News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

The GOP Convention MegaMittensThread!

Started by CountDeMoney, August 27, 2012, 12:37:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

CountDeMoney

Pretty much, yeah.

They should've booked Arnold.  Hell, Nancy Reagan would've been more lucid, and would've brought the fucking house down just standing there.

Valmy

Romney called out Obama for hurting Medicare...so he plans to maintain Medicare and the massive defense budget while balancing the budget?

:hmm:

Glad to know he is going to stop Iran somehow.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

derspiess

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 08:13:46 AM
They should've booked Arnold. 

Arnold's GOP star ain't nearly as bright now.  I still like him personally, but politically I don't really see him as much different from a Democrat, even in the context of California politics.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.  But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you.  Why stop now.

That's not really an answer.

If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas.  But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.

OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge.  It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them.  Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision?  The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

dps

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 05:42:56 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2012, 02:51:50 AM
Commentators over here say it's been a "meh" speech. Not much in terms of goal setting and even less about how those goals should be achieved (e.g. creating 12 million jobs). One commenter said that it was rather anti-climactic and after the very good build up to it, and said that Romney rather played it safe than taking any chances.

Well, sweeping policy initiatives wasn't the goal;  the goal was to show that he actually had a heartbeat and not a warranty card. In that vein, it sorta worked, what with all his family stuff.

Some of his message was a bit off.  His foreign policy stuff was off the mark, accusing the Administration about "throwing Israel under the bus", not doing anything about Iran, and I'm not sure where the circa 1982 anti-Russian stuff is coming from.  Then again, Psycho John Bolton is practically guaranteed to be his Secretary of State, so there ya go.  While he and Ryan tinker with the economy like it's an Ayn Rand living lab, they're going to hand off foreign policy to the Dubya neocons.  Yikes.

But, as usual, the people running his campaign managed to get their candidate lost in the mix;  only this time, it wasn't a gaffe or the message of a bad commercial.  Today, people are talking about the Clint Eastwood meltdown, not their candidate.  That last night was almost a disaster.

But, it was just another a variation on a theme, more pandering, less policy.

He may get a bounce, but only for a few days:  Big Barry's got the stage starting Tuesday.

I think that the last time policy instead of pandering featured at either party's convention was the 1948 Democratic convention.

And Syt, Romney is the ultimate play-it-safe-don't-take-any-chances candidate, so him playing it safe here should hardly be a surprise.  Don't take that the wrong way--I don't think you were surprised.

derspiess

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.  But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you.  Why stop now.

That's not really an answer.

If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas.  But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.

OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge.  It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them.  Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision?  The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.

I guess you & I are just seeing different things in his speech.  Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

derspiess

Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 10:34:51 AM
And Syt, Romney is the ultimate play-it-safe-don't-take-any-chances candidate, so him playing it safe here should hardly be a surprise.  Don't take that the wrong way--I don't think you were surprised.

And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals.  Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Valmy

Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals.  Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.

And usually not even then.  And yes this is why I wonder why conventions are newsworthy events at all.  We learn a whole lot of nothing.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

CountDeMoney

Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals.  Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.

Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges.  Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.

Valmy

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges.  Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.

Well that used to be the case but the debates had their teeth removed for awhile.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Razgovory

Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 31, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 30, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.  But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you.  Why stop now.

That's not really an answer.

If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas.  But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.

OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge.  It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them.  Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision?  The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.

I guess you & I are just seeing different things in his speech.  Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".

So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

derspiess

Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2012, 10:58:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 10:55:41 AM
Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges.  Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.

Well that used to be the case but the debates had their teeth removed for awhile.

They do at least like to use it to drop policy proposals.  How many times have you heard "...and that is why I am proposing..." at a debate?
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

derspiess

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2012, 11:01:04 AM
So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?

Leave it to you to only focus on literal meaning.  The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special.  Which in a sense I'm fine with him saying-- I just don't understand why you deny he's saying it.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

CountDeMoney

Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. 

Well, you heard wrong. :console:

derspiess

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 31, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. 

Well, you heard wrong. :console:

Given the big reaction he got from his crowd with those words, I don't think so.  He was playing up to his crowd, off-teleprompter, and I think just got carried away with himself.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall