Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[John Cuthber]

And that's what makes my point - I don't think that most right-wing people are like that, but posts like rigney's make people think that right-wing people are like that.

=Uncool-

OK so " posts like rigney's make people think that right-wing people are like that. "

Fair enough, it's probably true that right wing people post stuff and it leads people to believe that right wing people thing that way.

Given the evidence of things like Romney's 533 lies and the absurd version of human reproductive biology that one of his colleagues came up with, what should people think?

 

It's not Rigney in isolation that brings people to this conclusion.

I have clearly expressed the desire that right wing people should explain their point of view.

 

I had to ask the same question a bunch of times before Rigney remembered that it was polite to answer (and also a feature of the site's rules).

but I'd have accepted a reply from another right winger.

The issue isn't Rigney.

It's that the right wing seem to be utterly unable to justify their point of view.

 

With due respect to Rigney I don't think anyone is judging the whole of the "Right wing" by his actions.

I think they are judged by people who look at the rest of the behaviour of that political group and think " What the fuck?"

 

 

 

Simple, question, why do you think the rest of the right wing are different from Rigney?

 

 

(and, since it's me, you might want to answer that question sooner, rather than later)

[rigney]

So you blame Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan?

You know better than that.

[Moontanman]

You know better than that.

 

 

This line confuses me:

 

Even explaining the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I knew the time frames were not correct, but thinking of the manpower used instead.

 

You seem to be using it to insinuate criticism of Obama in some fashion. if I am wrong then i apologize but I don't see how it is pertinent to this conversation.

[Bill Angel]

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it. I don't see where it's heavy-handed to say the job-creators aren't interested in hiring Americans, when they were given the chance AND the funds to do it yet hired offshore workers in three out of four cases. They used money that should have been public revenue slated for US job creation to grow 60% of their own revenue without hiring US workers.

 

 

Here is some information about the wireless industry I think is of interest:

 

517210 - Wireless Telecommunications Carriers

Industry Description

This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.

 

Here are some of the industry's employment figures:

 

2008 201,901

2009 194,081

2010 172,467

 

So even though the introduction of new cellphones generates a lot of "buzz" and profits for Apple and others, domestic employment in the cellphone industry is actually declining rather than increasing.

[rigney]

This line confuses me:

 

 

 

You seem to be using it to insinuate criticism of Obama in some fashion. if I am wrong then i apologize but I don't see how it is pertinent to this conversation.

Had nothing to do with Obama. I just made a mistake with the time frames. Obama wasn't even in office when all of this was happening. He wasn't sworn in until 2009, right?

[uncool]

OK so " posts like rigney's make people think that right-wing people are like that. "

Fair enough, it's probably true that right wing people post stuff and it leads people to believe that right wing people thing that way.

Given the evidence of things like Romney's 533 lies and the absurd version of human reproductive biology that one of his colleagues came up with, what should people think?[/QUOTe]

I think there's a separation between right wing politicians and right wing people. I include pundits in politicians there, as a note.

It's not Rigney in isolation that brings people to this conclusion.

I have clearly expressed the desire that right wing people should explain their point of view.

And which right wing people have you asked?

 

I can only think of two on this forum - John something and rigney. And I think that rigney is a troll.

I had to ask the same question a bunch of times before Rigney remembered that it was polite to answer (and also a feature of the site's rules).

but I'd have accepted a reply from another right winger.

You know something? Ask me. One of the things that I try to do is make sure that I at least understand the other person's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. I think I know a decent justification for nearly every political view.

 

The issue isn't Rigney.

It's that the right wing seem to be utterly unable to justify their point of view.[/QUOTe]

That very conclusion is what I see as the issue. Again, I think people are fundamentally reasonable - and that extends to there being justifications for nearly any popular view.

With due respect to Rigney I don't think anyone is judging the whole of the "Right wing" by his actions.[/QUOTe]

And I didn't say they were. Rigney is only one of many people who cause this, in my opinion. And that is why they are dangerous - they become evidence of an apparent pattern.

I think they are judged by people who look at the rest of the behaviour of that political group and think " What the fuck?"[/QUOTe]

That's the problem - I think they aren't looking at the rest of the behavior - only the behavior that we see, which is the behavior of those on the extremes.

Simple, question, why do you think the rest of the right wing are different from Rigney?[/QUOTe]

Because I have met some members of the right wing who are different from what rigney is posting. Because I have held some of those same views.

(and, since it's me, you might want to answer that question sooner, rather than later)

Not a problem.

=Uncool-

[Moontanman]

Had nothing to do with Obama. I just made a mistake with the time frames. Obama wasn't even in office when all of this was happening. He wasn't sworn in until 2009, right?

 

 

Then I apologize.

[Phi for All]

Simple, question, why do you think the rest of the right wing are different from Rigney?

My answer is that there happen to be a lot of folks who take shelter under the conservative tree, but for completely different reasons, not all of which are complementary with the rest of their views. Conservatism seems stable, trustworthy, traditional, solid, knowable, predictable and secure. But it can't be applied to every situation, every problem. To remain vital, we need change, we need progress, we need forward thinking.

 

rigney seems to object to change because he feels we're compromising our integrity as the country he's proud of. Conservatism to him is like an anchor that says "here is where we need to stay to remain great". But he loves people who stand up to absurdity, corruption and inefficiency like Dennis Kucinich, and that puts him in conflict with political conservatism.

 

Corporate conservatism wants things to remain the same because they spent a lot of money getting things the way they are. Oil doesn't want sustainable alternative energies to become successful, so they do what they can to make us fear change. But our economy is a living, progressive thing and it needs progress so outdated ideas are succeeded by new ones, and that puts corporations in conflict with political conservatism.

 

Religious conservatives like things to remain sacred and unchanging, seeing tradition as comfort food for the soul. But religion needs to progress in order to remain relevant in the lives of modern people as new knowledge squeezes God out of the gaps in which He used to reside, and that puts religion in conflict with political conservatism.

 

The one thing the right wing all seems to have in common is a heavy-handed application of their stance and a hatred of all things liberal. This is an extreme view, imo, and can't possibly be right more than half the time, ever, any more than liberalism is the answer to everything.

[moth]

Rigney, how do you feel about extra-judicial killings, collateral damage from drone strikes, domestic surveilance, Guantanimo bay detainees... the list of things that should probably be part of the general conversation surrounding this election goes on and on.

Instead the conversation seems to be a lot of hot air on the right, and confusion on the left about why the facts don't seem to matter.

I'll admit I don't like Romney. That's not why I won't vote for him. It's his Reagonomics top down approach to the economy that seems unworkable to me.

As long as the conversation is about non-issues we probably won't get good candidates for any elected offices, just a-holes who know how to press our buttons and keep us distracted.

[rigney]

Rigney, how do you feel about extra-judicial killings, collateral damage from drone strikes, domestic surveilance, Guantanimo bay detainees... the list of things that should probably be part of the general conversation surrounding this election goes on and on.

Instead the conversation seems to be a lot of hot air on the right, and confusion on the left about why the facts don't seem to matter.

I'll admit I don't like Romney. That's not why I won't vote for him. It's his Reagonomics top down approach to the economy that seems unworkable to me.

As long as the conversation is about non-issues we probably won't get good candidates for any elected offices, just a-holes who know how to press our buttons and keep us distracted.

The Killing of innocence, whether it be people, animal or vegetable done indiscriminately, is a disgrace to any civilized nation. Catch phrases such as, "extra-judicial killings" and collateral damage are simply ways of lumping many situations together making the question hard, if not impossible to answer. To start with, just what is extra-judicial killings or collateral damage? To keep on topic, let us say that a vice squad goes to a private home suspected of dealings drugs. The police knock but no one answers. What should they do, just go away? No! They have a search warrant, so they kick the door open only to find the house not empty but with five armed felons waiting. Gun fire erupts and bullets beging to fly. In another room of the house a woman is lying in bed with an infant. A bullet goes through the wall during the fight, striking her and the infant, killing them instantly. Is this extra-judicial killing and collateral damage even though none of the combatents get a scratch. Who or what is to blame? And Domestic surveilance? I glance out my window to see a person pacing up and down in front of my home. Heck! It's just my neighbor from down the street. We don't talk much, but his pacing makes him looks troubled and me uneasy. I wonder what his problem is? What the hell, is that a hatchet in his hand? Holy shit! He's walking up the steps to my front door. No! He sees me at the window and is raising the hatchet. Sure glad I keep that 44 mag. in the umbrella stand. He smashes the window and steps in. When the cops come I try explaining what happened, but they don't want to hear a thing until they get me to the station. Somehow I will eventually have to tell Cora, his wife. And the detainees? They are terrorist and represent no country. It may sound cruel, but I'd chain them together, drop them in Gitmo Bay and let them swim for it. Much better that than being beheaded like Pearle or burned to death and hung from a bridge. Or just plain murdered, like those four embassy workers had done to them a few days ago. Old Teddy Roosevelt said it best when he advocated, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". Pop always stressed one thing to me. Son, if you go looking for trouble, someone will make damned sure you find it. Edited September 15, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

 

And which right wing people have you asked?

 

 

=Uncool-

Well, I posed the question on a public discussion forum, albeit that I directed the question to Rigney.

In principle, I might have got a reply from Mitt Romney.

As I said, I'd have accepted a reply from anyone but nobody seemed able to give one.

[moth]

You're right, those are broad terms. I was curious if you had a problem with how Obama was conducting the "war" on terror.

 

 

 

 

By collateral damage I mean the killing of innocents based on where they are standing.

 

"He was not part of al-Qaeda. But by America's standards, just because he knew Fahd al-Quso, he deserved to die with him."

wa po

 

 

When US cruise missiles decimated a tented village in December 2009, at least 41 civilians were butchered alongside a dozen alleged militants, as a parliamentary report later concluded.

Guardian

 

 

 

I guess we'll have to take their word for it:

IN Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere the C.I.A. has used drones to kill thousands of people — including several Americans. Officials have aggressively defended the controversial program, telling journalists that it is effective, lawful and closely supervised.

N.Y. Times

 

 

I think your hatchet man at the window scenario would be justifiable homicide in most states, but that's not what I meant by domestic surveillance. I was thinking more of the secret police collecting information on American citizens with little or no oversight.

 

 

"When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted" surveillance law, "they will be stunned and they will be angry," Wyden said.

L.A. Times

 

 

 

Your comments about the detainees at Gitmo makes me wonder: if "all men are created equal" is justification to usurp the "divine right" of kings why isn't it justification to give all men a fair trial if possible?

 

I don't believe the fact that some humans don't live up to our standards is a reason to abandon our principles.Is the murder of Pearle so different from tying somebody to the back of your truck and dragging them to death just because they have dark skin? or tying somebody to a fence and beating them to death because maybe they're gay?

James Byrd

 

Aaron McKinney

Edited September 16, 2012 by moth

[John Cuthber]

And the detainees? They are terrorist and represent no country. It may sound cruel, but I'd chain them together, drop them in Gitmo Bay and let them swim for it.

 

Son, if you go looking for trouble, someone will make damned sure you find it.

A couple of things, firstly what happened to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

Secondly, the American and British soldiers went to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who was looking for trouble?

 

(And the answer to that is certainly not the dead Sept 11 murderers - they got their trouble: they died. but since they were Saudis it hardly matters what they did in this context.)

 

Which Iraqis or Afghans went to the US or UK looking for trouble?

 

 

BTW, this topic seems to have drifted rather from what Romney and Ryan might do to save us anything.

It seems that one of the things we need to be saved from is the aftermath of what Bush started.

Edited September 16, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Ringer]

BTW, this topic seems to have drifted rather from what Romney and Ryan might do to save us anything.

It seems that one of the things we need to be saved from is the aftermath of what Bush started.

 

Which is blatantly not what a Romney/Ryan election would seek to accomplish.

[iNow]

A fascinating new online ad. Salty language, so is very NSFW.

 

 

[rigney]

A fascinating new online ad. Salty language, so is very NSFW.

 

 

No salt in the following! While it may not be quite as fascinating, it is also online. I wonder if any of it could be true?

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz/politics-liberal-logic-101/

Edited September 30, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

"I wonder if any of it could be true?"

Quite possibly, but rather a lot of it is not.

It also, as one would expect, doesn't include any context so it's pretty obvious that it's quote mining of the worst type.

Why did you cite it?

[rigney]

"I wonder if any of it could be true?"

Quite possibly, but rather a lot of it is not.

It also, as one would expect, doesn't include any context so it's pretty obvious that it's quote mining of the worst type.

Why did you cite it?

Quote mining! That whole list is conjectural statements that can be researched. Do you believe the context (trash, shi-t) spewed out by that guy in the hat, the others and that little girl, are credible and a better method of airing information? Edited September 30, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Quote mining! That whole list is conjectural statements that can be researched. Do you believe the context (trash, shi-t) spewed out by that guy in the hat, the others and that little girl, are credible and a better method of airing information?

 

Sorry, what on earth are you on about?

Who are " that guy in the hat, the others and that little girl"?

I take it you mean the folk in the video. Well, actually they aren't generally quoting anyone. They are putting forward a point of view.

As such, the level of proof needed is rather less than on, for example, a scientific web site.

 

As you say, those statements (on the web page you posted) could be researched.

And they must have been, in order to quote them (assuming they didn't just make them up).

 

So why not give a reference for them?

Could it be that, in context, they make a lot more sense that they are portrayed as doing?

 

My guess would be "yes" but perhaps you would like to do the research and check.

Go on- prove me wrong.

Show me that all the things that "liberals say" are actually said by liberals, and in circumstances that don't significantly alter the meaning.

Edited September 30, 2012 by John Cuthber

[rigney]

Sorry, what on earth are you on about?

Who are " that guy in the hat, the others and that little girl"?

I take it you mean the folk in the video. Well, actually they aren't generally quoting anyone. They are putting forward a point of view.

As such, the level of proof needed is rather less than on, for example, a scientific web site.

 

As you say, those statements (on the web page you posted) could be researched.

And they must have been, in order to quote them (assuming they didn't just make them up).

 

So why not give a reference for them?

Could it be that, in context, they make a lot more sense that they are portrayed as doing?

 

My guess would be "yes" but perhaps you would like to do the research and check.

Go on- prove me wrong.

Show me that all the things that "liberals say" are actually said by liberals, and in circumstances that don't significantly alter the meaning.

It is difficult to offer this very sad first statement since it is the president speaking.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html

Edited September 30, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

No salt in the following! While it may not be quite as fascinating, it is also online. I wonder if any of it could be true?

OK, the first one has no context. We don't know which millionaire business owner was called greedy and selfish, we just have the disparity between the salaries. Are the conservatives trying to imply that the more money you make, the greedier you are?

 

The second one seems bogus. Whether or not actors earn every penny they make isn't really a conservative/liberal stance. I think it's more whether you like that particular actor or not.

 

The third one is bogus as well. The First Lady has security requirements that are beyond her control, ordered by the Secret Service. Ann Romney has no such requirements.

 

The fourth one is deceptive. What's the issue, both men served, no one stopped them. What's your point?

 

The fifth one I couldn't find much about in 60 seconds. Dees is a lawyer, so bleh. Even Glenn Beck has suggested the Tea Party is racist.

 

The sixth one is bullshit. It only includes profits from the sale of gasoline and ignores the huge profits from producing and refining crude oil.

 

I'm tired of this now, maybe more later.

[rigney]

OK, the first one has no context. We don't know which millionaire business owner was called greedy and selfish, we just have the disparity between the salaries. Are the conservatives trying to imply that the more money you make, the greedier you are?

 

The second one seems bogus. Whether or not actors earn every penny they make isn't really a conservative/liberal stance. I think it's more whether you like that particular actor or not.

 

The third one is bogus as well. The First Lady has security requirements that are beyond her control, ordered by the Secret Service. Ann Romney has no such requirements.

 

The fourth one is deceptive. What's the issue, both men served, no one stopped them. What's your point?

 

The fifth one I couldn't find much about in 60 seconds. Dees is a lawyer, so bleh. Even Glenn Beck has suggested the Tea Party is racist.

 

The sixth one is bullshit. It only includes profits from the sale of gasoline and ignores the huge profits from producing and refining crude oil.

 

I'm tired of this now, maybe more later.

I made no quotes, only asked if any of those listed could be true? Why all the anger? The following is only information., not provable.

http://whoownsbigoil.org/a-note-on-oil-company-earnings

Edited October 1, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

I made no quotes, only asked if any of those listed could be true? Why all the anger? The following is only information., not provable.

http://whoownsbigoil.org/a-note-on-oil-company-earnings

The anger is over the fact that you continue to post this crap after people have repeatedly asked you to post things of substance.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

I made no quotes, only asked if any of those listed could be true? Why all the anger?

Because you're an adult capable of using a computer on the internet, meaning you should be able to check the facts for yourself. But you don't, and some people find that aggravating.

 

You post drivel, and then run away from any responsibility for it. Some people find that aggravating.

 

——

 

Several of those so-called points you linked to earlier aren't just fact-free, they don't even represent liberal positions. The TSA, for example, was created by Bush. I think its unpopularity is bipartisan, but no lawmaker is going to weaken it for fear of being painted as soft on crime/terrorism (a favorite ploy of the right).

 

Other errors - Romney's religion has seen very little commentary in this campaign. Federal money does not fund abortions, and who is forcing any business to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies? The underlying issue is not that Romney is rich, it's how he wants to rig the system to perpetuate his advantage and privilege, and has no clue about how much of an advantage he had, so he doesn't understand how the world works for the other 99% of people. But conservatives keep making and believing these arguments, because yes, they are that stupid. Apparently.

[Phi for All]

Other errors - Romney's religion has seen very little commentary in this campaign.

Don't you LOVE the hypocrisy of this one? Liberals support the Constitutional separation of church and state, so they don't really care about Romney's religion as long as he doesn't try to govern by it. It's the religious right that really hates the fact he's Mormon (many Christians think Mormons are cultists). So, the tactic is to pretend the liberals have a problem with his religion, and the conservatives don't. Also it helps to paint the left as anti-religion, so you can't be accused of defending parts of the Constitution, like the right to bear arms, while trying to establish a religion-based governance. How... classy.

 

I think the religious right figures that Obama, despite being a more mainstream Christian, hasn't let himself waste political capital on the abortion issue, so Romney gets their vote because he might (and, of course, because he would be more likely to make conservative SCOTUS appointments). Whatever else Mitt may be, I don't think he's stupid enough to waste any resources on that battle if elected.