PDA

View Full Version : My Two Cents on the Election



Roman529
09-19-2012, 04:28 PM
I rarely post in the POFO, but I have a degree in Poli Sci, and a graduate degree in a related field, and just wanted to share my thoughts:

To me the election comes down to who is going to do a better job in fixing the country. We have a huge deficit of $16 trillion. You can argue all you want about who caused it....I am more concerned about who is going to fix it.

Obama says, "The job isn't done yet.....give me four more years." This is like a salesman who isn't getting the job done asking his boss to keep him around for four more years. Maybe someday he will actually make a sale. I think Obama cares more about the "Little people," the homeless, and the poor. He probably cares a little more about women's rights and making sure they have the choice of whether they can have an abortion, and get access to contraceptives, BUT to me these issues are not that important compared to JOBS and the Economy.

Mitt Romney may be a multi-millionaire and out of touch with the average American, but he is an experienced businessman. We need someone who can balance the budget and not spend us into bankruptcy. I think Obama's promise of HOPE sounded good, but I cannot vote for him.

ROMNEY is the lesser of two evils.

(sorry for any typos as I am using a cell phone)

Dovahkiin
09-19-2012, 04:56 PM
Now here's a man with a functioning brain in his head. Mitt Romney is a great man and is definitely one who can lead us back to being a great nation. As a successful business owner and entrepreneur, I can't afford to vote for Obuma. Mr. Romney is a lot like myself in the sense that he's experienced and a true businessman in every sense of the word. Obuma does care more about poor people and that's a problem. Poor people are poor for a reason. They're not very smart and they make poor decisions with their money. This is why corporations target poor people when tax season rolls around. "Hey all you poors, come give us your money!" And those dummies who vote Dummycrat in November will line up around the block to hand over their tax returns as quickly as possible. Vote for Romney if your brain works.

JackFinfan
09-19-2012, 05:10 PM
Now here's a man with a functioning brain in his head. Mitt Romney is a great man and is definitely one who can lead us back to being a great nation. As a successful business owner and entrepreneur, I can't afford to vote for Obuma. Mr. Romney is a lot like myself in the sense that he's experienced and a true businessman in every sense of the word. Obuma does care more about poor people and that's a problem. Poor people are poor for a reason. They're not very smart and they make poor decisions with their money. This is why corporations target poor people when tax season rolls around. "Hey all you poors, come give us your money!" And those dummies who vote Dummycrat in November will line up around the block to hand over their tax returns as quickly as possible. Vote for Romney if your brain works.

I'm praying that this is supposed to be sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure you are serious. There are many factors that contribute to poverty. Assuming the only reason they're poor is due to their lack of intelligence is pretty ignorant. Also, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who uses words like "Obuma" & "Dummycrat", are we in 4th grade?

SkapePhin
09-19-2012, 05:16 PM
They are the same guy, with different color ties. Whereas Obama will spend money on healthcare, Romney will spend it on increasing the defense budget. The Republican Party is no longer the fiscally responsible, small government party.

JackFinfan
09-19-2012, 05:17 PM
I rarely post in the POFO, but I have a degree in Poli Sci, and a graduate degree in a related field, and just wanted to share my thoughts:

To me the election comes down to who is going to do a better job in fixing the country. We have a huge deficit of $16 trillion. You can argue all you want about who caused it....I am more concerned about who is going to fix it.

Obama says, "The job isn't done yet.....give me four more years." This is like a salesman who isn't getting the job done asking his boss to keep him around for four more years. Maybe someday he will actually make a sale. I think Obama cares more about the "Little people," the homeless, and the poor. He probably cares a little more about women's rights and making sure they have the choice of whether they can have an abortion, and get access to contraceptives, BUT to me these issues are not that important compared to JOBS and the Economy.

Mitt Romney may be a multi-millionaire and out of touch with the average American, but he is an experienced businessman. We need someone who can balance the budget and not spend us into bankruptcy. I think Obama's promise of HOPE sounded good, but I cannot vote for him.

ROMNEY is the lesser of two evils.

(sorry for any typos as I am using a cell phone)

Honestly, I don't think either Romney or Obama can do much to sway the economy. As for lowering the deficit, both guys aren't going to succeed in that either. Obama won't make cuts, and Romney wants to give more tax cuts & increase defense spending.

Personally, I'm not a fan of either candidate and I refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils. I'll vote for some 3rd party candidate. I'm not going to vote for a guy just because he's slightly better than the other horrible candidate. A candidate should earn your vote based on his/her merits, not on the other guy's faults.

Dolphins9954
09-19-2012, 05:50 PM
I rarely post in the POFO, but I have a degree in Poli Sci, and a graduate degree in a related field, and just wanted to share my thoughts:

To me the election comes down to who is going to do a better job in fixing the country. We have a huge deficit of $16 trillion. You can argue all you want about who caused it....I am more concerned about who is going to fix it.

Obama says, "The job isn't done yet.....give me four more years." This is like a salesman who isn't getting the job done asking his boss to keep him around for four more years. Maybe someday he will actually make a sale. I think Obama cares more about the "Little people," the homeless, and the poor. He probably cares a little more about women's rights and making sure they have the choice of whether they can have an abortion, and get access to contraceptives, BUT to me these issues are not that important compared to JOBS and the Economy.

Mitt Romney may be a multi-millionaire and out of touch with the average American, but he is an experienced businessman. We need someone who can balance the budget and not spend us into bankruptcy. I think Obama's promise of HOPE sounded good, but I cannot vote for him.

ROMNEY is the lesser of two evils.

(sorry for any typos as I am using a cell phone)


Then Romney/Ryan aren't your men. Unless of course you consider a balanced budget 28 years from now a good thing. Obama doesn't even have the words "balanced budget" in his vocabulary. We're pretty screwed as a nation with these 2 parties and candidates at the helm.

As short-round in Temple Of Doom said.

Zt7kHsZGk6E

"Hold on lady we going for a ride."

trojanma
09-19-2012, 05:58 PM
If we are throwing in our own two cents on the election allow me to add my spin on the topic. As I slighly disagree with the above posters. FWIW I call myself an independent now though previously I aligned more with the republicans.
I will say this to start. The candidates are exceedingly similar in their actual policy which leads them to sometimes take extreme positions to make themselves appear different.

Foreign Policy. In reality despite what Mr. Romney claims he will be almost identical to Obama just how Obama claimed to be different from GW yet in the end he pretty much stayed the course.

Domestic Policy
Obama being driven by Keynsian principles would likely try to stimulate(read spend) his way towards getting the economy growing. Infrastructure projects and while maintaining current low taxes.

Romney plans on stimulating growth by lowering taxes on job creators(rich people) and stripping regulatory agencies such as the EPA to nothing(if that is possible).

CedarPhin
09-19-2012, 06:03 PM
Obama's going to put better justices on the court than Romney would. At least then we wouldn't have a predictable, pro-right verdict every time something came up. Spare me the nonsense about Obummercare too, that's an anomaly.

That's the only reason I'd consider voting for him. Since I live in CA though, where my vote doesn't really count, I'll probably vote for the initiatives and write Timothy Leary in. That'll show them.

nick1
09-19-2012, 06:31 PM
Can we really trust a business man who made a killing on bankrupting other companies. He doesn't give a **** about the.middle class and even less.for the poor. His 47 percent statement shows his real views. A private event is more telling then a public one

Dolphins9954
09-19-2012, 06:39 PM
If we are throwing in our own two cents on the election allow me to add my spin on the topic. As I slighly disagree with the above posters. FWIW I call myself an independent now though previously I aligned more with the republicans.
I will say this to start. The candidates are exceedingly similar in their actual policy which leads them to sometimes take extreme positions to make themselves appear different.

Foreign Policy. In reality despite what Mr. Romney claims he will be almost identical to Obama just how Obama claimed to be different from GW yet in the end he pretty much stayed the course.

Domestic Policy
Obama being driven by Keynsian principles would likely try to stimulate(read spend) his way towards getting the economy growing. Infrastructure projects and while maintaining current low taxes.

Romney plans on stimulating growth by lowering taxes on job creators(rich people) and stripping regulatory agencies such as the EPA to nothing(if that is possible).


I would argue both are keynesians. Romney supported the bailouts and stimulus spending. Pretty much every government intervention into the markets (and our liberties) Romney was a fan of. It's like picking which color you like on the same model cars from GM.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------


Can we really trust a business man who made a killing on bankrupting other companies. He doesn't give a **** about the.middle class and even less.for the poor. His 47 percent statement shows his real views. A private event is more telling then a public one

Or trust a president that has already proven to suck on the economy. Not much choice in the matter. It's like choosing between death by firing squad or hanging.

Spesh
09-19-2012, 06:44 PM
Obama says, "The job isn't done yet.....give me four more years." This is like a salesman who isn't getting the job done asking his boss to keep him around for four more years. Maybe someday he will actually make a sale. I think Obama cares more about the "Little people," the homeless, and the poor. He probably cares a little more about women's rights and making sure they have the choice of whether they can have an abortion, and get access to contraceptives, BUT to me these issues are not that important compared to JOBS and the Economy.


Anyone accusing Obama of acting like a salesman shouldnt turn around and declare they are voting for Romney.

What hasnt that guy promised? What position hasnt that guy flipped on? When has he stood up to his own party? And what has Romney said to you that makes you confident he can get jobs growing? His entire campaign has been "Trust me" and "I'll tell you after the election".

Abortion and access to contraceptives are issues for those that deal with it. Personally, i think being the President means you should be able to do more than a single thing at a time. The overwhelmingly main reason why people are stating they will vote for Romney is because "a Democrat hasnt fixed in 4 years what a Republican broke in 8". The fact that Obama hasnt fixed it yet bothers me less than the fact that people keep giving me reasons as to why i shouldnt vote for Obama, as opposed to reasons to vote for Romney.

This economy is such garbage that the election should be a gimme. Instead of people jumping on here telling me what a great candidate Romney is, they are on here telling me how bad Obama is. We get it already. The fact that Romney is trying to restrict votes, campaign with only Obama slip-ups, and cant give me any sort of definitive details about his post-election plans tells me that no matter how bad the President is: Romney will be worse.

Dolphins9954
09-19-2012, 06:57 PM
Anyone accusing Obama of acting like a salesman shouldnt turn around and declare they are voting for Romney.

What hasnt that guy promised? What position hasnt that guy flipped on? When has he stood up to his own party? And what has Romney said to you that makes you confident he can get jobs growing? His entire campaign has been "Trust me" and "I'll tell you after the election".

Abortion and access to contraceptives are issues for those that deal with it. Personally, i think being the President means you should be able to do more than a single thing at a time. The overwhelmingly main reason why people are stating they will vote for Romney is because "a Democrat hasnt fixed in 4 years what a Republican broke in 8". The fact that Obama hasnt fixed it yet bothers me less than the fact that people keep giving me reasons as to why i shouldnt vote for Obama, as opposed to reasons to vote for Romney.

This economy is such garbage that the election should be a gimme. Instead of people jumping on here telling me what a great candidate Romney is, they are on here telling me how bad Obama is. We get it already. The fact that Romney is trying to restrict votes, campaign with only Obama slip-ups, and cant give me any sort of definitive details about his post-election plans tells me that no matter how bad the President is: Romney will be worse.

It's amazing how inept Romney is. Stat wise especially on the economy Obama should be getting his a$$ handed to him in this election. Romney is the Leon Lett of politics.

LouPhinFan
09-19-2012, 07:02 PM
Right now my driver's license still has my old address on it of the house we just sold. Right now we're living in an apartment while they build our new house. In order to vote in this election I'm going to have to get my license changed. You know what? With no major stuff in my state elections and with Kentucky's electorals firmly going to Romney, I don't see the need to even vote this time around. My vote truly doesn't matter.

Spesh
09-19-2012, 07:10 PM
It's amazing how inept Romney is. Stat wise especially on the economy Obama should be getting his a$$ handed to him in this election. Romney is the Leon Lett of politics.

After all the middle east outrage last week and Obama's disgraceful response to it, i thought Romney would be moonwalking his way into office. New polls say that Obama is pulling ahead again, which i personally blame(with very little substance mind you, this is a lay opinion) on Romney's premature gaffelation on the Egypt embassy statement.

For every single mistake Obama makes, Romney make 4. Anyone thinking that he will magically turn into the next Ronald Reagan if he gets elected is deluding themselves. As the British press declared during his visit: Romney makes George Bush sound like Aristotle.

trojanma
09-19-2012, 07:41 PM
I think the Republicans are losing for two reasons.
1. Romney is a generally unlikable man(the various gaffe's strengthen this) while Obama is generally likable(except that minority that feel he is some combination of the antichrist, Hitler, Socialist Boogeyman).

2. At a time of extreme economic crisis where the populace is hurting the Republican message is a very difficult sell.
Republican Message being:
-A general approach to save money by reducing entitlements.
-Tax cuts to wealthier "job creators" as a way of stimulating the economy
-Expansion of the tax base- i.e. more poor people will start paying income taxes.
-Reduction of "wasteful" social programs. (which some desperate people may depend on)
-Deregulation of government oversight over Big Business at a time where people are likely mistrustful of it. (reasons that they could be mistrustful-The unfathomable greed of big banks in Wall St and the negligence of BP leading to the Event Horizon blast.)
-A more aggressive foreign policy
-A relatively antagonistic approach to hispanic people.(Edit. Generally the fringe part of the Republican party trying to focus its message towards middle class white males where that is a decreasing part of the electorate.)

SkapePhin
09-19-2012, 09:05 PM
If we are throwing in our own two cents on the election allow me to add my spin on the topic. As I slighly disagree with the above posters. FWIW I call myself an independent now though previously I aligned more with the republicans.
I will say this to start. The candidates are exceedingly similar in their actual policy which leads them to sometimes take extreme positions to make themselves appear different.

Foreign Policy. In reality despite what Mr. Romney claims he will be almost identical to Obama just how Obama claimed to be different from GW yet in the end he pretty much stayed the course.

Domestic Policy
Obama being driven by Keynsian principles would likely try to stimulate(read spend) his way towards getting the economy growing. Infrastructure projects and while maintaining current low taxes.

Romney plans on stimulating growth by lowering taxes on job creators(rich people) and stripping regulatory agencies such as the EPA to nothing(if that is possible).

Getting rid of the EPA is a scary thought for our future. I love the free market, but there are some things that need to be regulated if we hope to survive as a species longer than a few hundred more years... Unfortunately, some industries are incompatible with a healthy, sustainable ecosystem if left unregulated and to their own devices...

phins_4_ever
09-19-2012, 09:22 PM
I think the Republicans are losing for two reasons.
1. Romney is a generally unlikable man(the various gaffe's strengthen this) while Obama is generally likable(except that minority that feel he is some combination of the antichrist, Hitler, Socialist Boogeyman).

2. At a time of extreme economic crisis where the populace is hurting the Republican message is a very difficult sell.
Republican Message being:
-A general approach to save money by reducing entitlements.
-Tax cuts to wealthier "job creators" as a way of stimulating the economy
-Expansion of the tax base- i.e. more poor people will start paying income taxes.
-Reduction of "wasteful" social programs. (which some desperate people may depend on)
-Deregulation of government oversight over Big Business at a time where people are likely mistrustful of it. The unfathomable greed of big banks in Wall St and the negligence of BP leading to the Event Horizon blast.
-A more aggressive foreign policy
-A relatively antagonistic approach to hispanic people.(Edit. Generally the fringe part of the Republican party trying to focus its message towards middle class white males where that is a decreasing part of the electorate.)

You are a true Romney voter. Flip-flopping in the same sentence.


-Deregulation of government oversight over Big Business at a time where people are likely mistrustful of it. The unfathomable greed of big banks in Wall St and the negligence of BP leading to the Event Horizon blast.

You want deregulation yet you are decrying two events which were caused by the lack of oversight.

I find it funny how you describe unemployment, medicare, medicaid, social security as entitlements. They are a safety net. Yet you want tax cuts for the rich and wealthy (job creators) so they can hire more people in?
If my business is doing so well that I need to hire people I do it with or without tax cuts. If the rich get tax cuts it goes into their own pockets. Remember the tax cuts is personal income as well which probably will go to another yacht. This trickle down crap was tried before and it failed.

Where does a poor person get the money from to pay more taxes?
You want to increase taxes on the poor essentially lowering the purchasing power yet you want to reduce taxes for the well off in hopes that they hire more people in?
This is, at best, pathetic economics. If you increase taxes on the poor and maybe even the middle class you are decreasing the purchasing power. People don't go shopping anymore. Business who will be affected through less sales will fire people because of the lack of income and the lack of work. You are increasing the unemployment while the well off will line their pockets through personal income tax reductions. Yeah, that sounds like a Romney/Ryan plan.

trojanma
09-19-2012, 09:29 PM
You are a true Romney voter. Flip-flopping in the same sentence.



You want deregulation yet you are decrying two events which were caused by the lack of oversight.

I find it funny how you describe unemployment, medicare, medicaid, social security as entitlements. They are a safety net. Yet you want tax cuts for the rich and wealthy (job creators) so they can hire more people in?
If my business is doing so well that I need to hire people I do it with or without tax cuts. If the rich get tax cuts it goes into their own pockets. Remember the tax cuts is personal income as well which probably will go to another yacht. This trickle down crap was tried before and it failed.

Where does a poor person get the money from to pay more taxes?
You want to increase taxes on the poor essentially lowering the purchasing power yet you want to reduce taxes for the well off in hopes that they hire more people in?
This is, at best, pathetic economics. If you increase taxes on the poor and maybe even the middle class you are decreasing the purchasing power. People don't go shopping anymore. Business who will be affected through less sales will fire people because of the lack of income and the lack of work. You are increasing the unemployment while the well off will line their pockets through personal income tax reductions. Yeah, that sounds like a Romney/Ryan plan.


I think you mistook my intent. The sentence where I flip flopped is amended now.

phins_4_ever
09-19-2012, 09:33 PM
I think you mistook my intent. The sentence where I flip flopped is amended now.

Please don't amend your post when someone has responded to it. It brings the response to a complete out of whack and obsolete issue. When I want to amend a post because someone has misunderstood my intend I make an additional response with the correct version of it.

I can not tell you what to do as I am not a moderator but it would be the respectful way.

trojanma
09-19-2012, 09:48 PM
Getting rid of the EPA is a scary thought for our future. I love the free market, but there are some things that need to be regulated if we hope to survive as a species longer than a few hundred more years... Unfortunately, some industries are incompatible with a healthy, sustainable ecosystem if left unregulated and to their own devices...

This is what bothers me about the modern day Republicans.
They are like day traders on Wall St. It is all about the immediate gains without regard to their consequences down the road.

Abolishing the EPA and replacing it with some hodgepodge of state organizations. Of course it will be easier for big business to strong arm some underfunded state EPA.
I am not even talking about habitats and endagered spieces. I am talking about health affects to you and me.
Unregulated Energy/mining/chemical companies cut corners, because it is cheaper, profit margins go up, stock prices go up. Everything is fine and dandy until **** hits the fan.

BP is the prime example of this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-spill/
An excellent article about this.

Removing laws that protect us, abolishing the EPA. It will make it easier for many big companies to do business, they will grow they will hire, but one day we will get the consequences of this.

trojanma
09-19-2012, 09:52 PM
Please don't amend your post when someone has responded to it. It brings the response to a complete out of whack and obsolete issue. When I want to amend a post because someone has misunderstood my intend I make an additional response with the correct version of it.

I can not tell you what to do as I am not a moderator but it would be the respectful way.

It is in its original form in your post. Your suggested is noted. I will keep that in mind in the future.

trojanma
09-19-2012, 10:31 PM
Just so I don't seem like an equal opportunity person. The Dems are pretty misguided as well.
1. First off they are so disorganized they cannot get anything meaningful accomplished even when they are in power. The result is some watered down mess of a franken-law(see the ACA).
2. They don't even want to mention the word entitlement reform and press on like it isn't even a problem. Obviously this is a negotiating ploy(or so I hope). This is the biggest problem IMO.
3. They are just as willing to take cash from Big business as Repubs.(see Obama avoiding actual bank reform when he first took office)
4. Their loyalty to teachers Unions is a barrier to education reform.

phins_4_ever
09-20-2012, 12:12 AM
It is in its original form in your post. Your suggested is noted. I will keep that in mind in the future.

I know it is. But I am probably not alone but when I read the original and read a response with the quote included I am not re-reading the quoted text.

But thanks for understanding.
:up:

michaelscott
09-20-2012, 12:23 AM
Divide and Conquer

Smh


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Fin_Frenzy_84
09-20-2012, 02:10 AM
Romney plans on creating 12 million more jobs, drill for oil in america, I HEARD he is trying to bring the business overseas back to America but I doubt that will happen since our government is ran by most of those business. I also heard Romney is going to make it a lot easier for college students to get a job after graduating. I currently am a college student and that is a huge deal for my future!

First time being able to vote and I will vote Romney!

Spesh
09-20-2012, 02:40 AM
Romney plans on creating 12 million more jobs, drill for oil in america, I HEARD he is trying to bring the business overseas back to America but I doubt that will happen since our government is ran by most of those business. I also heard Romney is going to make it a lot easier for college students to get a job after graduating. I currently am a college student and that is a huge deal for my future!

First time being able to vote and I will vote Romney!

Dont forget Romney plans on curing cancer, becoming Ironman, and reintroducing dinosaurs into the wild(only the ones from 6k years ago, cant upset his base).

How is he going to do all this? Eh, dont worry about that, he'll let us know after the election.

TrojanFin
09-20-2012, 06:32 AM
Hey Spesh...

