The Real Mitt Romney

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.

[BigV]

He's trolling, true. But I believe he is a true believer, a zealot. And he has a frighteningly large number of like minded small thinking herd voters. They are intellectually weak but vocal and persistent.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Are these statements true or false, in your judgement?

1) gov't takes more money in taxes. I have less $$$ , my small or large business has less, so I spend less $$$, and my business spends less also.

Largely false. Money spent on the business is deductible, so it comes out of pretax dollars. Lowering the tax rate could lead to less investment in the business, since you would get to keep a larger share of any money taken out of the business.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.

To me, its the persistence. If he is actually trying to sell Romney, I think it is clear that this board is a waste of time for him unless he really believes he is convincing people who are not posting.

But I will say he really spiced up the Politics board for the past few weeks.

[glatt]

True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do. I think he believes in his party and candidate and loves to argue. Doesn't care much about seeking truth or understanding, so he'll bluff his way through an argument when it's a weak one. He just want to win the argument.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by glatt

True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do.

Maybe we're the comparative after-school program designed to keep kids busy til parents pick them up so they don't get themselves into deeper trouble. Perhaps this board is keeping him out of situations where could do more damage.

[DanaC]

I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

...
But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?

I mean, that's how you learn things.
...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...
No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible
...

Sorry, Bruce, I did a very poor job of explaining this point.

I appreciate your no-nonsense approach, and your detailed reply indicated you had put a lot of thought into weighing my comments. Please allow me to go into slightly more depth on this one point.

This is a theory of conflict resolution that I have been mulling over for a few years...

The scenario that I described above is the direct opposite of what I often observe people doing, i.e. when a conflicting opinion is presented, emphasis is placed on a detail which 'proves' that the opinion is wrong. This reinforces the listener's opinion, deflects the speaker's opinion, and maintains the status quo--conflict. The listener may even be boggled by the seemingly outlandish nature of a supporting detail which is required to support the speaker's opinion. The conflicting opinion may be interpreted in such a way as to be so far from feasibility that the speaker must be characterized as foolish or incompetent. This is the frequent course of 'argumentative' discussions.

Now, for a change of routine, what if we were to imagine that the speaker is not unintelligent? Certainly people have had different experiences, and have access to different knowledge than ourselves. If we reverse the normal pattern of conflict, and attempt not to carefully construct a scenario in which the speaker is certainly wrong, but rather the opposite--conceptualize a scenario where the speaker is correct, we have access, albeit tentative or temporarily, to a different thought pattern--we can break ourselves out of our normal bias and preconceptions. Then, we thoroughly test this new theory, making an honest attempt within the boundaries of our own critical thinking techniques, and if we still cannot observe any soundness to the idea, we can 'agree to disagree' --in a civil fashion, having made our best attempt.

When I stated this is "how you learn" I meant, of course, that it is but one of the methods available. Essentially, this is applying a thought experiment to conflict resolution. I respectfully submit that many heavy thinkers, such as Albert Einstein, would have disagreed that you can't learn things through pretending/imagining.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.

I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.

As opposed to the wonderful economic theory that you have proposed!

I have seen why you guys keep repeating the "same bullshit" however. I believe you have not seen the beauty of a free market capitalist economy, at work. It's undeniable beauty is a real surprise. Just an example to whet your appetite:

a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.

Results? Their energy is now MUCH less. Less than 1/4th of what it had been:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20074216

Notice the elements:

Competing (energy) companies
enlightened consumers acting in their own best interests

And no government agency telling them what they can or can not do, in shopping around for the best price. It's a beautiful thing.

I contrast that with the state I live in - California, and what it has done and still doing, under a heavily liberal state government.

Our energy prices have gone through the roof (there is no competition in the energy market), the "compliant" liberal politicians have all agreed to overly generous pay and retirement benefits for our public sector workers, bankrupting our cities (Stockton for instance, has declared bankruptcy). And our state is billions of dollars in the red.

The response to this problem from our liberal Democrat Governor?
Of course - RAISE TAXES! When you live with liberals you get to know what they like:

Raising Taxes "dances"
High Taxes "sing alongs"
"Walkathons for Higher Taxes"

etc. ANY pretext, ANY lie, is good, if it helps a liberal to raise your taxes. Because cutting spending is against their religion, and raising taxes is the only way to keep their socialist dreams alive.

Socialism only works until the money runs out, and they run through our money, like it was water. Why? Because the unions pay them back in re-election money. The only loser is - US.

I thought you guys were mostly being stubborn and slanted in your views, but I'm beginning to see that you just don't know what Conservatism is all about, in the economy. How beautiful it is. Maybe you've heard about this or that being conservative, and it was ugly, but that's NOT Conservatism.

I'll start a new thread for that.

I'll try and show you, with the help of some links, just what Conservatism is all about. Not just the insane junk that is called Conservatism, by those who are not.

If I'm a "true believer" in Conservatism, it's only because I've seen true Liberalism, and know that it's a true lie. Indeed, in California, we live the lie of true liberalism, every damn day. After about 60 years, you get to know it rather well, and it can't hide it's ugly warts, any more. The money has run out, even before the current recession began.

[DanaC]

liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.

And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.

Would you like to hear some of Obama's speeches on audio, where he repeatedly points out that America has "made mistakes in the past"?

Maybe a lot of these same countries would have preferred it if the Soviets still controlled their country? Maybe they would have preferred to be slaves to Hitler, Mussolini, or the Japanese?

What would you call it, if not an apology tour? Because that SURE AS HELL is not what we're used to hearing from our President, speaking to other countries!

It's not an "I'm sorry", but it's not facing the reality that ALL countries make mistakes in foreign policy - not just the USA. Truth is, MANY of the nations in the UN, have truly miserable human rights abuses, or dictators/presidents who have seriously abused their power. And the USA has done a LOT to help other nations, all over the world.

But somehow Obama finds it necessary to point out OUR "mistakes", over and over, around the world?

[DanaC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/po...our/index.html

The facts:

When President Obama began his term, he made a number of speeches in the Middle East and elsewhere -- all designed to forge better ties with Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Critics such as Romney have said Obama apologized for past actions in such addresses.

Obama did indeed mention past U.S. flaws in speeches. But in those addresses, Obama never uttered an apology for the United States.

Those statements were snippets, part of larger and grander narratives about repairing ties, building friendship and working together.

[...]

During an address in Strasbourg, France, in April 2009, Obama did utter words Romney referenced in the debate.

In that speech, Obama said, "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

But in the very next sentence, Obama called out the Europeans for an "anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."

He then goes on to talk about forging "common solutions to our common problems."

"America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America. So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems."

And in Turkey:

During that speech, he said "another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past" and touches on a major blemish on U.S. history.

"The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history," Obama said. "Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."

After that statement, Obama segued into a similar stain on Turkey's history -- the massacre of Armenians during World War I, and how both Turks and Armenians should work toward a "new day."

[...]

Back in December, Michael Cohen, a columnist for Foreign Policy's Election 2012 Channel, called the "apology tour" claim "a lie that has been reiterated so often that it has become conventional wisdom on the right. "

"The apology canard has been disproven practically as often as it has been made."

[...]

Conclusion:


Romney's claim is false. The president has mentioned past U.S. mistakes and flaws during speeches about the larger issues of building bridges to other countries. But he has never apologized or gone on an "apology tour."

Obama didn't look weak to other nations. He came across as strong enough to be open and honest and move forward with foreign allies. A far cry, true from 'you're either with us or against us', but in no way an 'apology tour'

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.

And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.

No, but they can fit into one box - the anti - Conservative box.

I don't live in an apple tree, but I still know what an apple is, thank you. If apples were quite rare, I'd agree with you, but when they're everywhere you look, like liberalism and socialism, you get to know them.

Please, define "True Liberalism" and "True Socialism", but let's do that in a new thread devoted to that topic.

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

Wait a second, here!

Saying it once, or saying it in a more private setting, would be OK. Going around the world with basically the same "apology" template in his VERY public speeches, is WAY off the mark.

It may be good for a human (and a country), to acknowledge their shortcomings to themselves, but to proclaim them to the world, all around the world, is unwise, unnecessary, and makes us look like our Commander in Chief is our chief apologist, and ripe for a bit of exploitation.

[DanaC]

Actually, I'd truly hesitate do any such thing. I don't believe there really is a 'true socialism' or a 'true liberalism'. That suggests a belief system set in aspic. That's just not really how people and societies work.

These things are contextual and contingent on many factors. The fact that you consider Obama to be verging on the socialist is a case in point. What is 'socialist' or 'liberal' in your political milieu is not necessarily the same as in mine. Nor indeed does every socialist share a carbon copy of each other's beliefs.

[DanaC]

Hahahah.

I went tootling around on wiki seeing how liberal and conservative were defined on there and found a few things that made me smile.

First, here's a snippet from the Liberal entry:

Liberalism, a political ideology:

Classical liberalism, a political ideology that advocates unregulated markets, limited government, rule of law, due process, and individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and others

Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement

Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions

Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights

But the bit that really made me laugh was fro the Conservative entry:

In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to conserve the rights and liberties of Englishmen. Most European conservatives writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider it to be a variety of liberalism.[27