Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Ron Paul Voters for Romney?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660

    Ron Paul Voters for Romney?

    probably not many Ron Paul fans on this forum but have any of you (yeah you Daewoo) been thinking more about Romney.

    Honestly, I like him better than I did a few weeks ago. With Paul Ryan as a VP pick I felt for sure that was the nail the coffin for my vote but listening to him at the RNC and looking into some of his work, not as bad as I thought. That and the libertarian and constitutionist party candidates totally XXXX this year.

    I'm not saying I'll vote for the guy but there is more of a chance now than before. Comments? Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    probably not many Ron Paul fans on this forum but have any of you (yeah you Daewoo) been thinking more about Romney.

    Honestly, I like him better than I did a few weeks ago. With Paul Ryan as a VP pick I felt for sure that was the nail the coffin for my vote but listening to him at the RNC and looking into some of his work, not as bad as I thought. That and the libertarian and constitutionist party candidates totally XXXX this year.

    I'm not saying I'll vote for the guy but there is more of a chance now than before. Comments? Thoughts?
    I will be writing in Ron Paul's name. I don't like Romney any more than I did 6 months ago, in fact, the more I learn about him the less I like him. Romney and Obama are like two sides of the same coin, both facing different directions, but essentially part of the same thing. They both represent the problem, not the solution. I know Paul will not win, but I will not compromise my principles to vote for someone whom I believe will bring harm to this country.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I will not compromise my principles to vote for someone whom I believe will bring harm to this country.
    I believe not voting or voting for someone who I know will lose (essentially the same) brings more harm in the form of reducing the chances for the better of the two realistic options (even if they aren't much better). There is no downside, you would only be responsible for the actions of the candidate that would not be carried out by the other and which are clearly part of his/her agenda. Romney's agenda has no immoral aspects that are not shared to a stronger degree by Obama's agenda.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    I believe not voting or voting for someone who I know will lose (essentially the same) brings more harm in the form of reducing the chances for the better of the two realistic options (even if they aren't much better). There is no downside, you would only be responsible for the actions of the candidate that would not be carried out by the other and which are clearly part of his/her agenda. Romney's agenda has no immoral aspects that are not shared to a stronger degree by Obama's agenda.
    I refuse to buy into the "lesser of two evils" doctrine. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Perhaps you missed the word "principles", or perhaps you have no idea what that word means.

    But I must ask, how exactly would I be "reducing the chances for the better of the two realistic options"? By voting for neither candidate, I present no advantage to one over the other. I can only guess that you assume that if Paul was not an option I would automatically cast a vote for Romney, which I would not. If the only 2 options possible to vote for were Romney and Obama, I would simply not vote.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I refuse to buy into the "lesser of two evils" doctrine. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Perhaps you missed the word "principles", or perhaps you have no idea what that word means.
    Almost sounds like something I would say, but it is not a lesser evil or any evil at all to vote for a candidate who you honestly believe will not increase the evil the government does.

    I don't think Romney will support increased taxation, it is not immoral to ban abortion, it is not immoral to refuse equality of privilege to homosexuals, it is not immoral to maintain foreign troops. The bad thing I have to say about Romney is the same bad thing I have to say about most of the republicans, they aren't doing nearly enough.

    If you think those things are immoral then, I guess you shouldn't vote (not competent); and if you're voting for Ron Paul this time around I can be assured that your voice won't matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    But I must ask, how exactly would I be "reducing the chances for the better of the two realistic options"? By voting for neither candidate, I present no advantage to one over the other. I can only guess that you assume that if Paul was not an option I would automatically cast a vote for Romney, which I would not. If the only 2 options possible to vote for were Romney and Obama, I would simply not vote.
    Wow, what a stand; that is about as useful as getting sent to jail for not paying taxes.

    I say the system is screwed up beyond repair all the time, I need to vote every time to prove that my voice is ignored and the system is flawed.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Almost sounds like something I would say, but it is not a lesser evil or any evil at all to vote for a candidate who you honestly believe will not increase the evil the government does.
    Right...which I why I said I would write in Ron Paul and not vote for Romney or Obama.

    I don't think Romney will support increased taxation, it is not immoral to ban abortion, it is not immoral to refuse equality of privilege to homosexuals, it is not immoral to maintain foreign troops. The bad thing I have to say about Romney is the same bad thing I have to say about most of the republicans, they aren't doing nearly enough.
    These are your opinions and you are entitled to them. I for one believe the Romney will continue the upward redistribution of wealth that has paralyzed the nation, allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the middle class. I think banning a womans choice based on one's personal beliefs is immoral and draconian, likewise limiting the rights of other Americans simply because you have a moral or religious objection to their sexuality. Those are my opinions, and I am entitled to them.

