Who's the bigger liar? Romney or Obama?

[LetThereBe]

I think we're talking about more than "neglect." Romneycare could have covered this man's wife in Massachusetts, but Romney would allow Tennessee (or wherever) to deny coverage and give the woman an effective death sentence. That's not neglect; it's negligence.

I don't get it.

It is negligence when he doesn't pay to stop her from dying from a disease, but when you don't pay to stop people from dying from disease that is... just fine?

[Yarn]

It is negligence when he doesn't pay to stop her from dying from a disease, but when you don't pay to stop people from dying from disease that is...

The same thing.

[lsbskins1]

So, are we actually contending here that there is a moral equivalence between advocating and creating bad policy that leads to unnecessary suffering and not living the life of a monk? And, hey...Romney also did not give all of his wealth to the poor, so if they are equivalent, he is guilty of both crimes, so still more guilty.

To me, this is like suggesting that I can't criticize someone for mentally abusing their child if I haven't given every extra penny I might make to charity. Really? Is that a serious requirement?

[LetThereBe]

So, are we actually contending here that there is a moral equivalence between advocating and creating bad policy that leads to unnecessary suffering and not living the life of a monk? And, hey...Romney also did not give all of his wealth to the poor, so if they are equivalent, he is guilty of both crimes, so still more guilty.

To me, this is like suggesting that I can't criticize someone for mentally abusing their child if I haven't given every extra penny I might make to charity. Really? Is that a serious requirement?

I don't think that is analogous at all.
This is the argument I'm seeing:

Mitt Romney didn't pay to prevent someone from dying, therefore he is a murderer.

...which is perfectly equivalent to...

You didn't pay to prevent someone from dying, therefore you are a murderer.

[lsbskins1]

I think the "murderer" charge is the spin of those attacking the ad. The point of the ad is that downsizing has consequences for real people, that closing plants and laying off individuals does something more than increasing profit for a select few, that those profits are bought by harming real, living, breathing individuals. Are you contending that this is not true? I don't think you can make that case on any level. When you close a plant and lay off workers, they lose their salary and their benefits.

Are you contending that it is true, but necessary? You might be able to make the case in certain circumstances that closures and lay offs make it possible to save a business from going under and save the salary and benefits for a majority by sacrificing the salary and benefits of a few. But, I think in the case of the particular plant in question, the profitability was there, it was a consolidation and sell off that was undertaken purely for the advantage of a few. The uncomfortable truth of the ad is that Bain facilitated the harming of the line workers for no other purpose than increaing the take of the few, not because it was an unfortunate necessity. If Romney and Republicans are unhappy with people being aware of uncomfortable truths...though shit. If the closing was necessary and justified, make that specific case. If it wasn't, then they just have to eat the shit they deserve. It might have been perfectly legal, but it doesn't mean it was the type of action that is above reproach. Nobody is being charged with felony murder...they are being charged with being immoral and greedy.

Now, go ahead and try to explain to me again how keeping enough of my own salary to afford to see a movie once a month is the moral equivalent of firing 50 or 100 people so that I can be worth 2.6 million instead of being worth 1.6 million.

[LetThereBe]

I think the "murderer" charge is the spin of those attacking the ad. The point of the ad is that downsizing has consequences for real people, that closing plants and laying off individuals does something more than increasing profit for a select few, that those profits are bought by harming real, living, breathing individuals. Are you contending that this is not true? I don't think you can make that case on any level. When you close a plant and lay off workers, they lose their salary and their benefits.

Are you contending that it is true, but necessary? You might be able to make the case in certain circumstances that closures and lay offs make it possible to save a business from going under and save the salary and benefits for a majority by sacrificing the salary and benefits of a few. But, I think in the case of the particular plant in question, the profitability was there, it was a consolidation and sell off that was undertaken purely for the advantage of a few. The uncomfortable truth of the ad is that Bain facilitated the harming of the line workers for no other purpose than increaing the take of the few, not because it was an unfortunate necessity. If Romney and Republicans are uncomfortable with people being aware of uncomfortable truths...though shit.

I am contending that making a move so that one is no longer obligated to pay to treat someone's disease does not mean they "killed that person". Saying that Romney gave her an effective death sentence is simply untrue. Acting like this is negligence is a gross exaggeration.
Mitt Romney didn't kill anyone (at least that we know of!).

[lsbskins1]

I am contending that making a move so that one is no longer obligated to pay to treat someone's disease does not mean they "killed that person". Saying that Romney gave her an effective death sentence is simply untrue. Acting like this is negligence is a gross exaggeration.
Mitt Romney didn't kill anyone (at least that we know of!).

Well, you are free to think it is acceptable to value extreme personal profit over the health and safety of others and vote accordingly. Just don't pretend that that was not the choice that was made. I happen to think that if that is the way you will run your own company, that is the way you will run the counrty and I prefer that the country not be run under that value system. That is the question before the public and that is the question each individual is free to evalute on the facts and merits of the ad.

[LetThereBe]

Well, you are free to think it is acceptable to value extreme personal profit over the health and safety of others and vote accordingly. Just don't pretend that that was not the choice that was made. I happen to think that if that is the way you will run your own company, that is the way you will run the counrty and I prefer that the country not be run under that value system. That is the question before the public and that is the question each individual is free to evalute on the facts and merits of the ad.

That happens to be the norm. Every person with a non-negative net worth has made the same choice... they could use what they made for the health and safety of others or they could use it for themselves. People just find it easier to judge the wealthy because they can attach that "extreme" modifier. They are hypocrites who behave the exact same way but feel their actions are excusable since there are a few less zeros involved.

EDIT:
In either case, I can accept the message "there are consequences to greed". That is completely different from saying "this person killed my wife".
That isn't just spin... it is lying. It is a disgusting appeal to emotion.
These are the very kind of ads that show we need elections weighted toward actual political knowledge, not fallacious appeals to sentiment.

[truthreality]

I don't think that is analogous at all.
This is the argument I'm seeing:

Mitt Romney didn't pay to prevent someone from dying, therefore he is a murderer.

...which is perfectly equivalent to...

You didn't pay to prevent someone from dying, therefore you are a murderer.

I am contending that making a move so that one is no longer obligated to pay to treat someone's disease does not mean they "killed that person". Saying that Romney gave her an effective death sentence is simply untrue. Acting like this is negligence is a gross exaggeration.
Mitt Romney didn't kill anyone (at least that we know of!).

The point of the add is not that Romney's company killed the lady by not paying for her health treatment. The point of the add is that Romney's company killed the lady by stripping her husband of healthcare insurance. The issue the add brings up deals strictly with big business and healthcare. Although the add is not accurate: As Dieval showed in Post #29, the argument the add makes is valid. If Romney is elected many people can say goodbye to healthcare. He has already promised to eradicate Obamacare. When I went sailing this weekend the sailor running the boat told me that his daughter who suffers from seizures and is unable to work came home to live with him and his wife and she is able to go on her moms healthcare plan. Thanks to Obamacare people up to 26 can be on their parents health insurance. If Romney is elected he will seek to strip this provision away and the poor girl will be without healthcare without treatment her seizures are life threatening.

[Yarn]

The Ad doesn't say Romney killed her. It just says, or strongly suggests, she wouldn't have died if it weren't for the factory lay offs. The hyperbolic language isn't in the ad, it is in criticism of the ad.

[Chris the Chees]

Go back and look at some of my links or posted videos. I'm not wasting time with you when your having a problem thinking there is a diffrence between falsehoods and lies.

There is a difference, you can tell a falsehood without lying, it is called being mistaken - a phenomenon right-wingers must be painfully familiar with.

[lsbskins1]

That happens to be the norm. Every person with a non-negative net worth has made the same choice... they could use what they made for the health and safety of others or they could use it for themselves. People just find it easier to judge the wealthy because they can attach that "extreme" modifier. They are hypocrites who behave the exact same way but feel their actions are excusable since there are a few less zeros involved.

EDIT:
In either case, I can accept the message "there are consequences to greed". That is completely different from saying "this person killed my wife".
That isn't just spin... it is lying. It is a disgusting appeal to emotion.
These are the very kind of ads that show we need elections weighted toward actual political knowledge, not fallacious appeals to sentiment.

What are all of these rational issues, devoid of sentiment that people are not talking about?

Let's be realistic here, people pay attention to any issue, political or otherwise, because they care (ie feel some sentiment towards) the issue or issues. You "care" if you have a job because you have reason to fear the consequences of not having one. The reaction to that issue is an emotional one. You care about 2nd Amendment issues because you either fear the consequences of having or not having access to guns. You care about the amount of and type of governement spending because you care about the consequences of those choices. You either fear spiraling spending and deficits or you fear for the safety and health and life quality of those who might benefit from the spending. What fucking political issue is not, at base, an emotional issue?