Let me help you find the answers you are looking for by clicking on the link below. I know it can be difficult to find this stuff when searching on Google. By the way, I don't believe in creationism (I know shocking).

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

Spesh
09-20-2012, 10:45 AM
Hey Spesh...

Let me help you find the answers you are looking for by clicking on the link below. I know it can be difficult to find this stuff when searching on Google. By the way, I don't believe in creationism (I know shocking).

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs


Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem.
Any American living through this economic crisis will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course. He is calling for a fundamental change in Washington’s view of how economic growth and prosperity are achieved, how jobs are created, and how government can support these endeavors. It is at once a deeply conservative return to policies that have served our nation well and a highly ambitious departure from the policies of our current leadership. In short, it is a plan to get America back to work.



Dont see a single example of how. Only salesman giving me buzz words, but we can break down each part.

1) Tax plan, which starts off with a paragraph promising me things then immediately, in bold giant letters, goes into something called "Obama's Failure"(boy, thats a great plan Romney has there, the Obama Failure plan). Heres a quick google search of the results of his tax plan-


While both versions of Romney’s plan increase the tax burden on the bottom 20 percent of households (those making between $0 and $19,342 a year), it still leaves the tax rate on those households hugely negative. And Romney actually makes the tax rate on the second household income quintile (those making between $19,343 and $39,862 a year) more negative before base-broadening is taken into account.Given that the campaign has protested vigorously (http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/08/romney-campaign-glaring-gaps-invalidate-tax-analysis) against the TPC’s suggestion that paying for his plan means raising taxes on lower-income people, it seems reasonable to assume that Romney won’t make much of a dent in the number of people not paying any income tax.

Whatever you think about Romney’s fundraiser remarks, he doesn’t have a plan that corrects the “problem” he’s bemoaning


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/mitt-romneys-tax-plan-wont-mean-more-people-pay-income-taxes/


The Republican analyses were designed to rebut the Democratic charge that Romney's plan would "increase taxes for the middle class." The studies conclude that the plan could work as Romney has said, but that doing so would require eliminating all or most deductions and credits for households with income over $100,000. That would include wiping out such popular tax provisions as the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/14/nation/la-na-romney-tax-plan-20120915


When Stephanopoulos asked him why he has refused to be more specific about which loopholes he would plug, Ryan suggested that it's because he and Romney don't yet know. "George, because we want to have this debate in the public," he said. "We want to have this debate with Congress. And we want to do this with the consent of the elected representatives of the people and figure out what loopholes should stay or go and who should or should not get them."

Meanwhile, host David Gregory tried to get some specifics out of Romney in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Give me an example of a loophole you would close," Gregory said, after trying and failing several times to coax the candidate into giving specifics.

Romney couldn't give one. "Well, I can tell you that people at the high end, high income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions," he said. "Those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise they'd get a tax break. And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html

2) Regulations, which looking past the first giant bold letters of Obama Failure, start off with "Repeal everything and replace it". Hmm, surely no empty salesman like guarantee's there, right?-


But Romney, on many occasions, has called for the repeal (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/303967/romney-dodd-frank-repeal/) of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the first significant reform of the nation’s financial system since the Great Depression. In it’s place, all Romney’s economic plan calls for is a “streamlined regulatory framework (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs).” The only specific aspects that Romney says he would implement are already in Dodd-Frank, which Romney admits in his plan (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs).

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/15/694591/romney-deregulate-wall-street/


But now the regulation-be-damned camp --- represented by the Romney campaign --- has come up with a "fix" that avoids the messiness of political discussion and debate by sidestepping the democratic process entirely. Never mind the inconvenient fact that Dodd-Frank is the law of the land (http://www.credit.com/blog/2011/07/what-the-governments-new-consumer-watchdog-means-for-you/), and that it is the constitutional duty of the executive branch --- to which Republican candidate Mitt Romney aspires --- to put it into practice.

Under the would-be president's plan (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/17/705491/romney-wall-street-repeal-how/), agencies would have to eliminate existing regulations in order to implement new ones. Specifically, agencies issuing new regulations would be required to balance the costs of new regulations by identifying offsetting cost reductions in existing regulations. In addition, Congress would have new powers to block regulations that are proposed by the agencies. As Governor Romney's economic plan affirms, "President Romney will issue an executive order instructing all agencies that they must invite Congress to vote up or down on their major regulations and forbidding them from putting those regulations into effect without congressional approval."


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mitt-romneys-rage-regulation/story?id=17128454

3) Decided to skip ahead and go to a favorite of mine, Spending! I mean, Obama is such a failure here it should really be a no brainer, easy to promise, no exaggerations, clear cut choice right?


Mitt Romney (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/mitt-romney?inline=nyt-per) says he will cut government spending by some $500 billion a year by the end of his first term, while protecting military spending. But he has not detailed many of the deep cuts to domestic programs that budget analysts say would be needed to achieve that.

He wants to cut corporate and marginal income tax rates significantly and says that he will make up for the hundreds of billions of dollars of potentially lost revenue each year by reducing tax breaks. But while he has named some tax breaks he would not touch, like the preferential tax rates for investment income, he has declined to say which ones will be on the chopping block.
And while he often speaks of repealing and replacing Obamacare, as he calls the president’s health care overhaul (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), evaluating his own plan is not easy. He calls for encouraging individuals to buy their own health insurance by changing the tax code to no longer give an advantage to those receiving health insurance from their employers, but he has not explained the new tax credits or deductions he will propose to help people buy coverage on their own.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/us/politics/mitt-romney-remains-vague-on-details-of-some-proposals.html


Romney has outlined specific tax cuts on his campaign website (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax). They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.

To offset those cuts, Romney has suggested that (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-tax-musings-suggest-rich-pay/story?id=16149624#.UBvauqCiHao) he would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes.

There are many tax breaks for individuals and businesses. Which ones will be reduced or eliminated? Romney doesn’t say.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/barack-obama/mitt-romney-would-add-trillions-deficit-while-obam/



Could keep on, but you get the point. So why shouldnt Romney promise us that he will become Ironman? I mean, he promised us everything else. And when asking for, what i would consider the reasonable request, how he would accomplish this....eh, talk to him again later. You know, after that pesky election this is over. Google is fun.

Fin_Frenzy_84
09-20-2012, 10:41 PM
Dont forget Romney plans on curing cancer, becoming Ironman, and reintroducing dinosaurs into the wild(only the ones from 6k years ago, cant upset his base).

How is he going to do all this? Eh, dont worry about that, he'll let us know after the election.

Trust me I understand all presidents lie and do not do all there promises but Obama had a **** load of promises and has like 67 broken promises. I think its time for a change.... Bring Romney in!!!!

Also Obama tripled the nations debt, he did take the troops out of iraq yet he also sent more troops before ending it, he also should of never leaked out the info on how the navy seals got osama...

JamesBW43
09-20-2012, 11:04 PM
Also Obama tripled the nations debt, he did take the troops out of iraq yet he also sent more troops before ending it, he also should of never leaked out the info on how the navy seals got osama...
:bobdole:

Spesh
09-20-2012, 11:13 PM
Trust me I understand all presidents lie and do not do all there promises but Obama had a **** load of promises and has like 67 broken promises. I think its time for a change.... Bring Romney in!!!!

Also Obama tripled the nations debt, he did take the troops out of iraq yet he also sent more troops before ending it, he also should of never leaked out the info on how the navy seals got osama...

Really love how Romney has secured peoples vote: By being someone other then Barack Obama.

Obama has alot of broken promises, but he much of what he promised has sat in the House floor being filibustered or shot down. This was the least productive Congress in over 60 years. That said, alot of what the House shot down was crap anyways, so little do i care.
And Bush blew the surplus he inherited and got us into debt to begin with. Im unimpressed when people complain about the debt because they immediately urge people to vote for a Republican. Ive been posting it over and over again, trying to talk people into voting for Romney because Obama couldnt fix it is simply saying "A Democrat couldnt fix in 4 years what a Republican broke in 8, so lets vote in another Republican!". It makes no sense to me.

Your right though. To say a politician is capable of deception is redundant and to say they are trustworthy is a contradiction of terms. That said, to secure my vote for the most powerful position on the face of the planet someone has to do more then "not be the other guy". He has to have vision or at least plans to fix the problems of our time and a willingness to make hard decisions. And Romney's "plans" are to have a plan after he gets elected. The stuff he has put forward has been beyond broken and even he has admitted to having no idea how to accomplish the things he wants to do. As well, Romney has proven himself way to eager to lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead. Believe it or not, i do try and focus my discussions around policy and positions, but Romney has come across as someone utterly without conviction. There isnt a stance he hasnt changed while running for public office and the next time he stands up to his own party will be the first.

Its very, very, depressing to admit this, but with these two main candidates(and in many forms it will be two candidates because Romney campaign is trying to prevent people from voting third party) this election isnt about "if Obama deserves a second term"(he doesnt, period). This election is about if things could get much worse then they already are. And they can. Very much so.

MadDog 88
09-21-2012, 10:32 AM
There needs to be a national referandum on setting 8-12 year term limits on the House and Senate. With the same assclowns there it doesnt matter who the president is.

Locke
09-21-2012, 12:08 PM
There needs to be a national referandum on setting 8-12 year term limits on the House and Senate. With the same assclowns there it doesnt matter who the president is.

Ted just won the PoFo. Truer words haven't been spoken...

trojanma
09-21-2012, 01:51 PM
I am all for term limits as a way of limiting corruption, but there has been a downside of all the turnover. A lot has been said over the importance of long standing relationships and how that helps reach across the aisle and get things done. Example being how Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden are apparently friendly and it allowed the crisis in the summer to get resolved.

If we keep churning in new people especially ones that have no interest in compromising it will only further the gridlock.

IMO it is the gridlock that is killing things. Both sides have important points, but this my way or the highway approach that leads to nothing getting done. Any politician crazy enough to actually compromise is at risk of getting primaried.

JamesBW43
09-21-2012, 04:29 PM
Term limits are a double edged sword. They might get rid of bad politicians faster than voters would but they limit what a "good" politician can accomplish. They also give more power to the parties since newer politicians are typically forced to rely upon them early in their career.

There was a reason LBJ was so effective at getting legislation passed. And part of that was because he was in Washington for ~30 years.

jribs
09-21-2012, 06:58 PM
Can we really vote for a man that is bankrupting our country and taking us on the fast track toward Greece (with no one to bail us out) and and only wants to make EVERYONE middle class. Socialism at its best.

trojanma
09-21-2012, 07:16 PM
How is Obama bankrupting the country anymore than Romney will plan to bankrupt the country. They are identical! One says stimulus the other says tax cuts. Either way we are running a deficit!
You Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh fanboys are hilarious.

The only way we get put in the same paragraph as Greece is if the congress refuses to let the debt ceiling like that Psychopath Bachman was urging folks to do.
Then our interest rates triple and boom the debt triples.

jribs
09-21-2012, 07:35 PM
Have you seen what he is doing to our country RIGHT NOW? Do you not understand Obamacare? My healthcare in preparation for his crap plan has gone down the crap hole and cost more. I don't listen to talk shows because of the bias but I do a lot of reading and from what I can tell your CNBC strpes are showing bright and clear. If you want to talk about psychopaths lets talk about Reid and Pelosi that still needs to read what is in the bill.

trojanma
09-21-2012, 08:04 PM
I promise you I understand the ACA a lot better than most. As a physician I will see the cuts to Medicare first hand.
This is as opposed to the Ryan/Romney plan which will pass the cuts to the people(read ballooning premiums) not the providers(assuming they choose the Ryan budget as a blueprint).

The ACA is flawed, but 90% of the criticism against it is simply untrue. One of those is the fact that it breaks the budget. The initial purpose of the ACA was to reign in the cost of rising Medicare costs. It succeeds at the expense of providers.
In regards to Medicare costs the WORST thing we can do is to do NOTHING.

ACA also forces to the insurance companies to keep from withholding care to people.

jribs
09-21-2012, 08:40 PM
I am sorry but I have to disagree...I do a lot of research to make informed decisions and I have yet to read anything other then that it will break the budget in the future. The ones that say that it will obliterate the budget are immediately are right wing and the ones that say it will be balanced are left wing or Government literature. More neutral information says that (if I remember correctly) by 2020 or 2012 it will be hemorrhaging like some of our other current Government sponsored plans.
BUT...If it is so wonderful and 90% of the criticism is untrue then how come..... 1.) I am experiencing it first had with my healthcare plan that we have been told straight forward that it is preparation for obamacare. (My plan used to be very good, not cheap but good.) Now it just sucks. And 2.) My Physician who, for now I can still go and see, is retiring in two years to go and take up teaching? You can call it "ACA" but if it looks like crap and smells like crap...guess what?

This is just one topic that I am very disgusted about with the current president (and I VOTED for him) and truth is he makes me sick....just hope I get over it before obamacare kicks in or I have to give my fair share and be taxed for it.

trojanma
09-21-2012, 10:48 PM
Don't take my word for it this is from the CBO. The most impartial arbiter of cost in our government.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-reid_letter_managers_correction_noted.pdf

"10-year budget window by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories
and assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is
likely to increase over time. The categories are as follows:


• The gross cost of the coverage expansions, consisting of exchange subsidies, the net
costs of expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and tax credits for employers: Those
provisions have an estimated cost of $199 billion in 2019, and that cost is growing
at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window. As a
rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the
following decade.
• The excise tax on high-premium insurance plans: JCT estimates that the provision
would generate about $35 billion in additional revenues in 2019 and expects that
receipts would grow by roughly 10 percent to 15 percent per year in the following
decade.
• Other taxes and other effects of coverage provisions on revenues: Increased
revenues from those provisions are estimated to total $74 billion in 2019 and are
growing at about 7 percent per year toward the end of the budget window. As a
rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the
following decade.
• Changes to the Medicare program and changes to Medicaid and CHIP other than
those associated directly with expanded insurance coverage: Savings from those
provisions are estimated to total $106 billion in 2019, and CBO expects that, in
combination, they would increase by nearly 15 percent per year in the next decade.

All told, the legislation incorporating the manager’s amendment would reduce the federal
deficit by $16 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. In the decade after 2019, the gross
cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater.
Consequently, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget
deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under"


So in Summary
Expansion costs 199 billion
Excise Tax -35 billion
Other effects -74 billion
Changes to Medicare -106 billion

A reduction of 16 billion for 2019.

jribs
09-22-2012, 08:10 AM
You are being a sheep. And you didn't answer my questions. In addition, what this does not mention is how the quality of care will be drastically reduced. NICE how much MORE TAXES we the people are going to have to pay. You must like giving away your hard earned money what in the end is an inferior product and I (and maybe you if you are living on food stamps) get no benefit. With a quick search I can counter your above with an article that came out since the CBO info you have above. If I search harder I can find others....please note (not the article but the info) that this is coming from....the CBO!!!! Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse. This is only a portion of the article here and the link below so you can read the rest for yourself. Basically your argument is weak. In essences we (those of who pay taxes) are going to be paying more, getting less and causing more damage to this country. Stop being a sheep, educate yourself with more then what CNBC or any other of the left slated tv is spewing and do some independent research. This is just a small thing that is causing harm to this country and shows that this president has been bad for our country and unfortunalty I am no longer proud of this country that by the way I did serve for (because I wanted to not because I needed to). http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/

For the purposes of this analysis, I looked at three sets of CBO projections: (1) the March 20, 2010 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21351)report that was published hours before the final Obamacare vote in Congress; (2) the February 18, 2011 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22027) report estimating the deficit impact of repealing Obamacare; and (3) the July 24, 2012 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471)report estimating the deficit impact of repealing Obamacare after the Supreme Court ruling. The first report looked at the fiscal impact of the law from 2010-2019; the second from 2012-2021; and the third from 2013-2022. Hence, there are two ways to compare the three reports: first, an apples-to-apples comparison of the seven years (2013-2019) common to the three reports; second, by comparing the total ten-year cost of the law reported in each case, to show how the law’s costs increase over time. There are small technical differences between the first report and the next two, because repealing Obamacare is different from passing it. But these three reports are the ones that go into Obamacare’s fiscal impact at the level of detail I needed to conduct this analysis.
Spending projections for 2013-2019 have increased by $124 billion In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s spending on new programs would amount to $929 billion from 2013-2019, and a ten-year cost of $944 billion. Those figures increased to $956 billion and $1,442 billion respectively in 2011, and $1,053 billion and $1,856 billion in 2012. By “spending on new programs” I mean all the spending in Obamacare on new programs, principally the cost of expanding coverage via Medicaid and the new exchanges. These figures don’t include the cuts to Medicare, which I will discuss later. What’s remarkable is that this increased spending comes despite the fact that the CBO estimated that state cutbacks in the Medicaid program, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, would reduce government spending by $84 billion from 2012-2022. In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s tax increases would amount to $626 billion from 2013-2019, and $631 billion over ten years. In 2011, the CBO estimated totals of $624 and $968 billion, respectively. In the most recent report, the CBO projected a 2013-2019 total of $672 billion, and a ten-year total of $1,221 billion.

trojanma
09-22-2012, 11:19 AM
How can you in one sentence say that we are uninformed sheep following propaganda and then follow your argument with an article that is propaganda(How else can you call something that refers to the ACA as Obamacare). This speaks to part of the issue in our society as it is very difficult to get real facts without some spin on them.

There are three CBO estimations on the eventual cost of the ACA. THough you have to realize that the third is a virtual situation of the effect on the budget if the ACA were to be repealed. Ironically repealing the ACA would result in an increase in deficits.

"Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:"
HR6079 is the republican act of congress to repeal the ACA

The numbers are ugly. why? Healthcare in this country is ugly. Americans treat healthcare like it is a drive through window at McDonalds. Many providers oblige them.

Universal Healthcare is important.
Why?
It is all about productivity.
Without access to care people get sick-> if they get sick they don't work-> if they are chronically sick and their chronic preventable diseases don't get fixed they go on disability-> Eventually our disability/social support system will crack- Now these disabled people will either die or have to be cared for by their families hurting productivity of healthy people.

This is why the vast majority of industrialized nations have Universal Coverage!

Spesh
09-22-2012, 12:56 PM
Can we really vote for a man that is bankrupting our country and taking us on the fast track toward Greece (with no one to bail us out) and and only wants to make EVERYONE middle class. Socialism at its best.

Conservative definition of Socialism: anytime any money goes into anything whatsoever its socialism. You know, anything except for defense. Then its redblooded, erection worthy, cowboy pistol firing, god fearing capitalism.

Edit: And cant stop laughing at this "discussion". Only on this forum could we have people suggest the reason they are voting for Romney is due to Obamacare. Because, you know, Romney is totally against universal health care of any kind. He understands its socialism!

JamesBW43
09-22-2012, 01:12 PM
I am sorry but I have to disagree...I do a lot of research to make informed decisions and I have yet to read anything other then that it will break the budget in the future. The ones that say that it will obliterate the budget are immediately are right wing and the ones that say it will be balanced are left wing or Government literature. More neutral information says that (if I remember correctly) by 2020 or 2012 it will be hemorrhaging like some of our other current Government sponsored plans.
BUT...If it is so wonderful and 90% of the criticism is untrue then how come..... 1.) I am experiencing it first had with my healthcare plan that we have been told straight forward that it is preparation for obamacare. (My plan used to be very good, not cheap but good.) Now it just sucks. And 2.) My Physician who, for now I can still go and see, is retiring in two years to go and take up teaching? You can call it "ACA" but if it looks like crap and smells like crap...guess what?

This is just one topic that I am very disgusted about with the current president (and I VOTED for him) and truth is he makes me sick....just hope I get over it before obamacare kicks in or I have to give my fair share and be taxed for it.

What exactly are you experiencing with your health care plan that the ACA is the cause of? Did your physician actually say he/she was retiring due to the ACA? And if so, did he/she say why?

jribs
09-22-2012, 05:29 PM
I call it Obamacare because that is the ugly word that is put on it and if fits the whole thing is ugly or as I eluded to earlier is crap. You want to call it ACA because that is a nice (politically sheepish correct) way to say it and whatever viewpoints you watch want you to call it....you still have not answered my questions and your argument is not convincing.
"This is why the vast majority of industrialized nations have Universal Coverage!"....First off we are not like every other industrialized nation and that is what once made us great. Second, didn't your mother ever tell you that if everyone else jumped off the cliff???.....My health care was just fine prior to the current president....AND I didnt have to pay for everyone else.

Slesh-First off read my other posts and you can see that this not the only reason I wont vote for him again. I am not thrilled about Romney either but he is the lesser of two evils. I call it socialism because that is the model it follows. What do you call it? Paying your fair share?

James- I did not go in to specifics with my doctor and it has been over a year since I have seen him. I try to get somewhat informed with out being nosy or overbearing. However the conversation was something to the effect of: "Can I get your view on "Obamacare" (that is a bad word by the way) and his response was a simple " I will be getting out of healthcare with in the next couple of years and maybe look at being a professor at .....(I don't remember)...the next thing that was said was either "Cough" or "little pressure here." I used to have a traditional HMO health plan. I don't know what they call it now but I have very high deductibles that must be reached. Stupid things like I cannot go to a specialist with out a referral among a number of things. So now I don't go to the doctor. If I break something or get hospitalized then hopefully it will pay off but in the mean time my cost have gone up for crappier care. I have people that work for me that have kids and are suffering with all of the money out of pocket they have to pay now that previously was not an issue since it was a copay. It is sad. But what is sadder is that I and anyone that pays taxes will be paying MORE for worse care..and that is the one thing that trojanma cannot deny or wont address.

Spesh
09-22-2012, 06:13 PM
Slesh-First off read my other posts and you can see that this not the only reason I wont vote for him again. I am not thrilled about Romney either but he is the lesser of two evils. I call it socialism because that is the model it follows. What do you call it? Paying your fair share?


Taxes.

And i forgot, it follows a socialist model and all socialism is wrong and evil. My question is: why do you hate the military? And cops, why are cops inherently evil? Also public transportation, how evil are those bus drivers? Schools, how come schools are so horrible(this one is like lobbing a beachball across the plate)? Space exploration, how communist is landing on the moon?

Coming in here talking about how bad Obama is(which you really havent, youve just talked about how bad Fox News thinks Obama is) isnt convincing anyone that Romney is the lesser of two evils. All you are saying is Obama has been bad, which is assure you no one in here has been comatose for the last 4 years and notices. And even if they were comatose Obama set up that death panel and offed them....wait a second.....

Anyways, ive stated it repeatedly, but it doesnt seem to stick: to convince people that Romney is the lesser of two evils you would actually have to talk about the benefits of a Mitt Romney presidency. As there are very few benefits, i can see why this straw man argument against Obama keeps coming up.

Dolphins9954
09-22-2012, 06:33 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/406366_506271096065929_981614935_n-1.jpg

JackFinfan
09-22-2012, 06:43 PM
I call it Obamacare because that is the ugly word that is put on it and if fits the whole thing is ugly or as I eluded to earlier is crap. You want to call it ACA because that is a nice (politically sheepish correct) way to say it and whatever viewpoints you watch want you to call it....you still have not answered my questions and your argument is not convincing.
"This is why the vast majority of industrialized nations have Universal Coverage!"....First off we are not like every other industrialized nation and that is what once made us great. Second, didn't your mother ever tell you that if everyone else jumped off the cliff???.....My health care was just fine prior to the current president....AND I didnt have to pay for everyone else.

Slesh-First off read my other posts and you can see that this not the only reason I wont vote for him again. I am not thrilled about Romney either but he is the lesser of two evils. I call it socialism because that is the model it follows. What do you call it? Paying your fair share?

James- I did not go in to specifics with my doctor and it has been over a year since I have seen him. I try to get somewhat informed with out being nosy or overbearing. However the conversation was something to the effect of: "Can I get your view on "Obamacare" (that is a bad word by the way) and his response was a simple " I will be getting out of healthcare with in the next couple of years and maybe look at being a professor at .....(I don't remember)...the next thing that was said was either "Cough" or "little pressure here." I used to have a traditional HMO health plan. I don't know what they call it now but I have very high deductibles that must be reached. Stupid things like I cannot go to a specialist with out a referral among a number of things. So now I don't go to the doctor. If I break something or get hospitalized then hopefully it will pay off but in the mean time my cost have gone up for crappier care. I have people that work for me that have kids and are suffering with all of the money out of pocket they have to pay now that previously was not an issue since it was a copay. It is sad. But what is sadder is that I and anyone that pays taxes will be paying MORE for worse care..and that is the one thing that trojanma cannot deny or wont address.

I think people want to call it ACA because that's the actual name of the bill. What a crazy idea, calling a bill by its name instead of some silly nickname.

jribs
09-22-2012, 06:49 PM
That is a very old argument and doesn't fly anymore...thank you but try again. When did it become okay to just say "Pay more taxes". At what point do I have to stop paying more and more taxes so you can have free medical care? or for that matter foodstamps. My taxes are ridiculous enough that I am tired of paying for you and everybody else.

You too are just another sheep. Obviously you have not read what I have said previously, I do research independent of left wing or right wing media outlets. I would be lying if I said I have never been to either Fox or CNBC when checking out information, it hard not to come across these news articles but you are obviously are so stuck on your CNBC channel (telling us how great Obama is) to get informed about what I have been talking about. The one benefit is that he is not Obama but that is obvious...Tell me what are my benefits of keeping Obama around?

And by the way, I don't hate the military, I served proudly for eight years and did 4 tours during the first gulf war. Space exploration...do you live in Florida? NASA is a shell of what it once was. You do realize we are depending on the (cant believe I have to say this) RUSSIANS to take us to space.

So tell me, how is your healthcare? or are you waiting for me to pay for it?

CedarPhin
09-22-2012, 07:04 PM
That is a very old argument and doesn't fly anymore...thank you but try again. When did it become okay to just say "Pay more taxes". At what point do I have to stop paying more and more taxes so you can have free medical care? or for that matter foodstamps. My taxes are ridiculous enough that I am tired of paying for you and everybody else.

You too are just another sheep. Obviously you have not read what I have said previously, I do research independent of left wing or right wing media outlets. I would be lying if I said I have never been to either Fox or CNBC when checking out information, it hard not to come across these news articles but you are obviously are so stuck on your CNBC channel (telling us how great Obama is) to get informed about what I have been talking about. The one benefit is that he is not Obama but that is obvious...Tell me what are my benefits of keeping Obama around?

And by the way, I don't hate the military, I served proudly for eight years and did 4 tours during the first gulf war. Space exploration...do you live in Florida? NASA is a shell of what it once was. You do realize we are depending on the (cant believe I have to say this) RUSSIANS to take us to space.

So tell me, how is your healthcare? or are you waiting for me to pay for it?

Are you not a sheep (your words, not mine) for being a FoxBot/LimbaughBot?

trojanma
09-22-2012, 07:19 PM
Ok it took me a while but I actually found your questions that you keep demanding I answer.

If it is so wonderful and 90% of the criticism is untrue then how come..... 1.) I am experiencing it first had with my healthcare plan that we have been told straight forward that it is preparation for obamacare. (My plan used to be very good, not cheap but good.) Now it just sucks. And 2.) My Physician who, for now I can still go and see, is retiring in two years to go and take up teachin

1)
Do you actually expect me to comment on why your coverage has changed over the years?
The only person who is actually qualified to answer this question is the CFO of your insurance company.
Hate to burst your bubble but insurance companies jobs are profits. To make money they deny you care.

2) Why is my doctor retiring.
Many older physicians are finding it more difficult to practice in modern times. Medicare is making some demands from docs(one example is an electronic medical record). These are very expensive to implement, but in the long run will result in quality control improvements.(FYI this push started long before the ACA)
Remember the ACA's cuts are going to chop off payouts to docs by medicare. The offset is planned by there being less uninsured people to offset costs to hospitals. Unfortunately this does nothing for small clinics. This is part of the cost containment that allows the ACA save money 10 years from now.
Generally speaking on average doctors are working longer hours and making less money than ever before.


The one amusing thing that people fail to understand is that healthcare in the US is broken. Simply eliminating the ACA is not going to make the golden days return. That is pure fantasy.

The US population is getting older, and more expensive to care for. Medical therapies are becoming more high tech and expensive to implement and politicians are looking to REDUCE the allocation of funds.
The ACA was an attempt to fix this cycle by bringing more people into the system and forcing doctors to accept less pay.
The Republicans have claimed that the magic of the market will change all our problems, that and will try and force the consumer to pay more for insurance.

I am one hundred percent with Spesh.
The republicans are offering no specifics about how they are going to solve these problems just empty slogans.. Why because they dont have any.

Spesh
09-22-2012, 07:25 PM
That is a very old argument and doesn't fly anymore...thank you but try again. When did it become okay to just say "Pay more taxes". At what point do I have to stop paying more and more taxes so you can have free medical care? or for that matter foodstamps. My taxes are ridiculous enough that I am tired of paying for you and everybody else.

You too are just another sheep. Obviously you have not read what I have said previously, I do research independent of left wing or right wing media outlets. I would be lying if I said I have never been to either Fox or CNBC when checking out information, it hard not to come across these news articles but you are obviously are so stuck on your CNBC channel (telling us how great Obama is) to get informed about what I have been talking about. The one benefit is that he is not Obama but that is obvious...Tell me what are my benefits of keeping Obama around?

And by the way, I don't hate the military, I served proudly for eight years and did 4 tours during the first gulf war. Space exploration...do you live in Florida? NASA is a shell of what it once was. You do realize we are depending on the (cant believe I have to say this) RUSSIANS to take us to space.

So tell me, how is your healthcare? or are you waiting for me to pay for it?

:lol:

What a persuasive argument youve put forward. Name call and finger pointing. You certainly wont hear me calling you a liar over the shocking revelation that you follow Fox News.

You asked what i would call it and i described it: taxes. Then you go on some high and mighty rant about how your taxes are to high and oh yeah food stamps. Im surprised that you forgot to include Solyndra. The ACA is considered constitutional in part because it is considered a tax. It doesnt matter if you like it, it doesnt matter if you hate it, it doesnt matter if you want to live in the woods and never pay for anything ever. I know looking past your own bias is extremely difficult, but the fact remains it is considered a tax. Period.

Please show me the quote where i talked about how great Obama is. The quote command is [QUOTE ] and [/QUOTE ] and the space between the "E" and the "]" that i had to put in so it wouldnt quote nothing. Just highlight the part of this thread where i talked about how great Obama is. But while we are on the topic, still havent seen someone talk about how good Romney is, still all about electing anyone not named Obama. Why dont you vote third party? I believe Florida will allow Gary Johnson to be a choice, Romney hasnt successfully attacked democracy in Florida. I mean, hes tried, but im fairly certain it wasnt successful. Anyone can correct me if im wrong on that.

Do we explore space, yes or no? And it doesnt matter if NASA has been reduced so badly they cant even fund a soda machine, all that matters is if they receive tax payer money. Do they receive tax payer money, yes or no?
And whoa, hold the phone a minute! Money was taken from the many and given to you? What sort of socialism is going on here!?!?!?!

JamesBW43
09-22-2012, 07:47 PM
James- I did not go in to specifics with my doctor and it has been over a year since I have seen him. I try to get somewhat informed with out being nosy or overbearing. However the conversation was something to the effect of: "Can I get your view on "Obamacare" (that is a bad word by the way) and his response was a simple " I will be getting out of healthcare with in the next couple of years and maybe look at being a professor at .....(I don't remember)...the next thing that was said was either "Cough" or "little pressure here." I used to have a traditional HMO health plan. I don't know what they call it now but I have very high deductibles that must be reached. Stupid things like I cannot go to a specialist with out a referral among a number of things. So now I don't go to the doctor. If I break something or get hospitalized then hopefully it will pay off but in the mean time my cost have gone up for crappier care. I have people that work for me that have kids and are suffering with all of the money out of pocket they have to pay now that previously was not an issue since it was a copay. It is sad. But what is sadder is that I and anyone that pays taxes will be paying MORE for worse care..and that is the one thing that trojanma cannot deny or wont address.

So you are saying that before the ACA/Obamacare, you had an insurance plan with a copay, low deductible, and you could see a specialist any time you wanted? You are also saying that other people had similar plans but now they have higher deductibles now too? How exactly did the ACA/Obamacare cause that?

CedarPhin
09-22-2012, 08:03 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/406366_506271096065929_981614935_n-1.jpg

Could be a Ron Paul rally too. Not like PaulBots are exactly independent thinkers, either. Anyone who blindly follows a politician is an idiot.

Spesh
09-22-2012, 08:15 PM
Look, we are not going to change each others minds...I am pissed at this presidency and I am tired of paying more and more taxes. And that seems to be the answer to this president....Tax and tax and tax.

Spesh-You are the biggest sheep of all because you cannot acknowledge that I said I have READ fox articles just like I said I have read CNBC articles. Learn to read and stop taking out information for how YOU want it to read. Wow being called a sheep..hope I didnt hurt your little bitty feelings. geesh.... But I have also noticed that you did not deny that I am paying for your goverment service....Truth hurts huh?
Not wasting my vote on third party. I want my vote to count so that I can try and get him out of office. DUH! Yes we do explore space and those taxes and yes they do get tax payer money THAT GOES TO THE FRIGGIN RUSSIANS.. HELLO?
And finally because you are boring me this will be my final sign on...Yes I did recieve taxpayer money while in the military, and you were tucked in bed safe and sound not having to worry because I was there protecting you...guess what...I PAID TAXES on my meager earnings.!!!!!!!!!
Good night...it has been fun but you have not convinced me on anything and I yes I am spitting mad about Obamacare or ACA or whatever else you want to call it.


:lol: :lol:

"If you dont agree with me im taking my ball and going home! Your all sheep! SHEEEEEEEEP!" :lol: Sounds about right for modern conservatism.

So let me get this right: taxes for military is capitalism and totally great and you happily paid taxes. Taxes for healthcare: EVIL SOCIALISM!!!!!

Not to worry, the Ruskies arent invading. We'll be sure to find whatever stone your hiding under and warn you before they start dropping in from space. I suppose we'll also warn Romney at the same time. I mean, he should be hiding in the stone next to yours after his presidential campaign gets done bombing.

edit: and yes, i do not deny that taxes pay for government resources. Kinda been one of my points.

edit 2: Did you delete your post after i had responded to it? Now thats funny.

Dolphins9954
09-22-2012, 10:20 PM
Could be a Ron Paul rally too. Not like PaulBots are exactly independent thinkers, either. Anyone who blindly follows a politician is an idiot.


More independent than the Obama/Romney crowd that's for sure. At least we have principles.

Dolphins9954
09-22-2012, 10:27 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/notobamanotromneybydarylcaglemsnbc-1.jpg

Go ahead and make this a Paul "bot" attack Cedar.

Dolphins9954
09-22-2012, 10:32 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/aht20120816132809873-1.jpg

Spesh
09-23-2012, 02:01 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/notobamanotromneybydarylcaglemsnbc-1.jpg


Outstanding picture and im completely stealing it for future use. If i use it on the forum totally call me out :lol:

Dolphins9954
09-23-2012, 10:44 AM
Outstanding picture and im completely stealing it for future use. If i use it on the forum totally call me out :lol:

It sums it perfectly.

jribs
09-23-2012, 08:17 PM
So you are saying that before the ACA/Obamacare, you had an insurance plan with a copay, low deductible, and you could see a specialist any time you wanted? You are also saying that other people had similar plans but now they have higher deductibles now too? How exactly did the ACA/Obamacare cause that?
James, We had choices of HMO's or other plans. We have switched over to a new plan that has deductibles...no co-pays anymore and we have been advised that this is in preparation for Obamacare/ACA.

jribs
09-23-2012, 08:21 PM
Ok it took me a while but I actually found your questions that you keep demanding I answer.

If it is so wonderful and 90% of the criticism is untrue then how come..... 1.) I am experiencing it first had with my healthcare plan that we have been told straight forward that it is preparation for obamacare. (My plan used to be very good, not cheap but good.) Now it just sucks. And 2.) My Physician who, for now I can still go and see, is retiring in two years to go and take up teachin

1)
Do you actually expect me to comment on why your coverage has changed over the years?
The only person who is actually qualified to answer this question is the CFO of your insurance company.
Hate to burst your bubble but insurance companies jobs are profits. To make money they deny you care.

2) Why is my doctor retiring.
Many older physicians are finding it more difficult to practice in modern times. Medicare is making some demands from docs(one example is an electronic medical record). These are very expensive to implement, but in the long run will result in quality control improvements.(FYI this push started long before the ACA)
Remember the ACA's cuts are going to chop off payouts to docs by medicare. The offset is planned by there being less uninsured people to offset costs to hospitals. Unfortunately this does nothing for small clinics. This is part of the cost containment that allows the ACA save money 10 years from now.
Generally speaking on average doctors are working longer hours and making less money than ever before.


The one amusing thing that people fail to understand is that healthcare in the US is broken. Simply eliminating the ACA is not going to make the golden days return. That is pure fantasy.

The US population is getting older, and more expensive to care for. Medical therapies are becoming more high tech and expensive to implement and politicians are looking to REDUCE the allocation of funds.
The ACA was an attempt to fix this cycle by bringing more people into the system and forcing doctors to accept less pay.
The Republicans have claimed that the magic of the market will change all our problems, that and will try and force the consumer to pay more for insurance.

I am one hundred percent with Spesh.
The republicans are offering no specifics about how they are going to solve these problems just empty slogans.. Why because they dont have any.

I appreciate the views. However, I dont understand how we cannot come up with a plan that more people would be willing to embrace. The country is split 50/50 on this, don't you think we can have some other plan that more people can agree on?
It is affecting me here and now and I am unhappy about it and it doesn't sound like to me (from what I have read) that it will be better in the long run.

trojanma
09-23-2012, 09:41 PM
I appreciate the views. However, I dont understand how we cannot come up with a plan that more people would be willing to embrace. The country is split 50/50 on this, don't you think we can have some other plan that more people can agree on?
It is affecting me here and now and I am unhappy about it and it doesn't sound like to me (from what I have read) that it will be better in the long run.

That is a valid beef.
I am not going to walk around and tout that the ACA is a great law. It isn't. Anyone who says it is is either an Obama donor or a fool.
The way I see it... It's a start.

Medicare in its (pre ACA) trajectory was unnacceptable something had to be done. IT was truly going to break the budget in like 20years.
Unfortunately the insurance company lobby flexed its muscles and we got what we have now- The trade off of eliminating actions by insurance companies that are immoral for the individual mandate.

This wouldn't be an easy fix if the US was run by a dictator who could do essentially what they want. With the incredible amount of special interests hamstringing the process it is an impossible task.

The other issue plaguing healthcare is "fee for service". It is completely ass backwards that a doc gets compensated more for a 5 second procedure(such as a cardiologist reading an EKG) than a 30 minute visit with a patient. This leads to unnecessary labs and test. It also compensates proceduralists(docs that do procedures) over docs that don't do procedures such as primary care.
This must change for medicine to survive. Some private docs will fight this tooth and nail. Especially places that are one stop shops and do everything under one roof. It is a cash cow.

Dolphins9954
09-24-2012, 09:17 AM
One thing I would add about ACA. My wife runs a woman's clinic/birth center here in Tampa. They just started to put caps on the number of medicaid clients they take because of the dramatic increase of them over the last few years. And to prepare themselves for the inevitable increase with Obamacare. Medicaid only pays half of what private insurance does. So they've been forced to only take so many medicaid clients. If all they took was medicaid then they would be forced to downsize and layoff workers or possibly be out of business. In order to stay afloat and make a profit they have to put caps on medicaid clients. Many people my wife knows in the field have started to do the same things. Some such as chiropractors we know have totally cut out all medicaid and medicare. Doing only cash or private insurance. I see this as one of those unintended consequences that always happens when government gets involved in things. A lot of people won't be able to have quality care simply because they're medicaid.

The crazy thing about it all is this. The birth center my wife runs charges $4800 per birth. While the hospitals charges around $15,000 a birth and over 30,000 for c-section. The government pays the 15,000 and 30,000 to the hospitals all day long through medicaid. But short changes the birth center $2400 a birth. How does this make any sense???? The whole thing is a racket.

Spesh
09-24-2012, 05:27 PM
Amid a Friday afternoon focused squarely on the details of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns, the Republican candidate also quietly released a white paper (http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/securing-american-dream-and-future-housing-policy) on the candidate’s housing policy. As I’ve written before, the campaigns have remained quite silent (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-05/democrats-silent-on-housing-at-the-convention) on housing and foreclosures, even though the housing market is struggling and more than one in five homeowners (http://www.corelogic.com/about-us/news/corelogic-releases-september-marketpulse-report.aspx) owe more than their house is worth. The new Romney plan document is all of seven pages long–one of those pages is the cover, and three pages lay out the current situation and bash Obama’s policies. That leaves a one-page executive summary that recaps the two pages that actually outline the “plan.”

That part of the plan is, shall we say, light on details. So much so that Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal wrote (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-housing-market-plan-2012-9) (in his headline no less) that the paper “has got to be a joke.” He pointed to how Romney addressed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government Sponsored Enterprises that guarantee mortgages and got a nearly $190 billion (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/10-preferred-stock-investments) bailout. The white paper says: “The Romney-Ryan plan will completely end ‘too-big-to-fail’ by reforming the GSEs… Rather than just talk about reform, a Romney-Ryan Administration will protect taxpayers from additional risk in the future by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and provide a long-term, sustainable solution for the future of housing finance reform in our country.” Got that? So Romney will reform them and do something new. How Romney will “reform” them and what will replace them isn’t specified. Republicans typically talk about ending the GSEs, so if reforming them involves something different, it could be a departure from many in the party.

Other parts of the Romney plan look an awful lot like what Obama’s plan has done–much of which has had only a limited impact.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romneys-housing-plan-looks-lot-155724260.html

This is a perfect example of what ive been repeatedly refering to.

7 total pages, 1 of those a cover. Of the 6 remaining pages 3 of them are devoted to talking about how bad Obama is. The remaining 3 talk about how he will make something new up after the election.

If i hadnt been awake these last 4 years, id almost believe Obama is a great president. Simply because Republicans keep talking about how bad he is but also refusing to say what they would do differently. I dont need reminders about how bad Obama is, i live here and can see it. What i need to know is how Romney will things differently and Romney refuses to tell me. Instead all i get are meaningless words and empty slogans. Paul Ryan spent his convention speech emphasizing how they would lead. Yet, less than 50 days before the election, i dont see any sort of leadership. All i see is them running in circles. If you want to lead something, you cant just sit here and do nothing while talking about how bad the other guy is.

Romney's entire campaign can be summed up with "I'll tell you after the election". I refuse to vote for a man who clearly has no idea what he wants to do. Its obvious Romney only wants to be president for the title. This is pathetic.

Awsi Dooger
09-24-2012, 08:04 PM
Very lengthy post. Sorry in advance.

I sampled the thread quickly and noted the misconception that the race should be a slam dunk for Romney. That falls in line with the false overconfidence from Democrats in 2004. Obama is in the most favorable situational spot in American politics -- an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Extreme benefit of a doubt from the electorate. They aren't tired of the party or convinced the other side has all the answers. I think it's 9 for 10 over the past century+, the only defeat Carter in 1980.

If Obama were saddled with Carter's high 30s, low 40s approval rating and overseas hostage turmoil, Romney would indeed cruise. But with Obama at high 40s it's a tight race. The incumbent tends to mirror his approval rating on election day. That's the number to keep an eye on, along with national polls. The averaging of national polls these days has become so reliable it wipes out all the old desperate crutches, like claims of slanted polls. Also, don't fall for the conventional wisdom garbage that state polls are all that matters. The national margin dictates each state, which fall in line with their typical relationship to the national indications. It's called partisan index. If either man leads the national poll averaging by 1.5 to 2 or greater on election eve, he's the winner.

I'm not convinced this race tilts to Obama as much as the current polls assert. Early this year, during the GOP primaries, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com broke down every potential matchup and concluded that Romney had an 83% likelihood of victory if he were the nominee and the economy didn't improve by November. Same with sports, I always like to remember foundational evidence as opposed to infatuation with the latest news or results. There had to be a reason for that 83%. Silver now ignores it, defaulting strictly to current polls and the applied 75% theoretical advantage to Obama. I sense the truth is much lower than that 75%.

Has the economy improved? The public apparently believes it has. The right track/wrong track number jumped to 42/48 recently. Not good but notably higher than previous trends. For reference purposes, that number was in the 13/87 range in the months leading to the election in 2008. Quite precious of Romney to claim Americans can't say they are better off.

The following section will feature harsh themes and won't be popular but I'll post it anyway: The GOP is running a campaign more likely to succeed in midterms than a presidential cycle. Young females don't show up in midterms. Women are roughly 50.5% of the electorate in midterms compared to 53% in presidential years. Married women still participate in midterms but single women stay home. Consequently, the SAM voters that the conservative message is targeted to -- and delivered by -- don't have nearly the same pull in presidential years. SAMs are Simplistic Angry Males. That's the GOP base, beyond senior citizens or the wealthy. Young and predominantly white males grow up believing Republicans are the daddy party and Democrats the mommy party. They'll swallow every line, like the poster who announced that Romney will create 12 million new jobs and personally hand out a voucher to heaven. Or maybe that's Paul Ryan. Sorry. The SAM belief system is currently fixated on -- but not limited to -- birtherism, Obama as a Muslim, voter fraud, socialism, fear, exclusion, more fear, guns, more guns to justify the fear, coddling corporations regardless of their screw tendencies, and taxes as the one word to default to as substitute for paying attention. For decades it's been ridiculous that Democrats sat back and allowed it to happen, for the SAM messaging of the moment to take hold. Only Bill Clinton frustrates Republicans and dismantles their argument piece by piece. During the early stages of his speech a few weeks ago I impatiently urged him to, "Get to the math. Get to the math." Naturally he delivered it in even more devastating fashion than I projected but it's like the early minutes of a college game with 40 point favoritism. You know where the deck is stacked but until the touchdowns start to pour in there a bit of apprehension that the side relying on cheap parlor tricks may not be fully exposed.

I wouldn't have gone this far until two weeks ago. My elderly dad was hospitalized for a week. He was stuck sharing the same room with a prototype SAM. Absolutely maddening. The genius SAM put himself there by abusing alcohol and drugs while tailgating. We were watching the convention on our side of the curtain while the SAM ranted against Obama as a Muslim who hates America and will force the country into socialism if re-elected. His girlfriend is an Obama supporter who kept asking for evidence. His response, in an animated voice: "How do I know? Because I know." Unbelievable. Every time I think MSNBC or Bill Maher are going too far with their tones, I run into SAMs in Las Vegas sportsbooks, or sample their posts on certain message boards. College football boards are a SAM staple right now, given the SEC dominance of late.

I'm reminded of children's literature, and a potential slogan: "SAM I Am." Heck, they probably wouldn't balk at it. Once again I'll default to situational impact. I grew up in opposition to the GOP but not unimpressed by their leaders or spokesmen. Short burst big picture ideas. Somewhere along the line it changed. William Buckley and George Will gave way to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I came to realize that the over the top conservative mouth pieces had grown up during the '70s and particularly the '80s, when all you had to do was mock Democrats as liberal and twist the candidate into anything you wanted. That was guaranteed to work when the math was on your side: Reagan ran with whites as 90% of the electorate in '80, and '89% in '84. Now it's down to 74% and steadily sliding. That's why I always get a kick out of calls for another Reagan. He wouldn't enjoy nearly the same advantages today. It's like me pretending as a Canes fan that it's 1980 again, with the Orange Bowl still intact and rocking, with Bernie Kosar and Vinny Testaverde and all the other greats nearly ready to assemble on campus. Limbaugh and all the others awaited their turn as most influential, with no comprehension that the electorate had already begun to shift the other way, dramatically altering the margin for error.

I'm hardly saying Romney can't win. He absolutely can win. With unemployment numbers like we have, and below average growth rate, an incumbent is undeniably vulnerable. Romney already won a race against a poor situational backdrop in 2002. The economy had dropped from Clinton highs. 9/11 caused unease. Voters were determined to lash out against somebody and in state after state the holding party took it on the chin in gubernatorial races if an incumbent wasn't there to state his/her case. It was a ridiculous percentage over the span of a few years, something like 21 of 23 states changing hands if it was an open race. That's how you got so many weird gubernatorial takeovers in 2002, like Republicans in Maryland and Hawaii, with Democrats in Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana. But in Maryland the trend should have pointed to Shannon O'Brien, the Democrat. Massachusetts was already run by a Republican, prior to Romney. When Romney defeated O'Brien against the trend -- and by several points -- I took notice and worried about his national prospects. I view the guy as a creep but obviously that's not unanimously shared.

If Romney prevails it will be narrowly. That's what I was getting at. Republicans have forfeited most of their huge natural advantage -- 33% self-described conservatives nationwide to 21% liberals -- by alienating a huge chunk of the electorate and somehow ignoring the shifting math, the demographic trends working against them. Florida is a convenient example. In 2004 George Bush won Florida when 72.6% of the registered voters were white. That dropped to 69.1% in 2008, and is down to 67.5% this year. That's what Romney is dealing with. Cubans may be pro-Republican but any time that percentage of whites drops it's bad new for the GOP. That's why they desperately invented voter fraud as a means to massage the electorate at the other end, as a counter to demographic shifts.

Granted, if Romney wins this time in he'll enjoy the same situational advantage in 2016 that I mentioned long ago in the opening paragraph -- incumbent/party one term in power. It's extremely, extremely unlikely that trend would be overcome two cycles in a row. For one thing, Romney and his party would receive credit for the economic uptick, which is inevitable. That's why this race is essentially a 2-for-1 for Romney. He'll be our president until January 2021 if successful in 6 weeks. Supreme Court nominations and everything else.

And 2016 is the only logical prospect for a lopsided GOP victory. If Romney fails this time, the Republicans will face an open race four years from now, with the demographics further moving away from them, putting states like Arizona in play.

trojanma
09-24-2012, 08:39 PM
Very lengthy post. Sorry in advance.

Great Post
Totally agree about SAM's.

Locke
09-25-2012, 12:31 AM
Very lengthy post. Sorry in advance.

I sampled the thread quickly and noted the misconception that the race should be a slam dunk for Romney. That falls in line with the false overconfidence from Democrats in 2004. Obama is in the most favorable situational spot in American politics -- an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Extreme benefit of a doubt from the electorate. They aren't tired of the party or convinced the other side has all the answers. I think it's 9 for 10 over the past century+, the only defeat Carter in 1980.

If Obama were saddled with Carter's high 30s, low 40s approval rating and overseas hostage turmoil, Romney would indeed cruise. But with Obama at high 40s it's a tight race. The incumbent tends to mirror his approval rating on election day. That's the number to keep an eye on, along with national polls. The averaging of national polls these days has become so reliable it wipes out all the old desperate crutches, like claims of slanted polls. Also, don't fall for the conventional wisdom garbage that state polls are all that matters. The national margin dictates each state, which fall in line with their typical relationship to the national indications. It's called partisan index. If either man leads the national poll averaging by 1.5 to 2 or greater on election eve, he's the winner.

I'm not convinced this race tilts to Obama as much as the current polls assert. Early this year, during the GOP primaries, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com broke down every potential matchup and concluded that Romney had an 83% likelihood of victory if he were the nominee and the economy didn't improve by November. Same with sports, I always like to remember foundational evidence as opposed to infatuation with the latest news or results. There had to be a reason for that 83%. Silver now ignores it, defaulting strictly to current polls and the applied 75% theoretical advantage to Obama. I sense the truth is much lower than that 75%.

Has the economy improved? The public apparently believes it has. The right track/wrong track number jumped to 42/48 recently. Not good but notably higher than previous trends. For reference purposes, that number was in the 13/87 range in the months leading to the election in 2008. Quite precious of Romney to claim Americans can't say they are better off.

The following section will feature harsh themes and won't be popular but I'll post it anyway: The GOP is running a campaign more likely to succeed in midterms than a presidential cycle. Young females don't show up in midterms. Women are roughly 50.5% of the electorate in midterms compared to 53% in presidential years. Married women still participate in midterms but single women stay home. Consequently, the SAM voters that the conservative message is targeted to -- and delivered by -- don't have nearly the same pull in presidential years. SAMs are Simplistic Angry Males. That's the GOP base, beyond senior citizens or the wealthy. Young and predominantly white males grow up believing Republicans are the daddy party and Democrats the mommy party. They'll swallow every line, like the poster who announced that Romney will create 12 million new jobs and personally hand out a voucher to heaven. Or maybe that's Paul Ryan. Sorry. The SAM belief system is currently fixated on -- but not limited to -- birtherism, Obama as a Muslim, voter fraud, socialism, fear, exclusion, more fear, guns, more guns to justify the fear, coddling corporations regardless of their screw tendencies, and taxes as the one word to default to as substitute for paying attention. For decades it's been ridiculous that Democrats sat back and allowed it to happen, for the SAM messaging of the moment to take hold. Only Bill Clinton frustrates Republicans and dismantles their argument piece by piece. During the early stages of his speech a few weeks ago I impatiently urged him to, "Get to the math. Get to the math." Naturally he delivered it in even more devastating fashion than I projected but it's like the early minutes of a college game with 40 point favoritism. You know where the deck is stacked but until the touchdowns start to pour in there a bit of apprehension that the side relying on cheap parlor tricks may not be fully exposed.

I wouldn't have gone this far until two weeks ago. My elderly dad was hospitalized for a week. He was stuck sharing the same room with a prototype SAM. Absolutely maddening. The genius SAM put himself there by abusing alcohol and drugs while tailgating. We were watching the convention on our side of the curtain while the SAM ranted against Obama as a Muslim who hates America and will force the country into socialism if re-elected. His girlfriend is an Obama supporter who kept asking for evidence. His response, in an animated voice: "How do I know? Because I know." Unbelievable. Every time I think MSNBC or Bill Maher are going too far with their tones, I run into SAMs in Las Vegas sportsbooks, or sample their posts on certain message boards. College football boards are a SAM staple right now, given the SEC dominance of late.

I'm reminded of children's literature, and a potential slogan: "SAM I Am." Heck, they probably wouldn't balk at it. Once again I'll default to situational impact. I grew up in opposition to the GOP but not unimpressed by their leaders or spokesmen. Short burst big picture ideas. Somewhere along the line it changed. William Buckley and George Will gave way to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I came to realize that the over the top conservative mouth pieces had grown up during the '70s and particularly the '80s, when all you had to do was mock Democrats as liberal and twist the candidate into anything you wanted. That was guaranteed to work when the math was on your side: Reagan ran with whites as 90% of the electorate in '80, and '89% in '84. Now it's down to 74% and steadily sliding. That's why I always get a kick out of calls for another Reagan. He wouldn't enjoy nearly the same advantages today. It's like me pretending as a Canes fan that it's 1980 again, with the Orange Bowl still intact and rocking, with Bernie Kosar and Vinny Testaverde and all the other greats nearly ready to assemble on campus. Limbaugh and all the others awaited their turn as most influential, with no comprehension that the electorate had already begun to shift the other way, dramatically altering the margin for error.

I'm hardly saying Romney can't win. He absolutely can win. With unemployment numbers like we have, and below average growth rate, an incumbent is undeniably vulnerable. Romney already won a race against a poor situational backdrop in 2002. The economy had dropped from Clinton highs. 9/11 caused unease. Voters were determined to lash out against somebody and in state after state the holding party took it on the chin in gubernatorial races if an incumbent wasn't there to state his/her case. It was a ridiculous percentage over the span of a few years, something like 21 of 23 states changing hands if it was an open race. That's how you got so many weird gubernatorial takeovers in 2002, like Republicans in Maryland and Hawaii, with Democrats in Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana. But in Maryland the trend should have pointed to Shannon O'Brien, the Democrat. Massachusetts was already run by a Republican, prior to Romney. When Romney defeated O'Brien against the trend -- and by several points -- I took notice and worried about his national prospects. I view the guy as a creep but obviously that's not unanimously shared.

If Romney prevails it will be narrowly. That's what I was getting at. Republicans have forfeited most of their huge natural advantage -- 33% self-described conservatives nationwide to 21% liberals -- by alienating a huge chunk of the electorate and somehow ignoring the shifting math, the demographic trends working against them. Florida is a convenient example. In 2004 George Bush won Florida when 72.6% of the registered voters were white. That dropped to 69.1% in 2008, and is down to 67.5% this year. That's what Romney is dealing with. Cubans may be pro-Republican but any time that percentage of whites drops it's bad new for the GOP. That's why they desperately invented voter fraud as a means to massage the electorate at the other end, as a counter to demographic shifts.

Granted, if Romney wins this time in he'll enjoy the same situational advantage in 2016 that I mentioned long ago in the opening paragraph -- incumbent/party one term in power. It's extremely, extremely unlikely that trend would be overcome two cycles in a row. For one thing, Romney and his party would receive credit for the economic uptick, which is inevitable. That's why this race is essentially a 2-for-1 for Romney. He'll be our president until January 2021 if successful in 6 weeks. Supreme Court nominations and everything else.

And 2016 is the only logical prospect for a lopsided GOP victory. If Romney fails this time, the Republicans will face an open race four years from now, with the demographics further moving away from them, putting states like Arizona in play.

Damn good post Awsi...

tylerdolphin
09-25-2012, 01:25 AM
Damn good post Awsi...

Water is wet.

TheWalrus
09-25-2012, 02:50 AM
I agree with a lot of what Awsi saying but I think he's overstating Romney's chances. I've been reading Nate Silver's writing since he was posting as "poblano" on DailyKos, and I thought his early projection on Romney was not very well considered... building hard statistical formulas without enough data for a truly realistic study and applying them to a situation too fluid to be analyzed that way in either case.

A "foundational evidence" argument is much better made on the relatively short time the Democrats have been in power and the dramatic ideological battle being fought within the Republican party. There's no good precedent for Obama's defeat on those grounds. The Carter parallel, often trotted out, ignores that Carter never should have been elected in the first place. The country was reeling from Watergate and Carter seemed the perfect antidote: a pious outsider. Even then, the country slowly realized what it was about to get in to and Ford nearly came back to win anyway despite being like 20 points behind in the polls and facing a stiff primary challenge from Ronald Reagan. The shift in the voter preferences of SAMs (which is a great term) from Democrat to Republican kicked off by Civil Rights was just hitting it's stride, setting the table for what should have been 20 years of avalances were it not for the immense corruption and stupidity of Richard Nixon. It took years for the Democrats to truly reassemble the base from the shock of it. Clinton patched together an awkward centrist framework and combative style that won him elections but made it harder for everyone else in the party. Only in 2008 was Humpty Dumpty put back together again, some 44 years after LBJ's reelection.

I maintain as I have all along that this race is essentially a repeat of 2004, even down to some interesting, almost nonsensical details, like the uninspiring upper crust challenger running a bad race (in many of the same ways) and an essentially invented wedge issue pushed to prominence by the incumbent (gay rights in 2004... reproductive rights this time) to help secure a healthy turnout by the base.

I've seen nothing to knock me off my months old projection of 303 electoral votes for Obama, with Florida the next in line to fall if things break favorably late (which they seem to be doing) and either Colorado or Ohio being the first to fall back in Romney's favor should things go that way. The issues in the margins (of which the economy is the key one) have made Obama vulnerable but Romney has been too weak to capitalize on them. When it's all said and done, that will the story written about 2012.

TrojanFin
09-25-2012, 04:48 PM
Very lengthy post. Sorry in advance.

Here’s my rebuttal to Awsi.


I sampled the thread quickly and noted the misconception that the race should be a slam dunk for Romney. That falls in line with the false overconfidence from Democrats in 2004. Obama is in the most favorable situational spot in American politics -- an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Extreme benefit of a doubt from the electorate. They aren't tired of the party or convinced the other side has all the answers. I think it's 9 for 10 over the past century+, the only defeat Carter in 1980.

The misconception is believing that being an incumbent makes you the favorite. 70 percent of those who have served as president since 1825 (26 of 37) failed to win two consecutive terms. To say people aren’t tired of this administration is merely speculation on your part, and only among undecided voters is there any doubt regarding which side has the answers.


If Obama were saddled with Carter's high 30s, low 40s approval rating and overseas hostage turmoil, Romney would indeed cruise. But with Obama at high 40s it's a tight race. The incumbent tends to mirror his approval rating on election day. That's the number to keep an eye on, along with national polls. The averaging of national polls these days has become so reliable it wipes out all the old desperate crutches, like claims of slanted polls. Also, don't fall for the conventional wisdom garbage that state polls are all that matters. The national margin dictates each state, which fall in line with their typical relationship to the national indications. It's called partisan index. If either man leads the national poll averaging by 1.5 to 2 or greater on election eve, he's the winner.


I'm not convinced this race tilts to Obama as much as the current polls assert. Early this year, during the GOP primaries, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com broke down every potential matchup and concluded that Romney had an 83% likelihood of victory if he were the nominee and the economy didn't improve by November. Same with sports, I always like to remember foundational evidence as opposed to infatuation with the latest news or results. There had to be a reason for that 83%. Silver now ignores it, defaulting strictly to current polls and the applied 75% theoretical advantage to Obama. I sense the truth is much lower than that 75%.

Again, polls are merely speculative, but you are wise to be skeptical concerning the data. The mainstream media is doing its best to make Obama look favorable by skewing the numbers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-latest-washington-post-abc-poll-skewed-for-obama

If anything, the polls being close favors Romney since independent voters will often vote for the challenger.

http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm


Has the economy improved? The public apparently believes it has. The right track/wrong track number jumped to 42/48 recently. Not good but notably higher than previous trends. For reference purposes, that number was in the 13/87 range in the months leading to the election in 2008. Quite precious of Romney to claim Americans can't say they are better off.

If we are going to look at other statistics, 50% of likely voters trust Romney more than the 43% that trust Obama.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/trust_on_issues_obama_v_romney

Furthermore, just because there is a sense of perceived optimism according to these “polls”, it doesn’t factually mean we are better off. Case in point, look at the link to the article by the LA Times crunching the actual numbers and the impact of the recession (wealth plunged 40%).

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/11/business/la-fi-family-worth-20120612
or
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120924-711345.html


The following section will feature harsh themes and won't be popular but I'll post it anyway: The GOP is running a campaign more likely to succeed in midterms than a presidential cycle. Young females don't show up in midterms. Women are roughly 50.5% of the electorate in midterms compared to 53% in presidential years. Married women still participate in midterms but single women stay home. Consequently, the SAM voters that the conservative message is targeted to -- and delivered by -- don't have nearly the same pull in presidential years. SAMs are Simplistic Angry Males. That's the GOP base, beyond senior citizens or the wealthy. Young and predominantly white males grow up believing Republicans are the daddy party and Democrats the mommy party. They'll swallow every line, like the poster who announced that Romney will create 12 million new jobs and personally hand out a voucher to heaven. Or maybe that's Paul Ryan. Sorry. The SAM belief system is currently fixated on -- but not limited to -- birtherism, Obama as a Muslim, voter fraud, socialism, fear, exclusion, more fear, guns, more guns to justify the fear, coddling corporations regardless of their screw tendencies, and taxes as the one word to default to as substitute for paying attention. For decades it's been ridiculous that Democrats sat back and allowed it to happen, for the SAM messaging of the moment to take hold. Only Bill Clinton frustrates Republicans and dismantles their argument piece by piece. During the early stages of his speech a few weeks ago I impatiently urged him to, "Get to the math. Get to the math." Naturally he delivered it in even more devastating fashion than I projected but it's like the early minutes of a college game with 40 point favoritism. You know where the deck is stacked but until the touchdowns start to pour in there a bit of apprehension that the side relying on cheap parlor tricks may not be fully exposed.

This section does not feature harsh themes so much as it makes overarching generalizations concerning the makeup of the Conservative Party from a liberal perspective. It further enumerates progressive talking points by taking some very real issues of contention and dismisses them. Plus a conspiracy issue like “birthers” should not be given equal weight to that of bloated government that continues to come up with new “taxes” like Obamacare.

As for your moniker, you might as well take it one step further and insert “white” to make it SAWM. If you are going to denigrate a group, you might as well be specific. You reveal your prejudice in your presumption that minorities will always favor the Democrats in the subsequent paragraphs.

