Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#60 : November 14, 2012, 08:32:44 PM


Actually, I only put the group in front of the individual at some turns,

Yes, only left and right ones :)

I am sorry CBW every argument you have put forth have been from a group perspective. However I think I can understand your thought process. You think of an gay persons liberties, but really you are talking about gays as a group. You think of a womans liberties, but really you are talking about women as a group. You are think of a workers liberties but really you are thinking of the Union. You confuse A workers rights with workers rights. I for example would support  A workers right to join a Union if (s)he wishes to, you support Unions rights to organize.

What's the difference I hear you say? Well, it is very easy, and happens frequently, to discriminate against the individual by protecting the group, but it is very hard to discriminate against the group if you protect the rights of the individual.

Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
#61 : November 14, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Mitt Romney blames election loss on 'gifts' Obama gave to minority groups
In conference call, former Republican candidate blames defeat on education and healthcare for women and people of colour



Mitt Romney remember him? is working through his stages of grief at losing the election campaign, and has resurfaced in a call to his lucky donors. During the call, he blamed his defeat on Barack Obama's "gifts" of free stuff like healthcare and education to women and people of colour.

The Los Angeles Times's Maeve Reston appears to have heard the conference call, and reports:

Mitt Romney told his top donors Wednesday that his loss to President Obama was a disappointing result that neither he or his top aides had expected, but said he believed his team ran a "superb" campaign with "no drama," and attributed his rival's victory to "the gifts" the administration had given to blacks, Hispanics and young voters during Obama's first term.

Obama, Romney argued, had been "very generous" to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration's plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents' insurance plans well into their 20s. Free contraception coverage under Obama's healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-aged women to back the president.

Would that be the 47% by any chance, Mitt? But there's a happyschadenfreude ending (for Democrats):

The former Massachusetts governor said he was trying to turn his thoughts to his plans going forward.

"But frankly we're still so troubled by the past, it's hard to put together our plans for the future," he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/romney-blames-election-loss-gifts



Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
#62 : November 14, 2012, 09:17:50 PM

Willard loves the smell of magic underwear in the morning.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#63 : November 14, 2012, 09:48:24 PM

Willard loves the smell of magic underwear in the morning.

One could make the case that there is bigotry.

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1034
Offline
#64 : November 14, 2012, 11:49:41 PM


I believe in individual liberty. I just don't believe in protecting the liberty to discriminate against others due to race or sexual orientation. I don't believe in protecting the liberty to be a misogynist, or to exploit workers, or dump harmful materials into rivers and oceans. Those are liberties that I don't believe in or wish to protect, and that you do, because I am a centre-leftist and you are a right-wing extremist.

Most of what you said up to this point I don't take issue with but I do here.  It seems like fearmongering and misinformation.  My understanding of the brand of libertarianisim I support... the kind I will work towards does not allow for any of that.  We have laws which you seem to forget.  Those who are harmed by the actions of others will have recourse as they do now.  Again I say that we live in the age of information and will not devolve into the wild west scenario you seem so convinced the lack of a gigantic Fed will bring.  People will not stand for being poisoned by a corporation or even I suspect being descriminated agaisnt when it comes to finding employment even though freedom of association in a privately owned enterprise IS a tenent of social libertarianisim.  It still will not happen it the ways you portray.  Even if there are some who choose to hire based on a discriminatory basis and are allowed to do that by the federal governement I think you have to consider public relations, state and local laws, and the ease of information at our fingertips in these times. 

Edit:  I choose to see the best in people and knowing that really MOST Americans are not bigots and racist I don't think things would be the way you seem to think.  I think the politics that have been going on for decades now is really whats causing the diviciveness and is encouraging bigotry and racisim.  I'm 35 years old and although I do have a few older family members who I consider to be somewhat bigotted, I did not grow up thinking race was all that important.  I went to public school and I'm not mad about that.  Many of the liberal ideas you seem to hold dear helped to make this country what it is today and in my eyes it is not as divided on racial lines as some seem to think.  It's true that this is at the forefront these days but the worst elements are all anyone focuses on due to the nature of the system.  Blacks vote 100% for Obama... according to one poll, and white republicans seem to all be a certain kind of ugly not much different than that.  I don't think it's true. My interactions with people don't leave me feeling that way, its only after paying attention to politics for a while that that feeling seems to surface.    End Edit/

I can understand your comments if we are just having an intelectual discussion but when it comes to the realities we live in it's disingenuous to pretend that we don't have a representative government.  The more extreme views will always be difficult to fully achieve.  Some of the more extreme views I don't even think would really work in our system but I see how far we've strayed from them and appreciate that we need this to be an influential part of what happens to our government going forward.  The federal government is too big and by the nature of the system it is going to take "extreme" ideas to get things back to where many of us believe they need to be.  Aside from that our freedoms have been eroding and even the budda like Obama has seen fit to assasinate American citezens in the name of our safety.  Many Americans on both sides of the isle see this as a very slipery slope.  Eroding freedom and liberty coupled with an overstrethced and oversised federal government that seems incapable of living within it's means is something that transends what you casually label "right wing extremisim."
: November 15, 2012, 12:18:02 AM jbear

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1034
Offline
#65 : November 15, 2012, 12:43:52 AM

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

Good point but I would consider those more akin to fiscal policy than social policy.  It's splitting hairs I suppose but I just think of social conservatisim as being more in line with telling others how to live.

Also, many of the "moderate" arm don't consider social assistance an evil.  On principle I think most I'm aware of would prefer things like that be handled at the state level and would like to eliminate or at least limit monlopoly of such programs by the federal government. 

...and don't forgot charities . This suggestion that anyone fallen on hard times would be left to die without the federal government is simply shallow thinking. We've raised 528 million in donations for Haiti ...a donation , not a tax . How is that even possible !!! People are too selfish to give without being compelled by force !! Nonsense. Imagine what we could do for our own if need be . Imagine if the money raised here locally went straight to those who need it , instead of filtering through a gigantic bureaucracy 2,000 miles away and coming out the other side only pennies on the original dollar.


Translation: The libertarian plan to deal with these issues is to not deal with them.

Ouch... I just had a conversation with my brother today.  He has had some rough times recently.  He got a divorce, has three kids and pays 40% of his income in child support and then got a dui. He's living at my house for now and takes the bus to work.  He says to me, "but what about all the money the federal government spends on subsidising public transportation."  "How would I even be able to work."  I had to think for a second but quite honestly I would gladly pay more local taxes to support local public transportation.  I get that Leetran (so called down here in hickville) would probably have to trim some fat and that it would be accountable to the local citezen's when it comes to raising those taxes but me or anyone else can go down to city hall or county commission and voice our opinions. 

Doing nothing is just another fear tactic.  Nobody in the more moderate arm of libertarianisim suggests that there aren't things that should be paid for collectively.  Reading your comments I sometimes think you're either biased and trying to make things look bad that you don't agree with or perhaps you just did a little too much reading about libertarians in college and having done so assume that modern American libertarianisim is exactly the same thing as the historical record regarding the beginings of libertariansim.  Again, I don't speak for anyone but myself and I do know many libertarians who are more extreme.  My understanding of those who are willing to work within the republican party is that they are more moderate and not quite on the level you insist on claiming. 

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1034
Offline
#66 : November 15, 2012, 01:06:26 AM

Hey asshat, point to me the post where I said that either of those things are extreme? Balancing budgets is not extreme. The manor in which you and your ilk wish to approach balancing the budget is extreme.

You mean byactually balancing it  ?? LOL . Yes that is extreme , better to just talk about maybe doing it 50 years from now if we feel like it and find a magic money tree.


So only by adopting libertarian fiscal and social principles can we balance the budget? Your way, or we are all doomed as a society? Yeah, you're right. Nothing at all extreme about taking that position.  ::)

The manor of which you and your ilk wish to uphold or promote individual liberty is extreme.

You mean by actually allowing people to enjoy individual liberties , instead of just using the words as empty rhetoric ?? Yes , that is extreme also.

I believe in individual liberty. I just don't believe in protecting the liberty to discriminate against others due to race or sexual orientation. I don't believe in protecting the liberty to be a misogynist, or to exploit workers, or dump harmful materials into rivers and oceans. Those are liberties that I don't believe in or wish to protect, and that you do, because I am a centre-leftist and you are a right-wing extremist.

2. Your statements that libertarians support discrimination and pollution,  and are right-wing extremists ( or anarchists like you've suggested before...funny you can't even keep your story straight ) , is ignorant and ridiculous , and further proof that you really have no clue how anyone else thinks outside your little sphere of government sheeple.  There really is no reason to continue this discussion until you educate yourself on what libertarianism even is.

A lot of people have preconcieved ideas about modern American libertarianism that aren't exactly true.  Thats even true of most Republicans.  Sadly, I feel most voters don't vote on much more than that or a few soundbites.  The Republican party establishment went out of its way to discredit, circumvent and silence all things libertarian because even though some of what they stood for fit with thier agenda, too many things did not.  Its' no surprise RP never endorsed Mitt Romney (despite the oath he took to do so by joining the Republican party) and it's no surprise Mitt Romney lost. 


jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1034
Offline
#67 : November 15, 2012, 01:51:05 AM

Both sides try to push the other to the far extreme. I honestly believe most people are willing to pay a reasonable amount of tax to pay for government programs ranging from road maintanence, to welfare, to medicaid. I have no issue with these programs. I think they are all designed to help people while they try to help themselves.

I have issue, many do, and get labeled because I see more and more people using the system but more and more people abusing it. I can pick up my local newspaper and see people getting caught with welfare fraud on a weekly basis. I can go into grocery stores and watch people cash out with a food stamp card while the husband AND wife both play on cell phones. To re-iterate I want to help people get back on their feet. I do think people will ride the system as long as they can. At some point you have to force people to want to do better for themselves. That means taking away some of the safety net. For a large percentage of people, finiacial security is the gateway to laziness. We see it in perfessional sports, we see it in the manager who's been a manager for multiple years.

I want to move things back to what they were intended for. Help. Help to get back on your feet, help to feed your family when you lost your job, help to make sure you don't die of a curable infection because you can't afford a $30 medication. However this help cannot be a blank check with no end date. Some people will take advantage and the end result is the people who are so graciously giving a chunk of their hard earned paycheck every week start to feel taken advantage of and start to resent those who can't hold a job for whatever reason.


Romney's failure was obvious to me. Obama did a good job of making the rich people seem greedy for wanting to keep the money their earned while making the poor people feel entitled to money they DID NOT earn. Again things in moderation.

I'm lucky enough to own my home and the property it's on. In my county the average overall tax rate is 62% once you figured in town tax, village tax. school tax, income tax, sales tax etc.... 62%!!! Am I greedy for wanting to keep more than 48% of the money I make? I don't think so, others do.

You support tax dollars going to help those in need but resent when people defraud the government. Sounds reasonable. I don't think many people support the idea of people defrauding the system. Any estimates on the level of fraud taking place or possible ideas to reduce it?

Hey here is something I know about and I can actually give some credit to Obama.  I don't agree with the federal tax code, it's a dumb way to go about collecting taxes but hey it's the system we have for now.  If we are going to have the tax system we do... which Obama didn't start, why not crack down on all the fraud?  I'm not being sarcastic in any of this.  For the first time in my recolection an administration has really cracked down on tax fruad. Not long after elected Obama hired 10,000 new IRS agents and I can attest to many more audits over the last few years.  The main thing I like is that the focus has really seemed to be on fraud.  That goes for low wage earners like waiters and waitresses who have notoriously underreported income to small business owners mostly revolving around payroll taxes.  For quite a long time self employed individuals have been required to pay themselves wages but much like servers filing tax returns with little to no income, many small business owners were not paying themselves fair wages.  Obama is cracking down on that.  He's also cracking down on business milage and some other things that are supposed to be documented and often aren't. 

In fairness I will say that I've read some negative things about his appointees informing IRS employee's to not bother with imigrant tax returns and then we saw the biggest tax fraud scheme probably in the history of the universe just this last year which did in many cases involve those imigrant tax returns.  Tampa and Miami were ground zero.  I'm no Obama fan but if we're going to have the tax code we do the government should do all it can to stamp out fraud which quite honestly is rampant.  Just like in Robin hood its all good to steal from the government and that goes for both Republicans and democrats.  Thats a big part of why I think we need to change.  Its more of a cultural issue for me.  The handouts don't really help those people when it gets to the level it is.  Those who need should get but people shouldn't be buying another boat or jet ski based on some Robin hood mentality.  Bring it back home to local government and give people a chance to see who they are stealing from. 

Bayfisher

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4630
Offline
#68 : November 15, 2012, 02:02:12 AM

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."~G.B. Shaw

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1034
Offline
#69 : November 15, 2012, 02:23:04 AM

Lastly I would like to say something to CBWx2.  I recall you saying that libertarianisim is some antiquated idea that will take us back to a pastoral plutocricy or some kind of new age slavery and that it's an idea that would take us back to the 1800's.  You've insinuated that it wasn't up to date or modern but I argue that it's you who's living in the past.  We don't live in the 1800's and we have information at our fingertips. Add to that a century of public education and you'll find even the poorest Americans are likely not far from a keyboard.  I think it's you who's living in the past by not accepting that we've come a lot farther than many people would like to think.  We have a lot more work to do but I don't see any reason why that work must be done in the fashison you invision. 

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1034
Offline
#70 : November 15, 2012, 02:30:57 AM

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."~G.B. Shaw

Cheers to that.  Sadly many don't see it that way.  They just see being able to associate with who you please as being some way to discriminate and ignore that it also means an end to persecution.  Antiquated, outdated and pesimistic. 

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#71 : November 15, 2012, 02:47:56 AM

because I am a centre-leftist

I'm sorry, did you really just stay that?

Yes I really did, and yes it's really true. You and others on this MB consider anything not conservative to be extreme, but that's only because you all are further right than the rest of the world is. Your measuring stick is as skewed as Karl Rove's electoral map. The type of governance I advocate is one that is currently being practiced in one form or another by the majority of industrialized nations. The definition of extreme is something that extends far beyond the norm. If the majority of industrialized nations practice it, then it's not extreme. The truth is that American conservatism is extreme when compared to conservatism in the rest of the world.


Actually, I only put the group in front of the individual at some turns,

Yes, only left and right ones :)

I am sorry CBW every argument you have put forth have been from a group perspective. However I think I can understand your thought process. You think of an gay persons liberties, but really you are talking about gays as a group. You think of a womans liberties, but really you are talking about women as a group. You are think of a workers liberties but really you are thinking of the Union. You confuse A workers rights with workers rights. I for example would support  A workers right to join a Union if (s)he wishes to, you support Unions rights to organize.

What's the difference I hear you say? Well, it is very easy, and happens frequently, to discriminate against the individual by protecting the group, but it is very hard to discriminate against the group if you protect the rights of the individual.

You are making distinctions that do not exist, spartan. You are trying to rationalize in a way that preserves your conservatism on stances that are typically viewed as liberal. If someone discriminates against an individual for being gay, they are not discriminating against a gay individual, they are discriminating against the state of being gay. The individual is merely the representation of what is being descriminated against. If you oppose descrimination of an individual based on race, sex, etc, then you oppose descrimination against that group.

If you support the individual's right to form or join a Union, then you support the existence of Unions. You are trying to say you oppose collectivism, yet support the individual's right to join a collective. By proxy, spartan, you are saying that you support collectivism. There is no other way to interpret it.


JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#72 : November 15, 2012, 03:21:45 AM



Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
#73 : November 15, 2012, 07:18:05 AM


I realize that you have that talking point loaded and ready to go when any discussion arises about balancing the budget, but who said anything about not cutting spending? There are two ways to balance a budget, by cutting spending and by increasing revenue, and guess what? They aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both, and you don't even need magic for it.

Specifically name the cuts you'd make that would get us there. None of you lefties can , becuase there is nothing of significance you'd be willing to actually cut . Saying "increase revenue" is a cop out because we are so astronomically over budget that no realistic revenue increase can even put a dent in it. It all comes down to how much you are willing to scale back. The truth is , you aren't.

Quote
I said that they support the allowance of discrimination and pollution, skippy. I am more than aware of what Libertarianism is. You may very well be opposed to those things, but by eliminating all federal mandates

Of course , because nothing can get done without a federal mandate. It's not an act folks , he really is this stupid.
 


Quote
Extremists tend to view the world through a black and white lens.

I think you speak from expierence on this one  ( the guy who can't possibly imagine how a society could function without an over-bearing nanny state ). All liberty orginates at the individual , corky.  Laughable that you think freedom is extreme.  Educate yourself , you sound like a jack ass.





: November 15, 2012, 07:28:25 AM Fire Mark Dummynik

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15481
Offline
#74 : November 15, 2012, 07:24:41 AM

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."~G.B. Shaw

Cheers to that.  Sadly many don't see it that way.  They just see being able to associate with who you please as being some way to discriminate and ignore that it also means an end to persecution.  Antiquated, outdated and pesimistic.

Don't bother guys . CBW is just an extremist who sees the world in black and white.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools