Romney's New Health Care Plan
Well, I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.
-- Mitt Romney, on yesterday's Meet The Press.
[This is breaking news from Fictional News Service...] We're here with Governor Romney, who has called a press conference to explain his new thinking on health care reform. Fresh off his interview with NBC's David Gregory over the weekend, Mitt seems to be transitioning his campaign into "Etch A Sketching" some of his past policy positions. One might wonder about the timing of such a move, coming as it does after the Republican National Convention, where any hint of deviance from the hardcore conservative line would likely not have received too warm a welcome from the crowd.
Governor Romney has now appeared and has opened up the floor to questions about his new plans for health care reform. We now take you to the podium, live:
"OK, who has the first question?"
"Mr. Romney, can you explain what your new health care plan will look like to the American people?"
"Certainly. First and foremost, we're going to call our new plan the 'Ronald Reagan Deficit-Reducing Health Care Reform Act.' The American public can't stand 'Obamacare' and we are fully ready to replace it with our new act. Because the initials don't really spell anything, we're going to refer to it as 'Ronniecare' to make it less of a mouthful."
"But what will actually be included in this... um... 'Ronniecare,' sir?"
"The first thing we've learned is that people actually like having their children covered on their parents' health insurance up to age 25, so we're going to include that. We're calling this portion of the new plan the 'Republican Family-First Health Insurance' provision. Secondly, we're also sensitive to the concerns of the American public that we don't go back to the days when insurance companies could refuse people health insurance based on a pre-existing condition. So everyone will be able to purchase health insurance, no matter their medical past."
"How will either of those be different than what is contained within Obamacare?"
"Well, they won't be different. Under the Republican Family-First Health Insurance plan, just like under Obamacare, young adults will be covered under their parents' plans. We're already seeing data indicating millions of young adults are already benefiting from this idea, so we think it's a good one to continue. Also, with Ronniecare in place, it will no longer be possible for insurance companies to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions."
"What are some of the other provisions in your new plan that are similar to Obamacare, Mr. Romney?"
"We conducted extensive polling, and determined that seniors are very enthusiastic about how Obamacare is closing the so-called 'donut-hole' in their costs for prescription drugs under Medicare, so we're going to keep that in there as well."
"But that's a rather expensive provision -- how will you be paying for that?"
"There's a clause in Ronniecare that Paul Ryan helped write that will pay for this expansion, which we like to call the 'End Waste In Medicare' plan. It will reap savings of $716 billion in ten years, and it will do so without changing the benefits for seniors one bit. We will end waste in the Medicare program, and use those savings to pay for closing the prescription drug donut hole."
"But isn't that the same thing that you've been running ads attacking President Obama about?"
"Well, you've got to remember that Paul Ryan has been planning on that $716 billion in savings all along -- that's why he included it in his budget plan. So we feel we're actually being consistent on this."
"Won't Ronniecare be hideously expensive for the federal government, though? You talk of all these things people will be expecting from your plan, but they all sound like they're going to cost a lot of money."
"You know, when we looked at the actual numbers, we found out that if we just repealed Obamacare and went back to the status quo before Obamacare passed, it would actually add hundreds of billions to the deficit. This is why we included 'Deficit-Reduction' in the name of the bill, because if this bill doesn't pass, America will wind up paying a lot more for health insurance down the road."
"But what about the more contentious parts of Obamacare? What about, for example, the 'death panels' that Republicans screamed about during the Obamacare debate?"
"That's another thing that was eye-opening for us. When we sat down with the actual text of Obamacare, we couldn't find the death panels at all. I know -- total surprise, right? But when Sarah Palin talked about how her child would have to go before a board of bureaucrats who decided whether his life was worth living or not, it turns out she was totally mistaken -- there's nothing in there like that at all! You could have knocked me over with a feather when we found this out. I mean, we read the whole thing a number of times, since we figured we just missed it somehow, but I can tell you straight up -- the death panels just don't exist. So of course we won't have any death panels in Ronniecare either."
"Fair enough, but what about the most contentions provision of all -- the individual mandate. Your health plan in Massachusetts had such a mandate -- complete with tax penalties -- but since then you've said you're against such a plan. So, will Ronniecare have an individual mandate?"
"Look -- we think that the term is a bad one to be using. Instead, we're going to take the Republican Party back to what used to be a bedrock idea for us: personal responsibility. In fact, we're now calling this the Heritage Foundation Personal Responsibility Citizens' Duty rather than some sort of 'mandate' or another."
"Excuse me, what was that name? Heritage Foundation..."
"The Heritage Foundation Personal Responsibility Citizens' Duty -- named for the organization which originally proposed that we stop freeloaders in the system. Republicans have never been for anyone getting any sort of free ride, and that's exactly what people who don't buy health insurance have been getting. All the responsible Americans who purchased health care were essentially paying for those who didn't have it, in the form of higher premiums. We're going to end this, with a plan devised by the very conservative Heritage Foundation, thus making sure that all citizens do their duty to show personal responsibility in life and not freeload off the rest of us."
"How does this Heritage Personal Responsibility plan differ any from the personal mandate and tax penalty contained within Obamacare?"
"Well, rather than being part of Obamacare, it is the Heritage Foundation Personal Responsibility Citizen's Duty. I'd say that was a pretty big difference, right there."
"So you're saying it's no different, it's just going to have a new name?"
"I don't think you really understand how important it is to get these things right. Ronald Reagan was for personal responsibility. Ronald Reagan would love proposals offered up by the Heritage Foundation, of that you can be sure. Ronald Reagan would not have supported death panels. Ronald Reagan was very pro-family. We feel certain that the Gipper would have been proud to have his name attached to the Ronald Reagan Deficit-Reducing Health Care Reform Act."
"Excuse me, sir, but it still sounds like just a change in name, with no difference in substance."
"Well, our polling among both Republican voters and independents shows that folks would really get behind something called Ronniecare, and are still seriously opposed to anything named Obamacare. Even when we explained that it'll be exactly the same law, we still found overwhelming support among conservatives and other voters for Ronniecare instead of Obamacare."
"So you admit that there will be no actual changes in the law, Mr. Romney, between Obamacare and Ronniecare?"
"You just contradicted yourself right there. We feel it's an enormous change to proudly support Ronniecare instead of rejecting the misguided Obamacare. I will work from my first day in office as president to fully repeal Obamacare and replace it with Ronniecare -- that is a promise you can count on."
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Clearly, the Romney/Ryan campaign is beginning to implode.
You could have knocked me over with a feather when we found this out.
I know what he means. It won't take much more than a feather to knock down the house of cards that is the Romney/Ryan campaign.
The debates are going to more fun than even I may be able to handle.
"It's the economy, stupid"
-President Bill Clinton
It's going to be the economy that decides this election..
It's not going to be school transcripts or tax returns, sex scandals or gay marriage, abortion or health care..
It's going to be the man who Americans believe can best get the economy back on track.
And, in the here and now, the American voters believe that man is Mitt Romney...
Now, Dems can throw all sorts of crap on the wall in hopes that something sticks. They've been doing it for almost a year now...
And yet, it ALL comes back to one simple question..
WHO is the best choice for getting the economy back on track.
If the election is couched in THOSE terms (and it is), then it's a no brainer as to who is going to win.
Michale.....
Michale,
You must think that most of the American people are not paying attention.
I think you're wrong.
You must think that most of the American people are not paying attention.
On the contrary, I think American voters are paying more attention to THIS election than any election in history.
And it's BECAUSE of that attention I believe Obama will lose..
Because Obama's ENTIRE campaign is smoke and mirrors. He has absolutely NOTHING substantive to base his campaign on, so it's all personal attacks and negative ads..
Granted, Romney has a slew of negative ads as well, but you will notice that there is absolutely NO personal attacks coming from Camp Romney..
Romney KNOWS he has the facts on his side, so he doesn't need to engage in character assassinations..
For Obama, it's personal..
For Romney, it's business. It's professional..
And that's why Romney will win..
Michale.....
Michale,
I noticed that you never talk about policies. You never compare and contrast the policy prescriptions for the economy being espoused by either Romney or Obama.
Isn't that kind of strange? I mean, given that this is another critical election with the economy front and center, why wouldn't you write about the economic policies being advocated by Romney and why you think those are the policies the American people will favour?
You see, that's what I mean about paying attention.
I know you don't know enough about the Ryan budget to comment on it. So, why don't you take the time to find out about it instead of constantly decrying the "personal attacks"?
I noticed that you never talk about policies. You never compare and contrast the policy prescriptions for the economy being espoused by either Romney or Obama.
I ALWAYS talk about policies...
Comparing and contrasting doesn't apply because you are comparing and contrasting policies that, on the one side are PROVEN to be ineffective and, on the other side, are just vapor-ware..
In other words, you want to compare what Obama has done to what Romney SAYS he is GOING to do..
As we know quite well from the 2008 Campaign, what a candidate SAYS he will do and what he actually DOES are two WIDELY different things...
Isn't that kind of strange? I mean, given that this is another critical election with the economy front and center, why wouldn't you write about the economic policies being advocated by Romney and why you think those are the policies the American people will favour?
Because it is senseless to advocate a policy that doesn't yet exist..
We KNOW Obama's policies have failed.
We THINK that Romney's policies MIGHT fail..
If it's a choice between the KNOWN failure and the POSSIBILITY of a SUCCESS, I am going to go with the possibility. ESPECIALLY given Romney's success in business.
The man knows how to make a business profitable. This is beyond dispute..
I know you don't know enough about the Ryan budget to comment on it. So, why don't you take the time to find out about it instead of constantly decrying the "personal attacks"?
Because I will NEVER understand budget issues. Ryan's plan could be the greatest thing since frozen pizza or the worst thing since genital herpes and I would not possibly be able to tell for sure which it is.
But I CAN easily recognize personal attacks and can comprehend the desperation that begets those personal attacks.
Put another way, if Obama had the work record and the facts on his side, he wouldn't NEED to resort to personal attacks.
The fact that he DOES resort to personal attacks (and Camp Romney doesn't) simply indicates to me who has the winning hand..
Michale.....
Michale,
Based on all of your comments here, Michale, I'm pretty sure you don't know what the policies are, of either camp.
Funny piece CW, I like. As I noted in the other thread, Romney's 'Plan C' is clearly to finally make that long awaited pivot to the centre. Whether or not it works or is too late remains to be seen. We could be probably staring at Plan D in a couple of weeks - almost nothing he is doing is shifting the polls in his favour.
I especially liked this section, it is funny because it's true: Even when we explained that it'll be exactly the same law, we still found overwhelming support among conservatives and other voters for Ronniecare instead of Obamacare
The beauty of Republican lies and propaganda on Obamacare is that they have got it to be seen as unpopular (just) when all it's individual elements are incredibly popular. The Republican propaganda and lies machine, you have to give it to them, is good.
Based on all of your comments here, Michale, I'm pretty sure you don't know what the policies are, of either camp.
Even if that were true (which it may be, I'll give you that) it's simply not relevant.
We KNOW that Obama's policies don't work. Are not effective.
We KNOW that Romney has been VERY successful in business. "STERLING" was the word President Clinton used, I believe...
We KNOW that the economy is the number one issue in the coming election.
"None of these facts are in dispute, Mr President!"
-Klingon Ambassador, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country
Given what we *KNOW* to be factual, the decision on who to vote for seems to be logical and quite obvious...
Of course, throw in the "-D" and the "-R" and all logic goes out the window...
Michale
Michale
We KNOW that the economy is the number one issue in the coming election.
I've got bad news for you. CNN's poll yesterday:
THE ECONOMY
Obama - 50%
Romney - 49%
Neither - 1%
Not everyone is like you and has selective short-term memory to forget who and what policies got America and the world in this mess.
What is even more worrying for Romney is that in the same CNN poll, when you include the Libertarian and Green candidates Obama's lead stretches from 6 points to 9 points. The Libertarian candidate takes a whack of Romney votes.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/09/10/rel10a.pdf
OMG. If you have not seen this video yet you must watch, it is hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE&feature=player_embedded
I've got bad news for you. CNN's poll yesterday:
THE ECONOMY
Obama - 50%
Romney - 49%
Neither - 1%
I thought we discussed this.
ONE poll doesn't mean shit..
Personally, I think polls in general don't mean shit.
But YOU are the one who always says one poll isn't relevant..
So, which is it??
ONE poll is meaningful or meaningless??
You don't get to choose on the fly..
Michale.....
I've got bad news for you. CNN's poll yesterday:
THE ECONOMY
Obama - 50%
Romney - 49%
Neither - 1%
Do you have a LINK for this poll??? :D
Because I will bet ya that CNN oversampled Democrats and undersampled Independents and NPAs..
They have a history of doing this to skew the poll to favor Obama.
Simply more evidence of the Left Wing bias of the MSM...
Michale.....
Michale
My point is that this election will be fought on the economy - just that you don't realise this is a battle Romney is losing. People don't forget. As Clinton put it:
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.
PS. Watch that youtube video it is unreal! I almost fell off my chair laughing.
My bust. I thought the link you posted was just for the Libertarian part of your argument.
Yea, CNN/ORC polls. Always oversample Dems and undersamples Independents and NPAs...
http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-would-lead-eight-unskewed-data-from-newest-cnn-orc-poll
That's why I never believe ANY polls. Because they are not FACTS...
More often than not, they are simply propaganda...
Michale.....
My point is that this election will be fought on the economy - just that you don't realise this is a battle Romney is losing. People don't forget.
So, YOUR claim is that American voters will remember that Republicans frak'ed up and that they will choose to stay with Democrats, who frak'ed it up 20 times worse...