Concerning Bill Clinton, he addressed everything through a series of omissions, half-truths or by unverifiable statements (like in commercials when they say 9 out of 10 agree that…). He didn’t earn the name Slick Willy for nothing. Click the below link if you want examples.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/05/Fact-Checking-Bill-Clinton


I wouldn't have gone this far until two weeks ago. My elderly dad was hospitalized for a week. He was stuck sharing the same room with a prototype SAM. Absolutely maddening. The genius SAM put himself there by abusing alcohol and drugs while tailgating. We were watching the convention on our side of the curtain while the SAM ranted against Obama as a Muslim who hates America and will force the country into socialism if re-elected. His girlfriend is an Obama supporter who kept asking for evidence. His response, in an animated voice: "How do I know? Because I know." Unbelievable. Every time I think MSNBC or Bill Maher are going too far with their tones, I run into SAMs in Las Vegas sportsbooks, or sample their posts on certain message boards. College football boards are a SAM staple right now, given the SEC dominance of late.

There are always going to be uneducated voters on both sides. I talked with a girl that said she hated Republicans. When I asked why, she couldn’t give me a reason other than she was raised a Democrat. I have dealt with those that said Bush was killing everyone in Iraq for oil money, and he was the reason that gas prices were rising. Laughable now that I am still paying 4 bucks at the pump.


I'm reminded of children's literature, and a potential slogan: "SAM I Am." Heck, they probably wouldn't balk at it. Once again I'll default to situational impact. I grew up in opposition to the GOP but not unimpressed by their leaders or spokesmen. Short burst big picture ideas. Somewhere along the line it changed. William Buckley and George Will gave way to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I came to realize that the over the top conservative mouth pieces had grown up during the '70s and particularly the '80s, when all you had to do was mock Democrats as liberal and twist the candidate into anything you wanted. That was guaranteed to work when the math was on your side: Reagan ran with whites as 90% of the electorate in '80, and '89% in '84. Now it's down to 74% and steadily sliding. That's why I always get a kick out of calls for another Reagan. He wouldn't enjoy nearly the same advantages today. It's like me pretending as a Canes fan that it's 1980 again, with the Orange Bowl still intact and rocking, with Bernie Kosar and Vinny Testaverde and all the other greats nearly ready to assemble on campus. Limbaugh and all the others awaited their turn as most influential, with no comprehension that the electorate had already begun to shift the other way, dramatically altering the margin for error.

It is fairly obvious that you are not a fan of the GOP, and likely do not listen too much talk radio today.


I'm hardly saying Romney can't win. He absolutely can win. With unemployment numbers like we have, and below average growth rate, an incumbent is undeniably vulnerable. Romney already won a race against a poor situational backdrop in 2002. The economy had dropped from Clinton highs. 9/11 caused unease. Voters were determined to lash out against somebody and in state after state the holding party took it on the chin in gubernatorial races if an incumbent wasn't there to state his/her case. It was a ridiculous percentage over the span of a few years, something like 21 of 23 states changing hands if it was an open race. That's how you got so many weird gubernatorial takeovers in 2002, like Republicans in Maryland and Hawaii, with Democrats in Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana. But in Maryland the trend should have pointed to Shannon O'Brien, the Democrat. Massachusetts was already run by a Republican, prior to Romney. When Romney defeated O'Brien against the trend -- and by several points -- I took notice and worried about his national prospects. I view the guy as a creep but obviously that's not unanimously shared.

Yes, if people are not satisfied with the status quo, they will general trying something new. This can be both good and bad depending upon what’s behind door number 2.
As for your portrayal of Mitt, you can call him uncharismatic, but what makes him a creep? I usually reserve that term for the Sandusky’s of the world.


If Romney prevails it will be narrowly. That's what I was getting at. Republicans have forfeited most of their huge natural advantage -- 33% self-described conservatives nationwide to 21% liberals -- by alienating a huge chunk of the electorate and somehow ignoring the shifting math, the demographic trends working against them. Florida is a convenient example. In 2004 George Bush won Florida when 72.6% of the registered voters were white. That dropped to 69.1% in 2008, and is down to 67.5% this year. That's what Romney is dealing with. Cubans may be pro-Republican but any time that percentage of whites drops it's bad new for the GOP. That's why they desperately invented voter fraud as a means to massage the electorate at the other end, as a counter to demographic shifts.

So reading between the lines, the GOP is the party of the Caucasians and the Dems cater to minorities. You would have us believe that voter fraud is only in issue because the GOP makes it one, because they fear that voting base will eventually be outnumbered and need to keep the minorities from the voting booth. I see it as organizations like Acorn which highly favor liberal candidates created the need for stricter practices. If we can ID for things like booze or cigarettes, I don’t think it’s much to ask to provide ID for something as important as voting.


Granted, if Romney wins this time in he'll enjoy the same situational advantage in 2016 that I mentioned long ago in the opening paragraph -- incumbent/party one term in power. It's extremely, extremely unlikely that trend would be overcome two cycles in a row. For one thing, Romney and his party would receive credit for the economic uptick, which is inevitable. That's why this race is essentially a 2-for-1 for Romney. He'll be our president until January 2021 if successful in 6 weeks. Supreme Court nominations and everything else.

I view it differently. I see Romney having to make tough choices, many of which will be unpopular with a percentage of the population that relies on pension/entitlement/etc. programs. Unions and the media will crucify him and every decision he makes if elected, and he’ll likely be one and done even if gets the economy back on track.


And 2016 is the only logical prospect for a lopsided GOP victory. If Romney fails this time, the Republicans will face an open race four years from now, with the demographics further moving away from them, putting states like Arizona in play.

“Demographics “equal more Latino Democrats, or is it transplanted Progressives in regards to Arizona? Yes, Obama has done a great job at making this country more divided than ever. He has every “demographic” broken down to be pandered to.

TheWalrus
09-25-2012, 05:16 PM
The mainstream media is doing its best to make Obama look favorable by skewing the numbers.

Stopped reading right here.

Spesh
09-25-2012, 06:17 PM
Concerning Bill Clinton, he addressed everything through a series of omissions, half-truths or by unverifiable statements (like in commercials when they say 9 out of 10 agree that…). He didn’t earn the name Slick Willy for nothing. Click the below link if you want examples.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/05/Fact-Checking-Bill-Clinton


When trying to establish credibility about someone else's lack of credibility, you probably shouldnt post a completely partisan website as proof.

Former President Bill Clinton received a hero's welcome on the second night of the Democratic National Convention, where he spoke issue by issue to try to make the case for President Barack Obama's re-election.
Clinton claimed a victory of sorts comparing job gains under Democratic presidents vs. Republicans. "Since 1961 … our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million," Clinton said.
We dug into those numbers and found his statement is True (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/).



Clinton also said that the stimulus program "cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people." It actually cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers. We awarded Clinton a Half True (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/clinton-says-obama-cut-taxes-95-percent-people-thr/) for leaving out that critical qualifier.



His statement that "in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs," earned a Mostly True (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-45-million-jobs-have-been-create/). The statistic is correct but some cherry-picking was involved in getting to it.



Clinton addressed recent Republican attacks on changes to welfare. Obama, he said, is not gutting the program's work requirements, as Romney campaign ads have said. Instead, Obama is seeking state ideas that would increase employment. PolitiFact has looked into the welfare controversy and rated the Romney ad claims Pants On Fire (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/).



Clinton praised Obama for taking a "balanced approach" to debt reduction, mentioning the work of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which was charged with finding ways to cut the national debt over the long term. Last week after Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan spoke at the GOP convention, we noted in a story (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/30/ryan-and-simpson-bowles-commission-full-story/) that Ryan criticized Obama for abandoning the commission's recommendations but failed to mention that he himself voted against them.
Clinton also touched on recent claims about Medicare, saying "both Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion." That's also one we've checked before. What we found: the $716 billion represents reductions in future Medicare spending, not cuts to benefits or the program's current budget. The Ryan attack rating: Mostly False (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/).



Clinton also noted that Ryan attacked Obama for "the same amount of Medicare savings that (Ryan) had in his own budget." Clinton is correct that the Ryan budget plan included cost savings that were part of the health care law, and we rated the statement True (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/clinton-says-ryan-attacked-obama-medicare-cuts-ref/).



Clinton touted Obama's accomplishments on student loans. Student loan legislation under Obama, he said, "lowers the cost of federal student loans." "And even more important," he said, "it gives students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years." We rated this Mostly True (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/07/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-president-let-students-pay-clear/). He's basically right, but he slightly oversimplifies the process through which the percentage of income is determined.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/05/Bill-Clinton-Democratic-convention/


Former president Bill Clinton's stem-winding nomination speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-2012-bill-clintons-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention-excerpt/2012/09/05/f208865e-f7a4-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_print.html) was a fact-checker's nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.
Republicans will find plenty of Clinton's scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-06/clinton-fact-check-democratic-convention/57627036/1

Broke up the first link into the different claims. Second link is more of a summary from Factcheck.org. Didnt feel like hunting through their site, but it has all the links for their conclusions. So, other then a exaggeration or two, the actual numbers are solid.

Meanwhile, the link you provided had this to say:


Let's see:
- a $16 trillion-dollar debt (http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/us-debt-hits-historic-16-trillion)
- 740k women driven from the workforce (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/324000-women-dropped-out-labor-force-last-two-months-number-women-not-labor-force-hits)
- more Americans than ever on government assistance (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-are-on-some-government-program/)
- shrinking workforce (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/white-house-manipulates-unemployment/2012/02/06/id/428619)
- devaluing the dollar (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2011/03/14/bernankes-coming-qt1-will-doom-obamas-re-election/)
We're better off? Really?


Democrats talk of alternative energy but are content to ship those jobs overseas (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/10/obamas-green-jobs-bust/), along with our stimulus money (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12039-obama-stimulus-funding-goes-abroad-outsources-jobs). Instead of enslaving us to Persian Gulf oil, they'll enslave us to China's rare earth metals (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/05/china-the-rare-earth-metals-crisis-obamas-green-agenda/).



In his closing remarks, Clinton threw out a few new phrases which have become hallmarks of modern progressive, socialist-Democrats [my emphasis]:


Passing off personal opinion as fact. Fear mongering(bonus points for using some variation of the word slavery). And my favorite, name calling and cries of socialism. I am unimpressed. Im willing to bet Romney is to:



Ahead of his speech, Romney poked fun at Clinton's influence on the 2012 race. After Clinton praised the former Massachusetts governor's support for the service programs City Year and AmeriCorps, Romney joked about the former president's glowing introduction.

"If there's one thing we've learned this election season, it's that a few words from Bill Clinton can do any man a lot of good," Romney said. "After that introduction, I guess all I have to do is wait a day or two for the bounce."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-jokes-clinton-influence-2012-election-143506618--election.html

(Mostly wanted to include that last quote because Romney actually made a joke that was amusing. Not to shabby).

TrojanFin
09-25-2012, 10:41 PM
When trying to establish credibility about someone else's lack of credibility, you probably shouldnt post a completely partisan website as proof.

These links would argue that your fact checker has bias as well.

I simply used Breitbart for the purposes of expediency since I don't have the time to sift through every word myself. The fact that I have to go to Breitbart to do this would shows the mainstream media has gotten lazy and is not being critical enough in their coverage.

][/QUOTE]http://www.politifactbias.com/2012/08/the-circus-inside-politifacts-star.html
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/another-failed-paul-ryan-%E2%80%9Cfact-check%E2%80%9D/

The funny part is when someone quotes the New York Times or the Huffington Post most on here just take is a gospel. The minute you quote Fox News or Breitbart with a differing opinion, it is simply dismissed. It's funny how that works. I'm sure those like the Walrus would have no issue saying that Fox News has definite bias, but would like offer MSNBC a pass. Other than Joe Scarborough (a RINO), name any other Conservative commentators on MSNBC?

As Mark Twain once said: "There are 3 lies in this world; lies, white lies and statistics."

Lastly, I am just going to comment on the first fact to prove my point. I would be curious to see the role that Congress plays in job creation. Many Republican Presidents had to reside over an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. It would be interesting to note how job creation fared during those years compared to the Clinton years with an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Most Dems would agree that mid-nineties were are prosperous time in our country's history.

TheWalrus
09-25-2012, 11:27 PM
I'm sure those like the Walrus would have no issue saying that Fox News has definite bias, but would like offer MSNBC a pass.

You would be wrong.

I will say this, though of course I'm wasting my time in doing so. It's one thing to have a differing opinion about something. You and I would disagree on tax policy, I assume.

But what isn't true is that there are two sides to every argument. If I say the sky is blue and you say the sky is a rutabaga, that's not a dispute. I am right. You are insane.

Guys like Andrew Breitbart and Glenn Beck (who's appropriate opposite number is Michael Moore, not the NYT, for chrissake) do not deal in facts. They deal in conspiracy theories, and like any good conspiracy theorist knows, the first step is to attack the facts themselves, which in practice always means an ad hominem attack on the source of the fact. Hence a liberal (more liberal than me, in fact) friend of mine who believes in conspiracy theories calling any refutation of her beliefs on scientific grounds "the tyranny of science" (seriously, that's what she calls it).

In this, conservatives have been very successful, turning the phrase "mainstream media" into a pejorative, among other sterling achievements in the Obfuscatory Arts. This allows the creation of a very safe bubble where up can be down and bull**** flows like a chocolate river in Wonkaland, free from dissent or corroboration.

But that is silly nonsense, just as it's nonsense for some birkenstock wearing butt**** to laugh off structural engineers and metallurgy experts who say a plane fully loaded with jet fuel could, in fact, bring down the World Trade Center buildings.

trojanma
09-25-2012, 11:50 PM
As I have posted before it is sad that there is no real unbiased arbiter of information in the US.

Some time ago the Economist wrote an article that everything is commentary now and there are no unbiased sources of information. I choose the Economist which I feel is fairly centrist. The economist stated that multiple biased sources of information from various sides could replace an unbiased one. I disagree with this. It is very hard to make an informed decision.

TheWalrus
09-26-2012, 12:03 AM
As I have posted before it is sad that there is no real unbiased arbiter of information in the US.

Some time ago the Economist wrote an article that everything is commentary now and there are no unbiased sources of information. I choose the Economist which I feel is fairly centrist. The economist stated that multiple biased sources of information from various sides could replace an unbiased one. I disagree with this. It is very hard to make an informed decision.

There has never been an unbiased source of information, ever. Everyone is subject to their own personal biases and they show up inevitably. All you can hope for is a honest treatment of factual information (which does exist, even in a world without perfect moderators).

For example, a politican gives a speech and a reporter's covering it. Now, even if the story is unimpeachably factual... the lede, their choice of quotes, the way they structure information to include rebuttals. All of it is subject to bias. It's human nature for someone's personality to intrude, and howling against it is like howling at the moon.

But where the Breitbarts and Glenn Becks cross the line is where they intentionally piece things together to give them a different meaning than the one intended or even stoop to outright invention (as when Breitbart, I believe, claimed there was a tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey", and the other more recent example where he pieced together two quotes from someone -- a black congresswoman, I believe -- to totally reverse the meaning of her position on some statement). That's where, to mix metaphors, the horse**** meets the road.

Spesh
09-26-2012, 01:35 AM
These links would argue that your fact checker has bias as well.

I simply used Breitbart for the purposes of expediency since I don't have the time to sift through every word myself. The fact that I have to go to Breitbart to do this would shows the mainstream media has gotten lazy and is not being critical enough in their coverage.

The funny part is when someone quotes the New York Times or the Huffington Post most on here just take is a gospel. The minute you quote Fox News or Breitbart with a differing opinion, it is simply dismissed. It's funny how that works. I'm sure those like the Walrus would have no issue saying that Fox News has definite bias, but would like offer MSNBC a pass. Other than Joe Scarborough (a RINO), name any other Conservative commentators on MSNBC?

As Mark Twain once said: "There are 3 lies in this world; lies, white lies and statistics."

Lastly, I am just going to comment on the first fact to prove my point. I would be curious to see the role that Congress plays in job creation. Many Republican Presidents had to reside over an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. It would be interesting to note how job creation fared during those years compared to the Clinton years with an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Most Dems would agree that mid-nineties were are prosperous time in our country's history.

I posted two seperate fact checking sites to avoid any claims of potential bias. Had one been mistaken the other would have called them out. Of course, you seem to have taken that as both sides(which inheritently compete against one another for viewership) are in together to try and distorte everyone with their liberal bias. I intentionally avoided New York Times and Huffington Post to, again, avoid claims of bias, but clearly thats your go to.

Politifact is a Pulitzer Prize winning site that lists exactly why they agree or disagree with something, weigh the material in front of them(even when its against those dirty democrats) and evaluates if something is based on evidence, which they then present, and not conjecture. While Politifact is a Tampa Bay Times program(and the Tampa Bay Times are a profit driven company), Factcheck.org is non-profit.
Glenn Beck, who you just linked as evidence against liberal bias, in a outspoken conservative entertainer who has been throw off television not because of his personal bias, but because his personal bias was so filthy that Fox News, a conservative entertainment and news channel, could no longer deal with the amount of complaints against him. He provides no actual evidence and instead relies on conjecture, innuendo, and outright lies to sell a product. For example, he or guests he brought on(and did not object to what they said) refered to Democrats as Nazi's over 200 times in his first 18 months at Fox News. The product he is selling is himself. He is out for a profit.

One group has little to no reason for bias. The other overwhelmingly does. There is nothing wrong with Glenn Beck or Breitbart making money for what they do, there is reason to distrust what is said....especially when they regularly indulge in logical fallicies like TheWalrus mentioned. I listed every major claim in Clinton's speech and every single one of them had links to show where the data came from. I provided a second link to show a second non-profit website that came to a very similar conclusion. You listed a site that called democrats socialists and Clinton a liar because "we arent better then we were 4 years ago"(which varies from person to person, doesnt it?). Which sounds like it deals in logic and evidence?

You have successfully gotten me to defend websites(or people making the arguments and not the argument itself) and not the "logic" you originally presented. Your mission of ad hominem has been completed and you win a conservative gold star.

Spesh
09-26-2012, 02:01 AM
As I have posted before it is sad that there is no real unbiased arbiter of information in the US.

Some time ago the Economist wrote an article that everything is commentary now and there are no unbiased sources of information. I choose the Economist which I feel is fairly centrist. The economist stated that multiple biased sources of information from various sides could replace an unbiased one. I disagree with this. It is very hard to make an informed decision.

Your correct, there is no true unbiased news source in America. Some of that is malicious and some of that is just basic human nature. Two educated and intelligent people, with the best of intentions, can look at the same situation and come to two wildly different conclusion.

That said, there is cases of intentional bias. Not providing evidence, name calling, outright lies, are all attempts to bias your opinion. Glenn Beck(and guests) refered to Democrats as Nazis over 200 times. That was just the word Nazi, and it did not include the words "Hitler", "Fascist", "Socialist", and/or "Goebbels". Fox News had no problem promoting him, but also made no attempt to censor other anchors(supposed anchors, not Beck who was clearly entertainment) who also refered to Democrats as Nazis. Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Democratic Party has decided to turn into the Nazi Party? Of course not. There is no point in making those claims other then intentional bias.

Shifting through news distortion isnt difficult. Check multiple sites, check the numbers or examples provided, watch out for labeling or insult throwing. I dont have a problem with people not wanting to do any of that. I dont even have a problem with someone buying into intentional bias. What i have a problem with is those who make absurd and outlandish claims and pretend they are statements of fact. What i have a problem with is those who defend their "facts" by attacking other peoples sources and not the argument presented.

Dogbone34
09-26-2012, 09:21 PM
The mainstream is passionately in love with the president.

Dolphins9954
09-26-2012, 09:28 PM
I would say the media definitely favors Obama for sure. At the same time Romney's gaffes are so bad even Biden is telling him to STFU.

TheWalrus
09-26-2012, 10:07 PM
People repeat this "mainstream media love liberals/the President" line but where's the evidence? The biggest -- by far -- cable news newtork (Fox) is conservative. Of the top five newspapers in the country, two are "conservative" (New York Post and Wall Street Journal) and one is neutral (USA Today)*. Conservatives dominate talk radio. The two biggest news aggregator sites out there (Drudge and RealClearPolitics) both lean conservative, especially Drudge.

Liberals have their bastions (news magazines in particular) but this whole narrative has gotten completely out of control. It's repeated as dogma without a thought given to whether it's true.

Like anything else, news is a consumer driven industry. That's why Fox's success as a partisan outfit led MSNBC to adopt a stance as an opposite number. CNN has tried to stay neutral, with the result being their irrelevance. It's all driven by what people want. Businessmen trend conservative... hence the Wall Street Journal's conservative slant. News magazine readership trends college educated (meaning liberal), therefore most of the news magazines have a liberal slant. Conservatives listen to talk radio. Liberals podcast. It's neither complicated nor a conspiracy. It's just a handy talking point when a factual rebuttal to a conservative talking point is offered. Liberals have been slow to realize the effectiveness of this attack (since the media doesn't fight back), but Fox has now been widely discredited.

For the "mainstream media" to trend liberal would mean that liberals pay attention to the mainstream media more than others do. Is that something we all believe? I don't.

*Though as a side note, I don't grant that newspapers have a slant. People carelessly confuse editorial pages with the rest of the paper.

Dolphins9954
09-26-2012, 10:21 PM
People repeat this "mainstream media love liberals/the President" line but where's the evidence? The biggest -- by far -- cable news newtork (Fox) is conservative. Of the top five newspapers in the country, two are "conservative" (New York Post and Wall Street Journal) and one is neutral (USA Today)*. Conservatives dominate talk radio. The two biggest news aggregator sites out there (Drudge and RealClearPolitics) both lean conservative, especially Drudge.

Liberals have their bastions (news magazines in particular) but this whole narrative has gotten completely out of control. It's repeated as dogma without a thought given to whether it's true.

