Mitt Romney and the 47% who support Obama

[Jagos]

Link (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser)

Mitt Romney's secret video has come out to devastating effect. Right now, there's a LOT of information here about his platform and feelings. His neo-conservative views are being shown and will need a lot of debunking. You can go to Mother Jones for the videos.

The big take away is this right here:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

Now this 47% is crucial to taking away Obama's support. But who makes up this 47%? Republicans (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-47-percent-no-income-tax-map-red-republican-states-2012-9). Think about it. These are the main people that don't pay income taxes. They use small amounts of their money to buy politicians for more tax cuts and keeping their taxes low.

Yet even those 47% pay taxes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/09/17/memo-to-mitt-romney-the-47-pay-taxes-too/). And that's the problem. The fact remains that Mitt Romney has shown us what the Republican party is all about. They don't care about the nation. They care only about themselves and destroying the nation.

Welcome to the end of the Republican party.

[phil_]

Welcome to the end of the Republican party.As long as there are people with hate in their heart, the GOP will be just fine.

I could weigh in on the article, but anyone who's voting Romney either isn't going to see it or is committed to voting Republican, no matter who, so long as it gets Obama out of office. The first sentence is the real reason for this post, I just didn't want to come off too flippant. Not to discourage discussion of this article and what it suggests about what life will be like under "I don't care about anyone who isn't a millionaire" Romney, but this won't change anyone's mind about Romney being a bad person.

[RobinStarwing]

Alright, so let's go over the last week of Mitter (Mitt the TWITter).

1. He comments about the US apologizing for a video being posted online (in May mind you) that got Muslims angry and blaming our government, saying that we shouldn't. He is doing this WHILE Americans are in harms way getting hurt and, sadly, killed by a small terrorist group who took advantage of the situation. He will not take these comments back.

2. Now we have his 47% comments and he won't take them back either; saying he really thinks this way but it is taken out of context.

3. Not sure if it was in the last couple weeks but one of his people came out and said they were not going to let fact-checkers tell them anything.

I've got only ONE response to this.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cU6JCGUeUTk/T6aJ-S2U4XI/AAAAAAAABZ4/D9aokfCL4Mk/s1600/Facewall-summer448-16388318-508-487.jpg

Just so you all know, some prominent Republicans are crying out for him to just shut his fuck mouth and eat crow. Unforuntately...I don't think The Twit nor Paul Ryan know how to be humble.

[Bells]

I would wager in that you guys up there in the nortern parts of the american landscape are in for 4 more years of half of your politicians cock blocking the other half from doing any work and then, complaining that they don't do any work...

...cause, seriously, Mitt romney is not going to win this.

[Meister]

Mitter (Mitt the TWITter)
We've talked about that sort of thing. Or rather, I talked at you about it and you refused to listen, but the result is the same. Quit it or you're out of the News forum for good (it's not okay anywhere else).

Demotivators and image macros too, they're not a replacement for your opinions that you yourself write.

[Aerozord]

Bush seriously f-ed up this country in his first four years and we re-elected him. I dont see why Obama wouldn't be

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Because he's a secret muslim with a fake birth certificate.

[Aerozord]

Because he's a secret muslim with a fake birth certificate.

which I'd still rather have as our president than someone thats mentally retarded.

and no, thats not an insult or an exaggeration, Bush's IQ was pretty freakin low

[rpgdemon]

which I'd still rather have as our president than someone thats mentally retarded.

and no, thats not an insult or an exaggeration, Bush's IQ was pretty freakin low

No, I'm pretty sure that's both, actually. Regardless of opinion on policies, you can't be elected president without being intelligent enough to work everything in your favor.

Unless he's actually mentally handicapped, you're actually being kind of terrible that you decide to pretend people that you don't like are retarded so that you can point out how terrible they are. It's unfair to people who are actually retarded to stigmatize them like that.

[Aldurin]

No, I'm pretty sure that's both, actually. Regardless of opinion on policies, you can't be elected president without being intelligent enough to work everything in your favor.

Unless he's actually mentally handicapped, you're actually being kind of terrible that you decide to pretend people that you don't like are retarded so that you can point out how terrible they are. It's unfair to people who are actually retarded to stigmatize them like that.

RPG has the right idea here. If you want to try to justify your viewpoint for others, throwing vicious insults like that does not work well in your favor.

Anyone who gets themselves into that high of a public office can reasonably be considered to be above-average intelligence. Having viewpoints or policies that are not agreed with don't make the person dumber for it, regardless of how drastic the disagreement is.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Anyone who gets themselves into that high of a public office can reasonably be considered to be above-average intelligence.
You should not assume that anyone who finds themselves in a position of power is necessarily smarter than that guy next to you. In fact I believe that this kind of thinking is what makes a lot of people just blindly follow whoever has the nicer face. Like... they're in politics, they have to be the most cleverest minds on earth, only difference my vote makes is the face I have to look at on the television.

But as much as I like to rail on the guy, I don't think Bush can be as stupid as he made everyone believe. Which doesn't mean I think he's intelligent. Just educated enough.

On the election: It would only be the natural course of pretty much fucking everything for the US to finally move a little bit away from the terribleness. Which doesn't mean I think the democrats are a shining beacon of brilliance, it's just they're not the republicans. I'll only believe that after, like three consecutive non-conservative presidents.

[Aerozord]

No, I'm pretty sure that's both, actually. Regardless of opinion on policies, you can't be elected president without being intelligent enough to work everything in your favor.

Unless he's actually mentally handicapped, you're actually being kind of terrible that you decide to pretend people that you don't like are retarded so that you can point out how terrible they are. It's unfair to people who are actually retarded to stigmatize them like that.

I said it wasn't an insult, his IQ is 89. Admittedly I'm not sure where the line is for mental retardation. I think it was 89 or 79. Point is he is well below average

and what do you mean he has to work things in his favor? His dad was president less than a decade before him, you think he had no pull with his party? Speech writers, campaign managers, public relations officers, they dont need to know how to work things in their favor. They pay people to figure that out for them.
I'll only believe that after, like three consecutive non-conservative presidents.

before our current democrat president we had a republican for maximum of two terms, before that a democrat for two terms, before that a republican ... I'm starting to notice a pattern.

[Marc v4.0]

I said it wasn't an insult

You are disgustingly reprehensible and so full of yourself I am surprised you haven't exploded yet. NO OFFENSE

his IQ is 89.

Citation needed

[Aerozord]

Citation needed
Ok fine, since I was bored, here (http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_W._Bush%27s_IQ)

No I'm not actually citing a clearly bias site, and a wiki at that, but with how often people do just that i couldn't resist

[Marc v4.0]

No, seriously. Citation guddamn needed if you are going to be an insensitive jackhole and fling 'retard' around like an insult.

[pochercoaster]

which I'd still rather have as our president than someone thats mentally retarded.

and no, thats not an insult or an exaggeration, Bush's IQ was pretty freakin low

If you have to note that something you said isn't an insult or an exaggeration, 99% chance it is an insult and an exaggeration.

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that IQ is an extremely poor, outdated measure of intelligence, one that is heavily steeped in racism and ableism? As such there is no point in bringing up someone's IQ, least of all as a criticism of them, which is insulting to people with mental disabilities. More often than not people seem to use low IQ as a way to dehumanize someone which is all kinds of fucked up. Like, I'm all for being anti-republican, but you shouldn't insult an entire group of people that are repeatedly erased and marginalized in the process.

[Meister]

Ok fine, since I was bored, here (http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_W._Bush%27s_IQ)

No I'm not actually citing a clearly bias site, and a wiki at that, but with how often people do just that i couldn't resist
Requesting a citation on an uncited statement is perfectly good discussion behaviour and explicitly encouraged, and deserves a better reply than "citations lol right here you go :rolleyes:".

Your next post in this thread must contain either the requested citation from a trustworthy source or your honest confession that your statement was wrong. You can definitely provide one of those. Don't try and get around this by not making a post at all.

[Azisien]

I'm pretty sure an IQ of 90 is rather average as far as IQ test results go. They tend to weigh heavily on logic/math skills, ignoring other types of intelligence. I'll grant you logic/math are probably important skills to have if you're looking to lead nations, but that's why you just make sure your economics advisors are all IQ 130+.

[Meister]

I'm pretty sure an IQ of 90 is rather average as far as IQ test results go.
Well, yeah, since 100 is per definition the average. It's a bell curve.

[POS Industries]

If you have to note that something you said isn't an insult or an exaggeration, 99% chance it is an insult and an exaggeration.

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that IQ is an extremely poor, outdated measure of intelligence, one that is heavily steeped in racism and ableism? As such there is no point in bringing up someone's IQ, least of all as a criticism of them, which is insulting to people with mental disabilities. More often than not people seem to use low IQ as a way to dehumanize someone which is all kinds of fucked up. Like, I'm all for being anti-republican, but you shouldn't insult an entire group of people that are repeatedly erased and marginalized in the process.
This, exactly.

Bush made some terrible decisions, either due to incompetence, corruption, or a combination of the two, but it's unnecessary to go about doing this shit to make your point about it.

[Jagos]

Bush wasn't elected by the people. He was elected by the Supreme Court that stopped the Florida recount. People didn't respect him as president until he gave us two wars that distracted everyone from the 2000 elections.

[Magus]

While IQ is maybe not a valid measurement the whole way across the entire socio-economic-racial spectrum, it was a test basically designed for white people, so being a Harvard-educated rich white man if he were to score low on an IQ test it would be pretty laughable, in that I would laugh at him.

EDIT: Also I forgot what this topic was about in reading it by the time I got down to here. HERE'S WHAT I THINK ABOUT THAT THERE TOPIC:

This 47% thing is inane, since the 47% that support Obama and the 47% who do not pay federal income tax are being conflated together, idiotically, by Romney. There are plenty of working poor Republicans who support Romney, and plenty of affluent rich Democrats who support Obama. It's just dumb, besides being alienating.

[Solid Snake]

The caliber of discourse in NPF Discussion threads has taken such a nosedive here that I'm beginning to view my infrequent visits as more due to a sense of morbid curiosity in how embarrassingly awful a forum can become than of any genuine interest in intellectual conversation and fellowship with decent people.

Seriously the minute NPF proves that it's actually capable of rational conversation without inappropriate insults, ad hominem attacks, brazen trolling, GIFs and JPGs as substitutes for well-reasoned positions, conclusory arguments without factual support, and so-called 'subtle' sexism / ableism / racism / homophobia cloaked in empty rationalizations of said dispositions as 'socially normal' and therefore 'inoffensive', bells will ring, angels will sing on high, order will be restored, and NPF News threads will be a cool place to hang out again.

...Feel free to take that as an insult, by the way. Not one that's deserving in application to every one of you, but consider this an indictment of what NPF's becoming as a social community moreso than an indictment of any specific individual. Insofar as it's certainly socially acceptable to typecast conservatives (and it is, and it should be,) it also should be permissible to have a frank conversation about what NPF is becoming, and when every other serious discussion thread seems to inevitably descend to a point where Moderators have to become intimately involved to stop the tide of bullshittery, something is utterly and irredeemably wrong.

RE: Calling Bush dumb -- I'm always shocked when liberals rely so heavily on a supposed lack of intelligence as an insult because A: doing so seems to actually absolve Bush of responsibility for terrible decisions liberals can and should hold him responsible for, B: it's an assumption at least partially based on the kinds of cultural stereotypes liberals supposedly decry as intolerant, as well as partially based on the kinds of assumptions regarding people with conditions like dyslexia that reasonable well-educated societies should avoid, and C: it's simply untrue anyway, and if you're interested in saying awful things about Bush, why not stick to the 99.9% of awful narratives about him that are accurate?!?

Now personally, I view Bush as below-average intelligence for a politician, insofar as I do believe that people like Cheney and Wolfowitz and Condi Rice in his Administration (and Gore / Kerry as political opponents) continually outsmarted and outplayed him (not that it helped Gore or Kerry win elections, mind you.) To be frank, though, Bush is probably more or less someone of 'average' intelligence who simply had the misfortune of being surrounded by geniuses who completely outshone him, because whether you're a Democrat or Republican, if you have a high-ranking position in government or business and you've acquired a fair deal of power you probably are pretty smart, unless you just inherited a certain name, which is what Bush Jr. did.

...And the fact that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are 'geniuses' shouldn't be interpreted as a positive endorsement of their batshit evil policies and beliefs. Rather, it's important to acknowledge that there's no correlation between intelligence and morality, or between intelligence and other positive traits. Very often, we assume there is such a correlation to our detriment, and often associate positive qualities with a person merely because they're 'smart.' To the contrary, the smartest among us can also be fucking selfish intolerant piece-of-shit assholes. In Cheney and Rove's cases and the cases of many other conservative politicians, that description is certainly apt.

To reiterate: Part of the problem with liberals resorting to calling Bush 'dumb' is that assumes negative stereotypes regarding character and judgment with people of below-average 'booksmart' intelligence that simply aren't true. My Uncle was born with Down's Syndrome, and he also had a fantastic moral code, treated people with more respect than you'd ever believe, was universally beloved, wouldn't purposefully hurt anyone, and while I wouldn't have recommended the Presidency as a career path for him, suggesting he's anything like Bush is an insult to my Uncle.

And some people I know with below-average 'bookish' intelligence would actually make phenomenal Presidents. In politics as in life, it's often not about what you know but moreso about your integrity, your vision, your emotional stability, your charisma, who trusts you, and your capability to at least identify those around you who'd be best suited to make the tough policy calls. If you're surrounded by the best progressive advisers and can delegate efficiently, you can be a great President without the IQ points.

[Bells]

Well, yeah, since 100 is per definition the average. It's a bell curve.

What? What did i do?! ...oh wait. Right...

Can i just ask people to relax a bit here? Yeah yeah... internet discurse is often like that. Mudslinging, pot shots and emotional gut reactions, and it's fine (and good) that you guys pull together to improve the bar level of quality regardless of personal feeling and thought... But let's not go to the other extreme ok?

Comment made, comment Challenged, problem dealt with, move on. If it repeats itself the mod team will surely deal with it properly.

As for the --content-- of this thread... quite often i see interviews swinging around about Bush and Romney usually working in the lines of "He is actually a nice guy and a great person overall... just not a good nation leader."

So i wouldn't take statements like these for granted, i would say they probably have merits. Just cause you're a good person, that doesn't mean you can run a country. Just cause you can't run a country it doesn't mean you're an overall bad person.

as for what Romney is trying to do... he will simply not win. And i believe that for him, in a personal level, it doesn't matter that much... cause he will make money out of this. And he will bank and coach the next Challenger when the Obama age is over.

And the next run for office in the usa will be Romney's Secret Apprentice vs either Clinton of Hilary. ::V:

[Solid Snake]

Yeah yeah... internet discurse is often like that. Mudslinging, pot shots and emotional gut reactions, and it's fine (and good) that you guys pull together to improve the bar level of quality regardless of personal feeling and thought... But let's not go to the other extreme ok?

It's funny because the one thing I always (used to?) love about NPF was that the atmosphere was generally conducive to producing the opposite of typical internet discourse.
After all, if NPF wanted to be just like any other website, we could just go to...any other website.

[Azisien]

It's funny because the one thing I always (used to?) love about NPF was that the atmosphere was generally conducive to producing the opposite of typical internet discourse.
After all, if NPF wanted to be just like any other website, we could just go to...any other website.

Rose-tinted glasses. Definitely, definitely, rose-tinted glasses.

[Marc v4.0]

The "other extreme" of mudslinging, pot-shotting, emotional gut reaction arguments is rational, reasoned, thoughtful discourse.

So, yes, let's go there

[Tev]

It's funny because the one thing I always (used to?) love about NPF was that the atmosphere was generally conducive to producing the opposite of typical internet discourse.
After all, if NPF wanted to be just like any other website, we could just go to...any other website.It's because Fifth always showed up to mock and ban people who got out of hand.

[shiney]

The news forum has never really been a shining example of NPF. It's a great example of how intelligent we can be, but it reflects the opposite. There has not been a point in the news forum's existence that it hasn't been a giant pain in the ass. Not back when fifth went nuklear on me, not during the repeated attempts to shut it down or reform it, not now. Every time we close it, the topics bleed out into the rest of the forum.

Thoughtful, reasoned discourse is a goal to strive for, but what we have lately is people arguing emotionally, arguing beliefs irrespective of fact or evidence. Not all the time, but often. We have people trumpeting ignorance, refusing to accept alternate viewpoints, justifying discrimination. We have the entire Liz story-arc that consumed the forum for a few months. The news forum is the center of activity here, it's what dew a lot of people in, but managing it has always been a difficulty.

I didn't like It's because Fifth always showed up to mock and ban people who got out of hand.

because I feel like being banned is punishment enough and it's vulgar and savage to mock and belittle someone who is being banned. I felt like it just brings us down to the same level and I wanted to hold mods and the forum at large to a higher standard. But maybe it worked? This could be an example of my failure to manage effectively. I don't know.

I feel pretty responsible for what's happened though. I've thrown some ideas at POS but I would like to hear from you guys as to what you think can reasonably be done to "fix" things. I am open to any idea and I won't take offense, so I guess just go to town. I'd rather not see the forum die; it's already fractured with a portion of the community spending time elsewhere, I would like to see it be repaired even if it means I have to hand off the reins or restructure or something. The community is a hell of a lot more important than me.

[Jagos]

Am I missing something here?

I could swear I started this more for discussion on Mitt and his taxes but now it's a moratorium on what happened months ago.

[shiney]

Believe me Jagos, based on what I see in the reported post forum, this is a very poignant and current topic.

Besides the Mitt Romney thing can be summed up as "pandering politican says what his current audience wants to hear, suffers embarrassment when candid truth is released to public, attempts failspin". There, thread over.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

- All people who act like shits in discussion are to be referred to this (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1211067#post1211067) thread.
- In my humble opinion Fifth's modding style shows a complete disregard of respect for the banned and their opinions. Fifth is a cool fucka but not when he's modding, because his modding style goes against my principle of not simply dismissing people because I have the power to do so and I should instead attempt to discuss with them instead of just punishing them for having an opinion I don't agree with. I'm exaggerating here, mind you, and it's not my intention to offend Fifth (I mean, he knows I disagree with him there, so...) but things similar to this have happened to some extent. Like, call me a hopeless idealist, but this is not how I roll and I don't support that kind of behavior. In general. But when people in power act like this I think it's especially problematic. Also, I live in a country that sorta has a problem like that so I have strong opinions here.
- Best mod is Smarty, clealy
- I have noticed that at times the mods seem to be slightly biased against certain users, which I'm not a fan of.
- On the other hand, some people just have to learn how to talk to people without calling them stupid idiot fucks, even if this is how they and maybe the majority here feel.
- Don't let me post in discussion, I only troll you peeps for being American most of the time.

[Tev]

Besides the Mitt Romney thing can be summed up as "pandering politican says what his current audience wants to hear, suffers embarrassment when candid truth is released to public, attempts failspin". There, thread over.
The saddest part will be having to listen to Ann Coulter crowing in a few months about how she was right all along...
vo6SOpOE788

[Solid Snake]

I could swear I started this more for discussion on Mitt and his taxes but now it's a moratorium on what happened months ago.

Actually I think it's more a discussion of what's been happening lately, and is continuing to happen, in prototypical attempts at 'serious discussion' in NPF threads, including this one.

The news forum has never really been a shining example of NPF. It's a great example of how intelligent we can be, but it reflects the opposite. There has not been a point in the news forum's existence that it hasn't been a giant pain in the ass. Not back when fifth went nuklear on me, not during the repeated attempts to shut it down or reform it, not now. Every time we close it, the topics bleed out into the rest of the forum.

I won't disagree that the News Forum has always had its liabilities, but I do think it's gotten noticeably worse lately. I think you know this too, as evidenced by your subsequent comments.

As for Fifth: None of my earlier comments should be interpreted as an explicit endorsement of Fifth's individual approach to Moderating. I love Fifth, everyone does, but I also dislike when attempts at serious conversation over what NPF looks like these days turns into a referendum on "How great (or how terrible) Fifth was." It's not always about Fifth, and Fifth shouldn't be brought up to automatically derail the conversation in the same way Liz's assumed hostility was often brought up to derail anti-bigotry conversations.

Fifth had a style as a Mod that even he would likely concede was 'acerbic,' but the more important takeaway from those who enjoyed the 'Fifth Era' (if you want to call it that) wasn't his style but rather the mere fact that he was active and imposed standards on the forum in a way that tended to (albeit not always) encourage positive conversations and shut down the bullshit. I don't want to debate Fifth's personality, instead I want to concentrate on how during that 'era' discourse in Discussion generally felt better handled and we were actually able to engage in sincere debates.

Subsequently, my suggestion that NPF has gone downhill lately isn't a call to reinstate Fifth -- he wouldn't want the job anyway, none of us would want him to take the job back, and this isn't about rehashing 2009 or whenever it was.

Nor do I think mocking or belittling those who've been banned is a necessary or integral component of what made NPF great 'back in yesteryear' or whatever. I do think it's important to call out inappropriate comments and discourage them, but I don't believe you have to do so the 'Fifth Way' - or via any other Moderators' specific template -- in order to ensure 'success.'

Like, in order to discourage the 2009 rehash of Shiney vs. Fifth Ultimate Showdown whatevs, the dialogue should be viewed constructively from the perspective of objective principles, as opposed to from the perspective of two opposing personalities.

It's not "Shiney's way" or "Fifth's way." It's that there's certain standards of discourse we should hold ourselves to in a Serious Discussion forum to ensure productive, rational and appropriate conversations that Shiney and Fifth and POS and Fenris and everyone else should aspire to. Fifthfiend's 'style,' for lack of a better way to put it, embodied many of these principles but not all of them.

TLDR: I tend to view NPF's present deficiencies as more structural and less personal, and y'all probably should too, or else a conversation about NPF will quickly turn into a war among factions loyal to past personalities and the conversation will quickly degrade into the same kind of emotional, ignorant and insulting ad hominem bullshit that's the whole problem in the first place.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I'm actually with you there for the most part. Like, I didn't want my post to be viewed as anti-fifth propaganda. I'm especially afraid it might be seen as such after I silently turned my back on Fifth's forum a month or two ago.

What shocks me most about the worse things that happen in news is actually the fact that it's mostly the people I agree with who step out of line and act like douches. Maybe it's just that a lot of people who share my views tend to be more aggressive or unable to respect other people's opinions, I don't know. Often they manage to make a perfectly fine point, then they say something stupidly unnecessary to ruin everything they wanted to say. Whenever I notice I simply can't hold back something like that I simply don't post. Except when I think it's really just too funny to not post. Which I don't think has happened yet.

[POS Industries]

Don't let me post in discussion, I only troll you peeps for being American most of the time.
Speaking of, Shiney has reinstated the mods' ability to ban people from the news forum, so this idyllic, Iggy-free discussion utopia that we could only imagine before is now one step closer to reality!

But in all seriousness, I feel as though we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if the mods had had this capability all along, but since we didn't here we are. My thoughts are that there is nothing we can do about for now. This is one of those things where we just need to relax and let time do its thing, since making a big public deal about how we can fix everything and go back to being one big happy family again is only going to serve to keep the wounds fresh.

[CABAL49]

Snake, whenever you make your text small I skip over it cause I have trouble seeing shit.

And why are we having a discourse about modding style now? How many times have we had this conversation? I don't really see NPF as being this oasis in the shit hole of the internet. But it certainly has less assholish tendencies than many other places.

That being said, give Jagos a thread for all the dumb shit Romney says. Like the Republican thread, but special for Romney. It is stuff we all kinda know, that Romney is an out of touch rich fucker, but it would help keep this organized. I think we can sum up NPF's feelings on Obama with, he could be worse.

[shiney]

I'm pretty sure I was the one who brought up fifth! I actually miss him. Time does strange things to a person.

I wish the forum community could be contiguous like before but...such is the life. As POS said...time. Perhaps scars will fade.

[Betty Elms]

Now this 47% is crucial to taking away Obama's support. But who makes up this 47%? Republicans (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-47-percent-no-income-tax-map-red-republican-states-2012-9). Think about it. These are the main people that don't pay income taxes. They use small amounts of their money to buy politicians for more tax cuts and keeping their taxes low.
Your last sentence is a touch ridiculous in this context, obviously lobbyists and the conservative elite comprise no significant portion of the 47% in question. It's just an easy shot against the wealthy, something I usually appreciate, but here only serves to mislead.

Speaking of misleading, one of my chief annoyances with the media reaction to this event is the consistent labeling of Romney's comments as an insult directed at Obama supporters. Mitt Romney alienating Obama voters is something that is traditionally filed under "nobody gives half a fuck." Even putting aside the fact that the 47% is comprised of what is perhaps the most integral part of the conservative voter base, using electoral terminology instead of economic was an irritating misstep on the part of the media. I'm quite glad that the gaffe was substantial enough to survive all the "OH NOOO ROMNEY BE SHIT TALKIN' OBAMA FANS" headlines.

And then of course, the 47% is indeed comprised of what is perhaps the most integral part of the conservative voter base. Which I find a lot more interesting than the revelation that Mitt Romney thinks letting people starve on the street is his idea of just fuckin dandy, because sociopathy in the upper echelons of anything has never been a surprising matter. So the question I find myself wondering is: Are certain aspects of Romney's language pointed deliberately towards the ultra wealthy in attendance? It's easy to assume that surrounding the man with the obscenely rich will instantly draw forth ThE rEaL mItT rOmNeY, but this is a fundraiser, he wants something from these people, and to actually run a campaign in the fashion that Romney's quote suggests would be a catastrophic decision.

I'm not calling into question the extent to which Romney hates poor people, but I am calling into question the extent to which high level conservative politicians eat their own shit.


Re: The Thing People Are Talking About Actually

If you can ban people from the news board then great. People often take temporary bans as far weightier things than they are, but a board specific one you could probably bandy about with relatively minimal backlash. Of course, the nature of this particular board means you'll get constant accusations of censorship and generally unseemly behavior (perhaps comparable to that of certain reichs and klans.) So you have to make it extraordinarily clear that the offense is hateful or non-productive speech, and not failure to toe the npf party line. An effort which will of course be met with limited success, but I guess then both moderator and member will be united by the ever lovely commonality of needing to "fuckin deal with it."

I'm glad that Meister stepped into this particular thread when he did, and made the comments he did. But I don't believe it was made clear exactly how fucking terrible the discussion at hand was, and how fucking unacceptable it was. The dilemma regarding the citation request didn't seem like this thread's problem, it seemed like an inevitable symptom stemming from its general rancidity.

(And on an unrelated note: sorry I'm not around here anymore. It's not that I think little of the people here, it's just that I am closer with people elsewhere and there's only so much time on my hands. I think this is still a pretty good forum.)

[synkr0nized]

Seriously the minute NPF proves that it's actually capable of rational conversation without inappropriate insults, ad hominem attacks, brazen trolling, GIFs and JPGs as substitutes for well-reasoned positions, conclusory arguments without factual support, and so-called 'subtle' sexism / ableism / racism / homophobia cloaked in empty rationalizations of said dispositions as 'socially normal' and therefore 'inoffensive', bells will ring, angels will sing on high, order will be restored, and NPF News threads will be a cool place to hang out again.

My fault.
This is at least half the reason why I don't read this section.
News sections on a forum like this, to me, are always full of people trying to put down other views, making threads only because they are upset about something, or political (wherein "political" in this usage is the American style of politics of just exposing the other's/other party's flaws without really making any argument). I am not a member of the party, but I've never really been a fan of stickying a thread to put down a group, though at least one was half-assed made for the Democrats later. Rarely do I see a thread wherein people discuss something positive or have a reasonable debate on the issues. Passions tend to flare up. These kinds of conversations, for me personally, work much better at the bar among friends and colleagues. Somehow they usually end up with various sides appreciating what was said and maybe even helping one another understand different perspectives.


And, well, I'm supposed to read this section. Too often I come to the forum and read the threads I want to read, dealing with any admin or mod shenanigans necessary in the process and then checking in on other threads. In reality, I should be poking my nose in everything, at least partially, and being proactive rather than just reading reports and being reactive here in the News section.

Like, for example, Robin posting an image macro shouldn't be happening, and I know that. And getting called out for a citation in a discussion thread in the discussion section and not providing it while also providing a snarky reason why you're not doing it is also not cool. So yeah, consider me reprimanded and motivated.

[Tev]

I'm pretty sure I was the one who brought up fifth! I actually miss him. Time does strange things to a person.To be honest, I totally just tossed it out there as a throw-away comment. Really as much as a passing aside. I didn't mean for it to spiral out of control like this. I'm sorry.

[Solid Snake]

My fault.


I really don't think it's your fault, or any Moderator's fault specifically; also, I'm generally against the notion that Moderators should be 'blamed' wholesale or feel solely responsible for what's happenin'.

Also small text lets me camouflage my walls. That's vital.

[Fifthfiend]

.
.

[Bells]

We start with Mitt Romney and we end with Group Therapy hug-a-thon. You see... this is NPF.


I really don't think it's your fault, or any Moderator's fault specifically; also, I'm generally against the notion that Moderators should be 'blamed' wholesale or feel solely responsible for what's happenin'.

Also small text lets me camouflage my walls. That's vital.

If someone made a brick wall in front of me i would honestly be more pissed if it were made of tiny bricks... for some reason.

[Premmy]

.

Who took those out of my safe?

[Meister]

And getting called out for a citation in a discussion thread in the discussion section and not providing it while also providing a snarky reason why you're not doing it is also not cool.
Incidentally HEY AEROZORD MAKE WITH THE POSTING. You got 48 hours.

[Marc v4.0]

I will be really damned surprised if any citation/admission shows up, as it appears the 'hit and run' tactic of thread-bombing has already taken place and the relevant discussion has been thoroughly salted. I really wish that this wasn't such "thing" that it has a name, but there you go.

[shiney]

Also referred to as threadshitting!

[Jagos]

Does this mean I can post a lot more news to keep people up to date on issues or should I just keep it to one a week?

[Fenris]

Does this mean I can post a lot more news to keep people up to date on issues or should I just keep it to one a week?

You could start by posting news instead of sensationalized propaganda.

Seriously dude, you have a future writing for tabloids, though.

e: I mean not that I necessarily disagree with some of your opinions, I just don't like having to sort through them to get to the facts every time you make another thread.

[POS Industries]

In Jagos' defense, he did a fine job of news threadmaking on this one. OPs like these are great and should be encouraged.

It's just a shame the whole thing got cocked up by other stuff.

[PyrosNine]

THE PYROS RHETORIC CLASS IS PROVEN EFFECTIVE! (there were multiple links, the second two being used to back up the first)

This was just a mildly loaded topic because the subjective sphere of influence for REP vs DEM is always way bigger than anyone thinks- You can't really talk about candidates favorite deodorant spray without hitting a nerve somewhere because someone will make an offhand comment and someone else will take that offhand comment as offensive because it implied things, anything, about someone or something and then they'll blanket it over the whole party, including themselves.

If you are ever expecting a straightforward discussion of politics, it's always best to never mention political parties, nor mention the lack thereof. If you're party neutral about it, people who disagree will pin you as being of the opposite party, if they agree they will pin you as their own, and hopefully they will assume it goes without saying what your leanings are- wearing a kind of chamelon hat as it were with regards to red and blue and green, and alienating none.

That said, in reiteration, a decent news thread will begin with a topical news piece up for discussion, as well as at least two similar cited sources that support the original in some way along with the usual explanatory text. Less is a more on text if you don't trust the weight of your own words in swaying others.

It's probably a good idea not to make new threads on a similar vein of topic so you don't over saturate your reader base, but updating this one with cumulative updates would be effective, and link to all updates in an edited first post.

[Fenris]

POS, I'm inclined to agree with you until right about here

Welcome to the end of the Republican party.

where it totally jumps over the line into propagandatown.

Like, the rest of the post is great, but that last line is just conjecture.

[POS Industries]

I look at it less as sensationalism and more as hopeful optimism.

[Fenris]

I look at it less as sensationalism and more as hopeful optimism.

A possible interpretation!

ITT: words have different meanings to different people

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Jagos could make better threads (Not that they're bad at this point, he improved hardcore since his times of linking to videos without explaining what it's even about, also, he's by far not the only one guilty of that) if they relied less on youtube clips I can't watch anyway and already knowing every public personality in America. Like, maybe explain who the fuck that Obama guy is. I hear the name getting thrown around, sure, but is he good, is he bad? Which TV station does he run? And why the fuck do american politics rely on one person? Don't you have political parties that do the actual politics for the smiling person who waves their hands a lot while sitting in a very assassin friendly car? Is it really like that in the US? Or do I live in the only "democratic" country in the world where candidates only determine which aspect of an opinion you get to hear and maybe also the wording and a good face to punch (Guttenberg and Westerwelle are very punchable. Too bad the former got exposed for what arguably is abuse of authority, it's pretty good his entire party is very punchable, though). If so you might actually live in a dictatorship.

That's something that has bothered me for a while, do you really give one person so much power? It kind of baffles me that the country prides itself with being a democracy. Unless I'm completely wrong, in that case please elaborate. Hell, I already think Germany is a borderline case when it comes to that kinda thing.

[Bells]

Being quite honest, i rarely ever stick around much for Jago's Threads, just cause they always kinda feel like the non-partisan version of Fox News... but like... not vile. And even when (and if) there is bullshit, it's not made up bullshit like the actual Fox News, y'know? Most of the time is actually at least interesting to know what he weekly posts...

As for THIS subject... i just am quite curious to see how it will play out during the big debates, specially if they take in questions from the public live...

[Nikose Tyris]

When I hear about a topic and I'm unsure how to react to it, I come to NPF to find Jagos' thread about it. He summarizes neatly and provides a good launch point for conversations, which can help me sort out the best way to express myself.

[Bells]

Jagos is Erin brockovich, i guess it's what we're trying to say...

[Jagos]

POS, I'm inclined to agree with you until right about here



where it totally jumps over the line into propagandatown.

Like, the rest of the post is great, but that last line is just conjecture.

There's an entire post about the history of voter suppression that I could go into here. Essentially, the Republican party is not big enough on political ideas that are good for the country. They still believe in Reagonomics, fervent dogma, and propaganda coming from Fox News over facts. Given that their party is literally a fringe party at this point, while the Democratic Party is filled with more people of varying degrees of liberalism and conservatism, they really ARE a party that is about to die off. They can't function with more conservatism and the country won't allow it if the vote is showing how people don't like their tactics.

[phil_]

non-partisan…
not vile…
not made up bullshit…
Fox NewsI'm not seeing how, given the first three premises, one can conclude that a thing (Jagos' threads, in this case) feels like Fox News.

[Bells]

I'm not seeing how, given the first three premises, one can conclude that a thing (Jagos' threads, in this case) feels like Fox News.

Bizarro-Fox News?

Nox Fews?

Shnox Shmoews?

Benign Cancer?

[Meister]

Requesting a citation on an uncited statement is perfectly good discussion behaviour and explicitly encouraged, and deserves a better reply than "citations lol right here you go :rolleyes:".

Your next post in this thread must contain either the requested citation from a trustworthy source or your honest confession that your statement was wrong. You can definitely provide one of those. Don't try and get around this by not making a post at all.
Oh hey, forgot about this. Let's call it a seven day news-specific ban.

[Jagos]

And so for Romney, he has reaped exactly what he has sown:

link (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/1985-romney-bain-harvest-firms-profits-video)

Mother Jones has obtained a video from 1985 in which Romney, describing Bain's formation, showed how he viewed the firm's mission. He explained that its goal was to identify potential and hidden value in companies, buy significant stakes in these businesses, and then "harvest them at a significant profit" within five to eight years.

I swear, I would feel bad for Mitt Romney if he weren't such an asshole douchebag that essentially wrecked the US economy by destroying families and jobs for his own profit.

[Ryanderman]

Doesn't harvest, in this context, just mean sell for a profit? So he bought businesses with potential, improved their value by improving and growing the company, and then sold them again.

[Bells]

pretty much what people do in developping neighborhoods. Buy a low cost house or empty lot cheap, in a place where you have good information that a Mall and a walmart and a brand new gas station are coming to in the next 3 years, and 3 years later... BAM! sell for 4x profit. THAT is not evil at al...

Although, i would suspect that in this case, with romney and companies... there is more to it than that.

[Jagos]

Doesn't harvest, in this context, just mean sell for a profit? So he bought businesses with potential, improved their value by improving and growing the company, and then sold them again.

Actually no...

He bought healthy companies, loaded them with debt and pocketed the profits.

That's why I call him a debt creator.

[Ryanderman]

Which companies did he do that to, and why did anyone buy them from Bain once he did that?

[Odjn]

Which companies did he do that to, and why did anyone buy them from Bain once he did that?

No one 'bought them' as I understand it. He took out loans from investors to buy companies. He did put small of Bain's money down too, but once the companies were bought, the debt became that company's debt, not Bain's. So then the company had to pay them for those loans, often requiring that company to take out more loans or cash in extreme amounts of shares, which usually caused them to go belly up.

Here's the link to where I got that info, and the specific quote.
(http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/30/matt_taibbi_the_secret_to_mitt)
MATT TAIBBI: Well, look, again, this is what—how companies like Bain made their money. And a great example was a company that I went and visited—well, the place where it used to exist—KB Toys, which used to be headquartered out in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. They took over the company with like $18 million down. They financed the other $302 million. So that’s borrowed money that subsequently became the debt of KB Toys. This is an important distinction for people to understand. When they borrowed that money to take over that company, they didn’t have to pay it back, KB had to pay it back. Once they took over the company, they induced it to do a $120 million, quote-unquote, "dividend recapitalization," which essentially means that the company had to cash in a bunch of shares and pay Bain and its investors a huge sum of money. And in order to finance that, they had to take out over $60 million in bank loans. So, essentially, you take over the company, you force them to make enormous withdrawals against their credit card, essentially, and pay the new owners of the company. And that’s essentially what they did. They took over a floundering company that was sort of in between and faced with threatening changes in the industry, and they forced them to cash out entirely and pay all their money to the new owners.

[Ecks]

holy shit
and people were pissed at enron and the delphia thing (three people took $1 billion dollars, or something, lewis black did a bit on it a few years back)

why isn't this stuff being brought to light?

like i don't already know rich people own the media and filter this shit out

[Jagos]

holy shit
and people were pissed at enron and the delphia thing (three people took $1 billion dollars, or something, lewis black did a bit on it a few years back)

why isn't this stuff being brought to light?

like i don't already know rich people own the media and filter this shit out

This is somewhat old. I could talk about the debt creation thing more, but I've been kind of busy working on creating a technology news channel myself. What people haven't talked about is how Bain got to be this way since 1986 because of Reagan and his true belief in CEOs running the US. His wish came true with lowered tax cuts for the rich and the Two Santa Claus (https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0) theory.

By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.

Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.

...

When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security – and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.

So you have to defeat the narrative that the Republicans have been supporting for damn near 40 years now. And it's just not getting done like how FDR or JFK did it back in the day.

[Ryanderman]

No one 'bought them' as I understand it. He took out loans from investors to buy companies. He did put small of Bain's money down too, but once the companies were bought, the debt became that company's debt, not Bain's. So then the company had to pay them for those loans, often requiring that company to take out more loans or cash in extreme amounts of shares, which usually caused them to go belly up.

Here's the link to where I got that info, and the specific quote.
(http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/30/matt_taibbi_the_secret_to_mitt)

Thanks for that info. Clarifies some stuff I wasn't getting, and explains why what they were doing was so bad. Appreciate it.