Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[Faux Pas]

Muzh

No doubt that is your former Republican's (and yours) "reality". It's not mine. I didn't grow up in a rich white suburban neighborhood. I didn't get educated in a prestigious university. I don't doubt his reality at all (or yours FTM), it just isn't mine. For the last almost 8 years, I also no longer claim the republican party. George Bush convinced me I wasn't a republican after my transformation from a liberal democrat some 25 years earlier.

I know racism and I know you don't have to be only black to experience it. There are a number of flaws in this guys testimony but, it is his view and "his" reality. It's not mine. I agree and disagree with different aspects of it. I have some life experiences of my own and one of the biggest is, I earned every thing I have ever gotten.

His experiences shaped his reality and my experiences shaped mine. It doesn't make either of us wrong, does it?

[BC]

I read it just fine BC, and I still maintain the position maybe you ought to explain exactly where and how YOU got your number of 111 billion.

GQ,

Indeed... the study mentioned 11.1 and not 112 billion.  I'll hav to put on my glasses.....  I stand corrected. Thanks.. guess I was tending towards optimistic.

[BC]

GQ,

Indeed... the study mentioned 11.1 and not 112 billion.  I'll hav to put on my glasses.....  I stand corrected. Thanks.. guess I was tending towards optimistic.

That said GQ, how do you come up with 113 Billion?

http://personalliberty.com/2009/02/11/how-much-do-illegal-immigrants-really-cost-the-united-states/

I'm seeing much lower figures than the video you posted that did not mention sources or studies.

I even looked at your original link and could not find sources for the figures they came up with.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/

I agree it's going to be hard to drill down the numbers to come close, but the variation seems to be quite wide enough so that nobody really knows..

[ML]

The correct story.

Guys and gals, there is a lot of flawed thinking in this thread, and somebody has to inject some logical thinking.  Why not me??   

First, let me say that several people here have a much more thorough grasp of the details of individual programs and persons than I do.  But these details are almost irrelevant when it comes to deciding which person or party you are going to vote for.  It is the big picture that is relevant.

And the big picture is that one party is to the left and one party is to the right.  It doesn’t matter if we label this right vs left, conservative vs liberal, etc.  The fact is that there are substantial differences in the way politicians in those parties view the big picture and the way that persons who vote for those parties view the big picture.

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Next, the same principle applies to the presidential candidates to almost the same degree.  Yes, there have been notable times in which a president’s party controls both houses, and yet he cannot get his preferred legislation through congress.  But again, the vast majority of the time, the president and his party in congress are in agreement as to what direction they are trying to head.  So again, to take great pains to try to determine which candidate is ‘best fit’ to be president is a waste of time.  You had better be voting for the president who is of the party that you are in tune with.

Thus, all this detailed analysis we see here about what an individual politician did or did not do or said or did not say, and how this is influencing your decision as to how to vote is silliness at best.  By and large they are going to promote and vote the party line, so best you decide which party best represents your views and vote accordingly.

Then we get to the idea we hear once in a while that: The X party today is not the same party that I used to vote for, so I have switched.  Total nonsense.  There is a ‘to the left position’ and there is a ‘to the right position.’  Yes, on a particular issue, one or both parties may have moved somewhat . . . BUT ONE PARTY IS STILL TO THE LEFT AND ONE TO THE RIGHT.

So it is not the party that has changed its position . . . it is only you who have changed your position.

Is it possible that the party on the left (right) has actually changed so much that is it now to the right (left)?  In the big picture . . . NO.  For an individual issue is it possible . . . Yes, but not likely.

One example we often hear is that the republicans, the party of Lincoln, set the blacks free, but now it is the democrats who do the most for the blacks.  But was it really the republicans, or just Lincoln himself?  And this is not even considering which party can truly do the most for blacks.  Are they better served by a party who ignores their plight as individuals, has a goal of growth in the economy where everyone has a chance to grow with it; or are they better served by a party who tries to give them preferred status and actually keeps them in economic bondage?

So why all this nitpicking about which individual politician did what or said what?  Do you have some convictions about whether the party to the left or the party to the right has the views the big picture in the same way you do?  Then there is your vote.

Unfortunately, some of our friends across the pond have a much more difficult time with their dozens of parties that perhaps does not provide such a clear picture as to which party stands where in the left - right spectrum regarding the big picture.

