Romney mocked for comment about jet windows

[chilled_fluorine]

Not at all. You're obviously not a religious right Republican. Are you a neo-conservative Republican? Or a Reagan Republican? An Eisenhower Republican? You meet so few Republicans these days that endorse scientific efforts, so I'm curious where you stand on the platform.

 

I'm right on the center of the platform. I enjoy thrashing Obama. I want the affordable healthcare act repealed. Pro life, pro gun, pro business. Stronger immigration and voter laws. I know what the meaning of marriage is. You name it. I'm just one of few republicans who knows quackery when they see it. "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge (ie the catholic church)." Can you seriously expect any sane person to believe the earth is only 5000 years old, when carbon dating, continental drift, dinosaurs (apparently Noah forgot them), and evolution, all of which are highly proven things, tell us otherwise? I have seen evolution go on in a kennel, my garden even. Disprove that. Can you expect us to believe it when you say that everything scientists say is one big lie, sent from satan, when everything from the projector on your church wall to the polyester of your shirt was designed by one? Can you expect us to read a book so riddled with inconsistencies it's apparent even to my 15 year old nephew, then expect us to find rationale in your saying "it's not meant to be read as a novel"? The meaning of the bible is only truly found when one reads it for what it is, a work of fiction, and cover to cover. I don't deny the possibility of a god existing, only that the one/s described by current religions seem highly unlikely, and their holy books severely flawed. Perhaps you could become a deist, like myself. You can say you believe in god. You can fit in with Christians, while avoiding the bad things that come with lack of acceptance. Deists believe an intelligent creator started everything, then left it alone. Or, alternatively, this creator planned everything perfectly, and the universe is following this deity's plan as we speak. Even this, I don't believe in as sincerely as I could.

[swansont]

Really? Positive pressure on the inside, near vacuum on the outside. Isn't it common sense that the window would very willingly swing into the low pressure zone?

Only for a window that swung out. But for one that swung in, or rolled down, you'd be fighting the effect of the better part of one atmosphere of pressure differential. And because of the tendency to want to swing out, you probably wouldn't design it to open that way.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm right on the center of the platform. I enjoy thrashing Obama. I want the affordable healthcare act repealed. Pro life, pro gun, pro business. Stronger immigration and voter laws. I know what the meaning of marriage is. You name it. I'm just one of few republicans who knows quackery when they see it.

Would it then not make more sense to vote for a republican senate and house of representatives, but still vote for Obama because he is not an idiot?

 

You do have a separate vote for the president, don't you?

 

What baffles me is that republicans knowingly vote for a complete idiot, just because he's the only republican on the list of options.

[rigney]

Don't ever let him on a submarine. He'll want windows there, too.

I know your remark was meant as a bit of subtle humor, but a man of your intellect should not lower himself to such a level.

 

Would it then not make more sense to vote for a republican senate and house of representatives, but still vote for Obama because he is not an idiot?

 

You do have a separate vote for the president, don't you?

What baffles me is that republicans knowingly vote for a complete idiot, just because he's the only republican on the list of options.

I find it rather disturbing that a well spoken but totally misguided European would refer to Mitt Romney as a complete idiot, since he has done so well professionally.

 

Only for a window that swung out. But for one that swung in, or rolled down, you'd be fighting the effect of the better part of one atmosphere of pressure differential. And because of the tendency to want to swing out, you probably wouldn't design it to open that way.

Could he have possibly been speaking of a plane after it has crashed? But after most crashes it probably wouldn't matter much which way the window opens, would it?

[CaptainPanic]

I find it rather disturbing that a well spoken but totally misguided European would refer to Mitt Romney as a complete idiot, since he has done so well professionally.

According the the 1st definition I found in google:

An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

 

Sounds a lot like saying that jet airliners should have windows that open, and trying to get yourself elected most powerful man on the planet. It's certainly "self-defeating" and "counterproductive". I'm sorry, rigney, but I have to conclude he's an idiot. It's not just a strong word I chose to use. He just fits the definition.

[dimreepr]

I know your remark was meant as a bit of subtle humor, but a man of your intellect should not lower himself to such a level.

 

 

Yeah 'swansont' how low does your sub go?

[rigney]

According the the 1st definition I found in google:

An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

 

Sounds a lot like saying that jet airliners should have windows that open, and trying to get yourself elected most powerful man on the planet. It's certainly "self-defeating" and "counterproductive". I'm sorry, rigney, but I have to conclude he's an idiot. It's not just a strong word I chose to use. He just fits the definition.

Might Mitts remark be more idiotic than someone stating: "You didn't build that"?

[CaptainPanic]

Might Mitts remark be more idiotic than someone stating: "You didn't build that"?

Yes.

 

The "You didn't build that" refers to the fact that nobody can achieve anything all by themselves. You need a functioning country around you. It makes perfect sense to me, whereas having windows in jet airliners that actually open makes zero sense to me, as the inevitable decompression would kill all passengers. Even in case of a fire at ground level, the oxygen would only make the fire burn faster.

 

Acknowledging every company needs a good infrastructure around it: makes sense

Wanting windows to open in jetliners: makes no sense

[Greg H.]

This is what you get when you have businessmen as politicians. CEOs often have no idea about what makes things work.

 

Governing and leadership in a democracy often has conflicts of interest with commerce and modern business models. Maybe we need a separation of corporation and state.

 

No, we just need to make political office volunteer positions. No paycheck, no fancy houses, no 6 month vacations. Make it more like the military. You show up, you serve your term, you thank the deity of your choice you survived.

[chilled_fluorine]

Only for a window that swung out. But for one that swung in, or rolled down, you'd be fighting the effect of the better part of one atmosphere of pressure differential. And because of the tendency to want to swing out, you probably wouldn't design it to open that way.

 

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

 

Would it then not make more sense to vote for a republican senate and house of representatives, but still vote for Obama because he is not an idiot?

 

You do have a separate vote for the president, don't you?

 

What baffles me is that republicans knowingly vote for a complete idiot, just because he's the only republican on the list of options.

 

You didn't build that doesn't make Obama an idiot? I don't vote for republicans just because they are republicans, but because they express my views the best. I would gladly deviate from the platform, if someone was a better candidate in my eyes. For example, in 2008, I voted for a 3rd party candidate. Obama does not express my views, and McCain was a nut. If he won, we would be at war with Vietnam again.

 

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

 

 

 

You didn't build that doesn't make Obama an idiot? I don't vote for republicans just because they are republicans, but because they express my views the best. I would gladly deviate from the platform, if someone was a better candidate in my eyes. For example, in 2008, I voted for a 3rd party candidate. Obama does not express my views, and McCain was a nut. If he won, we would be at war with Vietnam again.

 

I do think windows on a plane would be a great idea. So long as they only open above a safe pressure level, and while the plane isn't moving. Plus some other safety features.

[Phi for All]

Would it then not make more sense to vote for a republican senate and house of representatives, but still vote for Obama because he is not an idiot?

 

You do have a separate vote for the president, don't you?

 

What baffles me is that republicans knowingly vote for a complete idiot, just because he's the only republican on the list of options.

This type of thing is rife in the US. I'm not sure if it's our over-competitiveness, or the blatant "us vs them" attitude we have, or the strong, fear-based conservative message that many find so comforting (or a combination of all those things), but the Republican party in particular seems to have a great deal of people who will vote for a Republican even though he/she may oppose their basic platform issues. Why would a progressive Eisenhower Republican want someone like Mitt Romney as president? Why would a small government, not-the-world's-police Reagan Republican want a neoconservative warmonger like Lindsey Graham in the Senate? And if you just like your guns, but don't mind efforts to keep them out of the hands of known crazies, why is Obama such a horrific choice?

 

Since it costs over a billion dollars to become POTUS now, it's clear that our politics are serving those who can afford to think in those terms, which seems to make them also think that tax revenues shouldn't be spent on the 47%+ of the nation who are just shoulders to stand on. If you really want to swim in a pool, you should find a rich person who has a private one and kiss their ass (skim the leaves off the top before you jump in, will you?). If you want to borrow a book, find someone who has a library in their mansion and be really nice to them (maybe dust those shelves while you're up there). And yes, you should pay a higher tax rate because we all need roads and airports, it's just that wealthy people need them more and we should be more grateful that they do.

 

The mental disconnect in this country is SO BAD that half the country can't figure out why local government services are being cut to the bone while corporations are paying only a third of the tax rate they did in 1958 and millionaires are paying 14% while the dwindling middle class is paying 28% or more. It's SO BAD we donate money so idiots can spend a billion dollars to lie to us. It's SO BAD we can't build up enough steam to give the boot to a Congress that only ONE PERSON IN TEN approves of.

 

Romney - No Pressure.

 

Could he have possibly been speaking of a plane after it has crashed? But after most crashes it probably wouldn't matter much which way the window opens, would it?

I think he was talking about being able to get some fresh air to breathe into the cabin and let the smoke out. I think he made the mistake of talking before he thought things through, and then compounded his error by criticizing something he didn't understand. One could assume that first-class airline passengers don't have to listen to the flight attendants give the speech about, "In an emergency, should the cabin lose pressure...", and that Mitt must have at some time flown commercially, but I think this speaks more to how out of touch he is with what the majority of the people he wants to govern deal with in life. Not all of us have private corporate jets, or parents we can borrow college funds from.

[iNow]

What baffles me is that republicans knowingly vote for a complete idiot, just because he's the only republican on the list of options.

Your comment made me recall this 7-minute segment from TDS last night (I especially liked the segment starting at 6:35).

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-25-2012/democalypse-2012---every-which-way-but-lucid

[rigney]

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

 

 

 

You didn't build that doesn't make Obama an idiot? I don't vote for republicans just because they are republicans, but because they express my views the best. I would gladly deviate from the platform, if someone was a better candidate in my eyes. For example, in 2008, I voted for a 3rd party candidate. Obama does not express my views, and McCain was a nut. If he won, we would be at war with Vietnam again.

 

 

 

I do think windows on a plane would be a great idea. So long as they only open above a safe pressure level, and while the plane isn't moving. Plus some other safety features.

If you read the following link you will have a much better idea why aircraft builders design as they do.

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/why-do-airplanes-have-such-small-windows-and-why-are-the-tiny-windows-on-airliners-positioned-so-low

[ydoaPs]

Really? Positive pressure on the inside, near vacuum on the outside. Isn't it common sense that the window would very willingly swing into the low pressure zone?

 

We're talking rolling, not swinging. Even if we are talking swinging, that would only work if the hinge is on one end of the window. When's the last time you saw a vehicular window that swings which has the hinge on the edge of the glass?

 

Might Mitts remark be more idiotic than someone stating: "You didn't build that"?

 

 

Quite a bit so, actually. Although, I'm not sure if it's more idiotic than someone repeating that quotemine after being corrected several times. Oh, by the way, Romney said the same thing about Olympic athletes.

 

You didn't build that doesn't make Obama an idiot?

 

No, because most of us have the ability to understand the meaning of a phrase when listening to it in context.

[chilled_fluorine]

We're talking rolling, not swinging. Even if we are talking swinging, that would only work if the hinge is on one end of the window. When's the last time you saw a vehicular window that swings which has the hinge on the edge of the glass?

 

 

 

 

Quite a bit so, actually. Although, I'm not sure if it's more idiotic than someone repeating that quotemine after being corrected several times. Oh, by the way, Romney said the same thing about Olympic athletes.

People do what works for a specific purpose. It doesn't matter if it isn't commonly done.

[Phi for All]

No, we just need to make political office volunteer positions. No paycheck, no fancy houses, no 6 month vacations. Make it more like the military. You show up, you serve your term, you thank the deity of your choice you survived.

I'll buy that. If we could also eliminate campaign funding it would help. It's hard to think about these guys spending a billion dollars and not being obligated to SOMEONE. Media time and ad space should be part of the requirements for chartered use of the radio and TV frequencies as well as the internet and paper media. I'm sure there's some kind of government compliance for cable and satellite TV as well. Let's leverage some integrity.

 

That's why you would put a small latch on the bottom. A window that swung inwards would be very hard to open, and it would give the people inside less space to escape any hypothetical danger. The doors swing out on emergency exits in school buses. There has to be a reason they chose to make them swing out.

How does a security-conscious Republican justify the safety threat of being able to open an airplane window? Who needs a bomb when you can just flip a small latch?

 

 

You didn't build that doesn't make Obama an idiot?

It makes the people who still insist on taking his meaning out of context idiots, imo.

 

I do think windows on a plane would be a great idea. So long as they only open above a safe pressure level, and while the plane isn't moving. Plus some other safety features.

How does a pro-War-on-Drugs, tough-on-crime Republican justify giving smugglers a way to toss contraband out the windows to bypass Customs and TSA? Or were you hoping to privatize a few more prisons and add to the US corner on the world's prisoners market?

[ydoaPs]

How does a security-conscious Republican justify the safety threat of being able to open an airplane window? Who needs a bomb when you can just flip a small latch?

 

That's easy; just give the seats with the death windows to white Christians. White Christians can't be terrorists (despite them being the largest terror threat in the US), right?

[chilled_fluorine]

 

No, because most of us have the ability to understand the meaning of a phrase when listening to it in context.

 

Millionaires pay for their share of the infrastructure with taxes. They pay for more than their fair share with taxes. They just know how to get what they pay for. Millionaires probably payed for hundreds of times more of the road they ship their products on than the average citizen. Since everyone contributed (except the 47%), everyone gets to use it as much as they want. Even the 47%. To use infrastructure is a very basic right. What would America be without it?

[ydoaPs]

Millionaires pay for their share of the infrastructure with taxes.

 

They do? Romney's effective tax rate last year was 14.1%. Mine over the summer was 17.7%. He pays less than those on minimum wage who don't pay income tax. Yes, Romney pays less than that evil 47% he slandered.

 

 

They pay for more than their fair share with taxes.

 

The numbers disagree with you.

 

Since everyone contributed (except the 47%), everyone gets to use it as much as they want. Even the 47%. To use infrastructure is a very basic right. What would America be without it?

 

Except the bit where minimum wage workers pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than Romney. But, screw it, who needs facts?

 

Oh, and lets not forget about him wanting to pay even less of his fair share and make the poor pay even more of a percentage of their income.

 

Ooh, I wonder what the numbers are when sales tax is added in.

[Phi for All]

Millionaires pay for their share of the infrastructure with taxes. They pay for more than their fair share with taxes. They just know how to get what they pay for. Millionaires probably payed for hundreds of times more of the road they ship their products on than the average citizen. Since everyone contributed (except the 47%), everyone gets to use it as much as they want. Even the 47%. To use infrastructure is a very basic right. What would America be without it?

In 1958, corporate taxes accounted for 27% of the total revenue. Today, they account for less than 9%. When we extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010 because they argued that they would be able create more jobs, the wealthy created only one job for an American for every three jobs they created for foreign workers. And the top 200 companies in the US made 60% of their revenue in the last two years from foreign industry. Yet you say you support stronger immigration laws and are pro-business.

 

Don't you think a business that enjoys an American corporate charter should be more interested in helping the US economy? Especially when they're using tax revenue that should have gone to the public coffers to hire foreign workers? I'm pro-business too but I think they have an obligation to do more to support the economy of their charter nation. Isn't that part of the Republican platform too? It was when I was born.

[chilled_fluorine]

I'll buy that. If we could also eliminate campaign funding it would help. It's hard to think about these guys spending a billion dollars and not being obligated to SOMEONE. Media time and ad space should be part of the requirements for chartered use of the radio and TV frequencies as well as the internet and paper media. I'm sure there's some kind of government compliance for cable and satellite TV as well. Let's leverage some integrity.

 

 

How does a security-conscious Republican justify the safety threat of being able to open an airplane window? Who needs a bomb when you can just flip a small latch?

Read another one of my comments and you should see that I specified it would only open when the plane wasn't moving, and at a safe outside pressure. I'm not that stupid. I don't know how this would be accomplished, but that's not my job, figuring this stuff out.

 

It makes the people who still insist on taking his meaning out of context idiots, imo.

I don't take his meaning out of context. I know what he said.

How does a pro-War-on-Drugs, tough-on-crime Republican justify giving smugglers a way to toss contraband out the windows to bypass Customs and TSA? Or were you hoping to privatize a few more prisons and add to the US corner on the world's prisoners market? How exactly would you get illicits on a plane in the first place? Anything they failed to find the first time wouldn't likely be picked up on the second time around. There would be a sensor, that would only allow the window to open during a fire. Perhaps a gallium or indalloy seal around a detector, depending on the cabin temp.

 

 

 

 

They do? Romney's effective tax rate last year was 14.1%. Mine over the summer was 17.7%. He pays less than those on minimum wage who don't pay income tax. Yes, Romney pays less than that evil 47% he slandered.

 

He pays much more than the 47%! You are thinking of this as a percentage. I am thinking of # of $ paid.In what world is a few thousand greater than a few million? 100% of 0 is still 0.

 

The numbers disagree with you.See above.

 

 

Except the bit where minimum wage workers pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than Romney. But, screw it, who needs facts? You're thinking percent, I'm thinking $. That is, btw, how millionaires got so rich, thinking $ .

 

Oh, and lets not forget about him wanting to pay even less of his fair share and make the poor pay even more of a percentage of their income. He already pays more than is fair. I think it's generous how much more money he is giving than the average citizen.

 

Ooh, I wonder what the numbers are when sales tax is added in. Mitt still paying more.

 

 

 

 

In 1958, corporate taxes accounted for 27% of the total revenue. Today, they account for less than 9%. When we extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010 because they argued that they would be able create more jobs, the wealthy created only one job for an American for every three jobs they created for foreign workers. And the top 200 companies in the US made 60% of their revenue in the last two years from foreign industry. Yet you say you support stronger immigration laws and are pro-business.

 

Don't you think a business that enjoys an American corporate charter should be more interested in helping the US economy? Especially when they're using tax revenue that should have gone to the public coffers to hire foreign workers? I'm pro-business too but I think they have an obligation to do more to support the economy of their charter nation. Isn't that part of the Republican platform too? It was when I was born.

The problem is, American workers expect to be paid much more than the man in hong kong, yet the American doesn't work as hard. See the problem? We need to teach our children to be hard, productive workers, and then maybe the millionaires will have reason to hire them. If you were a millionaire, I can almost guarantee you would hire the Chinese guy. This is a huge problem, admittedly, but we aren't doing anything to resolve it.

[CaptainPanic]

He pays much more than the 47%! You are thinking of this as a percentage. I am thinking of # of $ paid.In what world is a few thousand greater than a few million? 100% of 0 is still 0.

So, according to your logic, slaves are the biggest bastards, because they pay no tax (no income, no tax). And the millionaires are the nicest people, because they pay the most tax.

 

Weird logic.

 

It may be off topic a little bit, but did you know that most European countries have a progressive tax system? Higher income means you pay more tax. Our highest percentage is nearly 50%, and some propose to lift it to 60%. So, multi-millionaires will pay over half their income in tax.

 

Why is that good? Because they're rich enough as it is.

 

This is yet another thing that I really don't understand about Republicans. Some of the republican voters are quite poor, yet they defend the regressive tax system as if it's beneficial to them.

[Phi for All]

The problem is, American workers expect to be paid much more than the man in hong kong, yet the American doesn't work as hard.

Since you refuse to use the quote system correctly, this is the only part of your post I can respond to properly. I do want to say though that progressive taxation makes sure that those who profit most from our infrastructure pay the most for it. How many of the 47% do you think use airports? Does the guy who works three jobs to keep his family fed plan a lot of road trips, considering he gets around on the bus?

 

American workers don't work hard? Wow, that's a fairly elitist, heavily biased and incredibly naive statement. We have an extremely robust cost of living, it costs us a lot to buy products here, as opposed to what they pay for the basics in Hong Kong. I understand the benefits of arbitrage when applied to labor costs, but I'm talking about demanding US tax breaks so corporations can create US jobs to help the US economy and then using that revenue held back from public funds to create foreign jobs. Do you thinks that's good business for the US? Do you see why our economy is in trouble due to this withholding tax revenue and profoundly unhelpful efforts to help themselves instead of the American workers that helped them build those businesses?

 

See the problem? We need to teach our children to be hard, productive workers, and then maybe the millionaires will have reason to hire them.

Wow, that sounds just like it came from someone's dad. Have you been in the workforce long?

If you were a millionaire, I can almost guarantee you would hire the Chinese guy.

I'm glad you said almost.

 

I have no problem with employing foreign workers. Again, that's not what this is about. I'm talking about tax revenue that was supposed to go towards helping US employment that went overseas instead, to help US corporations make more than half their profits overseas while enjoying tax breaks and charter exemptions they could only get from the US government, which is paid for in the majority, last time I checked, by US citizens, all of them.

[ydoaPs]

Ah, the guy working 12hr days in an incredibly dangerous factory doesn't deserve to be paid more than minimum wage, but the guy sitting on his arse doing nothing deserves to makes millions of dollars a year. Because THAT makes sense. By all means, let's pay according to how hard people work. Let's start by putting the CEOs on minimum wage.

 

American workers don't work hard? Wow, that's a fairly elitist, heavily biased and incredibly naive statement. We have an extremely robust cost of living, it costs us a lot to buy products here, as opposed to what they pay for the basics in Hong Kong. I understand the benefits of arbitrage when applied to labor costs, but I'm talking about demanding US tax breaks so corporations can create US jobs to help the US economy and then using that revenue held back from public funds to create foreign jobs. Do you thinks that's good business for the US? Do you see why our economy is in trouble due to this withholding tax revenue and profoundly unhelpful efforts to help themselves instead of the American workers that helped them build those businesses?

 

No, I like it. I'd love to make more than my boss.

[Arete]

I've always wondered if proponents of a flat tax rate have really thought about it - the poorest 45% of the US population have 0.2% of the financial wealth. Even if you taxed half the country to bankruptcy, you'd be still extremely unlikely to generate enough revenue to maintain the US as a developed nation - given how much tax generated subsidies go into providing reliable electricity, sewerage treatment, clean drinking water, etc.