Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I was merely responding to the nature of his argument, vis-a-vis "I shouldnt have to prove that Im right"

When making an absolutist generalization, the burden of proof is always assumed to rest upon the OP. Internet Rule # 11.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

First post:

Lots of sizzle but no steak. I too, was looking for an actual fact to hang my hat on regarding your first post but what I got was emotion, and lots of it. I have no problem with you feeling something at all, but if you wish to influence people that operate on a deeper level than their feelings and impressions, you must feed them meat in your arguments. You must present facts about policy issues that you agree or disagree with then offer the reason why you think those policy ideas are a good or poor choice for the government to implement.

Basing the choice of a leader upon likeability is one of the most foolish thing Americans do with respect to their government, right behind trusting their government. There are many intelligent, highly qualified, and properly disciplined individuals that would make excellent presidents that would not pass the likeability test. There are also many very likeable human beings that would be exceedingly poor presidents. The twain seldom meet in a solitary individual, and yet we set our sights on the less qualifying of the two as our most important determinant feature.

I am not a fan of Obama's arrogance, but his policy positions are what I have a problem with. Romney isn't my choice for a champion of my beliefs from a policy standpoint, and he isn't my choice of people to drink a beer with either. But I see his policy ideas being less detrimental to the long-term health of the federal government than Mr. Obama's.

I would gladly vote for a third option that voiced a platform of more limited government and increased personal freedom, even if i sincerely disliked him as a person. Because it isn't just about me. It is bigger than who I like. It is more important than who I want to be seen with or who has a charming personality. It is about the freedoms that good men have died to preserve. That is what matters.

So set aside your feelings, your impressions, your biases, your loathing, and please do look at the direction each will push the country.
It isn't about you. It isn't about me. And it most certainly isn't about feelings.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Well said Six. This is the problem I see with a lot of people and how they vote. They vote with their hearts not their heads. They see Obama who is very adept at speaking and has a certain charisma about him, but that is not a reason in it of itself to vote for him. Hitler had charisma, too. I am not comparing Obama to Hitler, I am just making a point. I hear people everyday talk about how they don't like Romney yet they speak nothing about his actual policies or even Obama's policies. Most American's don't have the slightest clue about either candidates policies beyond the blips they hear on highly biased political adds that are twisted on both sides. No one wants to do the actual research on the issues anymore. The sad part is these people vote when they have no idea what is actually going on.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Well then, let's take a look, shall we?

https://www.miataturbo.net/current-e...my-vote-64278/

Specific post: https://www.miataturbo.net/current-e...e2/#post849066

Next thread: https://www.miataturbo.net/current-e...shments-65623/

yank

iTrader: (1)

Ron Paul!

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Umm, they are called "deductions" and you take them too if you have ever filed taxes. I take them for my mortgage interest, my work mileage, my business related expenses, retirement accounts, etc. If you don't make enough money, you take the standard deduction, the earned income tax credit, etc. When people are smart (we all hope to have a smart president, don't we?) they do smart things like trying to maximize the amount of money they get to take home and how little they have confiscated by the government. Have you ever seen the H&R Block commercials showing how much money people have saved by having someone who is competent and knowledgeable about the tax code do their taxes for them? As a clever fellow, I would think that you would do the same, no?

How about saying, "If I do X with my money I will have to pay 30% tax on it's earnings, but if I do Y with it I will only have to pay 10%." Would you choose X or Y for your own money? Would you say a man is a fool to do X? Would you say a man is wiser to do Y? Would you want someone who is wiser or more foolish with their own money to be responsible for the country's decisions?

Or do you, like so many, just blindly hate those who are wise with their choices throughout life? Do you hate people for their success because it reminds you of your insecurities? Don't laugh, it is a major component of the democrat strategy. Vote for our millionaire because he's not the other party's millionaire. Our millionaire understands you, sympathizes with you, goes to Harvard just like you, has people walk up and hand him money his whole life just like you do. He is just like you. But the other millionaire guy is weird and different from you. He is always different from you. People don't like him. You shouldn't like him. (Have you seen any facts in this type of discussion or is this all emotional drivel? Do you see why emotion is the enemy of making a good policy decision?)

The lady next door works night shift at the counter of a convenience store and has a mortgage on that one income. How rich is she?

krissetsfire

iTrader: (1)

lol. popularity contest! I like how the rebuttal was something like "All I see on tv about him"... Not sure if you've ever noticed this but anything on tv that is not fox news is anti republican regardless of the candidate.

I honestly could care less about how much taxes anyone pays. I'm not a Romney supporter but I can recognize some bs when i see it. When the only 2 things a campaign has to gripe about are this guy is rich and his religion is different you know they are struggling.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I was adressing a specific problem in the first thread you linked that I continued to support and elaborate on as the thread continued. There was a very specific line of reasoning.

In the second thread I'll admit I made one statement that was a blatant unsupported jab right in the beginning that was just meant as a sarcastic comment not really a serious argument.

The main point being that my views are based on logical reasoning and adress specific topics. I do not make blanket claims based off of pure perception.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

in case you missed it, you can only vote for Romney or Obama.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Sweetie, the other side has a lot more on Romney then what you want to believe.






And I saved the best for last.



Seriously, the second Bill O'Reilly defends Obama from any Republican, you know you got issues.

P.S. In before people try to defend Romney when these are just videos of Romney.

Sparetire

Reason number 765 why America is probably fucked. Relates to this thread even existing. Props to the OP for calling it a rant.

