with your poor comparisons. There's a huge difference between those things you're talking about and the "liberty" that only people who blindly obsess over liberty to the exclusion of all else care about. You can make a stand on principle if you like, just like the people who protest seatbelt laws because they want the liberty to die pointlessly, but that doesn't mean you have a reasonable position.
The simple fact is that the ACA doesn't present any meaningful threat to liberty, it's just another tax.
There's always a rationale for the common good to get rid of damn near any personal liberty out there. Many have been used, in this country and in others, successfully. If we used your "for the good of society" test to determine whether or not we're free to do as we like, the list of things we would NOT be allowed to do would be massive.
I would like to throw this in the ring, IMHO two major things I hear frequently from American's when they argue about their Political parties is:-
1. The Healthcare Situation.
2. Small vs Large Government.
Point 2 is something I think that most countries debate and fight with to achieve a sense of Balance.
Point 1 to me is the one I really despair at. In Europe we don't have the vast Wealth of the USA, although we are still wealthy compared to other area's of the world (inspite of the current Euro Crisis).
I find it difficult to comprehend, how Britain with such a small Population, tiny Land mass and GDP in comparison with the USA can afford a National Health Service for all, with a general across the board satisfactory or good in all areas. I do understand that the US believes it has the "Best healthcare in the World" but my argument is about "Provision" not "Quality". The NHS might have it's share of problems but it's provision of service and level of service it provides is quite simply superb.
Alot of richer folk also pay extra into the system under BUPA to get better levels of service (private rooms, en suite etc), we also have private medical practices (the likes of Harley Street etc in London), we also have World Beating Institutions like Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) which is a World Centre for Excellence in Child Care (some one will now spout off about John Hopkins in the US) but the fact is GOSH is World Class and World Leading. We treat children there from round the globe, through diplomatic channels and Charities. It takes money from the Government, Charities and estates given to it.
If we hadn't created the NHS we would have ended up with a Lower Class, ill- health Ghetto riddled with things like rickets, polio, whooping cough. To me it is a shining achievement in the post war era in the UK.
Canada has a sophisticated Healthcare system too, Why is the USA so reticent to provide for it's people. What happened to the Noble USA, that welcomed all to the land of the Brave and free?
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, But if you aren't wealthy I shall cast you aside to die an ignoble, lonely, cold and unworthy death"
Equally I wonder just how much the USA needs to spend on Defence systems? How can such an amazing country, which I admire in many respects, be so backward in so many other ways?
Peregrine wrote: Legalism is a terrible ethical system. I don't care if it's legal, what I'm talking about is whether it is right.
And I don't think it's right for the government to force me to buy something because it feels I need it.
Do you even know what the ACA does?
Yes. Do you?
Because freedom of speech is part of utopia, in my opinion.
Why? Why is freedom of speech important, since we're on the topic of personal liberty? You said earlier that you'd have no problem with giving up personal liberties as long as the outcome was good; I'm curious why the freedom of speech isn't included in that?
And there you go again with your poor comparisons. There's a huge difference between those things you're talking about and the "liberty" that only people who blindly obsess over liberty to the exclusion of all else care about.
No, there isn't.
You can make a stand on principle if you like, just like the people who protest seatbelt laws because they want the liberty to die pointlessly, but that doesn't mean you have a reasonable position.
Yes, they do. Do you believe Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide? If someone wishes to die, should they be free to do so?
The simple fact is that the ACA doesn't present any meaningful threat to liberty, it's just another tax.
mwnciboo wrote: Canada has a sophisticated Healthcare system too, Why is the USA so reticent to provide for it's people. What happened to the Noble USA, that welcomed all to the land of the Brave and free?
You don't even have to look outside the US to make that an awkward question. Just ask why the republican party, the most loudly pro-military "support our troops" side, feels that government-provided healthcare is good enough for our troops, but the worst thing ever for the rest of the country? Why do they force our brave defenders to face the death panels?
If you ever get an adequate answer to that, I'd love to know.
Apparently you don't, because you missed the reforms it enacted to limit the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage (which effectively means denying treatment) to people they would otherwise dismiss as "too expensive". You know, reforms that actually keep people from dying.
