Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Republican National Convention (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Republican National Convention
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Ron:] "I watched several networks, mainly ABC and FNC--the latter mainly for the followup. FNC reported that early estimates were that Ann Romney's speech produced a 24 point "bounce" for Romney, and Christie's produced a 10 point "bounce." We will have to wait for further polling in the next few days to see what lasting effect the speeches really had. Of course, conventions always give a multi-point "bounce" to the candidate. That will probably be most pronounced after Mitt Romney gives his speech Thursday night. But it looks like the ticket is off to a good start bouncewise. At the very least, nobody shot themselves in the foot."

[JWatts:] "I don't think will see a 24 point bounce in any conceivable case (maybe a high 1 day blip). Romney's more likely to see a 3 to 8 point multi-week bounce after the convention."

[Ron:] "JWatts, you're probably right. A 3 to 8 point multi-week bounce after the convention is more likely. It will of course be interesting to see if Democrats are able to mount any kind of bounce for Obama after their national convention."

Here's your answer after both conventions finished (from the Christian Science Monitor):
quote:
Gallup’s daily tracking poll for Friday put Obama's job approval rating at 52 percent, the highest it’s been since the killing of Osama bin Laden. Obama has also moved to a three-point lead over Mitt Romney among registered voters (48-45 percent), up from Obama's one-point margin over the last nine days.

“It is possible that these upticks are short-lived and that the race will devolve back to a parity by next week,” Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport wrote in his morning-after analysis. “On the other hand, if Obama builds on and sustains his higher job approval rating and lead over Romney, it could signal a possible resetting of the presidential race as it enters the remaining three-and-a-half weeks before the first debate on Oct. 3.”

By comparison, Romney’s standing bounced not at all after last week’s Republican convention.


Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Democratic bump will not be fully measured until next Saturday - current polls include data from seven days ago.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps, but Romney is already shifting to find more "solid" ground. Today he praised Clinton's speech at the Dem convention (even though it ripped him 9 ways from Sunday) and said there are a number of provisions in Obamacare that he will keep if elected. He also attacked the budget deal from last year, which Ryan voted for. I hope he knows that there's not room on the ballot for two Democratic Party candidates [Wink] .

In a way I feel sorry for him. He has some high-minded and moral instincts, but he can't seem to triangulate between those, his business instincts to maximize profit and his political instincts that tell him to follow the herd. I think that is the root of the muddle he finds himself in the middle of.

[ September 09, 2012, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't keep track of Romney and Ryan's position swings any more. Romney now has said he doesn't support the Obamacare provisions he said he did on Meet the Press. Ryan has said that he didn't vote for the budget deal that he not only voted for but praised for its fiscal responsibility immediately afterward. Today Romney added a new message to his stump speech and is claiming that he will put God back in government and be guided by the Almighty while in office, and will not be the one who removes God from coins. This contrasts with Obama, who by implication wants to do those things.

More polling reported today:
quote:
A new CNN/ORC poll has President Obama leading Mitt Romney 52 percent to 46 percent among likely voters. That’s a dramatic shift from the news organization’s poll a week ago, which had the two candidates tied at 48 percent.

In that poll, Republicans were more enthusiastic than Democrats about voting; now both parties are about equal in their enthusiasm.

A further thought that Romney and his PACs will far outraise Obama in this campaign, but he will have far more money than will be effective. In that regard both candidates will have enough to do what they want to do.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just finished my hone banking for Obama tonight
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oops, phone
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I was wondering what you were sharpening there. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Polls that survey likely voters are more reliable than those that survey registered voters. This is especially true this year, when many people who supported Obama last time are less enthusiastic about him now. African-Americans in particular may be feeling alienated from Obama because of his positions on such issues as same-sex marriage, which run counter to the values commonly held among this group. While they may not want to vote for Romney, this feeling of alienation may simply result in many of these voters staying home.

The debates are looming as all-important. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan wound up defeating incumbent Jimmy Carter (who like Obama presided over a miserable economy), it was the debates where Reagan surged out ahead, and wound up defeating Carter by double-digits on election day.

By the way, Al, I believe the "bounces" reported by Fox News Channel during the Republican Convention were some kind of tallies they were making of favorable Twitter responses. Obviously regular polls cannot respond within hours of someone's speech.

[ September 11, 2012, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Polls that survey likely voters are more reliable than those that survey registered voters....The debates are looming as all-important.
Oooh! Newly moved target! [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Polls that survey likely voters are more reliable than those that survey registered voters....The debates are looming as all-important.
Oooh! Newly moved target! [Smile]
Tom, in case you weren't aware it's pretty standard for polling agencies to start switching from 'registered voters' to the more indicative 'likely voters' as the election gets closer. So the newly moved target is standard procedure going back decades.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it was politically stupid to say (snip) that "You did not build that."
Sooth.

This is true. Obama got caught in an artless sophism: he was implying that the successful folks (top 2% of income-earners, if I read him right) of America weren't the ones who built the infrastructure in America.

This is an absurdly impolitic statement--and not just because he is pointedly ostracizing a large segment of successful Americans with his criticism. No, the real problem is that his claim is counterfactual: in actuality, the folks whose contributions are being minimized, are the precise individuals who have funded more than a mere moiety of the construction costs of the American infrastructure. The top 2% of earners--through real-tax dollars, through charity, through civic engagement, through industry--in reality, these folks should be credited with building a disproportionate share of the roads and bridges. It isn't actually pure coincidence that a lot of science and education buildings in our country bear the names of 2%ers.

There's more to the story, of course, and it's not hard to follow, but most of it seems to get lost in the noise of those calibrated meme frequencies that echo into our heads whenever we participate in our daily media meditation rituals...

In any case, Ron, it's a bit amusing to hear you mouthing Mammon's message, here. I'm not sure you follow the devil's argument closely enough see which side you've taken here, but it's curious that you apparently can't identify demons when you see them. You do understand understand at least that this political argument is about storing up earthly treasures, right? And you can't serve both...

...wait, how does that go?

Who knows. Doesn't matter, no camels are passing through eyes of needles anytime soon anyways--the dollars-for-votes system pumps out enough hacked fodder to have effectively hidden all of the needles in haystacks...

[ September 12, 2012, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By the way, Al, I believe the "bounces" reported by Fox News Channel during the Republican Convention were some kind of tallies they were making of favorable Twitter responses. Obviously regular polls cannot respond within hours of someone's speech."

Then it's just as obvious that you shouldn't have touted them as a bounce, since that term has been used to mean an increase in polling support for many years.

"The debates are looming as all-important."

Sure, and let me give you a hint. After the debates are over and the polling shows that Romney has not made up the ground, then it will be a comparison of likely voters. Failing Romney overtaking Obama in that analysis, then it will be the turnout. After election day if Romney loses, then it will be voter fraud perpetrated by Democrats.

It's always something when you don't get what you want, always something. Around here we have a bellweather of biased misinformation, hopeful misinterpretation, and blanket denial. It's called "G3". I don't agree with you often, but I hope you will look at the whole board and be honest enough to admit that Romney is in trouble, not on the ascendant.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So the newly moved target is standard procedure going back decades.
That's not the target I'm talking about. We've gone from Ron predicting an easy victory for Romney following a historic convention bounce to suddenly waiting for the "crucial moments" of the debates. Which is what Ron does, every single time one of his predictions go wrong -- which they do every time. (The worst thing in the world for someone who wants something to happen must be to see Ron predict it.)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
in actuality, the folks whose contributions are being minimized, are the precise individuals who have funded more than a mere moiety of the construction costs of the American infrastructure
Even if you ignore the requirement that the infrastructure that helped existing businesses to succeed necessarily predates the existence of those businesses, current businesses only funded a relatively small portion of all historical costs of the infrastructure as well as the non financial creation of the systems themselves.

But what Obama said was NOT that existing businesses do not and have not paid a significant fraction of infrastructure costs, but that that great system was there for them before those businesses could have paid those costs and been involved in setting up the necessary systems that allowed those businesses to be created and to succeed in the first place.

You can't conflate the 1% of today with the 2% from 20 years ago or the 5% from a century ago who were responsible (though not independently so) for the system that is in place today and was available to those businesses when they were initially created.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It isn't actually pure coincidence that a lot of science and education buildings in our country bear the names of 2%ers.
Indeed- rather it's the direct result of making contributions to such tax deductible, which is entire point of having a high tax rate with deductions for such productive investments.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
After election day if Romney loses, then it will be voter fraud perpetrated by Democrats.

No, it won't be voter fraud. It will be, because Obama ran a better campaign and he won and Romney was the poorer candidate.

If Romney wins, however, I fully expect to see many accusations on Republicans having 'stolen' the election. Just like in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

[ September 12, 2012, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there is the same evidence for that (voter suppression, the makers of the no-paper-trail-and - hackable voting machines claiming that he is committed to delivering votes, and so forth) it makes sense that there would be similar accusations.

Doesn't it?

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
So the newly moved target is standard procedure going back decades.
That's not the target I'm talking about. We've gone from Ron predicting an easy victory for Romney following a historic convention bounce to suddenly waiting for the "crucial moments" of the debates. Which is what Ron does, every single time one of his predictions go wrong -- which they do every time. (The worst thing in the world for someone who wants something to happen must be to see Ron predict it.)
I don't see where Ron predicted an easy victory for Romney in this thread. If you can't back up that statement you owe it to Ron to retract your statement.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If Romney wins, however, I fully expect to see many accusations on Republicans having 'stolen' the election. Just like in both the 2000 and 2004 elections."

I see. Do you think Democrats will move to disenfranchise Republican voters in a dozen or more states to keep it from happening again?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It isn't actually pure coincidence that a lot of science and education buildings in our country bear the names of 2%ers.
Indeed- rather it's the direct result of making contributions to such tax deductible, which is entire point of having a high tax rate with deductions for such productive investments.
Many, many such buildings predate the Federal Income tax. If fact all of the core buildings at Vanderbilt University predate it and hundreds of Carnegie libraries predate the Federal Income tax. So claiming these are a 'direct result' of Federal Tax deductions is completely silly.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It isn't actually pure coincidence that a lot of science and education buildings in our country bear the names of 2%ers.
Indeed- rather it's the direct result of making contributions to such tax deductible, which is entire point of having a high tax rate with deductions for such productive investments.
Many, many such buildings predate the Federal Income tax. If fact all of the core buildings at Vanderbilt University predate it and hundreds of Carnegie libraries predate the Federal Income tax. So claiming these are a 'direct result' of Federal Tax deductions is completely silly.
Federal income taxes go back at least as far as Lincoln, so that claim is nonsense at face value, nevermind the fact that you're apparently pretending that Estate Taxes don't exists here and serve as one of the most direct drivers of such investments.

There was a brief period when the Supreme Court attempted to redefine income taxes from excises to direct taxes by judicial fiat, but that bit of activism was thwarted by the 16th amendment. Federal income taxes were absolutely used before that point, which is how they managed to end up before the court at all.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Federal income taxes go back at least as far as Lincoln, so that claim is nonsense at face value, nevermind the fact that you're apparently pretending that Estate Taxes don't exists here and serve as one of the most direct drivers of such investments.

You were specifically referring to a charitable tax deduction in your earlier comment, not Federal taxes in general. Unless you have some proof of charitable tax deductions prior to 1917, your implication that charitable tax deductions were the primary drivers behind rich people funding the construction of science and education buildings is unsupportable.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D:
quote:
Even if you ignore the requirement that the infrastructure that helped existing businesses to succeed necessarily predates the existence of those businesses, current businesses only funded a relatively small portion of all historical costs of the infrastructure as well as the non financial creation of the systems themselves.