People have still not figured out that the major news networks are, by and large, not out primarily to inform them. They are out to make money. And frankly that's not inherently bad. It beats state run media in some key areas IMHO. But because we are so ignorant, the best way for them to make money is to rile people up. The best way to rile people up is to affirm their veiwpoint and then setup straw-men and very selectively present opposing points of veiw. People hate O'Reily because he's just better at it than most. Untill we are informed and actualy think critically, they will continue with their current product lineup. Why shoudnt they?

I dont blame CNN. I dont blame Fox. I blame those who comprise their core markets. CNN and Fox are giving people what they want. And in the words of Don Henley.....

There is no conspiracy, there is no evil media narrative. Theres just a anger-hungry ignorant mob comprised of tens of millions of gullible people who consume media output faster than ever before. Who want a finished and very simple analysis rather than technical facts. Who will in the end vote for the people who will decide which aspects of whose lives will be restricted, taken away, enabled, subsidized, modified, and on rare occasions left alone.

Which brings us to how people feel about candidate x y or z. They buy 100% what (insert network here) feeds them. Facts don't enter into it.

Personaly, I need to research if its technically treason to write-in a sitting head of state for another country for president. Not sure which one mind you, just want to explore the possibility. I hear Iceland is nice.

bbundy

Might want to look at Canada’s laws. “a licenser may not broadcast … any false or misleading news.” Fox news who fought and won the right to knowingly lie in US courts and won that right after being sued is currently denied a broadcast license in Canada because they cannot abide by such a law.

Starting 1949 the FCC had a fairness doctrine which was sort of a fair and balanced rule but somewhat complicated. In 1987 with heavy hand of the Reagan administration the fairness doctrine was revoked.

Rodger Ailes chief media consultant (propagandist) for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush was hired by Rupert Murdoch in February 1996 to create Fox News channel and they began broadcasting in October 1996.

With proper regulation Canadas news is actually informative. In the US we get a mix of crap news and the pure propaganda of Fox.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Sparetire's Henly quote is 100% on target. With the exception of a few genuinely objective (noncommercial) sources, we in the US receive the news which we vote for with our eyeballs, and which the corporations vote for with their wallets. This goes not just for television and newspapers, but also for every online blog and "news" source which derives revenue from banner ads or the like.

It's what you get when any industry (in this case the journalism industry) lacks oversight and regulation. They give the people what they want (or what they think they want) rather than what they need.

Handy Man

THANK YOU! I can't even begin to describe how refreshing it is to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

**** you, Fox lies.

So you're voting for Obama?

turotufas

iTrader: (7)

Bankrupt for profit like a boss.

Sparetire

I hear he secretly runs Iran......

Sparetire

Oh, I am aware of all that. It's part of the foundation of my own outlook. I'd like to expand on Don Henley here though. Fox may be a pioneer in terms of presenting editorial as fact, but in the end with any society, the mob will get what it wants. Fox has basiclly kicked the other networks asses. And that brings me to a point that I think Churchill made: "Sooner or later people get the government they deserve." That goes for pretty much everything else too. Not saying all is just in the world, just that the trends dont always lie. Canadians probably do get much more sound coverage, but in the end it not really due to a law. I really wish left-wingers would realize this. Canadians get better info because they want and are willing to think upon.....better info. As a general rule we are not. So they have said law and we do not. Laws that try to make people better are usually a case of trying to wag the dog. We could pass something similar tomorrow and all that would happen would be some media circus lawsuits by some corrupt appointee ******* and an explosion in the blogosphere as half of network TV took on a rugged underground image complete with perfect razor stuble and used the new oversight as content-fodder.

Either we magically make our kids a lot smarter and less hysterical or we are hosed. < I know it takes me about a year, but I do make a point once in awhile.

thasac

iTrader: (3)

I start my anti-Romney argument with: "I am from Massachusetts and ... "


I have little faith that either candidate is ideologically pure. That being said, Romney has done a terrible job convincing the informed (in this case, any MA resident who sat through his rhetoric) that he's capable of doing anything other than pandering to the public. An example:


1994:

“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

2008:

“I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people and the people themselves have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation. And of course it’s our aspiration that at some point we’ll see a nation that doesn’t have abortion.”

...Holy-*******-****. I just was verbally fucked in the ***.

-Zach

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Is it possible his time as a govenor in a deeply liberal state that aborts babies by the truckload had anything to do with his change in view after 14 years?

Have you not changed your viewpoint on an issue after 14 years?

Here's real reasons why I like Romney:

1. As governor of Liberal North Korea, he was able to balance the budget without raising taxes:2. His approach to illegals in his state: fought against in-state college tuition rates for illegals, pushed hard to give state troopers expanded powers to arrest those in the country without documentation, etc. (think AZ)

3. Romney has never worked in Washington.

He has run very successful businesses; that led to more than 100,000 new jobs and billions of dollars for employees and investors. In fact, he spent 20 years in the private sector enterprise, making thousands of business decisions affecting hundreds of companies.

4. He also vetoed more bills than any other governor in Massachusetts history.

5. He left his state with a 2.1 billion dollar rainy day fund...which is now depleated and the state his since raised taxs and increased spending.


Romney was a frugal fiscal conservative in a state where cutting government spending was as foreign an idea as it is in Washington today.

Shall we go over Obama's "record" and how often he changes his position on things, in less than 4 years mind you?