Why? Why is freedom of speech important, since we're on the topic of personal liberty? You said earlier that you'd have no problem with giving up personal liberties as long as the outcome was good; I'm curious why the freedom of speech isn't included in that?
Because I want the ability to say whatever I want without fear of persecution.
Why is it really that hard to see how this is different from a liberty-in-name-only like the "right" to not wear a seatbelt and die because of my own stupidity?
Yes, they do. Do you believe Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide? If someone wishes to die, should they be free to do so?
Err, lol?
Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide in limited cases. It only applies to people suffering from a terminal disease who are about to die slowly and painfully anyway.
The "right" to do suicidally stupid things is entirely different. You aren't giving yourself a merciful end and avoiding a horrifyingly painful death, you're throwing away your life because you're too stubborn to wear a seatbelt (something which doesn't harm you in any way). Only an idiot would think that's a "right" in any meaningful sense.
And it's even a stupid comparison if you believe in a right to suicide. You might have a right to end your own life, but you don't have a right to do so in a way that gives society a huge bill for your hospital trip as the doctors desperately try to save you.
Peregrine wrote: Apparently you don't, because you missed the reforms it enacted to limit the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage (which effectively means denying treatment) to people they would otherwise dismiss as "too expensive". You know, reforms that actually keep people from dying.
No, I'm familiar with them. I'm also familiar with insurance companies. You're crowing about a system that forces people to purchase insurance coverage; it doesn't guarantee them good healthcare, or that they'll get to make the decision that's best for their health. The insurance companies are still the ones making that call, we're all now just forced to participate in the system.
Because I want the ability to say whatever I want without fear of persecution.
That's it? That's your reasoning for the need for free speech? Because you want it? You can't come up with anything better than that? How is wanting to be free to say whatever you want different from wanting to be able to do whatever you want?
Why is it really that hard to see how this is different from a liberty-in-name-only like the "right" to not wear a seatbelt and die because of my own stupidity?
Err, lol?
Oregon was right to legalize assisted suicide in limited cases. It only applies to people suffering from a terminal disease who are about to die slowly and painfully anyway.
The "right" to do suicidally stupid things is entirely different. You aren't giving yourself a merciful end and avoiding a horrifyingly painful death, you're throwing away your life because you're too stubborn to wear a seatbelt (something which doesn't harm you in any way). Only an idiot would think that's a "right" in any meaningful sense.
It's not different. It's my life, I have the right to do with it as I wish so long as I'm not harming others. This, based on what you've said so far, is not your view; the government, in your opinion, has final say on what's good for people, and has every right to make the best decisions for them.
That's horrifying. I truly mean that. That you're so fething sheeplike as to need a herder in the form of government to take care of you and see you through life is one of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard for getting rid of government altogether so we can do a bit of sorting out in terms of evolutionary fitness, and restart the whole thing over again.
Seaward wrote: No, I'm familiar with them. I'm also familiar with insurance companies. You're crowing about a system that forces people to purchase insurance coverage; it doesn't guarantee them good healthcare, or that they'll get to make the decision that's best for their health. The insurance companies are still the ones making that call, we're all now just forced to participate in the system.
And again, you miss the point entirely: without the ACA insurance companies have a lot more opportunities to deny health care entirely. Without it people who want to buy insurance are denied coverage because the insurance company thinks they're too much of a risk. And given the cost of a lot of treatments, what that really means is you die. If you can't see how this is a massive improvement then you're not paying attention.
That's it? That's your reasoning for the need for free speech? Because you want it? You can't come up with anything better than that? How is wanting to be free to say whatever you want different from wanting to be able to do whatever you want?
Because I gain something from saying whatever I want. I don't gain something from having a "right" to get killed pointlessly. It isn't a meaningful right if the only reason a person would ever exercise the "right" is to stubbornly prove that they can.
It's not different. It's my life, I have the right to do with it as I wish so long as I'm not harming others. This, based on what you've said so far, is not your view; the government, in your opinion, has final say on what's good for people, and has every right to make the best decisions for them.
Let's review:
Wear a seatbelt: Good: less chance of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.
Bad: none.
Don't wear a seatbelt: Good: get to stubbornly "do what I want" against all common sense.
