2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:00 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I would prefer such an idea, yes...but taxation has been legally upheld as the power to destroy, and therefore, taxation for religions amounts to the power to destroy them.
wut.


He's referring to important American legal precedent.


Maybe I'm not following, but I don't see how this case is terribly relevant. The cited article seems to suggest that the primary decision was that States don't have the power to enact taxes on the federal government.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby jareds » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:05 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I would prefer such an idea, yes...but taxation has been legally upheld as the power to destroy, and therefore, taxation for religions amounts to the power to destroy them.
wut.

My apologies if you already know this and are merely agog at the argument, but Tyndmyr is referring to McCulloch v. Maryland (a "famous" early Supreme Court case often found in civics class), which held that Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States, and which says:
John Marshall wrote:That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word confidence. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction, would be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is essential to all government. But is this a case of confidence? Would the people of any one state trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their state government? We know they would not. Why, then, should we suppose, that the people of any one state should be willing to trust those of another with a power to control the operations of a government to which they have confided their most important and most valuable interests? In the legislature of the Union alone, are all represented. The legislature of the Union alone, therefore, can be trusted by the people with the power of controlling measures which concern all, in the confidence that it will not be abused. This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it is as it really is.
This is often misquoted as, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." You can see in the context I have quoted that the actual point is that the state government cannot tax the federal government (or its chartered institutions) because the state governments should not be able to exercise any control over the operations of the federal government.

Of course, this does not mean that religious groups must be exempt from taxation (although special religious taxes would be obviously unconstitutional). Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from government control in the non-religious matters of a religious group. U.S. governments already control religious groups in a variety of non-religious ways: their buildings must be ADA compliant, if they operate a hospital they have to obey lots of laws, etc. Furthermore, they are even controlled in religious ways, although this is subject to more scrutiny: they cannot smoke peyote in a religious ceremony, they cannot perform human sacrifice in a religious ceremony, etc.

The idea that religions constitutionally must be exempt from taxation is not a mainstream argument and I am rebutting it with more attention than it deserves. Religions are exempt from taxation because such exemption enjoys extremely wide public support and we are a democracy--nothing more.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
mike-l wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:People are motivated to leave crappy situations and to stay in good ones. Working a shit job/making crap money makes you MORE likely to leave the job for another one, not less.

This was the moment I realized Tyndmyr has no grasp of reality.


Fields with highest turnover rates: Retail, Food Service, Nursing, Customer Service.

I've never been a nurse, but I can speak to the other sectors sucking pretty hard(and providing medical care has a reputation as...being challenging at a minimum). The other three are also generally fairly low paying jobs. So yes, people definitely do quit these jobs more rapidly. Most people have worked retail or food service at least once, and yeah...it generally sucks a bit. Tedious, at a minimum.

And this was the moment I realized Tyndmyr has no memory of context, wherein the quote I was referring to was in response to my claim that you may take longer to find a new job if you already had one as opposed to being unemployed, and immediately after someone explained to you, in detail, why that was the case.

I'm seeing a trend here, where someone says X is better than Y, and you respond with "Nu'unh, cuz X is worse than Z which is totally unrelated to Y."


Have fun with those realizations. Surely you must realize that "This was the moment I realized Tyndmyr has no grasp of reality." is a bit of a non-sequitur, and the only reasonable conclusion I could derive was that you disagree with the quoted line. So, I established that the quoted line is technically quite correct.

If you're worried about being misunderstood, include an actual argument instead of a personal slight.

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I would prefer such an idea, yes...but taxation has been legally upheld as the power to destroy, and therefore, taxation for religions amounts to the power to destroy them.
wut.


It's commonly brought up as one reason why taxation of churches is undesirable. Consider, if you will, the case in which churches are taxed the same as a business. What happens when, as is so common, a tax exemption is passed that some cannot take advantage of? Some organizations are at an advantage compared to other. By taxing churches, it would bring them into the public sphere in this way, where a politician can favor one religion over another by offering incentives that favor activities one church is engaged in.

Now, I'm not against taxing churches, tbh...but given how frequently this does happen already with taxation, it's very likely that some degree of this would take place. The particular line is, as referenced, a greatly abbreviated description of the concept.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If you're worried about being misunderstood, include an actual argument instead of a personal slight.
I have included arguments, and then you make a statement that seems to refute, but then you back it up with things that show you weren't even talking about the argument.

