Utah Lama,
My arguement is not infallible and my arguments should be dissected to force me to better articulate my points. I agree with you life experience is invaluable and I do need more of it. I want my own business one day as well.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I really wish Romney would have called out Obama on Solyndra and touched more on why Obama did not sign the Keystone Pipeline if he is such a “North America energy guy.”[/quote]
I was thinking this last night. He never mentioned the pipeline.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Utah lama
I gave several references and articulated my points. He just said he did the mental math. Granted he is smart but for your to completely disregard any legitimacy to my arguemnts or points is bizarre. You hold him in high esteem because you have conversed with him and you have a rapport. I did come across arrogant in one post and that was a mistake because I was frusterated. But focusing on a portion of a post that was smarmy does not devalue an argument or a point. Tone is hard to ascertain in text format. [/quote]
One thing you will learn when you enter the real world is theory is great and all, but unless you teach at college, the man or woman that signs your paycheck is going to get less than two shits about your theory if your results suck.
I want to see numbers, from the real world that back up your claims. Otherwise I will ignore your claims. Because again, theory while great, doesn’t always play out in real life. From what I understand the reduction of taxes has be show to increase revenues, I linked a table that shows this happening. You, well you were you. Now, I know I may be wrong. I just want you to prove what you said was true, with historic information, you know, what happened in real life.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Utah Lama,
my arguments should be dissected to force me to better articulate my points. [/quote]
If you make a statement as a fact, the burden of proof is on you.
Poly Sci 101.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Maximus B, of course an MBA proves he is educated but does it make him a panacea. He is a person like everyone else. Can he be wrong? of course. He can be wrong just as likely he can be right too. The smartest people make mistakes just look at the Great Recession and the belief that housing values could never go down in a mass drop. [/quote]
Having an MBA proves you have a foundation of knowledge to speak from, of course anyone can make mistakes, but “battle scars are earned”…know what I mean ?
Assuming that Wall Street did not foresee that housing mess is about as accurate as making a tax cheat your Treasury Secretary. Oh wait.
Wall Street KNEW this would happen, they bet against it, and banked a shit ton of money.
How the hell are you going to offer “no money down” loans to people who don’t even have jobs, and then NOT assume the bottom would not fall out eventually ?
Come on man, have a seat at the obvious desk.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I really wish Romney would have called out Obama on Solyndra and touched more on why Obama did not sign the Keystone Pipeline if he is such a “North America energy guy.”[/quote]
I was thinking this last night. He never mentioned the pipeline. [/quote]
“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.”
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Utah Lama,
my arguments should be dissected to force me to better articulate my points. [/quote]
If you make a statement as a fact, the burden of proof is on you.
Poly Sci 101.[/quote]
But if its a bad proof or no proof at all, the burden is then back on you to prove their statement is false.
PWI 101
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I really wish Romney would have called out Obama on Solyndra and touched more on why Obama did not sign the Keystone Pipeline if he is such a “North America energy guy.”[/quote]
I was thinking this last night. He never mentioned the pipeline. [/quote]
“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.”[/quote]
Let’s ignore the obvious “it will create jobs” argument for a moment.
We can reduce our reliance on foreign oil, or perhaps remove it altogether, and GTFO of the Middle East, and he still caved in to the environmentalists.
I think this issue is not being touched on enough by Romney, Mitty should be in his grill on this.
Bonus points if you use the phrase “straw man”.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Utah Lama,
my arguments should be dissected to force me to better articulate my points. [/quote]
If you make a statement as a fact, the burden of proof is on you.
Poly Sci 101.[/quote]
But if its a bad proof or no proof at all, the burden is then back on you to prove their statement is false.
PWI 101[/quote]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]
Crowley showed bias and proved you prediction correct, that is uncontested.
But–this was Mitt Romney’s fault. He had the opportunity to mount a broad and damning assault on Barack Obama’s response to the tragedy in Libya, and instead he allowed it–no, he ENCOURAGED it–to be framed in the narrowest possible sense. He turned a scathing critique into a yes-or-no question to which he did not know the answer. Candy Crowley answered the question and she answered it correctly. It was bias on her part, yes, but it was also unbelievable incompetence on Romney’s part.
Mitt Romney had all the ammunition in the world and yet in the heat of the moment he went all in on a matter of wording.[/quote]
But you and I don’t know where Romney would have taken his attack because Candy Crowley took Obama’s side and essentially turned it around.
He may have done exactly what you claim he should have.
Just like to fighters in a cage, all a referee has to do is stop the fight at a crucial moment then restart them and it is a game changer!
Get it?[/quote]
It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.
And again, Crowley was a terrible moderator, she interjected where she shouldn’t have, and the questions selected were very obviously tougher on Romney than on Obama. This was not an even debate. But Romney didn’t do himself any good on Libya, and that’s abundantly clear.[/quote]
You are assuming that Romney was going to end where he began. But, my point is he was not allowed to finish his point because the moderator was busy trying to help Obama.
Unless you have a crystal ball and know that he was going to end there you have to give Romney the benefit of the doubt as the moderator cut him off.
Would he have run for the touchdown? We’ll never know the referee tripped him.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I personally don’t think obama did that well. He was more ‘alive’ in the debate, but he still couldn’t stand up to the facts. The facts of the matter are this:
- the deficit is larger than ever.
- Health care and insurance are more expensive than ever.
- Food costs are soaring.
- The dollar is in the toilet.
- Unemployment is inexcusably high.
- He failed on Libya big time.
- He’s made it more difficult to open a business in the U.S.
Basically, his policies are a big fat fail.[/quote]
So quick to say that he supports small business one hundred percent, and yet it is harder than practically ever before to be a small business owner in this country.[/quote]
When Obama said that he was “for free enterprise and small business” I had a belly laugh. I own a small business and all I’ve seen over the past four years are rising taxes, more regulation and constant threats by the President of the United States that I am not paying my fair share. And on top of that he spit in my face when he said that “you didn’t build that…someone else did it for you.”
The man is a good politician but a horrific President and he must be replaced for this economy to turn around.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Utah Lama,
my arguments should be dissected to force me to better articulate my points. [/quote]
If you make a statement as a fact, the burden of proof is on you.
Poly Sci 101.[/quote]
But if its a bad proof or no proof at all, the burden is then back on you to prove their statement is false.
PWI 101[/quote]
Ha! Touche’
I don’t care who you’re voting for. This is funny.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for the general public you are overestimating their intelligence. Most do not recognize bias in the media. Nor will they recognize a softball thrown to Obama and a hardball at Romney. Especially if it’s done with the finesse that only the MSLM can bring to such events. Trust me when I say that the Obama campaign is thrilled with the choice of Candy Crowley as the moderator. And if you watch closely tonight you will see the subtle slights that she gives to Romney. The unfinished sentences, the interruptions etc. And you will also see the gifts given to Obama. How she may bail him out or stop a pounding rigth in its tracks with gems like “we have to get another question in here…bla bla bla…”
Hey if I’m wrong you can remind me of it on Wednesday.
I agree Obama will not be a laughing fool like his running mate. He’ll be poised, upbeat, smiling when appropriate and seemingly very able. We all know what we get with Romney he’s very stable and has been in every debate that I’ve ever seen him in and I watched about a dozen of the republican primary debates.
[/quote]
Bumped for Nostradamian accuracy.
Pic definitely related.[/quote]
Cortes my friend thank you very much for the pat on the back. I was actually hoping I’d be wrong on that call but in my heart I knew what was ahead.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I own a small business and all I’ve seen over the past four years are rising taxes, more regulation and constant threats by the President of the United States that I am not paying my fair share. And on top of that he spit in my face when he said that “you didn’t build that…someone else did it for you.”
[/quote]
Hope you don’t make more than 250k… With Obama care, and the way ohio looks, all told, according to Kiplinger, you’re looking at a roughtly 10-12% increase in Federal taxes.
Enjoy that.
I’m fucked as well, but not as much as you, lol.
SPeaking of taxes. The 0% on investment income for those under 200k romney talks about, helps retired people beyond measure.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think he did fine on Libya, the fat cow did not let him finish and cut him off, because obama never said that Libya was an act of terror, but rather the U.S. would not tolerate acts of terror. He always held that it was mob anger over a movie no one saw.
[/quote]
First, Crowley was clearly out of line. If she wasn’t prepared to do real time fact checking on both candidates throughout the debate, then she should’ve flat out left all fact checking to post debate media panels and articles.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for the general public you are overestimating their intelligence. Most do not recognize bias in the media. Nor will they recognize a softball thrown to Obama and a hardball at Romney. Especially if it’s done with the finesse that only the MSLM can bring to such events. Trust me when I say that the Obama campaign is thrilled with the choice of Candy Crowley as the moderator. And if you watch closely tonight you will see the subtle slights that she gives to Romney. The unfinished sentences, the interruptions etc. And you will also see the gifts given to Obama. How she may bail him out or stop a pounding rigth in its tracks with gems like “we have to get another question in here…bla bla bla…”
Hey if I’m wrong you can remind me of it on Wednesday.
I agree Obama will not be a laughing fool like his running mate. He’ll be poised, upbeat, smiling when appropriate and seemingly very able. We all know what we get with Romney he’s very stable and has been in every debate that I’ve ever seen him in and I watched about a dozen of the republican primary debates.
[/quote]
Bumped for Nostradamian accuracy.
Pic definitely related.[/quote]
Seconded. Zeb called this like a psychic.[/quote]
Thanks Smh very kind of you to point that out. Now why can’t all liberals be as fair minded as you are?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I own a small business and all I’ve seen over the past four years are rising taxes, more regulation and constant threats by the President of the United States that I am not paying my fair share. And on top of that he spit in my face when he said that “you didn’t build that…someone else did it for you.”
[/quote]
Hope you don’t make more than 250k… With Obama care, and the way ohio looks, all told, according to Kiplinger, you’re looking at a roughtly 10-12% increase in Federal taxes.
Enjoy that.
I’m fucked as well, but not as much as you, lol.[/quote]
My father is as angry about this as I have ever seen him about anything.
We have discussed hiring more people next year, but if our taxes continue to rise and additional govermental regulation occurs…no go.
That is one thing people need to understand, when the government expands they have to do something to justife their existence. We deal with no less than 6 government agencies at one time per project. Almost all of it is redundant.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]
Crowley showed bias and proved you prediction correct, that is uncontested.
But–this was Mitt Romney’s fault. He had the opportunity to mount a broad and damning assault on Barack Obama’s response to the tragedy in Libya, and instead he allowed it–no, he ENCOURAGED it–to be framed in the narrowest possible sense. He turned a scathing critique into a yes-or-no question to which he did not know the answer. Candy Crowley answered the question and she answered it correctly. It was bias on her part, yes, but it was also unbelievable incompetence on Romney’s part.
Mitt Romney had all the ammunition in the world and yet in the heat of the moment he went all in on a matter of wording.[/quote]
But you and I don’t know where Romney would have taken his attack because Candy Crowley took Obama’s side and essentially turned it around.
He may have done exactly what you claim he should have.
Just like to fighters in a cage, all a referee has to do is stop the fight at a crucial moment then restart them and it is a game changer!
Get it?[/quote]
It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.
And again, Crowley was a terrible moderator, she interjected where she shouldn’t have, and the questions selected were very obviously tougher on Romney than on Obama. This was not an even debate. But Romney didn’t do himself any good on Libya, and that’s abundantly clear.[/quote]
You are assuming that Romney was going to end where he began. But, my point is he was not allowed to finish his point because the moderator was busy trying to help Obama.
Unless you have a crystal ball and know that he was going to end there you have to give Romney the benefit of the doubt as the moderator cut him off.
Would he have run for the touchdown? We’ll never know the referee tripped him.[/quote]
I think it’s funny that some people are saying “you know you lost a debate when you blame the referee.”
Ask the NFL replacement refs if referees can fuck up a game or not.