Jump to content

It Is Over Romney Ruined His Campaign


Jim2Dokes
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-review-on-middle-east-violence-against-us-embassies-a-855835.html

 

Those not in denial b/c of their partisan convictions in the coming election see the situation for what it is; failed policy.

 

I'm by no means an Obama supporter, but I have to ask...

 

Did you even read the article, or just the headline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Sorry Mods, didn't see the thing about 20 posts before quoting a member. Feel free to deny my previous attempt).

 

Jon,

 

I am by no means an Obama supporter, but I have to ask...

 

Did you read the article or just the headline? The actual article is filled with different opinions on the matter, yet the headline was taken from a Conservative Reporter with the most sensational headline.

 

Obama's policy sucked, but it isn't like he ruined relations in the Middle East in the last 4 years. He just didn't fix them (yes, there is a point to be made that it's worse, but that's a pretty subjective argument depending which side of the fence you lean on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be a democrat. When I was a kid the democrats had integrity. I'm talking John Kennedy and Bobby. Now all they care about is staying in power at our expense. I have never heard so many lies and liars.

 

 

Absolutely laughable.

 

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Neil Newhouse, Romney Campaign

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And can somebody tell me why I have to pay 28% of my income in taxes when someone like Mitt Romney pays less than have that percentage (on the money he claims and isn't hiding in offshore accounts: tax evasion is illegal right?). For someone who doesn't make anywhere near the amount of money Romney does, I sure have to give a lot of it away. Does that make sense to you Republicans?

 

First, I've never understood this argument. Why are people mad at Romney for following the tax code? How is that his fault? If you want to pay his level of income tax, then make income the way he does.

 

Second, 28%? You aren't paying 28% of your income in taxes (unless you make a whole helluva lot of money). Even if you just mean marginal (which is highly disingenuous if you mix the two up), you are making enough money to be able to invest most of it and make most of your money through investments. That way you could pay the lower rate like Romney does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion rates are at all time lows. Fact

Abortion rates are lowest in countries were prevention is taught and sex is an open topic in the educational system. Fact

Abortion has been around forever it was just the means. Fact

 

Since your posts have no basis in logic, I'm going to try to help your debating style. (I'm doing this as a form of charity, since I think you need a lot of help.)

 

You made these as statements, we all understand you think they are facts. There are three reasons you would add "FACT" on to the end of each one: 1) Redundancy, 2) You don't believe they are facts and think this adds to your point, or 3) you suck at writing. If it's reason 1, then you should just omit the term. If it's #2, then you should strengthen your argument, rather than adding on useless words. If it's #3, then I'm sorry, we can't help you.

 

In any case, you probably want to avoid adding "FACT" on to the end of your statements. It makes you seem like a lunatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since your posts have no basis in logic, I'm going to try to help your debating style. (I'm doing this as a form of charity, since I think you need a lot of help.)

 

You made these as statements, we all understand you think they are facts. There are three reasons you would add "FACT" on to the end of each one: 1) Redundancy, 2) You don't believe they are facts and think this adds to your point, or 3) you suck at writing. If it's reason 1, then you should just omit the term. If it's #2, then you should strengthen your argument, rather than adding on useless words. If it's #3, then I'm sorry, we can't help you.

 

In any case, you probably want to avoid adding "FACT" on to the end of your statements. It makes you seem like a lunatic.

 

suggestion #4 which was the point of your previous post.... just add a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are people mad at Romney for following the tax code? How is that his fault?

 

You don't think that people like Mitt Romney exert greater influence over tax policy than the average citizen? They practically write it. That's why they spend tremendous amounts of money on campaign contributions and lobbying elected officials - because they get a huge return on that investment.

 

I know, I know, if I don't like it, I can just borrow a ton of money to take over small businesses around the country, loot their savings and pension funds, leave them to pay off the loans acquired to take them over, and then lobby Congress to make the tax code benefit me a la Romney. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLA--Obama 49%, Romney 44%... OH -- Obama 50%, Romney 43%... VA -- Obama 49%, Romney 44%

 

 

 

 

I'm not sensing much drama on Election night......again

 

Friday, September 14, 2012

 

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think that people like Mitt Romney exert greater influence over tax policy than the average citizen? They practically write it. That's why they spend tremendous amounts of money on campaign contributions and lobbying elected officials - because they get a huge return on that investment.

 

I know, I know, if I don't like it, I can just borrow a ton of money to take over small businesses around the country, loot their savings and pension funds, leave them to pay off the loans acquired to take them over, and then lobby Congress to make the tax code benefit me a la Romney. :wink:

That's a different argument. He was specifically attacking the tax code, not lobbyist influence.