Bad: increased risk of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.
The only reason to pick "don't wear a seatbelt" is if you're too ing stupid to be capable of handling your own life. Therefore the government intervenes to force you to stop doing pointlessly stupid things and maybe keep you alive despite your shortsighted ideas about "freedom".
PS: you ARE harming others because guess who gets stuck with your medical bill when you get rushed to the hospital and can't afford the cost of keeping you alive. Hint: that bill doesn't magically disappear just because you can't afford it.
PPS: you ARE harming others because I suspect your family and friends aren't going to be very happy to find out that you earned yourself a Darwin award just to prove that you could.
That's horrifying. I truly mean that. That you're so fething sheeplike as to need a herder in the form of government to take care of you and see you through life is one of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard for getting rid of government altogether so we can do a bit of sorting out in terms of evolutionary fitness, and restart the whole thing over again.
Why libertarianism is a broken political philosophy, exhibit #934905903495035345.
Peregrine wrote: And again, you miss the point entirely: without the ACA insurance companies have a lot more opportunities to deny health care entirely. Without it people who want to buy insurance are denied coverage because the insurance company thinks they're too much of a risk. And given the cost of a lot of treatments, what that really means is you die. If you can't see how this is a massive improvement then you're not paying attention.
What about the people who don't want to buy insurance?
Because I gain something from saying whatever I want. I don't gain something from having a "right" to get killed pointlessly. It isn't a meaningful right if the only reason a person would ever exercise the "right" is to stubbornly prove that they can.
What amuses me is that you boil everything down to wearing a seatbelt. Is that really the only thing you believe you're not free to do in this or any other country?
Let's review:
Wear a seatbelt: Good: less chance of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash. Bad: none.
Don't wear a seatbelt: Good: get to stubbornly "do what I want" against all common sense. Bad: increased risk of dying or suffering major (and expensive) injury in a crash.
The only reason to pick "don't wear a seatbelt" is if you're too ing stupid to be capable of handling your own life. Therefore the government intervenes to force you to stop doing pointlessly stupid things and maybe keep you alive despite your shortsighted ideas about "freedom".
Using that logic, why aren't you a strong advocate of the government mandating what you eat? Obesity is, bar none, the number one driver of health care costs in this country.
Government diet: Good: less chance of developing a whole host of obesity-related conditions and illnesses, all of which are expensive and resource-intensive Bad: none.
Eat what you want: Good: get to stubbornly "eat what you want" against all common sense Bad: Increased risk of dying young, statistically increased chance of developing obesity-linked illnesses that drive up healthcare costs and strain hospital resources
PS: you ARE harming others because guess who gets stuck with your medical bill when you get rushed to the hospital and can't afford the cost of keeping you alive. Hint: that bill doesn't magically disappear just because you can't afford it.
Yeah, but I actually can afford it. If I can't? Don't treat me. Either way, as I said above, the costs to Americans from obesity-related illnesses far, far, FAR outweigh the costs to Americans from uninsured motorists involved in accidents. So, Captain Nanny State, get to bleating about how the government ought to tell us what to eat. It's for our own good and the good of society, after all. Keeps us from harming others by diverting healthcare resources from those in need to our bloated selves. Drives costs down and frees up doctors so that we all live longer, healthier lives.
Seaward wrote: What about the people who don't want to buy insurance?
Too bad. Pay your stupidity tax until we get national health care and then the name of the tax changes.
What amuses me is that you boil everything down to wearing a seatbelt. Is that really the only thing you believe you're not free to do in this or any other country?
The point is that libertarianism is so obsessed with "freedom" that it makes pointless stands on "issues" like seatbelt laws. It's a political philosophy that's entirely focused on ideological purity, to the point that it loses sight of the end goal of creating the best results.
Using that logic, why aren't you a strong advocate of the government mandating what you eat? Obesity is, bar none, the number one driver of health care costs in this country.
Except you missed the part where:
1) There is no universally correct diet.
and
2) People get a lot of enjoyment out of their food choices, while people DON'T gain anything from not wearing a seatbelt.
So no, that's not a good comparison.
Yeah, but I actually can afford it. If I can't? Don't treat me.
