Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on June 27, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
-
Why Mitt Romney Won’t Get Specific—About Anything
By John Dickerson | Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Evasive Maneuvers
Mitt Romney doesn’t want to say anything, specifically.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/06/120626_POL_ROMNEY.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg)
To find out what Mitt Romney will do as president, you might have to vote for him first Gerardo Mora/GettyImages.
Mitt Romney has a problem with specifics. Since Scott Walker’s victory in Wisconsin, a growing number of Republicans have been calling for something more from him. His recent responses on questions from tax reform to immigration have been thin or nonexistent. When reporters tried to get an answer about the candidate’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, his spokesperson was so evasive, my colleagues might want to plant a mulberry bush in the press section to make the next round of the game more lively. Usually you have to win the White House before you can be that skilled at ducking and weaving.
But wait. A Romney campaign aide told Politico’s Jonathan Martin, when he wrote about this topic, that they have offered an "unprecedented" level of specificity. How can these two things both be true? To understand the disconnect, think of an ad for a prescription drug in a magazine. On one page there is an uplifting, well-lit picture of a healthy woman walking through a sunlit glen on the way to success. On the following two pages is all the fine print and possible side effects. Romney is specific about the glen and the breeze—tax cuts; more jobs for everyone; innovation; no more waste, fraud, and abuse—but is not so specific about the two pages of complexity and possible consequence.
Is Romney offering an “unprecedented” level of specificity? This is an exciting claim, but it is contradicted by history. Next to me is my worn copy of Renewing America's Purpose, the 450-page volume of George W. Bush's policy addresses and proposals from 1999-2000. By this time in the 2000 campaign, Bush had unveiled a lot more policy than Romney has, including a plan to offer workers the ability to invest some of their Social Security money in private accounts. "Mr. Bush is dominating the policy debate," the Economist wrote 12 years ago this month. "[He] has seized on the opportunities to appear both bipartisan and statesmanlike."
It's also hard for the Romney campaign to boast about specificity when the candidate is doing the opposite. He's talked about why he won’t give details because specificity was used against him in his Senate race and how his programs can't be evaluated by any experts because he hasn’t provided details.
How then can the Romney campaign claim to be so specific? The same way politicians like to believe that a response is the same as an answer. In background material offered by the campaign to show where Romney has been specific, many of the items were not so much Romney proposals but criticisms of President Obama. (This is also true of Romney’s 160-page briefing book [pdf] titled Believe in America, which should have the subtitle Because Obama Doesn’t.) A host of statements were generalities—a quotation from Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan outlining mistakes that caused Wall Street’s collapse, and calls for "dynamic regulations." In the section on financial system reform, Romney's adviser Glenn Hubbard is quoted from a Wall Street Journal article, saying that Romney would replace "the new system for dismantling failing financial companies that was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law with a new system, which [Hubbard] declined to specify."
The Romney campaign is specific about some things. Romney will enact a 5-percent cut of nonsecurity spending on Day One of his presidency. He'll privatize Amtrak and reduce subsidies for NEA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—all of which is very specific but not highly consequential policy. He will repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is very specific. But he refuses to get specific about what will replace it. He’s more specific about Medicare—seniors would be provided with a specified amount of money to purchase benefits, and private plans could compete—but details about how benefits would keep up with health costs are vague.
When CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked Tim Pawlenty, who launched his presidential campaign on the idea of telling hard truths, where Romney was being specific, the former Minnesota governor mentioned tax reform. Naming an issue area is not being specific. Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom offered Romney’s plan for reducing the corporate tax rate as an example of specificity. Saying you're going to reduce corporate tax rates is the easy part; naming the loopholes to do so is harder. The word “loopholes” appears only twice in the 160-page Romney policy document: "Meanwhile, loopholes favor those with the best lobbyists. If we close loopholes and lower the tax rate, the American people and corporations will win." (#winning).
When Gov. Romney was asked just what loopholes he would close to lower corporate and individual taxes, he said he'll work with Congress on that when he’s elected. One of the funniest things Nancy Pelosi ever said was that Congress had to pass the Affordable Care Act to know what was in it. Romney makes a variant of that claim here: To know what he will do, we must elect him.
The Romney campaign responds that the president has not been specific, either. This is true. The best example was Obama’s refusal to back the specifics of the Simpson-Bowles commission. (It was a commission he commissioned which makes this a sin of commission.) But just because President Obama's posture is slouchy doesn't erase the fact that Romney is in the fetal position. Implicit in the Romney campaign's criticism of President Obama's specificity is a standard of how detailed one should be. But the Romney campaign would not like that standard to be applied to its candidate.
Obama may not achieve the Platonic ideal of specificity, but he's well ahead of Mitt Romney. On loopholes, for example, President Obama has proposed a host he would remove (found on pages 202-05 of this Treasury Department explanation of the administration’s revenue proposals). The largest one (explained on pages 73-74) would close loopholes ("tax expenditures") for the wealthy by reducing (but not eliminating) the value of itemized deductions. Obama's framework for reducing corporate tax rates can be found here.
Presidents are always more specific than their challengers because they have to actually put things on paper. In fact, it is President Obama's specificity that Mitt Romney is actually running against, in the form of the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, the Recovery Act, and the auto bail-out. Obama can't both lack a plan for dealing with Medicare costs and be attacked for hatching the Independent Payment Advisory Board that is supposed to hold down Medicare costs. There’s more than enough in all of that for voters to evaluate the president's priorities, his manner, and his effectiveness on those policies. For a challenger without a recent governing past or a rich history, specificity is one way to evaluate him as a possible president.
So is Mitt Romney trying to get away with something? At the moment, yes, but there’s plenty of time left in the campaign for him to get specific. Imagine if Gov. Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. He'd go from policy avoidance to basing his entire campaign on one of the most detailed campaign documents ever: the Ryan budget. The political debate would be filled with plumes of charts and graphs. The big important debate we should be having about the role of government in American life would finally start. The speeches would probably get no shorter and the policy books would not shrink, but we might actually find something useful in them.
-
Man, this place would be great if the lazy disgusting liberals had a politic section to post their propaganda... oh wait.
-
Man, this place would be great if the lazy disgusting liberals had a politic section to post their propaganda... oh wait.
Hi gimmick! :)
Why the hate?
(http://3432-philly.voxcdn.com/files/2011/08/asante-u-mad-bro2.jpg)
-
LMFAO this was obamas tactic last election.
dont take a stance and let other ppl project their opinions on to you.
didnt seem to have any problem last election, why?
-
LMFAO this was obamas tactic last election.
dont take a stance and let other ppl project their opinions on to you.
didnt seem to have any problem last election, why?
Even if that were true (and it is not), why would you accept it from Romney in 2012?
Another gem from TonyMcNuts!
-
Even if that were true (and it is not), why would you accept it from Romney in 2012?
Another gem from TonyMcNuts!
it very much is true sir...
he is beating obama at his own game, sorry hoss...
The election is still months away, there is no need to take a solid stance now so that you can start 5 threads a day about how you disagree with anything the guy with an R by his name says.
youll just have to create 10 a day in 3 months to make up for it I guess
I hope you have someone assigned to pick up your welfare checks so you dont have to leave the computer.
-
Hi gimmick! :)
Why the hate?
(http://3432-philly.voxcdn.com/files/2011/08/asante-u-mad-bro2.jpg)
Gimmick? I am probably one of the most popular people on bodybuilding forums. Stop jerking off to pictures of Obama and venture to the world outside of Getbig.
-
Obama has been known to pay peoples mortgage and pay for their gas.
-
Obama sucks....
-
Obama has been known to pay peoples mortgage and pay for their gas.
facker isnt paying for my gas or mortgage, were do I sign up?
-
it very much is true sir...
he is beating obama at his own game, sorry hoss...
My name isn't "Hoss", and Romney's not beating jack shit from the polls I've seen.
Maybe if he starts taking a stance on something, he will actually start having a higher "favorable to unfavorable" poll numbers, instead of being consistently DISLIKED more than he is liked. ;)
The election is still months away, there is no need to take a solid stance now so that you can start 5 threads a day about how you disagree with anything the guy with an R by his name says.
youll just have to create 10 a day in 3 months to make up for it I guess
[
So Romney is designing his campaign based upon my posts on getbig? ROTFLMBAO! I know my posts create spontaneous rectal bleeding for YOU, but its just fun for me, and the anger it incites here makes it all worthwhile. ;D
I hope you have someone assigned to pick up your welfare checks so you dont have to leave the computer.
What makes you think I am on welfare? Racist/stereotype much?
We all know you still live with your mom, or at best a one bedroom apartment. That anthropology degree didn't work out to well for ya, leaving you unemployed, bitter and living in mommy's basement...at thirty. :D
More stupidity from TonyMcNuts! I haven't had this much fun with this kid in a long time! ;D
-
ObamaMy mom sucks....
Word? :o
-
My mom has been dead since 1999...but she's still smarter than Obama.
-
Obama has been known to pay peoples mortgage and pay for their gas.
Priceless
-
My name isn't "Hoss", and Romney's not beating jack shit from the polls I've seen.
Maybe if he starts taking a stance on something, he will actually start having a higher "favorable to unfavorable" poll numbers, instead of being consistently DISLIKED more than he is liked. ;)
So Romney is designing his campaign based upon my posts on getbig? ROTFLMBAO! I know my posts create spontaneous rectal bleeding for YOU, but its just fun for me, and the anger it incites here makes it all worthwhile. ;D
What makes you think I am on welfare? Racist/stereotype much?
We all know you still live with your mom, or at best a one bedroom apartment. That anthropology degree didn't work out to well for ya, leaving you unemployed, bitter and living in mommy's basement...at thirty. :D
More stupidity from TonyMcNuts! I haven't had this much fun with this kid in a long time! ;D
LOL melt down much? hahahah
unlike obama maybe romney understands that being a good president isnt about being popular. LMFAO
I didnt even know you where black but I cant say Im suprised ;)
I have a finance degree as well and am less than 1 year away from my MBAthat I attend in the evening after my full time job as an analyst. I am also 1 1/2 years away from being able to sit for the CPA exam.
what is your education again?
LOL your melt downs go a long way in showing what the typical obama supporter is like. You do more campaigning for romney then he could ever do...
-
My mom has been dead since 1999...but she's still smarter than Obama.
So...you meant to say, your mom sucked? Got it...a simple typo on your part. :)
What are your academic accomplishments and/or career achievements that makes anyone give a shit what you may feel about a given person's intelligence? ???
-
LOL melt down much? hahahah
You call it a meltdown, I call it an owning. If I were ice cream and you were a hot summer day, you could not make me melt, son. ;)
]unlike obama maybe romney understands that being a good president isnt about being popular. LMFAO
Unlike Romney, maybe Obama understands that you need to be reasonably well-liked IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED. See, that comes first before you can start worrying about "being a good president."
idiot
I didnt even know you where black but I cant say Im suprised ;)
Of course you did, this isn't our first rodeo, dingleberry. Cut the bullshit. ::)
If I am to play along with your false naivete, why are you not surprised?
I have a finance degree as well and am less than 1 year away from my MBAthat I attend in the evening after my full time job as an analyst. I am also 1 1/2 years away from being able to sit for the CPA exam.
Congratulations! Perhaps by the time you are forty, you will be able to get your first decent job. :-\
what is your education again?
Where you aspire to be, but will sadly never attain. :'( Where I earned my MBA, they don't offer degrees for part time night students.
LOL your melt downs go a long way in showing what the typical obama supporter is like. You do more campaigning for romney then he could ever do...
You typed an awfully long response to my supposed "meltdown." :-\
And yes, no doubt many will go into the voting booth and vote for Romney "just to teach that bastard Benny B a lesson." Real sharp, well-informed voters would definitely wait in a line on election day just to get back at an anonymous internet forum guy who makes them butthurt. ::)
-
You call it a meltdown, I call it an owning. If I were ice cream and you were a hot summer day, you could not make me melt, son. ;)
Unlike Romney, maybe Obama understands that you need to be reasonably well-liked IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED. See, that comes first before you can start worrying about "being a good president."
idiot
Of course you did, this isn't our first rodeo, dingleberry. Cut the bullshit. ::)
If I am to play along with your false naivete, why are you not surprised?
Congratulations! Perhaps by the time you are forty, you will be able to get your first decent job. :-\Where you aspire to be, but will sadly never attain. :'( Where I earned my MBA, they don't offer degrees for part time night students.
You typed an awfully long response to my supposed "meltdown." :-\
And yes, no doubt many will go into the voting booth and vote for Romney "just to teach that bastard Benny B a lesson." Real sharp, well-informed voters would definitely wait in a line on election day just to get back at an anonymous internet forum guy who makes them butthurt. ::)
goodness gracious the more you melt the longer your posts get, hahahah I did like the ice cream comment though.
obama has already been a crappy president so maybe you could relay the message that being a good pres will be much more effective then being seen as a movie star president.
Race has never come into our arguments, Im half japanese, so i guess that makes you racist against chinks?
my school doesnt have a part time mba programs. I go to school full time their hoss ;), 8 hours a week in class, year round...
I see so you are one of those getbig millionaires who wont tell anybody what they do? There sure are alot of you guys around here.
please keep melting though, youre converting ppl to conservatism by the post ;)
-
Biden said we are in a depression today.
-
Biden said we are in a depression today.
PEA BRAIN! ;D
Sucks to be you...get a job! >:(
Romney didn't earn anything. He waged a dishonest campaign and outspent everyone 20 to 1
Romney is the foil. Anyone not seeing that is delusional. Romney s a piece of shit.
Because they know Romney is a time bomb waiting to blow that will give Obama a second term on a platter.
I fucking hate romney.
-
PEA BRAIN! ;D
Sucks to be you...get a job! >:(
I do loathe Romney. He is a liar and a panzie. But he is not Obama.
-
So...you meant to say, your mom sucked? Got it...a simple typo on your part. :)
What are your academic accomplishments and/or career achievements that makes anyone give a shit what you may feel about a given person's intelligence? ???
You could add all the cocks female members of my family have sucked in their lifetimes and they still wouldn't equal the man meat you gobble on a nightly basis... :)
-
Why Mitt Romney Won’t Get Specific—About Anything
By John Dickerson | Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Evasive Maneuvers
Mitt Romney doesn’t want to say anything, specifically.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/06/120626_POL_ROMNEY.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg)
To find out what Mitt Romney will do as president, you might have to vote for him first Gerardo Mora/GettyImages.
Mitt Romney has a problem with specifics. Since Scott Walker’s victory in Wisconsin, a growing number of Republicans have been calling for something more from him. His recent responses on questions from tax reform to immigration have been thin or nonexistent. When reporters tried to get an answer about the candidate’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, his spokesperson was so evasive, my colleagues might want to plant a mulberry bush in the press section to make the next round of the game more lively. Usually you have to win the White House before you can be that skilled at ducking and weaving.
But wait. A Romney campaign aide told Politico’s Jonathan Martin, when he wrote about this topic, that they have offered an "unprecedented" level of specificity. How can these two things both be true? To understand the disconnect, think of an ad for a prescription drug in a magazine. On one page there is an uplifting, well-lit picture of a healthy woman walking through a sunlit glen on the way to success. On the following two pages is all the fine print and possible side effects. Romney is specific about the glen and the breeze—tax cuts; more jobs for everyone; innovation; no more waste, fraud, and abuse—but is not so specific about the two pages of complexity and possible consequence.
Is Romney offering an “unprecedented” level of specificity? This is an exciting claim, but it is contradicted by history. Next to me is my worn copy of Renewing America's Purpose, the 450-page volume of George W. Bush's policy addresses and proposals from 1999-2000. By this time in the 2000 campaign, Bush had unveiled a lot more policy than Romney has, including a plan to offer workers the ability to invest some of their Social Security money in private accounts. "Mr. Bush is dominating the policy debate," the Economist wrote 12 years ago this month. "[He] has seized on the opportunities to appear both bipartisan and statesmanlike."
It's also hard for the Romney campaign to boast about specificity when the candidate is doing the opposite. He's talked about why he won’t give details because specificity was used against him in his Senate race and how his programs can't be evaluated by any experts because he hasn’t provided details.
How then can the Romney campaign claim to be so specific? The same way politicians like to believe that a response is the same as an answer. In background material offered by the campaign to show where Romney has been specific, many of the items were not so much Romney proposals but criticisms of President Obama. (This is also true of Romney’s 160-page briefing book [pdf] titled Believe in America, which should have the subtitle Because Obama Doesn’t.) A host of statements were generalities—a quotation from Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan outlining mistakes that caused Wall Street’s collapse, and calls for "dynamic regulations." In the section on financial system reform, Romney's adviser Glenn Hubbard is quoted from a Wall Street Journal article, saying that Romney would replace "the new system for dismantling failing financial companies that was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law with a new system, which [Hubbard] declined to specify."
The Romney campaign is specific about some things. Romney will enact a 5-percent cut of nonsecurity spending on Day One of his presidency. He'll privatize Amtrak and reduce subsidies for NEA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—all of which is very specific but not highly consequential policy. He will repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is very specific. But he refuses to get specific about what will replace it. He’s more specific about Medicare—seniors would be provided with a specified amount of money to purchase benefits, and private plans could compete—but details about how benefits would keep up with health costs are vague.
When CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked Tim Pawlenty, who launched his presidential campaign on the idea of telling hard truths, where Romney was being specific, the former Minnesota governor mentioned tax reform. Naming an issue area is not being specific. Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom offered Romney’s plan for reducing the corporate tax rate as an example of specificity. Saying you're going to reduce corporate tax rates is the easy part; naming the loopholes to do so is harder. The word “loopholes” appears only twice in the 160-page Romney policy document: "Meanwhile, loopholes favor those with the best lobbyists. If we close loopholes and lower the tax rate, the American people and corporations will win." (#winning).
When Gov. Romney was asked just what loopholes he would close to lower corporate and individual taxes, he said he'll work with Congress on that when he’s elected. One of the funniest things Nancy Pelosi ever said was that Congress had to pass the Affordable Care Act to know what was in it. Romney makes a variant of that claim here: To know what he will do, we must elect him.
The Romney campaign responds that the president has not been specific, either. This is true. The best example was Obama’s refusal to back the specifics of the Simpson-Bowles commission. (It was a commission he commissioned which makes this a sin of commission.) But just because President Obama's posture is slouchy doesn't erase the fact that Romney is in the fetal position. Implicit in the Romney campaign's criticism of President Obama's specificity is a standard of how detailed one should be. But the Romney campaign would not like that standard to be applied to its candidate.
Obama may not achieve the Platonic ideal of specificity, but he's well ahead of Mitt Romney. On loopholes, for example, President Obama has proposed a host he would remove (found on pages 202-05 of this Treasury Department explanation of the administration’s revenue proposals). The largest one (explained on pages 73-74) would close loopholes ("tax expenditures") for the wealthy by reducing (but not eliminating) the value of itemized deductions. Obama's framework for reducing corporate tax rates can be found here.
Presidents are always more specific than their challengers because they have to actually put things on paper. In fact, it is President Obama's specificity that Mitt Romney is actually running against, in the form of the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, the Recovery Act, and the auto bail-out. Obama can't both lack a plan for dealing with Medicare costs and be attacked for hatching the Independent Payment Advisory Board that is supposed to hold down Medicare costs. There’s more than enough in all of that for voters to evaluate the president's priorities, his manner, and his effectiveness on those policies. For a challenger without a recent governing past or a rich history, specificity is one way to evaluate him as a possible president.
So is Mitt Romney trying to get away with something? At the moment, yes, but there’s plenty of time left in the campaign for him to get specific. Imagine if Gov. Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. He'd go from policy avoidance to basing his entire campaign on one of the most detailed campaign documents ever: the Ryan budget. The political debate would be filled with plumes of charts and graphs. The big important debate we should be having about the role of government in American life would finally start. The speeches would probably get no shorter and the policy books would not shrink, but we might actually find something useful in them.
TL;DR;FO
-
I do loathe Romney. He is a liar and a panzie. But he is not Obama.
Lose lose?
-
Lose lose?
Yes. But with obama it's 100 percent fail. r Money equals 85 percent fail. I am voting based on the 15 percent chance R Money does the right thing.
-
Yes. But with obama it's 100 percent fail. r Money equals 85 percent fail. I am voting based on the 15 percent chance R Money does the right thing.
Who do you like as a running mate?
-
Who do you like as a running mate?
could care less. I would vote for Charles Manson or Joran Vandesloot over Obama.
-
facker isnt paying for my gas or mortgage, were do I sign up?
you do not possess the spirit of obama.
-
I'm afraid you're making all of this up. A program (whether it's law school or business school) is not fulltime if you aren't going full bore at 40+ hours a week, and is by definition part-time if you have a fulltime job and are taking courses at night. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I find it nigh impossible to believe someone actually in such a program would be unaware of these facts. This oddity, plus a grammatical error every third word in every post you make, leads me to believe that your personal narrative is a fiction.
Nothing personal, but with your next narrative try to get all of the relevant facts straight before wheeling it out for public consumption. ;)
Are you mentally slow? Full-time school is NOT the same thing as a full-time job for fucksakes. Clearly you haven't attended college. Undergraduate is usually considered full-time with 12+ credits and graduate school 6+, for the MBA programs at least. I took 3 classes a semester in my MBA program and was FULL-TIME, according to Penn State and the government.
-
Obama's most successful program to date has been Fast & Furious....which should get Holder prison time and Obama impeached.
-
Obama sucks....
So does your momma and she is not bad at all
-
Biden said we are in a depression today.
You are depressed.
How about medicine?
-
I'm afraid you're making all of this up. A program (whether it's law school or business school) is not fulltime if you aren't going full bore at 40+ hours a week, and is by definition part-time if you have a fulltime job and are taking courses at night. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I find it nigh impossible to believe someone actually in such a program would be unaware of these facts. This oddity, plus a grammatical error every third word in every post you make, leads me to believe that your personal narrative is a fiction.
Nothing personal, but with your next narrative try to get all of the relevant facts straight before wheeling it out for public consumption. ;)
LOL actually by definition grad school full time is 2 classes and undergrad a full load is 12 hours
dont know where you get your facts probably the same place where you got the definition of far left.
-
I'm guessing you didn't score very well on the verbal portion of the GMAT, as you don't seem to be able to handle words nor understand their meanings (and subtle variations thereof). I never mentioned credit hours, only hours simpliciter. Hence, what I've said here is entirely consistent with what you've just said, which is where my suspicion arises: I'm raising doubt as to whether this guy is putting in the requisite hours (read: not credit hours) to get an MBA fulltime while simultaneously working fulltime for 40+ hours , seeing as he can barely write coherent English. Do you recall anybody in your program working fulltime plus pursuing an MBA fulltime? I didn't think so.
Further, the guy mentioned evening classes, which means he is pursuing an evening MBA, which by definition is a part time, 3 year degree, you gyno-having cockmonger (occasionally they are 2 year programs, e.g. Leeds, but even these are still part time). Thus, the information he provided is mutually incompatible: he says he is doing evening classes (i.e., is in a part time program) yet is in a fulltime program, and says he is in a fulltime program despite working fulltime (which is virtually impossible). Add to this that he barely writes the language and someone actually in such a program wouldn't say all of these incompatible things, and my conclusion is inevitable. Read his posts more carefully for corroboration of all this.
You are a very poor representative of Penn State thus far, running to a bodybuilding message board and trying to mention your degree in every post. If I were at the program I'd be embarassed to discover a former student evincing low reading comprehension, acting like a douchebag, and tacitly admitting to steroid use ('I never said I was natural') on a message board like this, all of which is easily tied to the student's real name. This is all very irresponsible behavior.
Please, don't respond to any further posts of mine by insulting my intelligence until you're abundantly clear about their meaning, as doing otherwise reflects poorly upon you and you alone.
hahah this coming from a psuedo intellectual piss stain of a troll?
you and TA would be fast friends you two should get together it would be classic.
Sorry hoss I work full time and I am in a MBA program where going to school in the evenings will allow me to finish in two years.
Just like any other full time program, day or night...
grad schools generally dont want students to take more than 6 hours a semester meaning that 6 hours for a grad student is full time.
-
There is no denying - Romney refuses to detail his policy on just about anything.
-
Obama sucks....
Thanks for the in-depth analysis, but I don't think you should just be giving stuff like that away after all of your research.
-
There is no denying - Romney refuses to detail his policy on just about anything.
LOL this was obamas plan to a T last election and nobody in this thread including your ass had a problem with it.
Now its an issue?
-
facker isnt paying for my gas or mortgage, were do I sign up?
imagination land
333 can give you the directions
-
We know Romney has at least one clearly defined opinion
-
We know Romney has at least one clearly defined opinion
corporations are legally individuals in the eyes of the law.
That is why you ppl incorporate so the corporations assets are liable and not the officers.
as a person who is in "finance" i would think you would know this very well...
-
corporations are legally individuals in the eyes of the law.
That is why you ppl incorporate so the corporations assets are liable and not the officers.
as a person who is in "finance" i would think you would know this very well...
This is learned day 1 of corporate law in law school. Idiots like Straw Man are too immersed in the far left crappola to understand this.
-
corporations are legally individuals in the eyes of the law.
That is why you ppl incorporate so the corporations assets are liable and not the officers.
as a person who is in "finance" i would think you would know this very well...
I'm well aware of that opinion
the landmark case that arrived at that conclusion was in the very county that I live in presently and occured back in 1886
I just don't agree that corporations are people no matter what the Supreme Court says
If you can't take a dump, get cancer or be thrown in jail (and about a million other things) then you're not a person in my book
-
This is learned day 1 of corporate law in law school. Idiots like Straw Man are too immersed in the far left crappola to understand this.
I "learned" it in the eighth grade and it made no sense to me then just like today
I'm sure your best friend is a corporation
he/she/it will probably be the best man at your wedding
shit, it might actually even be the bride
-
I'm well aware of that opinion
the landmark case that arrived at that conclusion was in the very county that I live in presently and occured back in 1886
I just don't agree that corporations are people no matter what the Supreme Court says
If you can't take a dump, get cancer or be thrown in jail (and about a million other things) then you're not a person in my book
that isnt an opinion my friend that is a fact, legally corps are individuals.
-
LOL this was obamas plan to a T last election and nobody in this thread including your ass had a problem with it.
Now its an issue?
oh, i thought obama was very much "change, change, change". Romney's just "mix things up but i'm not going to commit to any position at the moment..."
-
oh, i thought obama was very much "change, change, change". Romney's just "mix things up but i'm not going to commit to any position at the moment..."
You are still in love w gaybama. Admit it.
-
You are still in love w gaybama. Admit it.
way to address my point
-
You are still in love w gaybama. Admit it.
did he ever really define his change?
or just throw out blanket ideas without any details?
-
did he ever really define his change?
or just throw out blanket ideas without any details?
see, I dont even think romney is thorwing our blanket ideas. At least obama said "univ healthcare" and "end war in iraq!"
What's romney's position on iraq? You can't define it.
DREAM? You can't define that.
SCOTUS? He will repeal but won't criticize their decision even?
hell, the only time he ever chose positions was during primary when he agreed to end PP and endorsed paul ryan plan (only to win the eleciton) - I wonder why he doesn't bring those things up anymore? lol
Romney hopes to win by being as unknown as possible.
-
You are going to vote for gaybama why?
see, I dont even think romney is thorwing our blanket ideas. At least obama said "univ healthcare" and "end war in iraq!"
What's romney's position on iraq? You can't define it.
DREAM? You can't define that.
SCOTUS? He will repeal but won't criticize their decision even?
hell, the only time he ever chose positions was during primary when he agreed to end PP and endorsed paul ryan plan (only to win the eleciton) - I wonder why he doesn't bring those things up anymore? lol
Romney hopes to win by being as unknown as possible.
-
that isnt an opinion my friend that is a fact, legally corps are individuals.
it may be a legal fact in the US but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or believe it
hey, quick question, If I own a corporation and I dissolve it is that MURDER?
It's a separate entity from me so it can't be suicide
maybe it's assisted suicide
-
it may be a legal fact in the US but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or believe it
hey, quick question, If I own a corporation and I dissolve it is that MURDER?
It's a separate entity from me so it can't be suicide
maybe it's assisted suicide
It's called Corporate dissolution.
-
It's called Corporate dissolution.
yes, but you're ending the life of a "person" and if it's against their will then it must be murder
If they want to die then you're assisting in their suicide
btw - can a corporation accept Jesus Christ as it's saviour
I assume yes
-
I'm afraid you're making all of this up. A program (whether it's law school or business school) is not fulltime if you aren't going full bore at 40+ hours a week, and is by definition part-time if you have a fulltime job and are taking courses at night. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I find it nigh impossible to believe someone actually in such a program would be unaware of these facts. This oddity, plus a grammatical error every third word in every post you make, leads me to believe that your personal narrative is a fiction.
Nothing personal, but with your next narrative try to get all of the relevant facts straight before wheeling it out for public consumption. ;)
Boooom
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/eu-trade-deal_n_2994410.html#comments
Eat shit obama voters.
Obama: Corporations are more than people too!!!
LOL. you voted for this - you own it
-
How is obama's SS plan working out fool?
Why Mitt Romney Won’t Get Specific—About Anything
By John Dickerson | Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Evasive Maneuvers
Mitt Romney doesn’t want to say anything, specifically.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/06/120626_POL_ROMNEY.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg)
To find out what Mitt Romney will do as president, you might have to vote for him first Gerardo Mora/GettyImages.
Mitt Romney has a problem with specifics. Since Scott Walker’s victory in Wisconsin, a growing number of Republicans have been calling for something more from him. His recent responses on questions from tax reform to immigration have been thin or nonexistent. When reporters tried to get an answer about the candidate’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, his spokesperson was so evasive, my colleagues might want to plant a mulberry bush in the press section to make the next round of the game more lively. Usually you have to win the White House before you can be that skilled at ducking and weaving.
But wait. A Romney campaign aide told Politico’s Jonathan Martin, when he wrote about this topic, that they have offered an "unprecedented" level of specificity. How can these two things both be true? To understand the disconnect, think of an ad for a prescription drug in a magazine. On one page there is an uplifting, well-lit picture of a healthy woman walking through a sunlit glen on the way to success. On the following two pages is all the fine print and possible side effects. Romney is specific about the glen and the breeze—tax cuts; more jobs for everyone; innovation; no more waste, fraud, and abuse—but is not so specific about the two pages of complexity and possible consequence.
Is Romney offering an “unprecedented” level of specificity? This is an exciting claim, but it is contradicted by history. Next to me is my worn copy of Renewing America's Purpose, the 450-page volume of George W. Bush's policy addresses and proposals from 1999-2000. By this time in the 2000 campaign, Bush had unveiled a lot more policy than Romney has, including a plan to offer workers the ability to invest some of their Social Security money in private accounts. "Mr. Bush is dominating the policy debate," the Economist wrote 12 years ago this month. "[He] has seized on the opportunities to appear both bipartisan and statesmanlike."
It's also hard for the Romney campaign to boast about specificity when the candidate is doing the opposite. He's talked about why he won’t give details because specificity was used against him in his Senate race and how his programs can't be evaluated by any experts because he hasn’t provided details.
How then can the Romney campaign claim to be so specific? The same way politicians like to believe that a response is the same as an answer. In background material offered by the campaign to show where Romney has been specific, many of the items were not so much Romney proposals but criticisms of President Obama. (This is also true of Romney’s 160-page briefing book [pdf] titled Believe in America, which should have the subtitle Because Obama Doesn’t.) A host of statements were generalities—a quotation from Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan outlining mistakes that caused Wall Street’s collapse, and calls for "dynamic regulations." In the section on financial system reform, Romney's adviser Glenn Hubbard is quoted from a Wall Street Journal article, saying that Romney would replace "the new system for dismantling failing financial companies that was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law with a new system, which [Hubbard] declined to specify."
The Romney campaign is specific about some things. Romney will enact a 5-percent cut of nonsecurity spending on Day One of his presidency. He'll privatize Amtrak and reduce subsidies for NEA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—all of which is very specific but not highly consequential policy. He will repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is very specific. But he refuses to get specific about what will replace it. He’s more specific about Medicare—seniors would be provided with a specified amount of money to purchase benefits, and private plans could compete—but details about how benefits would keep up with health costs are vague.
When CBS’s Bob Schieffer asked Tim Pawlenty, who launched his presidential campaign on the idea of telling hard truths, where Romney was being specific, the former Minnesota governor mentioned tax reform. Naming an issue area is not being specific. Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom offered Romney’s plan for reducing the corporate tax rate as an example of specificity. Saying you're going to reduce corporate tax rates is the easy part; naming the loopholes to do so is harder. The word “loopholes” appears only twice in the 160-page Romney policy document: "Meanwhile, loopholes favor those with the best lobbyists. If we close loopholes and lower the tax rate, the American people and corporations will win." (#winning).
When Gov. Romney was asked just what loopholes he would close to lower corporate and individual taxes, he said he'll work with Congress on that when he’s elected. One of the funniest things Nancy Pelosi ever said was that Congress had to pass the Affordable Care Act to know what was in it. Romney makes a variant of that claim here: To know what he will do, we must elect him.
The Romney campaign responds that the president has not been specific, either. This is true. The best example was Obama’s refusal to back the specifics of the Simpson-Bowles commission. (It was a commission he commissioned which makes this a sin of commission.) But just because President Obama's posture is slouchy doesn't erase the fact that Romney is in the fetal position. Implicit in the Romney campaign's criticism of President Obama's specificity is a standard of how detailed one should be. But the Romney campaign would not like that standard to be applied to its candidate.
Obama may not achieve the Platonic ideal of specificity, but he's well ahead of Mitt Romney. On loopholes, for example, President Obama has proposed a host he would remove (found on pages 202-05 of this Treasury Department explanation of the administration’s revenue proposals). The largest one (explained on pages 73-74) would close loopholes ("tax expenditures") for the wealthy by reducing (but not eliminating) the value of itemized deductions. Obama's framework for reducing corporate tax rates can be found here.
Presidents are always more specific than their challengers because they have to actually put things on paper. In fact, it is President Obama's specificity that Mitt Romney is actually running against, in the form of the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, the Recovery Act, and the auto bail-out. Obama can't both lack a plan for dealing with Medicare costs and be attacked for hatching the Independent Payment Advisory Board that is supposed to hold down Medicare costs. There’s more than enough in all of that for voters to evaluate the president's priorities, his manner, and his effectiveness on those policies. For a challenger without a recent governing past or a rich history, specificity is one way to evaluate him as a possible president.
So is Mitt Romney trying to get away with something? At the moment, yes, but there’s plenty of time left in the campaign for him to get specific. Imagine if Gov. Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. He'd go from policy avoidance to basing his entire campaign on one of the most detailed campaign documents ever: the Ryan budget. The political debate would be filled with plumes of charts and graphs. The big important debate we should be having about the role of government in American life would finally start. The speeches would probably get no shorter and the policy books would not shrink, but we might actually find something useful in them.