 

Btw, if you don't like the amount of influence lobbyists have, you should try to elect people who want small government (note, I did not say the GOP). The smaller government is, the less influence lobbyists will have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody said you were going to hell. The event that catipulted abortion into epidemic proportion was contraception. The numbers are staggering compared to the 1940's. Your facts are not facts. After contraception came about std's multiplied, divorce skyrocketed, aids came in to play, and then abortion increased dramatically. Those are FACTS.

 

Since your posts have no basis in logic, I'm going to try to help your debating style. (I'm doing this as a form of charity, since I think you need a lot of help.)

 

You made these as statements, we all understand you think they are facts. There are three reasons you would add "FACT" on to the end of each one: 1) Redundancy, 2) You don't believe they are facts and think this adds to your point, or 3) you suck at writing. If it's reason 1, then you should just omit the term. If it's #2, then you should strengthen your argument, rather than adding on useless words. If it's #3, then I'm sorry, we can't help you.

 

In any case, you probably want to avoid adding "FACT" on to the end of your statements. It makes you seem like a lunatic.

 

Okay, well I already made these points to Okala and added a more concise argument. But when I prove he is wrong and he says the exact same thing to me, I am just gonna simplify it for him.

 

Anyways here you go

 

Time Mag. Abortion rates decline- http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705604,00.html

 

Note: Oklahoma they only started keeping records since the 40's.

 

Study on Netherlands low abortion rates correlated with contraception training- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

 

Now to rebuttal your ridiculous argument bolded if I have not already.

 

Divorce

"It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40 percent for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30 percent in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than viewing marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as having a 70 percent likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.

 

The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20 percent, half the rate for non-college educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors." http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/all/1/

 

STD Increase.

 

It is hard to determine the increase. There are more ways to test STDs then before. People used to die from Syphilis and they didn't even know why. Now you can get a shot and be all set. But to blame it one prevention education is really ignorant especially when you do not have actual evidence.

 

What do you think the STD rates and AIDs rates be if there were no contraception? That is just hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a problem with some of your stats. Divorce is around 50% now, I know that it was only 10% among Catholics in the 50's, but now days people live together and don't get married. This skews the statistics immeasurably.

 

Contraception started the sexual revolution that exploded in the 60's and remains with us today. The statistics I've heard don't match up with yours, so I don't know who has accurate stats. With so many more people having sex out of wed lock, of course there is going to be an upsurge in std's. Planned Parenthood admitted the number one cause for unwanted pregnancies was failed contraception.

 

But one basic point is the national deficit. We won't survive if we don't stop the insanity and address this issue. I don't even see any efforts by the dems. I see a real plan by Paul Ryan whether you agree with every thing in it or not. Obama is taking us down and it is happening very quickly. Is that what you want?

 

Who should be the authority on such things as contraception?? Should it be our government? If you believed in the bible and that the 'Church' was 'the pillar and foundation of truth', then we wouldn't be having this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a problem with some of your stats. Divorce is around 50% now, I know that it was only 10% among Catholics in the 50's, but now days people live together and don't get married. This skews the statistics immeasurably.

 

Contraception started the sexual revolution that exploded in the 60's and remains with us today. The statistics I've heard don't match up with yours, so I don't know who has accurate stats. With so many more people having sex out of wed lock, of course there is going to be an upsurge in std's. Planned Parenthood admitted the number one cause for unwanted pregnancies was failed contraception.

 

But one basic point is the national deficit. We won't survive if we don't stop the insanity and address this issue. I don't even see any efforts by the dems. I see a real plan by Paul Ryan whether you agree with every thing in it or not. Obama is taking us down and it is happening very quickly. Is that what you want?

 

Who should be the authority on such things as contraception?? Should it be our government? If you believed in the bible and that the 'Church' was 'the pillar and foundation of truth', then we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

Uhmm.. So where are your statistics?

How much does the Ryan plan reduce the deficit, why doesn't Mitt have full support of it?

 

The authority on contraception is the private sector. From Trojan to Phizer. Neither nor the government or the church should be involved. School systems should be able to apply the knowledge to their students that is backed by research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/islamflag.jpeg

 

That would be Al-Qaeda's flag flying above the US embassy in Tunisia, as it was stormed and taken. Add in the murder of the Ambassador to Libya and 3 Americans at the embassy. Our embassy in Yemen was also hit...

 

The BUFFOONS in the White House are trying to spin this as some protest against some obscure anti-Islam film on Youtube. Remind me again what the UK and Germany had to do with that video? Because their embassies in Sudan were stormed by a mob as well. This is bigger than some stupid youtube video but the administrator is trying to feed us a line of bull.

