Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

bernardos70 · 09-25-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Fox News isn't any where near far right. In fact, they are mid stream at best and slightly slanted right.

If that's the starting point, then this is a non-starter.

mcsluggo · 09-26-2012, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner

What would you have him do Chum?

I am worried that he is not being an effective campaigner, but in his defense he is fighting a severe uphill battle to reach the electorate. He has to fight against free advertisements for the Democrats and BO 24/7 by their corrupt cheerleaders called the MSM which are out to destroy any Republican at any cost. Any gaffe or perceived gaffe by Romney and the Republicans are magnified and excoriated well beyond reason while any mention of the many of BO's shortcomings would nary be heard. No amount of money can overcome that disadvantage. He has to run an almost perfect campaign because the deck is stacked against him. There are some of us that don't care to watch the MSM and find ways to get our info from the internet or radio, but how much of the electorate is willing to do that? It seems to me that most still rely on the MSM for their info. I hope I am wrong.

lots of people kinda sound like boogar eating morons in this thread... but its ok, we as a society will just pat you on the back and blame the liberal medial industrial complex for your shortcomings. Go enjoy a welfare-supplied prime rib with some welfare 40 year old scotch, and call us in the morning.

Murphy3 · 09-26-2012, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

lots of people kinda sound like boogar eating morons in this thread... but its ok, we as a society will just pat you on the back and blame the liberal medial industrial complex for your shortcomings. Go enjoy a welfare-supplied prime rib with some welfare 40 year old scotch, and call us in the morning.

Prime Rib isn't my favorite cut.. Not a huge scotch fan either....

rabbitproof · 09-26-2012, 11:00 PM

Romney is losing this.

spreedom · 09-27-2012, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Romney is losing this.

It's been over since before the GOP debates started. I think out of that pool, Ron Paul was the only candidate that had a chance of beating Obama if they went head-to-head, and the party obviously had no interest in that.

Obama is currently beating Romney by 12 points in Wisconsin, according to some polls... it was closer before Ryan was announced as the VP candidate.

chumdawg · 09-28-2012, 01:02 AM

I can't wait for the debates. Obama has nothing to gain, so he's just going to scoreboard Romney to death. And Romney has nothing to offer in rebuttal. It is going to be such fantastic drama, to watch a campaign simply implode before your very eyes. It's going to be great television!

bernardos70 · 09-28-2012, 09:41 AM

double poste

bernardos70 · 09-28-2012, 10:18 AM

^^^I think this is quite accurate. I was just saying that Obama's best strategy is just to STFU. He can't improve his current position. And Romney has to throw caution to the wind to stand a chance. It's like watching the last round of a guy who is completely beat up trying to score a knockout against his opponent. Can it happen? Sure. But the other guy just has to be standing at the end of the fight to win it.

As for the abortion thing....... let's do the capitalist thing and let the free market decide if abortion is right or not. Let each person decide. Do something drastic like, I don't know, use Roe vs. Wade as a decision.

Those who abide by a God who is against abortion won't do it. Those who do not share those beliefs have that option. Separation of church and state. Be logical and use science.

GermanDunk · 09-28-2012, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I can't wait for the debates. Obama has nothing to gain, so he's just going to scoreboard Romney to death. And Romney has nothing to offer in rebuttal. It is going to be such fantastic drama, to watch a campaign simply implode before your very eyes. It's going to be great television!

When is the first debate, Chum ?

chumdawg · 09-28-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

When is the first debate, Chum ?

Next Wednesday. Can't wait!

GermanDunk · 09-28-2012, 05:26 PM

Thanks. I´m not a fan of this kind of debates. Voters should pick their candidate by the result of the term. But i will watch it relive. Don´t think that Mitt has a chance. He is just too crazy.

SeanL · 09-28-2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Wow, obviously I'm not dogging the scientific method.. I'm not quite sure how you made that leap. This is exactly why it's difficult to carry on a conversation with an extremist from either side. They're pretty much incapable of doing so without grossly distorting the other side's position to benefit their own stance.

You said science and facts are unreliable. How else am I suppose to take that? Either say what you mean or have the balls to back up your words.

SeanL · 09-28-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

It's been over since before the GOP debates started. I think out of that pool, Ron Paul was the only candidate that had a chance of beating Obama if they went head-to-head, and the party obviously had no interest in that.

Obama is currently beating Romney by 12 points in Wisconsin, according to some polls... it was closer before Ryan was announced as the VP candidate.

The fact that you think Ron Paul would have been a better candidate explains why GOP voters keep on nominating fatally flawed politicians to state wide and nation wide positions.

spreedom · 09-28-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanL

The fact that you think Ron Paul would have been a better candidate explains why GOP voters keep on nominating fatally flawed politicians to state wide and nation wide positions.

Yeah. He's a crazy old man but at least he has new ideas.

SeanL · 09-28-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Yeah. He's a crazy old man but at least he has new ideas.

crazy ideas that aren't new at all. The gold standard is about as old and outdated as he is.

Murphy3 · 09-29-2012, 03:58 PM

Scientific "facts" change.. It's not that rare.

SeanL · 09-29-2012, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Scientific "facts" change.. It's not that rare.

Science changes, but normally it builds on itself. Yes there are instances where well "known" facts completely change, but normally those changes are mere improvements upon previous theories (rather than completely invalidating them).

For example, Newton's laws of motion are actually not "correct", as Einstein showed with the special theory of relativity matter changes its behavior as it approaches the speed of light. In fact even though it is a theory your iPhone would not work without the special theory of relativity, so there is an algorithm for the GPS in your iPhone that adjusts for what the theory of relativity calls "time dilation."

Does that mean Newton's laws of motion are trash? No of course not. While it is wrong in a sense it is still a building block towards the next scientific achievement (the theory of relativity). And for the purposes of high school physics Newton's equations work relatively well (because the effects of time dilation are extremely small in slow moving objects). And I'm sure one day some great scientist will improve our current understanding of motion.

Now is the scientific method perfect? No, nothing is, but as Winston Churchill said of democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The scientific method has been shown to be the best system for gathering facts, and until something better comes along it is foolish to not accept that it is currently the best thing out there for gathering evidence.

bernardos70 · 09-29-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Scientific "facts" change.. It's not that rare.

Science changes..... religion doesn't. Which do you prefer?

Ninkobei · 09-29-2012, 10:39 PM

I wonder if the Romney supporters will become more vocal after the election, or less vocal. I for one look forward to not hearing from Romney again for a very long time.

chumdawg · 09-29-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

I wonder if the Romney supporters will become more vocal after the election, or less vocal. I for one look forward to not hearing from Romney again for a very long time.

I'm not sure there *are* many pure Romney supporters. His support seems to be coming almost in full from an anti-Obama crowd.

Murphy3 · 09-30-2012, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Science changes..... religion doesn't. Which do you prefer?

Religion doesn't change? You sure about that?

Which do I prefer? Some of both.

Murphy3 · 09-30-2012, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanL

Science changes, but normally it builds on itself. Yes there are instances where well "known" facts completely change, but normally those changes are mere improvements upon previous theories (rather than completely invalidating them).
.

Meh

Murphy3 · 09-30-2012, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Those who abide by a God who is against abortion won't do it. Those who do not share those beliefs have that option. Separation of church and state. Be logical and use science.

Just a thought...some of us aren't against abortion because of religion.

bernardos70 · 10-01-2012, 11:46 AM

Fair enough. Are you against it? If so, why?

dude1394 · 10-01-2012, 05:17 PM

Because it is killing a human being baby? It's really not that complicated.

mcsluggo · 10-02-2012, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Prime Rib isn't my favorite cut.. Not a huge scotch fan either....

point observed!

mcsluggo · 10-02-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Because it is killing a human being baby? It's really not that complicated.

you are correct .. it isn't very complicated at its core... but its very complicated in actual action.

pro choice people should be much more cognizant of the fact that anti abortion people REALLY believe that abortion is murdering a baby. That is nothing small, and I find it hard to believe that there are many pro choice people that would STAY pro-choice if they truly believed that an actual baby was invovled.

on the other hand anti abortion people have to truly understand that pro-choice people DON'T think that the fetus has become a baby yet (i think)... and that these people generally are NOT evil... even if they support a position that anti abortion people think is evil.

it is strongly felt on both sides.

(personally ... i dream of a day when more effort from BOTH sides is spent on helping pregnant women become mothers and helping mothers support babies (not just financially, but that sometimes certainly helps) so that "the choice" tilts more towards fewer abortions.

SeanL · 10-02-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Because it is killing a human being baby? It's really not that complicated.

I think sperm are babies. Stop masturbating! You're killing babies!

Dirkadirkastan · 10-03-2012, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanL

I think sperm are babies. Stop masturbating! You're killing babies!

I like how you think this is a relevant point.

dude1394 · 10-03-2012, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

you are correct .. it isn't very complicated at its core... but its very complicated in actual action.

pro choice people should be much more cognizant of the fact that anti abortion people REALLY believe that abortion is murdering a baby. That is nothing small, and I find it hard to believe that there are many pro choice people that would STAY pro-choice if they truly believed that an actual baby was invovled.

on the other hand anti abortion people have to truly understand that pro-choice people DON'T think that the fetus has become a baby yet (i think)... and that these people generally are NOT evil... even if they support a position that anti abortion people think is evil.

it is strongly felt on both sides.

(personally ... i dream of a day when more effort from BOTH sides is spent on helping pregnant women become mothers and helping mothers support babies (not just financially, but that sometimes certainly helps) so that "the choice" tilts more towards fewer abortions.

I'm not so sure that it is complicated so much as conflicted. It's pretty apparent that it's either a baby or at least WILL actually be a baby. The conflicting part is where you have to rationalize to yourself that it is not. I don't really try to belittle the choice being made as making the choice to not kill the baby is definitely hard and can be life-changing, but it is a choice between life and death.

Saying the baby is not really alive IMO is just rationalization.

mcsluggo · 10-03-2012, 10:41 AM

nobody disputes that a fetus is alive. Some don't think a fetus is a baby yet.

SeanL · 10-03-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I like how you think this is a relevant point.

I like how you think the difference is more than arbitrary.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-03-2012, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanL

I like how you think the difference is more than arbitrary.

You're misrepresenting your opponent's position on where in the timeline they believe life begins.

It's the exact same thing as if a lifer walked up to you and said "You think life begins at 18 weeks? You might as well support third-trimester abortions!" (or as Murph might say, "aborting three-year-olds.")

SeanL · 10-03-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You're misrepresenting your opponent's position on where in the timeline they believe life begins.

No I'm speaking to the fact that he thinks a fertilized egg is a baby. That is not a misrepresentation. That is what he actually believes, as crazy as that seems to you and me.

dude1394 · 10-03-2012, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanL

No I'm speaking to the fact that he thinks a fertilized egg is a baby. That is not a misrepresentation. That is what he actually believes, as crazy as that seems to you and me.

Well it is a baby, just an under-developed one.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-03-2012, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanL

No I'm speaking to the fact that he thinks a fertilized egg is a baby. That is not a misrepresentation. That is what he actually believes, as crazy as that seems to you and me.

The misrepresentation is when you act as if anyone believes sperm cells are also human lives.

Pro-life position: Life begins at conception/implantation.
Misrepresentation: Life may as well begin in the testes.

Pro-choice position: Life begins sometime in the second trimester.
Misrepresentation: One may as well abort at any time in the pregnancy.

In both cases, one side pushes their opponent's position further down the timeline than is actually represented. You have both committed the first distortion and resisted the second in this thread alone.

But they are the same issue. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can spell this out, it's not that complicated.

chumdawg · 10-04-2012, 01:06 AM

Sounds to me like a slippery slope fallacy. And also like the best effort to solve this "debate."

rabbitproof · 10-04-2012, 01:16 PM

It's kind of like asking if a red-orange color is red or orange..

Murphy3 · 10-04-2012, 01:51 PM

I think we all know what the other side believes. Pro-abortion... you're against taking responsibility for your actions. You're ok with murdering the innocent. If you're Pro-life, you're for taking responsibility for your actions and you're against the murdering of innocents.

Now what's really difficult to wrap your around is the pro-abortion crowd that's also anti-death penalty and members of PETA. Wow, there must be some heavy drug use going on around bed time. Otherwise, there would be no way that they could untangle their minds enough to get a good night's rest.

SeanL · 10-04-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

It's kind of like asking if a red-orange color is red or orange..

almost