But what Obama said was NOT that existing businesses do not and have not paid a significant fraction of infrastructure costs, but that that great system was there for them before those businesses could have paid those costs and been involved in setting up the necessary systems that allowed those businesses to be created and to succeed in the first place.

Well, I wouldn't disagree that this is a good justification of the intended meaning of Obama's full remarks, but you're not really addressing the fact that the actual statement we've been looking at did--in fact--completely deny credit where at least *some* credit is undeniably due. And his statement isn't exactly swimming in a sea of nuanced context that indicates that we should all recognize that successful folks are indeed people that have helped built "that," either.

There's implied nuance that intelligent, insightful people should be able to guess at, sure, and there are points in his full speech in which he includes the necessary qualifiers, and such information should be accounted for in a fully informed judgment, but there is a valid point here--one that apparently bothers you to hear validated.

As I pointed out, there is more to the story than the points I made to support the validity of Ron's statement, and the rest of the story isn't actually hard to follow, except for all the partisan noise confusing the issue.

But a valid point in a valid context is a valid point in a valid context.

In order for Obama's statement to be true, it needs a qualifier: "You didn't build that by yourself."

Anyone who actually checks the full context of the remarks can decide for themselves if there is evidence that Obama's intended meaning is better represented by the qualified statement. (And I'll happily jump in to call them stupid if, after reading the full context, they fail to understand that this qualified idea was clearly what he meant. [Wink] ) But he didn't actually include the necessary qualification in this particular statement. And, in fact, several of his statements fail to include similar necessary qualifications. He appears to have using rhetoric to overstate an idea he wanted to convey in the strongest way possible, so some of the nuance that was necessary to be correct got left out of what he actually said at certain points.

It's an inconsequential strawman--he used a false dichotomy device for rhetorical effect, and it backfired on him, when his opponents mirrored back the converse of his false dichotomy.

What I don't understand is how anyone thinks they can have a productive discourse if we can't acknowledge the validity of points from disparate contexts...

[ September 13, 2012, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Federal income taxes go back at least as far as Lincoln, so that claim is nonsense at face value, nevermind the fact that you're apparently pretending that Estate Taxes don't exists here and serve as one of the most direct drivers of such investments.

You were specifically referring to a charitable tax deduction in your earlier comment, not Federal taxes in general. Unless you have some proof of charitable tax deductions prior to 1917, your implication that charitable tax deductions were the primary drivers behind rich people funding the construction of science and education buildings is unsupportable.
Estate taxes exists in various forms before 1917, and charitable deduction (by making such thing no longer part of your estate) are implicitly deductible in the light of them. What's more, the vast majority of such contributions have been made after the modern estate tax system was passed, and they fell off sharply through the 2000's as Bush's tax cuts took effect and raise the effective price of making them as compared to simply retaining dynastic wealth.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Estate taxes exists in various forms before 1917, and charitable deduction (by making such thing no longer part of your estate) are implicitly deductible in the light of them.

[DOH] Well yes, that's true, but it has no bearing on the argument.

Your argument was that 'charitable deductions' drove the building of science and educational buildings. Avoiding paying taxes in future years by selling off your estate this year, will reduce your future year tax payments regardless of whether you give your estate to a charity, the government, your heirs or a cat. So, it's not evidence of your contention.

However, that being said, it's pointless to keep going round and round with somebody who will just keep throwing out tangential points to avoid admitting their original statement has no evidence to back it up.

Either link to a source that supports your original assertion:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It isn't actually pure coincidence that a lot of science and education buildings in our country bear the names of 2%ers.
Indeed- rather it's the direct result of making contributions to such tax deductible, which is entire point of having a high tax rate with deductions for such productive investments.
Or admit you have no proof.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_Selling_ property would incur sale and income taxes. Giving money or property to heirs would incur gift taxes. It's only Charitable deductions that are tax free.

You'll not from where you quoted me that I very specifically did not limit what I said to income taxes, though they help in the margins- the vast majority of donations for building come out of current assets, not current income, so the estate tax is fare more relevant to such donations

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/56xx/doc5650/07-15-charitablegiving.pdf

quote:
Because charitable bequests lower the taxable
amount of estates, the tax gives people an incentive to contribute to charity at death rather
than leave assets to heirs. Furthermore, the estate tax provides an incentive to make charitable
contributions during life. The paper finds that increasing the amount exempted from the
estate tax from $675,000 to either $2 million or $3.5 million would reduce charitable giving
by less than 3 percent. However, repealing the tax would have a larger impact, decreasing
donations to charity by 6 percent to 12 percent


Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, I wouldn't disagree that this is a good justification of the intended meaning of Obama's full remarks, but you're not really addressing the fact that the actual statement we've been looking at did--in fact--completely deny credit where at least *some* credit is undeniably due. And his statement isn't exactly swimming in a sea of nuanced context that indicates that we should all recognize that successful folks are indeed people that have helped built "that," either.
I think that just means you weren't paying attention. [Smile]

In that section of the speech, he stated: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges"

I'm pretty sure that the existence of helpful people, of teachers, of the people who helped create the 'unbelievable American system', the existence of all of those people and the system itself all predated the success of the creator of the hypothetical business. If you are stuck on the fact that the system is evolving, so that the system that existed just prior to a business' creation was at least partly funded by the business creator before he had a business, and that the creator was one of the people who helped, then sure, you can gnaw on that bone. But that is a far, far subtler point than the explicit words of the speech. You have to then get into a debate of whether the system even exists absent the people and the businesses that make up a part of the system, and whether the small number of words that were used in the speech were meant to invoke that debate.

As well, if you want to ascribe to Obama the sentiment that he "[denied] credit where at least *some* credit is undeniably due", you need to ignore the very next two sentences of his speech: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." Obama is explicitly not denying any credit as you suggest (he is certainly giving *some* credit.)

If your point was more directly to giving credit for the system, I think we'll have to disagree that his statement had anything to do with denying any more credit than is due to *everybody* currently availing themselves of the system while concurrently being a part of it. You need to really work to find such a suggestion in the subtext, and work far harder than to attribute the pronoun to its proper object.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DD:
quote:
I think that just means you weren't paying attention.
[LOL]

Well, somebody wasn't paying attention.

See, what you're saying:
quote:
if you want to ascribe to Obama the sentiment that he "[denied] credit where at least *some* credit is undeniably due", you need to ignore the very next two sentences of his speech: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." Obama is explicitly not denying any credit as you suggest (he is certainly giving *some* credit.)
...when considered in the context of things I actually did say:
quote:

Well, I wouldn't disagree that this is a good justification of the intended meaning of Obama's full remarks, but you're not you're not really addressing...the actual statement we've been looking at

quote:
There's implied nuance that intelligent, insightful people should be able to guess at, sure, and there are points in his full speech in which he includes the necessary qualifiers, and such information should be accounted for in a fully informed judgment
...renders an image of an inept quibbler making a highly ironic argument here, considering that the criticism is explicitly about failing to acknowledge the full context that is actually included in what someone else has said...

[Roll Eyes]

Meanwhile, if you want to argue about how much context represents "a sea of nuanced context," then I'm sure we can agree that such a metaphor represents a pretty subjectively understood quantity, and we can simply differ on what that means (but I am gonna roll my eyes at any insistence that a single instance acknowledging that some credit that is due can represents "a sea of nuanced context," because it seems like a hell of a stretch to me.)

[ September 14, 2012, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
After election day if Romney loses, then it will be voter fraud perpetrated by Democrats.

[JWatts:] No, it won't be voter fraud. It will be, because Obama ran a better campaign and he won and Romney was the poorer candidate.

JWatts, now might be a good time to get out of the Party. Your posting history here shows that you can't pass the Santorum muster test:
quote:
We will never have the elite, smart people on our side...
You lack a lack of nuance and fall short of falling short of a thinking ability.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1