Romney

[Warren Dew]

We have restrictions about how we drive on the highway, to stop us doing stupid things and killing people.

Some of us are smart enough to avoid doing stupid things and killing people on the highway all by ourselves. The restrictions mostly protect the stupid people from killing themselves.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have restrictions about how we drive on the highway, to stop us doing stupid things and killing people.

Some of us are smart enough to avoid doing stupid things and killing people on the highway all by ourselves. The restrictions mostly protect the stupid people from killing themselves.

Some of the restrictions have nothing to do with the intelligence of the drivers, but are simply operational procedures, such as driving on the proper side of the road, or a red light meaning stop. When people live in a group, some compromise is necessary.

[Drewish]

Libertarian baiting in a Mitt Romney thread? I'm sorry, I think you have the wrong number.

[Tero]

I can simplify the economics: Romney will cut taxes, attempt to cut down gubment and add to our debt. Unemployement will stay the same.

[Warren Dew]

Some of the restrictions have nothing to do with the intelligence of the drivers, but are simply operational procedures, such as driving on the proper side of the road, or a red light meaning stop. When people live in a group, some compromise is necessary.

My point is that intelligent people would follow those conventions anyway, without their needing to be enforced by law. All you need to do is publicize the conventions.

[Warren Dew]

I can simplify the economics: Romney will cut taxes, attempt to cut down gubment and add to our debt. Unemployement will stay the same.

I think Romney has a pretty good chance of cutting back on government spending, given his record in Massachusetts. This is an area where his business background would actually be useful, because he'd be better than a politician at identifying areas where money could be used more efficiently.

The real question is, if he has a Republican congress, whether he'll be able to resist congressional pressure to hand out pork. He can achieve the same effect as the line item veto he had in Massachusetts by forcing sequestration, but that would probably require first vetoing a few attempts at increased spending likely passed with strong Republican support. It's easier to blame the opposite party for vetoes than it is to blame your own party.

[Tero]

We will not balance the budget. He is so committed to cutting tax that it takes priority over all else.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the point was that all Romney is selling is freedom and less gubment and less raxes.

He is giving you freedom from food stamps. The job you gotta find yourself.

I think the point is that The Young Turks are more about pushing particular political narrative than informing people about real policy debates.

I think they can feel justified, it's not like the other side doesn't get any support from an unbiased media.
The scales are always well and truly grounded on the conservative side.

Not if you look at the media as a whole. It's plainly tilted left, and certainly pro-Democrat and pro-Obama, from references in mainstream culture, to public radio, the network broadcasting, and most of the cable news networks.

Just look at the coverage of the Afghan conflict now, as compared to when Bush was President. Hardly mentioned on the news. Now it's no longer important to show images of flag-draped coffins, and to count the dead day by day, even though more people are dying there under Obama than were under Bush. There is no suggestion of a lost war, and no criticism of the Administration for its management of the conflict. No criticism, or only half-muted criticism, about assassinations of American citizens, drone attacks without consent into other countries, indefinite detentions and warrantless wiretapping.

The media was also generally in favor of Obamacare, and in favor of his policies in general.

Look at the way the debates among the GOP candidates were handled. The moderators did the job of the DNC by tailoring questions to frame a debate for the Democrats. Remember, for example, when the "do you think the states could make a law prohibiting contraceptives?" question came out of nowhere? No Republican in the debates advanced the position that there should be such a law. No Republican is in favor of such a law. No state had proposed such a law. But, the Democrats wanted to move a national debate to create an image that the GOP was anti-woman because they want to take away contraceptives. The examples go on and on.

[Coito ergo sum]

Loving freedom - all freedoms - is a sign that the person is an utter total moron.

Always with the allegations of "moron." Yet another example of the fact that every Republican is cast as a moron by the Democrats and their supports, except Nixon, who was an evil genius.

Look - all candidates spout platitudes. One of the biggest platitude spouter was Obama. Remember his 2008 campaign? Full of nonsense and three word slogans.

Any society will have some freedoms and some restrictions. The alternative is chaos and anarchy. We have restrictions about how we drive on the highway, to stop us doing stupid things and killing people. Such restrictions are right and proper.

I think it's pretty much a given that Romney is not suggesting that freedom means anarchy.

I love freedom too, but only the right freedoms. The ones that improve our lives. I love the opposite to freedom also - the restrictions, but only the right restrictions. The ones that improve our lives.

I am not American (Thank Finagle!), but if I were, Romney's rant on loving freedom would be enough to dissuade me from ever voting for the idiot.

What is wrong with being an American?

One can base their vote on anything one wants, but the idea that Romney's quips about freedom are any less vapid than Obama's quips about Hope is a bit much. Or, "Yes We Can!" Really? Those are smart and incisive statements?

[Coito ergo sum]

We will not balance the budget. He is so committed to cutting tax that it takes priority over all else.

Of course we won't balance the budget. But, if reducing the budget deficit is one's goal, one gets a little closer to it with the Republican plans than with the Democrat plans. That's what Ryan's plan seeks to do. Say what you want about it, but it reduces the deficit from what it would be under the current plans.

Remember, even under the Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton, the budget wasn't really balanced. The national debt still went up every single year.

[Coito ergo sum]

I can simplify the economics: Romney will cut taxes, attempt to cut down gubment and add to our debt. Unemployement will stay the same.

And, Obama will increase taxes as much as he can, and increase spending monumentally. Unemployment will stay the same, or go up. The only reason the unemployment number in the US has gone down over the last couple of years is that the work force has shrunk.

[Drewish]

This very informative comic taught my that Romney is an evil uncaring rich man!



Clearly anyone who disagrees with this factual evidence is an idiot blinded by the bias Fox media!

[Warren Dew]

We will not balance the budget. He is so committed to cutting tax that it takes priority over all else.

Balancing the budget in the near term would be foolish. We're in the midst of a small depression here in the U.S.; the last thing we need is to depress the economy further. Given the federal government can borrow at below the inflation rate, spending now and paying later makes sense anyway.

And that, by the way, is why tax cuts would be good. Romney actually resisted supporting tax cuts for most of the primary, but he finally saw the light around the time of the last debates. Granted tax simplification would be even better, but he wants to do that, too.

[Blind groper]

What is wrong with being an American?

Nothing is wrong with being an American. Americans are just people, with all the good and bad that goes with being human.

However, I would hate to live in America. My country is a little less wealthy, and a lot less powerful militarily. But we are also less corrupt, with a lower crime rate, and a much, much lower homicide rate. We do not have idiot leaders who go marching off to war overseas. We are prepared to instigate necessary changes (like changing to the metric system 50 years ago) without being stopped by spurious complaints that it is against some fictional freedom or against some silly amendment to the constitution.

We have a greater set of true freedoms than the USA (no anti-terrorist national security foolishness), and a police force that is largely unarmed and dedicated, professional, and non corrupt.

Our government is influenced by wealthy lobby groups, but has avoided existing in the back pocket of the very wealthy. So they can create policies that are to the benefit of everyone - not just the rich. For example : we have a national health system that is better than Obamacare could ever be. (And way, way less expensive than the American system, for the same standard of care).

The major problem with the USA resides in its government (s), state and federal. Corruption. Kowtowing to the rich. Prepared to indulge in highly expensive and enormously damaging overseas military adventures. Massively influenced by the moronic religious right. The people are fine. But the government needs a total overhaul.

So, sure - nothing wrong with being American. But I will live here in New Zealand, thank you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My point is that intelligent people would follow those conventions anyway, without their needing to be enforced by law. All you need to do is publicize the conventions.

My point is that unintelligent people drive, as well.

There are well over 200 million licensed drivers in the US. Relying on them to all behave in a complimentary manner without compulsory guidelines is somewhat idealistic, it seems to me. Consider: drunk driving is illegal, and has been the object of a PSA campaign lasting three decades; yet in 2009, 1.4 million people were arrested for DUI, and according to the same CDC collation, there were 147 million self-reported incidents of DUI that weren't found out by police. Almost 11,000 Americans were killed in DUI accidents -- that's thirty per day.

Given that, can you reasonably expect the driving public to do the sensible thing without the compulsion of regulation?