Like anything else, news is a consumer driven industry. That's why Fox's success as a partisan outfit led MSNBC to adopt a stance as an opposite number. CNN has tried to stay neutral, with the result being their irrelevance. It's all driven by what people want. Businessmen trend conservative... hence the Wall Street Journal's conservative slant. News magazine readership trends college educated (meaning liberal), therefore most of the news magazines have a liberal slant. Conservatives listen to talk radio. Liberals podcast. It's neither complicated nor a conspiracy. It's just a handy talking point when a factual rebuttal to a conservative talking point is offered. Liberals have been slow to realize the effectiveness of this attack (since the media doesn't fight back), but Fox has now been widely discredited.

For the "mainstream media" to trend liberal would mean that liberals pay attention to the mainstream media more than others do. Is that something we all believe. I certainly don't.

*Though as a side note, I don't grant that newspapers have a slant. People carelessly confuse editorial pages with the rest of the paper.

I don't see it as the "liberal" media. Where was that liberal media in the build up to the Iraq war both times and Libya?? Not to mention the constant pushing of war with Iran and even Syria. I see the media as pushers and cheerleaders for the status quo. If it's wars, bailouts, and attacks on our liberties the media does a horrible job being objective and critical instead they carry the water. And it doesn't matter if it's a D or R.

TruthBeTold
10-01-2012, 09:39 AM
0-16 you change the coach.
Simple enough.
I am tired of excuses and hearing how unions and poor people are going to make my life better.
Romney at least has experience In creating profitable successful corporations.
We need jobs and economic growth period.
Obama has failed period. Next man in period.
Blaiming Bush 4 years later does not cut it in my book.
Grow up the govt is not gonna make you rich.
Picking and choosing who gets the next hand out sucks if your not in the union.
Just my opinions and if you do not agree then you must be stealing my taxes with handouts so screw you.

JamesBW43
10-01-2012, 10:44 AM
0-16 you change the coach.
Simple enough.
I am tired of excuses and hearing how unions and poor people are going to make my life better.
Romney at least has experience In creating profitable successful corporations.
We need jobs and economic growth period.
Obama has failed period. Next man in period.
Blaiming Bush 4 years later does not cut it in my book.
Grow up the govt is not gonna make you rich.
Picking and choosing who gets the next hand out sucks if your not in the union.
Just my opinions and if you do not agree then you must be stealing my taxes with handouts so screw you.

How are we 0-16? In what way does our government resemble a football coaching staff? Who says unions and poor people are going to make your life better? How does Romney's experience in gutting companies for profit translate to creating jobs and economic growth? Who says the government is going to make anyone rich? Which handouts are you referring to? Why can't someone disagree with you without being someone who's stealing your taxes, and what handouts are they taking in doing so?

TruthBeTold
10-02-2012, 12:12 AM
How are we 0-16? In what way does our government resemble a football coaching staff? Who says unions and poor people are going to make your life better? How does Romney's experience in gutting companies for profit translate to creating jobs and economic growth? Who says the government is going to make anyone rich? Which handouts are you referring to? Why can't someone disagree with you without being someone who's stealing your taxes, and what handouts are they taking in doing so?

6 trillion dollars further in debt with a $5000 loss in avg pay for people that work. That's failure. Tell me one thing that he has accomplished that does not involve wasted tax payer money we have to payback with increased taxes? The president sets the agenda because he is the chief executive. Remember Hope and Change.

Exactly let's not spend all of our efforts strictly on unions and poor people. What has this president done to create jobs other than waste tax payer money on failed playoffs to his cronies? Example Solyndra and all the other failed subsidized alternative energy companies. Shell companies to extort our tax payer money out the back door in political donations. Money does not just get handed over for nothing. Money always lands where it does for a reason.

How does four years of failure at creating jobs equate to another four year term? We need to get people back to work or we will never be able o get out of this recession. Sorry but this president does not have any clue on real job creation. Face it he never created one before so how would he know now. Romney created a real profit making company and created jobs. Obviously you have no job creating experience either or you would understand what Romney's company was created to do. Thes companies were financially stressed and going out of business because of poor management and exorbitant union wages. He fixed and so they could compete and survive in the market place. He created way more jobs than he eliminated. Look it up.

Obama wants to spread the wealth that he had no involvement with creating. He wants the government to control our destiny. Healthcare s just he beginning. Anyone comfortable with government determining what you get for healthcare is a fool. DMV and Post Office is what you can expect for results for your healthcare too. Oh yeah and it will be all union employees for the govt healthcare as well. Maybe cutting services in healthcare will be there solution like they are doing in the Postal Service because there costs are to high. Absolute lose lose situation.

Again unions for government employees? Really why are government employees in need of unions? The government should be the safest employer you can work for as an employee. Politicians from the Democrats with unions are ripping off the american tax payers with their I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Our taxes are being ripped off. Pensions and salaries that are exorbitant are driving our debt even higher. There is so much waste in government it is ridiculous. Maybe Romney the distressed fixer can help clean this up? I know Obama isn't goin to since he has wasted 6 trillion in only 4 years won't.

I get sick of hearing the liberals whine about conservatives who actually get the work done in this country. If the govt wasn't a monopoly it would fail fiscally hence why they are always whining about more taxes. How about all these clowns in govt actually pay their taxes. Timmy (the tax cheat Gietner), Charley (head of the.IRS over site committee) Rangel. We would all be put in jail and they id not even lose their jobs.

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 12:46 AM
How does four years of failure at creating jobs equate to another four year term?

The same way even a mediocre boxer can beat up a cripple. Elections are not merely referendums on this or that candidate, even though that's the way opposing campaigns always want to make it. The voters who decide elections view it as an actual choice, and Romney has been simply miserable at making the case that he's anything but an empty vessel for anti-Obamaism. Like Awsi said, it's not enough. Among other things, every gaffe like the 47% comment serve to negatively fill in huge swathes of deliberately vague space because there's not enough substance behind the campaign to combat it.

It really must make you crazy to see the polls and read the projections and know Obama is going to win. I'm fortunate in that I grew up in a Republican family so I don't reflexively demonize the other side but your post reads like you've never had a substantive discussion about politics with a liberal you respect. As in ever. The fact that this country is about to fairly well resoundingly reelect the president must utterly baffle you.

TrojanFin
10-02-2012, 05:04 AM
People repeat this "mainstream media love liberals/the President" line but where's the evidence?

Here's an interesting article.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/30/pat-caddell-press-has-become-threat-democracy-and-enemy-american-peop

It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Pat Caddell a self proclaimed liberal even acknowledges the exact turning point in which the media started to cover up for Democrats and the overall media became partisan. Don't believe me. Check out some of these vids. See if you don't agree. It's fairly evident the impact media has had on average voters concerning what they do and don't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCXot2HQT00&feature=related

I wonder where these potential voters get these ideas? Here's another example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&

It's pretty obvious where the misinformation is coming from and which way it leans.

If Obama gets re-elected it will only be because a large part of our populous is not thinking critically, and is too easily influenced by a media that is more concerned with infotainment and protecting their progressive interests than reporting the facts. Unfortunately such an outcome wouldn't baffle me so much as be majorly disappointing.

A better analogy would be that the Democrats are represented by the Seahawks with an arguably inferior quarterback with Wilson (substituting for Obama), and the Packers have a superior quarterback in Rodgers (representing Romney). The two struggle to come out on top, but unfortunately the replacement refs (representing the media) heavily influence the outcome. You know the rest. I can only hope that this time everyone is able to make the right call.

JackFinfan
10-02-2012, 09:35 AM
Here's an interesting article.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/30/pat-caddell-press-has-become-threat-democracy-and-enemy-american-peop

It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Pat Caddell a self proclaimed liberal even acknowledges the exact turning point in which the media started to cover up for Democrats and the overall media became partisan. Don't believe me. Check out some of these vids. See if you don't agree. It's fairly evident the impact media has had on average voters concerning what they do and don't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCXot2HQT00&feature=related

I wonder where these potential voters get these ideas? Here's another example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&

It's pretty obvious where the misinformation is coming from and which way it leans.

If Obama gets re-elected it will only be because a large part of our populous is not thinking critically, and is too easily influenced by a media that is more concerned with infotainment and protecting their progressive interests than reporting the facts. Unfortunately such an outcome wouldn't baffle me so much as be majorly disappointing.

A better analogy would be that the Democrats are represented by the Seahawks with an arguably inferior quarterback with Wilson (substituting for Obama), and the Packers have a superior quarterback in Rodgers (representing Romney). The two struggle to come out on top, but unfortunately the replacement refs (representing the media) heavily influence the outcome. You know the rest. I can only hope that this time everyone is able to make the right call.

There's so much projection going on in your posts it's comical. I listen to Hannity going home from work almost every day (he gives me a good laugh) and you're basically parroting everything this guy says. So, you talking about the population voting for Obama because of media influence is quite hysterical.

JackFinfan
10-02-2012, 09:48 AM
What cracks me up about Hannity, Rush, & other right wing talking heads is that they consistently brag about their ratings being so good. They don't hide the fact that soooooo many people watch Fox News and listen to their radio programs. They also consistently rip on MSNBC/CNN in regards to their horrible ratings. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Hannity say that no one watches MSNBC. But when it comes to media influence they play the victim card. How can you simultaneously brag about how so many people tune in to the various conservative media outlets, and also complain about how much the "left wing media" influences American politics.

trojanma
10-02-2012, 09:58 AM
For those that want to suggest that our healthcare is completely independent either use cash pay or never go to the doctor. Right now if you have an insurance company they dictate what medicines you get.

Not to mention the aca is not a govt takeover. The only truly government run healthcare system is the VA. Guess what i had a lot easier time getting expensive meds for my vets in the va than i do for the folks i see in the private world.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Buddy
10-02-2012, 10:29 AM
What cracks me up about Hannity, Rush, & other right wing talking heads is that they consistently brag about their ratings being so good. They don't hide the fact that soooooo many people watch Fox News and listen to their radio programs. They also consistently rip on MSNBC/CNN in regards to their horrible ratings. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Hannity say that no one watches MSNBC. But when it comes to media influence they play the victim card. How can you simultaneously brag about how so many people tune in to the various conservative media outlets, and also complain about how much the "left wing media" influences American politics.

What you have to look at is how many liberal media outlets there are versus Fox News and talk radio in addition to the Hollywood liberal bias. Flip through the channels on your tv and just listen to the various programs like the View, talk shows, anything Oprah, and anything geared toward young people and tell me that there isn't a huge slant toward liberalism. People are thoroughly inundated with liberalism at every turn unless they actively seek a conservative alternative. Conservative (Traditional American) ideology gets very little support and seldom even a fair shake by the entirety of the mainstream media. Its all about Obama worship. Kind of makes me sick.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Here's an interesting article.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/30/pat-caddell-press-has-become-threat-democracy-and-enemy-american-peop

It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Pat Caddell a self proclaimed liberal even acknowledges the exact turning point in which the media started to cover up for Democrats and the overall media became partisan. Don't believe me. Check out some of these vids. See if you don't agree. It's fairly evident the impact media has had on average voters concerning what they do and don't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCXot2HQT00&feature=related

I wonder where these potential voters get these ideas? Here's another example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&

It's pretty obvious where the misinformation is coming from and which way it leans.

If Obama gets re-elected it will only be because a large part of our populous is not thinking critically, and is too easily influenced by a media that is more concerned with infotainment and protecting their progressive interests than reporting the facts. Unfortunately such an outcome wouldn't baffle me so much as be majorly disappointing.

A better analogy would be that the Democrats are represented by the Seahawks with an arguably inferior quarterback with Wilson (substituting for Obama), and the Packers have a superior quarterback in Rodgers (representing Romney). The two struggle to come out on top, but unfortunately the replacement refs (representing the media) heavily influence the outcome. You know the rest. I can only hope that this time everyone is able to make the right call.

Pat Caddell's opinion is not proof. Nor is "it's pretty obvious" a convincing argument of any kind. I do find it amusing however that you think an "anti-liberal bias" Web site is a good place to get the objective truth about the media.

"Liberal media bias" violates the common sense of supply and demand. Unless conservatives don't care about information on current events -- or it can be argued they care less than liberals do about the bias of their media outlets -- they're getting their information from conservative sources. Demand inevitably creates supply.

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 12:21 PM
What you have to look at is how many liberal media outlets there are versus Fox News and talk radio in addition to the Hollywood liberal bias. Flip through the channels on your tv and just listen to the various programs like the View, talk shows, anything Oprah, and anything geared toward young people and tell me that there isn't a huge slant toward liberalism. People are thoroughly inundated with liberalism at every turn unless they actively seek a conservative alternative. Conservative (Traditional American) ideology gets very little support and seldom even a fair shake by the entirety of the mainstream media. Its all about Obama worship. Kind of makes me sick.

Watch a lot of Oprah and The View, do we?

First off, those shows are entertainment. Comparing them or Brad Pitt prattling on about his electric car with Leno to 60 Minutes is silly. Secondly, those shows are geared toward women, who on average are more liberal than males. Same with young people, who also trend liberal.

Supply and demand. Have fun arguing against it.

Locke
10-02-2012, 12:54 PM
Watch a lot of Oprah and The View, do we?

First off, those shows are entertainment. Comparing them or Brad Pitt prattling on about his electric car with Leno to 60 Minutes is silly. Secondly, those shows are geared toward women, who on average are more liberal than males. Same with young people, who also trend liberal.

Supply and demand. Have fun arguing against it.

It's really quite obvious when you consider it, yet no one catches on. One of the most depressing things about the U.S. these days is how easily people take what is told to them at face value. It's almost as if they believe no one would ever lie to, or even mislead, them. It's similar to how a child thinks their parents are always right, no matter what they are told. I wish people sat down and thought critically more often. Being smarter is never going to be a bad thing...

Spesh
10-02-2012, 02:47 PM
It's really quite obvious when you consider it, yet no one catches on. One of the most depressing things about the U.S. these days is how easily people take what is told to them at face value. It's almost as if they believe no one would ever lie to, or even mislead, them. It's similar to how a child thinks their parents are always right, no matter what they are told. I wish people sat down and thought critically more often. Being smarter is never going to be a bad thing...

A while ago i threw up a thread about how misleading Fox News is when it comes to reports of global warning, how they pass off personal opinion as scientific fact(or how they lie outright). They deceived the audience in something like 91% of their reports on the subject. At the time, while i found it shameful, i mostly rolled my eyes and moved on. Since then, i have sat down and discussed the subject with people who identify themselves as conservatives. I didnt much mind that they disagreed with my but the discussions almost always ended with "well, you can believe those facts if you want, but im going to go with these other facts".

For a party that bemoans how the left politicize everything, they sure have made subjects that have been scientifically verified as political poisonous as possible. Then again, scientists are usually filthy commie liberals. If we cant gather facts to disagree with what they are saying, we must attack who they are and what they do!

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 03:02 PM
I've personally never understood how or why climate change became a political issue. There wasn't some big party line struggle over whether smoking causes cancer, yet a planetary version of the same thing becomes a decades long Democrat vs. Republican fight? Bizarre.

TrojanFin
10-02-2012, 05:25 PM
What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age". So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.

Spesh
10-02-2012, 05:34 PM
What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age". So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.


The researchers found that Fox News and the Journal were consistently dismissive of the established scientific consensus that climate change is happening (http://www.livescience.com/22129-extreme-heat-linked-global-warming.html) and that human activities are the main driver. For example, a statement aired on a primetime Fox News show on April 11 says, "I thought we were getting warmer. But in the '70s, it was, look out, we're all going to freeze."

The statement refers to some research in the 1970s that suggested a cooling trend, exacerbated by pollutants called aerosols (also known as smog). However, a greater number of papers, which represented consensus in the science community, in the 1970s predicted warming, according to Skeptical Science, a climate change communication website maintained by University of Queensland physicist John Cook. Temperature records have since improved, revealing the cooling trend was confined to northern landmasses.

The most common climate mistakes on Fox News involved misleading statements on basic climate science, or simple undermining and disparaging of the field of climate science. For example, on March 23, one on-air personality referred to global warming as a "hoax and fraud."


http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-climate-coverage-93-wrong-report-finds-193433943.html

I appreciate you making a visual example of the point i was making. Many thanks.

TheWalrus
10-02-2012, 05:34 PM
Retard mode: engage!


What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age".

Retard mode: disengage!


So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.

:idk:

You need to have a long conversation with your brain to see where you are on this one.

TrojanFin
10-02-2012, 06:14 PM
Sorry Walrus... did that go over your head? Let me simplify it for you.

I... don't... believe... in... global...warming.

However, I am acknowledging the impact that humans can play in hurting the environment, such as oil spills, meltdown of nuclear plants and the subsequent radiation, and everyone should do their part to minimize waste by using recycled products or not drinking out of plastic water bottles daily and instead use metal reusable bottles (ie minimize our trash output).

Believe it or not, you can be concerned about the environment without believing in "climate change" or whatever name you want to give it.

I know the fortune cookie gave you another insult you just had post on this thread.

Locke
10-02-2012, 06:43 PM
Sorry Walrus... did that go over your head? Let me simplify it for you.

I... don't... believe... in... global...warming.

However, I am acknowledging the impact that humans can play in hurting the environment, such as oil spills, meltdown of nuclear plants and the subsequent radiation, and everyone should do their part to minimize waste by using recycled products or not drinking out of plastic water bottles daily and instead use metal reusable bottles (ie minimize our trash output).

Believe it or not, you can be concerned about the environment without believing in "climate change" or whatever name you want to give it.

I know the fortune cookie gave you another insult you just had post on this thread.

So you believe thousands of scientists across the globe, all from different countries, cities, universities, factions, and even fields of study, are all wrong, and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh are right? Am I correct in that assessment...?

Spesh
10-02-2012, 06:46 PM
So you believe thousands of scientists across the globe, all from different countries, cities, universities, factions, and even fields of study, are all wrong, and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh are right? Am I correct in that assessment...?

I doubt thats what Trojanfin thinks. I mean, those guys are clearly RINO's. He follows a real Republicans opinion:


Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/mitt-romney-climate-change_n_871205.html

TrojanFin
10-02-2012, 09:47 PM
So you believe thousands of scientists across the globe, all from different countries, cities, universities, factions, and even fields of study, are all wrong, and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh are right? Am I correct in that assessment...?


That's a classic straw man. Who am I to disagree with all the scientists and universities from all over the world?


As an aside... would it be fair for me to assume that you get all your facts from Rachel Maddow and John Stewart? Typical association fallacy, and no I don't listen to Rush or Beck.


Getting back to the point. I disagree with "organizations" that keep reiterating that "climate change" is a threat.

You make the false assumption that the findings of scientists and universities are not filtered in any way by those who have a higher agenda. See "Climategate."


What kind of agenda could such "organizations" have? Well it usually boils down to money and power. Money in the form of ongoing grants, and power in the form of political influence.

The second false assumption that you have made is that all scientists have come to the same conclusion. That's not the case as indicated in this article.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/



The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.



Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.


@Spesh



Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.


"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."


In essence, Romney is correct that humans have impacted "climate change," but the impact is so minimal as to be insignificant such as ".9 of 1 percent."


In your last quote, I would be willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because of the use of the of the word "may." He is conceding that he is no scientist, but agrees generally speaking that less pollutants cannot possibly be a bad thing.



Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures.



Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people.

The agency that would be largely responsible for wielding this control would be the EPA. Take a listen to this clip.


Mark Levin Show 10/1/12

cue to 77:35-80:00


http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodloc%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2FdloadTrack%2Emp3%3Fprm%3D2069xhttp%3A%2F%2Fpodfuse-dl%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2F800185%2Fpodfuse-origin%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2Fcitadel_origin%2Fpods%2Fmarklevin%2FLevin10012012%2Emp3

So that's why I don't give "climate change" much credence.

Spesh
10-02-2012, 10:10 PM
@Spesh

In essence, Romney is correct that humans have impacted "climate change," but the impact is so minimal as to be insignificant such as ".9 of 1 percent."

In your last quote, I would be willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because of the use of the of the word "may." He is conceding that he is no scientist, but agrees generally speaking that less pollutants cannot possibly be a bad thing.


Ah, so 1 word disproves his entire point. Your not focusing on "The worlds climate is changing and humans are contributing to it", your focusing on "hey, those gases may be doing it". And, of course, your taking that single word so you can completely distort what Romney actually said and what you want him to mean. Thats, you know, reasonable.

Please show me the Romney quote of ".9-1%"? Keep in mind, Romney has trouble with percentages. Im doubtful that such a quote exists, as the rest of Romney's answer goes in a different direction, but im willing to be proven wrong.

SkapePhin
10-02-2012, 11:40 PM
I've personally never understood how or why climate change became a political issue. There wasn't some big party line struggle over whether smoking causes cancer, yet a planetary version of the same thing becomes a decades long Democrat vs. Republican fight? Bizarre.

Big Oil = Big $$$

That is how it became a political issue...

TruthBeTold
10-02-2012, 11:56 PM
The same way even a mediocre boxer can beat up a cripple. Elections are not merely referendums on this or that candidate, even though that's the way opposing campaigns always want to make it. The voters who decide elections view it as an actual choice, and Romney has been simply miserable at making the case that he's anything but an empty vessel for anti-Obamaism. Like Awsi said, it's not enough. Among other things, every gaffe like the 47% comment serve to negatively fill in huge swathes of deliberately vague space because there's not enough substance behind the campaign to combat it.

It really must make you crazy to see the polls and read the projections and know Obama is going to win. I'm fortunate in that I grew up in a Republican family so I don't reflexively demonize the other side but your post reads like you've never had a substantive discussion about politics with a liberal you respect. As in ever. The fact that this country is about to fairly well resoundingly reelect the president must utterly baffle you.

Walrus this country is not going to reelect an incompetent president. It is not going to be that close. People are looking at results and will make their decision based on results. My family members are Conservatives which is the difference. We are cleaning out the Rhinos again this term which must drive the so called Republicans nuts.

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 12:00 AM
Big Oil = Big $$$

That is how it became a political issue...

Big Tobacco =/= Big $$$?

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 12:03 AM
Walrus this country is not going to reelect an incompetent president. It is not going to be that close. People are looking at results and will make their decision based on results. My family members are Conservatives which is the difference. We are cleaning out the Rhinos again this term which must drive the so called Republicans nuts.

That's awful rosy picture of the electorate you're painting there. Not sure what country you've been living in, but it's certainly not this one.

Anyway, should be fun to revisit this thread in November. I'm sure you didn't think Obama would be elected four years ago, either.

SkapePhin
10-03-2012, 12:15 AM
Big Tobacco =/= Big $$$?

Yes it is, and their lobbyists were able to keep up the charade for several years before the evidence was so obvious that the propaganda simply couldn't work anymore. Its a lot harder to convince people that there isn't a link between tobacco and cancer today when they see their relatives cough their lungs up and drop dead. Climate change isn't as visible in everyone's everyday life. But undoubtedly, there will come a point, just like cancer, when climate change will become apparent to the common man, and at such a time, the political clout will cease to keep up the charade on this issue, just as it did with tobacco.

That being said, the tobacco lobby is still quite effective in snuffing out potential competitors with their anti-marijuana rhetoric and support.

TrojanFin
10-03-2012, 12:30 AM
Ah, so 1 word disproves his entire point. Your not focusing on "The worlds climate is changing and humans are contributing to it", your focusing on "hey, those gases may be doing it". And, of course, your taking that single word so you can completely distort what Romney actually said and what you want him to mean. Thats, you know, reasonable.

Please show me the Romney quote of ".9-1%"? Keep in mind, Romney has trouble with percentages. Im doubtful that such a quote exists, as the rest of Romney's answer goes in a different direction, but im willing to be proven wrong.

You are completely missing the point. I feel like the argument keeps changing as I was initially defending my opinion to now having to explain away a random quote from Romney. What is more, I keep getting the feeling that I am being told who I am and what my opinion should be. Just allow me to speak for myself. Thanks.

The statistical I quote I gave was not something that Romney said, but was in reference to the link earlier in my argument. However, I am sure Romney was just making an off-the-cuff remark, but if policy decisions had to be made, you better believe he would defer to the expert opinions of those he trusts and are environmental experts. Again, Romney is a businessman and politician not a scientist. That's why they have cabinet members and various experts in his administration that would help him make more educated decisions.

As for trouble with percentages. I get what you are referencing, but overall he's been pretty good with numbers and doing quite well as a businessman.

Here' are some other fun articles for you to ponder as you cling to your belief that "climate change" will one day doom us all.

http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting-before-global-warming-407/

This one says global warming started before the industrial age.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

This one says that there is a build up of ice in Antarctica.

So I ask which is it? Warming or freezing? And as humans, have we really made much of an impact? I'd say no.

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 12:47 AM
Yes it is, and their lobbyists were able to keep up the charade for several years before the evidence was so obvious that the propaganda simply couldn't work anymore. Its a lot harder to convince people that there isn't a link between tobacco and cancer today when they see their relatives cough their lungs up and drop dead. Climate change isn't as visible in everyone's everyday life. But undoubtedly, there will come a point, just like cancer, when climate change will become apparent to the common man, and at such a time, the political clout will cease to keep up the charade on this issue, just as it did with tobacco.

That being said, the tobacco lobby is still quite effective in snuffing out potential competitors with their anti-marijuana rhetoric and support.

Well, perhaps I'm just ignorant of the history, but I've never read that smoking causing cancer became a widespread partisan issue.

I mean, I get the lobbying angle. Which means I get why the politicians do everything they can to subvert it. But why does the average guy walking down the road give a **** about CO2 levels? I can't see a reason for it, yet everyone you meet seems to have a strong opinion about the issue one way or another (Michael Crighton can suck a post-mortem dick for writing State of Fear, by the way). I mean, are people worried some day someone's going to show up and force them to live in a teepee? Or do they just want to butt **** the environment believing it's been good and roofied and won't remember anything.

My theory is that people have just sort of fallen in line behind their political leaders without giving any thought as to how (or whether) the issue affects them. Republican politicians (and plenty of Democrats too) are mouthpieces of Big Oil, therefore they don't think climate change is real. Democrats bash them, so rank and file Republicans close ranks and support the cause (or anti-cause, however you want to phrase it) despite having absolutely no reason to care. It's more of a sports fan mentality than a "I'm old and need medicare so don't take away my medicare" mentality.

Spesh
10-03-2012, 01:40 AM
You are completely missing the point. I feel like the argument keeps changing as I was initially defending my opinion to now having to explain away a random quote from Romney. What is more, I keep getting the feeling that I am being told who I am and what my opinion should be. Just allow me to speak for myself. Thanks.

The statistical I quote I gave was not something that Romney said, but was in reference to the link earlier in my argument. However, I am sure Romney was just making an off-the-cuff remark, but if policy decisions had to be made, you better believe he would defer to the expert opinions of those he trusts and are environmental experts. Again, Romney is a businessman and politician not a scientist. That's why they have cabinet members and various experts in his administration that would help him make more educated decisions.

As for trouble with percentages. I get what you are referencing, but overall he's been pretty good with numbers and doing quite well as a businessman.

Here' are some other fun articles for you to ponder as you cling to your belief that "climate change" will one day doom us all.

http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting-before-global-warming-407/

This one says global warming started before the industrial age.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

This one says that there is a build up of ice in Antarctica.

So I ask which is it? Warming or freezing? And as humans, have we really made much of an impact? I'd say no.

Actually, all i stated was Republicans had politicized the issue of global climate change while bemoaning Democrats for politicizing issues. I found it alarming that science is used as partisan tools and that people are picking and choosing which "facts" to believe. So, i suppose you completely missed the point. We werent discussing the "facts" of global climate change, we were discussing partisan politics positions on scientific information.

As well, while i did amusingly show that Romney believes in global climate change, your the one that stated you would be "willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt" on what he actually meant because of a single word. Romney's exact quote indicated that he wanted to reduce emissions because it could be contributing to global climate change, while you stated that he was suggested "it couldnt hurt". His exact words are:


"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."


If you have a quote of Romney saying that impact is minimal and it just couldnt hurt to cut back, feel free to throw it up. At the moment, im taking him for what he said(admittedly not the best indicator for truthful statements, but anyways): he believes in global climate change, believes humans are contributing it, and believes its important to reduce emissions. Regardless, again, this is all besides the point.

Locke began discussing how people get mislead, i posted about how alarming it is that people pick and choose their "facts" and used my personal experience with the climate change discussion as an example, TheWalrus mentioned how odd it is politicians were fighting over it, and you brilliantly proved my point by jumping in and talking about how wrong all the facts were while dismissively laughing at the words used to describe the event. To be honest, i doubt you could have made a better example of what i was talking about. Again, much appreciated.

Spesh
10-03-2012, 02:03 AM
Well, perhaps I'm just ignorant of the history, but I've never read that smoking causing cancer became a widespread partisan issue.

I mean, I get the lobbying angle. Which means I get why the politicians do everything they can to subvert it. But why does the average guy walking down the road give a **** about CO2 levels? I can't see a reason for it, yet everyone you meet seems to have a strong opinion about the issue one way or another (Michael Crighton can suck a post-mortem dick for writing State of Fear). I mean, are people worried some day someone's going to show up and force them to live in a teepee? Or do they just want to butt **** the environment believing it's been good and roofied and won't remember anything.

Basically what I really think is going on is that people have sort of fallen in line behind their political leaders. Republican politicians (and plenty of Democrats too) are mouth pieces of Big Oil, therefore they don't think climate change is real. Democrats bash them, so rank and file Republicans close ranks and support the cause (anti-cause?) despite having absolutely no reason to care. It's more of a sports fan mentality than a "I'm old and need medicare so don't take away my medicare" mentality.

There was a partisan issue involved: whether the federal government has the right to stop people from doing something harmful to their own bodies. I doubt smoking is what caused that debate, and compared to today it was probably a relatively minor outrage, but politics were involved. If not for that discussion point(and boat loads of bribes), smoking would probably be banned.

I mostly agree with you. People see that its something their side objects to, so they fall in. That said, some people truly believe nothing is wrong for various reasons. Dont forget this is an issue for many social conservatives who believe in the scriptural literalism of the bible. I believe those numbers are microscopic compared to those who are defensive or have an interest in Big Oil, but they still have their influence.

Locke
10-03-2012, 07:29 PM
That's a classic straw man. Who am I to disagree with all the scientists and universities from all over the world?


As an aside... would it be fair for me to assume that you get all your facts from Rachel Maddow and John Stewart? Typical association fallacy, and no I don't listen to Rush or Beck.


Getting back to the point. I disagree with "organizations" that keep reiterating that "climate change" is a threat.

You make the false assumption that the findings of scientists and universities are not filtered in any way by those who have a higher agenda. See "Climategate."


What kind of agenda could such "organizations" have? Well it usually boils down to money and power. Money in the form of ongoing grants, and power in the form of political influence.

The second false assumption that you have made is that all scientists have come to the same conclusion. That's not the case as indicated in this article.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/








@Spesh





In essence, Romney is correct that humans have impacted "climate change," but the impact is so minimal as to be insignificant such as ".9 of 1 percent."


In your last quote, I would be willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because of the use of the of the word "may." He is conceding that he is no scientist, but agrees generally speaking that less pollutants cannot possibly be a bad thing.







The agency that would be largely responsible for wielding this control would be the EPA. Take a listen to this clip.


Mark Levin Show 10/1/12

cue to 77:35-80:00


http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodloc%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2FdloadTrack%2Emp3%3Fprm%3D2069xhttp%3A%2F%2Fpodfuse-dl%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2F800185%2Fpodfuse-origin%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2Fcitadel_origin%2Fpods%2Fmarklevin%2FLevin10012012%2Emp3

So that's why I don't give "climate change" much credence.

So, you are then saying there is an agency that takes all the research from around the world, and filters it to tell a particular story about climate change? Is that why you don't believe the work of thousands of scientists...?

TrojanFin
10-03-2012, 08:08 PM
So, you are then saying there is an agency that takes all the research from around the world, and filters it to tell a particular story about climate change? Is that why you don't believe the work of thousands of scientists...?

Let me answer your question with another question. Do you think that these agencies (plural) that hire these scientists take the time to look into these issues do so without a purpose or agenda? If you have agencies whose sole purpose is to research "climate change" and there is no "climate change," the funding is going to dry up pretty fast isn't it? These agencies are results driven and operate like any other business. If the backers (i.e. Gore-types) like the message, they will go out of their way to ensure they get more funding. Lastly, it is odd when scientific data conflicts as I have shown in a prior thread. So not all scientists believe in "climate change" as you may want to believe.

Locke
10-04-2012, 11:57 AM
Let me answer your question with another question. Do you think that these agencies (plural) that hire these scientists take the time to look into these issues do so without a purpose or agenda? If you have agencies whose sole purpose is to research "climate change" and there is no "climate change," the funding is going to dry up pretty fast isn't it? These agencies are results driven and operate like any other business. If the backers (i.e. Gore-types) like the message, they will go out of their way to ensure they get more funding. Lastly, it is odd when scientific data conflicts as I have shown in a prior thread. So not all scientists believe in "climate change" as you may want to believe.

Let me start by telling you I'm a scientist myself, so I'm not talking out of my ass on this. Funding on these matters will never dry up. So little money for research comes from the government in these areas, it's mind-boggling. You get a fair amount of grants, some of it government, most of it private. However, you get most of it from the universities themselves, who have no shortage of funds thanks to ballooning tuition. So your entire thought-process here is based on an incorrect notion. In the scientific community, there is absolutely no shortage of funds.

As to your second point, there will ALWAYS be conflicting data. Always. It's the nature of science. There are aberrations in data all the time. Even things that are well-known and accepted, like how the human body works, can have random things pop up that seem to make no sense. We look at trends in the data. If you run a test 100 times, and you get a particular result 85 times, and something else the other attempts, the trend tells you that the 85 times is the result. We scientists then work on finding out why we got different results on the other attempts. What is happening is you are looking at incomplete work, and then trying to form an opinion on it. Climate change scientists have found the trend. They are now trying to figure out the variables and where the odd findings that sometimes pop up are coming from. What you're doing would be the same thing as walking up to a guy halfway done building a house, and then telling him his work sucks because no one could live in it right now...

Locke
10-05-2012, 01:41 PM
Bump. I'm interested in continuing this debate...

TheWalrus
10-05-2012, 02:10 PM
It's pretty much in a holding pattern until we see the effect the debate had on the race in the polling results early next week. Nate Silver expects a 2.2 point bounce for Romney.

CedarPhin
10-05-2012, 05:58 PM
Romney won the debate, but Kerry beat Bush's face in during 2004, too. Which is all we're seeing a repeat of, with the names switched.

Locke
10-05-2012, 06:14 PM
It's pretty much in a holding pattern until we see the effect the debate had on the race in the polling results early next week. Nate Silver expects a 2.2 point bounce for Romney.

Agreed. But I'm talking specifically about Trojan's dismissal of all evidence supporting climate change. I think he may have forgot we were having this debate. Well, I hope he forgot at least...

irish fin fan
10-05-2012, 08:10 PM
What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age". So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.

The amount of ignorant posts on this forum is astounding.

phins_4_ever
10-05-2012, 08:46 PM
What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age". So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.

My goodness. You can not be serious.

TrojanFin
10-06-2012, 04:00 AM
I didn't forget. I prefer to repond in detail when at my computer and not when I am traveling. We'll pick this up next week when I get back. Until then, everyone can gasp in horror at the fact I believe the "inconvenient truth" to be mere propaganda.

@ irish - thanks for your contribution (your ignorance is duly noted)
@ phins - hypocrisy at it's finest - unless of course you are still here out. of bewilderment of why such issues have become partisan? - somehow I don't think so.

Later

irish fin fan
10-06-2012, 12:31 PM
I didn't forget. I prefer to repond in detail when at my computer and not when I am traveling. We'll pick this up next week when I get back. Until then, everyone can gasp in horror at the fact I believe the "inconvenient truth" to be mere propaganda.

@ irish - thanks for your contribution (your ignorance is duly noted)
@ phins - hypocrisy at it's finest - unless of course you are still here out. of bewilderment of why such issues have become partisan? - somehow I don't think so.

Later

I posted on this issue in the past and I'm not going to keep reposting the same facts to an endless horde of ultra right wing posts. The fact that we are still debating this today is astounding.

The IQ of this country must be declining seeing how ultra right wing nut case posts are becoming more common.

CedarPhin
10-06-2012, 02:14 PM
It was 100 degrees here in October. Something's definitely different, and it's not simply a "change in seasons".

TrojanFin
10-10-2012, 05:11 AM
It was 100 degrees here in October. Something's definitely different, and it's not simply a "change in seasons".

Since your location is "Hotel California"...


In Long Beach, the highest recorded temperature was 111 °F (44 °C) on October 16, 1958, and October 15, 1961...

So not unprecedented. You may live in NorCal... but I am sure you can find exceptions there as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Los_Angeles_Basin

@ irish - feel free to copy paste past responses - ctrl c/ctrl v usually does the trick - I couldn't find anything pertinent in any of your previous posts from the past year and a half though

@ locke- I think the best way to continue with this discussion is to first define what you mean by "climate change"?

I am not going to argue that the weather doesn't change, nor am I going to argue the earth doesn't go through extreme periods of weather such as epochs of severe cold or massive dry-spells brought on by heatwaves. I am not going to even challenge the fact that human actions affect the environment.

What I am arguing is that humans have had such a minimal impact on weather (i.e. global warming/climate change etc.), as to be insignificant compared to other "natural" factors.

In other words, nature has been a lot more destructive towards the ozone and having an impact on your so called "global warming" than we could ever hope, and the term "climate change" has been politicized, and is often associated with destruction that humans have wreaked upon the earth and its effect on the weather. That's why I feel a lot "climate change" research has an ulterior motive with work done by groups (universities or agencies) trying to look busy and altruistic (finding reasons to remain employed), while "eco-friendly" companies are using the research to get government grants to help fund their pet projects or subsidize their latest "green" toys in hopes of turning a profit. A "progressive" government, meanwhile, can justify tax hikes on anything they deem harmful to the environment, while allocating energy resources as to where they see fit.

I'd venture to say that cow flatulence along with other natural causes of methane etc. has done far more damage than teenage girls using hairspray or commuters driving to work. The ozone has been more ravaged by radiation from outer space than by the disposal of fast food containers. Lastly, weather is far more influenced by distance from the sun than mere people. Even with all these "natural" It's conceited to think to think of ourselves as the both destroyers and saviors of the planet.

rob19
10-10-2012, 06:15 AM
Lastly, weather is far more influenced by distance from the sun than mere people.

I'm not sure what you mean, are you implying the distance from the Earth to the Sun changes? The distance from the Sun to the Earth has been a constant for a long, long time.


The ozone has been more ravaged by radiation from outer space

I'd be open to seeing some research to back this claim, to my understanding the whole point of the ozone layer is to reduce the amount of UV radiation from space.



I'd venture to say that cow flatulence along with other natural causes of methane etc. has done far more damage than teenage girls using hairspray or commuters driving to work. Even with all these "natural" It's conceited to think to think of ourselves as the both destroyers and saviors of the planet.


A car emits a little over 2 times as much greenhouse gases as a cow. So what does this mean on a global scale? With the increase in the number of cars and light trucks over the past few years, especially in developing nations such as India, the 1.3 billion cows produce about 80% as much greenhouse gases as cars. However, that is not the whole picture…

A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this problem, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”. Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2,) and 37% of all human-induced methane. It also generates 64% of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems. Livestock expansion is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and the remainder used for feedcrops. Through deforestation and land degradation, livestock is also driving reductions in biodiversity.

What you seem to not understand is that the mass accumulation of livestock in order to feed a growing population is a human cause as well. So whether it be motorized vehicle emissions or a vast accumulation of livestock, both present a legitimate threat to the environmental, & both are human oriented.


What I am arguing is that humans have had such a minimal impact on weather (i.e. global warming/climate change etc.),as to be insignificant compared to other "natural" factors.

Ultimately I think this is a false claim. I mean, just by looking at the ozone depletion levels from before the industrial revolution compared to post industrial revolution I think it'd be self-evident that your claim doesn't have much teeth to it. Furthermore, according to the 1995 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on the ozone-layer depletion in the stratosphere, they outline ways to reverse such damage based on human action.


What can we expect in the future?
Thanks to our good scientific understanding of the ozone problem (and very largely to Crutzen, Molina and Rowland) it has been possible to make far-reaching decisions on prohibiting the release of gases that destroy ozone. A protocol on the protection of the ozone layer was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and signed in Montreal, Canada, in 1987. Under the latest tightening-up of the Montreal Protocol, the most dangerous gases will be totally banned from 1996 (developing countries have a few years' grace to introduce substitutes that do not harm the ozone layer). Since it takes some time for the ozone-destroying gases to reach the ozone layer we must expect the depletion, not only over Antarctica but also over parts of the Northern Hemisphere, to worsen for some years to come. Given compliance with the prohibitions, the ozone layer should gradually begin to heal after the turn of the century (Fig. 3). Yet it will take at least 100 years before it has fully recovered.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/keeng3-1.gif

Fig. 3. Change in the chlorine content in the stratosphere up to the present and three different future scenarios:
a) Without restrictions on release,
b) Limitations according to the original Montreal Protocol of 1987
c) The release limitations now internationally agreed. (Chlorine content is a measure of the magnitude of ozone depletion.)In conclusion, while we can debate the causes of the depeltion of the ozone-layer, it is a real problem that shouldn’t be down-played by either political party, & we should take steps to correct the problem, rather than pass the buck to future generations.

rob19
10-10-2012, 06:50 AM
http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting...l-warming-407/ (http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting-before-global-warming-407/)

This one says global warming started before the industrial age.

Actually I think that's a misrepresentation of the article. It states that eleven-thousand years ago the global temp. was 1 degree C warmer than today's average coming off an ice-age. & That the planet reached a cool point at about 600 years ago, & that "Another warm period followed, which intensified over the last 50–100 years", coinciding with the rise of the industrial revolution.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/)

This one says that there is a build up of ice in Antarctica.

My problem with that article is they use one area that has accumulated ice & try to use that as evidence that the Earth as a whole isn't affected.


And as humans, have we really made much of an impact? I'd say no.

Again, I'd say that's a pretty ludicrous claim.


Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human activities have caused an increase in several greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, a trend most scientists believe is causing anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Over the past two and one-half centuries the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased about 40 percent, from a pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per million by volume to a current level of 392 parts per million by volume. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are already higher today than at any time in the past 150,000 years. And if the consumption of fossil fuels such as coal and oil continues into the next century at projected rates with no mitigation, the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would reach over 900 ppmv by 2100.

Other greenhouse gas emissions have been rising as well. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have doubled since pre-industrial times. Other greenhouse chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons, are synthetic and have only appeared in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

Greenhouse gases are not the only chemical agent contributing to the warming of Earth’s surface. In recent years increasing attention has focused on the role of black carbon aerosol particles in contributing to Earth’s warming. Black carbon aerosols are “soot”, a byproduct of incomplete combustion of fuels. Black carbon particles strongly absorb solar radiation and then re-emit radiation, so like the greenhouse gases they too can have a warming effect on the surface. Black carbon can also warm the Earth by reducing the albedo of snow and ice when soot is deposited on those otherwise reflective surfaces. Unlike many greenhouse gases, however, black carbon aerosol particles have a very short lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere, typically only residing in the atmosphere for a few days to a few weeks.
-
There are complex interrelationships involving air pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change. Human industrial and agricultural activity has been a driving factor in contributing to each of these problems. In a number of instances actions to limit emissions to address one problem will have effects on others as well.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are the leading cause of stratospheric ozone depletion are also powerful greenhouse gases so actions to curtail their use will help in climate protection as well as in preserving the stratospheric ozone layer. Similarly actions to substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels or to increase energy efficiency in order to protect the climate are likely also to result in an improvement in air quality. Efforts to reduce black-carbon emissions are particularly fruitful environmentally since black carbon aerosol particles contribute to both the global greenhouse effect and local air pollution.


http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/index.html

rob19
10-10-2012, 07:03 AM
By the way, I haven't read the whole thread & maybe I should, but we're all aware global warming isn't the only environmental problem we face, correct? To name just one, we have a garbage-patch twice the size of Texas floating around in the pacific ocean. I really don't understand the notion that all these people trying to set-up environmental regulations is really a conspiracy to make profit.

Locke
10-10-2012, 12:30 PM
Since your location is "Hotel California"...


So not unprecedented. You may live in NorCal... but I am sure you can find exceptions there as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Los_Angeles_Basin

@ irish - feel free to copy paste past responses - ctrl c/ctrl v usually does the trick - I couldn't find anything pertinent in any of your previous posts from the past year and a half though

@ locke- I think the best way to continue with this discussion is to first define what you mean by "climate change"?

I am not going to argue that the weather doesn't change, nor am I going to argue the earth doesn't go through extreme periods of weather such as epochs of severe cold or massive dry-spells brought on by heatwaves. I am not going to even challenge the fact that human actions affect the environment.

What I am arguing is that humans have had such a minimal impact on weather (i.e. global warming/climate change etc.), as to be insignificant compared to other "natural" factors.

In other words, nature has been a lot more destructive towards the ozone and having an impact on your so called "global warming" than we could ever hope, and the term "climate change" has been politicized, and is often associated with destruction that humans have wreaked upon the earth and its effect on the weather. That's why I feel a lot "climate change" research has an ulterior motive with work done by groups (universities or agencies) trying to look busy and altruistic (finding reasons to remain employed), while "eco-friendly" companies are using the research to get government grants to help fund their pet projects or subsidize their latest "green" toys in hopes of turning a profit. A "progressive" government, meanwhile, can justify tax hikes on anything they deem harmful to the environment, while allocating energy resources as to where they see fit.

I'd venture to say that cow flatulence along with other natural causes of methane etc. has done far more damage than teenage girls using hairspray or commuters driving to work. The ozone has been more ravaged by radiation from outer space than by the disposal of fast food containers. Lastly, weather is far more influenced by distance from the sun than mere people. Even with all these "natural" It's conceited to think to think of ourselves as the both destroyers and saviors of the planet.

This is irrelevant to my previous point. You claimed that this phantom agency that takes all climate change research is biased and picks and chooses which data to publish because it wants to keep funding for climate change research. I pointed out that there is no lack of funds for scientific research, and how little of it comes from the government. This makes your entire premise invalid. When we needed funding for our study a few years ago, I personally wrote a proposal to the American Psychological Association to get approval ethically, and after that ordeal, they forwarded us a list of possible grants and funding sources we could access. Not a single one was government money. Funding is not the issue.

As to my second point, there isn't a need to expand on that. Conflicting data is a part of science, period.

You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...

TrojanFin
10-11-2012, 05:54 AM
This is irrelevant to my previous point. You claimed that this phantom agency that takes all climate change research is biased and picks and chooses which data to publish because it wants to keep funding for climate change research. I pointed out that there is no lack of funds for scientific research, and how little of it comes from the government. This makes your entire premise invalid. When we needed funding for our study a few years ago, I personally wrote a proposal to the American Psychological Association to get approval ethically, and after that ordeal, they forwarded us a list of possible grants and funding sources we could access. Not a single one was government money. Funding is not the issue.

As to my second point, there isn't a need to expand on that. Conflicting data is a part of science, period.

You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...

You are missing my point. The issue isn't so much the funding, but those who do the funding may demand certain results. I didn't say there was a single phantom agency that makes all climate research bias. I'll appeal to your ethos as a scientist and concede that you probably know more about where funding comes from. I'm not going to argue whether such funding comes from the government, universities, or private entities because it is irrelevant. The sheer fact that money is being spent on "climate change" research at all shows that there is an agenda when comes to researching the subject otherwise why bother to fund it. It's self-serving research that is done with the intention of proving that "climate change," as a politicized, term exists.


In the scientific community, there is absolutely no shortage of funds.

That may be true, but universities, agencies and government all still have budgets. So not everything gets funded. Ultimately, as you demonstrated from your real world experience, you had to submit a proposal for approval.


You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...

I could say the same of you. If the scientific data was so conclusive then there would be no debate. It would be like debating the earth being round or flat. You simply dismiss my examples that are contrary to your "ideological narrative" as outliers or anomalies. Since you don't give a specific definition to "climate change," how am I to debate what is a vaguely defined term. Instead I choose to decide that my concept of "climate change" as human-induced extremities (ie anthropogenic causes) in weather as a myth. Trust me there is a lot of scientific data out there to back me up as well.

TrojanFin
10-11-2012, 06:56 AM
I'm not sure what you mean, are you implying the distance from the Earth to the Sun changes? The distance from the Sun to the Earth has been a constant for a long, long time.​

The earth being tilted on its axis accounts for the reason why the northern and summer hemisphere experience winter and summer at different times. So I should have clarified to say that regions of the earth and their distance from the sun account for the weather and "climate change". This in turn accounts to why we are cold and hot depending on the seasons. I was being cute by saying experiencing summer does not equate to global warming.



I'd be open to seeing some research to back this claim, to my understanding the whole point of the ozone layer is to reduce the amount of UV radiation from space.


reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.​

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e118501



What you seem to not understand is that the mass accumulation of livestock in order to feed a growing population is a human cause as well. So whether it be motorized vehicle emissions or a vast accumulation of livestock, both present a legitimate threat to the environmental, & both are human oriented.

Ultimately I think this is a false claim. I mean, just by looking at the ozone depletion levels from before the industrial revolution compared to post industrial revolution I think it'd be self-evident that your claim doesn't have much teeth to it. Furthermore, according to the 1995 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on the ozone-layer depletion in the stratosphere, they outline ways to reverse such damage based on human action.

In conclusion, while we can debate the causes of the depeltion of the ozone-layer, it is a real problem that shouldn’t be down-played by either political party, & we should take steps to correct the problem, rather than pass the buck to future generations.


​I brought up cows for illustrative purposes. I'll concede that deforestation is likely not helping our air quality, however the crux of my argument is the role humans play (or don't) in causing "climate change". You might agree that there are tons more animals on this planet that we don't raise for eating, and that also release tons of methane and CO2.


Regarding the rates, consider this. The present (2010) global rate of CO2 production from fossil fuel burning is approximately equal to the present global rate of CO2 production from anthropogenic animal breathing [8].

This implies that reducing anthropogenic animal metabolic rates can have a greater effect than many industry-scale changes in energy use and leads to suggestions that we breathe less [9]. It also shows that demonizing CO2 production demonizes life itself [9].

Among other things, the anthropogenic animal breathing calculation [8] also means that the rate of loss of carbon from the atmosphere is at least four times greater than the rate of measured post-industrial increase in atmospheric CO2.

Where is all that atmospheric carbon going? We don’t know because the other planetary carbon pools with which the atmosphere exchanges are so large (compared to the atmosphere) that the incremental additions of carbon to these larger pools (such as the oceans) cannot be detected.

Again regarding rates, the present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y) [7]. GPP is the rate at which new biomass (living matter) is produced on the whole planet.

Similarly, the rate of fossil fuel burning energy release is miniscule (0.006%) compared to the rate of the sun’s delivery of energy to the planet [7].​

If you want to get into the numbers, he lays it all out there...
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-gargantuan-lie-of-climate-change.html

There are many other scientists that have come to the same conclusions...
http://www.iceagenow.com/Consensus_on_Climate_Change_Is_Fake.htm

TrojanFin
10-11-2012, 07:12 AM
By the way, I haven't read the whole thread & maybe I should, but we're all aware global warming isn't the only environmental problem we face, correct? To name just one, we have a garbage-patch twice the size of Texas floating around in the pacific ocean. I really don't understand the notion that all these people trying to set-up environmental regulations is really a conspiracy to make profit.

As far as pollution is concerned, I definitely see the issue with needing to recycle our resources and minimize waste. However, I have to disagree with you and say that there is a lot of profit to be made in the "green sector" since it was pointed in the 1st Prez debate by Romney that 90 billion dollars was spent by the Obama administration to help "eco-friendly" companies. Much of that money was poorly invented in companies like Solyndra, for example, that ultimately went bankrupt. However, somebody put that money in their pocket and made a profit. You can't tell me it all went back into R&D.

Here's another example. The lightbulb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

first result on google shopping for a 100W incandescent light bulb - $1

https://www.google.com/shopping/product/12052705062027179890?hl=en&q=100%20watt%20incandescent%20light%20bulb&oq=incandescent+light+bulb&gs_l=products-cc.1.2.0j0i5l4.3376.3376.0.8548.1.1.0.0.0.0.1293.1293.7-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.uLCNE4B717g&sa=X&ei=U6h2UL7pM4joiwKZ_4DQCw&ved=0CH0Q8wIwAA

I type in 100W cfl light bulb - $42

https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3335811746524454281?hl=en&q=100%20watt%20cfl%20light%20bulb&oq=100+watt+cfl+light+bulb&gs_l=products-cc.3...85363.85749.0.86826.3.3.0.0.0.0.87.213.3.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.Mx_fzV_Nf1A&sa=X&ei=sqh2UI_pGof0iQKtt4HIAQ&ved=0CIIBEOUNMAE

Tell me a company like GE isn't excited with phasing out of incandescent light bulbs and government regulations demanding that they replace them with newer expensive CFL's in the name of "environmentalism".

rob19
10-11-2012, 08:40 AM
The earth being tilted on its axis accounts for the reason why the northern and summer hemisphere experience winter and summer at different times. So I should have clarified to say that regions of the earth and their distance from the sun account for the weather and "climate change". This in turn accounts to why we are cold and hot depending on the seasons. I was being cute by saying experiencing summer does not equate to global warming.

I know how seasons work, but if what you were trying to say was “summer doesn’t mean global warming”, that’s kind of a “duh” statement. A statement of equal importance would have been telling us the moon isn’t made out of cheese. Just giving you a hard time :up:


http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e118501 (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e118501%5b/quote)

I checked the link, it’s a little too vague for my tastes. Fails to mention any specific data.


You might agree that there are tons more animals on this planet that we don't raise for eating, and that also release tons of methane and CO2.

None of them come anywhere near to humanity's collective livestock, nor do they have the bodies from a numbers stand-point to make an impact. If we weren't “mass-producing” cows they wouldn't have much of an impact either.


As far as pollution is concerned, I definitely see the issue with needing to recycle our resources and minimize waste.

We’re in agreement there.


However, I have to disagree with you and say that there is a lot of profit to be made in the "green sector" since it was pointed in the 1st Prez debate by Romney that 90 billion dollars was spent by the Obama administration to help "eco-friendly" companies. Much of that money was poorly invented in companies like Solyndra, for example, that ultimately went bankrupt. However, somebody put that money in their pocket and made a profit. You can't tell me it all went back into R&D.

If I remember correctly only 3 of the 36 or so companies that were invested in went bankrupt. Nor am I saying that money was flawlessly invested because I don't know the particulars. Furthermore, I’m not disputing there isn’t a profit to be made in green-technology, but if we can create jobs that help the environment instead of further damaging it, & can profit off it at the same time then more power to them.


Tell me a company like GE isn't excited with phasing out of incandescent light bulbs and government regulations demanding that they replace them with newer expensive CFL's in the name of "environmentalism".

“The aim is to force the use and technological development of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) and LED lamps. Manufacturers in the United States, at least, will still be free to produce future versions of incandescent bulbs if they are more energy efficient.”

You’ll save money in the long run by having more energy-effiecient lighting. Think of it like buying a nice pair of shoes that won’t wear down as easily as the cheaper alternatives. Now, I didn’t read the entire wiki article you posted so I’m not sure if those other lightbulbs also have damaging effects in terms of waste, but if they do and these new ones are less harmful, than all the better.
---

Lastly, you neglected to address a few points of mine, in particular:


Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human activities have caused an increase in several greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, a trend most scientists believe is causing anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Over the past two and one-half centuries the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased about 40 percent, from a pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per million by volume to a current level of 392 parts per million by volume. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are already higher today than at any time in the past 150,000 years. And if the consumption of fossil fuels such as coal and oil continues into the next century at projected rates with no mitigation, the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would reach over 900 ppmv by 2100.


The sheer fact that money is being spent on "climate change" research at all shows that there is an agenda when comes to researching the subject otherwise why bother to fund it. It's self-serving research that is done with the intention of proving that "climate change," as a politicized, term exists.

Kinda blown away by this. First of all if you can’t identify the source of funding for these studies how can you even begin to make claims of an agenda. Second, funding for these studies probably comes from a myriad of different sources, so casting an overarching claim of bias is unfounded & reactional. Third, just because you don’t believe in global warming doesn’t mean it’s not something worth researching. It’s like saying “Well I don’t believe in evolution so those damn scientists funding and researching it clearly shows they have an agenda against Christianity!” I’m sorry, I think that’s asinine.

Locke
10-11-2012, 02:41 PM
I could say the same of you. If the scientific data was so conclusive then there would be no debate. It would be like debating the earth being round or flat. You simply dismiss my examples that are contrary to your "ideological narrative" as outliers or anomalies. Since you don't give a specific definition to "climate change," how am I to debate what is a vaguely defined term. Instead I choose to decide that my concept of "climate change" as human-induced extremities (ie anthropogenic causes) in weather as a myth. Trust me there is a lot of scientific data out there to back me up as well.

No, you couldn't. I've already acknowledged that there is conflicting data. I've already explained how the scientific community views it, and how they react. You chose not to respond to that part of the discussion...

TruthBeTold
10-13-2012, 08:30 AM
That's awful rosy picture of the electorate you're painting there. Not sure what country you've been living in, but it's certainly not this one.

Anyway, should be fun to revisit this thread in November. I'm sure you didn't think Obama would be elected four years ago, either.

A country with over 23 million known unemployed Americans. Many more not statistically showing up because of skewing by the idea if they quit looking and do not collect unemployment after exhausting their allotment they no longer count in overall tracking. 47 million Americans on food stamps. $4 gasoline. Lying and covering up Libya debacle (character does count and people do take notice eventually). Yeah I can't wait to in visit November too. Like I said it is not going to be close. America deserves better and the Dems had the wrong plans to fix the economy. Ineffective leadership plain and simple. Life is to short to wait on failed policies. Nothing personal just common sense after living and experiencing these 4 years. Tired of the class envy crap too.

phins_4_ever
10-13-2012, 12:17 PM
A country with over 23 million known unemployed Americans. Many more not statistically showing up because of skewing by the idea if they quit looking and do not collect unemployment after exhausting their allotment they no longer count in overall tracking. 47 million Americans on food stamps. $4 gasoline. Lying and covering up Libya debacle (character does count and people do take notice eventually). Yeah I can't wait to in visit November too. Like I said it is not going to be close. America deserves better and the Dems had the wrong plans to fix the economy. Ineffective leadership plain and simple. Life is to short to wait on failed policies. Nothing personal just common sense after living and experiencing these 4 years. Tired of the class envy crap too.

Debunct:

23 Million unemployed?


Romney overstated the number of unemployed Americans when he said that there were “23 million people out of work.” There were 12.5 million (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm) unemployed Americans in August, the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Romney meant to refer to the unemployed, plus those working part-time who want full-time work (8 million) and those who are considered “marginally attached” (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) to the labor force because they have not looked for work in the past four weeks (2.6 million). All of that adds up to 23.1 million. Romney got his talking point closer to the truth when he said, “We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country.” But he still left out the 8 million who are working part-time for economic reasons.


http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

And the dark numbers (those not seeking unemployment benefits) were always there or is that something new since Obama took office? No, they just became an issue since he took office.
People on food stamps is partially due to our recession in 2008/2009. The requirements have hardly changed and just because Obama became President people didn't say "oh yeah, let's go on food stamps".

Obama can hardly be held responsible for gas prices. As we all know gas prices are compromised of your gas guzzling SUV neighbors, speculators and greedy oil corporations. Or is Obama at fault to for high gas prices in Europe which is almost double our price? It's the free market boys. Sometimes it just sucks. Now if Obama would have added tax to inflate gas prices I would have understood your uproar. But oil corporations still get there tax breaks in the billions and still control your gas prices (together with speculators).
Gas prices are as much of an economic indicator as Wall Street: Nada.

Nobody covered up Libya.

You should change your name to "wishful thinking".

PS This is a very good gas price chart which is adjusted for inflation to give you an indicator what the gas prices today mean in comparison to previous years:
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

TrojanFin
10-15-2012, 09:24 PM
No, you couldn't. I've already acknowledged that there is conflicting data. I've already explained how the scientific community views it, and how they react. You chose not to respond to that part of the discussion...

How would you like me to respond Locke? You say there is all this evidence that I am ignoring, and yet you concede that there is evidence that contradicts your very views on climate change. Of course you dismiss that because there is supposedly all this overwhelming evidence that favors your viewpoint. I can then argue that all that evidence is built on false premise funded by people with an agenda whether it is universities or private funding.

It would be like paying you to research why the Patriots are the best team in football. Even if you want to believe otherwise (I hope you would), you would still argue that the Patriots are the best because you are being paid to string together evidence that comes to that conclusion. Maybe you see my point, maybe you don't. If you want to draw the conclusion that the evidence of "climate change" is inconclusive, I could possibly agree to that, but currently the issue is at a standstill with no "conclusive" evidence that "climate change" poses a threat us.

How does this article fit into your "climate change" paradigm?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

TheWalrus
10-15-2012, 09:58 PM
A country with over 23 million known unemployed Americans. Many more not statistically showing up because of skewing by the idea if they quit looking and do not collect unemployment after exhausting their allotment they no longer count in overall tracking. 47 million Americans on food stamps. $4 gasoline. Lying and covering up Libya debacle (character does count and people do take notice eventually). Yeah I can't wait to in visit November too. Like I said it is not going to be close. America deserves better and the Dems had the wrong plans to fix the economy. Ineffective leadership plain and simple. Life is to short to wait on failed policies. Nothing personal just common sense after living and experiencing these 4 years. Tired of the class envy crap too.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/French20Revolution20picture-1.jpeg
Could be worse.

irish fin fan
10-15-2012, 10:10 PM
How would you like me to respond Locke? You say there is all this evidence that I am ignoring, and yet you concede that there is evidence that contradicts your very views on climate change. Of course you dismiss that because there is supposedly all this overwhelming evidence that favors your viewpoint. I can then argue that all that evidence is built on false premise funded by people with an agenda whether it is universities or private funding.

It would be like paying you to research why the Patriots are the best team in football. Even if you want to believe otherwise (I hope you would), you would still argue that the Patriots are the best because you are being paid to string together evidence that comes to that conclusion. Maybe you see my point, maybe you don't. If you want to draw the conclusion that the evidence of "climate change" is inconclusive, I could possibly agree to that, but currently the issue is at a standstill with no "conclusive" evidence that "climate change" poses a threat us.

How does this article fit into your "climate change" paradigm?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Why do we get these posts come out of the woodwork, like clockwork, 6 to 8 months. About 8 months we had this exact same discussion, with the same bull**** right wing posters. Every single article they presented I shot down with 5 minutes research on google.

First of all, we hear it doesn't exist, then the planet is warming but we don't believe it's man made, now it's we believe its mostly man made (I believe that came from the Exxon CEO lately) but it costs too much to reduce it. What's next, we wait until coastal cities are under water, mass extinction of animals because they are lower down the intelligence scale?

Climate deniers are nothing but a bunch of idiots. Those that aren't have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Two of humanities worst traits on show, stupidity and greed.

Locke
10-16-2012, 01:10 PM
How would you like me to respond Locke? You say there is all this evidence that I am ignoring, and yet you concede that there is evidence that contradicts your very views on climate change. Of course you dismiss that because there is supposedly all this overwhelming evidence that favors your viewpoint. I can then argue that all that evidence is built on false premise funded by people with an agenda whether it is universities or private funding.

It would be like paying you to research why the Patriots are the best team in football. Even if you want to believe otherwise (I hope you would), you would still argue that the Patriots are the best because you are being paid to string together evidence that comes to that conclusion. Maybe you see my point, maybe you don't. If you want to draw the conclusion that the evidence of "climate change" is inconclusive, I could possibly agree to that, but currently the issue is at a standstill with no "conclusive" evidence that "climate change" poses a threat us.

How does this article fit into your "climate change" paradigm?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

No, you can't argue that it's built on a false premise. Everything you've stated as "evidence" to that has been your opinion. Opinion isn't evidence.

Your second paragraph is a perfect example of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring everything. No conclusive evidence that climate change poses a threat to us? Did you seriously just type that? I really hope you're trolling me, because I would be severely worried about you if you're in this level of denial...