Is The White House Trying To Screw Romney By

[Juror#8]

Of course they are, they fear Romney more than any one else in the field, and it's not even close.

 

Trust me, they fear Jon Huntsman more than anyone. This is not conjecture. It's fact.

 

Be that as it may, Jon Huntsman won't win the nomination. He is too practical, to center-right, and too practical for the burgeoning extremist movement that is transforming the republican base.

 

The opp research on Mitt Romney has yielded so much fodder for great ads that if I showed you, you'd think the picture was photoshopped based on the enormity. Our numbers show that he can be kept at sub-40% with ease which is going to completely quell enthusiasm and dramatically affect turnout.

 

They don't fear Romney. They fear Huntsman. They have a healthy concern about Cain.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Juror#8

[Buftex]

Again, you make the jump in logic that folding in 4% uninsured in one of the wealthiest states that has a large, sophisticated & geographically spread health care network "[bears] a striking resemblance" to a national situation where the uninsured range from 10% to upwards of 30% in a good many Southern and Western states where per capita incomes are low and they have geographically clustered health care infrastructure. (One of my cousins married a guy in Colorado where if you had a burst appendix, stroke or anything more than a slight heart attack, basically you're dead because you can't physically get treatment in time. Her father-in-law died a couple of years ago in just one of those situations.) Massachusetts' health plan cannot work effectively nationally --- at least, not without costing a truly massive amount of money we don't have, and in less effective methods than each state being able to craft their own plan based on their specific needs after some broad federal reforms that reduce medical costs. Because, insured or uninsured, it's the outrageous medical costs in this country that drive the problems of health care. That needs to be addressed first.

 

 

100% agreement there...but if any attempt is made to address this, it is meant with the "keep government" out of my business, and cries of "too much regulation". And, as fast as anything can change, insurance companies will be always be one step ahead, figuring out loop-holes.

[3rdnlng]

100% agreement there...but if any attempt is made to address this, it is meant with the "keep government" out of my business, and cries of "too much regulation". And, as fast as anything can change, insurance companies will be always be one step ahead, figuring out loop-holes.

 

 

Yes, those damn insurance companies are out there plotting to make sure portability and tort reform don't happen.

Edited October 12, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[Magox]

Trust me, they fear Jon Huntsman more than anyone. This is not conjecture. It's fact.

 

Be that as it may, Jon Huntsman won't win the nomination. He is too practical, to center-right, and too practical for the burgeoning extremist movement that is transforming the republican base.

 

The opp research on Mitt Romney has yielded so much fodder for great ads that if I showed you, you'd think the picture was photoshopped based on the enormity. Our numbers show that he can be kept at sub-40% with ease which is going to completely quell enthusiasm and dramatically affect turnout.

 

They don't fear Romney. They fear Huntsman. They have a healthy concern about Cain.

I disagree, and it's not fact. Although I do believe that Huntsman could also beat Obama in a general election. What your "research" is missing is one key element, and that is what we call Independents. Independents will not vote with Obama, unless there is a divisive opponent who is easy to ridicule, such as a Perry or Palin.

 

If Mitt gets out of the Primaries, he will beat Obama and that's all there is to it.

 

Also, what you call extreme, can be said for the left wing base of the Democratic party, which is pretty much all that exists in today's world. Moderates from the Democratic Base have been washed out, they are becoming a dying breed, as evidenced in the last election (Blue Dead Dog Democrats). Look at how divisive this country is, you think all these new death threats against the rich and all this class warfare is a product of sensible political moderation? It's about a far reaching left leaning government that is crying for social justice, and using the rich as the evil boogie men as the fall guys. I don't ever remember a time in my life where being rich was something not to be proud of. Now we have people protesting on the front door of rich people, who had absolutely nothing to do with the downturn. There are death threats sent to NY albany politicians demanding action or the rich will die.

 

This is straight out of the far-left playbook, to pit one class of people against another, when desperation sets in, in the name of advancing their agenda. Oil business people, bad. Hedgefund managers, bad, Bankers, bad. Wall street, bad. GM bondholders, Bad. Credit Card companies, bad. Tea partiers, racists. The list goes on and on and on.

 

The reality is that the far right and far left have both taken over their parties, and why is that? because the 24 hour news cycle gives air time to the most extreme voices from both parties, and unfortunately that's what sells.

 

Back to the point, Independents have all but abandoned Obama, and they won't be coming back unless the opponent is branded as an incompetent nincompoop. There is a stark contrast between Obama and Mitt. The only thing Obama had was coolness and Hope. Well, that hope is for the most part gone. Mitt is boring, but he's competent. I guarantee you that voters will vote this time around for competence vs. failed hope.

 

100% agreement there...but if any attempt is made to address this, it is meant with the "keep government" out of my business, and cries of "too much regulation". And, as fast as anything can change, insurance companies will be always be one step ahead, figuring out loop-holes.

No dude. People seem to believe that Insurance companies are responsible for the Increases. THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE!!!!

 

No wonder your party and others have no clue in how to drive down prices, it's not the one's who are paying for health care that is the problem, the problem is first and foremost in wellness. Also in the delivery of health care.

 

STOP LOOKING FOR BOOGIE MEN!!!

 

 

You keep looking for boogie men and you will keep getting the same result. Which is Nada!!!

 

I've written about this extensively during the Health Insurance debate. Costs are rising because of our health and delivery of Medical care. The proof is in the numbers.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2011 by Magox

[OCinBuffalo]

Yup...he has repackaged Republican plans, only to have them voted down...the Republican party, as it is constituted now, hate the president more than they care about the well-being of their country. Mitch McConnell has said it repeatedly, "our no.1 priority is to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected".

 

It is sad that Romney is, arguably, the best candidate the Republicans can offer, and he has to dis-own things that he did that were very successful, to appease the crazies in his own party. Last election, Romney was (rightfully) proud of his record as governor, and now he is being forced to grovel, because his health-care plan for Massachussets (one that has been overall, very successful) bares a striking resemblance to the one Obama wants for the country. Not to mention the jobs bill that Repulicans will fight, tooth and nail, to ensure won't pass.

 

Perhaps Christy's endorsement will help Romney. That is of course, if the Republican party doesn't do their best to "swift boat" their best candidate...they are off to a rousing start.

Which is best for the country?

1. Passing some more half-assed legislation that has only a marginal chance of doing anything useful, and will produce only short term results?

2. Getting rid of the cancer that we now have in the executive branch?

 

I understand your point, hell we MIGHT be able to improve things a little in the short term if the Republicans were willing to deal. But that is simply not worth the long term consequences of having Obama in office. The Republicans were ELECTED to stop Obama. They are doing precisely what their constituents want. The Republicans are doing the most patriotic thing they can: following the will of the people that elected them to the letter. Put your faith in the American people: we know an idiot when we see one. We gave Obama a chance. He failed. End of story.

 

Your problem is: you have a loser in the WH and you know it. Don't start pulling the typical, far-left, blame everybody but yourself routine. The man is a failure. You supported him. You could have had Hillary. You made a choice. Now you have to live with that choice. Don't start blaming Libertarians/Republicans/Fox News for Obama's failures. You KNOW he and the 2006-2010 Congress could have taken vastly different approaches on everything, but they also made a series of stupid choices. My unsolicited advice: it's time for introspection. How did you get here? What do you have to do make sure you never get here again?

 

Have you learned the lesson of letting the far-left of your party be in charge? Have you learned that while you may share their motivations(hint: so do we all), their methods are FAIL? Have you learned that they whine and whine for 20 years, and when they finally get everything they need and all the power, they completely F things up because they and their methods don't deliver? Do you need another Carter/Obama in your lifetime to reinforce this lesson? Do you think "millions of green jobs" was realistic? Do you think millions of "shovel ready" jobs was realistic? Do you think putting "infrastructure" before private sector growth is a good idea?

 

A new choice faces you now: you can learn from this, and adjust what you believe to fit the evidence, or, you can continue to try and conform the evidence to what you believe.

Edited October 12, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

...the Republican party, as it is constituted now, hate the president more than they care about the well-being of their country. Mitch McConnell has said it repeatedly, "our no.1 priority is to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected".

Nice to see you've been paying attention to the Obama "Pass This Bill" Campaign rallying cry.

 

Try as you might to make it seem like Republicans hate Obama the man, the fact remains that Republicans hate Obama as a president. He is, without question, so far over his head that the only arrow in his quiver is to pretend like he's trying to compromise with moronic talking points ("we're looking at tort reform" or "this bill has something both sides have offered before") and then immediately come out and point out how everyone else is at fault.

 

It is widely agreed on both sides of the aisle, and especially in the middle, that he is an ineffective leader whose policies have only made a bad situation much worse. There's a reason why his approval numbers are in the toilet, and when you have a POTUS who is so thoroughly incompetent, it's only natural that most of his opposition believes that a second term will make his first term look like a cakewalk.

 

So get over the whole "they hate Obama" talking point. He had two years with full control of the entire government, but NOW the GOP is holding him up? Really?

 

They don't hate Obama. They hate him as president, because he's as useless a president as most of us have seen in our lifetime.

Edited October 12, 2011 by LABillzFan

[Juror#8]

I disagree, and it's not fact. Although I do believe that Huntsman could also beat Obama in a general election. What your "research" is missing is one key element, and that is what we call Independents. Independents will not vote with Obama, unless there is a divisive opponent who is easy to ridicule, such as a Perry or Palin.

 

If Mitt gets out of the Primaries, he will beat Obama and that's all there is to it.

 

Also, what you call extreme, can be said for the left wing base of the Democratic party, which is pretty much all that exists in today's world. Moderates from the Democratic Base have been washed out, they are becoming a dying breed, as evidenced in the last election (Blue Dead Dog Democrats). Look at how divisive this country is, you think all these new death threats against the rich and all this class warfare is a product of sensible political moderation? It's about a far reaching left leaning government that is crying for social justice, and using the rich as the evil boogie men as the fall guys. I don't ever remember a time in my life where being rich was something not to be proud of. Now we have people protesting on the front door of rich people, who had absolutely nothing to do with the downturn. There are death threats sent to NY albany politicians demanding action or the rich will die.

 

This is straight out of the far-left playbook, to pit one class of people against another, when desperation sets in, in the name of advancing their agenda. Oil business people, bad. Hedgefund managers, bad, Bankers, bad. Wall street, bad. GM bondholders, Bad. Credit Card companies, bad. Tea partiers, racists. The list goes on and on and on.

 

The reality is that the far right and far left have both taken over their parties, and why is that? because the 24 hour news cycle gives air time to the most extreme voices from both parties, and unfortunately that's what sells.

 

Back to the point, Independents have all but abandoned Obama, and they won't be coming back unless the opponent is branded as an incompetent nincompoop. There is a stark contrast between Obama and Mitt. The only thing Obama had was coolness and Hope. Well, that hope is for the most part gone. Mitt is boring, but he's competent. I guarantee you that voters will vote this time around for competence vs. failed hope.

 

It's fact. It's not based on someone's thought about someone else who seems to be in touch with yet another. It's not based on the latest trend or what one operative may have said to another. It's not pundit speak. It is a fact.

 

My information comes from conversations with people who make it their job to know. I'm not a reporter or anyone who conveys news so I haven't been fed disinformation for one side's political purposes. I'm only mentioning the tone of credible conversations with personal acquaintances who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy.

 

So - to be believed or disbelieved - the administration does not fear Romney, they fear Huntsman and have a healthy concern about Cain. This is not to say that they consider Romney trivial. They don't. But they feel that he cannot connect, isn't image conscious, fractures his party, and, most importantly, there is tons of material with which to raise questions about the veracity of his political leanings. And, from an insider standpoint, he has changed the tone of his candidacy AT LEAST three times since the CNN debate. The latter is something that a pedestrian will miss, but it indicates equivocation to opponents.

 

We can disagree respectfully, but I guarantee you that I'm right - and not because I care to be.

 

Now, in terms of your "far-left" rant: The FACT is that the previous administration (and administrations prior, to be fair) saw corporate and financial regulation as almost inconsequential. The lack of regulation allowed a laissez faire operational structure which nearly allowed corporate entities to govern themselves...with impunity.

 

I say "govern" euphemistically because there was nothing of the sort happening. The lack of any semblance of regulation allowed for things to be missed. Sub-prime loans that were nearly GUARANTEED to default were being bought and sold with impunity. Wall Street firms were selling mortgage-backed securities without disclosing risks. Oil speculators are buying up reserves, storing, etc which has the affect of articifically designating gas prices. Corporations setting up myriad off-shore entities which allow them to trumpet projected profits, contort financial data, and hide losses (which doesn't suck that bad until the stock price inflates exponentially as a result, and the financial futures of millions become inextricably linked to this smoke and mirrors).

 

You can idolize the rich. Most look up to those who do right. Large multi-national corporations have, in large measure, benefitted fron a very relaxed regulatory scheme. That relaxation has allowed some (NOT ALL) to benefit and become rich at the expense of the many.

 

Those who protest against that are arguably in the right.

[3rdnlng]

It's fact. It's not based on someone's thought about someone else who seems to be in touch with yet another. It's not based on the latest trend or what one operative may have said to another. It's not pundit speak. It is a fact.

 

My information comes from conversations with people who make it their job to know. I'm not a reporter or anyone who conveys news so I haven't been fed disinformation for one side's political purposes. I'm only mentioning the tone of credible conversations with personal acquaintances who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy.

 

So - to be believed or disbelieved - the administration does not fear Romney, they fear Huntsman and have a healthy concern about Cain. This is not to say that they consider Romney trivial. They don't. But they feel that he cannot connect, isn't image conscious, fractures his party, and, most importantly, there is tons of material with which to raise questions about the veracity of his political leanings. And, from an insider standpoint, he has changed the tone of his candidacy AT LEAST three times since the CNN debate. The latter is something that a pedestrian will miss, but it indicates equivocation to opponents.

 

We can disagree respectfully, but I guarantee you that I'm right - and not because I care to be.

 

Now, in terms of your "far-left" rant: The FACT is that the previous administration (and administrations prior, to be fair) saw corporate and financial regulation as almost inconsequential. The lack of regulation allowed a laissez faire operational structure which nearly allowed corporate entities to govern themselves...with impunity.

 

I say "govern" euphemistically because there was nothing of the sort happening. The lack of any semblance of regulation allowed for things to be missed. Sub-prime loans that were nearly GUARANTEED to default were being bought and sold with impunity. Wall Street firms were selling mortgage-backed securities without disclosing risks. Oil speculators are buying up reserves, storing, etc which has the affect of articifically designating gas prices. Corporations setting up myriad off-shore entities which allow them to trumpet projected profits, contort financial data, and hide losses (which doesn't suck that bad until the stock price inflates exponentially as a result, and the financial futures of millions become inextricably linked to this smoke and mirrors).

 

You can idolize the rich. Most look up to those who do right. Large multi-national corporations have, in large measure, benefitted fron a very relaxed regulatory scheme. That relaxation has allowed some (NOT ALL) to benefit and become rich at the expense of the many.

 

Those who protest against that are arguably in the right.

 

 

What is your take on the CRA of the Carter years and its subsequent expansion during the Clinton years? Do you believe that without the act there would have been no bubble to burst in the housing market?

[Magox]

It's fact. It's not based on someone's thought about someone else who seems to be in touch with yet another. It's not based on the latest trend or what one operative may have said to another. It's not pundit speak. It is a fact.

 

My information comes from conversations with people who make it their job to know. I'm not a reporter or anyone who conveys news so I haven't been fed disinformation for one side's political purposes. I'm only mentioning the tone of credible conversations with personal acquaintances who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy.

 

So - to be believed or disbelieved - the administration does not fear Romney, they fear Huntsman and have a healthy concern about Cain. This is not to say that they consider Romney trivial. They don't. But they feel that he cannot connect, isn't image conscious, fractures his party, and, most importantly, there is tons of material with which to raise questions about the veracity of his political leanings. And, from an insider standpoint, he has changed the tone of his candidacy AT LEAST three times since the CNN debate. The latter is something that a pedestrian will miss, but it indicates equivocation to opponents.

 

We can disagree respectfully, but I guarantee you that I'm right - and not because I care to be.

 

Now, in terms of your "far-left" rant: The FACT is that the previous administration (and administrations prior, to be fair) saw corporate and financial regulation as almost inconsequential. The lack of regulation allowed a laissez faire operational structure which nearly allowed corporate entities to govern themselves...with impunity.

 

I say "govern" euphemistically because there was nothing of the sort happening. The lack of any semblance of regulation allowed for things to be missed. Sub-prime loans that were nearly GUARANTEED to default were being bought and sold with impunity. Wall Street firms were selling mortgage-backed securities without disclosing risks. Oil speculators are buying up reserves, storing, etc which has the affect of articifically designating gas prices. Corporations setting up myriad off-shore entities which allow them to trumpet projected profits, contort financial data, and hide losses (which doesn't suck that bad until the stock price inflates exponentially as a result, and the financial futures of millions become inextricably linked to this smoke and mirrors).

 

You can idolize the rich. Most look up to those who do right. Large multi-national corporations have, in large measure, benefitted fron a very relaxed regulatory scheme. That relaxation has allowed some (NOT ALL) to benefit and become rich at the expense of the many.

 

Those who protest against that are arguably in the right.

you can call it a fact all you want, and it still wont make it a fact. And you can say they Don't fear Romney until you are blue in the face and it still doesn't change the fact that they are.

 

And don't talk to me about oil speculators, because I can guarantee you that you don't have the first clue in what you are talking about.

 

But thanks for the loony left wing "rant".

 

Also,

 

Those who support deregulating nonsensical, punitive populist regulations are arguably in the right.

 

See, I can do that too.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Magox

[Juror#8]

 

So get over the whole "they hate Obama" talking point. He had two years with full control of the entire government, but NOW the GOP is holding him up? Really?

 

If you think that he had two years with full control of the government, then I question the extent to which you know the mechanics of politics.

 

And before you argue that he had the Executive, and both houses of Congress, keep in mind that we're not discussing the tenants of a bi-cameral legislature.

 

He didn't have "full control" of the government. He had theoretical control of the mechanics of government.

 

The opposition party did everything possible to facilitate you feeling the way that you feel.

[Juror#8]

you can call it a fact all you want, and it still wont make it a fact. And you can say they Don't fear Romney until you are blue in the face and it still doesn't change the fact that they are.

 

And don't talk to me about oil speculators, because I can guarantee you that you don't have the first clue in what you are talking about.

 

But thanks for the loony left wing "rant".

 

Also,

 

Those who support deregulating nonsensical, punitive populist regulations are arguably in the right.

 

See, I can do that too.

 

I was nothing but respectful to you and your post. It appears as if my points may offend you though (or maybe it's the presentation of those points)as you've resorted to name-calling.

 

Incidentally, you answered none of the propositions put forth in my last post. You retorted with declarative statements and name-calling. Ad hominems, red herrings, and other logical fallacies generally evidence a desire to ignore the merit of someone's position and re-direct the conversation in a fruitless direction.

 

That's a problem, because I like fruit.

 

I was once told that you know when you've accomplished having someone re-evaluate their most dearly held paradigms, because they'll pout.

 

And finally..."left wing rant..." If you only knew who I was, methinks you'd get a good chuckle out of that.

 

Good afternoon sir.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's fact. It's not based on someone's thought about someone else who seems to be in touch with yet another. It's not based on the latest trend or what one operative may have said to another. It's not pundit speak. It is a fact.

 

My information comes from conversations with people who make it their job to know. I'm not a reporter or anyone who conveys news so I haven't been fed disinformation for one side's political purposes. I'm only mentioning the tone of credible conversations with personal acquaintances who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy.

 

So - to be believed or disbelieved - the administration does not fear Romney, they fear Huntsman and have a healthy concern about Cain. This is not to say that they consider Romney trivial. They don't. But they feel that he cannot connect, isn't image conscious, fractures his party, and, most importantly, there is tons of material with which to raise questions about the veracity of his political leanings. And, from an insider standpoint, he has changed the tone of his candidacy AT LEAST three times since the CNN debate. The latter is something that a pedestrian will miss, but it indicates equivocation to opponents.

 

We can disagree respectfully, but I guarantee you that I'm right - and not because I care to be.

 

Now, in terms of your "far-left" rant: The FACT is that the previous administration (and administrations prior, to be fair) saw corporate and financial regulation as almost inconsequential. The lack of regulation allowed a laissez faire operational structure which nearly allowed corporate entities to govern themselves...with impunity.

 

I say "govern" euphemistically because there was nothing of the sort happening. The lack of any semblance of regulation allowed for things to be missed. Sub-prime loans that were nearly GUARANTEED to default were being bought and sold with impunity. Wall Street firms were selling mortgage-backed securities without disclosing risks. Oil speculators are buying up reserves, storing, etc which has the affect of articifically designating gas prices. Corporations setting up myriad off-shore entities which allow them to trumpet projected profits, contort financial data, and hide losses (which doesn't suck that bad until the stock price inflates exponentially as a result, and the financial futures of millions become inextricably linked to this smoke and mirrors).

 

You can idolize the rich. Most look up to those who do right. Large multi-national corporations have, in large measure, benefitted fron a very relaxed regulatory scheme. That relaxation has allowed some (NOT ALL) to benefit and become rich at the expense of the many.

 

Those who protest against that are arguably in the right.

I have no reason to believe you are lying, and every reason to believe that you know who you say you know. That said:

 

1. Why would you, or anyone, put a lot a stock in the political sensibilities and perceptions of those "who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy"? Aren't these the same people who told us the "country has moved massively to the left", were so tone-deaf that they thought "people will like it once they see it" was a justification for shoving Obamacare through the Senate, and were convinced that Barack Obama was the better candidate to prove liberal methods work than Hillary Clinton? What have these people been right about politically in the last 4 years?

 

2. Do these people understand that Romney has connected every single time to a large enough group of Republicans to continue to lead the polls, despite being attacked by all, in every single debate? The same thing happened last night, and he brushed them off with a high degree of skill. Look: I don't care about any candidate yet, but I know excellent body/speech control when I see it. Romney is being tempered in these debates. What has tempered Obama for the last 4 years? Ask your friends if they are even sure Obama can take a punch/deal with a gotcha question in a debate, because I've never seen it. Do they think the Media has been hard on him?

 

3. I'm curious: have any of your friends ever said "boy we really screwed up (insert any of Obama's 20 major failures in policy approaches here)"? If all they can ever say is: "well we didn't message it right, or, we didn't say it enough", then again, why are you paying attention to these people?

 

Nobody is ever going to take what you say about housing seriously if you refuse to identify the root cause: Democrats in the House and Senate demanding that banks give loans to people that can't afford them. We can talk about what happened after, and why, but if you won't admit what created the environment for all of this bad behavior, you are lying to yourself and wasting our time.

 

As for the rest: Do you really think raising taxes to pay for more government employees to poorly create and poorly enforce ineffective regulations is the answer? I have first hand information that regulators are mostly idiots. You can hire 400, 4000 or 40k more of them in Medicare, SEC, whatever, and I will destroy them all, because I have always destroyed them. That's because I am good at my job and they have no clue how to do theirs, and, my job is infinitely easier because it's based on reason and sound methodology, theirs is based on emotion and buffoonery.

Edited October 12, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

If you think that he had two years with full control of the government, then I question the extent to which you know the mechanics of politics.

 

And before you argue that he had the Executive, and both houses of Congress, keep in mind that we're not discussing the tenants of a bi-cameral legislature.

 

He didn't have "full control" of the government. He had theoretical control of the mechanics of government.

 

The opposition party did everything possible to facilitate you feeling the way that you feel.

I don't care what you think "we're" discussing; what I'm discussing is that Obama had the WH and both houses and was able to do whatever the hell he wanted for two years. And what did he do? Sign a a Stimulus that was not properly vetted and a health care reform law that 57% of US citizens want repealed. He was just stupid enough to believe that Stimulus I was going to save the US from going above 8% unemployment and made it is signature "save the economy" move, and he was equally stupid enough to believe that Obamacare was not only going to immediately create 400,000 jobs, but also immediately lower the cost of health care.

 

Face it. The reason he is destined to be a one-termer is not because people don't like him. It's because everyone has suddenly realized we elected a guy who has the executive leadership skills of an Alpaca.

[Magox]

I was nothing but respectful to you and your post. It appears as if my points may offend you though (or maybe it's the presentation of those points)as you've resorted to name-calling.

 

Incidentally, you answered none of the propositions put forth in my last post. You retorted with declarative statements and name-calling. Ad hominems, red herrings, and other logical fallacies generally evidence a desire to ignore the merit of someone's position and re-direct the conversation in a fruitless direction.

 

That's a problem, because I like fruit.

 

I was once told that you know when you've accomplished having someone re-evaluate their most dearly held paradigms, because they'll pout.

 

And finally..."left wing rant..." If you only knew who I was, methinks you'd get a good chuckle out of that.

 

Good afternoon sir.

You chimed in with the "rant" characterization Hypocrite

 

 

The reason why I didn't specifically answer your points, is because I have on this board countless times and I didn't feel like doing it again. Having said that I traded on the NYMEX oil futures for a number of years, so please excuse me that I didn't address your ridiculous theory of buying oil and storing them on storage tankers somehow affected the trajectory of oil prices. Please tell me again how this influenced today's oil prices.

 

also, tell us how with your "fact" based inside info that the Obama administration is not worried about Romney considering polling numbers

 

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 22-Oct. 4 among 2,410 adults, including 1,901 registered voters, finds that Romney holds a sizable advantage over Obama among political independents. Fully 54% of independent voters say that in an Obama-Romney matchup they would vote for Romney or lean toward Romney. Fewer independents (41%) say they would vote for Obama.

 

So I guess they disregard every poll out there that shows that against Romney, the independents abandon Obama. Even in the national overall polls Obama loses in a matchup, and mind you, the Conservatives haven't coalesced around Romney (look at Far right Dante from this board, i guarantee you that he is one that doesn't support Romney in those polls, but I guarantee you that if and when Romney wins the primaries and he has only 2 choices between him and Obama, he'll hold his nose and vote Romney, why? because the Anti Obama sentiment is powerful much like that of the anti Bush electorate of 08), so yeah, wait until he wins the primaries, then you will see those numbers show an even larger discrepancy than what we are seeing today.

 

So please spare us with your hollow arguments.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Magox

[Juror#8]

You chimed in with the "rant" characterization Hypocrite

 

 

The reason why I didn't specifically answer your points, is because I have on this board countless times and I didn't feel like doing it again. Having said that I traded on the NYMEX oil futures for a number of years, so please excuse me that I didn't address your ridiculous theory of buying oil and storing them on storage tankers somehow affected the trajectory of oil prices. Please tell me again how this influenced today's oil prices.

 

also, tell us how with your "fact" based inside info that the Obama administration is not worried about Romney considering polling numbers

 

 

 

So I guess they disregard every poll out there that shows that against Romney, the independents abandon Obama. Even in the national overall polls Obama loses in a matchup, and mind you, the Conservatives haven't coalesced around Romney (look at Far right Dante from this board, i guarantee you that he is one that doesn't support Romney in those polls, but I guarantee you that if and when Romney wins the primaries and he has only 2 choices between him and Obama, he'll hold his nose and vote Romney, why? because the Anti Obama sentiment is powerful much like that of the anti Bush electorate of 08), so yeah, wait until he wins the primaries, then you will see those numbers show an even larger discrepancy than what we are seeing today.

 

So please spare us with your hollow arguments.

 

Taking your post in turn:

 

1. "Rant" - "To speak or declaim extravagantly OR violently; communicate in a vehement way."

 

So what about the word "rant" is a personal attack? Incidentally I "ranted" at various times during this thread. Am I insulting myself by characterizing my own words at various points as a "rant"?

 

Most importantly, if you are trying to use my characterizing of your words, in one segment of your response, as "rant," in an effort to justify your name-calling and personal attacks, do you back-track now that you're proven incorrect?

 

2. If I have to explain to you about how a speculator daily purchases oil futures at a price that is inconsistent with the current market price effectively causing a "stop pro" or "full stop" by oil producers who salivate at the opportunity to take advantage of the future price...then I'll understand the preterite tense in your verb "to trade." I'd like to know your thoughts on why back in 2005-6, when petroleum reserves were at a near decade high, oil prices sky-rocketed, if not for an articificially created market.

 

Maybe we will just respectfully agree to disagree.

 

3. I said that the WH isn't overly worried about Romney, and you cite polls 12 months out that show Romney ahead in a couple of polls in this theoretical match-up. So, let me get this straight, your support for why the WH is most scared of Romney is because you can cite a Quinnipiac poll which shows Romney ahead? Or a handful of polls? (Incidentally, CNN, Rasmussen, and Fox have Obama ahead)

 

I'm basing my belief on conversations with some good folks who I have the pleasure of knowing. You're basing yours on a poll of 1000 people conducted between 6 and 8 on M-TH. I have my approach. You have yours. Just wanted to share some tidbits gleened during some interesting convos.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

Taking your post in turn:

 

1. "Rant" - "To speak or declaim extravagantly OR violently; communicate in a vehement way."

 

So what about the word "rant" is a personal attack? Incidentally I "ranted" at various times during this thread. Am I insulting myself by characterizing my own words at various points as a "rant"?

 

Most importantly, if you are trying to use my characterizing of your words, in one segment of your response, as "rant," in an effort to justify your name-calling and personal attacks, do you back-track now that you're proven incorrect?

 

2. If I have to explain to you about how a speculator daily purchases oil futures at a price that is inconsistent with the current market price effectively causing a "stop pro" or "full stop" by oil producers who salivate at the opportunity to take advantage of the future price...then I'll understand the preterite tense in your verb "to trade." I'd like to know your thoughts on why back in 2005-6, when petroleum reserves were at a near decade high, oil prices sky-rocketed, if not for an articificially created market.

 

Maybe we will just respectfully agree to disagree.

 

3. I said that the WH isn't overly worried about Romney, and you cite polls 12 months out that show Romney ahead in a couple of polls in this theoretical match-up. So, let me get this straight, your support for why the WH is most scared of Romney is because you can cite a Quinnipiac poll which shows Romney ahead? Or a handful of polls? (Incidentally, CNN, Rasmussen, and Fox have Obama ahead)

 

You can believe what you'd like to believe. I'm basing my belief on conversations with some good folks who I have the pleasure of knowing. You're basing yours on a poll of 1000 people. You have yours. Just wanted to share some cool info.

 

When you get a chance, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the CRA that I asked you about earlier in this thread.

[Juror#8]

I don't care what you think "we're" discussing; what I'm discussing is that Obama had the WH and both houses and was able to do whatever the hell he wanted for two years. And what did he do? Sign a a Stimulus that was not properly vetted and a health care reform law that 57% of US citizens want repealed. He was just stupid enough to believe that Stimulus I was going to save the US from going above 8% unemployment and made it is signature "save the economy" move, and he was equally stupid enough to believe that Obamacare was not only going to immediately create 400,000 jobs, but also immediately lower the cost of health care.

 

Face it. The reason he is destined to be a one-termer is not because people don't like him. It's because everyone has suddenly realized we elected a guy who has the executive leadership skills of an Alpaca.

 

So...you replied to my contention by.......mentioning the same thing. So I just renew the points I made about bicameralism and hope for a more pointed response.

 

On to your Stimulus point: You didn't like it. Understood. I know people of all political persuasions who enjoyed being put to work on infrastructural projects on Rt. 7, Rt. 81, and 495. They were out of work since Bush. They were put to work because of Stimulus funds.

 

Did nothing for you - got it. It did something for some. Hope you got that.

 

When you get a chance, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the CRA that I asked you about earlier in this thread.

 

Trust me, I'll answer all questions and address all debate points posed to me.

 

At this point, I'm just arguing logic. I'm not even a Democrat. But I can't let unsound logic stand - Repblican or Democrat.

 

Thanks for your question btw. I'm interested in some good debate (or maybe agreement) with ya about it.

 

I have no reason to believe you are lying, and every reason to believe that you know who you say you know. That said:

 

1. Why would you, or anyone, put a lot a stock in the political sensibilities and perceptions of those "who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy"? Aren't these the same people who told us the "country has moved massively to the left", were so tone-deaf that they thought "people will like it once they see it" was a justification for shoving Obamacare through the Senate, and were convinced that Barack Obama was the better candidate to prove liberal methods work than Hillary Clinton? What have these people been right about politically in the last 4 years?

 

2. Do these people understand that Romney has connected every single time to a large enough group of Republicans to continue to lead the polls, despite being attacked by all, in every single debate? The same thing happened last night, and he brushed them off with a high degree of skill. Look: I don't care about any candidate yet, but I know excellent body/speech control when I see it. Romney is being tempered in these debates. What has tempered Obama for the last 4 years? Ask your friends if they are even sure Obama can take a punch/deal with a gotcha question in a debate, because I've never seen it. Do they think the Media has been hard on him?

 

3. I'm curious: have any of your friends ever said "boy we really screwed up (insert any of Obama's 20 major failures in policy approaches here)"? If all they can ever say is: "well we didn't message it right, or, we didn't say it enough", then again, why are you paying attention to these people?

 

Nobody is ever going to take what you say about housing seriously if you refuse to identify the root cause: Democrats in the House and Senate demanding that banks give loans to people that can't afford them. We can talk about what happened after, and why, but if you won't admit what created the environment for all of this bad behavior, you are lying to yourself and wasting our time.

 

As for the rest: Do you really think raising taxes to pay for more government employees to poorly create and poorly enforce ineffective regulations is the answer? I have first hand information that regulators are mostly idiots. You can hire 400, 4000 or 40k more of them in Medicare, SEC, whatever, and I will destroy them all, because I have always destroyed them. That's because I am good at my job and they have no clue how to do theirs, and, my job is infinitely easier because it's based on reason and sound methodology, theirs is based on emotion and buffoonery.

 

Will get to this later. Dinner appointments...

[3rdnlng]

So...you replied to my contention by.......mentioning the same thing. So I just renew the points I made about bicameralism and hope for a more pointed response.

 

On to your Stimulus point: You didn't like it. Understood. I know people of all political persuasions who enjoyed being put to work on infrastructural projects on Rt. 7, Rt. 81, and 495. They were out of work since Bush. They were put to work because of Stimulus funds.

 

Did nothing for you - got it. It did something for some. Hope you got that.

 

 

 

Trust me, I'll answer all questions and address all debate points posed to me.

 

At this point, I'm just arguing logic. I'm not even a Democrat. But I can't let unsound logic stand - Repblican or Democrat.

 

Thanks for your question btw. I'm interested in some good debate (or maybe agreement) with ya about it.

 

Well, you certainly have a better chance of arguing logically at least.

[DaveinElma]

you guys realize juror#8 is DC Tom right?

[LeviF]

you guys realize juror#8 is DC Tom right?

I thought it was OC. DC Tom never bothers with posts that long, and OC is one of the few people I can see arguing with himself