Except that the law is that you have to be provided with emergency treatment. Whether or not you can afford it doesn't even come up until it's far too late to make that decision. If you pointlessly get yourself hurt in a car crash and can't afford the medical bills you're passing on that cost to society as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Yeah I watched some of the "liberal" pundits yesterday afternoon..and all of the whining and crying was pathetic.
Actually Romney lost. When you're losing the election overall you need a decisive win, not a "win" that only politics fans care about. Obama didn't say anything fatally stupid, Romney lied enough to give plenty of quotes for new campaign ads against him, and the polls seem to suggest that Romney didn't pick up any real benefit from the debate.
Peregrine wrote: Too bad. Pay your stupidity tax until we get national health care and then the name of the tax changes.
No thanks, I can take care of myself.
The point is that libertarianism is so obsessed with "freedom" that it makes pointless stands on "issues" like seatbelt laws. It's a political philosophy that's entirely focused on ideological purity, to the point that it loses sight of the end goal of creating the best results.
No, libertarianism's obsessed with the absolutely correct notion that I can run my own life better than a parcel of idiots who need the government to do everything for them.
Except you missed the part where:
1) There is no universally correct diet.
We know how to create a diet so that an individual doesn't get fat.
and
2) People get a lot of enjoyment out of their food choices, while people DON'T gain anything from not wearing a seatbelt.
Speak for yourself. I can carry a lot more comfortably when not wearing a seatbelt.
Except that the law is that you have to be provided with emergency treatment. Whether or not you can afford it doesn't even come up until it's far too late to make that decision. If you pointlessly get yourself hurt in a car crash and can't afford the medical bills you're passing on that cost to society as a whole.
Not so much, no. I have an acquaintance who's still paying down a medical debt from an unexpected emergency room trip due to kidney stones. She didn't have insurance at the time. They don't just absolve the cost on a whim and shift it onto "society in general" unless you're truly worthless.
Seaward wrote: No, libertarianism's obsessed with the absolutely correct notion that I can run my own life better than a parcel of idiots who need the government to do everything for them.
Except:
1) As I pointed out, libertarianism is obsessed with ideological purity over stupid "freedoms" that not even libertarians care about outside of ranting about the government taking away their freedom.
2) That's a position that's only available to a privileged few. I admit that libertarianism is great if you're already well off, but if you aren't it that "independence" isn't nearly as useful as things like being able to afford food.
We know how to create a diet so that an individual doesn't get fat.
No we don't.
(And no, 100 calories a day does not count.)
Not so much, no. I have an acquaintance who's still paying down a medical debt from an unexpected emergency room trip due to kidney stones. She didn't have insurance at the time. They don't just absolve the cost on a whim and shift it onto "society in general" unless you're truly worthless.
Oh yeah, there's the alternative where they just give you obscene bills that you'll never be able to pay off and force you into bankruptcy, at which point society pays the cost.
Or there's always the version where you are fatally injured and die despite all effort to save you, in which case the best they can do is hope to collect from your estate, and if you didn't have enough wealth to pay for it, well, society pays the cost.
Peregrine wrote: 1) As I pointed out, libertarianism is obsessed with ideological purity over stupid "freedoms" that not even libertarians care about outside of ranting about the government taking away their freedom.
2) That's a position that's only available to a privileged few. I admit that libertarianism is great if you're already well off, but if you aren't it that "independence" isn't nearly as useful as things like being able to afford food.
No, sorry, that's incorrect.
text removed.
Reds8n
No we don't.
Yes, we do. And, once again, obesity is far, far more costly to society than no-seatbelt crashes could ever hope to be, so how are you not in favor of the government making things better for all of us? Because people enjoy eating themselves into blobs of fat? So what? I enjoy having the freedom to not wear a seatbelt. You made it clear that enjoyment of a freedom shouldn't be a factor in arguing for its dissolution, so why is it in the case of food?
Start being a consistent nanny-stater and you'll realize why your philosophy is so pernicious.
Oh yeah, there's the alternative where they just give you obscene bills that you'll never be able to pay off and force you into bankruptcy, at which point society pays the cost.
Or there's always the version where you are fatally injured and die despite all effort to save you, in which case the best they can do is hope to collect from your estate, and if you didn't have enough wealth to pay for it, well, society pays the cost.
Far, far more money lost down that hole to obesity, pal. Start dealing with reality rather than this fantasy world you live in where millions upon millions of uninsured motorists are needing medical care each year, and instead hop over to the real world where millions of millions of fat people are needing medical care each year despite a perfectly avoidable condition.
Seaward wrote: Look, I get that you need the government to tell you what to do to have any hope of making it through life. That isn't true for everyone, though. Some people - an increasingly rare percentage, apparently - do not need a lifelong nanny to make sure they make good decisions. Some people believe that you should have to live - or not, as the case may be - with the consequences of bad decisions.
You mean decisions like being born into a poor family? Yeah, better make better decisions next time.
And yes, I need the government to tell people what to do. YOU need the government to tell people what to do, unless you'd like to go with the Chinese approach to, say, not making food out of toxic chemicals. But I guess you should have the freedom to buy products with misleading labels and die? How dare the nanny state destroy this freedom and impose those standards of safety and purity on you!
Yes, we do.
No we don't. You can believe it all you like, but the facts are against you. There is no single miracle obesity-free diet, as you can see from the diet industry's constant failure to come up with one.
Far, far more money lost down that hole to obesity, pal. Start dealing with reality rather than this fantasy world you live in where millions upon millions of uninsured motorists are needing medical care each year, and instead hop over to the real world where millions of millions of fat people are needing medical care each year despite a perfectly avoidable condition.
Haven't we been over this enough yet?
1) Obesity is not "perfectly avoidable" in all cases, and there is no single magic diet to avoid it.
2) Imposing a government-mandated diet removes freedom of choice in a way that makes a meaningful difference in your life and overall happiness, while removing the "freedom" to earn a Darwin award does not.
But thank you for continuing to prove my point about how libertarianism is a broken political philosophy that cares more about ideological purity than actual results.
You mean decisions like being born into a poor family? Yeah, better make better decisions next time.
No, I mean like poor parents who decide to have kids before they can support them. And if you're born into poverty, guess what? You can still make decisions for yourself. I don't know where we got the illusion that life is supposed to be fair. It's not fair for any other organism on this planet, the fact that we can talk makes it no different.
And yes, I need the government to tell people what to do. YOU need the government to tell people what to do, unless you'd like to go with the Chinese approach to, say, not making food out of toxic chemicals. But I guess you should have the freedom to buy products with misleading labels and die? How dare the nanny state destroy this freedom and impose those standards of safety and purity on you!
That's one of the few examples of something we do in fact need the government to do - preventing malicious, deliberate harm to others.
No we don't. You can believe it all you like, but the facts are against you. There is no single miracle obesity-free diet, as you can see from the diet industry's constant failure to come up with one.
Find me an adult human who's gotten obese on a 1500 calorie diet and you'll have a little credibility. The fact that you're the kind of guy who buys into fad diets and goes, "They don't work!" doesn't surprise me, honestly. Weight gain is very simple: take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight.
Haven't we been over this enough yet?
Apparently not, as you're still making absurd claims.
1) Obesity is not "perfectly avoidable" in all cases, and there is no single magic diet to avoid it.
Really? Obesity's not perfectly avoidable? Someone woke up one day and discovered they were fat, with no chance to avoid it along the way? Please, please tell me you're joking. Please tell me the public education system in this country has not failed us this badly.
2) Imposing a government-mandated diet removes freedom of choice in a way that makes a meaningful difference in your life and overall happiness, while removing the "freedom" to earn a Darwin award does not.
So? You started this ridiculous defense of needing the government to pull your pants up and tie your shoes and make sure you never want from cradle to the grave by insisting that personal liberty is perfectly acceptable to give up in the face of a good outcome. I think trimming Americans' waistlines, and trimming billions of dollars from our health care expenditures, would be a perfectly good outcome. You, of course, realizing that you've argued yourself into a corner, have taken the tack of, "But you can't help getting fat!"
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're under the age of 22.
ing stupid to be capable of handling your own life. Therefore the government intervenes to force you to stop doing pointlessly stupid things and maybe keep you alive despite your shortsighted ideas about "freedom".