 

You guys can argue about social policies all you want but when our country is crashing into the ground economically and we are weakening abroad, I think it's time to focus on the bigger picture. Obama has done nothing for this country for four years. He's been an Amateur in Chief, as you can find out yourself if you read Bob Woodward's book on Obama. He is in over his head and if we don't get rid of him we are going to cause irreparable damage to this country. And I'm not just spewing right wing talking points. Let's get real.

Edited by piratey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/islamflag.jpeg

 

That would be Al-Qaeda's flag flying above the US embassy in Tunisia, as it was stormed and taken. Add in the murder of the Ambassador to Libya and 3 Americans at the embassy. Our embassy in Yemen was also hit...

 

The BUFFOONS in the White House are trying to spin this as some protest against some obscure anti-Islam film on Youtube. Remind me again what the UK and Germany had to do with that video? Because their embassies in Sudan were stormed by a mob as well. This is bigger than some stupid youtube video but the administrator is trying to feed us a line of bull.

 

You guys can argue about social policies all you want but when our country is crashing into the ground economically and we are weakening abroad, I think it's time to focus on the bigger picture. Obama has done nothing for this country for four years. He's been an Amateur in Chief, as you can find out yourself if you read Bob Woodward's book on Obama. He is in over his head and if we don't get rid of him we are going to cause irreparable damage to this country. And I'm not just spewing right wing talking points. Let's get real.

 

You sir, have a point there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sir, have a point there.

 

And I woke up this morning to see my theory was indeed correct:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/video-didn-t-do-it_652387.html

 

hite House spokesman Jay Carney told the world that the violent protests in Cairo and Ben*ghazi and elsewhere were a “response not to United States policy, and not obviously the administration or the American people,” but were “in response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Carney repeated the point for emphasis: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”

 

 

GETTY IMAGES

 

Carney’s comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them—as we fear they do—are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. Nor are Gates’s and Dempsey’s phone calls. They all send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce .  .  . Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up.

 

What’s next? Where does it go from here? There are more than 300 million ways in which Americans expressing themselves might give offense to those who make it their business to be offended. Maybe it’s some other film, maybe it’s a book or even just a tossed-off phrase that our enemies might seize on to galvanize support for their causes. Is the White House going to put every American crank on speed-dial so it can tell them to shut up whenever a mob gathers outside a U.S. embassy or consulate?

 

Then this one:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/15/Obama-Contribution-Anti-Islam-Filmmaker

 

Blame the movie.

 

Even though "the movie" was on YouTube for months prior to the collective indignation of thousands of Middle Eastern Islamists all coming together on the eleventh anniversary of September 11th (through wild coincidence, no doubt), we are being told by our government and our media overlords that we must blame the movie.

 

You see, if we blame the movie for the burning of our foreign outposts and the brutal murders of four Americans (including our Libyan ambassador who was reportedly raped), we won't blame the burners and the looters and the murderers and the rapists.

 

You see, if we blame the movie for the Middle East burning, we won't blames the Islamists who are doing the burning and looting and raping and murdering.

 

Which means we won't further connect the dots and blame Obama's failed Middle East policy; the Obama Doctrine of backing away from the region and allowing events to unfold as America stands idly by -- as the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood grab hold of power in Egypt, a country that was once our largest and closest ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, very good to see your points supported by evidence. We can now have an actual discussion.

 

You are falling vicitm to a major fallacy of the contraception/prophylactic issue. How does the pill (the most effective contraception method) help in any way with the prevention of STD's such as AIDS? Be careful not to tie these two issues together b/c they are not the same. While both are a function of lowered perception of risk from sexual activity the effect on abortion rates and STD spread is not the same.

 

The point is that the consequences (or expected consequences) of (irresponsible) sex have been lessened in terms of unwanted children. But when those expectations are not met, those same people want abortion on demand. Understanding how to minimize the consequences of sexual activity (education and contraception) just covers over the fundamental point that people now don't respect the potential (but now unexpected) consequences of sexual activity, and turn to the easy out (abortion).

 

Here are the historical abortion rates: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

 

Note the explosion of the abortion rate with the addition of the pill. People did not expect those pregnancies and wanted a way to get the outcome they expected. This massive increase in the abortion rate is dramatically larger than the recent down trend, which is due to improve use of contraception (next paragraph).

 

The recent down trend in the abortion rate is exactly a function of education, people are not more effectively prevent pregnancy. But the baseline problem remains, that abortion (as practiced in america) is a predominantly economic, 'easy out', decision. Made when the outcome of sexual activity does not match up with the expected outcome.

 

Here are your 'reason for abortion' statistics:

'Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

by Wm. Robert Johnston

last updated 26 August 2012

 

Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 1%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons. '

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

 

Recent STD increases are a function of lowered risk appreciation, stemming from effective treatments less than prophylaxis.

 

STD Rates and Historicals: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm

 

Regarding divorces, clearly there was a major societal shift where women with education realized they did not have to stay in unhappy marriages due to the economics. Accordingly, divorce rates spiked before the selection process for mates caught up to the new goals of marriage.

 

But regarding the current marriage statistics, Oklahoma has a point about cohabitation skewing those numbers. I remember an article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html) where they site a U. of Mich. study making his point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, very good to see your points supported by evidence. We can now have an actual discussion.

 

You are falling vicitm to a major fallacy of the contraception/prophylactic issue. How does the pill (the most effective contraception method) help in any way with the prevention of STD's such as AIDS? Be careful not to tie these two issues together b/c they are not the same. While both are a function of lowered perception of risk from sexual activity the effect on abortion rates and STD spread is not the same.

 

The point is that the consequences (or expected consequences) of (irresponsible) sex have been lessened in terms of unwanted children. But when those expectations are not met, those same people want abortion on demand. Understanding how to minimize the consequences of sexual activity (education and contraception) just covers over the fundamental point that people now don't respect the potential (but now unexpected) consequences of sexual activity, and turn to the easy out (abortion).

 

Here are the historical abortion rates: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

 

Note the explosion of the abortion rate with the addition of the pill. People did not expect those pregnancies and wanted a way to get the outcome they expected. This massive increase in the abortion rate is dramatically larger than the recent down trend, which is due to improve use of contraception (next paragraph).

 

The recent down trend in the abortion rate is exactly a function of education, people are not more effectively prevent pregnancy. But the baseline problem remains, that abortion (as practiced in america) is a predominantly economic, 'easy out', decision. Made when the outcome of sexual activity does not match up with the expected outcome.

 

Here are your 'reason for abortion' statistics:

 

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

 

Recent STD increases are a function of lowered risk appreciation, stemming from effective treatments less than prophylaxis.

 

STD Rates and Historicals: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm

 

Regarding divorces, clearly there was a major societal shift where women with education realized they did not have to stay in unhappy marriages due to the economics. Accordingly, divorce rates spiked before the selection process for mates caught up to the new goals of marriage.

 

But regarding the current marriage statistics, Oklahoma has a point about cohabitation skewing those numbers. I remember an article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html) where they site a U. of Mich. study making his point.

 

1. I know that birth control does not prevent STDs I was talking about condoms when making that point.

 

2. "Before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, data on abortion in the United States were scarce. In 1955, experts had estimated, on the basis of qualitative assumptions, that 200,000-1,200,000 illegal abortions were performed each year.1 Despite its wide range, this estimate remained the most reliable indicator of the magnitude of induced abortion for many years. In 1967, researchers confirmed this estimate by extrapolating data from a randomized-response survey conducted in North Carolina: They concluded that a total of 800,000 induced (mostly illegal) abortions were performed nationally each year.2

 

At about this time, the availability of legally induced abortion in the United States gradually increased, starting in Mississippi in 1966 and then in Colorado the following year. The controversy that these developments would create spurred public health leaders to obtain accurate and complete information on the number and demographic characteristics of women obtaining abortions, as well as on the effects that legalization of abortion would have on morbidity and mortality.3 Three organizations—the Population Council, The Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—collaborated to gather data by conducting what became known as abortion surveillance. Their combined effort was instrumental in the evaluation of the public health impact of the legalization of abortion."

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html

 

3. Right, education is the key prevention education.

 

4. I agree with you. There is no doubt that many take advantage of the ability to receive an abortion. I hate it just as much as you do, but I look at it in a different lens I am sure.

- Its not my choice, I am not a women. Who am I to tell someone they can not do something I do not know their circumstances.

- There are proven ways as a lot of European countries have shown us to prevent abortions. These ways do not fall in line with making it illegal, abstinence, or any other conservative failures.

-. If my sister for example wants to have an abortion, then she should have consultation and see a professional. I do not want her to go to back-alley Bob and end up dying or trying it herself (sse Revolutionary Road). Again the debate is means and how to prevent. I want to eliminate them, its just Oklahoma's means and how to prevent are skewed and have been proven to be misguided.

 

5. I am not too invested in the divorce issue, I could care less and think it is an exhausting process. I am waiting until I am 33 to get married myself. The point is that more people are being smart about trying to be happy. In the good ol' days it was either be miserable or get shunned by the community for having a divorce or rushed into marriage because of religion or social cues.

Edited by Jim2Dokes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...