The Real Mitt Romney

[Flint]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

At first I thought "wow, what world does Flint inhabit where there is no evil and everyone really is, ultimately, only wanting good things for everyone."

It seemed so Pollyanna, and strange that such a glowing recommendation on the inherent goodness of mankind would be in a thread topic initially devoted to the love of Romney, to seeing what a good man he really is, deep down.

Then I thought of a sign I have in my office, to remind me when Dragon Lady gets so far beneath my skin she's gnawing on my bones:

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.--Napoleon Bonaparte



But I don't believe in the inherent universal goodness of mankind. Sure, goodness exists in abundance, but hardly because there is no evil to counter it.

I think my point was clear: it is not only insurmountably illogical, but a tragic statement on the state of politics, both at the 'career' level, and here, among friends, that a full 50% of American citizens are labeled as "bad" people.

I don't believe that 50% of us are "bad" people, and I am saddened that you thought this observation deserved a snarky slapdown.

[ZenGum]

I believe the figure is 47%.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by BigV

We are getting EXTREMELY low on horses and bayonets.

NOW I understand why Romney's so afraid. It's aaaaalll coming together now.

Soldiers are still issued bayonets. The US Army still has horses. Seems like the Commander in Chief would know that

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Our disagreement was not in the actions of the President, in enacting a bill, into law. I have no idea why you've fixated on that. Possibly because your two other statements about our gov't, were incorrect.

I'm 'fixated' because that's what my post was about originally and you keep pivoting away from that.

And which other two statements? I've only said one thing, the correct thing, confirmed by your own statements even, in several different ways.

If you were a Conservative, you would be excited by the Romney campaign, even though he's a middle of the road, type.

This right here is why I don't subscribe to a label. I also have no party/political stickers on my car or signs in my yard. Once you do subscribe, then you are more or less told what to think by your fellows, must submit to the collective beliefs associated with that label, and you will (publicly), if you want to remain in Good Standing with your party/affiliation. And if you happen to be more independent than that but still wish to wear the label, you're still tagged as a supporter of things you may actually abhor. The parties want loyalty, people like to feel they 'belong' to something. And if you don't lock-step, your label is revoked and you automatically become one of the labels your chosen label is supposed to hate. And then you're supposed to feel bad and either live a life of shame or pander to be reinstated. Bugger all that. Life's too short for that nonsense.

Frankly, no candidate for any position, local, Congress or President, gets me excited anymore because I know how the game of politics is played. I show my political support by voting. So, as a voter, I am highly critical of all sides and keep emotions out of it because I know as soon as I let myself have a favorite, it'll be easier for them to pull wool over my eyes.

Because the favorite can do no wrong.

[Big Sarge]

US Marine & mule at the Mountain Warrior Training Center

[Flint]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I believe the figure is 47%.

According to the polls from immediately pre-debate, yes, it actually 47% vs. 47%

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Still waiting anxiously for that fact on the number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs gained, from the actions of Bain Capital.

All that "I lost my job due to Bain", stuff is real, no doubt, but it's VERY hyped by the Obama re-election campaign. The flip side "I have a job at Staples, etc., due to Bain Capital", is strangely never mentioned by the Obama campaign.

Of course, you believe only one side of the argument - naturally. You couldn't find any facts on it, and you couldn't believe that like everything else in life, there is a yin and there is a yang, an ebb and a flow, or as the wise man states: "a time for every purpose, under heaven". (Ecclesiastes, iirc).

Jobs are created, and jobs are lost in business. Any business. That is the nature of business, which follows the nature of life.

Anthony Crane
Cambridge Industries
GS Industries
Ampad
DDi
Dade International
Mothercare
GT Bicycle
SMTC Corp
Chippac
Asimco Technologies

Oh, and the unconscionable rape of Burger King.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Anthony Crane
Cambridge Industries
GS Industries
Ampad
DDi
Dade International
Mothercare
GT Bicycle
SMTC Corp
Chippac
Asimco Technologies

Oh, and the unconscionable rape of Burger King.

All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.

A simple list of company names is not what's needed, here. Here's a hint. You don't have what you need, and you never will, and I doubt anyone has those figures, because they're so widely disbursed across several companies.

That's WHY the Obama campaign seized on it - because they can't be called liars easily, and certainly not before the election day.

This is Romney's strong point in the campaign - jobs. If they can make you doubt him on that point, they're well on their way to a win on election day. It's the same way Kerry was hit with the "riverboat vets for truth" project. Nobody could really say what Kerry's actions were in Vietnam, but nobody could really dispute what the "vets" were saying, either.

Just plant as big a doubt as you can, about the opponent.

I heard a smear about Obama today. While at Harvard as editor of the law review paper, two male workers quit and filed sexual harassment charges against the school, claiming Obama was the perpetrator.

Harvard paid out to both the students in both cases, under the condition the students kept silent.

Do I believe it? It doesn't matter. Whether Obama was secretly a sexual harasser or not, doesn't interest me. His policies and their success or failure, determine my opinion of Obama, as President.

Period.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

I think my point was clear: it is not only insurmountably illogical, but a tragic statement on the state of politics, both at the 'career' level, and here, among friends, that a full 50% of American citizens are labeled as "bad" people.

I don't believe that 50% of us are "bad" people, and I am saddened that you thought this observation deserved a snarky slapdown.

That wasn't a snarky slapdown, it was my view on your view...presented in my typical way (i.e. humor rather than 15 pages of the aforementioned 'smart guy' speak.) God forbid anyone inject any levity into all this nonsense.

I certainly don't think 50% of us are bad people. That's ludicrous. (Some of my best friends and relatives are conservatives.) I just don't believe that everyone loves children and puppies, and I don't believe Romney, in particular, has any real desire to grow the middle class (without which our country cannot survive, imo.)

What happened to you Flint? You used to have a sense of humor.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

Got to take these one at a time...


You're welcome. What I had in mind was this link:



I offer this constructive criticism of this link. It is just a picture. It has a title, but there's little there to go on, not a link back to the article, no legends on the axes, nothing. I did follow up on this picture's title, "Publicly held federal debt 1790-2009", and read some material though.

You say it is an picture of the problem with Socialism. That's not what I found.

Here's a link that has much more actual information than just that picture. It's a CBO report titled The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Here's the money shot:

Attachment 41073

Let me break that down for you. First of all, the graph, the report, nothing at all has anything at all to do with Socialism, or its supposed problems. I *suspect* that scare word came from some partisan bloviator who saw a report and then took the six or seven words in it that suited his panicky mood at the time, and mashed up that graph and slapped the label Socialism somewhere in the title of the blog post. I think you cribbed it from something like that.

Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about what the CBO is actually saying. They consider two scenarios, they call them extended baselines because they look at their projections for the budget for the next twenty-five or so years.




******



*** the kind of reductions in payments to providers that comprise the hotly debated $176 billion dollars "stolen" from Medicare, according to Ryan/Romney.

So, you say that the problem with Socialism is ... something, but you point at the "extended alternative baseline scenario" as the scary bogeyman. It IS scary I agree. But if you read the CBO's own words, that scary prospect is what they project will happen if the tax cuts are permitted to stay in place.

...

Come on, Adak. This is Socialism? If you want to AVOID the "Socialist" outcome, fine--just keep extending the temporary Bush era tax cuts. This is what Comrade Romney has proposed, hasn't he? He won't increase anyone's taxes. "Absolutely." that was his *exact* statement on the issue, right? Socialist bastard. In fact, if you listen to him further, he says he will LOWER THE RATES. REALLY???? That scary graph was scary because the rates only stay the same, imagine how much faster and higher the Taxapolyse will hit if the rates are lowered? Oh, sure, Romney's gonna pay for them by eliminating funding for Big Bird and some other hand waving, but even taking him at his word, he's only aiming to make the changes "revenue neutral". He doesn't want to bring any more revenue to the Federal system. All cuts. No revenue increases.

You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.

All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.

Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.

Yet....

You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.

Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).

I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Soldiers are still issued bayonets. The US Army still has horses. Seems like the Commander in Chief would know that

He said, "Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.

Oh, I see. You're too lazy to look up the companies Romney destroyed with his evil Bain leveraged buyout scheme.
That's the only thing you'll accept?
Fuck you, you aren't calling the shots, boy.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

He said, "Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."

The National Defense Act approved on 3 June 1916 set the peace strength of the Regular Army at 220,000 officers and men and of the National Guard at 450,000. In 2012, US Army (Active) was 547,400 with an Army Reserve of 205,000 and Army National Guard of 358,200.

If we average to just one bayonet per soldier, that would give us:

1916 - 670,000 bayonets
2012 - 1,110,600 bayonets

Soldiers and Marines have really taken to heart the comment about the bayonets. The saying goes, "Every soldier is a rifleman first."

I haven't counted the number of horses, but I will concede there are fewer horses. Oh Lord, don't even mention the crack about ships diving underwater. The USS Holland (SS-1) was the United States Navy's first commissioned submarine and was launched on 17 May 1897.

Yes, I realize President Obama was just trying to make an illustration of a point. It has just struck a nerve on the military boards

[Spexxvet]

Sarge, would you rather have more bayonets, or more tanks and automatic weapons?

[Big Sarge]

Are we talking linear or non-linear warfare? Or we could say COIN OPS (Counterinsurgency) vs Force on Force? It really doesn't matter. I totally understand the point President Obama made. The crack about bayonets ticked me and alot of others. The bayonet is a symbol that no matter what you do in the military, you have to be prepared to be on the frontline & "fix bayonets".

I'm just being an ass. I really do understand the point. Plus, I admit that Romney isn't my favorite.