Proof in spoiler, every one of these quotes quoted the one(s) above it and nothing more. Here we're talking about YOUR first statement that it's better (for the greater economy) to be underemployed than unemployed, and then only 3 posts later are backing this up by comparing sectors of employment to each other, presumably making the case that people are more likely to move on when being underemployed than fully employed, which, while probably true, has no bearing on the argument.
Spoiler:
Tyndmyr wrote:If you accept a not-great job and continue looking for the awesome job, this is more productive than not working until you find the awesome job.

mike-l wrote:Only if your progress towards getting that awesome job goes on unhindered. Aside from having physically less time to look for another job when you're already working, the motivation to do so is also lower.

Tyndmyr wrote:The financial motivation should only be lower if you are being compensated better than unemployment is, so I don't see a problem there. Unless you're saying people innately like work more than they enjoy staying home, this seems like a really hard case to make.

Dauric wrote:The moment you said "financial motivation' you hit part of the point, but I think you glanced off it, IE: there's more than one factor in motivation. People have only so much time and morale in a day. Working a shit job that isn't in someone's field or their accustomed payscale robs them of both time and morale. Now not only is the person looking for a job in their field, which job hunting is a soul-crushing thing to do especially with rejections or days spent not finding listings that fit your field or experience, but you have a soul-sucking dead-end job on top of that. Morale goes down the crapper pretty damn fast.

Tyndmyr wrote:People are motivated to leave crappy situations and to stay in good ones. Working a shit job/making crap money makes you MORE likely to leave the job for another one, not less.

mike-l wrote:This was the moment I realized Tyndmyr has no grasp of reality.

Tyndmyr wrote:Fields with highest turnover rates: Retail, Food Service, Nursing, Customer Service.

I've never been a nurse, but I can speak to the other sectors sucking pretty hard(and providing medical care has a reputation as...being challenging at a minimum). The other three are also generally fairly low paying jobs. So yes, people definitely do quit these jobs more rapidly. Most people have worked retail or food service at least once, and yeah...it generally sucks a bit. Tedious, at a minimum.

mike-l wrote:And this was the moment I realized Tyndmyr has no memory of context, wherein the quote I was referring to was in response to my claim that you may take longer to find a new job if you already had one as opposed to being unemployed, and immediately after someone explained to you, in detail, why that was the case.

I'm seeing a trend here, where someone says X is better than Y, and you respond with "Nu'unh, cuz X is worse than Z which is totally unrelated to Y."

Tyndmyr wrote:Have fun with those realizations. Surely you must realize that "This was the moment I realized Tyndmyr has no grasp of reality." is a bit of a non-sequitur, and the only reasonable conclusion I could derive was that you disagree with the quoted line. So, I established that the quoted line is technically quite correct.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:54 pm UTC

Read Dauric's post again. It's directly relevant to that. He was positing the opposite.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

Dauric is saying that it's hard to look for a job when you already have a job, harder than it is when you don't have a job - that your crappy job reduces your morale.

How does comparing McDonalds to, say, an IT job have anything to do with that?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:Dauric is saying that it's hard to look for a job when you already have a job, harder than it is when you don't have a job - that your crappy job reduces your morale.

How does comparing McDonalds to, say, an IT job have anything to do with that?


The "low morale" is not important in itself. It's important for trying to argue against my premise that underemployment is better than unemployment. So, the implication is that this low morale manifests in the person getting trapped in the crappy job. This is, of course, not the case, which is what my example of turnover rates demonstrates.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Look, I'm an accountant. I make $120k a year. Let's simplify for the moment and say that's exactly my economic worth. I quit my job, and have 2 choices, go on unemployment for 3 months while I find a new job, or go work at McD's making 30k a year while I look for a new job, but because I now have less time, it will take 6 months for me to find the same new job. Both new jobs are back at my 120k. After 1 year, with option 1) 3 months unemployment, 9 months new job, I've contributed 90k to the economy. Option 2, I have 6 months McD's, 6 months new job, for 75k.

It doesn't matter if, having found a better job than McD's, I would have stayed for a year or two, it's still best for me to simply be unemployed for 3 months to get back to producing at my optimal level faster.

If you want to compare turnover, compare with the thing we're actually talking about, unemployment. You've quoted yourself that the average time on welfare is 2 months. That's a turnover rate of 50%. 25% in retail is normal, so maybe I should have used 2 months and 4 in my example, the outcome would have been the same.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1810
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I would prefer such an idea, yes...but taxation has been legally upheld as the power to destroy, and therefore, taxation for religions amounts to the power to destroy them.
wut.


It's commonly brought up as one reason why taxation of churches is undesirable. Consider, if you will, the case in which churches are taxed the same as a business. What happens when, as is so common, a tax exemption is passed that some cannot take advantage of? Some organizations are at an advantage compared to other. By taxing churches, it would bring them into the public sphere in this way, where a politician can favor one religion over another by offering incentives that favor activities one church is engaged in.

Now, I'm not against taxing churches, tbh...but given how frequently this does happen already with taxation, it's very likely that some degree of this would take place. The particular line is, as referenced, a greatly abbreviated description of the concept.


This already happens.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:56 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:This already happens.
That article is not an example of that happening.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

It does seem to be more about personal use of a "religious" except item(a house, in this case). However, more un-traditional religions would be more likely to be subject to some kind of bias if taxation on religions were permitted.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

How would that bias come to be? Like, I can see that smaller religious organizations may wind up paying a higher rate but as a function of a lower proportion of income going to actual charitable spending.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:13 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:This already happens.
That article is not an example of that happening.


I had no idea monasteries had to pay property taxes.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby jareds » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:49 am UTC

Tyndmyr and netcrusher88,

Roman Catholic convents are indeed exempt from property taxes in New York. So are parsonages. Now the authorities need to decide if this Wiccan convent should be exempt--they need to pick winners and losers--and I don't understand how this isn't an example of that happening.

Note that this problem of picking winners and losers arises purely because they have chosen to grant a property tax exemption for religious use in the first place. If you chose to offer such an exemption, it's your own damn fault that either (1) the government has to judge which religious uses are valid (which it shouldn't be doing) or (2) you get massive "scamming". Who are any of you to say that these women haven't devoted themselves to a Wiccan religious life?

If "religion", in and of itself, were not a qualification for tax exemption, this wouldn't come up. Obviously religious groups could still be tax exempt by the same criteria as any other civic or charitable organization. But there is no way to tax residential property and not tax convents, aside from allowing "religion" to be a magic password to avoid property taxes (or something completely nuts like allowing members of the same civic organization living together to avoid property taxes). Of course, this will never happen.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:19 am UTC

Mitt Romney Doesn’t Get Why Airplane Windows Don’t Open

“I appreciate the fact that she [Ann Romney] is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem."


Further proof that Romney has no idea how anything works. Would you trust a man who thinks you should open airplane windows in the event of a fire to fix your economy? Wouldn't you rather send him to go fix North Korea's economy?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:34 am UTC

Maybe he learned his science from Insane Clown Posse?

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:38 am UTC

I saw that floating around all day but couldn't believe any presidential candidate could be that stupid, so assumed it was a hoax. It's in major newspapers now though, so it really seems like he's just that dumb

Until now I just thought he was playin dumb out of greed. Now I think it's the real thing
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:46 am UTC

If the problem is fire, the solution is oxygen. Everyone knows that.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3647
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:24 am UTC

Honestly, everyone has blind spots. I would really hope a presidential candidate knows more about things like economics and political theory than about how airplanes and fire work.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:41 am UTC

Yeah, I would expect the president to ask his advisors such a question before saying such a thing to the public. He doesn't necessarily need to know such (basic physics) things, but he does need to know what he doesn't know and ask about before making a giant ass of himself.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby omgryebread » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:58 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, everyone has blind spots. I would really hope a presidential candidate knows more about things like economics and political theory than about how airplanes and fire work.
The problem, at least for me, is the way he said it.

“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”
I used to talk like that all the time from like 12-18: if I didn't know something, I made shit up. If he doesn't know anything about cabin pressure he shouldn't say "It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous." I mean, whatever, it's not like he's running to be aeronautical engineer in chief. But it does raise concerns about how he'd behave in other situations.

