chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 spin on the rightlol. notice when obama lost the first debate, the left said, 'he lost.' when romney loses the second debate, the right says, 'it was a conspiracy.' they sound like spoiled children who cannot accept responsibility. we see this in the polls too. when the polls favored obama, 'they were skewed by the liberal media.' but when they show romney ahead, 'look romney is winning!!!' we see the same behavior with statistics. the right was constantly crowing about the high unemployment figures from the bls. but when the bls had the figures below 8%, 'the bls is cooking the books.' little spoiled children. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 13:23 |
Like I said on Dok forum... |
||
|
How about sore winners?? I dont think there was a conspiracy but the moderator over stepped her bounds when she agreed with Obama on the Libya issue. I have checked the transcript of the speech myself. Neither was actually wrong or right, as with most issues it was a matter of perception. Its not a big deal to me really, I think Romney won the first going away. I think the vice presidential debate was prob. a toss up. I will give the edge to Obama in the last one as Romney came off a little rude to me. Romneys answers almost sounded the same for every question. |
||
|
stinky btw, romney's answers were almost the same for every question. that is because all he has are talking points. how many times did he say, 'i know how to create jobs?' and yet not even once did he explain how he would create jobs. if you vote for him, and he wins, you will be getting what you deserve. and you will not like it. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 15:27 |
|
||
|
stinky but when the shoe is on the other foot, the right whines about everything is a conspiracy. it is just how they roll over on that side i guess. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 16:36 |
Infants who are fearful and react more negatively to the unfamiliar are much more likely to grow up being modern conservative tea party types. Their lives are spent fixated on "them" and how deviously "they" are getting over somehow, and in McCarthy like fashion how "they" have infiltrated and taken control. It is all projection by the right of their own cognitive biases. You see it clearly in cases like this where their loss has to be blamed on a conspiracy. A mind is a terrible thing to waste on righties because their fear based imaginings are boundless. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 16:37 |
Deleted by dmaestro on 17-Oct-12, 16:37.
|
||
|
Check this out... Read more: conservativevideos.com |
||
|
zorroloco 17-Oct-12, 18:46 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 17-Oct-12, 19:35.
|
||
|
zorroloco 17-Oct-12, 19:02 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 17-Oct-12, 19:35.
|
||
|
wow brilliant! keep talking softaire. this gets better by the minute. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 20:44 |
|
||
|
Are you saying that he didn't have the Secretary of State and the Ambassador to the United Nations say that it was a video that caused the attack? She said it on five television show five days AFTER they knew it was a terrorist attack. Are you saying she didn't? Are you saying that BO did not go to the United Nations and reference the video 6 times, without mentioning it as a terrorist attack? Is that what you are saying? They KNEW it was a terrorist attack the night it happened because the State Department watched it LIVE on the video link from the drone flying overhead. And yet, for over a week they said it wasn't a terrorist attack and they said it was a riot, gone bad, because of a video. Why are you arguing about this? This isn't even in doubt. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 21:26 |
|
||
|
foxnews going bonkers |
||
|
hennybogan1953 18-Oct-12, 00:13 |
AND they can't find a hot chick to moderate these things! |
||
|
softy but so what? who cares besides those making political hay out of a tragedy? the security breakdown is serious, and needs to be addressed honestly. but the real point is this: you are so focused on what the right wing soin doctors want you to look at, that you are willing to elect a man whose plan will not work. you repeatedly talk about taxation, and seem to think it is one of the most important issues. that and the deficit. yet romney's tax plan, by many independent studies, cannot work - it will either blow up the deficit or hammer the middle class. but you want to talk about if obama called it a terror attack? Mitt Romney's tax plan works arithmetically. How do we know? He and Paul Ryan have told us so. And if their word isn't good enough, well then there are no less than six independent studies which confirm that his tax plan clears that very basic hurdle of obeying the laws of mathematics. But here's the problem: I happen to have seven—count 'em, seven!—studies which have looked at Romney's six studies and concluded that they don't say what he says they say. Or as Bloomberg's Josh Barro put it more simply: "None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound." I'll get to the various studies in a moment, but first a few words of definition. In case you're not familiar with it, Romney's tax plan pledges to cut income tax rates by 20 percent across the board; get rid of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax; maintain progressivity; and pay for these rate cuts by eliminating tax loopholes, but not ones that provide incentives for savings and investment. While Romney has been very specific about which taxes to cut, he and Ryan have roundly refused to specify which loopholes they would eliminate. In August, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center ran the numbers for Romney's plan and concluded that it could not work mathematically. Specifically, they found that the wealthy would gain more in tax cuts than they would lose in closed loopholes while the opposite would be true for the middle class—in order to make the plan deficit neutral, those in the middle would lose more in tax loopholes than they would gain in tax cuts. (Separately, Congress's nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation recently estimated that repealing a number of the largest tax loopholes would pay for a 4 percent across the board tax cut.) That study prompted a series of responses from the right which make up the main body of the cited Romney "studies." Which brings me to the next definitional issue: What exactly constitutes an independent study? Romney takes a rather broad view on this matter. The former Massachusetts governor's half-dozen "studies" include three blog posts and an op-ed, for example—not exactly what the term "study" connotes. (And it's worth noting that in September, Romney was citing five studies, which at the time included a pair of Wall Street Journal editorials.) In addition, as PolitiFact notes, the, ahem, studies "come from people or groups with ties to Romney." Two come from a Romney campaign adviser, while "three come from conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, which have analysts who advise the Romney campaign." The Tax Policy Center, on the other hand, not only doesn't have similar ties to the Obama campaign, but one of the lead authors of its study, was a senior staff economist on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. So Romney's six studies have in turn been, err, studied. I'll get into the details in a second, but suffice it to say that the general conclusion reached by the seven "studies" I found (in the interest of egalitarianism I'll use the same broad definition as the Romney campaign) is that the Romney plan remains unsupported. On September 9, for example (when Romney was only citing five studies), PolitiFact ruled Romney's claim "mostly false;" on September 27 (still only five studies), The Washington Post's Dylan Matthews concluded that "none of the responses to the [Tax Policy Center] study have disproven" it, because "all either use a different definition of the middle class [than Romney], rely on inappropriate estimates of growth caused by Romney's plan, or else violates Romney's promise to preserve the savings and investment incentives." On October 11, during the vice presidential debate, PolitiFact updated its earlier fact-check of the "five studies" claim and looked at the six studies that Ryan cited; even with the new material, the group concluded that the assertion was, again, "mostly false." At the same time the Post's Matthews, in the live blog of the debate run by the paper's WonkBlog, discredited the claim again. "I can't believe we have to keep saying this but no, six studies did not say that," he wrote. (If it seems cheap to count each of the PolitiFact and Washington Post refutations as single blog posts, keep in mind that the Romney campaign does something similar, more below.) The next day, October 12, The Atlantic's Matthew O'Brien published an assessment under the headline, "The 6 Studies Paul Ryan Cited Prove Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Is Impossible." (It's worth noting that one of the studies O'Brien refutes is a Romney campaign white paper, which is in fact not one the "studies" the campaign cites.) Bloomberg's Josh Barro published an assessment of the "six studies" that same day, and concluded, as I mentioned above, that none of the analyses prove Romney's tax plan adds up. And finally on Monday of this week, a blog post on Reason.com ("Free minds and free markets") by Peter Suderman, a senior editor at the magazine, concluded that No one has shown an obvious way for this to work. The math is difficult at best. The same goes for the politics. The combination certainly makes the plan's combo of promises implausible, and probably effectively impossible. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein yesterday neatly summarized the giant and very relevant question this raises about how the Romney campaign operates. He wrote: It’s worth pointing out the brazenness of the Romney campaign’s talking point. They know four of their six studies aren’t, even in the loosest definition of the term, “studies.” They know two of the four are duplicates. They know three of the six define “high income” as above $100,000, and their results thus imply a tax increase on taxpayers their candidate has publicly defined as middle class. And yet they keep saying it. Because why not? How can any voter tell the difference between studies that add up and studies that don’t? Parenthetically you could tell from President Obama's debate performance last night that this is a cold truth the Obama campaign has absorbed--that's why the president didn't go down the arguing-about-studies rabbit hole: Ultimately he and his team must realize that while they have facts on their side it's too easy for Romney to muddy the waters. For the very masochistic, I've listed below the six Romney "studies" and some of the flaws that have been pointed out in them. Matt Jensen, American Enterprise Institute, "How the Tax Policy Center could improve its Romney tax study." Jensen argues that the Tax Policy Center should have included a couple of tax incentives on the chopping block which it had ignored on the ground that they promote savings and investment (which Romney has pledged to preserve); he also said that the Center should define middle class as those making less than $150,000. But Romney himself has defined the middle class as those making $200,000 or less and as Matthews notes, the Center later argued that even eliminating those exemptions (which would run contrary to Romney's principle of protecting incentives for savings and investment) would mean cause taxes to rise on those making $200,000. Martin Feldstein, Harvard University, "Martin Feldstein: Romney's Tax Plan Can Raise Revenue" in the Wall Street Journal. Feldstein, a Romney campaign adviser, sets the high income bar at those making $100,000 or more—far less than Romney's $200,000 level. "The Romney campaign, therefore, is dishonest in saying Feldstein's analyses 'confirm the soundness' of Romney's tax plan," Bloomberg's Barro concludes. [See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.] Feldstein, "A Reply from Martin Feldstein," on Greg Mankiw's Blog. Again, Feldstein pegs his analysis to a different definition of middle class than Romney. Harvey Rosen, Princeton University, "Growth, Distribution, and Tax Reform: Thoughts on the Romney Proposal." According to Matthews, Rosen "found that if the Romney plan increases economic growth by 3 percentage points relative to where it would be under current policies—a huge, and many economists think implausible, boost—then Romney's numbers might work out." But, Matthews goes on, Rosen bases his growth estimates on a study which assumes full employment (not a likely circumstance for a Romney plan) and also assumes that the tax cuts are paid for, while Rosen cites it as saying they will pay for themselves. Curtis Dubay, Heritage Foundation, "Tax Policy Center's Skewed Analysis of Governor Romney's Tax Plan." Dubay argues that the Center mischaracterizes how Romney would handle the repeal of the estate tax, saying that he would change how inherited capital gains are taxed from a "step basis" (where you are taxed on the capital gains since you inherited something) to a "carryover" basis (where you are taxed on capital gains since it was first acquired by whoever left it to you). But, as Matthews and Barro notes, he overestimates how much more revenues that would bring in. And, Matthews correctly adds, "the policy Dubay highlights … is a savings incentive. So Romney has to abandon one of his tax policy commitments to implement them." [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.] Alex Brill, the American Enterprise Institute, "The Romney Tax Plan: Not a Tax Hike on the Middle Class." Brill pokes enough holes in the Center's analysis—a couple of which, Barro notes, are legitimate—to get to within $12 billion of covering the Romney tax plan deficit, and assumes enough economic growth the cover the remainder. But, Barro also observes, Brill overestimates how much money the loopholes he would repeal would bring in, leaving him "well short" of backing up Romney's plan. And we've heard the growth argument before. Recall the political history of the past 30 years: Ronald Reagan promised that his tax cuts would pay for themselves, and he blew a hole in the deficit which it fell to H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to close. George W. Bush promised that his tax cuts would pay for themselves and he turned a budget surplus into another large deficit, which—despite what you might have heard—is smaller now than when President Barack Obama took office. Hopefully having been fooled twice voters won't again buy the GOP promises of tax cuts magically paying for themselves. www.usnews.com |
||
|
z No I don't. I know he didn't call the attack "a terror attack". That much was clear in the Rose Garden speech. I want to ask him "Why did he, the Secretary of State, and the Ambassador to the United Nations say for almost two weeks that it was an attack instigated by a video, when they knew from the start what it really was?". Since I can't ask BO, I'll ask you? |
||
|
softy possible reasons: 1) they could have been working diplomatically with libya and/or other nations to figure out who was responsible. perhaps they were trying to fool the perps into thinking we really did think it was a spontaneous riot. 2) they could have really not known what happened. 3) There may have been other attacks planned that we, the public, knew nothing about, but that the administration was working on thwarting. perhaps stating publically that we knew it was terrorism would have jeopardized these efforts. certainly there are other possibilities... the reality is this. you, nor i, nor the talking heads at breitbart or fox, are privy to the whole story. it is possible that it was a massive snafu. and it is possible that it was not. but onbce again, you are so willing to believe the worst. you hate obama. admit it. by the way, here is the exact quote from the rose garden on sept 12: "Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." and here is obama's comment from sept 13: So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. |
||
|
softy by the way, you are correct. he did not call it a terror attack. he called it 'an act of terror.' twice in the first two days. |
||
|
softy please do not ask me any more questions if you cannot show the decency and respect to respond. |
||
|
bump the truth is, we are not privy to diplomatic secrets. we can hypothesize, but not know. you always assume what you read in the media is the whole truth. it is not. |
||
|
z I think I have already started another thread on this kind of topic, so I'll not respond here except to say that BO could be James Bond in disguise too. |
||
|
ok that is your prerogative. |
Log in 
