There’s Hope at Hacker Hostels

Interesting juxtaposition as the lesser generations scrounge in hovels for the last bits of bread while the bequeath(ers), fat and happy greater generations, with various collector disorders, come out of their epoxy floored and junk laden garages to burp, belch and backfire all the way to Moneycito adjacent Coast Village Road while caressing a frothy latte. Isn't a city permit normally required for such raucous protestations.

How about not promulgating Obama's demonstrated lies about Romney.

Or for that matter, Romney's lies about Obama. I feel for you JohnLocke, I think you're stuck promoting a candidate that is beneath you.

JohnLocke how about posting again that you are not a Republican or Democrat and see if anybody believes that.

I'm not supporting either of them as I'm a Libertarian (and could care less what you believe about my affiliation). I am, however, interested in fact-based debate.

But to the subject at hand: factcheck.org published information last week disproving Obama's claims about Romney's outsourcing of jobs; Obama's camp elected to continue to publish the erroneous claims. Four senior members of Bain Capital, three of them Democrats, have said that Obama's claims are incorrect. Yet he still continues what are now shown to be lies.

So, your turn: what lies has Romney told and how do you know they are lies? (your own personal opinion doesn't count).

Frankly, just about everything that comes out of Romney's mouth. But let's take his big proud boast of having helped numerous charities. They were all Mormon charities.
What is Romney's position on any issue? Are you sure? Do you think the position will be the same tomorrow? Was it the same yesterday?

"just about everything that comes out of Romney's mouth" [is a lie] is so outlandish a claim and so clearly prejudiced and factually unsupportable that I'm surprised you'd post it since you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. And you provide no proof at all. Like I said - fact-base debate please. Meaningless generalizations hardly qualify.

According to a CNN report earlier this week, Romney supported "many non-Mormon charities". So I'm still waiting for an example with evidence supporting the allegation that it was a lie. For example: provide a list of all charities that Romney supported and highlight the Mormon ones (or the non-Mormon ones if you prefer). Facts and data to support your allegations, please.

"John" since you have the list why don't you introduce it into evidence? I frankly don't have time or the interest, Romney is a charlatan, Obama is a smooth talker- there you have it.

And to be perfectly frank, I think I have less respect for Romney than I do for the annoying aggressive panhandler of your choice on lower State.
Besides destroying American companies and jobs, how about all those tax havens? Seriously can't part with a dollar to pay his fair share? Some might call it treason. And until you present proof instead of CNN hearsay, I don't believe Romney ever assisted any nonMormon charity.
In addition a lot of people have legitimate concerns over having anybody as deeply involved in their religion in the presidency nowadays, thank God.

I remember when Ross Perot--neither a Democrat or a Republican--said in the 1992 presidential debate that there would be a "giant sucking sound" of jobs going out of the U.S. if NAFTA was passed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C...

I should introduce the evidence? In other words, you prefer to believe and spout meaningless unsupportable generalizations rather than debate and prove your point because you "don't have the time or interest " (in facts, that is). How convenient. I provided facts for my assertion - it's up to you to provide facts for yours - basic rules of debate.

The "hearsay" was on THREE networks, and, while I don't automatically believe everything I read or hear, I do prefer some substantiation as opposed to meaningless generalizations (but I see that you, like Obama, refuse to accept the word of three senior Democratic members of Bain who stated unequivocally that the notion that Romney was at Bain when jobs where exported was incorrect). And in those same reports, the idea of Romney avoiding taxes was largely debunked by several financial experts (though I'm sure you wouldn't believe them either - preferring suspicion and generalization prevailing over factual research) - tax laws having changed dramatically to ensure that such shenanigans don't happen (you DO trust your government to enforce the laws I assume - the IRS is hardly a tool of the Right). Refusal to debate factual issues or accept data that disputes your views is one of the many things wrong with our political system.

And, while I share your concern with religion, the same argument was applied to JFK in the 60's.

And once again, just to be clear, I support neither Romney nor Obama, but strongly support fact-based debate over meaningless generalization and innuendo. For ALL sides as well as their supporters.

BTW, the networks were ABC, NBC, and CNN. If you count Fox (which I'm sure you don't), the reports appeared on four networks.

JohnLocke writes:
"I should introduce the evidence? In other words, you prefer to believe and spout meaningless unsupportable generalizations rather than debate and prove your point because you "don't have the time or interest "

I agree it's a little Romneyesque of me, but I know a rattlesnake is dangerous without having to get bit.

I also agree that cherrypicking info is a major problem across the board in our culture, we've all been subjected to Romney and have observed him for six years now really. But it'd be wrong to say nothing has changed, because Romney's policy positions and explanations of his own life ect change with the wind!

I have no doubt if you and I asked him the same question, he would give is both the response he thought we wanted to hear. At least Bush was consistent, you pretty knew where he stood! Romney stands for nothing but Romney, all the rest of us be damned.

Living Republicans I like: Alan Simpson, Lisa Murkowsky, even the local GOP leader Gandrud is better qualified and more ethical than Romney. I also feel sorry for him having to stump for that bum.

Yeah Bill I remember Perot saying, and many of us knew he was right. NAFTA is part of our current economic woes, and it hasn't helped the citizens of Mexico one bit. It has only made them factory slaves instead of farm slaves, and corporations have been stealing lands from the indigeneous peoples- in Chiapas and elsewhere- and using private armies to kill those who don't leave.

Like I said, I support neither Obama (who I voted for last time) nor Romney, but I do support factual debate, a skill apparently missing from your arsenal. The rattlesnake analogy is disingenuous, but to build on it, I know that someone who refuses to debate with facts, preferring instead to depend on unsupportable generalizations, is dangerous. Just pick a statement that Romney made and prove it a lie. Just one.

I don't have to, Romney does it himself. I'm not a poli-sci major, a journalist or a politician. I'm allowed slack, snark, and the occasional inflammatory comment.
In other words, I really don't feel like wasting any more time than absolutely necessary on Mitt Romney.
And I am very disappointed in your personal attack, I am not running for President.

Here's an article on Romney's lies right here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07...

I know some local unemployed techies who would love working at an incubator @Miramar property. Interesting idea.

That said, "gamer" types often don't have any real software skills.

The point, Ken, was fact-based debate vs meaningless unsupportable generalization. I'm disappointed when apparently intelligent people forsake the former in favor of the latter and you can be disappointed on what you characterize as my "personal attack". As to the generalization that Romney only tells people what they want to hear, once again facts interfere: he sure didn't tell the NAACP what they wanted to hear.

BTW, my personal opinion, not to be confused with factual data, is that Romney is completely out of touch with the average person in the US and has little to offer as President.

On the other hand, while I like Obama personally, or at least his projected persona, I have been very disappointed in the emergence of the Obama as described in the second half of The Audacity of Hope, i.e. the class-warfare big-government neo-Socialist. For him as a Constitutional lawyer to even imply, much less speechify, that the Supreme Court did not need to review the Affordable Health Care act was a supreme act of hubris. Supporting Eric Holder's defiance of a Congressional subpeona indicates a lack of respect for the law. And his words and actions indicate not a shred of understanding of economics and finance, capital and job formation, and all those little things necessary to provide tax revenue to fund social programs (I'd be a bit less harsh had he paid any attention to Simpson-Bowles). Another annoying little fact: McClatchy poll this week indicates that 52% of voters believe that Bush tax cuts should continue for ALL taxpayers, while Obama continues the class warfare against "millionaires and billionaires". And another; earlier this week poll in LA Times indicates a majority (53% as I recall) think Obamacare should be repealed even as he continues to push it. Darn facts. Always getting in the way of easy generalization.

So, once again, I support neither. But I do support fact-based debate. Have a nice day.

JohnLocke said: (your own personal opinion doesn't count) People have posted their opinions, facts, and generalizations but in the end it is your personal opinion in the voting booth that will count. As long as I have a picture ID I will have the right to express my opinion and I will make sure ALL Americans rights to vote and participate will be preserved.

My point was that in a fact-based debate, personal opinion doesn't count - a good debater can argue either side of a question.

But in voting, of course your opinion counts. And I fully support the idea of a picture ID for all voters. A citizenship test would be good, too. Just think, if there really are 12 million illegals in the US and they all voted that would be 4% of the population - enough to swing an election.

There are so many safeguards to keep that from happening, you'll be happy to know it's a nonissue.

I've worked election polls, if your name isn't on the register you get a special ballot that isn't even counted until days even weeks after the election- after it's been verified.

Just think about it " 12 million illegals all voting " really you can't be serious, how stupid do you think illegals are? The issue here is the the legal American citizens who they are trying to suppress from voting, and yes if you don't let thousands of legal citizens vote that certainly could swing an election and that's what all these new voting laws are about. The GOP is counting on it.

I've been to polling places where you tell them your name, they look on the roster, and if your name is there, you get to vote. Your name is on the roster because you sent in a registration card, which requires no identification. What safeguards are there?

Of course I don't think that 12 million will vote, any more than they would take advantage of free health care, free education, etc. But what a boon for the Democrats if they WOULD vote! Interesting that, when citizenship is a basic requirement for voting, that so many resist the idea of verification....

Vote Libertarian.

And BTW, lacumbre, reread my post and note all the "ifs" therein before ascribing a position to me.

I have to agree with JohnLocke Vote Libertarian, that way less votes for Romney.

That's a very big "IF" when one considers Texas' voter fraud law which the state is now defending in Federal court:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa...

It's been widely reported that Texas has had a grand total of *62* voter fraud cases since 2002:

http://www.khou.com/news/Political-an...

As the above report says, most of those 62 fraud cases could not have been prevented with photo ID's (they involved mail-in ballots). This has been shown to be the case in other states as well:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_s...

It's probably no coincidence that most of the recent "voter fraud" laws have been signed by GOP governors. Shenanigans as usual.

Well we already knew CNN was on shaky ground journalistically, but this takes the cake. A few comments above, "JohnLocke" legitimately and I believe in good faith cited CNN as a source in defense of Romney. Turns out David Gergen, who rabidly defended Romney and Bain is, well I'll let him tell you himself:

"Let me acknowledge upfront what I have said several times on CNN: I have a past relationship with the top partners at Bain that is both personal and financial. I have worked with them in support of nonprofit organizations such as City Year. I have given a couple of paid speeches for Bain dinners, as I have for many other groups. I was on the board of a for-profit child care company, Bright Horizons, that was purchased by Bain Capital. It was a transaction with financial benefits for all board members and shareholders, including me.

So, yes, I have a bias."

Link to source DailyKos (which I rarely read for those ready to pounce on me)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07...

Good point. Not the best source. Direct testimony by the "top partners at Bain" would have been better than hearsay.

It just fell into my lap.