    As for our troops, the case for continued occupation, involvement in foreign affairs, or wars of aggression must be taken one at a time. You cannot simply declare that maintaining foreign troops is moral or immoral in every situation. Our foreign policy and miltary intervention can carry consequences. Sadly, most Americans are too obtuse to see or comprehend this.

    If you think those things are immoral then, I guess you shouldn't vote (not competent); and if you're voting for Ron Paul this time around I can be assured that your voice won't matter.
    So if I don't agree with your opinions, I am not competent? Wow...how self-absorbed can you be?

    I say the system is screwed up beyond repair all the time, I need to vote every time to prove that my voice is ignored and the system is flawed.
    How does participating in the broken system prove that your voice is ignored and the system is flawed? If you believe that your voice is not heard and the system is flawed, why do you choose to take part in it? You make no sense.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    I am still not seeing anything from Romney that would entice me to take 3 minute to vote for the guy. He is no better than Obama, and in many areas his "ideas" are worse.

    That said, I think I would like the guy personally. I just don't think he is a good choice to run the country. Whether he is a worse choice than Obama...well....that is too close to call right now....but I am not going to bother to show up to vote for a candidate because he MIGHT suck SLIGHTLY less than the other guy.

    If I bother to show up to vote at all, it will probably be for Obama, despite the fact I don't think he is worth a damn as president. Several friends of mine, all lifelong conservatives and republicans, have convinced me that the best way to get the Republican party back on track as the conservative party is to do just that....jump ship and vote for Obama. It may be the only thing that sends the message that if the republicans are not going to run somebody worth voting for, we are going to oppose the party.

    I do like this guy:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...pisrc=obinsite

    Mike Baumgartner, a U.S. Senate candidate hoping to unseat Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell this fall, told a local reporter to "XXXX off" earlier his week. His only apparent regret about his outside-the-box PR strategy? Failing to stop his staff from later issuing an apology on his behalf.
    If I could be sure that the house and senate would be firmly in democratic hands, I would not care if Romney won. I cant be sure of that, though, and a Romney white house with a republican congress rubber stamping everything he and that nitwit Ryan toss out would be an absolute nightmare.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am still not seeing anything from Romney that would entice me to take 3 minute to vote for the guy. He is no better than Obama, and in many areas his "ideas" are worse.
    Let's face it, Obama doesn't have any ideas so Romney's ideas can't be compared to much. The old saying "the more things change the more they stay the same" is certainly true here. The democrats have been the party of no ideas and the republicans have been the party of bad ideas for the last few decades.

    That said, I think I would like the guy personally. I just don't think he is a good choice to run the country. Whether he is a worse choice than Obama...well....that is too close to call right now....but I am not going to bother to show up to vote for a candidate because he MIGHT suck SLIGHTLY less than the other guy.
    The only reason I suggested Romney looked a little better than a few weeks ago is that he made a few valid points regarding his experience and the economy. Let's be honest, Obama was in over his head when he took the job. The man knew nothing about the economy, nothing about "job growth", nothing about foreign policy, and nothing about dealing with the "other" party. Not much has changed and he basically failed to live up to expectations. Romney at least knows something about running a business and I give him credit for the winter Olympics. These two things make him not totally clueless about the economy (even if his solutions are garage and self serving). He also has experience working with the "other" party..fairly successfully. Clinton had similar qualities when he was running and his ideas where not that great either; that didn't work out too badly.

    Am I just arguing Romney sucks slightly less than Obama? Yeah, probably, but my thinking mere weeks ago was that they suck equally. Sadly, there is no third party to vote for this time around. So do you vote for the best of all persons running or do you vote for the person who will drive it into the ground the fastest so we reset? Hmm, I dunno.

    If I bother to show up to vote at all, it will probably be for Obama, despite the fact I don't think he is worth a damn as president. Several friends of mine, all lifelong conservatives and republicans, have convinced me that the best way to get the Republican party back on track as the conservative party is to do just that....jump ship and vote for Obama. It may be the only thing that sends the message that if the republicans are not going to run somebody worth voting for, we are going to oppose the party.
    I'm not sure a dozen people who still think in a conservative manner are going to swing things. I shouldn't say that, Ron Paul proved that young people are tired of this sh*t. I went to a Paul rally and you had many folks who voted Obama only to realize they once again were lied to. They all thought they would have a home, 2 cars, a dog, kid of the way, and a 6 figure job by now. Instead, they have the Honda Civic their parents bought them, a dog, no job, a husband/wife who is back in school, student loan debt out the a$$, and a job at Rack Room Shoes making $8.50 an hour. Give Paul Ryan some credit, the image of people staring at faded Obama posters in their old room at their parents house is fairly accurate. Them voting for Obama is not sending a message to republicans, it sends a message to democrats they they were right (when they were not). The republicans are overwhelmed by people like Doc Jones; until you can educate them we are screwed.

    If you want to send a message, vote third party. Only sad thing about that is there are no good choices this time.

    Ha, nice. Finally a guy who gets it. He basically told that reporter what everyone else was thinking. If he gets elected he should walk into the Senate Chamber, tell congress to go f*ck themselves and quit...then run for president.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    These are your opinions and you are entitled to them.
    Ah, the common preamble which is supposed to mean "I won't challenge your beliefs if you don't challenge mine." That is utter XXXXXXXX, it is contrary to the purpose of this forum, the practical operation of a democratic society, and pretty much analogous to cleaning up by hiding everything under the carpet.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I for one believe the Romney will continue the upward redistribution of wealth that has paralyzed the nation, allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the middle class.
    Delusions, there is no such thing as upward re-distribution. Look at the tax code. Not talking about taxes? Then you believe in ghosts, taxation is how the government moves money, the rest is how people choose to move their own money.

    You would have to be asserting a conspiracy by the middle class to give their money to the rich for nothing in return. Are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I think banning a womans choice based on one's personal beliefs is immoral and draconian
    One's personal belief in morality is necessarily constraining upon all others. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool being confused by their own disagreement on a moral principle.

    Do you think it's moral for someone to murder another? If you say yes you are banning the murderer's choice based on your personal beliefs. If you say no you imply it's alright if they murder you, or threaten to do so in order to extort you..... and vice versa. Which option gives more freedom to both parties? Which one is based solely on the law of the jungle?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    likewise limiting the rights of other Americans simply because you have a moral or religious objection to their sexuality.
    Refusing to grant privilege is not limiting rights. Romney, nor any of the serious candidates for the republican party have suggested anything but that states should decide for themselves what privileges they will extend to who.

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Those are my opinions, and I am entitled to them.
    Are you entitled to them because you know they are true or you want them to be true?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    As for our troops, the case for continued occupation, involvement in foreign affairs, or wars of aggression must be taken one at a time. You cannot simply declare that maintaining foreign troops is moral or immoral in every situation. Our foreign policy and miltary intervention can carry consequences. Sadly, most Americans are too obtuse to see or comprehend this.
    Most of them good. I am offended by the position which ignores the elephant in the room which is the massive benefit gained merely from removing Saddam Hussein and giving anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan a fighting chance.

    Whenever I get into a substantial argument with people who think Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes I get four general lines of rhetoric:
    1. It was for oil. - No it wasn't, that is a conspiracy theory with no backing. The objectives of the U.S. & allies in both regions are a matter of public record from reporters, official orders, and troop movements. The objectives were not the annexation of oil fields, they were the removal of Saddam Hussein, the elimination of terrorist groups, insurgents sympathizing with them, and the establishment of a stable government. Yes oil industry benefited from a stable government, but that is the case for all companies in all stable governments. In a very indirect way it was about oil, the west wants free trade with the east and companies based in the east and for free trade you need freedom.

    2. It was imperialist. If the actions of the U.S. are imperialist then imperialism loses it's negative connotation. People have said the U.S. are acting as the police of the world.... does that mean police are imperialist?

    3. It was inconsistent. If it was about freeing people there are plenty more to free. That's true, but it seems to be an argument for an order of magnitude more involvement not less. We are prioritizing the middle east because we also need to kill the religious psychopaths that were attacking us from there. Two birds.

    4. It was ineffective. Not compared to sitting back and firing cruise missiles. You can only judge the outcome of a project by the best possible practical plan. There was no better plan.

    If you are not talking about military involvement there is absolutely no chance in hell that Romney would spend more money than Obama (in the loose and misleading way that we refer to presidents spending money at all).

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    So if I don't agree with your opinions, I am not competent?
    Correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Wow...how self-absorbed can you be?
    This much: My reasoning is infinitely more valid than raw opinions or assertions no matter how many of them there might be, no matter how much I respect other opinions and assertions from the same source.

    As far as I am concerned until someone makes an argument their beliefs are on a different (lower) plane of truth which cannot be bridged my any quantity or conviction. Is that auto-spongy enough for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    How does participating in the broken system prove that your voice is ignored and the system is flawed? If you believe that your voice is not heard and the system is flawed, why do you choose to take part in it? You make no sense.
    If I did not, it could be claimed that I am at fault for my voice being ignored and not the system.

    I can and have made the abstract argument that the system is flawed that would be valid in absence of my vote but I will not contribute through abstinence to the failure of the system.

    I can argue that if you pour bleach into the stew it will not taste good, but until I taste it some will say "If you haven't tasted it how do you know it doesn't work." There are those who have claimed that if I don't vote I am silently consenting to the oppressions I endure. There are those who claim I do by voting.

    I vote in the extremely off chance that it will make positive difference.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Let's face it, Obama doesn't have any ideas so Romney's ideas can't be compared to much. The old saying "the more things change the more they stay the same" is certainly true here. The democrats have been the party of no ideas and the republicans have been the party of bad ideas for the last few decades.
    I am not sure I entirely agree with this. I like Obamas ideas when it comes to higher education (more distance learning, free internet classes, etc...) but not how higher education should be financed (more pell grants, more loans, etc...). I also agree with his take on infrastructure. This is where the republicans have really fallen down lately. I am all for cutting spending, but if we want to be a prosperous nation, we have to have good infrastructure in place and right now we simply do not.

    The only reason I suggested Romney looked a little better than a few weeks ago is that he made a few valid points regarding his experience and the economy. Let's be honest, Obama was in over his head when he took the job. The man knew nothing about the economy, nothing about "job growth", nothing about foreign policy, and nothing about dealing with the "other" party. Not much has changed and he basically failed to live up to expectations. Romney at least knows something about running a business and I give him credit for the winter Olympics. These two things make him not totally clueless about the economy (even if his solutions are garage and self serving). He also has experience working with the "other" party..fairly successfully. Clinton had similar qualities when he was running and his ideas where not that great either; that didn't work out too badly.

    Am I just arguing Romney sucks slightly less than Obama? Yeah, probably, but my thinking mere weeks ago was that they suck equally. Sadly, there is no third party to vote for this time around. So do you vote for the best of all persons running or do you vote for the person who will drive it into the ground the fastest so we reset? Hmm, I dunno.
    I agree that somebody with business experience is a plus. However what we have seen of the Romney plan would be an absolute and total disaster. Lowering taxes on the wealthy and raising them on the middle class is the exact opposite of progress. I know that a lot of republicans cant seem to wrap their heads around this, but trying to run a mass market economy where your primary consumer base is broke is retarded. Our economy is already failing because of the wealth and income distribution we have in this country. Even with the fed holding negative real interest rates for years at a time they cant get the economy to grow because there just isn't enough money left in the middle class for our mass market economy to work. Taxing the middle class more will destroy the US.

    To me, Romney seems to be one of the "grab what you can while the place burns" guys. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I am one of them, too. I don't belong in the white house, and neither does Romney.

    If he actually seemed to be using his business experience to come up with ideas, that would be one thing. He does not. If he was basing his ideas on his business experience he would be talking about expanded section 179 deductions, accelerated depreciation or ++gasp++ doing away with depreciation completely and letting businesses write things off on a cash basis. Anybody who actually knows a lot about business knows that capital gains tax rates pretty much have XXXX all to do with business expansion and growth. I have not seen any policies out of his campaign that are actually economically sound or that are actually designed to produce the outcome they claim they are shooting for.

    That having been said, I am keeping a careful eye on him now that he has the nomination. I understand that during the nomination process he has to kowtow to the nitwits in the tea party, and the XXXXXX who don't seem to understand that government actually does fulfill some necessary functions. Now that he has gained the nomination, I am hoping that we will see some realistic ideas and views that actually compliment his business experience as opposed to the retarded nonsense he had to spew to get the tea baggers to vote for him..



    I'm not sure a dozen people who still think in a conservative manner are going to swing things. I shouldn't say that, Ron Paul proved that young people are tired of this sh*t. I went to a Paul rally and you had many folks who voted Obama only to realize they once again were lied to. They all thought they would have a home, 2 cars, a dog, kid of the way, and a 6 figure job by now. Instead, they have the Honda Civic their parents bought them, a dog, no job, a husband/wife who is back in school, student loan debt out the a$$, and a job at Rack Room Shoes making $8.50 an hour. Give Paul Ryan some credit, the image of people staring at faded Obama posters in their old room at their parents house is fairly accurate. Them voting for Obama is not sending a message to republicans, it sends a message to democrats they they were right (when they were not). The republicans are overwhelmed by people like Doc Jones; until you can educate them we are screwed.

    If you want to send a message, vote third party. Only sad thing about that is there are no good choices this time.
    There are a lot more than 12 of us. We are just boring so don't get much coverage. We are the ones who recognize that we need to get federal spending under control, but cant afford to destroy the nation to do it. We are the ones that recognize that health care reform is needed because we need to get those expenses off the backs of US businesses if they are going to be competitive in a world market. We realize that a social safety net is necessary because it is cheaper to feed people than it is to fight them. We realize that we have to both cut spending AND raise taxes to balance the budget, and if we are going to have to raise taxes it pretty much has to be on people who have money, which means the wealthy. Most of all, we realize that the world is not black and white. There are many shades of grey, and the radicals on both sides of the political isle are destroying this place and they are all full of XXXX. Reasonable, responsible solutions do not make good press. Radicalism does. That does not mean we are not out there...
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am not sure I entirely agree with this. I like Obamas ideas when it comes to higher education (more distance learning, free internet classes, etc...) but not how higher education should be financed (more pell grants, more loans, etc...). I also agree with his take on infrastructure. This is where the republicans have really fallen down lately. I am all for cutting spending, but if we want to be a prosperous nation, we have to have good infrastructure in place and right now we simply do not.
    I honestly had not heard he support distance learning and free internet classes. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one because I think more distance learning and free internet classes are are horrible, costly idea. A large portion of my time is dealing with higher education accounting and policy. These two ideas come up at EVERY policy meeting with the Virginia GA. A few years back Virginia bought into a little of it and Cisco gave certain schools their "tele-presence" device. This was going to allow for more distance learning. The device is remarkable, props to Cisco. The downside, it is expensive and kids are lazy. You end up paying close to $1 million for the device PLUS you gotta have some hefty servers to run each device AND do this for the number of classes needed. There is no savings to the school or the student and the education has been shown to be sub-par. Student's tend to not pay as close of attention because there is no depth to the program they are watching.

    Internet classes are cheaper but suffer the same problem as distance learning, the education value is low. You might as well just not have the class and give the kids 3 credit hours.

    Obama is correct that Community Colleges are the way to go. Unfortunately he doesn't address their needs. Community colleges are basically running high schools because the high schools are failing. They WANT to be running a bridge program to a career or further study at a 4year. They don't need more grant money for students...they are already cheap.

    As for infrastructure, Obama has the right thought but fails to execute. The man thought you could just give money and the bulldozers would be rolling the next day. You'd think he would have learned from the experience that maybe we have a bit too much government paperwork. We had a project somewhat near me to build a firehouse. The sign took ONE year to put up even though everyone knew a fire station was going there. They started on it 2 months ago. This was a "shovel ready" job since a fire station was already slated to be built in that location (and land was already prepped). Not only that, Obama goes out and tries to talk about it and ends up saying "you didn't build that". I know what the man was trying to get at but that was possibly the worst way you could have said it. Now no one is buying it.

    So, I still maintain he has no ideas (or maybe just no idea) versus a bad idea.

    I agree that somebody with business experience is a plus. However what we have seen of the Romney plan would be an absolute and total disaster. Lowering taxes on the wealthy and raising them on the middle class is the exact opposite of progress. I know that a lot of republicans cant seem to wrap their heads around this, but trying to run a mass market economy where your primary consumer base is broke is retarded. Our economy is already failing because of the wealth and income distribution we have in this country. Even with the fed holding negative real interest rates for years at a time they cant get the economy to grow because there just isn't enough money left in the middle class for our mass market economy to work. Taxing the middle class more will destroy the US.
    His tax plan makes no sense to me. On the plus side, if your goal is to full throttle this country off the cliff it's not a bad approach. Obama's approach may be better here but he sucks as selling it. Instead he should just disguise a tax increase for the rich by lower the taxes and broadening the base (such as taxing capital gains income as regular income). Sadly, he is not clever enough.

    To me, Romney seems to be one of the "grab what you can while the place burns" guys. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I am one of them, too. I don't belong in the white house, and neither does Romney.
    I'm the guy sitting in the middle of the flames wondering why no one turns on the water hose right in front of them. Doesn't end well for people like me.

    If he actually seemed to be using his business experience to come up with ideas, that would be one thing. He does not. If he was basing his ideas on his business experience he would be talking about expanded section 179 deductions, accelerated depreciation or ++gasp++ doing away with depreciation completely and letting businesses write things off on a cash basis. Anybody who actually knows a lot about business knows that capital gains tax rates pretty much have XXXX all to do with business expansion and growth. I have not seen any policies out of his campaign that are actually economically sound or that are actually designed to produce the outcome they claim they are shooting for.

    That having been said, I am keeping a careful eye on him now that he has the nomination. I understand that during the nomination process he has to kowtow to the nitwits in the tea party, and the XXXXXX who don't seem to understand that government actually does fulfill some necessary functions. Now that he has gained the nomination, I am hoping that we will see some realistic ideas and views that actually compliment his business experience as opposed to the retarded nonsense he had to spew to get the tea baggers to vote for him..
    I'm just hoping if he wins he does what he did in Massachusetts; which wasn't half bad (for that state).

    I know Obama is a total failure, I suspect that Romney will be too but we don't know unless he gets the job.

    Meh, I'm not trying to support the guy, I'm just thinking I should take another look...at least.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Most of all, we realize that the world is not black and white. There are many shades of grey
    When someone sees a grey blur when they look at black and white lines, they need glasses.

    Your idea of realistic is a fallacy of the middle. You're idea of rational is trapped within the narrowest scope possible. Your facade of enlightened pragmatism about economic truth is exposed as such by the absurdities you have suggested such as when you claimed war boosts economies and burning down factories would increase production.

    You act as if you understand economics, but were unable to understand the connection between shifts in currency value and inflation. Hec you weren't even able to understand value. You routinely demonstrate ignorance of the most fundamental economic mechanics as demonstrated by your dismissal of production as the primary force behind any market.

    I would no sooner take your word on the effects of Romney's plans then I would assume easyrider is an expert on the burden of proof.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I honestly had not heard he support distance learning and free internet classes. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one because I think more distance learning and free internet classes are are horrible, costly idea. A large portion of my time is dealing with higher education accounting and policy. These two ideas come up at EVERY policy meeting with the Virginia GA. A few years back Virginia bought into a little of it and Cisco gave certain schools their "tele-presence" device. This was going to allow for more distance learning. The device is remarkable, props to Cisco. The downside, it is expensive and kids are lazy. You end up paying close to $1 million for the device PLUS you gotta have some hefty servers to run each device AND do this for the number of classes needed. There is no savings to the school or the student and the education has been shown to be sub-par. Student's tend to not pay as close of attention because there is no depth to the program they are watching.

    Internet classes are cheaper but suffer the same problem as distance learning, the education value is low. You might as well just not have the class and give the kids 3 credit hours.
    I disagree when it comes to distance learning and internet classes, but agree 100% when it comes to the telepresence XXXX. My wife is taking some classes, and some of them are internet classes. There is no telepresence. There is also no video or even sound. Basically the interface is not entirely unlike a forum. There is a section where the professor makes assignments and answers questions about them. Then there are discussions in other threads. You are graded on your assignments, discussions, and of course there is a test taking and quiz taking section where you take tests and quizzes. It is not "live".

    A lot of the discussions they have are FAR better than the ones I recall from college since the format allows you time to really think about your response and even do extra research.

    Colleges need to learn what the business world did 15 years ago....trying to simulate attendance with telepresence is silly and counterproductive. There are MUCH better ways to collaborate.

    Now, I am not saying that we should be handing out medical degrees based entirely on online classes, but come on....Brit Lit? English comp? Psychology? For the most part you could pretty much slip all of a persons general ed classes into an online format and I don't think their education would suffer at all.

    Obama is correct that Community Colleges are the way to go. Unfortunately he doesn't address their needs. Community colleges are basically running high schools because the high schools are failing. They WANT to be running a bridge program to a career or further study at a 4year. They don't need more grant money for students...they are already cheap.
    No kidding. The poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the online classes drives my wife nuts. On some of the posts the grammar is so bad you literally cannot understand what the person is trying to convey. Apparently no child is being left behind because we are not bothering to advance any of them.

    As for infrastructure, Obama has the right thought but fails to execute. The man thought you could just give money and the bulldozers would be rolling the next day. You'd think he would have learned from the experience that maybe we have a bit too much government paperwork. We had a project somewhat near me to build a firehouse. The sign took ONE year to put up even though everyone knew a fire station was going there. They started on it 2 months ago. This was a "shovel ready" job since a fire station was already slated to be built in that location (and land was already prepped). Not only that, Obama goes out and tries to talk about it and ends up saying "you didn't build that". I know what the man was trying to get at but that was possibly the worst way you could have said it. Now no one is buying it.
    I am not sure who is dumber...Obama for phrasing as he did, or all those poor, dumb, republitards who actually believed it when the quote was spun out of context and it was claimed that he was saying that if you started a business you did not build your business, somebody else did. Then the republican leadership spun it...a willfully out of context quote...into their convention slogan ("We built it"). For gods sake, there is enough ignorance and asshattery out there. We don't need to encourage any more. This is apparently all that is left of American Democracy...a bunch of deceitful megalomaniacs playing tit for tat and trying to get XXXXXX to vote for them. The amount of manufactured outrage over complete and utter BS in this election is mind boggling.

    His tax plan makes no sense to me. On the plus side, if your goal is to full throttle this country off the cliff it's not a bad approach. Obama's approach may be better here but he sucks as selling it. Instead he should just disguise a tax increase for the rich by lower the taxes and broadening the base (such as taxing capital gains income as regular income). Sadly, he is not clever enough.
    He would never get that through the house.

    I think he has trouble connecting to the american people, and I think a lot of the reason is that he does not realize just how dumb some of them are. I literally got something in the mail the other day from the local teabaggers that said "keep the government our of medicare". These are NOT smart people. You have to talk to the american people like they are children or many of them will not understand. You can not say "We need to find ways to reduce the deficit while still maintaining our infrastructure". You and I understand what he is saying, but if he wants to actually get his point across to the American people, he needs to explain why it is important to have infrastructure. He needs to stop talking about people paying their "fair share" of taxes and just get up there and say "The problem is, we owe a whole lot of money...like if you maxed out all your credit cards. Now we have to pay it back. Poor people do not have any money. The middle class no longer has any money. We have to get it from the rich people because they are the only ones who have money." People would actually understand that.
    I'm the guy sitting in the middle of the flames wondering why no one turns on the water hose right in front of them. Doesn't end well for people like me.
    Because while you are staring at the water hose wondering why it is not being turned on, they are raping your wife and stealing your wallet.

    I'm just hoping if he wins he does what he did in Massachusetts; which wasn't half bad (for that state).
    I agree. And also hope so. If he does what he says he is going to do, though, we are all screwed.

    I know Obama is a total failure, I suspect that Romney will be too but we don't know unless he gets the job.
    Obama is totally ineffective. My biggest fear with Romney is that he would be elected, be REALLY effective, and actually keep his campaign promises.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    When someone sees a grey blur when they look at black and white lines, they need glasses.

    Your idea of realistic is a fallacy of the middle. You're idea of rational is trapped within the narrowest scope possible. Your facade of enlightened pragmatism about economic truth is exposed as such by the absurdities you have suggested such as when you claimed war boosts economies and burning down factories would increase production.

    You act as if you understand economics, but were unable to understand the connection between shifts in currency value and inflation. Hec you weren't even able to understand value. You routinely demonstrate ignorance of the most fundamental economic mechanics as demonstrated by your dismissal of production as the primary force behind any market.

    I would no sooner take your word on the effects of Romney's plans then I would assume easyrider is an expert on the burden of proof.
    I understand the connection between shifts in currency value and inflation. You simply fail to recognize that there are different types of inflation. I even understand the connection between currency values in inflation well enough to realize that shifts in currency values often do not lead to price inflation. For years the Yen fell in value while the Japanese experience chronic price deflation. We can go one step further with that example and point out that for the last year or so we have seen the dollar increase in value, while still experiencing import price inflation. Amazing. It is almost like it is a fiat monetary system or something........

    I dismiss your idiotic and naive claim that production is the primary force behind any market because it is idiotic and naive. Without demand supply means nothing. If that is not the case, you should immediately start fishing your turds out of the toilet because by your logic, the fact that you produced them means there must be a market for them.

    The recent recession proves how foolish you are. From 2007 to 2009, wholesale inventories were at their highest level EVER. They KEPT growing during that entire period, meaning production was continuing. Amazingly enough, it did not pull us out of the recession because there was no demand. There STILL is no demand. Producing more XXXX that you cant sell does not drive markets. It drives XXXXXX bankrupt. Supply side economics, which is what you are advocating here, is a dead theory. Even Milton Friedman, who was one of its supporters during the Reagan years, admitted that the entire theory was "folly".

    Nor did I claim that wars boost the economy, or that burning down factories would increase production. I said that burning down factories would create economic activity and jobs and would help correct the imbalance in our economic system caused by our distribution of wealth.

    I am downgrading my assumption about you from "naive college kid" to "mildly retarded high school kid who lives in truthsayers basement"
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I disagree when it comes to distance learning and internet classes, but agree 100% when it comes to the telepresence XXXX. My wife is taking some classes, and some of them are internet classes. There is no telepresence. There is also no video or even sound. Basically the interface is not entirely unlike a forum. There is a section where the professor makes assignments and answers questions about them. Then there are discussions in other threads. You are graded on your assignments, discussions, and of course there is a test taking and quiz taking section where you take tests and quizzes. It is not "live".

    A lot of the discussions they have are FAR better than the ones I recall from college since the format allows you time to really think about your response and even do extra research.

    Colleges need to learn what the business world did 15 years ago....trying to simulate attendance with telepresence is silly and counterproductive. There are MUCH better ways to collaborate.

    Now, I am not saying that we should be handing out medical degrees based entirely on online classes, but come on....Brit Lit? English comp? Psychology? For the most part you could pretty much slip all of a persons general ed classes into an online format and I don't think their education would suffer at all.
    Every study I've seen shows a diminished education. I assume your wife is using Blackboard which is not a bad product but does have a few problems. Yeah you can think about answers but you also have to wait for answers as well. It disjoints the learning process. Furthermore, it really isn't cheaper (to the school).

    Your wife might have gotten lucky and received a good online program; I don't doubt it is possible. At the end of the day it is complicated and doesn't add value in almost every instance I've seen. More importantly, it is a solution in search of a problem. There are real problems with Higher Education (building arms race, tuition increases, research bubble, grade inflation, etc) that should be addressed before finding new ways to educate kids.

    As an aside, hybrid classes (online and in person) are even worse. You get the downsides of online learning (less educational value) combined with the downsides of a classroom (limited space which costs money to operate). This has been increasingly popular and increasingly a failure.

    Going forward, many universities are going towards online learning....so the trend won't stop. UVA recently joined a collaboration to offer free online courses (https://www.coursera.org/). I'm not a fan but I've been wrong before. If I ran a university I'd be finding ways to make it work better since you can't stop the flood of these courses.

    No kidding. The poor spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the online classes drives my wife nuts. On some of the posts the grammar is so bad you literally cannot understand what the person is trying to convey. Apparently no child is being left behind because we are not bothering to advance any of them.
    Honestly, K-12 is a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger program than Higher Education. All you hear is "add more money"...I don't buy it. The cost per pupil is like three times what it was in the 60s AFTER inflation. Class sizes are supposedly half what they were in 1960. Something doesn't make sense.

    I am not sure who is dumber...Obama for phrasing as he did, or all those poor, dumb, republitards who actually believed it when the quote was spun out of context and it was claimed that he was saying that if you started a business you did not build your business, somebody else did. Then the republican leadership spun it...a willfully out of context quote...into their convention slogan ("We built it"). For gods sake, there is enough ignorance and asshattery out there. We don't need to encourage any more. This is apparently all that is left of American Democracy...a bunch of deceitful megalomaniacs playing tit for tat and trying to get XXXXXX to vote for them. The amount of manufactured outrage over complete and utter BS in this election is mind boggling.
    I'm mad now. Ha.

    He would never get that through the house.
    He couldn't get a bill to name a post office through the house. People blame the republicans, fine, but I blame Obama. This isn't the first time in history we've had a hateful opposite party. Clinton had it much worse and he wiped the floor with Gingrich. Obama sucks at dealing with a hostile congress and therefore should not be president. Some people just can't work with fools like Clinton did. I know I couldn't.

    I think he has trouble connecting to the american people, and I think a lot of the reason is that he does not realize just how dumb some of them are. I literally got something in the mail the other day from the local teabaggers that said "keep the government our of medicare". These are NOT smart people. You have to talk to the american people like they are children or many of them will not understand. You can not say "We need to find ways to reduce the deficit while still maintaining our infrastructure". You and I understand what he is saying, but if he wants to actually get his point across to the American people, he needs to explain why it is important to have infrastructure. He needs to stop talking about people paying their "fair share" of taxes and just get up there and say "The problem is, we owe a whole lot of money...like if you maxed out all your credit cards. Now we have to pay it back. Poor people do not have any money. The middle class no longer has any money. We have to get it from the rich people because they are the only ones who have money." People would actually understand that.
    That is probably too complicated for them.

    Try this:

    "Others, not you, need to help out with the money we owe. If you believe in freedom you'll help beat the people who put us in this mess. Go USA"

    Steve 2016

    I literally don't know what my sentence means but I bet it would work better.

    Because while you are staring at the water hose wondering why it is not being turned on, they are raping your wife and stealing your wallet.
    Yet I can't get over the fact that no one will turn on the hose.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •