Election 2012

[Lamplighter]

The election should be about jobs & the economy, not how wealthy a candidate is or isn't and
certainly NOT about their tax returns. YMMV.

OK, so please address the question:

But what is the specific plan that Mitt Romney has that will
create all those jobs this country needs so much faster than Obama?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

I don't want my government run like a business.

I know, but you have to realize that some people disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

But what is the specific plan that Mitt Romney has that will create all those jobs this country needs so much faster than Obama?

No idea. But I will say that having his taxes become the focus of the election will not help answer that question.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

I know, but you have to realize that some people disagree with you.

--snip

I do realize some people disagree with me. Duh.

But no one will like the world that results from having a government that is run like a business. That would be a disaster. Look, our military is ... pick your superlative. Efficient. Disciplined. Honorable. Effective. Et cetera. But running our government like the military would be a different disaster. Just because it's an effective model doesn't make it a model that should be followed.

Our government isn't a business. We don't have the same inputs and outputs as business.

[DanaC]

How about focusing on whether or not he felt compelled to pay his fair share of tax? Whether or not he engaged in off-shore tax schemes. And whether or not the business he ran was creating jobs or removing them to low wage economies elsewhere.

[DanaC]

Daily Show was good on why the tax issue is important/relevant.

This is a bit of a dire vid, taken from someone's tv, but it's worth it. Turn the sound up. I think he pretty much nails why peopl get upset with Romney. It isn't 'because he's rich'.

[BigV]

In business, the boss can do what he likes. Your time is his time. Your equipment is his equipment. Your information is his information. He can do what he wants, control what you do/say/see/hear when you're on the clock, wouldn't you agree? That has certainly been my experience. I doubt Boss Romney has deviated from this as Boss.

It's this kind of thinking that leads to remarks like this:

Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."

This is not acceptable as President. But he **thinks** it's acceptable as President. He says exactly that. Pandering? Campaigning? Bloviating? I don't care. Right now, all I have to judge him on are his past actions and words. These are clear words, repeated, not just uttered in... a moment of passion. I don't want a President that promises to decide what I can and can't see on my computer

[classicman]

More partisan Bullshit.
The concept was/is a filter available for parents to monitor what their children have
access to view on their computer. It was never intended to block all pron from adults.
Why is that idea not acceptable to you? What is wrong with offering an option for parents to selectively CHOOSE to use should they want to do so?

[BigV]

I'm opposed to the president vowing to "make sure that a filter is installed on every computer sold in America". Why? Why is this important for him to vow? Why is it important for him to make sure that... ... every computer? Really? All the ones used in business? Cause... of the children? Or the computers used in science applications? Or the computers purchased by the military? What about computers purchased by adults with no children? Why must those computers have a needless filter for non existent children?

You're right it is partisan bullshit, but controlling *conservative* bullshit.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Why must those computers have a needless filter for non existent children?

Hmm. So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?
Don't want it? Don't turn it on. As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

Hmm. So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?
Don't want it? Don't turn it on. As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

Why is Romney saying this?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

Hmm.

We agree. Hmm.

Originally Posted by classicman

So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?

I don't know where you're getting that, I didn't say that, I'm not saying that. My question is what is the government's compelling interest in having "pornography filters" installed on every computer sold in America? We have lots of regulations, usually in the public interest, like public safety or public health. Seatbelts come to mind. You can't buy a new car without them. Of course, you don't have to use them, though not using them is usually a violation of the law. And only stupid people continue to argue that NOT wearing them is a good idea.

Originally Posted by classicman

Don't want it? Don't turn it on.

What I don't want is the government deciding what I can access on my computer. Let's follow your preinstalled but unused idea. For the children, of course. Why not include child seats preinstalled on every new car sold in America? I'm giving you a huge advantage here because the evidence for the efficacy of child seats is infinitely better than the evidence of the efficacy of pornography filters. It's a dumb argument.

Originally Posted by classicman

As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

Cheaper for who? The company that makes the software that will now have to give it away? Or... cheaper for the company that's buying the computer with some software preinstalled? Who pays for the software? Is it free? If it's free then it's already free, why not just let people get it for free?


You declined my request for your opinion as to why Romney advocated such a position. I'll tell you mine. It was just plain pandering. Playing to his audience who believes such a thing is up to the government "THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!". That kind of audience. It's still a bullshit thing for Romney to vow. Who decides what is pornographic. Fuck. We dwellars still can't decide absolutely what's nsfw. Now we want the government deciding it? It's technically impossible, short of just making the computer like a cardboard prop Dilbert provides for his pointy haired boss.

My point is Romney's either pandering, which I find disappointing, or he's a dumbass for thinking it's actually possible, which is kinda sad, or he's a zealot, which is scary. Unless you have a more comforting explanation, I'm gonna stick with pandering, kind of a cheap corruption. "I'll trade you an empty peace of mind soundbite for the appearance of your support. I'll accept real support by those among you who actually believe my spiel."

Hmmm.

[classicman]

@ Dana - I'd love to hear it, but even with all the sound on max, I wasn't able to follow it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

@ Dana - I'd love to hear it, but even with all the sound on max, I wasn't able to follow it.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=820736#post820736

listen to first half.

@dana

ironically, this was your post in the beginning. you didn't need to find the second clip of very low quality.

eta: well crap. vid is taken down.

further eta:

try this link for the full episode, the beginning part is the Bain Capital/Romney part. With acceptable audio.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...012-louis-c-k-

[classicman]

Sorry.

[classicman]

Seatbelts come to mind. You can't buy a new car without them. Of course, you don't have to use them, though not using them is usually a violation of the law.

Agreed - Same principle.

What I don't want is the government deciding what I can access on my computer.

They aren't. You're argument is invalid. I found your original INCORRECT, conveniently selected quote extremely misleading.

You declined my request for your opinion as to why Romney advocated such a position

No idea.

Who decides what is pornographic.

The parents.

Now we want the government deciding it?

Again - False.