Addressing the other two briefly: I dont see socialsm as "The Big Bad". it is to me, a largely discredited economic theory. Capitalism has flaws, but they can be fixed. In communism you usually had a dictator and bureaoucracy that were resistant to change, and would likely shoot you if you suggested it.Some government regulation of businesses is needed, but taking them over is a step too far, since governments tend to be inefficient.
Communismt *as a theory* is great, but Communism *in practice* has been terrible for humanity. I don't find many who consider dictatorship and mass death to be good things
Calling it a campaign slogan of Obama's doesn't negate the fact that it's true.
We haven't talked recently on religion, last year and the year before that though, phew.
When so many conservatives act like morally holy rollers, it stops becoming 'calling out the individual' and turns into 'wow, maybe this group is a bunch of assholes'. If it was just a handful of conservatives, then yes it'd be unfair to label them that, but it's not a handful, it's dozens upon dozens over the years.
That paragraph was attacking conservatives in general, but Romney isn't too far off of that whole thing - He's just done a better job at saying less about all of his opinions.
But not all conservatives are religious. I certainly am not. Both sides have things one can point at and call them hypocrites about. The "holy rollers" are a prime target on the left. The rich liberals are a prime target on the right. But I know I ahve not talked of religion on FAF. if i did, i am agnostic, so I don't see that causing an argument. Usually my arguemnts are with fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me or fundamentalist atheists trying to do pretty much the same, and not understand agnostic means I dont give a fuck about whether there is a god or not. So it is unlikely.
"Like arguing all republicans are against abortions" - That is a Strawman argument. You're putting words into my mouth, Strawmanning my argument, while claiming I'm making a Strawman argument.
Actually I was thinking of anothers arugemnet earier in this thread..or it might have been somewhere else, was a while ago. One of their main reasons to vote against romney was that he wanted to ban all abortions "even those for rape or incest!". You attack some right wing positions and viewpoints that I do not share, this is likely the same. It might be a strawman in your specific case, but not in mine. I have run into democrats saying romney wants to ban all abortions, or that romnet hates women or blacks or other things like thatThose arent straw men, but examples of things i have seen in other places. More than a few of the attacks on republicans here though are strawmwen, and no one can really point out who said such things.
I mean, I guess if we're going to start throwing around logical fallacies, your last two posts have been largely red herrings or strawman arguments in-and-of-themselves. You bring up irrelephant stuff that I didn't say, or add more to what I'm saying and then counter those point - Rather than my actual points.
In case you didn't read that whole politifact article, let me point out this part for you:
"Romney has said he would not reduce the mortgage deduction and has promised not to increase taxes on the middle class. However, he has failed to provide enough details for analysts to model what his plan would actually do..
There are reasonable concerns that the numbers in Romneyâ€™s plan donâ€™t add up. The ad assumes that to get the numbers right, the worst possible outcomes for the middle class are likely. It says some major deductions could be taken away."
So what we can extract from that is: he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class (which is not the same as helping, or lowering taxes), but he hasn't given enough details about his plan - So all we have is promises and numbers that don't add up, if I'm to be so bold. Get it?
There are concerns abotu the tax thing, on both sides. Neither have really given specifics about what they would to help out the middle class. Obama has said training teachers and some tax tweaks. Both promise change but are light on specifics. You attack conservatives in genral at times, and i dont take offense, so dont take anything i say when talking about the wider liberal base or democrats as being at you specifically. Just because I am responding to your post does not mean I am only citing your behavior or words. I know I ahve used fallacies, but I am not debating. I know no one will change their opinion because of me, though my opinion wont change much either. I was just pointing out that many of the clims of what republicans want to do or are , on here, are straw men. Both candidates have things that don't add up, in terms of taxes, both seem to ignore they have to pas any tax changes through congress.
Like said above, Romney has given vague details on how he plans on cutting the deficit. He's not going to cut taxes on the rich, and he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he's going to "cut out underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code" - Which he has yet to expand upon. He wants to cut income tax rates, but hasn't proposed how he's going to pay for it. Though what I do know for certain, is that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to the deficit by literally feeding 2 trillion into the defense budget, and has offered no way to pay for it. So we can only assume it's going to add to the deficit, or he's going to be cutting somethings important.
Neither offers a clear plan on it. I certainly dont trust Obama on it. he has run 1 trillion dollar deficits all 4 years he has been in office.Polticians dont get too specific on things they woudl cut, because here is what happens "Romeny said he woudl cut this thing, but lok at this poor innocent family it would hurt, he is a monster for supporting this!" and everyone here would agree in lockstep. He is going to cut government spending. As for defense, its more complex than just"he wants to raise it 2 trillion": http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/
. It seems to me that rhater than "adding" 2 trillion, he just will cut defense spending less than obama. of course it kinda bils down to what we cut. Cut the military, or entitlements.
Romney on jobs though, is somewhat laughable, due to his personal investments in companies that outsource jobs and investing in foreign companies. Romney has stated that he wants to create 12 million jobs, which is partially assuming what you're talking about, but that has already been rated as null and void. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/
because 12 million jobs are estimated to be created by 2016 anyways, with or without him. He hasn't promised jobs on top of that, so if all he wants is 12 million - That's likely what we're going to get, regardless. [/QUOTE]
The real question is which party one thinks is better for business. Because businesses are the ones that create jobs, not presidents. and republicans are usually better for businesses than democrats are. Of course then others will point out the recession and act like thats all one parties fault which is oversimplifying complex issues to soundbites. The economy actually did well under bush, but most only seem to remember 2008, ven though that was caused by the hosing market collapse which many were responsible for, not tax cuts or the war in iraq or any other policy democrats love to hate.
Well dayum, Romney's chances of winning has gone below ten percent. Romney is in for a world of pain tomorrow.
I strongly doubt his chances are THAT low. He is pretty much tied with the president nationally. It would be more accurate to say something like his chances of winning were 30 or 40 percent. If romney were down by huge (more than 20 percent margin) percent in polls maybe i coudl understand putting his chances that low, but as it stands, 10 percent or less is jsut too low based on the actual facts.