Romney
-
Huh?? My beef with that statement is that it's 100% not true, and there's zero evidence to support a belief that Obama believes in having the government equalize outcomes. So, usually when you say something it should be, you know, true. Or at least kind of true.
Are we really going to have this discussion? You're that type of crank, too?
Oh, what's become of the Republican party...
Huh?? My beef with that statement is that it's 100% not true, and there's zero evidence to support a belief that Obama believes in having the government equalize outcomes. So, usually when you say something it should be, you know, true. Or at least kind of true.
Are we really going to have this discussion? You're that type of crank, too?
Oh, what's become of the Republican party...
Hard to tell, Heck.
I'm still a registered democrat.
So, you don't think that the president believes in higher taxes for wealthy people to provide for more benefits, education or programs for the poor for the purpose of raising their status in society?
Furthermore you and the president are against any kind of affirmative action or set asides for under represented societal groups?
You think that every citizen should be on his own to succeed or fail without benefits of government interference?
Please.
To some extent everybody wants to give the little guy a boost.
At any rate that social warfare seems to be the biggest log in the president campaign fire.
Us verses the 1 percent.
As for Roosevelt I cynically believe that socialism and war go hand in hand. But we don't need to go down that hole now.
WSS
-
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
-
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
You seem awfully worked up.
Why not take a deep breath and tell me what's so outrageous about that statement.
( Or are you just poisoning the well?)
WSS
-
Tell me if and why I'm wrong to think of outcome based education.
Maybe I've made an incorrect association.
WSS
-
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
You seem awfully worked up.
Why not take a deep breath and tell me what's so outrageous about that statement.
( Or are you just poisoning the well?)
WSS
You seem awfully worked up.
Why not take a deep breath and tell me what's so outrageous about that statement.
WSS
Because it's more of your stupid game. All you know how to do is move the goal posts. That's it. We're talking about a very specific allegation by Romney, which is clearly false. But instead of saying, "Romney is lying" or even "Romney is obviously way off there, but..." you start talking about something else. This is what you always do. So much that I can't tell if you even understand what we're talking about.
Do you believe that Obama believes that all Americans should end up making the same amount of money regardless of their efforts, education, or contributions? Do you believe that? Don't ask me about John Kerry, or start into a discussion about taxation.
“President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing — the government.”
This is insane. And let's stop pretending that you're anything like a Democrat. It doesn't fool anyone.
-
And here's "definitional retreat" for you. Not that it will help. If you couldn't use this technique you'd be mute.
"The speaker avoids being refuted by stating a new position different from the one that had been the focus of the discussion. Sometimes he may even claim that the new position is the one that he held "all along." In any case, the new position is not refuted by the argument just given, so the speaker avoids the appearance of having been proven wrong. Such a move is not an argument (and therefore not a fallacy), but an attempt to re-frame the topic being argued about."
Are we talking about Romney's allegation? Nope. In one post, you've now moved us to talking about affirmative action, and programs for the poor.
-
Actually, heck, I did look it up.
The Kerry question was part of the different line of conversation just because you were so angry about Romney changing positions. I wondered if you were as upset with Kerry.
So I don't know if you were asking me if I believe that the president wants to raise the bottom and lower the top or not. I would suppose that he does. If you are asking me if I believe he wants everyone to be exactly the same, I would guess not.
Thanks for trying to poison the well.
WSS
-
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
There really isn't a way to interpret that quote in the way you are now pretending you did without redefining what the definition is, so explaining that's what you did doesn't help. Plus, the whole point of the programs you imagine suggest a belief in "equality of outcome" are actually programs designed to provide equality of opportunity, so it's a non-starter anyway.
Also, one of these days you're going to show an understanding of the fact that taxes on wealthier Americans don't simply pay for programs for the poor. It just won't be anytime soon.
-
Plus you originally only posted a small portion of the quote.
I guess there's a definition for that in your propaganda manual but....
WSS
-
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
-
Plus you originally only posted a small portion of the quote.
I guess there's a definition for that in your propaganda manual but....
WSS
Plus you originally only posted a small portion of the quote.
I guess there's a definition for that in your propaganda manual but....
As
Ha. Nice try. As if you needed the rest.
And direct quotes are now "propaganda." Perhaps we need to define that, too.
You only had to know the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. But you either didn't, or you didn't want to admit that you did in order to, as you would say, "protect your boy."
-
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
I have never called him one.
Small s socialism is about as harsh as I've gotten.
WSS
-
Seriously, Steve? "Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes." Not enough there to understand that Romney isn't being accurate?
-
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
There really isn't a way to interpret that quote in the way you are now pretending you did without redefining what the definition is, so explaining that's what you did doesn't help. Plus, the whole point of the programs you imagine suggest a belief in "equality of outcome" are actually programs designed to provide equality of opportunity, so it's a non-starter anyway.
Also, one of these days you're going to show an understanding of the fact that taxes on wealthier Americans don't simply pay for programs for the poor. It just won't be anytime soon.
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
Oh come on.
" Steve is an idiot. Steve is ignorant. Steve uses propaganda techniques. Therefore whatever steve says is suspect."
And of course taxes on the rich are used for programs. Nobody ever said that's all they're used for.
WSS
-
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
I have never called him one.
Small s socialism is about as harsh as I've gotten.
WSS
I have never called him one.
Small s socialism is about as harsh as I've gotten.
WSS
Steve, a person who believes in what Romney is describing is a communist. If you find it "hard to tell" if what Romney is saying is true or not, but you "would guess" that it's not, you're not really throwing your lot in with the sane.
So, if we can get back to reality, the point of this thread is that Mitt Romney will say just about anything to hold high public office, and to a degree that eclipses anyone else in a profession that's known for saying just about anything to hold high public office. This quote is a prime example of saying something he has said that he knows is not true, and that's it's quite a smear, but he lacks the requisite amount of shame to not say it.
Additionally, pointing out that there also exist other ambitious politicians who have shift their positions, and that I may have voted for them, is irrelevant. The point was never that nobody else does this; it was that Romney does it more than anyone else ever has, and by a wide margin.
-
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
Oh come on.
" Steve is an idiot. Steve is ignorant. Steve uses propaganda techniques. Therefore whatever steve says is suspect."
And of course taxes on the rich are used for programs. Nobody ever said that's all they're used for.
WSS
Oh come on.
" Steve is an idiot. Steve is ignorant. Steve uses propaganda techniques. Therefore whatever steve says is suspect."
And of course taxes on the rich are used for programs. Nobody ever said that's all they're used for.
WSS
Again, that's not what "poisoning the well" is. (Also not an accurate representation of anything that happened in this thread.)
-
You do love absolute don't you?
Like I said yes I believe the president wants to close the gap between the top and the bottom.
and no I don't suppose the president thinks that he can make everyone 100 percent equal.
I don't see what's so outrageous or unclear.
WSS
-
You do love absolute don't you?
Like I said yes I believe the president wants to close the gap between the top and the bottom.
and no I don't suppose the president thinks that he can make everyone 100 percent equal.
I don't see what's so outrageous or unclear.
WSS
You do love absolute don't you?
Like I said yes I believe the president wants to close the gap between the top and the bottom.
and no I don't suppose the president thinks that he can make everyone 100 percent equal.
I don't see what's so outrageous or unclear.
WSS
Because you're still talking about something else, and trying to have a different conversation. You can't help yourself.
The president doesn't want to make everyone 100% equal. He obviously doesn't believe that. (Does anyone in American politics? I can't think of anyone.) So, for Mitt Romney to suggest that he does believe that - without a shred of evidence in his favor - when I'm quite certain even Mitt Romney doesn't believe that Obama believes that, makes Mitt Romney something far less than honest.
And again, this really this has nothing to do with income inequality. This has to do with what Romney alleged: that the President doesn't believe in the most basic tenets of the American system.
It's just horseshit. But complete horseshit sells with much of the base of the Republican Party, which is why Romney is saying it. To me, that, as well as his many political incarnations, show a real contempt for the people he's trying to represent. He obviously thinks they're very easily fooled, and sets about every day trying to fool them into believing things he knows aren't true. I don't think that's a particularly desirable quality in a candidate.
But he's still better than Newt Gingrich.
-
No need to question the quote, Heck, because I take its truth and accuracy at face value.
So, Romney did say it.
But, my question is does he say it?
-
I'm not following you. What do you mean?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login