I just now realize it also shows that Romney has either never flown on a normal commercial flight, or he just hasn't thought about it for more than a few seconds after the whole oxygen mask spiel.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Garm » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:02 am UTC

Also, too: His wife was just in a crisis situation and he probably wasn't thinking so clearly. I hope people don't make a big deal out of this. We're all human, after all. There are way more important problems with Romney that we should be discussing.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:04 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, everyone has blind spots. I would really hope a presidential candidate knows more about things like economics and political theory than about how airplanes and fire work.


Like how he heard 47% of Americans don't pay Federal income taxes and assumed that meant 47% of Americans are welfare queens?

Honestly, I'm relieved he's just generally ignorant and not willfully ignorant.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:46 am UTC

Garm wrote:Also, too: His wife was just in a crisis situation and he probably wasn't thinking so clearly. I hope people don't make a big deal out of this. We're all human, after all. There are way more important problems with Romney that we should be discussing.

The man wants to be commander in chief of the largest army in the world. Not thinking clearly about a crisis that's already passed (24 hours earlier) is kind of a big deal.

Also, he's making a statement about airline safety, which an elected official has no place doing uninformed. (Not just airline safety, but public safety in general)
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:46 pm UTC

jareds wrote:Tyndmyr and netcrusher88,

Roman Catholic convents are indeed exempt from property taxes in New York. So are parsonages. Now the authorities need to decide if this Wiccan convent should be exempt--they need to pick winners and losers--and I don't understand how this isn't an example of that happening.

Note that this problem of picking winners and losers arises purely because they have chosen to grant a property tax exemption for religious use in the first place. If you chose to offer such an exemption, it's your own damn fault that either (1) the government has to judge which religious uses are valid (which it shouldn't be doing) or (2) you get massive "scamming". Who are any of you to say that these women haven't devoted themselves to a Wiccan religious life?


Well, yes. It's not exactly the same thing, but it is related. Do you consider Scientology a real religion? Why or why not? Pretty soon you have to define what a real religion is. However, in the case of both parsonages and monestaries, you have people that are generally 100% dedicated to the religion itself living there. That's their job. It's not clear from the article that this is directly equal. This isn't necessarily a case of bias yet...but it could become one.

As to Romney and the airplane windows.... :shock:

EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, everyone has blind spots. I would really hope a presidential candidate knows more about things like economics and political theory than about how airplanes and fire work.


Yeah, but...I don't care at all how much they know about winning and getting power if they don't know what to use that power for. And that level of scientific ignorance is...appalling. Additionally, judging from his statements on economics, something I do know a fair bit about, he's no smarter in that field.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:56 pm UTC

Religious tax benefits are decided by Congress, and then the IRS. Which is why Scientologists were stalking and hassling IRS agents when they were denied tax exempt status on account of not being a religion. Or was it because they were considered a cult or corporation? I can't remember, but the point is, Fuck Scientology.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:56 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Honestly, everyone has blind spots. I would really hope a presidential candidate knows more about things like economics and political theory than about how airplanes and fire work.
The problem, at least for me, is the way he said it.

“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”
I used to talk like that all the time from like 12-18: if I didn't know something, I made shit up. If he doesn't know anything about cabin pressure he shouldn't say "It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous." I mean, whatever, it's not like he's running to be aeronautical engineer in chief. But it does raise concerns about how he'd behave in other situations.

I just now realize it also shows that Romney has either never flown on a normal commercial flight, or he just hasn't thought about it for more than a few seconds after the whole oxygen mask spiel.



Well It's not too unreasonable to assume that a fire on an aircraft is a dangerous problem, and it is also valid for him to be using "it" to describe the fire situation.

In my opinion It's a silly Gaffe, no more or less silly than Biden asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:11 pm UTC

Don't be ridiculous. He was clearly referring to either "you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft" or "the windows don’t open" when he said "It’s a real problem", not to a fire in an aircraft. There's no accurate way to explain his statement without conceding that he is very ignorant of at least a couple of things about commercial airliners.

Asking someone in a wheelchair to stand up is very embarrassing, but it's normal brain fart territory. Most people are used to interacting with people who can stand up, so used to it that there isn't a "check for disability" stage in the algorithm.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Triangle_Man » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:12 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:Yeah, I would expect the president to ask his advisors such a question before saying such a thing to the public. He doesn't necessarily need to know such (basic physics) things, but he does need to know what he doesn't know and ask about before making a giant ass of himself.

Agreed. The comments have apparently gone viral and he's getting mocked all over the internet, being portrayed as being genuinely confused as to why the windows on airplanes didn't roll down when he may have simply made a mistake or even simply been making a joke. Such an event cannot be a good thing for anyone trying to run a successful presidential campaign.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:37 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
mike-l wrote:Yeah, I would expect the president to ask his advisors such a question before saying such a thing to the public. He doesn't necessarily need to know such (basic physics) things, but he does need to know what he doesn't know and ask about before making a giant ass of himself.

Agreed. The comments have apparently gone viral and he's getting mocked all over the internet, being portrayed as being genuinely confused as to why the windows on airplanes didn't roll down when he may have simply made a mistake or even simply been making a joke. Such an event cannot be a good thing for anyone trying to run a successful presidential campaign.

Gaffes are overrated as to how much damage they inflict on a presidential campaign. Tv "journalists" always pounce on them as the reason so and so is doing badly, but it's rarely the case.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby JBJ » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:25 pm UTC

And indeed he was making a joke.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:15 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:And indeed he was making a joke.

Perhaps, but here's the video.

From the article
Basically he was retelling the story and when he said ‘I don’t know why they don’t have roll down windows on airplanes,’ he looked at the audience and everyone laughed
You can see from the video that he doesn't pause or anything. Judge for yourself.

(I will say from watching the video, the intonation makes it seem to me like he was referring to the fire when he said 'it's a real problem', so I take back some of my earlier concerns)

Edit: Having watched it about 10 times, trying to see it as a joke, I've convinced myself he MAY have been joking.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:10 pm UTC

Look, it's not that Romney forgot that airplane windows keep the air inside the plane...it's that he forgot that you fleshy meat-people need to breathe. Even the best robot occasionally has a hiccup.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:22 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:
JBJ wrote:And indeed he was making a joke.

Perhaps, but here's the video.

From the article
Basically he was retelling the story and when he said ‘I don’t know why they don’t have roll down windows on airplanes,’ he looked at the audience and everyone laughed
You can see from the video that he doesn't pause or anything. Judge for yourself.

(I will say from watching the video, the intonation makes it seem to me like he was referring to the fire when he said 'it's a real problem', so I take back some of my earlier concerns)

Edit: Having watched it about 10 times, trying to see it as a joke, I've convinced myself he MAY have been joking.

It should be remembered that he is horrendously bad at humour. I'm willing to believe that half the stuff he says are attempted jokes.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
mike-l wrote:
JBJ wrote:Edit: Having watched it about 10 times, trying to see it as a joke, I've convinced myself he MAY have been joking.

It should be remembered that he is horrendously bad at humour. I'm willing to believe that half the stuff he says are attempted jokes.


Well, that explains his fiscal plan, then.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Роберт » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
mike-l wrote:
JBJ wrote:Edit: Having watched it about 10 times, trying to see it as a joke, I've convinced myself he MAY have been joking.

It should be remembered that he is horrendously bad at humour. I'm willing to believe that half the stuff he says are attempted jokes.


Well, that explains his fiscal plan, then.

So he's like a more subtle Colbert?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby lutzj » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
mike-l wrote:
JBJ wrote:Edit: Having watched it about 10 times, trying to see it as a joke, I've convinced myself he MAY have been joking.

It should be remembered that he is horrendously bad at humour. I'm willing to believe that half the stuff he says are attempted jokes.


Well, that explains his fiscal plan, then.

So he's like a more subtle Colbert?


As certain older relatives of mine might have predicted, it's obviously a Mormon-Catholic plot to undermine the American political system. Would also explain the ascension of Ryan and Biden to the national stage.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:32 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Don't be ridiculous. He was clearly referring to either "you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft" or "the windows don’t open" when he said "It’s a real problem", not to a fire in an aircraft. There's no accurate way to explain his statement without conceding that he is very ignorant of at least a couple of things about commercial airliners.

Asking someone in a wheelchair to stand up is very embarrassing, but it's normal brain fart territory. Most people are used to interacting with people who can stand up, so used to it that there isn't a "check for disability" stage in the algorithm.



I'm glad quotes of the form

"[beginning of quote sentence fragment] — [end of quote sentence fragment]"

are clear to you

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby Green9090 » Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Postby mike-l » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

"While Governor Romney has the issues and the facts on his side,"... wut?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests