Author Topic: 2012 Election Thread  (Read 32008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9835
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1225 on: October 08, 2012, 02:30:06 PM »
Romney appeases the war base:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/romney-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Quote
It is our responsibility and the responsibility of our president to use America's great power to shape history

Uhm, no.

Quote
In Syria, I will work with our partners [...] and ensure they obtain the arms

Please, no.
Straight from the PNAC playbook. 

And wouldn't arming Syrian rebels just result in a new government that we'd disapprove of even more?  Republicans are supposed to oppose Arabs gaining democracy.

Online rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18896
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1226 on: October 08, 2012, 03:01:44 PM »
Sometimes you learn about new things and wish you hadn't read up on it. Just started reading about PNAC and found this beautiful quote in one of their documents:

Quote
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool
Enjoy the piss!
MP

Offline El Barto

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9835
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1227 on: October 08, 2012, 03:37:01 PM »
If you read up on who the members are/were, you'll start to understand Chimpy's foreign policy better.  You'll recognize a ton of names from his administration. 

Online Scheavo

  • Posts: 4780
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1228 on: October 08, 2012, 06:29:41 PM »
And possibly the number one reason I think a Romney President is a horrible idea.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9480
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1229 on: October 08, 2012, 11:06:14 PM »
"People forget or did not know that once upon a time The Learning Channel was founded in 1972 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and NASA as an informative/instructional network focused on providing real education through the medium of TV; it was distributed at no cost by NASA satellite. Then it was privatized in 1980 (Reaganism ideology approved) and was then named the Appalachian Community Service Network. In November 1980 this name was changed to “The Learning Channel”, which was subsequently shortened to “TLC.” From then on we have a sad decline to the abomination of child and poverty exploitation of the TLC’s current hit freak show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo”."

"So when Mitt Romney and the Republicans talk about how much better off PBS would be de-funded and privatized, remember what privatization did to TLC and how TLC went from NASA beaming information into student classrooms to the disgraceful programs it runs today (many of which exploit children)."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/286613_How_the_Privatization_of_NASAs

Online Super Dude

  • Ultimate God of Erotic Creation
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16170
  • Gender: Male
  • Mentlegen.
    • Hopped on Pop
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1230 on: October 09, 2012, 07:22:10 AM »
Romney appeases the war base:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/romney-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Quote
It is our responsibility and the responsibility of our president to use America's great power to shape history

Uhm, no.

Quote
In Syria, I will work with our partners [...] and ensure they obtain the arms

Please, no.

See, this would be the perfect thing for Obama to pounce on right now. He could say something like, "Oh yeah, so I just finished getting us out of these really expensive wars the last Republican president brought us into for no reason, and now Mitt is talking about getting us back out there again?"
Kooloo Lim-PAH!
My blog: http://www.hoppedonpop.com/

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9480
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1231 on: October 09, 2012, 07:28:13 AM »
Romney appeases the war base:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/romney-foreign-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Quote
It is our responsibility and the responsibility of our president to use America's great power to shape history

Uhm, no.

Quote
In Syria, I will work with our partners [...] and ensure they obtain the arms

Please, no.

See, this would be the perfect thing for Obama to pounce on right now. He could say something like, "Oh yeah, so I just finished getting us out of these really expensive wars the last Republican president brought us into for no reason, and now Mitt is talking about getting us back out there again?"

I think Obama is saving that all for the third debate. Every sentence he utters is going to be calling Mitt out on one thing or another. It will solidify the next four years, especially seeing as Mitt won't have another really televised opportunity to rebuttal.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 09:21:00 AM by Chino »

Online Super Dude

  • Ultimate God of Erotic Creation
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16170
  • Gender: Male
  • Mentlegen.
    • Hopped on Pop
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1232 on: October 09, 2012, 07:59:55 AM »
Wow, that's a pretty good strategy. I hope you're right.
Kooloo Lim-PAH!
My blog: http://www.hoppedonpop.com/

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1233 on: October 09, 2012, 10:59:45 AM »
Its really hard to tell sometimes if conservatives are for or against interventionist policies.  A Democrat showing restraint is weak; a Republican showing restraint is minding our own business.  A Democrat showing force is tyrannical, a Republican showing force is leadership....

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9480
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1234 on: October 09, 2012, 11:27:26 AM »
Its really hard to tell sometimes if conservatives are for or against interventionist policies.  A Democrat showing restraint is weak; a Republican showing restraint is minding our own business.  A Democrat showing force is tyrannical, a Republican showing force is leadership....

That's why I'm hoping Obama speaks truth. Don't be aggressive or overly assertive... just speak with confidence. That's what he's the best at.

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1235 on: October 09, 2012, 11:40:14 AM »
Its really hard to tell sometimes if conservatives are for or against interventionist policies.  A Democrat showing restraint is weak; a Republican showing restraint is minding our own business.  A Democrat showing force is tyrannical, a Republican showing force is leadership....

This has to do with identity, belief, and human nature.

Democrats love to call themselves foreign policy "realists."  Usually, someone who calls himself a realist is one of two things:

 - A cynic trying to convince everyone and himself that he doesn't have an irrationally negative opinion about everything.

 - An idealist trying to convince everyone and himself that his opinions aren't just what he thinks should be.

Well, this creates an inherent problem.  Would it be reasonable to say that everything Democrats say about foreign policy, by nature, is irrational?  No.  But it would be even more irrational to say that Democratic foreign policy is inherently rational.

Republican foreign policy, whatever it is at the moment, is based on some kind of belief.  Not that there aren't irrational beliefs, but believing in something is more sane than believing in nothing.

Republican foreign policy has an identity.  It has a purpose.  It has a goal.  I'm not saying any of them are in the best interest of the U.S.  But they are there.

Democratic foreign policy is whatever can be logically justified at the moment.  No one likes people who act like this, let alone political organizations.  You know that the logic is less important than the emotion driving it.  The emotion whose existence is being denied to you.

At least when a Republican says "America is the best country in the world," you know he really wants to mean it.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Online Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4326
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1236 on: October 09, 2012, 11:47:17 AM »
Democratic foreign policy is whatever can be logically justified at the moment.  No one likes people who act like this, let alone political organizations.  You know that the logic is less important than the emotion driving it.  The emotion whose existence is being denied to you.

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but are you suggesting that emotion/ideology is a better basis for policy than...logic?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1237 on: October 09, 2012, 11:50:43 AM »
Democratic foreign policy is whatever can be logically justified at the moment.  No one likes people who act like this, let alone political organizations.  You know that the logic is less important than the emotion driving it.  The emotion whose existence is being denied to you.

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but are you suggesting that emotion/ideology is a better basis for policy than...logic?

No.  Two things:

 - Logic isn't a goal to be lauded religiously.  A human being is only as truly logical as his underlying emotions allow him to be.  Usually, the people who are the most overly logical are the ones trying to mentally dance around their underlying emotions.

 - Soundgarden's post was about how foreign policy decisions are deceived.  I was trying primarily to explain that perception.  I have no idea if that perception is right or wrong.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline hefdaddy42

  • My pee smells funny
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 22877
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
    • hefdaddy facts
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1238 on: October 09, 2012, 11:56:33 AM »
Would it be reasonable to say that everything Democrats say about foreign policy, by nature, is irrational?  No.  But it would be even more irrational to say that Democratic foreign policy is inherently rational.
Why?

Republican foreign policy, whatever it is at the moment, is based on some kind of belief.  Not that there aren't irrational beliefs, but believing in something is more sane than believing in nothing.
Why?

CURRENTLY READING: Red Letters: Living A Faith That Bleeds by Tom Davis
Blog

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1239 on: October 09, 2012, 12:08:08 PM »
Usually, someone who calls himself a realist is one of two things:

 - A cynic trying to convince everyone and himself that he doesn't have an irrationally negative opinion about everything.

 - An idealist trying to convince everyone and himself that his opinions aren't just what he thinks should be.


That's not even close to being true.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1240 on: October 09, 2012, 12:57:34 PM »
Democratic foreign policy is whatever can be logically justified at the moment.  No one likes people who act like this, let alone political organizations.  You know that the logic is less important than the emotion driving it.  The emotion whose existence is being denied to you.

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but are you suggesting that emotion/ideology is a better basis for policy than...logic?

No.  Two things:

 - Logic isn't a goal to be lauded religiously.  A human being is only as truly logical as his underlying emotions allow him to be.  Usually, the people who are the most overly logical are the ones trying to mentally dance around their underlying emotions.

...because basing policy on emotions is selfish and should have no place in the governance of others.  Its not "dancing" around'; its realizing ones own needs relative to the need of others.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4788
  • Gender: Male
  • KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1241 on: October 09, 2012, 01:28:02 PM »
Technically, Exxon Mobile is not being given a subsidy. There is no appropriation from the Federal Government. They are just being extended a tax credit to allow them to pay less in taxes than they would otherwise.

Logically speaking, that's indistinguishable from them paying their fair share of taxes with a subsidy from us.


Exxon Mobile needs that tax credit about as much as I need to be hitting the crack pipe.   It absolutely boggles my mind why anyone would defend this policy.  The amount of profit they are raking in is literally obscene. 

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 4484
  • Gender: Male
  • Made from authentic Snoofaloophagus
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1242 on: October 09, 2012, 01:39:46 PM »
Sometimes you learn about new things and wish you hadn't read up on it. Just started reading about PNAC and found this beautiful quote in one of their documents:

Quote
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool

Wow. That's pretty scary, it sounds like a fancier way of saying NWO..
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds


Offline bosk1

  • I work in mysterious ways
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8548
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1243 on: October 09, 2012, 02:06:28 PM »
Nah, they're not that scary.  The whole gangsta thing was just for image.  Dr. Dre was never into the gang scene.  And Ice Cube is doing kids movies and Coors commercials.  Not very scary if you ask me.

Offline skydivingninja

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12027
  • Gender: Male
  • SDN>SDV
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1244 on: October 09, 2012, 02:27:54 PM »
I think you're mixing NWA with NWO XD

Online Scheavo

  • Posts: 4780
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1245 on: October 09, 2012, 03:56:31 PM »
Usually, someone who calls himself a realist is one of two things:

 - A cynic trying to convince everyone and himself that he doesn't have an irrationally negative opinion about everything.

 - An idealist trying to convince everyone and himself that his opinions aren't just what he thinks should be.


That's not even close to being true.

Ya, whenever someone says, "something is either one of these things," they're usually wrong. The only thing good that comes from it, is the persons biases are fully revealed.

Though, ironically - relating to Reaps first point - people who are cynical are more realistic than people who are optimistic. People in a bad mood see the world more as it truly is than people in a good mood.

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1246 on: October 09, 2012, 07:59:23 PM »
Would it be reasonable to say that everything Democrats say about foreign policy, by nature, is irrational?  No.  But it would be even more irrational to say that Democratic foreign policy is inherently rational.
Why?

Republican foreign policy, whatever it is at the moment, is based on some kind of belief.  Not that there aren't irrational beliefs, but believing in something is more sane than believing in nothing.
Why?

Both of these questions relate to each other.

Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but I find all human belief to be subjective.  There's nothing irrefutable to check beliefs against right and wrong.

Given this reality, there are two ways to react.  Embrace the subjectivity and come up with the best set of beliefs possible, or use the impossibility of true belief as an excuse not to have any real beliefs.

The problem with the second option is that it's impossible.  Humans must believe in something.  If only because it's rational.  If you don't chose to believe in anything, your subconscious will tell you what to believe for you.

I don't know what the Democrats believe about foreign policy.  I don't know if anyone does.  It's hard to look at the actions of the Obama administration and find a real through-line.  You have aggressive with killing Osama.  You have moderate with the response toward Libya.  You have left-wing with the less overtly friendly attitude toward Israel.  You have the I-don't-know-what with the bowing toward foreign leaders.

What belief connects all of this?  I'm not sure there is one.  And if there isn't, then I know without a doubt that's a bad thing.

...because basing policy on emotions is selfish and should have no place in the governance of others.  Its not "dancing" around'; its realizing ones own needs relative to the need of others.

I don't say you should base your foreign policy on emotion.  That's worse than pure logic.

Though, ironically - relating to Reaps first point - people who are cynical are more realistic than people who are optimistic. People in a bad mood see the world more as it truly is than people in a good mood.

Cynical people are better at being purely analytical because they have no reason to buy into anything.

Cynical people are also bad at creating anything of value.  The cynical person is usually the first one to say why something can't be done, which is counter-productive to success.

Generally - not always - but generally, successful people come off as pretty optimistic.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1247 on: October 09, 2012, 08:45:02 PM »
Cynical people are better at being purely analytical because they have no reason to buy into anything.

Cynical people are also bad at creating anything of value.  The cynical person is usually the first one to say why something can't be done, which is counter-productive to success.

Again, some pretty baseless edicts coming from your way. Is there a basis for these opinions you're holding? I'm finding almost all of what you're saying pretty bizarre. In my opinion, cynical people do great because they can keep things together when the shit hits the fan. It's the great optimists who are throwing themselves out highrise windows when the stock market crashes.

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1248 on: October 09, 2012, 08:51:23 PM »
Bill Gates, Ghandi, John F Kennedy, Warren Buffet, Norman Borlaug, Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King seem like cynical people to you?
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1249 on: October 09, 2012, 09:20:03 PM »
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say I'd be hard pressed to find a cynic who's ever "created anything of value"? Um... Mark Twain was an optimist? Okay... :biggrin:

I'm sorry, but I just find the recent turn of conversation in this thread, included the assumption that realists are naturally cynical people, and that cynical people are useless to society, to be nothing more than baseless generalization.

I usually try to distinguish stuff I read here in p/r into two categories: stuff that's thought out and actually making an argument, and stuff that sounds like it'd score highly on an English essay but is actually completely irrational and contains no real arguments but instead just blind assertions.

The entire turn of this discussion has fallen into the latter category, IMO.

When you use the words "cynicism" and "realist" I'm not even sure what you're talking about, because you're not using those terms in a way that has any connection with their traditional usage. I mean, you're claiming that cynics and realists just care about Reason and sounding rational to break-up ideology, or something. That's just not true at all, and I'm really curious how anyone with any knowledge of the great cynics could possibly ever come to that conclusion.

Also, being a source of hope for people =/= being an "optimist". Gandhi may have held a number of great ideals, but those certainly did not affect his realistic view of world politics. Again, this is just to emphasize that the categorical divides and generalizations you're making in this thread are just way off.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 09:28:20 PM by Perpetual Change »

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1250 on: October 09, 2012, 09:51:00 PM »
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say I'd be hard pressed to find a cynic who's ever "created anything of value"? Um... Mark Twain was an optimist? Okay... :biggrin:

Not exactly.  I'm sure cynics who create value are out there a-plenty.  The world is a big place.  But the most successful people don't seem to generally have this disposition.

Quote
When you use the words "cynicism" and "realist" I'm not even sure what you're talking about, because you're not using those terms in a way that has any connection with their traditional usage. I mean, you're claiming that cynics and realists just care about Reason and sounding rational to break-up ideology, or something. That's just not true at all, and I'm really curious how anyone with any knowledge of the great cynics could possibly ever come to that conclusion.

I thought this was relatively commonly known and accepted.  Cynics tend to be optimists by nature who feel emotionally crushed by the realities of the world, so they react to this by becoming overly negative so they can't be burnt.  Realists tend to be people who are cynical by nature who need an excuse to not see good in anything.

Great cynics?

Quote
Also, being a source of hope for people =/= being an "optimist". Gandhi may have held a number of great ideals, but those certainly did not affect his realistic view of world politics. Again, this is just to emphasize that the categorical divides and generalizations you're making in this thread are just way off.

Wrong Gandhi.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1251 on: October 09, 2012, 10:35:05 PM »
Quote
Not exactly.  I'm sure cynics who create value are out there a-plenty.  The world is a big place.  But the most successful people don't seem to generally have this disposition.

Says who?

Quote
I thought this was relatively commonly known and accepted.  Cynics tend to be optimists by nature who feel emotionally crushed by the realities of the world, so they react to this by becoming overly negative so they can't be burnt.  Realists tend to be people who are cynical by nature who need an excuse to not see good in anything.

Again, says who? Sorry, that just strikes me as bizarre. It's certainly not "commonly known and accepted".

Quote
Great cynics?

I mean the tradition that puts Will over Reason and convention, which is exactly the opposite of what you're describing cynicism as.

Quote
Wrong Gandhi.

Oh, shit!

But, seriously. No-one would say the Gandhi family is anything but idealistic-- at least at first. And, if a Nuclear Weapons program doesn't make you a political realist, then what does? And, if it does, the same exact example can just be applied to FDR.

Online Super Dude

  • Ultimate God of Erotic Creation
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16170
  • Gender: Male
  • Mentlegen.
    • Hopped on Pop
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1252 on: October 09, 2012, 10:44:43 PM »
I don't think Clinton was much of an idealist either; he wouldn't have chosen to stay hands-off with the Serbian genocide for as long as he did otherwise.
Kooloo Lim-PAH!
My blog: http://www.hoppedonpop.com/

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1253 on: October 09, 2012, 10:58:03 PM »
Quote
Not exactly.  I'm sure cynics who create value are out there a-plenty.  The world is a big place.  But the most successful people don't seem to generally have this disposition.

Says who?

Just what I've noticed.  I made the list in the earlier post of some of the most successful people of all time.  They don't seem like cynics, do they?

Quote
Quote
I thought this was relatively commonly known and accepted.  Cynics tend to be optimists by nature who feel emotionally crushed by the realities of the world, so they react to this by becoming overly negative so they can't be burnt.  Realists tend to be people who are cynical by nature who need an excuse to not see good in anything.

Again, says who? Sorry, that just strikes me as bizarre. It's certainly not "commonly known and accepted".

Possibly not.

Quote
Quote
Great cynics?

I mean the tradition that puts Will over Reason and convention, which is exactly the opposite of what you're describing cynicism as.

What does that tradition have to do with cynicism?  Cynics are generally defined as people who think everything sucks.  I've never seen it viewed any other way.

Quote
Quote
Wrong Gandhi.

Oh, shit!

But, seriously. No-one would say the Gandhi family is anything but idealistic-- at least at first. And, if a Nuclear Weapons program doesn't make you a political realist, then what does? And, if it does, the same exact example can just be applied to FDR.

I don't know anything about the Gandhi family as a whole.

It's not about being a political realist.  When I think of "realists," I think of people with whom I have conversations like this:

Person "Human nature sucks."
Me "What do you mean?"
Person "We put so much energy into raping and killing and stealing from each other.  It's in our nature to be horrible."
Me "I'm not sure that's true.  Look at somebody like Pat Tillman.  He wasn't exactly the person conservatives wish he was, but he was willing to sacrifice a very fortunate life to join the military.  And he paid the ultimate price for it."
Person "And look what happened.  His death by friendly fire was covered up by the government."
Me "And then a bunch of people, including Tillman's family, spent enormous amounts of time trying to find out the truth."
Person "Which they never should have had to do in the first place.  Pat Tillman's story shows how miserable humanity is."
Me "What?  Doesn't it show how, even in the face of the worst adversity, people can rise up and overcome it?  Why do you have to see the bad side?"
Person "It's not the bad side.  I'm just being a realist."

This person isn't a realist.  He's purposelessly negative.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1254 on: October 09, 2012, 11:03:09 PM »
BTW, Romney's polling numbers are starting to really catch up with Obama.  I'm still unable to process this.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline El Barto

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9835
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1255 on: October 09, 2012, 11:16:24 PM »
I think you guys need to factor pragmatism into your analysis.  There's a time for cynicism and a time for optimism, and a good pragmatic nature can bridge the two nicely.

Out of curiosity, Reap, where do I fit into your analysis?

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10798
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1256 on: October 09, 2012, 11:19:02 PM »
Quote
Just what I've noticed.  I made the list in the earlier post of some of the most successful people of all time.  They don't seem like cynics, do they?

No, but it's the generalization I'm rejecting. Cynic =/= realist, just like  optimist =/= idealist. It's that dichotomy I just can't agree with at all. Some people are, as you've pointed out, purposelessly cynical. That's not realism, that's a form of self-delusion.

Quote
It's not about being a political realist.  When I think of "realists," I think of people with whom I have conversations like this:

*convo*

This person isn't a realist.  He's purposelessly negative.

I don't get it. When you think of realists, you think of people who espouse baseless pessimism and aren't what you consider realists? That doesn't make much sense to me. When I think of realists, I think of people who examine situations for what they are and try to develop practical solutions. I think of independents, moderates, and so on.

BTW, Romney's polling numbers are starting to really catch up with Obama.  I'm still unable to process this.
People love comforting lies.

/cynic

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • I was sure I knew that this was not for me
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1257 on: October 09, 2012, 11:20:38 PM »
I think you guys need to factor pragmatism into your analysis.  There's a time for cynicism and a time for optimism, and a good pragmatic nature can bridge the two nicely.

Out of curiosity, Reap, where do I fit into your analysis?

I have no idea.  You have a propensity to say unexpected things.
8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 5/10 - 8/10 - 8/10 - 8/10

Offline hefdaddy42

  • My pee smells funny
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 22877
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
    • hefdaddy facts
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1258 on: October 10, 2012, 06:50:12 AM »
I think you guys need to factor pragmatism into your analysis.  There's a time for cynicism and a time for optimism, and a good pragmatic nature can bridge the two nicely.
This, which is how I see the Democratic view of foreign policy.

CURRENTLY READING: Red Letters: Living A Faith That Bleeds by Tom Davis
Blog

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9480
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 Election Thread
« Reply #1259 on: October 10, 2012, 07:28:56 AM »
Technically, Exxon Mobile is not being given a subsidy. There is no appropriation from the Federal Government. They are just being extended a tax credit to allow them to pay less in taxes than they would otherwise.

Logically speaking, that's indistinguishable from them paying their fair share of taxes with a subsidy from us.


Exxon Mobile needs that tax credit about as much as I need to be hitting the crack pipe.   It absolutely boggles my mind why anyone would defend this policy.  The amount of profit they are raking in is literally obscene.

I'm pretty sure the only people defending it are those who some how benefit for Exxon's success. Unfortunately, those few people have a lot of power.