[Muzh]

Muzh

No doubt that is your former Republican's (and yours) "reality". It's not mine. I didn't grow up in a rich white suburban neighborhood. I didn't get educated in a prestigious university. I don't doubt his reality at all (or yours FTM), it just isn't mine. For the last almost 8 years, I also no longer claim the republican party. George Bush convinced me I wasn't a republican after my transformation from a liberal democrat some 25 years earlier.

I know racism and I know you don't have to be only black to experience it. There are a number of flaws in this guys testimony but, it is his view and "his" reality. It's not mine. I agree and disagree with different aspects of it. I have some life experiences of my own and one of the biggest is, I earned every thing I have ever gotten.

His experiences shaped his reality and my experiences shaped mine. It doesn't make either of us wrong, does it?

Absolutely.
 
My intent was to show that there are more than one truth.
 
FP, if only it would be this easy to agree to disagree there would not be such animosity during these elections.
 
I'll definitely look you up next time I'm in FLA and have a beer.

[Faux Pas]

Absolutely.
 
My intent was to show that there are more than one truth.
 
FP, if only it would be this easy to agree to disagree there would not be such animosity during these elections.
 
I'll definitely look you up next time I'm in FLA and have a beer.

Well at present it's Oklahoma but the way things are going you never know. By then I'm likely to be in FL but I look forward to a beer with you at some point. 

[Faux Pas]

The correct story.

Guys and gals, there is a lot of flawed thinking in this thread, and somebody has to inject some logical thinking.  Why not me??   

First, let me say that several people here have a much more thorough grasp of the details of individual programs and persons than I do.  But these details are almost irrelevant when it comes to deciding which person or party you are going to vote for.  It is the big picture that is relevant.

And the big picture is that one party is to the left and one party is to the right.  It doesn’t matter if we label this right vs left, conservative vs liberal, etc.  The fact is that there are substantial differences in the way politicians in those parties view the big picture and the way that persons who vote for those parties view the big picture.

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Next, the same principle applies to the presidential candidates to almost the same degree.  Yes, there have been notable times in which a president’s party controls both houses, and yet he cannot get his preferred legislation through congress.  But again, the vast majority of the time, the president and his party in congress are in agreement as to what direction they are trying to head.  So again, to take great pains to try to determine which candidate is ‘best fit’ to be president is a waste of time.  You had better be voting for the president who is of the party that you are in tune with.

Thus, all this detailed analysis we see here about what an individual politician did or did not do or said or did not say, and how this is influencing your decision as to how to vote is silliness at best.  By and large they are going to promote and vote the party line, so best you decide which party best represents your views and vote accordingly.

Then we get to the idea we hear once in a while that: The X party today is not the same party that I used to vote for, so I have switched.  Total nonsense.  There is a ‘to the left position’ and there is a ‘to the right position.’  Yes, on a particular issue, one or both parties may have moved somewhat . . . BUT ONE PARTY IS STILL TO THE LEFT AND ONE TO THE RIGHT.

So it is not the party that has changed its position . . . it is only you who have changed your position.

Is it possible that the party on the left (right) has actually changed so much that is it now to the right (left)?  In the big picture . . . NO.  For an individual issue is it possible . . . Yes, but not likely.

One example we often hear is that the republicans, the party of Lincoln, set the blacks free, but now it is the democrats who do the most for the blacks.  But was it really the republicans, or just Lincoln himself?  And this is not even considering which party can truly do the most for blacks.  Are they better served by a party who ignores their plight as individuals, has a goal of growth in the economy where everyone has a chance to grow with it; or are they better served by a party who tries to give them preferred status and actually keeps them in economic bondage?

So why all this nitpicking about which individual politician did what or said what?  Do you have some convictions about whether the party to the left or the party to the right has the views the big picture in the same way you do?  Then there is your vote.

Unfortunately, some of our friends across the pond have a much more difficult time with their dozens of parties that perhaps does not provide such a clear picture as to which party stands where in the left - right spectrum regarding the big picture.

I realize this was probably well intentioned ML but, I'm going to call bullshit on this. IMHO, without a doubt one long piece intellectually lazy tripe. Why think at all? Why not just believe everything everyone tells you? Just sign me up for whatever party and vote my proxy. Why even go to the polls?

[Eduard]

Muzh

No doubt that is your former Republican's (and yours) "reality". It's not mine. I didn't grow up in a rich white suburban neighborhood. I didn't get educated in a prestigious university. I don't doubt his reality at all (or yours FTM), it just isn't mine. For the last almost 8 years, I also no longer claim the republican party. George Bush convinced me I wasn't a republican after my transformation from a liberal democrat some 25 years earlier.

I know racism and I know you don't have to be only black to experience it. There are a number of flaws in this guys testimony but, it is his view and "his" reality. It's not mine. I agree and disagree with different aspects of it. I have some life experiences of my own and one of the biggest is, I earned every thing I have ever gotten.

His experiences shaped his reality and my experiences shaped mine. It doesn't make either of us wrong, does it?

I have to agree with FP since much of his experience resembles mine as well. When I was young I too was a Democrat and very liberal. I know and have experienced racism, prejudice and discrimination. To say that in this day and age your race would prevent you from achieving success in this country is none sense in my opinion.
The liberal welfare policies that were implemented more than 30 years ago destroyed the fabric of a society -  family, especially in the Afro-American community. The attitude of entitlement became normal and common place. Work ethic and the "I can" attitude became a thing of the passed for too many.
I don't believe that it's a "black thing". Look at Haitian immigrants in the US for instance! You don't see many of them on government assistance, they usually have their families intact, they work and they start businesses and succeed. Their skin color is just as dark as American blacks. The only difference is their attitude toward work and family.  IMO the Left liberal policies are destroying this country on every level. I am a Republican not because I embrace all Republican ideas but simply because I have to choose the lesser evil in order to vote and their philosophy is closer to my belief system. 

[Gator]

 
And Gator, yes, you are barking off the wrong tree.

 

Interesting twist of the common metaphor.  I did not know I was up a tree.   
 

Just for you check the the highlighted sections.

Thanks for helping us slow reading seniors with bad eyesight.    Even though the article was from The Nation, the "flagship for the left," I read every word.   Muzh, this article is not intellectual and certainly not breezy wit.  If I were you, I would worry about my mind becoming stale if I continue to read opinions of bland and sheltered people.
 
I assert Jeremiah was never a conservative.  He feels changed when observing war, becoming appalled upon discovering  American military's  inefficiencies, imprecision and brutality, yet ignoring his own quote by Sherman, "War is hell."   Then Jeremiah feels further changed when observing in New Orleans the existence of institutional racism as if that was something new.  Any white person with a heart who has lived and worked with blacks knows it exists.   
 
Jeremiah simply has led a sheltered life.  Here is news for Jeremiah (and perhaps you too Muzh) - life is not fair.
 
Civil rights has been at or near the forefront of the Federal government for 50 years, yet the problem festers.  This proves that government programs do not work very well other than to remove some blatant discriminatory barriers . 
Jeremiah finds fault yet offers no alternatives.  What can you do for  kids "...who had gotten kicked out of every other school around?"  That started a long time ago when their own family and community failed them. 
 
Muzh, what is your alternative solution?   Here is an alternative - get a job.  Can't find a job because the economy is bad?  Then vote for  political representatives who will facilitate economic improvement.

[ML]

When I was young I too was a Democrat and very liberal.

Winston Churchill said  (Note: some question  if it were him who actually said this), "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

[ML]

I realize this was probably well intentioned ML but, I'm going to call bullshit on this. IMHO, without a doubt one long piece intellectually lazy tripe. Why think at all? Why not just believe everything everyone tells you? Just sign me up for whatever party and vote my proxy. Why even go to the polls?

Why don't you address the points rather than using profanity to label a viewpoint?

For instance, use your logic to refute this first part:

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

[GQBlues]

That said GQ, how do you come up with 113 Billion?

http://personalliberty.com/2009/02/11/how-much-do-illegal-immigrants-really-cost-the-united-states/

I'm seeing much lower figures than the video you posted that did not mention sources or studies.

I even looked at your original link and could not find sources for the figures they came up with.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-political-commentary/2011/04/illegal-immigration-costs-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually/

I agree it's going to be hard to drill down the numbers to come close, but the variation seems to be quite wide enough so that nobody really knows..

Well of course no one knows the actual number. I'd wager the 113 billion isn't that farfetched however. The revised estimate of illegal immigrant (*undocumented aliens* - seriously, Sotomayor? They ignored and broke the law of the Constitution you are sworn to uphold Senora) was between 11-20 million. Even at 20 M, I think the actual number is higher.

But even if we consider using the lowest available number, 11 million, putting that in perspective, that's almost equivalent to the entire population of Moscow or Los Angeles. Heck, that's a small country whose fiscal budget expenditure didn't allowed for and its infrastructure planning commission didn't planned for.

So, you'd like a number bigger than a bread box but smaller than a fridge?

For argument's sake, let's say 1/4 of that 11 M are women. Let's assume 1/4 of that 1/4 are pregnant women (trust me on this, anchor babies are first and foremost on these people's to-do-list once they reach the land of bilk the bunny) their first year of arrival. The cost of birth is at an average of $15,000.00 ( doesn't include complications, multi-day stay, etc...) - that alone cost almost 11 billion annually. <700,000 births isn't inconceivable considering the average annual birth count in the US is 4 million.

Then if that isn't enough, baby Jose is now Jose Doe and is entitled for baby care voucher, food voucher, etc...cost for follow-up check-ups, etc...then you get to repeat the process (expense) the next year, and the next year, etc...because these folks' gestate like rabbits, man. Especially during times of good living and lack of a natural predator e.g. Republicans in office.

10-15 little Joses and Carlotas running around in one household - all in 2 years!!! (jk - sure seems like it though). That's 10-15 food vouchers...multiplied by 'a whole bunch of rabbits'. Did you know these folks may actually get tax refunds (per baby credit) by virtue of the earned income credit in our silly tax system. Not sure how that works though.

Then of course it also impacts our school systems, general social administration, yada, yada, yada....anyway, no need to beat a dead horse. Our illegal immigration can't be called a 'problem' if it isn't one. It is fast-eroding the very fiber of our social landscape - the proper education of our young.

[GQBlues]

Confesions of a Former Republican

Muzh, man...are you serious with this silliness?

[Faux Pas]

Why don't you address the points rather than using profanity to label a viewpoint?

For instance, use your logic to refute this first part:

The simplest issue to dispense with first is with representatives and senators.  Those who ‘vote for the person’ are the most irrational.  The vast majority of the time, the representatives and senators vote the party line.  So it doesn’t matter how much of a ‘good person with good values’ the candidate is in your view; when you vote for him/her you are really just voting for the party.  Accept this and stop the foolishness of trying to vet the candidates in your mind.

Wow, I wasn't aware that the term bullshit was so offensive to the guy that passes out dildos to his dates. It's a little late in your life for a civics class ML. I will assume you are familiar with the three branches of government? Your representatives and senators are your first line of representation in the federal government. You should vote for them very carefully based on the direction you wish to see the federal government move rather than just accepting "I will vote for my party and hope they do the right thing".

That's bullshit. You hold them accountable. You voice your opinion to them on their vote on the bills that interest or affect you. Do you know who your Congressmen and Senators are? Have you got their phone numbers or ever even spoke to them? Whether you voted for them or not, whether they represent your party or not, they are still your representation and it is your civic duty to hold them accountable rather than just sit back and let things happen around you. Next?

[Eduard]

Muzh, man...are you serious with this silliness?

Sadly, I think he is...

[BC]

Well of course no one knows the actual number. I'd wager the 113 billion isn't that farfetched however. The revised estimate of illegal immigrant (*undocumented aliens* - seriously, Sotomayor? They ignored and broke the law of the Constitution you are sworn to uphold Senora) was between 11-20 million. Even at 20 M, I think the actual number is higher.

But even if we consider using the lowest available number, 11 million, putting that in perspective, that's almost equivalent to the entire population of Moscow or Los Angeles. Heck, that's a small country whose fiscal budget expenditure didn't allowed for and its infrastructure planning commission didn't planned for.

So, you'd like a number bigger than a bread box but smaller than a fridge?

For argument's sake, let's say 1/4 of that 11 M are women. Let's assume 1/4 of that 1/4 are pregnant women (trust me on this, anchor babies are first and foremost on these people's to-do-list once they reach the land of bilk the bunny) their first year of arrival. The cost of birth is at an average of $15,000.00 ( doesn't include complications, multi-day stay, etc...) - that alone cost almost 11 billion annually. <700,000 births isn't inconceivable considering the average annual birth count in the US is 4 million.

Then if that isn't enough, baby Jose is now Jose Doe and is entitled for baby care voucher, food voucher, etc...cost for follow-up check-ups, etc...then you get to repeat the process (expense) the next year, and the next year, etc...because these folks' gestate like rabbits, man. Especially during times of good living and lack of a natural predator e.g. Republicans in office.

10-15 little Joses and Carlotas running around in one household - all in 2 years!!! (jk - sure seems like it though). That's 10-15 food vouchers...multiplied by 'a whole bunch of rabbits'. Did you know these folks may actually get tax refunds (per baby credit) by virtue of the earned income credit in our silly tax system. Not sure how that works though.

Then of course it also impacts our school systems, general social administration, yada, yada, yada....anyway, no need to beat a dead horse. Our illegal immigration can't be called a 'problem' if it isn't one. It is fast-eroding the very fiber of our social landscape - the proper education of our young.

GQ,

I certainly can agree that illegal aliens are a burden on the rest of society.  How much of one, who knows.

It seems many of the bad apples are being deported, but that true effort to find and deport all may be more complicated and expensive than the 'burden'. 

Consider your thoughts about children born in the US.  I assume the 'rules' have not changed and that such children are US Citizens.  Until that rule changes there is very little need to view such in a negative light.  Now consider both the human and economic impact of deporting parents of USC's....  How much does would it cost the State to raise this child? vs allowing the parents to stay and support him/her?

Maybe it's a 'lesser of two evils' discussion?

Until the 14th Amendment is changed it's just a part of the game, same as US companies 'gaming' the tax system to lessen their US tax burden by stretching the rules and ignoring intent of US tax laws by working around them.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/272876/pinoyabroad/news/us-born-kids-of-illegal-immigrants-have-right-to-tuition-in-florida-judge-rules

I guess what I am trying to say is that a good part of the illegal immigrant problem is a part of the 'freedoms' guaranteed by the Constitution and will just have to be tolerated until the rules are changed.  No modern President or Congress, regardless of political orientation has been successful at taking away rights guaranteed by the Constitution and amendments thereof. 

Nothing is going to change that anytime soon.

Might as well work on making them productive citizens.

[Gator]

Romney stubbed his toe somewhat with comments about the first statement issued from the Egyptian embassy being demonstrated against.   Timing was Romney's problem as Obama does have a history of appeasing Muslims.    The embassy withdrew the statement when a subsequent attack in Libya killed the ambassador.
 
I imagine that Obama and Romney are together on most aspects of this event, yet partisan politics during a campaign raised some questions.
 
Romney's foreign policy experience is limited.  By comparison, it makes Obama look better than he actually is.

[Eduard]

Romney stubbed his toe somewhat with comments about the first statement issued from the Egyptian embassy being demonstrated against.   Timing was Romney's problem as Obama does have a history of appeasing Muslims.    The embassy withdrew the statement when a subsequent attack in Libya killed the ambassador.
 
I imagine that Obama and Romney are together on most aspects of this event, yet partisan politics during a campaign raised some questions.
 
Romney's foreign policy experience is limited.  By comparison, it makes Obama look better than he actually is.

What was Obama's foreign policy experience when he took office?

[Gator]

What was Obama's foreign policy experience when he took office?

None in policy, but his foreign experience was broad:  father and stepfather from foreign countries, living in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Africa, etc,, educated in America as a foreign student  .... Not bad for a kid born in a hut in East Africa (just kidding).

[Eduard]

None in policy, but his foreign experience was broad:  father and stepfather from foreign countries, living in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Africa, etc,, educated in America as a foreign student  .... Not bad for a kid born in a hut in East Africa (just kidding).

according to this logic I should be the next president! 

[Muzh]

Sadly, I think he is...

This just goes to prove that the previous article I posted was right on the money.
 
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=14359.msg310463#msg310463

[Misha]

I do my best to stay out of these American political threads, but as an outsider looking in, I have to wonder whether Romney is trying to win. Latest fiasco: he finishes his press conference after the tragic Libyan events with a self-satisfied smirk that is reminiscent of the Cheshire cat 

[Faux Pas]

I do my best to stay out of these American political threads, but as an outsider looking in, I have to wonder whether Romney is trying to win. Latest fiasco: he finishes his press conference after the tragic Libyan events with a self-satisfied smirk that is reminiscent of the Cheshire cat 

Maybe that is what you wanted to see?

[Misha]

Maybe that is what you wanted to see?

Well, it is clearly what many people saw. But, feel free to judge for yourself: [size=78%][/size]


Google Romney's smirk and you get close to half-a-million hits  [size=78%] [/size]

[Eduard]

Well, it is clearly what many people saw. But, feel free to judge for yourself:


Google Romney's smirk and you get close to half-a-million hits 

all I see is a polite smile accompanying his "Thank you". I see nothing inappropriate.