Support NeoGAF

[AlteredBeast]

Didn't he say, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." That is a terrible way of signaling the previous sentence. Like I said, we KNOW what he meant and it is true, but what he SAID was poorly stated.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Didn't he say, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." That is a terrible way of signaling the previous sentence. Like I said, we KNOW what he meant and it is true, but what he SAID was poorly stated.

I'm right with you on this one. The point he was trying to make was one I definitely agree with, but he really fucked up on the delivery. I'd like to say I think we should just move on, since we all know what he really meant, but I know that'll never happen. It's too much fun to focus on gaffes like this.

 

[el retorno]

I just saw an Obama ad about the outsorcing and It had a good line about "Romney has never stood up to China" sublet hit at the anti-china rhetoric Romney has been trying to use to hype up his foreign policy

 

[Blergmeister]

They still would have done more than fine. Genius and drive works in any setting. They wouldn't have billionaires, of course, but highly successful all the same.

Then why don't we see businessmen of Jobs and Gates stature, or any stature, coming from these countries relative to their populations?

Why do you keep talking about third world countries? We are talking about people living in the US - those that start businesses and what level of income they achieve through some risk and initiative, and grow to employ other Americans, versus those who build roads and collect a salary with little to no risk or need for initiative other than showing up to work and putting in the hours.

Are you saying that the country, and hence government, is the more important piece of this puzzle? Is that why third world countries are left out? I definately agree that, controlling for level of infrastructure and civic development, that initiative is among the defining factor... it's just that pesky wealth inequality that is weighing the results.

Kosmo arguing from the left again!

 

[RDreamer]

Times like these are when you can tell who here is being reasonable and objective and who is being protective and feeling hurt.

and I am not calling you out RDreamer or anything.

I dunno, I personally try to be objective. With regards to the other side, I know I did say that Romney definitely should have phrased things better with his "I like to fire people" line. Mostly I think using the word "fire" at all should be pretty cautionary, especially when he's painted the way he is. I'm not sure you can compare being cautionary on the word "fire" to the word "that," as one is a lot easier to stay away from than the other. And to me it was pretty obvious that Mitt's speech was just the way he wrote it. Also, I never really characterized him as some dude who actually liked to fire people. I criticized the actual message he was going for, that he likes to be able to choose his services with regard to healthcare. I criticized the actual message.

As for bringing this up, I was personally just a bit appalled that news sources were actually reporting and showing just that tiny clip. I'd be pretty appalled too if other news sources just reported his "I like to fire people" thing and then railed on that without any context, either. Though, that depends on the subject of the news. If the news is just talking about a gaffe and how that'll play out then the clip would be fine in either direction, because they are going to play out in their out of context forms. But if you're supposed to be reporting on what these people are actually saying, taking things out of context like that, both ways, is silly.

Then why don't you highlight the next sentence in Romeny's "Corporations are people" where he clarifies he talks about the fact that a corporations is made up of people and shareholders and he wasn't saying literally a corporation is a person?

Where in the world did I personally ever say that Romney was saying a corporation was literally a person? I personally got what he was saying, and I understand his argument. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand what he was saying...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I just saw an Obama ad about the outsorcing and It had a good line about "Romney has never stood up to China" sublet hit at the anti-china rhetoric Romney has been trying to use to hype up his foreign policy

Obama hasn't really either, far east FP isn't an area he should be pointing too, especially with the clusterfuck of North Korea, which for any incumbent is a minefield.

I mean "Obama's failed polices made him the first US President to allow North Korea to attack South Korea, due to cowering and being weak"*

Man this stuff writes itself and I bet I could sell it with ease.

* Disclaimer, this is not meant to reflect actual history, but of the ability to bullshit with it, and still be able to sell it in an attack on Obama, despite the same situation being true for all US presidents since Clinton.

 

[Hitokage]

Obama hasn't really either, far east FP isn't an area he should be pointing too, especially with the clusterfuck of North Korea, which for any incumbent is a minefield.

I mean "Obama's failed polices made him the first US President to allow North Korea to attack South Korea, due to cowering and being weak"

Man this stuff writes itself and I bet I could sell it with ease.

Note to self: Manos is weak on 20th Century world history.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Note to self: Manos is weak on 20th Century world history.

Was I saying it would be true? I was implying that the message could be sold, since when has the truth mattered? I wasn't asserting it as a true statement, but as the bullshit that can be flung about NK policy despite the fact it's a giant suck for any President or party to the American people.

Come on I know about the Ax Incident and the dozens of other NK attacks, lets not forget the Blue House Raid among many others or the Burma Cabinet bombing.

 

[Hitokage]

If you're going to do that then why not "Obama sat idly by while communists took power in China."

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

If you're going to do that then why not "Obama sat idly by while communists took power in China."

I'm trying to target middle of the road, and those who don't follow FP or NK that much, but are of average to decent intelligence, not out and out drooling idiots who would believe that Obama is planning to "institute Rape Camps for all the White Women!:"

A good lie is one based in fact, short term memory, able to partially defend, and/or playing with the wording, at the other end is just shit with no basis in reality...say Syrian State Media.

I would use the fact that the attack was the first artillery attack on SK since the war.

 

[RustyNails]

Slow news day? Slow news day.

So is the Ron Paul Gambit still on for RNC or is it squashed?

 

[RDreamer]

Obama hasn't really either, far east FP isn't an area he should be pointing too, especially with the clusterfuck of North Korea, which for any incumbent is a minefield.

I mean "Obama's failed polices made him the first US President to allow North Korea to attack South Korea, due to cowering and being weak"*

Man this stuff writes itself and I bet I could sell it with ease.

* Disclaimer, this is not meant to reflect actual history, but of the ability to bullshit with it, and still be able to sell it in an attack on Obama, despite the same situation being true for all US presidents since Clinton.

I'm not entirely sure the average voter, even semi-intelligent gives a shit enough about South Korea to make this sort of attack effective.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Cal Thomas wrote a piece last week about how we should privatize roads.

Mitch Daniels sold 75 years of toll rights to foreign investors on a 157-mile road for a $3.8 billion lump sum payment to get the government in the black. Government taxes and bonds to build infrastructure? BAD! Private tolls and (what are functionally) bonds to build infrastructure? GOOD!

Funny about creating tolls and privatizing infrastructure is that we did it in the past with the railroad network. This led to the monopolization of access to markets with the railroads calling the shots on who had to pay what to be even able to enter the marketplace. Also started the expansion of federal power with the interstate commerce clause due to this abuse by private corporations.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Slow news day? Slow news day.

So is the Ron Paul Gambit still on for RNC or is it squashed?

Ron Paul isn't even speaking at the RNC like all his cultists said would happen.

Dude's fucking done, to much hilarity.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm not entirely sure the average voter, even semi-intelligent gives a shit enough about South Korea to make this sort of attack effective.

Well you can dumb it down and go up the stupid scale.

Obama lets the Communists walk all over him.
Obama Cowers To Kim
Obama Kim Alliance to Leave US Troops and SK at Risk!
Obama sympathy to Juche resulting in his weakness towards the Kim's

 

[Plinko]

Why in the world does anybody in the media even give any attention to "Sheriff Joe" in Arizona?

 

[RustyNails]

Ron Paul isn't even speaking at the RNC like all his cultists said would happen.

Dude's fucking done, to much hilarity.

I hope he's still around in 2016. It's like he's snowballing every election.

 

[The Technomancer]

Funny about creating tolls and privatizing infrastructure is that we did it in the past with the railroad network. This led to the monopolization of access to markets with the railroads calling the shots on who had to pay what to be even able to enter the marketplace. Also started the expansion of federal power with the interstate commerce clause due to this abuse by private corporations.

Its almost like...there are certain resources that should not be controlled for private gain!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Slow news day? Slow news day.

So is the Ron Paul Gambit still on for RNC or is it squashed?

So when he dies, can anyone predict the stupid types of factions that will emerge to claim his mantle?

That or are we going to get mass suicides...that may mean lots of new guns for cheap at estate sales (I mean collections as a whole not the implement)? I can't wait for Farewell Youtube videos that read with tearful cryings of Ayn Rand and of Ron's ramblings.

On the bright side Youtube comments should experience a 35% drop in stupidity and Paul spam!!

 

[Kosmo]

Why in the world does anybody in the media even give any attention to "Sheriff Joe" in Arizona?

There's only one place left to go - dat microfiche.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Ron Paul isn't even speaking at the RNC like all his cultists said would happen.

Dude's fucking done, to much hilarity.

All The Delegates.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

All The Delegates.

EVERYONE!

 

[Hitokage]

I'm trying to target middle of the road, and those who don't follow FP or NK that much, but are of average to decent intelligence, not out and out drooling idiots who would believe that Obama is planning to "institute Rape Camps for all the White Women!:"

A good lie is one based in fact, short term memory, able to partially defend, and/or playing with the wording, at the other end is just shit with no basis in reality...say Syrian State Media.

I would use the fact that the attack was the first artillery attack on SK since the war.

See, you're thinking about this, when then actual people behind such claims certainly aren't.

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm stunned that we have 34% of people who say he shouldn't release his tax returns. Lunacy.

the 30% range is always that same 30% range that will never ever budge on their political leanings and always vote for the same party they always voted for since forever.

There is no budging or convincing to be done on this base 30% that will always stubbornly stick to their brand no matter what

 

[PhoenixDark]

Show me the Obama ad where he used that quote.

He hasn't, as far as I'm aware.

It has been used it ads before. Can't find it right now

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

See, you're thinking about this, when then actual people behind such claims certainly aren't.

I have to think some of the high level do, not the parrots or mouthpieces, but the one who starts it. Granted the chain will spread anything, but you want better quality if you can, at least during an election, than just giving the base a verbal handjob.

Eh, perhaps I am putting too much thought into it.

Needs more "Obama went on a NK apology tour."

Jimmy Carter to Make Obama Apologize to North Korea

 

[The Librarian]

Some interesting senate floor action this morning:

On Wednesday morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid began reading an op-ed by Mann and Ornstein on the Senate floor as objective proof of Republican obstructionism. Mitch McConnell broke out in guffaws—then cut him off. “The reason I’m having a hard time restraining my laughter—I know Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. They’re ultraliberals. Their problem with the Senate is their deputies don’t have 60 votes any more,” the Senate GOP leader said. “Their views about the dysfunctionality of the Senate carry no weight, certainly with me.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...san-impasse-more-ceos-need-to-lobby-congress/

 

[worldrunover]

It has been used it ads before. Can't find it right now

GOP primary ads, not Obama ads.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Some interesting senate floor action this morning:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...san-impasse-more-ceos-need-to-lobby-congress/

hey dax remember this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/harry-reid-filibuster-rul_n_493474.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/28/914338/-President-Obama-endorses-filibuster-reform
yawn

Maybe they'll get rid of secret holds, but there will be no major reform. The filibuster benefits both parties, even if one currently abuses it more than the other. Neither party wants to completely give up its power

 

[Jackson50]

I am for extended debate, but opposed to the minority's ability to block legislation. In no particular order, here are some reforms I support. These cover a spectrum from minor fixes to full removal:

1. Annual spending bills and debt ceiling votes are not subject to filibuster. This would prevent the minority party from shutting the government down, or threatening to do so. Rules should be in place to ensure only germane amendments are included in the bills to prevent bundling, along with rules to ensure ample time for debate.
   
2. Harkin's idea for a diminishing filibuster. The first time a bill is voted on, the filibuster is set to 55 votes. Then drops two votes in each subsequent round of voting, with a few days of debate set between votes. After several days, a bill can pass with a simple majority.
   
3. Exempt all but SCOTUS confirmations from filibuster. The minority party should not be able to prevent the government from fully functioning, as the GOP has been doing.
   
4. Elimination of the cloture motion on anything but the final vote of a bill. This would prevent the rule from being abused as it is now, which is to halt bills from even getting to the floor of the Senate for debate, a true perversion of the original intent.
   
5. Full removal of all super majority requirements in the Senate, but with rules in place to ensure lengthy debate of all bills. This is my preferred choice.

There are many other combinations and possiblities along these lines, but this is the range I hope that reform lands in.

Effectively, we're seeking a similar outcome. The majority must be respected and the Senate allowed to function, yet we must also protect the deliberative process. If we could ensure the access of the minority party to the debate, I'd support the fifth provision. Alternatively, as I noted earlier, the second provision would largely solve the problem. Further, the procedural filibuster should be eliminated as its only purpose is to impede legislation and inhibit the Senate from functioning properly. It does not enhance the deliberative process.

Well you can dumb it down and go up the stupid scale.

Obama lets the Communists walk all over him.
Obama Cowers To Kim
Obama Kim Alliance to Leave US Troops and SK at Risk!
Obama sympathy to Juche resulting in his weakness towards the Kim's

Right. Employ "Juche" in an attack on Obama and the public's eyes will glaze over. Foreign policy is not a fruitful topic for Republicans. Not only are they bereft of any credibility, Obama has been moderately successful outside a few notable mistakes. And that's a function of both a reasonable strategic vision and succeeding the Bush Administration. Further, the GOP has attempted to portray Obama as pusillanimous on a host of issues. And they're either disregarded, derided, or both.

 

[thefro]

W has returned with an economic plan!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...titute-book-4-percent-solution_n_1678928.html

"While the causes of the 2008 crisis will be debated by scholars for decades to come, we can all agree that excessive risk-taking by financial institutions, irresponsible decisions by lenders and borrowers, and market-distorting government policies all played a role," Bush says in the book's foreword. "The question now is which policies we should adopt to fix the problems, speed the recovery, and lay the foundation for another long, steady expansion."

Glassman said ideas in the book for stimulating the economy include broad tax reform that would keep taxes low – extending the Bush-era tax cuts, broadening the tax base by getting rid of special exemptions and loopholes, taxing consumption rather than income and lowering corporate taxes.

 

[worldrunover]

W has returned with an economic plan!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...titute-book-4-percent-solution_n_1678928.html

LOL did Bush ever even get to 4% growth? I doubt it.

 

[RDreamer]

LOL did Bush ever even get to 4% growth? I doubt it.

He didn't.

 

[PhoenixDark]

ABC News poll shows Romney's campaign isn't impressing most people, especially in the midwest (where Obama's numbers are highest)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...cans-still-not-sold-on-Mitt-Romney-s-campaign

W has returned with an economic plan!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...titute-book-4-percent-solution_n_1678928.html

haha can you imagine if Obama proposed a consumption tax? The VAT freak out would be hilarious

 

[codhand]

LOL did Bush ever even get to 4% growth? I doubt it.

Funny it uses the Obama campaign's color/font template.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Some interesting senate floor action this morning:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...san-impasse-more-ceos-need-to-lobby-congress/

McConnell laughing at a speech by the Majority Leader.

What a fucking asshat.

 

[Chichikov]

W has returned with an economic plan!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...titute-book-4-percent-solution_n_1678928.html

Can someone explain to me how does it makes sense to tax consumption rather than income?
This makes zero economic sense to me.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

.Right. Employ "Juche" in an attack on Obama and the public's eyes will glaze over. Foreign policy is not a fruitful topic for Republicans.

Juche was meant as a joke, you can use other ways. Historically Republican's are viewed in polls as being more capable in FP than Dems, and Demos in Domestic than FP. I think it's an area of usefulness for them to play around with especially to the more Ron Paul end of the field (drones, "Killing" a US Citizen, etc). They shouldn't concede it.

Not only are they bereft of any credibility,

When has that stopped anyone, same with the truth of the claim?

Further, the GOP has attempted to portray Obama as pusillanimous on a host of issues. And they're either disregarded, derided, or both.

<Reads....goes to dictionary> Thanks Lovecraft!

 

[worldrunover]

haha can you imagine if Obama proposed a consumption tax? The VAT freak out would be hilarious

EUROPEAN SOCIALISM.

 

[worldrunover]

Can someone explain to me how does it makes sense to tax consumption rather than income?
This makes zero economic sense to me.

See, consumption taxes mainly negatively affect middle and lower income people. Income taxes (if implemented properly) affect wealthy people more.

So really, it's perfectly in line with GOP economic thinking.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

See, consumption taxes mainly negatively affect middle and lower income people. Income taxes (if implemented properly) affect wealthy people more.

So really, it's perfectly in line with GOP economic thinking.

Then shouldn't people claiming Amazon should collect sales taxes realize that they are only hurting the middle and lower class?

 

[Kosmo]

See, consumption taxes mainly negatively affect middle and lower income people. Income taxes (if implemented properly) affect wealthy people more.

So really, it's perfectly in line with GOP economic thinking.

And yet, the only ones throwing around the idea in the US are the Dems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7R9wYLmzKI

Their conundrum is they can't put on in place with a straight face and exempt low income earners.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

And yet, the only ones throwing around the idea in the US are the Dems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7R9wYLmzKI

Their conundrum is they can't put on in place with a straight face and exempt low income earners.

yes, but that isn't the only tax they are promoting...

 

[el retorno]

Can someone explain to me how does it makes sense to tax consumption rather than income?
This makes zero economic sense to me.

I think it brings in more revenue. I also think there are refunds for lower income.

Most european countries also have a few layers. With more luxury goods getting a higher rate. I think Spain where I lived for a bit had a 4, 8 and 18 percent rate. So it has some progressiveness in it. They just upped it though.

 

[AlteredBeast]

See, consumption taxes mainly negatively affect middle and lower income people. Income taxes (if implemented properly) affect wealthy people more.

So really, it's perfectly in line with GOP economic thinking.

If only it were actually implemented that way.

In reality, taxing consumption would hit people in more of the right ways, since foods and other necessities would be exempt. it would effect people purchasing big ticket, luxury, and other crazy items. The poor would still receive rebates or credits.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

No way would Republicans support a VAT. They like the income tax as is because it creates a big lump sum in April that you pay. Tax payers become keenly aware of that money being owed and some get angry about it. A VAT replacing that with incremental amounts over the year will lead to less outrage because people notice it less. Normal people barely get mad about FICA coming out of their paychecks. They work with what they have and don't look at the number till probably the end of the year. I do not see Republicans favoring a VAT over income tax. It's like them actually outlawing abortion. Do that and they lose all that support the social conservatives give them. You have to have boogie men to stay relevant.

 

[The Librarian]

Apparently Mitt Romney didn't fully disclose all of his tax returns for 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...2010_n_1683084.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

 

[worldrunover]

Then shouldn't people claiming Amazon should collect sales taxes realize that they are only hurting the middle and lower class?

Yes. Also people advocating for extra gas taxes. Not saying there is no place for regressive taxes anywhere, but it's kind of hard to call them a SOLUTION, when middle income wages have been so stagnant for 25 years already.

 

[el retorno]

Apparently Mitt Romney didn't fully disclose all of his tax returns for 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...2010_n_1683084.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Jeez...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yes. Also people advocating for extra gas taxes. Not saying there is no place for regressive taxes anywhere, but it's kind of hard to call them a SOLUTION, when middle income wages have been so stagnant for 25 years already.

Hey, no disagreement from me here. I also think it retards sales (not with gas as much). I think people's ability to go tax free with Amazon have bought more because of it.