Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

bleeding heart · July 15, 2012

I suppose you would find it "a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system".

I think it's crazy to argue otherwise.

When one first starts driving a car it is complex but as you "progress" it becomes an easier task and perhaps simpler than you initially thought. You just have to go through a learning process.

It's not even close to the same thing. Surely you must know that.

Soon you will be thinking on your own along with the rest of the "contiguous collection of atomized individuals." and may even be able to make a statement of ideas that you as an individual arrive at.

I humbly suggest that your stated opinions are not quite as original as you seem to think they are.

Here are two pieces of information that are inarguable if one cares to look through history: 1. Governments tend, over time, to centralize power.

That's too narrow. Power tends to increase, or attempt to increase, itself over time; and governments, being made up of human beings, tend to fall prey to the same human inclination.

Misuse of power would continue apace, with or without an "official" government. Restrictions on freedom and prosperity would be there regardless, and could concievably be worse.

And this is where the libertarian arguments often self-destruct, primarily because of too-selective delineations of "government" as the chief obstacle to freedom in every case.

The fact is, hierarchies of power always occur; always. The way to battle this, and so subsequently increase actual human freedom, is to try to remain vigilant to misuses of power in all its spheres, not only in evil lefty governments.

The government isn't a cause, but an effect.

In order to think this way, we have to remain forever cognizant of, as I said, the massive complexities of a society, which is nothing much like learning a skill such as driving a car.

So for example, if government is shrunk to "drown in a bathtub," as a simpleton once put it, other entities of concentrated power will rise to take its place. In a capitalist libertarian society, for example, the rich will rule. Literally. Which rather cancels out the "libertarian" part of the equation.

The difference is that, unlike a flawed and corrupt centralized government that we have now, they will be totally unrepresentative--as opposed to being partially representative, as currently. They will be absolutely unelected, as opposed to being elected in a flawed and troubled manner, as we have at the moment.

Personally, I view both the Left and Right strains of libertarianism as deeply problematic--for reasons of the potential rise of unrepresentative, unelected power. I have sympathies with the idea, and I think the libertarian strains within the realm of political thought are important amelioratives to absolute statism.

In other words, libertarianism must always be the Opposition, not the Government.

Like I said, the problems of Power are not restricted to government as we know it, but are much vaster problems that have to do with human beings inherently.

Edited July 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

Argus · July 15, 2012

I'll do what I can to help.

Next time you could help by considering the proper use of the paragraph. Your stream of consciousness stuff was disorganized and almost impossible to understand.

Unfortunately, our society in both Canada and the United States has taken "bits and pieces" from communism and other forms of socialism such as Fascism and have left the populace with little understanding of what politically is occurring

.

You would have been wise to include a few of these 'bits and pieces' so we had a better idea what you were talking about.

We are stuck with the central bank and a fiat currency and a universal single payer health care system in Canada (soon to be established in the US or some such facsimile), among other things.

There is always only one single payer. The only difference is whether that single payer, i.e. me, pays his money in the form of taxes or in the form of insurance or directly to the end provider. Thus far, it appears that the single payer system is more efficient in terms of the use of money and the least wasteful in terms of administrative overhead. So I'm fine with that unless you can demonstrate the advantage of some other form which is more effective and efficient.

The rest of your post was largely unintelligible, filled with incomplete and unrelated thoughts.

GostHacked · July 15, 2012

Leftist, leftist,leftist, leftist, leftist.... awesome thread so far.

cybercoma · July 15, 2012

our society in both Canada and the United States has taken "bits and pieces" from communism

You don't take "bits and pieces" from Communism. There is no compromise with Communists. They believe that there is a war going on between classes and only a violent Revolution will change that. There is no halfway Communism. This is also why there has never been Communism anywhere on this planet.

Shady · July 15, 2012

The media continues to call out Obama's swiftboating of Romney.

The Obama campaign has reached new depths of hypocrisy and mendacity in accusing its GOP opponent of a felony.
For a Barack Obama operative to accuse Mitt Romney of misrepresenting his chairmanship at Bain Capital to the Securities and Exchange Commission over a decade ago, "which is a felony," as Stephanie Cutter said, reveals the desperation of a presidential re-election campaign that must distract Americans from its dismal economic record.

IBD

punked · July 15, 2012

The media continues to call out Obama's swiftboating of Romney.

Yah sure Shady the "media" you have linked two articles here. So let me post three so you look silly again with wild claims. As per usual.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/14/evidence_mounts_of_mitt_romneys_continuing_ties_to_bain_after_1999/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/blow-what-a-tangled-web.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/

That took me all of 6 seconds. The "Media" in your head might be calling Obama a liar but here on earth they have some questions for Mitt Romney and when he left Bain.

Edited July 15, 2012 by punked

Shady · July 15, 2012

Yah sure Shady the "media" you have linked two articles here. So let me post three so you look silly again they have some questions for Mitt Romney and when he left Bain.

Questions that have been answered. However, none of them are calling Romney a felon, like the Obama campaign. It's pure swiftboating.

punked · July 15, 2012

Questions that have been answered. However, none of them are calling Romney a felon, like the Obama campaign. It's pure swiftboating.

They really haven't been answered Shady. If they had been answered I don't think Forbes would print an article titled "35 Questions Romney needs at answer about Bain". That article was printed today. The Media has questions and Romney is dancing around all the issues.

If the questions were answered I don't think that "Factchecker" you posted to earlier wouldn't have to write another article today clarifying "facts" from his article yesterday. Nope there are questions that need answering and the sooner the better for Romney because Obama has tied this story to Romney's tax returns so no matter what he is going to look like his is hiding.

Edited July 15, 2012 by punked

Shady · July 15, 2012

They really haven't been answered Shady. If they had been answered I don't think Forbes would print an article titled "35 Questions Romney needs at answer about Bain". That article was printed today. The Media has questions and Romney is dancing around all the issues.

Apparently they've missed the fact checking that's already taken place.

None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:
...

There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

FactCheck

Romney’s sudden departure from Bain had left the partnership in flux, in fact almost breaking up the firm, and a final resolution was not reached until he ended his Olympic sojourn and decided to run for governor. At that point, he signed retirement papers that set his departure date as February 1999, the month he left for the Olympics.
Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the “key investment professionals” who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, “the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain

Washington Post

Again, this type of swiftboating from the Obama campaign doesn't suprise me. They can't run on his record, because it's horrible. So they have to distract from real issues, with side issues that have no bearing on necessarily remedies for the economy, etc. Instead, Obama would rather have a discussion about when a private individual left a private company 13 years ago, instead of having a discussion about jobs, the economy, debt, deficits, etc.

The swiftboating from the Obama campaign will only get worse as the election approaches. It's the only chance they have to win.

punked · July 15, 2012

Apparently they've missed the fact checking that's already taken place.

Again, this type of swiftboating from the Obama campaign doesn't suprise me. They can't run on his record, because it's horrible. So they have to distract from real issues, with side issues that have no bearing on necessarily remedies for the economy, etc. Instead, Obama would rather have a discussion about when a private individual left a private company 13 years ago, instead of having a discussion about jobs, the economy, debt, deficits, etc.

The swiftboating from the Obama campaign will only get worse as the election approaches. It's the only chance they have to win.

I know what your talking point is. If Romney wasn't the head and CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 why are his name on the papers? Why did he then lie to the State of Mass saying he did Business in Mass from that period to get on the ballot? He was paid a straight 100,000 for each of those years he was "away" I find that strange.

There are a lot of questions left unanswered. As for those "Factcheckers" not sure why if they did such a great job they would have to go back and rewrite and rejustify their stories as the Washingtonpost did today. Oh wait I know why because the Media is tearing them to shreds as expose more and more of this story.

BubberMiley · July 15, 2012

... this type of swiftboating from the Obama campaign doesn't suprise me.

I'm surprised to hear you admit that the 2004 Bush campaign set the standard for dirty tactics. I guess the GOP has to look long and hard at itself before it can criticize the Democrats, eh?

bush_cheney2004 · July 15, 2012

I'm surprised to hear you admit that the 2004 Bush campaign set the standard for dirty tactics. I guess the GOP has to look long and hard at itself before it can criticize the Democrats, eh?

Not at all....these are American political campaigns, not Canadian! I doubt that Dan Rather would even bother to go there.

WWWTT · July 15, 2012

No you don't , thats a load of crap. But nice try!

I've highlighted this single segment of your comment for two reasons.

The first is because this is very true of the dialogue coming from corporations and many on the right in general who somehow believe that they are all knowing and power full,never question the right wing when they speak of economics or many bad things will happen to our economy!

And the second reason is that its funny!

WWWTT

WWWTT · July 15, 2012

Hitler was a leftist.

Yes I believe you are right.

But because he still supported the corporate reign in Germany untethered as opposed to the communists of the day they gave Hitler their blessing.

How did that decision work out for the German people?

More evidence that you don't let the corporations run the country!

WWWTT

Shady · July 15, 2012

I'm surprised to hear you admit that the 2004 Bush campaign set the standard for dirty tactics. I guess the GOP has to look long and hard at itself before it can criticize the Democrats, eh?

As far as I know, the Bush campaign had nothing to do with the swiftboat stuff. That was an independent group. This case is entirely different.

Pliny · July 15, 2012

Next time you could help by considering the proper use of the paragraph. Your stream of consciousness stuff was disorganized and almost impossible to understand.

In order to illustrate your point further you should have stopped there.

You would have been wise to include a few of these 'bits and pieces' so we had a better idea what you were talking about.

In case you missed it in the disorganized jumble - a fiat currency, a universal single-payer health care system, a central bank (with the inherent monetary manipulation of the economy) and private property. I know by your next paragraph that you would prefer the government make your decisions for you on your personal well being by having first dibs on your private property. And the imposition of those other "bits" are, of course, just normal things the government should be doing for their citizens.

There is always only one single payer. The only difference is whether that single payer, i.e. me, pays his money in the form of taxes or in the form of insurance or directly to the end provider. Thus far, it appears that the single payer system is more efficient in terms of the use of money and the least wasteful in terms of administrative overhead. So I'm fine with that unless you can demonstrate the advantage of some other form which is more effective and efficient.

There is a difference you missed and the difference is in your choice of how you would pay and for what which opens the door for your personal freedom and control over the choices offered to you.

The rest of your post was largely unintelligible, filled with incomplete and unrelated thoughts.

It seems to have been intelligible enough to draw your ire.

Pliny · July 15, 2012

Yes I believe you are right.

But because he still supported the corporate reign in Germany untethered as opposed to the communists of the day they gave Hitler their blessing.

How did that decision work out for the German people?

More evidence that you don't let the corporations run the country!

WWWTT

It was Hitler that ran the corporations not the other way around.

If you want the consumer, in the case you cite here it was the German people, to be in charge you don't hand that power to a dictator. Corporations exist in a capitalist system because of consumer choice and we are in the dangerous position today of having government decide the winners and losers in the corporate world, not unlike the failed socialist experiments of the early and mid 1900's with their planned economies. Today we fail to see the power of the consumer over the market, mainly because it is not a free market, and feel the government should guide it - sound familiar?

punked · July 15, 2012

As far as I know, the Bush campaign had nothing to do with the swiftboat stuff. That was an independent group. This case is entirely different.

No this is different because the "facts" have been brought forward by the media (Mostly the Boston Globe) stand up to fact checking and are true.

Shady · July 15, 2012

No this is different because the "facts" have been brought forward by the media (Mostly the Boston Globe) stand up to fact checking and are true.

Nope. CNN, Washington Post, and especially FactCheck.org all debunk the Boston Globe/Obama campaign. Just more swiftboating in an attempt to distract from real issues. Not suprising considering Obama's terrible record to run on. I'd probably be implementing the same strategy if I were him too. It's the only chance he has.

BubberMiley · July 15, 2012

Yes, Romney signed the SEC forms because he was only fraudulently trying to portray himself as CEO. Nothing to see here!

punked · July 15, 2012

Nope. CNN, Washington Post, and especially FactCheck.org all debunk the Boston Globe/Obama campaign. Just more swiftboating in an attempt to distract from real issues. Not suprising considering Obama's terrible record to run on. I'd probably be implementing the same strategy if I were him too. It's the only chance he has.

Nope sorry facts don't go away because the opinion page says so.

Considering as we all know Romney started at Bain in 1977 that means he stopped working there as of his own admission in 2002. Why does Romney lie to us Shady? It is quite clear he was lying then or he is lying now. How about you get some fact checking from CNN on that one.

Edited July 16, 2012 by punked

Argus · July 16, 2012

In case you missed it in the disorganized jumble - a fiat currency, a universal single-payer health care system, a central bank (with the inherent monetary manipulation of the economy) and private property

Uhm, what? Are you suggesting a central bank is a leftist plot derived from Marxist ideology? What's the currency got to do with Communism? Or private property?

There is a difference you missed and the difference is in your choice of how you would pay and for what which opens the door for your personal freedom and control over the choices offered to you.

I'm part of a society. I'm willing to pay a little extra in the form of excess health care payouts on behalf of those members of society who can't. Besides, I'd pay one way or another anyway. If you don't pay for their basic health care you wind up paying more when they're sick as dogs and have to be treated -- unless you're willing to simply let them die. Or you pay more because crime rates rise, or welfare rates. I'm really not sure what 'freedoms' you're speaking of in terms of not funding universal health care. Public hospitals weren't developed out of the good will of the state. They came about because when the mass of the poor got diseases those diseases tended to spread to the rich, too, not to mention screwing up business by depriving it of healthy workers.

Pliny · July 17, 2012

Uhm, what? Are you suggesting a central bank is a leftist plot derived from Marxist ideology? What's the currency got to do with Communism? Or private property?

It is part of Marxist ideology but unfortunately Marx never devised it. He just adopted it. The ruble was the currency of the USSR and it was not a part of the currency market. They were just issued so people could trade them in for state goods, everybody was issued the same pay and could stand in line for food and wait a couple of years for an apartment. Most of the economy of the defunct USSR was underground. American jeans and vodka were more popular currencies.

Was there private property in the USSR, or Cuba or China under Mao? You could have some personal things but they were still the property of the State.

I'm part of a society. I'm willing to pay a little extra in the form of excess health care payouts on behalf of those members of society who can't. Besides, I'd pay one way or another anyway. If you don't pay for their basic health care you wind up paying more when they're sick as dogs and have to be treated -- unless you're willing to simply let them die. Or you pay more because crime rates rise, or welfare rates. I'm really not sure what 'freedoms' you're speaking of in terms of not funding universal health care. Public hospitals weren't developed out of the good will of the state. They came about because when the mass of the poor got diseases those diseases tended to spread to the rich, too, not to mention screwing up business by depriving it of healthy workers.

Gosh...aren't you a responsible individual.

The essence of what you are saying perhaps aligns with Obama, who said the other day that no one is successful on their own and it is because of the efforts of other people that they can achieve their success. So we all deserve to share in that person's success. Isn't that it essentially?

If you agree, then what is missing out of that statement is a sense of responsibility and a concept of private property. Responsibility returns us to what I stated earlier regarding cause and effect. The determination of cause is blurred by that idea. We really can't tell who is responsible since we all should benefit from each other's work equally - share in the wealth.

And it sort of means that if one guy seems to be sharing disproportionately in the profits, he has no entitlement to do so and needs to divvy up some more. Do you think we can then tell who should take the position of CEO and why should that person want to? Why wouldn't he want to just put a bolt on a nut all day? Why take any responsiblity? Do as Obama says and it is okay to deprive someone of private property. By instilling that idea in the minds of youth and other indoctrinated individuals they believe it is an okay to go and break windows on banks and act generally destructive. Or get the government to get others to pay for their groceries, education, transportation, rent, drugs, condoms, and the list goes on.....There is less and less responsibility, less ability to determine who causes what and it is all assigned to government - the State and not government the people. The people just want bread and circuses.

You know people today have an idea that capitalism is to blame for all the inequalities in life. Unfortunately, there is no more capitalism around to assign responsibility to...oohhh...government likes to point fingers at business and corporation as the bad guys causing all our ills but fewer and fewer see any advantage to being responsible in creating or causing business or corporations to succeed...after all we all make them succeed.

You and I made the waiting lines in our healthcare....we cause the cost to rise really high. Aren't you proud? Doesn't it make you want to give even more? WE don't really but we can't tell why the costs are rising and why there are waiting lines. Who's responsible for that? You! You are you don't pay enough neither do all of us apparently. . If we did know there wouldn't be any waiting lines and it wouldn't be so costly. You can't just say there isn't enough money because all we really need to do in that case is print some up. It isn't because a few CEO's or corporations are hording all the cash. What they have couldn't fund health care in Canada for a month.