Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

I've received some jaw-dropping Republican chain e-mails before, but I think this might be the best one yet:

At least 40% of American voters would read this shit and think, "Fucking preach it!" My urge to commit extreme acts of violence is rising.

I started on a reply, and I got about as far as "Mitch McConnell is a lawyer. Michelle Bachmann is a lawyer..." before realizing how pointless it would be.

You should reply all with only this Adam Smith quote in the body:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."–Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, vol. 1, pt. xi, p.10

 

[Piecake]

You should reply all with only this Adam Smith quote in the body:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."–Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, vol. 1, pt. xi, p.10

Clearly Adam Smith is either a dirty evil socialist or his epilepsy is making him say and do things that he normally wouldnt

 

[Oblivion]

You should reply all with only this Adam Smith quote in the body:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."–Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, vol. 1, pt. xi, p.10

I always found it weird how right wingers seem to revere Adam Smith, being the founder of the free-market theory and all that, despite the fact that he himself supported things like progressive taxation (which would make him a Marxist several decades before Marx was even born!).

 

[el retorno]

I always found it weird how right wingers seem to revere Adam Smith, being the founder of the free-market theory and all that, despite the fact that he himself supported things like progressive taxation (which would make him a Marxist several decades before Marx was even born!).

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

"Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules. To depart upon any occasion from these rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal to the banking company which attempts it."

"It is unjust that the whole of society should contribute towards an expence of which the benefit is confined to a part of the society."

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Smart Dude. He's not a voodoo economics kinda guy.

 

[War Peaceman]

I always found it weird how right wingers seem to revere Adam Smith, being the founder of the free-market theory and all that, despite the fact that he himself supported things like progressive taxation (which would make him a Marxist several decades before Marx was even born!).

No he wasn't. At best, he was the innovator of it. Also, support for progressive taxation does not equate to Marxism, though I suspect you weren't entirely serious on this point. But you are quite correct that people have misunderstood (wilfully or not) Adam Smith - he was a moral philosopher not an economist and the Wealth of Nations works in tandem with his other major tome the Theory of Moral Sentiments. I doubt very many of his supporters have read that. Or the Wealth of Nations either, though that is a dreadful bore.

 

[Oblivion]

No he wasn't. At best, he was the innovator of it. Also, support for progressive taxation does not equate to Marxism, though I suspect you weren't entirely serious on this point. But you are quite correct that people have misunderstood (wilfully or not) Adam Smith - he was a moral philosopher not an economist and the Wealth of Nations works in tandem with his other major tome the Theory of Moral Sentiments. I doubt very many of his supporters have read that. Or the Wealth of Nations either, though that is a dreadful bore.

Isn't that his most famous book, where he mentioned that whole "invisible hand" thing?

 

[War Peaceman]

Isn't that his most famous book, where he mentioned that whole "invisible hand" thing?

Err yes, 'An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations' to be more precise. The invisible hand is barely mentioned and it is a very, very dry book. Dull as anything.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Smart Dude. He's not a voodoo economics kinda guy.

That is the only specialization of the modern GOP

Obama should use that term against them, voodoo economics. I like it.

 

[dabig2]

That is the only specialization of the modern GOP

Obama should use that term against them, voodoo economics. I like it.

Hah yeah, but you know what will happen though, right? They'll start calling him George H.W. Bush. The guy that villainously raised all your taxes and it is for that reason we all must vote Obama out after his 1 term, just like good ol Bush!

 

[Byakuya769]

A black man in politics should never mention voodoo.

 

[makingmusic476]

A black man in politics should never mention voodoo.

I laughed.

 

[Manmademan]

Disagree. Romney's campaign has always been shit. It's just you clinging to a bet.
.

absolutely this. PD forgets (or chooses to ignore) that the romney campaign was repeatedly taken to the cleaners by joke candidates in the primary, and barely made it out alive by literally outspending them 8 to 1 or more.

obama would have obliterated any of them easily. Against Obama romney has an opponent he cant outspend, thats far better rhetorically, with stronger positives and a much better ground game.

even with a weak economy he's consistently outpolled romney in every state that matters. why anyone thinks this guy has a legitimate shot is a mystery.

 

[Loudninja]

Romney: Individual Mandate “Is A Tax”

In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”

“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.

The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax.

Update, 3:44PM: In further excerpts of the interview Romney argued that while he agreed with the Supreme Court that the federal mandate was a tax, his state mandate in Masschusetts was not.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-individual-mandate-is-tax?ref=fpa

Oh wow.

 

[gkryhewy]

Update, 3:44PM: In further excerpts of the interview Romney argued that while he agreed with the Supreme Court that the federal mandate was a tax, his state mandate in Masschusetts was not.

lol.

 

[Snake]

Romney: Individual Mandate “Is A Tax”

I prefer calling it the Personal Responsibility Principle.

 

[The Librarian]

Schrodinger's tax.

 

[jiggle]

lol
who knew romney has a sense of humor

 

[Piecake]

Romney: Individual Mandate “Is A Tax”


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-individual-mandate-is-tax?ref=fpa

Oh wow.

Because Mass doesnt have the IRS, durr - Rubio

 

[Particle Physicist]

Romney: Individual Mandate “Is A Tax”


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-individual-mandate-is-tax?ref=fpa

Oh wow.

lol. Can't wait till he tries this in a debate.

 

[Oblivion]

Mittens' inane rationale is that states are allowed to impose fees, but not the federal government.

That's literally his actual argument.

 

[War Peaceman]

Mittens' inane rationale is that states are allowed to impose fees, but not the federal government.

That's literally his actual argument.

Is it really?

His argument is stupid and the sad result of a man forced to spit on and deny his own legacy due to a lack of personal backbone and a perceived political GOP reality.

 

[RustyNails]

Speaking of which, Salon published an article yesterday, in response to Crawford's article on CBS, purporting that most of the dissent was drafted by Roberts before he switched. If that were veracious, the mandate was even more perilously proximate to being invalidated. Too, the maneuvers of SCOTUS politics are damn intriguing.
Forget the wretched array of modern Republicans. Many of our Founding Fathers were lawyers: Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and John Adams. And they created the greatest nation in history.

Dont forget His Highness Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Oblivion]

Is it really?

His argument is stupid and the sad result of a man forced to spit on and deny his own legacy due to a lack of personal backbone and a perceived political GOP reality.

CRAWFORD: “But does that mean that the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax? I mean, you raised taxes as governor.”

ROMNEY: “Actually, the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the Legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/romney-shifts-says-mandates-a-tax-128026.html

edit: added link

 

[War Peaceman]

.

Cool. Thanks for that. It is 1 AM here, deciphering Romney's twists is very difficult.

 

[Chumly]

Mittens' inane rationale is that states are allowed to impose fees, but not the federal government.

That's literally his actual argument.

I don't understand the difference between "fees" and taxes. I mean they are both effectively the same thing raising revenue for the state or federal government.

 

[Oblivion]

I don't understand the difference between "fees" and taxes. I mean they are both effectively the same thing raising revenue for the state or federal government.

The Mass. constitution has "fees" written in it, the U.S. constitution does not. Therefore...

 

[Tamanon]

I don't understand the difference between "fees" and taxes. I mean they are both effectively the same thing raising revenue for the state or federal government.

Also, fees doesn't play as bad as taxes does for some reasom.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't understand the difference between "fees" and taxes. I mean they are both effectively the same thing raising revenue for the state or federal government.

There isn't. That's exactly why the court ruled the mandate constitutional.

The difference is purely political.

In layman's terms, a tax is a fine for doing something right, whereas a fine is a tax for doing something wrong. Mostly. There are exceptions (IE: Carbon tax).

There is no difference in practice.

 

[Clevinger]

lol. There's nothing else to be said. l o fuckin' l

 

[RustyNails]

There isn't. That's exactly why the court ruled the mandate constitutional.

The difference is purely political.

In layman's terms, a tax is a fine for doing something right, whereas a fine is a tax for doing something wrong. Mostly. There are exceptions (IE: Carbon tax).

There is no difference in practice.

I guess. But I understood it more as taxing can only be done by government, whereas fees/penalties can be levied by both private corporations as well as government.

 

[Diablos]

I prefer calling it the Personal Responsibility Principle.

LOL

I cannot wait for the debates. Obama is going to kick his ass.

 

[TacticalFox88]

LOL

I cannot wait for the debates. Obama is going to kick his ass.

I still wonder when will the GOP realize how truly fucked they are.

"Did we REALLY just send this clown against the person we probably hate more than any other politician in the last 30 years?"

 

[Aaron Strife]

I still wonder when will the GOP realize how truly fucked they are.

"Did we REALLY just send this clown against the person we probably hate more than any other politician in the last 30 years?"

This couldn't have come at a worse time, either. Obama's immensely popular in Dem circles and, whether it's justified or not, still perceived as a strong liberal. If he wins re-election, I think his legacy among Democrats will be comparable to that of Reagan's among Republicans.

(While PD disagrees I don't think Clinton will have that same legacy factor, simply because of how closely he worked with the GOP post-Republican Revolution, but he'll still be remembered fondly)

Of course, if the GOP still controls the House or wins the Senate that will handicap what he can actually do in his second term, but I think some of them might ease up once they realize their "goal" of defeating Obama was a waste of time.

 

[Diablos]

Nah, they'll just look to 2016 and continue to obstruct as usual.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nah, they'll just look to 2016 and continue to obstruct as usual.

Most of them, sure, especially the tea party class. But I think Boehner for example might be a bit more image-conscious than that, especially when you consider how close he came to striking a 4 trillion dollar deal with Obama. Maybe a few others like Walter Jones.

Prediction for 2013 also - Eric Cantor will try to take Boehner's job as Speaker. If they lose the majority, I think it's even more likely he'd go for Minority leader and Boehner would be demoted to janitor.

 

[PhoenixDark]

lol. There's nothing else to be said. l o fuckin' l

boom

 

[Diablos]

boom

An hour earlier and this post could have said "doom".

Fascinating stuff, eh?

Most of them, sure, especially the tea party class. But I think Boehner for example might be a bit more image-conscious than that, especially when you consider how close he came to striking a 4 trillion dollar deal with Obama. Maybe a few others like Walter Jones.

Prediction for 2013 also - Eric Cantor will try to take Boehner's job as Speaker. If they lose the majority, I think it's even more likely he'd go for Minority leader and Boehner would be demoted to janitor.

Maybe. I don't pay attention to the internal crap within the GOP, it's all so... white, boring, and demoralizing.

Boehner, image conscious? Naw. Did you see him give Norah O'Donnell the stare of death when maintaining the PPACA will be simply be repealed no matter what, not even attempting to try and rationalize and, you know, answer questions like a human being? He doesn't give a shit. He might be more disciplined than a lot of his friends in the House GOP, but he's still cut from the same cloth.

 

[Jackson50]

You should reply all with only this Adam Smith quote in the body:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."–Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, vol. 1, pt. xi, p.10

Effective. And if you wish to deliver the coup de grâce, you could appeal to our Founding Fathers who, unbeknownst to many, feared the potential of commerce to corrupt civic virtue.

lol. There's nothing else to be said. l o fuckin' l

I've maintained the Romney is the most effective exponent of the PPACA. And that video further evidences my claim.

Take off #5. Obama has a clear lead there. If Romney really wants to zing Obama on foreign policy, be my guest as long as Obama gets to carry around a photo of OBL everywhere he goes.

Yeah. Although foreign policy is typically insignificant electorally, Mitt Romney loses. There's a reason he's remained conspicuously silent on the issue. First, although I have myriad criticisms, Obama has been reasonably successful. Further, the few times he's excoriated Obama or commented on an issue, he's proven acutely misinformed. It has been quite embarrassing. And although I understand the OBL sentiment, it attests the woeful state of our foreign policy debate.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Most of them, sure, especially the tea party class. But I think Boehner for example might be a bit more image-conscious than that, especially when you consider how close he came to striking a 4 trillion dollar deal with Obama. Maybe a few others like Walter Jones.

Prediction for 2013 also - Eric Cantor will try to take Boehner's job as Speaker. If they lose the majority, I think it's even more likely he'd go for Minority leader and Boehner would be demoted to janitor.

I expect republicans to throw a giant fit if Obama is re-elected regardless, especially if it's a "close" election. Nor do I see a single item on a potential second term agenda that republicans would work with Obama on. A stalled recovery after an Obama win in November could potentially turn Obama into the next Bush, which is what republicans want anyway. So yes, the goal will continue to be to sabotage democrat ideals and prevent Obama from forming any type of positive legacy. Afterall, if the economy stabilizes and Obamacare isn't a clusterfuck, Obama just might go down as the Reagan of democrats. And considering he'd still be rather young after his second term, he'd potentially have a lot of time to shape his image even more favorably as a popular former president.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I expect republicans to throw a giant fit if Obama is re-elected regardless, especially if it's a "close" election. Nor do I see a single item on a potential second term agenda that republicans would work with Obama on. A stalled recovery after an Obama win in November could potentially turn Obama into the next Bush, which is what republicans want anyway. So yes, the goal will continue to be to sabotage democrat ideals and prevent Obama from forming any type of positive legacy. Afterall, if the economy stabilizes and Obamacare isn't a clusterfuck, Obama just might go down as the Reagan of democrats. And considering he'd still be rather young after his second term, he'd potentially have a lot of time to shape his image even more favorably as a popular former president.

It'll be kind of interesting if Obama remains popular on his way out, just to see how he works with his successor for the Democratic nominee. I figure the last time a former two-term president was a boon to his party's next-in-line was Reagan-Bush, since Gore put some distance between himself and Clinton after the impeachment (stupid idea), and Bush was hardly an asset to McCain. But I could see Obama being right out there with Cuomo or O'Malley or whoever as a prominent star in their campaigns.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It'll be kind of interesting if Obama remains popular on his way out, just to see how he works with his successor for the Democratic nominee. I figure the last time a former two-term president was a boon to his party's next-in-line was Reagan-Bush, since Gore put some distance between himself and Clinton after the impeachment (stupid idea), and Bush was hardly an asset to McCain. But I could see Obama being right out there with Cuomo or O'Malley or whoever as a prominent star in their campaigns.

It'll depend on the economy and how Obamacare goes, we'll see. Plus, his administration has yet to have a real scandal (sorry Kosmo) and basic laws of averages says he'll get one eventually.

But if things go decently he'll be quite the democrat asset. I wonder though, would he even pass the mantle to someone? Bush kind of just tolerated McCain and vice versa, but a lot of that was due to the economy. If Hillary runs I'd imagine Obama could be obligated to heavily support her. Whereas I could see him being kind of indifferent to...say Cuomo

 

[Loudninja]

Joe the Plumber Says Obama Should Be ‘Embarrassed’ To Come To Ohio

Republican congressional candidate Samuel Wurzelbacher, also known as Joe the Plumber, does not plan on attending President Obama’s rally in his Ohio district Thursday – the same kind of event that brought him to national attention four years ago – he told ABC News.

“If I was Obama, I would be embarrassed to come here,” Wurzelbacher said.

Wurzelbacher is running against Democratic incumbent Rep. Marcy Kaptur in Ohio’s 9th district.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/joe-plumber-says-obama-should-be-embarrassed-to

Well ok.

 

[RustyNails]

Ohio should be embarassed for joe the plumber

 

[codhand]

I've received some jaw-dropping Republican chain e-mails before, but I think this might be the best one yet:

If you think that's a jaw dropper, I got some Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw:'s that will blow your mind.

 

[Plinko]

Joe the Plumber Says Obama Should Be ‘Embarrassed’ To Come To Ohio

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/joe-plumber-says-obama-should-be-embarrassed-to

Well ok.

Isn't the economy picking up in Ohio?

 

[gcubed]

Isn't the economy picking up in Ohio?

Not many openings for fake plumbers

 

[benjipwns]

This quiz thing has been updated with new candidates (now has Jill Stein and Virgil Goode) and answer options if you like doing those:
http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz

 

[Kosmo]

lol. Can't wait till he tries this in a debate.

You do realize Obama is in the same boat, right?

"Explain your interview with George Stephanopoulos. Were you just flat out wrong, or in denial?"

 

[ToxicAdam]

Micheal Kinsley (founder of Slate) on Citzens United ruling:

The Other Big Case the Supreme Court Got Right

“The government may restrict campaign contributions if it wishes (as it does), because a contribution isn’t speech and will not necessarily be spent on speech. Money spent promoting yourself or others for public office is speech, and can’t be censored. Wait a moment, goes the response by every liberal newspaper and website in the nation. Speech by a corporation is different. Corporations are artificial entities… Human beings may decide to organize themselves as a corporation, but even real people don’t have a constitutional right to exercise their constitutional rights in corporate form.”

“A pretty good argument, I’ve always thought, but it stumbles over media companies (as Kennedy notes at length in Citizens United). If ‘money isn’t speech,’…may the government put a limit on how much a corporation can spend publishing a newspaper? The law Citizens United overturned actually exempted media companies from its spending limits. But the difficulty — impossibility, really — of defining a media company, and explaining why it should have more rights than any other company, suggests that a right granted to one company should be granted to all.”

So what’s the solution?

The solution is to make money a voting issue -- which now, by and large, it is not. It’s a kvetching issue, not a voting issue. Politicians -- who are not, primarily, in it for the money -- should have to make the calculation every time they spend a dollar or look the other way while others spend a dollar on their behalf: Will this money buy me more votes than it will cost me? All it would take would be the defeat of a few representatives (and maybe a senator or two) precisely because they or others spent an offensive amount of money on the effort to get re-elected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-04/the-other-big-case-the-supreme-court-got-right.html

 

[The Librarian]

ADP report forecasts 176K new jobs.

So maybe above 100K.

“A pretty good argument, I’ve always thought, but it stumbles over media companies (as Kennedy notes at length in Citizens United). If ‘money isn’t speech,’…may the government put a limit on how much a corporation can spend publishing a newspaper? The law Citizens United overturned actually exempted media companies from its spending limits. But the difficulty — impossibility, really — of defining a media company, and explaining why it should have more rights than any other company, suggests that a right granted to one company should be granted to all.”

Publishing a newspaper, and giving money to Super PACs or using that money to pay for advertisements for a particular candidate, are entirely different things.