And your "evidence" for this claim is ONE skewed poll that oversampled Democrats and undersampled Independents..
I saids it befores and I'll says it again.
What IS the weather like in your dimension??? :D
Michale.....
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.
But, you see, that's a false argument.. Let me tweak it for you to be more in keeping with reality..
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He has frak'ed things up 20 times worse. So fire him and put in a DIFFERENT Republican team with a PROVEN record of financial and economic success.
THAT argument reflects the reality of the here and now...
And THAT is a logical argument for firing Obama...
Michale.....
Lol Michale you don't get it do you. Not everyone lives in your 'Obama is evil' world. This poll is an exmaple of this.
And btw the last CNN poll showed the race tied with a similar sample demographic. Funny that Conservatives weren't quick to jump on that one...
Btw I agree that polls should be taken as a whole. Every poll is saying the same thing Michale, just you are ignoring it. Romney isn't, this is why he isn't talking about the economy anymore and is instigating 'Plan C - Pivot To The Centre (At Last)' - hence CW's article laughing at his attempts to do this on healthcare...
Lol Michale you don't get it do you. Not everyone lives in your 'Obama is evil' world. This poll is an exmaple of this.
No, that poll is an example of a skewed poll to produce the desired result.
That poll only means something to those drunk on the Obama kool-aid...
And btw the last CNN poll showed the race tied with a similar sample demographic. Funny that Conservatives weren't quick to jump on that one...
I really don't care what "Conservatives" jump on or not.. I am simply giving you MY take...
And MY take is facts.. The poll oversampled Dems and undersampled Independents..
THAT's why it produces a result that favorable to Obama..
Put it another way. What would YOU say to a poll that favors Romney but oversampled Republicans??
You would make the EXACT same argument that I am making.
And you would be right...
Btw I agree that polls should be taken as a whole. Every poll is saying the same thing
What complete and utter bullshit..
Every poll you CHOOSE is saying the same thing. But that's because you only choose the polls that say things you agree with..
This has been your problem since day one. You ignore exculpatory facts and cheery pick the facts that support your position..
And even THEN your arguments fall flat. At that point, you simply resort to making stuff up...
This one poll is meaningless. Even if it's methodology WAS appropriate and logical, it would be STILL be meaningless.
Because it's only ONE poll from a third rate hack media outlet..
If you had a SINGLE poll from Rasmussen or Pew (the most accurate polls from the 2008 Election) I might (emphasis on MIGHT) be inclined to give it some weight.
But a SINGLE poll from a Left Wing biased media outlet with utterly biased methodology??
Com'on, what have YOU been smoking!???
Michale....
Hay Michty..
Here's a POLL for ya... :D
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EzNTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CIMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6849%2C2861380
Still want to discuss the accuracy of Polls??? :D
Michale.....
On another note (since we're talking media bias)..
At 8:46 AM, in New York City and at the White House in Washington DC, there was a moment of silence to remember when the first plane hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In New York, the NYPD, FDNY, Port Authority Police and the families of the victims were present, while in Washington the President and the First Lady led the moment.
The cable networks all carried it, with ABC’s “Good Morning America” and “CBS This Morning” carrying it as well. The only national general news program to not carry the moment of silence was NBC’s ‘Today,” which, in an odd bit of counter-programming, opted to air an interview with “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star Kris Jenner, who talked about the new season of the reality show, and her breast implants.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbcs-today-skips-911-moment-of-silence-for-kardashian-interview_b145281
I guess, for NBC, Kardashian tits are more important than a 9/11 tribute...
I wish I could say I am surprised....
Michale...
Michale
I know you live in a conspiracy world where everything that presents data against your beliefs is part of this huge liberal-media-Google-conspiracy. But look at the most recent polls: http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
They ARE all saying the same thing. This is why it's Plan C time for Romney.
I guess, for NBC, Kardashian tits are more important than a 9/11 tribute...
Or would that be CARDASSIAN tits??
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Michale.....
They ARE all saying the same thing. This is why it's Plan C time for Romney.
Yea...
And ALL the polls said the same thing for Carter.. And Mondale.... And Dukakis....
When are you going to get it???
Polls don't mean DICK....
Even IF the polls actually MEANT something, they clearly show that Romney is GAINING on Obama..
So, why would Romney switch plans if he is actually GAINING on Obama???
Michale......
Even IF the polls actually MEANT something, they clearly show that Romney is GAINING on Obama.
Lol what on earth are you talking about? A week ago the RCP average showed Romney and Obama tied. Now it's Obama +3.1. Fwiw this time 4 years ago was McCain +2.5. Even McCain held a lead in 2012. It's funny that despite everyone saying this race is 'close' Romney has yet to hold a lead in the RCP average during 2012. You'd think that a 'close' race would see the lead swinging back and forth - but it isn't.
Barring a big financial/economical upset or big change in the circumstances in the country in the next 2 months, the polls are very clear: Romney will lose this election. The Senate and House, especially the former, can be called 'close'; the Presidential election is one-way traffic just now.
Barring a big financial/economical upset or big change in the circumstances in the country in the next 2 months, the polls are very clear: Romney will lose this election. The Senate and House, especially the former, can be called 'close'; the Presidential election is one-way traffic just now.
I'll be sure and remind you of this on 7 Nov and once again when President Romney is sworn in. :D
Michale.....
Did you check out the poll in #21??
Still want to talk prognostication??
The UofC analysis has an 89% accuracy rate at the Electoral College.. It has successfully predicted the Presidential Election since Reagan...
So, if you REALLY want to discuss prognostication (polls) address that...
Michale.....
Michty, re. your comment #12, I thought it was pretty cute; maybe I'm just not awake enough yet to find it hilarious :) Thanks though, if that clip got a national TV airing it could be the final torpedo in sinking the Romney garbage scow. And a huge relief to the non-wingnut world nervously holding its breath...after all, the Shrub slithered in twice.
The UofC analysis has an 89% accuracy rate at the Electoral College.. It has successfully predicted the Presidential Election since Reagan...
You mention this again but no link (again). Btw In-Trade has Romney at 40% and falling now. I would withdraw every penny you have and bet it on Mitt Romney - you have a 59% EDGE on In-Trade that's amazing!
Personally I'd give Romney about a 20-30% chance of winning from this point. If the economy stays stable and the unemployment rate drops to 7.9% (as predicted) by the election Obama will win comfortably. If this doesn't happen, Mitt doesn't have a chance.
What will be interesting is the next couple of weeks - the millionaires trying to buy the election might start withdrawing their funds from Romney if they don't think he has a chance. Then it really will be game over.
^ Lol * 49% EDGE. Call myself a finance professional - math fail!
You mention this again but no link (again).
Actually, I linked it when I posted it...
But here it is:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says
Personally I'd give Romney about a 20-30% chance of winning from this point. If the economy stays stable and the unemployment rate drops to 7.9% (as predicted) by the election Obama will win comfortably. If this doesn't happen, Mitt doesn't have a chance.
Again, I'll remind you of your words (again and again) post election :D
Michale.....
If the economy stays stable and the unemployment rate drops to 7.9% (as predicted)
Who made that prediction??
The same person who said that Unemployment would stay below 8% if the stimulus was passe??
:D
Michale.....
From the Colorado study:
What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida
Amazing! They don't just think Romney will win but it will be a massive landslide in which Obama loses states that Romney and his super-pac just gave up on this week lol!
And I love that they haven't even performed a probabilistic analysis! Classic. In their world Romney wins 100% apparently lolol.
That's one of the things that really crack me up about you Lefties...
Prediction after prediction after prediction is WRONG, yet ya'll STILL believe the predictors.
It's like the global con, Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling).. There has NEVER been an accurate prediction by the Climate Catastrophe fanatics.
NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTION
And many predictions were proven time and time again to be LAUGHINGLY wrong...
And yet, Lefties STILL believe that garbage???
How many times do the "experts" have wrong to make the Left stop blindingly follow these morons and think, "Hmmmmmm They have never been right.. "WHY do I continue to believe them??"
It's simply one more piece of evidence that people (Left and Right) will supplant their own common sense in worship over that '-D' or '-R' that follow a persons name...
Michale.....
Amazing! They don't just think Romney will win but it will be a massive landslide in which Obama loses states that Romney and his super-pac just gave up on this week lol!
And I love that they haven't even performed a probabilistic analysis! Classic. In their world Romney wins 100% apparently lolol.
The have correctly predicted the Presidential Election since 1980..
They have an 89% success rate on the State By State predictions..
So, apparently, they are doing SOMETHING right...
The track record makes all the difference..
But, of course, you can't accept their prediction. Because it goes against your politics..
Michale....
This is a great post on the state of the race that you'd be wise to read Michale:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/06/general-overview-sept-2012/
The national media is correct that this year’s Presidential race is close... However, the media have failed to clearly spell out the logical consequence that the Presidential race is also very stable. President Obama has kept an electoral lead every single day since May. Based on the statistical behavior of polls in past re-election races, his November re-elect probability is 88%. Conversely, the probability of unusual movement or a black-swan event is 12%.
Their results show that “the apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said. The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”
It's the economy, stupid...
Michale
The problem is that every single human being is very, very, very bad at handling probabilities. People tend to look at a percentage like 80% and assume that this means it MUST happen - they over exaggerate the chances of it happening and are shocked when the 20% hits. Studies have shown this time and time again.
The idea that you or anyone out there could predict the Presidential result with 100% certainty is LAUGHABLE. Take this from someone who loves numbers.
However, the idea that you can perform some sort of Bayesian probabilistic analysis and come to a conclusion about the % chance of Candidate A or B is absolutely fine. The % you calculate will differ depending on your model and how much you factor in and weigh certain variables into your Bayesian calculation. But this kind of prediction is sound.
Many sites/blogs do this - Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, or the blog I just linked to for example. The UoC study you presented does not do this. It is a laughable attempt to predict an election with 100% certainty - which just isn't possible (as you alluded to yourself, humans who try to predict things with 100% certainty are proven wrong time and time again).
This is a great post on the state of the race that you'd be wise to read Michale:
It's only "great" because YOU like what it says..
Coversley, the CoU study is "great" to a Rightie because HE likes what IT says...
So, your opinion of "great" is subjective and ruled completely by your politics..
To me, one is as "great" as the other... It simply re-enforces what I have always said..
You can find stats, predictions and polls to support whatever argument you want to make.
Hence, they are useless...
Many sites/blogs do this - Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, or the blog I just linked to for example. The UoC study you presented does not do this. It is a laughable attempt to predict an election with 100% certainty - which just isn't possible (as you alluded to yourself, humans who try to predict things with 100% certainty are proven wrong time and time again).
AND YET...
And yet, they have been accurate 89% of the time for the EC and correctly predicted the last 8 elections...
If their methodology is so off, explain their success???
You can't.....
Sure I will explain their success very easily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
I'd suggest the UoC people read this, as the idea that prior history of prediction has any signficance on their current prediction is laughable. Like I said predicting something like a Presidential race without giving probabilities is LAUGHABLE.
Show me a right-wing blog/site that has done an analysis which has Romney at X% chance of winning and Obama at X% chance of winning. If you can find one, this has much, much, much more credibility than the UoC study.
You said it yourself:
And many predictions were proven time and time again to be LAUGHINGLY wrong
Prediction after prediction after prediction is WRONG, yet ya'll STILL believe the predictors
I whole heartedly agree with one caveat: predicting something with 100% certainty is LAUGHABLE.
No one ever claimed that ANY prediction is 100% certain..
Well, no one but YOU..
I simply maintain (and you have yet to disprove) that the UofC study has a remarkable success rate in predicting both the Electoral College (89% accuracy since 1980) and the outcome of the Presidential election (100% accuracy since 1980)..
Does that mean they will be accurate again??
No, of course not..
But considering the track record they have, it's a pretty good indication..
Let me put it this way..
If you had a guy who had a 30+ year 89% success rate in picking Lottery Numbers, wouldn't you be inclined to put some money on that?? :D
Michale.....
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/23/article-2192464-14AAED23000005DC-953_634x286.jpg
I know your psyche refuses to allow you to even CONSIDER the possibility that you might be wrong..
But, sorry to say.. When it comes to Obama's re-election....
YOU might be wrong....
Michale.....
If you had a guy who had a 30+ year 89% success rate in picking Lottery Numbers, wouldn't you be inclined to put some money on that?
Exactly! This is called: Gambler's Fallacy. See the link I posted before.
The ideas that:
1. Their prior record means anything regarding the likelihood of their current prediction and
2. They can predict anything with 100% accuracy
are completely laughable.
Honestly if I were you and I wanted some sort of right-wing view that this were not a one-way election I'd find another site that is more credible in it's prediction... Maybe Fox News? Oh wait they have Romney stuck, unable to break 200 as well! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-presidential-race
But, sorry to say.. When it comes to Obama's re-election....
YOU might be wron
Uhm maybe you should read what I'm posting. For example "Personally I'd give Romney about a 20-30% chance of winning from this point". I would never state with 100% certainty that Obama will win as I'm not an idiot. But based on all available evidence, he is clearly a very strong favourite and very likely to win.
As long as you admit you could be wrong, that's a start..
:D
Michale.....
And you cite Fox News again!!!
How hilarious is that!!! :D
I'll remind you of this next time you spew your FOX NEWS IS ALL CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA ALL THE TIME garbage... :D
As far as the rest, you are confusing probablities with statistics...
If you flip a coin 20 times and it always comes up heads, what is the probability that it will come up tails the next time??
The probability remains the same regardless of previous flips (statistics)..
50/50...
Of course, an election is a LOT more complex then a simple coin flip..
But, if we use the coin flip example and expand it to the point to where it's comparable, we can achieve an accurate analogy.
Let's say I develop a computer algorithm that takes into account a massive amount of data (air temp, skin resistance, flow, density, arm strength, stamina, etc etc) and using this algorithm, I correctly predicted a coin flip 89% of the time...
While it's true that the ODDS (probability) of heads or tails is still 50/50, a successful track record of correctly predicting the results IS indicative of the success of predicting future events...
In short, it's not one or the other (probabilities vs statistics) but an amalgam of the two...
Class dismissed :D
In short, it's not one or the other (probabilities vs statistics) but an amalgam of the two...
If you could amass the computing power and have the intellect to construct the algorithms, you could likely predict many MANY future events..
In today's science fiction, "Temporal Analysis" is done by nothing more than very sophisticated, very powerful computers that can accurately predict events down to the sub-atomic level.. Imagine a computer that can accurately predict ocean and marine phenomena by analyzing every molecule of H20 in an ocean...
Of course, we're not at that level of technology. YET...
But, the theories ARE sound and do apply to the here and now...
Ah Michale you want to discuss numbers with me :). Let's do it.
If you flip a coin 20 times and it always comes up heads, what is the probability that it will come up tails the next time?
I'd say less than 0.000001%. Since the probability of flipping heads 20 times in a row is so low (like less than 0.0000001%) it is highly likely (99.999999% likely) that the coin is rigged to come up heads every time ;)
Let's say I develop a computer algorithm that takes into account a massive amount of data (air temp, skin resistance, flow, density, arm strength, stamina, etc etc) and using this algorithm, I correctly predicted a coin flip 89% of the time.
I'd say that you making the statement that your calculations are 89% correct based on a sample of like 10 (as UoC's study is) is nonsensical and a complete misunderstanding of how samples work. It is like asking 10 people how they are going to vote and if 9 of them say Obama saying 'well there is a 90% chance Obama will win the election'. 89% in this case (under such a low sample size, like the UoC study) is a completely meaningless number that completely disregards sample size, margin of error and (as I've mentioned before) probability (or 'confidence level' to use it's statistical equivalent).
If you flip a coin 20 times and it always comes up heads, what is the probability that it will come up tails the next time?
I'd say less than 0.000001%.
No...
The probability is constant..
It's ALWAYS going to be 50/50 regardless of past history..
It is like asking 10 people how they are going to vote and if 9 of them say Obama saying 'well there is a 90% chance Obama will win the election'.
And if the UoC study DID only talk to 10 people, you would have an argument..
But they didn't so you don't...
The results of the UoC study speaks for itself.. It's a PEER-REVIEWED report and I know you Lefties just LOVE that "Peer Review" crap...
There's an old saying...
"Nothing succeeds like success"..
The UoC has a track record of accurate predictions...
Does that mean that, unequivocally, THIS prediction will be equally accurate??
Of course not...
But, if I were a betting man, the accuracy of the UoC report, spanning three decades, seems to be a no-brainer of a bet...
We can revisit this discussion on 7 Nov 2012... :D
Michale.....
It's ALWAYS going to be 50/50 regardless of past history
Not when Bayesian probabilistic analysis shows that past history clearly suggests the coin is not 'fair'!
And if the UoC study DID only talk to 10 people, you would have an argument..
But they didn't so you don't
What you talking about? They've predicted about 10 elections. So 10 times they picked Republican or Democrat. So they have 89% accuracy on a 2 way pick over a sample of 10. Can you not see how, statistically, this is completely meaningless and ignores margin of error or confidence intervals?
But, if I were a betting man, the accuracy of the UoC report, spanning three decades, seems to be a no-brainer of a bet
If you were a betting man you should bet on Romney over at In-Trade where he is 40% to win - and laugh all the way to the bank with your 49% edge lol.
I'd say that you making the statement that your calculations are 89% correct based on a sample of like 10 (as UoC's study is) is nonsensical and a complete misunderstanding of how samples work.
Fair enough..
Let's say that my algorithm correctly predicts the results of 4,312 coin flips with 89% accuracy...
4,312 Coin Flips is comparable to Electoral College results (538x8=4304) plus Presidential Elections (1x8=8) for a total of 4,312..
That means that, out of 4,312 flips, my Super Duper Handy Dandy Trusty Dusty Coin Flipper Predictor algorithm predicts the correct results 3,838 times..
Now, I don't care WHO you are, that's some pretty impressive predictive capabilities...
Can you not see how, statistically, this is completely meaningless and ignores margin of error or confidence intervals?
It's like me tossing a coin 10 times and getting it correct 8 times then claiming that I now a great predictor of coin tosses lol. In fact, since they know other variables, it is like me tossing a coin slightly weighted to one side and accurately getting it right 8 times out of 10 lol.
Not when Bayesian probabilistic analysis shows that past history clearly suggests the coin is not 'fair'!
NOW yer just pickin at nits! :D
What you talking about? They've predicted about 10 elections. So 10 times they picked Republican or Democrat. So they have 89% accuracy on a 2 way pick over a sample of 10. Can you not see how, statistically, this is completely meaningless and ignores margin of error or confidence intervals?
No.. They have a 100% accuracy in Presidential Election.. They have an 89% accuracy in predicting the Electoral College..
Read comment #53.. You SHOULD be able to follow it.. :D
Michale.....
4,312 Coin Flips is comparable to Electoral College results (538x8=4304) plus Presidential Elections (1x8=8) for a total of 4,312..
That means that, out of 4,312 flips, my Super Duper Handy Dandy Trusty Dusty Coin Flipper Predictor algorithm predicts the correct results 3,838 times..
Hell, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and extrapolate the EC results as a 0 or a 1 (correct or incorrect) for each state and forgo the individual EC numbers.....
Under THAT process:
Let's say that my algorithm correctly predicts the results of 408 coin flips with 89% accuracy...
408 Coin Flips is comparable to Electoral College results (50x8=400) plus Presidential Elections (1x8=8) for a total of 408...
That means that, out of 408 flips, my Super Duper Handy Dandy Trusty Dusty Coin Flipper Predictor algorithm predicts the correct results 363 times..
Now, I don't care WHO you are, that's STILL some pretty impressive predictive capabilities...
Michale.....
Oh My God. The 89% is actually how correct they have been in predicting States! Lololololol. I'm pretty sure that I could get 89% right! Want to make a bet that I could get over 89% for this year??
In fact, if you take out the 10 main battleground States, and just predicted the other 41/51 EC States that's over 80% straight away! Hahaha they basically are 50/50 in the other 10 and they think that's a good thing!!
They could get every single State they named wrong: North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida and still be 82% accurate - hahahahahha amazing. I can't believe you think that 89% in this context is so amazing!!
So Michale if Romney loses and their forecast is wrong, they will still be over 82% right and maintain their decent average in predicting States. Lolololol.
Oh and they also will update the model in September. Of course. Lol. Wonder what possible update they will make??
Oh My God. The 89% is actually how correct they have been in predicting States! Lololololol. I'm pretty sure that I could get 89% right! Want to make a bet that I could get over 89% for this year??
Can you get 89% over THIRTY years???
Of course you can't...
In fact, if you take out the 10 main battleground States, and just predicted the other 41/51 EC States that's over 80% straight away! Hahaha they basically are 50/50 in the other 10 and they think that's a good thing!!
And what about the battleground states 10 years ago?? 20 years ago?? THIRTY years ago??
You see how utterly silly your argument is???
Oh and they also will update the model in September. Of course. Lol. Wonder what possible update they will make??
Would it matter to you??
You'll only agree with it when it says what you want to hear...
If it's not for Obama, it's never going to be right, in your little world..
Michale.....
Oh dear. Another flaw Michale. It hasn't correctly predicted any election BEFORE the election was held. It only predicted close to the correct results based on the data that was fed into it AFTER the elections. The model wasn't even developed until after 2008!! Amazing.
Heh Michale I just developed a model that has correctly predicted the winner of the last 10 Presidential elections, want to bet me that it is correct? It's called the 'Michty6 typing into a comment box' model...
And what about the battleground states 10 years ago?? 20 years ago?? THIRTY years ago??
You see how utterly silly your argument is???
Once again, your counter argument ignores the facts in favor of the fantasy...
Can you get 89% over THIRTY years???
Of course you can't...
Sure. In fact I can probably get 100% if, like model, I developed a model AFTER EVERY SINGLE ELECTION HAD BEEN HELD lololol.
Heh Michale I just developed a model that has correctly predicted the winner of the last 10 Presidential elections, want to bet me that it is correct? It's called the 'Michty6 typing into a comment box' model...
Once again, you ignore the facts to fuel the fantasy...
I just developed a model called the 'michty6 prediction model'. Not sure if it will work. Hold on let me try it out for the past 3 elections. Michty6 model who will win in 2000, 2004, 2008:
2000 - Bush
2004 - Bush
2008 - Obama
Wow! Amazing! My model has 100% accuracy. Now let's test it for this year. Who will win in 2012 michty6 model?
2012 - Obama.
There we go. Done deal. My model which has 100% accuracy has just predicted Romney's defeat. Sorry for the bad news Michale...
Sure. In fact I can probably get 100% if, like model, I developed a model AFTER EVERY SINGLE ELECTION HAD BEEN HELD lololol.
So, what you are saying is that making a computer model to predict future events based on previous events is not the way to go??
Well, congrats... You just completely decimated the ENTIRE Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) con... Because the entire model system for that con is BASED on past events..
Hell, for that matter, you have completely destroyed the concept of computer modeling in it's entirety...
For someone who claims to be in a scientific field, your views are quite un-scientific...
The entire field of computer modeling is BASED on establishing models that take past events and using the same models to predict future events..
I would have THOUGHT you would have known this... Apparently I over-estimated your expertise...
Michale.....
And what statistics did you use in your model??
What are the algorithms and how did they take each factor into account and how did they quantitatively associate those factors with other relevant factors??
Do you HONESTLY believe that YOUR process and the UoC's process at model building is identical??
SERIOUSLY!???
Again, I have WAY over-estimated your intelligence level...
My bust...
Michale.....
Lol no I'm laughing at the fact that you claimed 100% accuracy in predicting the President in a model that was developed AFTER the Presidential elections. Like the 100% accuracy means anything. Like someone is going to release a model that has ANYTHING OTHER THAN 100% ACCURACY under these circumstances! Amazing.
On a side note, care to make a little fun bet about the Presidential Electoral College outcome by State? You write your predictions down on here, I do the same and we can have a little forfeit as a prize for whoever gets the least amount of States correct...?
The point you're missing Michale is that OF COURSE the model is going to predict the results well because the DATA FROM THESE RESULTS WAS USED TO BUILD THE MODEL!
It's like: Data point A led to Outcome Y. I build a model that, when data point A is present, gives outcome Y. Then I feed in data point A and when I get outcome Y I go - look it works 100% correctly!
OK, let me see if I can dumb this down enough for you to follow it... I dunno if I can dumb it down enough, but I'll try...
"If you dumb this down any further, I'm gonna punch you!!"
-Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE:ATLANTIS
When you first start a computer model, you feed in all sorts of data and then run it to form a prediction for past events...
It's a bit like torturing subjects for intel, but that can be addressed another time...
What you do is you try to create a model that "predicts" past events correctly.. So, you tweak and you twist your model, input all the data you can get your hands on and then create algorithms to analyze that data...
Are you with me so far???
OK, so you have this model and you run it. You assign it to "predict" the Electoral College and the President Elections from the past 30 years...
After the first run, you have (for example) a 6% success rate.. OK, that sucks... So you go back to your model, input more data, tweak the algorithms here and there and run it again...
Are you still with me?? Understand the concepts so far???
So, THIS time, your model "predicts" the results with a 24% accuracy. OK getting better.. Not even close to being there but getting better..
So you go BACK to your model, BACK to your algorithms. You input MORE data and manipulate your algorithms to attack the issue from a different direction..
Haven't lost you yet, have I???
OK, so you do all this over and over and over again.. You get better and better results until finally you hit your max.. The BEST you can achieve is a 100% success rate on the POTUS results and an 89% success rate on the EC results..
OK... Now you really need to pay attention here, because it will get a little tricky... Keep up..
NOW you have a computer model that is the best it can be as far as predicting capability. There is a technical word for such capability, but I forget it..
Anyways, you take this model and you apply it to current data. It will examine the CURRENT data just as it did the old data.. As far as the model is concerned, it is 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.. It examines TODAY'S data in the EXACT same way that it examined all the other year's data...
Now, HERE is where it gets interesting..
Under the theorems of computer modeling, if you examine past data and know the results, you can predict future events by examining the SAME data that exists prior to the advent of the future event..
Oh, shit.. That might be too complex for you..
Look at it this way...
By looking at the same factors in past elections, you can examine those same factors in a future election and can accurately predict results..
Do you understand??
The entire field of computer modeling consists of the EXACT actions that you just ridiculed...
You create models that analyze data that occurred prior to events and then try to "predict" said event. Once you have achieved a high success rate in "predicting" events that have already occurred, you then can apply those models to analyze data preceding TRULY future events and can predict those events with a reasonable expectation of accuracy..
Now, that's as low as I can dumb it down... If you can't understand that, then we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Michale.....
The really only unknown factor in the upcoming election is the "October Surprise"...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/white-house-declines-netanyahu-request-to-meet-with-obama.premium-1.464328
My money is on an Israeli attack on Iran...
Oh I've got it - you build a model that (obviously) gets the Presidential pick right 100% and gets as close as it can on the electoral pick at 89% with the data it has.
Then a guy (you) completely misinterprets these percentages and uses them as EVIDENCE about how good this model is at predicting elections, even though it has never predicted a single election BEFORE the election ever in it's existance.
So it has never been tested before an election; it has never made any prediction before an election. But it is deemed to be "89% accurate" based on the fact it could correctly predict to 89% prior elections that have already happened lol.
How about we make a little bet here and now: you can predict the Electoral College by State (who will get the most % votes by State) using this model and I will do the same using other models that I read? We post the results here so they are date and time stamped. The loser can do some forfeit that we can talk about... Deal?
{{{sssigggghhhhhh}}}
I guess I didn't dumb it down enough..
Why don't we table this discussion until AFTER the election..
Then we BOTH will be in a position to argue the merits of the model....
But really, my point wasn't the accuracy or inaccuracy of the model..
My point was how YOU accept/don't accept models and polls, SOLELY based on what they say..
If the UoC model would have predicted an Obama win, you would have been all over it like White On Crap (or Stink On Rice... or something like that)...
But, because the UoC model predicted a Romney win, you are denigrating it from a position of COMPLETE ignorance...
I just created a simple computer model with an algorithm that is 1000% accurate...
10 REM Michale Computer Model
12 A= OBAMA LOSE
14 B= OBAMA WIN
20 If A THEN 40
30 If B THEN 70
40 PRINT "Computer Model Predicts Romney Win"
42 GOTO 50
50 PRINT "Mitchy Hates, Calls into question, Tars and feathers scientists"
60 END
70 PRINT "Computer Model Predicts Obama Win"
75 GOTO 80
80 PRINT "Mitchy swears by computer model! Heralds scientists developing model as geniuses on par with Newton, Einstein, Surek!!"
90 END
Now THAT is about as accurate a computer model as you will see around here. :D
Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but... As Peter Pan would say... "I GOTTA CROW!!"
Didn't someone here predict many MANY moons ago that Egypt would likely go the way of Iran???
Cairo protesters scale U.S. Embassy wall, remove flag
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/11/cairo-us-embassy-protesters-prophet-mohammad/70000126/1#.UE-FI1GnzUJ
Whose yer daddy!!!
I say again...
Whose yer daddy!!!
:D
Michale.....
Sure lets make a fun bet based on the model. I'm actually 100% (like this model lol) convinced that this model is incredibly flawed. So you take the results of this model as predicted and I'll take the results from another online model. Loser does a forfeit on this site. If you're so happy with this model lets put your money where your mouth is!
With an 89% success rate on the EC and a 100% success rate on the POTUS, that's safe bet...
I'll go with the UoC....
But you MIGHT want to wait until the UoC makes it's Sep update..... :D
Michale.....
Ok let's do it. Want to list the UoC Electoral College predictions by who will win what State, then I'll do that same based on some of the other models I read? Person who gets the highest number gets to choose the forfeit?
But you MIGHT want to wait until the UoC makes it's Sep update..... :D
I mean, imagine your embarrassment and threat of injury at the complete 180 you would have to do if the UoC updated their model to show that Obama will win....
I would hate for you to get hurt...
Michale.....
Well I'd imagine they'd be pretty embarrassed if their model, which according to them is 89% accurate, has to do a complete 180 and switch to Romney just a few weeks after they predicted he'd win (late August!).
Either you believe in their model - in which case put down all 51 States and who it says will win them - or you can chicken out and wait till later this month... ;)
I think a date and time stamped comment listing the States would be a good idea, then there is no backing out. I will do the same later but I can't access the State by State results of the 2 sites I'd use as I'm at work and they require Java...
Either you believe in their model - in which case put down all 51 States and who it says will win them - or you can chicken out and wait till later this month... ;)
I believe in their model methodology...
DO you??
You say NO now...
But would you say NO if, in the Sep update, it changes it's view to an Obama win???
You see, that's the point about computer models.. They simply read the data...
Now, it's your claim that the UoC personnel fed the WRONG data into the model..
Will you still maintain that stance, if the model predicts an Obama win??
Don't bother answering because you and I both know that THEN, you would swear by it..
So, if you want a wager, I am game. But there will be an additional caveat.. You will have to maintain that the UoC is flawed, even if it changes to projecting an Obama win..
And you will have to condemn it as much and as heartily as you condemn it now when it projects a Romney win..
You willing to accept those terms???
Michale.....
Michale
So, if you want a wager, I am game. But there will be an additional caveat.. You will have to maintain that the UoC is flawed, even if it changes to projecting an Obama win.. You willing to accept those terms
Sure. In fact if the model, in the space of a few weeks, changes completely 180 then I'd already assume it is completely flawed. If it switched to an Obama win that would make it MORE flawed since it claims to be based on economic data which hasn't changed much the last few weeks...
I can categorically state right here right now that I don't believe in any model that doesn't look at things probabilistically, doesn't outline it's margin of error or any confidence interval information. Any model that claims to have 100% certainty is not a model I agree with. It could say Obama will win 50 States for all I care.
I believe in their model methodology...
Great. The bet is on then. Download the report and list the States it says Romney will win to become President. I will use a combination of Nate/PEC's models and list my States tonight. Then in 2 months we will have a result.
Unless you see something I don't, the only states the UoC report lists as Obama losing are:
North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
So, I'll go with that.. Unless you are seeing something in the report that I am not seeing..
Michale.....
Just keep in mind that I am going with the UoC report 'in toto'.
When it's picks changes, so will mine...
Michale....
Ah you can't download the full report for their model as it hasn't been published yet. But those States should be a good start.
I'll go with Nate Silver's numbers just now as I can't access PEC due to Java being restricted:
Romney: North Carolina (69%),
Obama: Colorado (74%), Florida (65%), New Hampshire (84%), Ohio (75%), Virginia (74%), Wisconsin (83%), Minnesota (96%), Pennsylvania (93%).
Minnesota is the funniest. Democrats haven't lost that since 1972. But the UoC model knows better!
Just keep in mind that I am going with the UoC report 'in toto'.
When it's picks changes, so will mine
Ah I didn't realise this. But ok, if it updates its picks I will also update my probabilities from Nate's model on the same day - fair?
Ah I didn't realise this. But ok, if it updates its picks I will also update my probabilities from Nate's model on the same day - fair?
"Works for me"
-Stewardess, DIE HARD II, Die Harder
:D
Michale.....
CW-
Loved this piece. It points out so clearly how Obama simply lifted the conservative idea for healthcare and how conservatives turned on their own idea.
It also highlights why many people don't trust Romney. Who knows what he really stands for?
When you dig into the details of the Ryan/Romney budget, it would be devastating for much of the country. Including veterans.
Thomas Edsall has a great op-ed in the NY Times today on this very issue:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/edsall-the-ryan-sinkhole/
-David
DAVID!!!!!
"Yer alive!!!! And a horrible shot!!!"
-Jeff Daniels, DUMB AND DUMBER
:D
Michale
My gods, LOOK at our president..
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/09/dolphins-dissing-president-obama-chats-pitbull-medicare-on-911-with-pimp-with-the-limp-dj.html
Is THIS a leader???
David,
Now that I have welcomed you properly, let me address what you posted..
Thomas Edsall has a great op-ed in the NY Times today on this very issue:
Ya see, that's what's so funny...
When the Left talks about the Republican "platform" it's all dire and completely and utterly indicative of what the Right is all about..
But when the DEM platform is completely and utterly in disarray, all of the sudden, platforms are not all that big a deal...
It's hilarious for a political atheist to witness :D
Michale......
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/52597/World/International/Mob-sets-fire-to-US-consulate-in-Benghazi-witness.aspx
And MORE evidence that Obama's LEAD FROM BEHIND strategy is against America's best interests...
Michale.....
Michale
I don't think you read David's article properly. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Republican platform. It was about the Romney/Ryan platform.
PS. Romney at 38% on In-Trade - your edge is growing every day - almost 50% now! Easy money for you!
It had absolutely nothing to do with the Republican platform.
It is the most explicit expression of the Republican agenda, endorsed by the party’s presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and backed by decisive majorities of House and Senate Republicans.
Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like this Lefty weenie is talking about the Republican platform...
That's the problem with the Left these days.
They LOVE their semantic games.. The speak about the "Republican agenda" and then turn around an claim that it's NOT the "Republican platform" when the first claim comes around and bites them on the ass...
Gods, I wish for straight talking people who say what the mean and mean what they say!!
Listening too Left and Right talking semantics is like trying to understand the rules of Fizzbin...
PS. Romney at 38% on In-Trade - your edge is growing every day - almost 50% now! Easy money for you!
Exactly.. When Romney DOES win, I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!
You guys can call me the 1%'er!!! :D
Michale.....
Michale
I don't think you understand what a platform is and the difference between a 'platform' and candidates positions.
For example:
Ban abortion with exceptions = candidates positions
Ban ALL abortions = Republican platform.
The reason why the platform is generally ignored by the media is because the candidates themselves ignore it. So the media instead focusses on the candidates positions.
That entire article is about the Ryan budget, now endorsed and officially the position of the candidates. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican platform. Neither does anything you emboldened there. Or anything you said there. You are totally confused about what a platform is.
Exactly.. When Romney DOES win, I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!
You guys can call me the 1%'er!!! :D
It'll be a double bonus as you'll get a tax cut on your winnings!
Yea, I know I know I know..
When it works to the Democrat advantage.. It's NOT the platform...
When it DOESN'T work to the Democrat advantage, it IS the platform..
"We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia."
Yada, yada, yada, blaa, blaa, blaa, so on, so on and so forth..
The language of the political ideologue...
I never learned to speak it..
Michale....
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/11/netanyahu-to-obama-wait-for-what-wait-until-when/
I tell ya..
October surprise....
Sooner than you think... :D
Michale.....
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d960d376-fc28-11e1-aef9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26Css9V9f
Anyone want to try and claim that the Obama Administration is fully and completely behind Israel??
I think Obama just lost the American Jewish vote 'in toto'..
Michale.....
I think Obama just lost the American Jewish vote 'in toto'..
gross exaggeration. i've told you before, speaking as a member of the tribe, a majority of jewish votes don't hinge on israel policy. most of the 25% or so that do are right-wingers already. if you examine the history of the jewish-american vote, you'll see that for the most part we're social leftists and economic centrists. the last republican president to win 40% of the jewish vote was eisenhower (reagan got 39).
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
While I would be the FIRST to bow to your expertise in this area, I would submit that American Jewish voters have NEVER faced a situation where the very existence (LITERALLY) of Israel hangs in the balance..
I have met my share of Israelis and, I imagine, that Jewish Americans feel nearly as strongly about the survival of Israel as the Israelis do...
Do you honestly believe that American Jews would consider voting for the man that would allow the extermination of Israel?? Because that is EXACTLY what is at stake..
I just can't see that happening...
Michale.....
Apropos of absolutely nothing, save my comfort level...
I have met my share of Israelis and, I imagine, that Jewish Americans feel nearly as strongly about the survival of Israel as the Israelis do...
Do you honestly believe that American Jews would consider voting for the man that would allow the extermination of Israel??
I have to admit, I MUCH prefer the term "Jewish Americans" to the term "American Jews"...
Using the term "Jew" always seems to make me feel...well.. dirty...
But, as I indicated, my experience has most been with Israelis...
Do Jewish Americans have a preference???
Michale...
american jew, jewish american, whatever. i have no preference myself, and i have a feeling that very few individuals care one way or the other. as to israel's existence, it's been threatened since before it existed. the threat has been constant, but no US president has stood in the way of israelis defending themselves, and obama is no exception. barry may disagree with bibi on the right course to take, but so does everyone else, including most israelis. since foreign policy isn't exactly mitt's strong point, that issue is pretty much a wash.
american jew, jewish american, whatever. i have no preference myself, and i have a feeling that very few individuals care one way or the other.
Good to know.. I'll then just stick with what I feel most comfortable about.. Jewish Americans...
as to israel's existence, it's been threatened since before it existed.
Alluding to my experiences in Israel, I can honestly and truthfully say that, to date, the threats to Israel have been in theory...
Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is not a threat to the Israeli way of life or the ideals that make Israel great...
Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to the very existence of Israel.
Never before has Israel faced such a credible threat of complete annihilation..
And never before has an American administration allowed such a threat to Israel grow with such impunity..
As I said, I respect your assessment of the Jewish American mentality and how they view things..
And, I would like to think, that you respect my military assessment of the very real danger that Iran poses to Israel...
I know, I know.. The hope is that Iran is governed by reasonable men who respect life...
That hope is a fallacy.. The men in control of Iran and Iran's nuclear program see the Israeli people as nothing but cockroaches, to be stamped out of existence...
Regardless of any economic issues, I would be voting for Romney simply because I know his administration will be a MUCH better friend and ally to Israel than Obama et al could ever hope to be..
Since you have indicate that you are likely not going to vote for Obama anyways due to his lack of educational prowess, might I (with the utmost respect and humility (I can do humble.. really I can!! :D) suggest that the survival of Israel be a consideration....
Or not.... Just an thought... :D
Michale.....
Alluding to my experiences in Israel, I can honestly and truthfully say that, to date, the threats to Israel have been in theory...
that's patently false. the first threat to israel's existence occurred even before the moment it declared independence. when independence was declared, israel was nearly destroyed, rescued at the last minute by supplies from the US. in 1968, arab armies massed on the border and widely broadcast promise to overrun all of israel. only a surprise attack on egyptian airfields stopped that from coming to pass. just because iran is threatening to possess nukes, don't think for a second that for the past 64 years israel hasn't been in constant danger of ceasing to exist.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFmandate.html
that was '67, not '68, sorry for the type-o. i almost left out the '72 surprise attack on yom kippur, when again israel suffered heavy losses before finally repelling a surprise invasion. constant threat of annihilation. iran is doing nothing new.
don't think for a second that for the past 64 years israel hasn't been in constant danger of ceasing to exist.
Yes, the state of Israel might have ceased to exist as it exists in the here and now.
It MIGHT have gone different and Israel would be today like Palestine..
I realize I am saying it poorly, but the threat of *NUCLEAR* annihilation makes the threat in the here and now much MUCH worse than any threat Israel has faced in the past..
Michale.....
On another note...
Rueters is reporting that the US Embassy in Libya has been attacked. Our ambassador and three other Americans have reportedly been killed.
Yea.. Leading from behind is SUCH a worthwhile strategy... :^/
Our "seat at the table" is becoming a grave....
Michale.....
I realize I am saying it poorly, but the threat of *NUCLEAR* annihilation makes the threat in the here and now much MUCH worse than any threat Israel has faced in the past..
And, simply based on that threat alone, Romney is the better choice for President than Obama...
Michale.....
“Those in the international community who refuse to put a red line before Iran don’t have the moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Truer words were never spoken.
Michale.....
And, of course, there is our POTUS apologizing to the Embassy attackers, instead of condemning the attacks..
What IS it about Obama that he finds the need to be subservient to our country's enemies???
Michale.....
Ya gotta admit, when the Democrats screw up, they don't pull any punches...
http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112/091112-dnc1-800.JPG
A great big salute to our nations military during the Democrat National Convention..
Everything all patriotic, right??
WRONG...
The ships pictured there are RUSSIAN SHIPS!!
What an utterly BONEHEAD move by Democrats!!
Michale.....
It's actually ironic..
Israel's and the US's issues vis a vis the "red lines" is very similar to the issues of "red lines" here at CW.COM...
Israel wants the Obama Administration to put a "red line" in front of Iran and I want ya'all here at CW.COM to put a "red line" in front of Obama..
I have a feeling that the reasoning of the Obama Administration for NOT doing so is the same reasoning that ya'all have here at CW.COM..
To whit, you BOTH are afraid that the red line will be crossed.. Which would force both of you to take a step that ya'all simply refuse to take..
So, the thinking goes, it's better to be ambiguous about your thoughts so as to better cover your asses later...
That's fine and dandy for ya'all here. I mean, the world won't end if ya'all don't take a stand on your principles..
But for a national leader to worry more about his own ass than they safety and security of his nation and it's allies???
Well, that's just wrong...
Obama doesn't DESERVE a second term because he has failed as a leader..
Michale.....
A United States Ambassador has been killed..
Obama's response?
“the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
SERIOUSLY!!????
Muslim terrorists have killed MILLIONS of innocent people and Administration officials are worried about Muslim FEELINGS!!!????
Here's a quaint notion!
Why doesn't our government worry about AMERICAN feelings!???
Michale....
http://i.imgur.com/pcOOr.jpg%22
I am beyond outraged!
Michale.....
Obama's response?
“the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
Just to clarify, President Obama himself didn't say that.
But his representatives in Egypt said that after the US embassy in Egypt was attacked..
When is our government going to put the welfare of Americans ABOVE the "feelings" of rabid psychotics???
Michale.....
Michale. Each of the following statements is complete and utter bullshit. You need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and open your eyes (I won't be holding my breath):
And never before has an American administration allowed such a threat to Israel grow with such impunity
And, of course, there is our POTUS apologizing to the Embassy attackers, instead of condemning the attacks..
But for a national leader to worry more about his own ass than they safety and security of his nation and it's allies
Michale. Each of the following statements is complete and utter bullshit.
And yet, you offer NO FACTS to support your opinion..
You need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and open your eyes (I won't be holding my breath):
Actually, I have never listened to Limbaugh a day in my life...
Apparently, YOU have.. :D
Michale.....
Don't get me wrong.. I have applauded Obama's stance in support of Israel and against Iran.
When it was warranted..
But it is simply undeniable that Obama is trying to rein in Israel..
And he is doing it for one completely selfish reason..
So it won't mess up his chances at re-election..
Michale.....
And he is doing it for one completely selfish reason..
So it won't mess up his chances at re-election..
Maybe Obama should consider what's right for Israel BEFORE he considers what is right for Obama..
That's all I am saying...
Michale.....
Lol you want facts? Ok
And never before has an American administration allowed such a threat to Israel grow with such impunity
Actually Obama has put in place the tighest sanctions ever seen against Iran. Ever. He has got international backing for them, including the EU on board. He hsa shut down their money. He has attacked them electronically. Etc etc etc. In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is true.
And, of course, there is our POTUS apologizing to the Embassy attackers, instead of condemning the attacks..
Lol do I need to bother? Again this is you and right-wing-nut-jobs completely inventing a Barack Obama that doesn't exist.
But for a national leader to worry more about his own ass than they safety and security of his nation and it's allies
See above.
Actually Obama has put in place the tighest sanctions ever seen against Iran. Ever. He has got international backing for them, including the EU on board. He hsa shut down their money. He has attacked them electronically. Etc etc etc. In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is true.
The tightest sanctions in the UNIVERSE doesn't mean dick if they don't work...
Sanctions are NOT working.. Iran is INCREASING it's uranium processing. This according to the IAEA...
These are FACTS that you continue to ignore..
Why do you think Obama is trying to hold off an Israeli attack until AFTER the election??
Because Obama cares more about his re-election than he does about the security of Israel...
Michale.....
Michale.....
Michale
So tightened sanctions that (in your opinion) are not working = 'doing nothing on Iran and allowing the threat to go with impunity' in your world? Can you not see this is complete nonsense utter over the top rhetoric?
Why do you think Obama is trying to hold off an Israeli attack until AFTER the election?
Why do you think EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY is against an Israel strike? Because they're all up for election?? It's complete utter nonsense drivel propaganda that you repeat over and over again trying to invent an Obama that doesn't exist.
An Israel strike would be a DISASTER for the world in the current economic climate. A complete utter disaster. Everyone knows this, especially Obama, but anything he does is automatically wrong in your Obama-is-satan world...
An Israel strike would be a DISASTER for the world in the current economic climate.
And Iran with a nuclear bomb would be any better!???
Do you REALLY understand the utter felgercarb you are shoveling???
I honestly doubt it...
Michale.....
Romney's response is showing true leadership: in a crisis blame the other guy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai
Michale
And Iran with a nuclear bomb would be any better!???
Do you REALLY understand the utter felgercarb you are shoveling?
Do you really think that you know better than EVERY SINGLE WORLD LEADER and the intelligence they have??
I'm sure you should call President Obama and tell him based on your readings of right-wing blogs and listening to Rush Limbaugh it is clear Israel needs to be attacked. I am sure he'd listen to you...
A US Ambassador has been killed..
Where is the Obama Administration???
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/american_ambassador_others_killed_uvtJF2mvUd6CzlMsrh169K
**WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTO**
This is ALL on Obama.. I would LOVE to see ya'all try and spin this to be Bush's fault... :^/
Michale.....
Huh? You mean Obama that is speaking right now? I think you might be able to work out where he is... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19576730
This is ALL on Obama.. I would LOVE to see ya'all try and spin this to be Bush's fault.
Lol yes this attack was Obama's fault. Damn you Obama and your attacks on America!
Romney's response is showing true leadership: in a crisis blame the other guy.
OH MY GODS!
Did you REALLY just say that!!???
Did you REALLY condemn **ROMNEY** for the "blame the other guy" strategy!!???
Well, this proves it..
You have your head so far up Obama's ass that you haven't seen the light of day for 4 years!!!
Just for the record, Romney is blaming the guy in charge..
Ya know.. The guy who IS responsible!???
How long til Democrats start blaming Bush for it??
Michale.....
Michale
Just for the record, Romney is blaming the guy in charge..
Ya know.. The guy who IS responsible!?
Well now it's official, your Obama bigotry levels have gone to the moon. You've completely lost your mind. Now apparently Obama is responsible for attacks on America. All of them, regardless of where they are. Was Obama responsible for 9/11 in your world too? Or Bush responsible for it?
You are a maniac.
Now apparently Obama is responsible for attacks on America.
It was Obama's cowardly "Lead From Behind" strategy that resulted in the attacks on our Embassy..
So, yea. Obama is responsible..
Of course, you can't SEE that. What with your head being so far up Obama's ass, he has to open his mouth so you can breathe....
And to think I actually THOUGHT that you were rational and could accept logic and rational discourse..
But you are so far drunk on the Obama kool-aid that you simply are too far gone to reach...
Or Bush responsible for it?
I just KNEW you were going to drag Bush into it.. :D
Once again, I am proved dead on balls right...
THREE times in less than 8 hours.
HAS to be a new record...
Michale.....
It was Obama's cowardly "Lead From Behind" strategy that resulted in the attacks on our Embassy.
Lolololol of course. Nothing to do with the video of Muhammed. All Obama's fault. DAMN YOU OBAMA!
You. Are. A. Maniac.
Nothing to do with the video of Muhammed.
Not really. If Obama had actually had a REAL presence in Libya and Egypt, the brutal murder of our Ambassador and embassy personnel likely wouldn't have occurred..
But the video IS relevant insofar as it shows what complete and utter uncivilized savages these African Muslims are...
It's funny to see the Left fall all over themselves to protect the religious freedoms of a religion that would just as soon cut their heads off...
It's hilarious! :D
You. Are. A. Maniac.
I am not the one who ignores ALL facts so as to have one's nose buried in Obama's ass...
I understand that it is a racial thing with you. But you SERIOUSLY need to step back and look at the reality of things, rather than your fantasy that Obama can do no wrong..
Michale.....
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-going-las-vegas
That's our President..
Our Ambassador and embassy personnel are brutally butchered by religious fanatics...
And he is off to Las Vegas for some more campaigning...
Jesus H Christ, this guy is a LUZER with a capital 'L'.....
Michale.....
Nothing to do with the video of Muhammed.
I know you are not familiar with America, but let me lay it out for you..
We have this really kewl thing here in America called... "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
It's really kewl.. We can say what we think and how we feel, EVEN if it pisses people off..
It's what allows me to say that I think you are a drunk Obamabot who has his head so far up Obama's ass, it's impossible to tell where you end and he begins..
It ALSO means that we can ridicule a religion that teaches it's perfectly OK to cut someone's head off if they disagree with you...
It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH and, as long as you obey some reasonable restrictions (of which, 'it might piss someone off' is NOT one of them), then you can pretty much say what you want...
Blaming FREEDOM OF SPEECH for what occurred in Libya and Egypt is akin to blaming an American for breathing....
It's not OUR fault that the Muslims in Africa are uncivilized savages who think they have the right to commit brutal murder simply because someone insults them..
Maybe they should join the 21st century... If they choose not to, then it's surely going to be a case of living by the sword and dying by the sword...
In this case, the "sword" will be a shitload of cruise missiles turning their country into a parking lot..
"NUKE AND PAVE" is what we used to call it... :D
Michale....
It's not OUR fault that the Muslims in Africa are uncivilized savages who think they have the right to commit brutal murder simply because someone insults them
Well at least this part of your lunatic rants is correct. Unfortunately you are incapable of following your own logic and 'uncivilised muslims in Africa did it = Obama's fault' in your world.
But wait, I've had an epiphany!
Actually, you're wrong - it's nothing to do with uncivilised muslims in Africa - it's Obama's fault! It all makes so much sense now. Obama and the terrorist muslims together attacking America. All part of the great Obama muslim conspiracy. I wouldn't be surprised now to find out that Obama was behind 911. Or that Bin Laden is actually still alive and is living in Obamas basement. He is a master at covering things up. Rush Limbaugh was right. You were right. I have been a fool because I've been drinking Obama-kool aid (even though he is not my President, I don't live in his country and I don't like his policies). How could I have been so blind - it was right in front of my eyes. You and your muslim friends will pay for the deaths you caused today Barack!
(FYI there might be a hint of sarcasm in this post)
Well at least this part of your lunatic rants is correct. Unfortunately you are incapable of following your own logic and 'uncivilised muslims in Africa did it = Obama's fault' in your world.
I can forgive you for your ignorance because you never served in the military...
Obama is Commander In Chief..
He was CnC when he commanded the Libya operation. I am on record as stating that "Leading From Behind" is the most moronic thing a commander can do.. If he let's others lead then HE (and by extension, America) is at a disadvantage when the war is won, as circumstances will likely develop along lines that are contrary to our interests..
I was resoundingly ridiculed for this prophecy...
A prophecy which turned out to be dead on ballz accurate.. I stated that Libya and Egypt are likely to go the way of Iran and lo and behold, lookie here...
Our embassies are attacked and our ambassador and embassy personnel are brutally murdered...
The mess that is Libya and Egypt is a DIRECT RESULT of Obama's incompetence in commanding a military operation...
So, yea... It's Obama's fault...
But, could you do me a favor..
Could you attack Romney again for his Blame-The-Other-Guy strategy???
I am having a really bad LapTop day and I could use another good laugh... :D
Michale.....
U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement
September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
-http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html
Yea!!! Screw free speech!!!
Appease the uncivilized savages!
What could possibly go wrong with that plan!!!
{/sarcasm}
What on earth are you talking about 'lead from behind'? I don't even know what that is meant to mean. The only times I have seen this phrase uttered are by Sarah Palin and by you on here - which makes me think it is nothing but more right-wing-rhetoric-propaganda that you've picked up somewhere.
How attacks by extremist idiotic moronic terrorists on an American embassy, over another stupid idiot's clueless moronic video, have anything to do with Obama you've got me. Were the attacks on the Danish embassies, when someone last insulted Muhammed, his fault too? You are completely and utterly gone in your Obama bigotry. You are lost in your view of the world - as if these idiots actions represents Libya or Egypt. You are lost to reality.
And yes Romney is a fucking idiot. 2 US embassies are attacked on US soil around 9/11 and he decides this is a great time to make a political point. Conservatives and people on his side are quite rightly telling him how stupid he was. It is a moronic idea to choose this point to try and push some 'Obama apologises for us' propaganda.
You might have some criticisms of Obama on foreign policy. Sure. Bring these up when the dust has settled, not on the day a high profile American ambassador is killed in an attack of a US embassy. It is completely utterly moronic and clueless - and downright disrespectful.
Excuse my language but I just lost a friend recently and I can't imagine how I'd feel if I'm the family of this US ambassador and I saw Romney turn this into a cheap political attack. I'd want to punch his fucking lights out.
RE [137]: Are you saying that they should be encouraging other complete moronic idiots to make more idiotic moronic stupid videos like this guy? You really don't have a clue. This is nothing to do with free speech. This is about respecting others beliefs and not creating moronic over-the-top videos that will endanger US lives abroad. It's like those stupid fucking moronic Koran burners who cost many innocent people their lives by going ahead with their moronic show when they were politely asked not to.
What on earth are you talking about 'lead from behind'? I don't even know what that is meant to mean.
OK, then you need to catch up on things...
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person...
Michale....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romneys-opportunistic-incoherent-attack/2012/09/12/cebfb3b8-fce8-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html
Had to post this when I read the line "No one except for confirmed Obama haters will buy the notion that the Obama administration sympathized with the attacks." and thought of you Michale.
This is no battle of wits Michale. Nobody reading this is thinking that. This is, like many of our arguments on here, complete utter drivel. Even by your standards, this is a low point in your comments on here.
This is about respecting others beliefs and not creating moronic over-the-top videos that will endanger US lives abroad.
Do you know what FON exercises are??
Of course, you never served.. You wouldn't know..
FON exercises were very popular in the southern Mediterranean (Gulf Of Sidra) in the late 80s, but were also used by Clinton in Bosnia in the 90s..
Basically they were FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION exercises whereas the US Military (predominantly the USAF aaaahhhooorrraaaa) would traverse allegedly forbidden corridors in a provocative manner..
We would so so, BECAUSE WE HAD THE RIGHT TO...
And we weren't going to let some pissant group of savages tell us we couldn't...
I view the Koran Burners and Donkey Frakin' Prophet videos in the same vein..
We're Americans. If we want to be vulgar, we damn well have the RIGHT to be...
You speak of respect for other cultures..
Respect begets respect. Where is the respect for OUR culture?? Our rights?? Hmmmmmmmm???
Using YOUR reasoning, Republicans should start lopping the heads off of Democrats so as to prevent Democrats from making videos that ridicule and castigate Republicans...
Is THAT the kind of world you are wanting???
Again, I find it hilarious that Democrats would ridicule every American religion under the sun with glee and abandon, but yet would side with fanatics who would take great joy in lopping of their heads..
Can YOU explain that logic to me??
Michale.....
Had to post this when I read the line "No one except for confirmed Obama haters will buy the notion that the Obama administration sympathized with the attacks." and thought of you Michale.
And yet, we have the official missive from Obama's OFFICIAL representative in Egypt...
I'll post it again, just in case you missed it..
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
Yea.. NO support for the attackers..
Right.... And monkeys fly outta my butt, too....
Michale...
The United States government apologized to the attackers of the US Embassy in Egypt.
No amount of spin will change that one simple FACT..
But, as ya'all have proven time and time again, you don't CARE about any facts that put Obama and the Democrats in a bad light...
Michale....
And we weren't going to let some pissant group of savages tell us we couldn't...
I view the Koran Burners and Donkey Frakin' Prophet videos in the same vein..
We're Americans. If we want to be vulgar, we damn well have the RIGHT to be.
Just when I think you've sunk to a new low in this thread, you go lower.
And yet, we have the official missive from Obama's OFFICIAL representative in Egypt...
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo...
Yea.. NO support for the attackers..
You do know this statement was released BEFORE the attacks right? It's pretty hard to support an attack that hasn't happened. You are so lost in all this. You're as desperate as Mitt.
The United States government apologized to the attackers of the US Embassy in Egypt.
No amount of spin will change that one simple FACT
Lolololol. So you don't know the meaning of 'apology', or the meaning of 'fact'. Just complete and utter desperation by you in your bigoted anti-Obama world. I had no idea you could get this maniacal.
Just when I think you've sunk to a new low in this thread, you go lower.
If you consider expressing the rights we Americans have as "going lower" than you have more problems than I realized... :D
You do know this statement was released BEFORE the attacks right? It's pretty hard to support an attack that hasn't happened. You are so lost in all this. You're as desperate as Mitt.
No.. The statement was released AFTER the Egyptian Embassy attack, but before the Libya attack......
If the Embassy release was so proper and appropriate, why did the White House disavow it??
Around the same time, the White House disavowed the embassy's prior statement and later released one of its own, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the assault "in the strongest" terms.
You can't have it both ways, michty... Although it appears you like to tie yourself in knots, trying...
Michale.....
Regardless of the apology to the attackers, there is no doubt that Obama's "Lead From Behind" strategy is what brought us to where we are now...
As humble as I am about things like this (:D) I have to re-iterate that this action WAS foreseen by yours truly...
When you give up command of an operation, you lose all control of it's aftermath...
Any first year rotsee jeep can tell you that....
Michale.....
Lets change the topic because I'm too pissed to discuss the attack. Are you saying America should've supported the dictators in Libya and Egypt? Is this your argument?
Since you support the scum-bag loser who made this video, do you also support Nazis, Klu Klux Klan and other vicious scum-bag hatred organisations? I'm not sure I want to know the answer...
Lets change the topic because I'm too pissed to discuss the attack.
Agreed...
Are you saying America should've supported the dictators in Libya and Egypt? Is this your argument?
No. My argument at the time was that it was stupid, from a Command & Control point of view, to get involved in the conflicts in a strictly support role.. IE "Leading From Behind"...
When you give up Command & Control, you give up ALL ability to steer things in the aftermath, once the war is won..
The prevailing opinion around here at the time was that, even though the US lead from behind, they STILL had a seat at the table.
I argued that it was foolhardy to believe this, as we had absolutely NO leverage that would GIVE us a seat at the table..
That argument has been proven dead on ballz accurate by recent events..
Everyone here was wrong.. I was right..
Of course, no one will admit this, but dems ARE da facts...
I also argued at the time that, since we had absolutely NO leverage to steer the forming governments and said countries are within Iran's sphere of influence, that it was very likely that Libya and Egypt would go the way of Iran..
Once again, the events of the day has proven me dead on ballz right...
Basically, Obama followed Carter's Iran Playbook in Egypt and Libya...
And lo and behold, the EXACT same results happened...
Who woulda thinked it????
Well, besides me....
Michale......
Since you support the scum-bag loser who made this video, do you also support Nazis, Klu Klux Klan and other vicious scum-bag hatred organisations? I'm not sure I want to know the answer...
"There you go again...."
-Ronald Reagan
I never claimed to support the scumbag loser..
I merely support his RIGHT to video-toralize his view of Islam...
I would think that EVERYONE here would support that right??
If ya'all don't.....?????
Then what kind of liberals are ya'all???
Michale.....
I don't get your argument. Precisely what should Obama have done differently?
Fwiw I don't think events have proved you right or wrong, it will remain to be seen what happens with Egypt and Libya... This was a specific attack which may have been planned by Al Queda (9/11) or a reaction to a moronic video (or, it seems now, both). Neither was it supported by the Egyptian or Libyan Governments which would be a totally different matter...
So, if I understand you correctly, you would want to criminalize speech that is offensive to muslims...
But, why stop there???
Why not criminalize speech that is offensive to mormons?? Let's criminalize speech that is offensive to scientologists?? Wiccans...
But, since we're criminalizing speech, let's criminalize speech that is offensive to Democrats.. And since we criminalize THAT speech, we (naturally) must criminalize speech that is offensive to Republicans...
Do you HONESTLY want to go down that road????
Michale.....
I merely support his RIGHT to video-toralize his view of Islam...
I would think that EVERYONE here would support that right??
If ya'all don't.....?????
Then what kind of liberals are ya'all?
I don't support it. I support freedom of speech for sure. But I don't support hate crimes and hate speech. There is definitely an argument that this moronic video was a hate crime and certainly hate speech.
America is only one of the few places left in the world where hate speech is tolerated (and in fact protected). In fact many hate groups around the world base themselves and their websites in the US to get first amendment protections. Like any other moronic scum-bags trying to incite hatred and rioting, he would've been taken to court in the UK, for example.
But heh, you only just got universal healthcare this year. One step at a time... ;)
Fwiw I don't think events have proved you right or wrong,
I am sure that you honestly believe that. But the facts (ya know, those pesky things you ignore when you don't like them) seem to prove you wrong..
it will remain to be seen what happens with Egypt and Libya...
Do you HONESTLY think things are going to get BETTER for the US!!???
If so, it seems you are doubling down on stupidity.. :^/
Lemme know how that works out for ya...
Michale.....
So, if I understand you correctly, you would want to criminalize speech that is offensive to muslims...
But, why stop there
Nope. You should read more about hate speech. Here is the definition:
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
I don't support it. I support freedom of speech for sure. But I don't support hate crimes and hate speech. There is definitely an argument that this moronic video was a hate crime and certainly hate speech.
Then that argument would apply to practically every video ad that Team Obama has released...
Are you SURE you want to make that argument??
Really REALLY sure????
Michale...
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group
You mean, like the Dem ad that had a Paul Ryan look-alike pushing an old lady off a cliff???
That fits your description of Hate Speech perfectly...
You want to be VERY careful what you wish for...
Michale...
Do you HONESTLY think things are going to get BETTER for the US!
No again you take facts and completely misinterpret them. It's the same as the weather thing over again.
I am saying the evidence presented is not clear enough to indicate either way - better or worse.
A one off (potentially) Al Queda terrorist attack (on the 9/11 anniversary) based on some moronic comments, un-supported and castigated by the Libyan and Egyptian Governments is hardly indicative of what will happen in the region's attitudes towards America in the long-term...
You mean, like the Dem ad that had a Paul Ryan look-alike pushing an old lady off a cliff???
That fits your description of Hate Speech perfectly
Lololol! Very good.
I think you need to read more about hate speech. Obviously you are not familiar with the laws since they are not applicable in your country, that's fine. But no, a political party is never recognised as a 'protected group'. Here is an example for you: Jews are a 'protected group' in a lot of countries on the basis that Anti-Semitic comments/actions against them are not allowed (in Germany, for example - possibly the UK and Canada too).
Obviously you are not familiar with the laws since they are not applicable in your country, that's fine.
No, I am familar just fine..
Your argument is specious and completely unsupportable...
You want to limit speech based on YOUR criteria only..
That's not how we do things in America...
It will never happen...
Michale....
Your argument is specious and completely unsupportable...
You want to limit speech based on YOUR criteria only
Lolol what? How on earth do you come to that conclusion after I post a wiki article on Hate Speech LAWS around the world? Lol. Your logic is just unreal.
But like I said, this is way down the line for you and your country. You only just got healthcare for your citizens and are fighting to keep it. One step at a time before we get to complex freedom of speech grey areas!
Lolol what? How on earth do you come to that conclusion after I post a wiki article on Hate Speech LAWS around the world? Lol. Your logic is just unreal.
The problem is your "laws" are not applicable to the US..
In Indonesia, "Hate Speech" can be defined as saying disparaging things about the Royal Family..
In other countries, THEIR laws would make many commentaries and comments here on CW.COM "hate speech"...
Basically, YOUR idea of hate speech is anything you don't like... Much like the Left's idea of "lies" is anything the Left doesn't like..
It's completely arbitrary and has really no basis in reality...
Regardless, it's all moot.. Here in the US, with few exceptions, Free Speech is paramount..
But, as I mentioned before, it's always hilarious to see the Left take great glee in denigrating and attacking organized religions and then turn around and hysterically defend the ONE religion that says it's perfectly OK to cut off one's head if you disagree with them...
Michale....
Michale
Michale....
Michale
"Pizza, Pizza..
-Little Ceasers Commercial
:D
Michale.....
Basically, YOUR idea of hate speech is anything you don't like... Much like the Left's idea of "lies" is anything the Left doesn't like..
It's completely arbitrary and has really no basis in reality...
Regardless, it's all moot.. Here in the US, with few exceptions, Free Speech is paramount..
But, as I mentioned before, it's always hilarious to see the Left take great glee in denigrating and attacking organized religions and then turn around and hysterically defend the ONE religion that says it's perfectly OK to cut off one's head if you disagree with them
Haaaaaaaahhaaa. Amazing. It's like you're having a conversation with yourself or this imaginary guy called 'the left' lololol.
I know you don't like facts, but I'll try anyway. Fact-check have a new post on the timeline for yesterday and Romney's apology claim (not the first time they've covered this): http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/
In particular you might want to read the section: Contrary to multiple reports from Fox News, the U.S. embassy in Cairo — not the State Department in Washington — put out the statement on Sept. 11 several hours before a mob of protesters breached the wall of the embassy, took down an American flag and replaced it with a black flag.
Fwiw this is consistent with what I've seen on all other news sites.
As an army guy I would've thought you'd absolutely detest people jumping to conclusions before knowing the intel. But when the conclusion is anti-Obama you surprisingly you don't particularly care about this...
Thought you'd like this Michale
http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/romney-beclowned.gif
Contrary to multiple reports from Fox News, the U.S. embassy in Cairo — not the State Department in Washington —
It doesn't matter WHO put out the apology..
The Embassy is Obama's representative... It represents the Obama administration to the host country..
So, if the embassy says something it's the SAME thing as if the Administration is saying something..
I know for a fact that I am right.
Do you know HOW I know???
Because if we had a Republican Administration, ya'all would be saying the EXACT same thing that I am saying now.. Don't bother denying it, because we BOTH know it's true..
The only difference would be that I would be agreeing with ya'all..
Michale.....
Also Michale what do you think about the fact that the guy who released the video did so under a pseudonym and possibly even tricked the actors/actresses into appearing in the video (they were unaware what it was)? What a complete and utter coward.
Also Michale what do you think about the fact that the guy who released the video did so under a pseudonym and possibly even tricked the actors/actresses into appearing in the video (they were unaware what it was)? What a complete and utter coward.
Unless, of course, he was serving a LEFTIST cause..
Then he would be a brilliant hero around here... :^/
Again, don't bother denying it because we BOTH know it to be true...
Michale
Michale
I agree with what the embassy said. I think it's fine for them to say this. What I don't think is fine is Romney criticising them for saying this, literally as they are being attacked. Yes fantastic leadership criticising Americans under attack.
Unless, of course, he was serving a LEFTIST cause..
Lolol honestly sometimes it's like you having a conversation with yourself or this guy called 'the left' that you like to invent every sentence!
Lolol honestly sometimes it's like you having a conversation with yourself or this guy called 'the left' that you like to invent every sentence!
In other words, you don't deny the charge.. :D
Good.. Because you would have looked silly doing it..
Michale....
Yes I support people making denigrating videos of the prophet Muhammed because history has shown that that has worked out well. You can tell from my response on here that I am fully in support of this guy lol.
Yes I support people making denigrating videos of the prophet Muhammed because history has shown that that has worked out well.
But you DO support freedom of speech for a guy who wants to denigrate Christ or whoever the mormon head honcho is...
That's what makes it hypocritical. Either your are FOR freedom of speech when it comes to ridiculing religion or you are not..
You can't pick and choose.. It's against the rules..
Well, you CAN.. But if you do, that makes you a hypocrite...
Michale
It's just like your stance with Party Platforms..
When it's the Republican Party Platform, it's all encompassing and has great meaning and it's completely and utterly indicative of the Republican Party..
When it's the Democrat Party Platform and they can't make up their minds about shit, all of the sudden, the Party Platform doesn't mean anything at all...
If we were talking about race instead of Political Partys, you would be considered a stone cold racist..
But, since we're just talking Political Partys, yer only a bigot.. :D
Michale.....
It's just like your stance with Party Platforms..
And when you get CAUGHT in such blatant hypocrisy, you simply make shit up to cover your ass...
As I am sure you will do with this.
Michale......
Michale
But you DO support freedom of speech for a guy who wants to denigrate Christ or whoever the mormon head honcho is
No I am for freedom of speech but against hate speech. Very simple and in line with the law in the UK and most democratic countries around the world just now, as I previously posted. You seem completely confused by this concept despite me providing a plethora of information in the wiki link.
Let me ask you here are some more comments from the administration - do you disagree with these? Are these apologising for America and leading from behind?:
We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.
They added We vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view
It's just like your stance with Party Platforms..
When it's the Republican Party Platform, it's all encompassing and has great meaning and it's completely and utterly indicative of the Republican Party..
When it's the Democrat Party Platform and they can't make up their minds about shit, all of the sudden, the Party Platform doesn't mean anything at all...
Does 'you' refer to me or made up left-wing guy? Because I've been pretty consistent on both platforms. Again, if you can find me criticising the Republican platform I will change my political view to supporting Romney lol.
Again, if you can find me criticising the Republican platform I will change my political view to supporting Romney lol.
Again, why bother? You just find a way to weasel out of it. You have no honor..
You are clearly on record as criticizing the Republican Platform for it's abortion stance after that Right Wing nut made his comment about "legitimate rape"...
But again, no sense in pointing it out.. You just deny it. Just like you did above...
Michale.....
I am honestly beginning to think you are schizophrenic...
You take a position on one issue and then, when that position becomes inconvenient, you reverse yourself and say you never stated such..
CB and I level legitimate criticism of Clinton and you fly off the handle, hysterical about Limbaugh spewed racism.. Someone from the Left makes the EXACT same criticism and you are all peaches and cream, saying that you agree with the criticism...
You obviously have some issues that you need to resolve thru professional and competent medical means..
Seek help, dood.. Yer cracking up..
Michale.....
Lol Michale the difference is:
Other people: I believe position A because fact A, fact B and fact C.
You: I believe position A because rhetoric X, Rush Limbaugh/extremist view Y and conspiracy theory Z.
So obviously Im gonna disagree with u almost every time!
Anyway want to answer 177?
Anyway want to answer 177?
Ya'all mock and denigrate Republicans every day of the week and twice on Sunday..
The Hysterical Left in general mocks and denigrates christians, mormons and religion in general...
Why be so protective of Islam??
I'll tell ya why. Because muslims are perceived as an enemy of the United States.
And any enemy of the United States is a friend to the Hysterical Left..
Michale.....
So, let me see if I understand you correctly.
You want a law that would make it a felony to mock a religion in a video or other performance up to and including printed word...
And everyone here is OK with that???
REALLY!!????
I am simply gabberflasted that everyone here would be on board with that...
Who ARE you people and what have you done with the REAL liberals???
Michale.....
I'll tell ya why. Because muslims are perceived as an enemy of the United States.
I don't know where to begin. Are you serious? Another classic to add to the Michale library of comments.
You just don't get it. The comments made recently by the Obama administration are similar to those ALL administration makes. Just that in your Obama-is-evil world they are all of a sudden crazy, over-the-top, apologising, leading from behind and other such rhetoric.
Just as they do when someone makes anti-semitic comments. That was the whole point in the statement in 177.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly.
I don't really have the energy to explain the concept of hate speech for you. Try reading the wiki I posted or yahooing (to avoid google's liberal media bias) it...
Just as they do when someone makes anti-semitic comments.
Yet, the MSM is replete with anti-semetic statements... Which no one from the Left ever condemns...
You prove my point for me... You only want to cry "HATE SPEECH" when it is politically prudent for you to do so...
I don't really have the energy to explain the concept of hate speech for you.
TRANSLATION: You cannot justify the unjustifiable therefore you resort to evasion..
As usual....
Michale.....
Yet, the MSM is replete with anti-semetic statements... Which no one from the Left ever condemns...
You prove my point for me... You only want to cry "HATE SPEECH" when it is politically prudent for you to do so
Lol I don't know who this guy called 'the left' is but I can assure you that the President, like ALL PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM, has condoned Anti-Semitic comments in the same way Anti-Muhammed comments are being condoned. Just that when this President does it 'ZOMG HE IS APOLOGISING AND NOT STANDING UP FOR AMERICAN VALUES'. Yet when Bush makes the exact same comments (177) the right-wing-nut-cases are nowhere to be seen...
TRANSLATION: You cannot justify the unjustifiable therefore you resort to evasion
Well since I said the statement let me give you it's true meaning: I have tried to justify hate speech to someone incapable of being justified, therefore I give up.
Explaining the concept of hate speech to someone who believes Muslims are America's enemies is not something I'm going to waste my time doing...
Explaining the concept of hate speech to someone who believes Muslims are America's enemies is not something I'm going to waste my time doing...
And, once again, you change the meaning of what I say, just so you can attempt to prove your point..
In other words, you ignore the facts and lie...
Your problem is you are enslaved by political dogma and ideology. To you everything about the Left is true and correct and good and everything about the Right is lies, wrong and evil.. And spin, lie and equivocate so this is your reality...
You are so drunk on Obama kool-aid your entire perception is warped. As I said, I am sure it's a racial thing..
Normally, I wouldn't even bother with someone who is so Left Wing bias they haven't seen reality in decades..
But, I have to give it to you. You ARE amusing in a sick and really needs mental health treatment sort of way...
Michale.....
More apologising for America today:
I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it
Damn you for apologising for America!
Lol Michale yes my views, which are law in almost every country outside the US, are 'hysterical'. Definitely not your Rush-Limbaugh-like views - those are the norm.
Everyone else is crazy, only you see the light!
Lol Michale yes my views, which are law in almost every country outside the US, are 'hysterical'
Yes they are.. ANYONE who advocates stifling free speech simply because someone is offended by it is the epitome of "hysterical"...
And, I think everyone here would agree with that...
Michale....
Besides, according to intelligence, the Libya attack and the brutal assassination of our ambassador had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Islam video..
So, looks like yer wrong again....
Michale.....
Lol Michale yes my views, which are law in almost every country outside the US, are 'hysterical'
Yes they are.. ANYONE who advocates stifling free speech simply because someone is offended by it is the epitome of "hysterical"...
But here in the US we are more evolved than the rest of the world. We don't fear words or ideas...
At least, we didn't prior to 2008....
Michale.....
When ya'll start condemning the Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christian and Anti-Mormon crap coming from the Left as aggressively as you condemn the Anti-Islam crap, THEN I'll believe you are sincere about what you say and not just a victim of Party ideology...
But I know that will never happen...
Michale.....
Yes they are.. ANYONE who advocates stifling free speech simply because someone is offended by it is the epitome of "hysterical"
Lolol not quite. I don't think you will ever understand the concept of hate speech. Although it doesn't surprise me since you are scared to use Google...
Besides, according to intelligence, the Libya attack and the brutal assassination of our ambassador had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Islam video
Yes perhaps one should learn not to speak before they have the data. Who on earth was responsible for doing this in the past few days?
Btw I assume that you believe Romney apologising for America (see [188]) was also a mistake and are scared of him becoming President and continuing the rein of Bush [177] and Obama in apologising for America? Or does the right-wing-nut-job rhetoric not apply to Republicans?
Lolol not quite. I don't think you will ever understand the concept of hate speech. Although it doesn't surprise me since you are scared to use Google...
I'll say it again, since you obviously misread what I wrote...
ANYONE who advocates stifling free speech simply because someone is offended by it is the epitome of "hysterical"...
Michale......
Yes perhaps one should learn not to speak before they have the data. Who on earth was responsible for doing this in the past few days?
That would be you.... :D
Michale.....
Oh really ;)
Me: A one off (potentially) Al Queda terrorist attack (on the 9/11 anniversary)
ANYONE who advocates stifling free speech simply because someone is offended by it is the epitome of "hysterical"
Yes, just like those hysterical countries that stop their citizens shooting each other with guns. People should have freedom to shoot each other and incite riots!
Funny you're not talking much about apologising for America now that I have shown both Bush and Romney doing it...
Let's stick with how wrong you are about criminalizing free speech just because someone is offended by it..
You have a tendency to try and change the subject when you find yourself in an untenable and unjustifiable position..
So, let's keep on topic.. I want to hear the logic of stifling free speech and criminalizing it, just because it offends someone one...
Michale.....
So, let's keep on topic.. I want to hear the logic of stifling free speech and criminalizing it, just because it offends someone one...
Because, as near as I can tell, you seem to be saying that the US is backwater because it adheres to the (in your eyes) outmoded and quaint notion that Freedom Of Speech is very important.
By extension, you are claiming that the rest of the world is actually PROGRESSIVE because it criminalizes speech that one group or another would find offensive...
So, to sum up, you are saying that denying and criminalizing free speech solely based on offense is "progressive" and upholding freedom of speech, even if it is offensive (ESPECIALLY if it is offensive) is an out-moded, quaint and old-fashioned notion..
Does that about sum up your position???
Well, this puts many Weigantians in an uncomfortable position.. Do they stand by their principles and agree with the dreaded He Who Shall Not Be Named??? :D
Or do they say, "Screw principles, I am NEVER going to agree with HWSNBN!!!"
"Well, I guess now we'll see if the pants really fit."
-Q, STAR TREK VOYAGER, Deathwish
:D
Michale.....
So, let's keep on topic.. I want to hear the logic of stifling free speech and criminalizing it, just because it offends someone one
By extension, you are claiming that the rest of the world is actually PROGRESSIVE because it criminalizes speech that one group or another would find offensive
Lol nope still not getting it. Are you capable of reading of doing any research yourself without being told what you're supposed to believe? Sorry, don't answer that!
I'll assume that you are incapable of reading the previous wiki part I quoted (or posted). I will quote it again but use bold to try and help link the parts you said above (emboldened) to the part you are not getting:
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group
You may have to google 'incite violence' or 'prejudicial action' if you don't get it. I know... the results will be Google's liberal media bias. But unfortunately I don't have time to explain the meanings of basic phrases today.
But yes I am saying that there are limitations on freedom of speech. And yes there are limitations of freedom of speech IN AMERICA too. You know what defamation is right? Hate speech is another limitation where your speech could incite violence.
You may have to google 'incite violence' or 'prejudicial action' if you don't get it. I know... the results will be Google's liberal media bias. But unfortunately I don't have time to explain the meanings of basic phrases today.
Ahhhhh NOW I get it...
So, basically, you are all about appeasement..
"We mustn't offend the islamic radicals or else they will burn and pillage and rape and destroy"
So, rather then lay the blame on the savages where it belongs, you want to curtail precious freedoms for purposes of appeasement.
Well, we handle things a bit better here in the US. Although I can't find the exact ruling, I DID read that the SCOTUS has ruled that the possible violent actions of an "angry mob" are not sufficient grounds to limit or restrict the exercise of free speech...
So, forgive me if I disagree with you, but I think that makes the US more progressive and the rest of the world backward and uncivilized, at the mercy of angry mobs...
And, I can safely say that, with one or two exceptions, everyone here would agree with me on that...
Michale....
It is a difficult grey area, because obviously freedom of speech is important. But I don't think that people should be allowed to incite attacks on other people. You can't stand up in front of a large crowd and say 'Group X is responsible for your problems - it's all their fault - now go get them!'. I do believe that person should be charged.
Anyways back to the actual topic, I am interested that now Romney [188] and Bush [177] have been shown to have said exactly the same things as Obama are they going to be criticised on the right for apologising for America? Or will you acknowledge that, since they won't be criticised, this just some more rhetorical propaganda from them?
We mustn't offend the islamic radicals or else they will burn and pillage and rape and destroy"
I know you want to keep pretending that all Muslims are in the same group as there extremist maniacs that attacked the embassies, but I've got news for you: they are not.
And hate speech isn't just a Muslim thing. In fact most of the existing laws around the world were created in response to the Nazis, Anti-Semitic comments and holocaust deniers. Basically Jewish sentiment was responsible for most of these laws. There hasn't actually been a case (as far as I'm aware) where someone has been prosecuted for anti-Muslim comments. Plenty of cases for Anti-Jewish comments though...
I know you want to keep pretending that all Muslims are in the same group as there extremist maniacs that attacked the embassies, but I've got news for you: they are not.
Yea, then why don't they prove it??
If the muslim community as a WHOLE would rise up and condemn such actions and not give aid and comfort to such actions, those types of radical muslims could not exist..
Do you know what the KKK is not a viable terrorist group anymore???
Because Americans stood up and said with ONE VOICE, "we are not going to tolerate such groups and allow them to exist in the mainstream of society"..
And Viola'... The KKK all but disappeared from the American landscape...
Why doesn't the muslim community in other countries do the same??
The answer is simple. Because by and large, the vast majority of eastern muslims approve of, condone and often facilitate the actions of the radical muslims..
My evidence?? Over two decades in the field...
Regardless, that really doesn't have anything to do with the idea that we should eviscerate free speech so as to appease the uncivilized savages...
You won't find many people around here who will support doing that, even if they are loathe to make their feelings known...
Michale.....
Michale
Do you know what the KKK is not a viable terrorist group anymore?
Uhm the proportion of KKK to Americans is probably bigger than the proportion of terrorists to Muslims.
There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. Apparently all these people are to blame for the actions of a tiny minority. You bring up a great example, it would be like people blaming ALL Americans for the actions of the KKK. 'All Americans are evil - just look at the KKK!'
Why doesn't the muslim community in other countries do the same?
Uhm they do. You just don't hear about it because you live in right-wing media world and that doesn't fit in with their 'Islam is evil' crap.
My evidence?? Over two decades in the field
Great, your evidence that all 1 billion Muslims are evil comes from being in the field fighting against a couple of hundred evil ones! Lololol amazing!
Do you know what the KKK is not a viable terrorist group anymore???
That should read:
Do you know why the KKK is not a viable terrorist group anymore???
My bust.....
Michale.....
There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. Apparently all these people are to blame for the actions of a tiny minority. You bring up a great example, it would be like people blaming ALL Americans for the actions of the KKK. 'All Americans are evil - just look at the KKK!'
Back in the day, when the KKK was mainstream (and Democrats, I might add), then all Americans WERE to blame..
Put another way.. The people of Gaza elected Hamas to represent them.. That means ALL the people of Gaza are to blame for the actions of Hamas...
If muslims turn a blind eye to terrorism, facilitate terrorist acts either by commission or omission, then they are just as responsible for the acts as the terrorists who perpetrate them..
It's that simple...
Michale
If muslims turn a blind eye to terrorism, facilitate terrorist acts either by commission or omission, then they are just as responsible for the acts as the terrorists who perpetrate them
Again: they don't. But in your right-wing media world, they would NEVER report this. Because it doesn't fit in with their 'Islam is evil' rhetoric and propaganda.
This is a photo from Libya, I would guess you won't have seen or heard anything about the anti-terrorist demonstrations held there in your right-wing media networks:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2203026-150065E5000005DC-648_964x637.jpg
All I can say, michty is I hope you stick around after Obama loses the election. I am going to need people like you around to meet my holiday quota :D
Michale.....
This is a photo from Libya, I would guess you won't have seen or heard anything about the anti-terrorist demonstrations held there in your right-wing media networks:
Yea... And *I* can show you a photo of a crowd that says Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya..
I can show you a photo of a banner that says MISSION ACCOMPLISHED..
Of course, because you have a photo, THAT makes it true, right?? :D
Michale....
Lol no my points:
1. Terrorists are a minority of Muslims
2. Muslims do stand up against terrorists
3. Because you only read right-wing-neo-con-type media you probably don't believe 1 and haven't heard of 2.
Anyway I'm still waiting on your denouncement of Bush and Romney for 'apologising for America'...
1. Terrorists are a minority of Muslims
2. Muslims do stand up against terrorists
3. Because you only read right-wing-neo-con-type media you probably don't believe 1 and haven't heard of 2.
Once again, you prove that you have NO FACTS whatsoever...
1. Depends on how you define terrorism...
2. Again, NO facts to back it up save one propaganda photo.
3. Totally without merit. My reading lists include CNN, FNC, AP/Rueters Feeds, Breitbart, HuffPo, Al Jazerra, Haaretz and a host of other names you never heard of...
You see, michty, this is your problem. You have all this ideological dogma in your head and you call it "fact" SOLELY because you believe it...
Michale....
In short, michty... When it comes to terrorism, you "know" what you know because you THINK it to be true.
I know what I know because I have experienced it and know for a fact it's true..
That's the difference between you and I...
Michale.....
Let's see what the Germans are saying about Obama... :D
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-review-on-middle-east-violence-against-us-embassies-a-855835.html
Yes Michale because you fought against the evil Muslims all Muslims are evil! That's how your logic is in this and anything.
But I know I won't be able to persuade you otherwise. I'll just add it to your ever growing list of extreme beliefs!
Yes Michale because you fought against the evil Muslims all Muslims are evil! That's how your logic is in this and anything.
Once again, you put words in my mouth that I never said, just to justify a weak argument that will never fly...
But Lemme ask you something.
Since you obviously believe that the muslim attacks on our embassies are a justified response to the "hate speech" committed by Americans...
Do you also believe that 9/11 was justified? That, somehow, America DESERVED to be attacked???
Michale
Since you obviously believe that the muslim attacks on our embassies are a justified response to the "hate speech" committed by Americans...
Do you also believe that 9/11 was justified? That, somehow, America DESERVED to be attacked?
Yes I clearly said they were justified. You can tell by my descriptions of them as 'moronic' 'terrorist' 'extremist' 'idiotic'. All of these are akin to justified. Nice try.
Where as when you say "If muslims turn a blind eye to terrorism, facilitate terrorist acts either by commission or omission, then they are just as responsible for the acts as the terrorists who perpetrate them" which is saying that because some Muslims commit terrorist acts, all Muslims are evil by association. Are you saying you don't believe this? You are ok with Islam and Muslims? Because your posts on here do not indicate this...
which is saying that because some Muslims commit terrorist acts, all Muslims are evil by association.
I guess we BOTH have some interpretation issues, eh??
I never said that muslims are evil by association. I said that if muslims assist in terrorism either by omission or commission then they are complicit in the terrorist act...
You are ok with Islam and Muslims? Because your posts on here do not indicate this...
I am perfectly ok with muslims... Islam?? I am "ok" with islam as much as I am "ok" with ANY religion... IE not at all...
My problem with muslims are the muslims who dance in the street and drag bodies of Americans thru the streets.. My problem are the muslims who elect a terrorist group as their representative...
Of course, not all muslims are terrorists.. But a great majority of eastern muslims support the actions and agendas of terrorists... Some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree...
The problem that many western governments have is that they are so afraid of being accused of bigotry that they IGNORE the threat of radical islam.... What is ironic is that those same governments (yours included) have NO problem identifying and pursuing radicals in other religions...
My problem is not with islam per se.. As I said, no more than any other religion.. My problem is with radical islam. And this frustration is compounded by people like you, who are ignorant of the threat and who try and claim that there IS no "radical" islam, that there is only islam...
That's crap... There IS 'radical' islam, just as their are radical christians and radical jews and radical scientologists.. OK that last one is rather redundant.. :D
What bugs me is that the Left pretty much has my same disdain for all religions, EXCEPT islam... When I wonder WHY, the ONLY logical answer is that it is simply an extension of Right/Left battle that this country is experiences. The Left perceives (rightly or wrongly) that the Right hates islam, so naturally, the Left LOVES islam...
It's the "enemy of my enemy" mentality...
Hope that clears things up...
Michale....
The Left perceives (rightly or wrongly) that the Right hates islam, so naturally, the Left LOVES islam...
If you have a better theory that fits the facts.....
"I'm all ears..."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
:D
Michale.....
I am "ok" with islam as much as I am "ok" with ANY religion...
Agreed.
My problem with muslims are the muslims who dance in the street and drag bodies of Americans thru the streets.. My problem are the muslims who elect a terrorist group as their representative
Agreed.
But a great majority of eastern muslims support the actions and agendas of terrorists... Some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree
Uh nope. This is pretty ridiculous. There is definitely no room for misinterpretation here. A 'great majority'?! This is exactly what I was pointing out about your attitude to Muslims. This is a ridiculous statement.
And this frustration is compounded by people like you, who are ignorant of the threat and who try and claim that there IS no "radical" islam, that there is only islam
Nope. I believe the terrorist radical element is a small minority that's all. There is a HUGE difference between 'none', 'minority' and 'great majority' (lol). This is an absolute fact (otherwise there would be 1 billion terrorists in the world and you'd be screwed anyway!). I have issues with Islam as a religion in terms of their ideology, but I have issues with all religions ideology similarly. That doesn't give me, you or anyone else the right to call them all terrorists.
What bugs me is that the Left pretty much has my same disdain for all religions, EXCEPT islam
Nope, see above. What I do have problems with are people like you who want to categorise all Islams as terrorists. It's absolute nonsense but I know why you do it because the right-wing media encourages it.
The Left perceives (rightly or wrongly) that the Right hates islam, so naturally, the Left LOVES islam
Nope, see above. There is a different between disagreeing with a religion and it's ideology and flat out nonsense right-wing propaganda that portrays all Muslims as terrorists. THATS's why the left disagrees with the right on this.
Uh nope. This is pretty ridiculous. There is definitely no room for misinterpretation here. A 'great majority'?! This is exactly what I was pointing out about your attitude to Muslims. This is a ridiculous statement.
Let's see.. You say it's a "ridiculous statement"..
I assume that your statement is based on what you have read...
My statement is based on experience in the field...
A great majority of eastern muslims support, either by commission or omission the actions and agenda of radical islamic terrorists.
This is fact..
You disagree. Fine...
But that doesn't make it any less a fact...
What I do have problems with are people like you who want to categorise all Islams as terrorists.
Once again, changing my words so your argument makes sense.
At no time did I make the claim that all muslims are terrorists. Matter of fact, I explicitly said the opposite..
"Of course not all muslims are terrorists"
-Michale, CHRISWEIGANT.COM, Comment #219
If you have to constantly change my words to make your argument work, perhaps your argument sucks...
I'm just sayin'.. :D
Michale
But then on Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told the world that the violent protests in Cairo and Benghazi and elsewhere were a “response not to United States policy, and not obviously the administration or the American people,” but were “in response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Carney repeated the point for emphasis: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”
Carney’s comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them—as we fear they do—are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. Nor are Gates’s and Dempsey’s phone calls. They all send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce .??.??. Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up.
Yea, good plan... :^/
Where's the ACLU when ya need them?? Oh yea, that's right...
Up Obama's ass....
Michale.....
I assume that your statement is based on what you have read...
My statement is based on experience in the field...
A great majority of eastern muslims support, either by commission or omission the actions and agenda of radical islamic terrorists.
This is fact..
You disagree. Fine...
But that doesn't make it any less a fact
Lol this is why your views are so ridiculous. Calling the statement 'a great majority of Muslims support terrorists' a 'fact' is off-the-charts bonkers.
Then your evidence? 'Experience in the field'. Lololol. Amazing. You never cease to amaze me in your ridiculousness. I'd love to hear how you met 1 billion Muslims in 'the field'. Heck you must be one of a hell of a soldier to be able to fight off 1 billion terrorists lololol. Ah Michale. You do make me laugh!
Once again, changing my words so your argument makes sense.
At no time did I make the claim that all muslims are terrorists. Matter of fact, I explicitly said the opposite.
Lol you just made the statement:
A great majority of eastern muslims support, either by commission or omission the actions and agenda of radical islamic terrorists.
- Michale, CW.com
I don't think you understand the terms 'great majority' or 'support' or even 'terrorist'. Only YOU are incapable of seeing how ridiculous a statement this is!
I'm still waiting on you to denounce Bush and Romney for apologising for America. You've been avoiding this for a dozen or so posts now (see 186, 194, 198 etc etc) and I doubt that your anti-Obama bias will ever let you concede this, so I probably won't be checking this thread again.