# Presidential debate 1



## bob123

This... is fucking hilarious.


----------



## bob123

Both of these guys look like they haven't slept in two weeks... obama especially

And to say... the moderator is close to being like "fuck it..."


----------



## brett8388

Obama looks clueless - Romney is killing it. I thought Obama was going to win again but not now. He's Jimmy Carter.


----------



## bob123

brett8388 said:


> Obama looks clueless - Romney is killing it. I thought Obama was going to win again but not now. He's Jimmy Carter.



He's not "winning" because romney won't let anyone else talk! Lol. I think the next debate will be more "real".


----------



## SpaceDock

Dude, Romney is failing so hard.

Number one.. 

Number two... 

Yeah, he can count.


----------



## Valennic

SpaceDock said:


> Dude, Romney is failing so hard.
> 
> Number one..
> 
> Number two...
> 
> Yeah, he can count.



I hate to say it, but he's actually beating Obama here. Obama seems to be stumbling a lot in this debate. It sucks. I hate Romney, but I can acknowledge he's debating a lot better here.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Damnit, I'm pissed I have a mid-term tmr, otherwise I would so watch this! American politics are better than most entertainment cartoons.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

you guys keep up with politifact on politifact.com or on their twitter while you watch!


----------



## Necris

Romney keeps lying and Obama is too weak to call him on it.

I feel bad for Jim Lehrer, he just isn't assertive enough to moderate these two.


----------



## tacotiklah

I laughed my ass off with joy when Obama came out with this one for Romney, "It's my belief that Gov. Romney doesn't possess the ability to say no to the more extremists within his own party."

Fucking owned!!!


----------



## lurgar

To be honest, people will probably not be swayed at all by these debates. That being said, the big loser tonight was Jim Lehrer. 


Also, Big Bird.


----------



## Varcolac

Really disappointed with Obama tonight. Not that he didn't say the right things, but that his delivery was lacklustre and he could have been far harder on Romney. I was worried this might happen: everyone's been so used to "Romneyshambles" that a simply competent performance looks like a win.


----------



## kmanick

Even the dems on TV are saying Romney out performed Obama tonight.
Quite surprised that Obama was as flat as he was
good night for Romney but I doubt it will make a difference.
I'm sure we will see a much more aggressive Obama in round 2.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

I thought Obama was gonna walk circles around Romney

If you ask me this debate was pretty embarrassing on both sides


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Romney was just angrier when he opened his mouth. That doesn't make somebody a better debater.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

That was kind of funny when Romney claimed the US healthcare system produced the healthiest people in the world. WTF.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Major WTF


----------



## Treeunit212

I find it _extremely_ disheartening that even NPR is calling the debate for Romney, simply because he was aggressive and that's all voters will notice. It was frantic, defensive energy with no basis in factual reality.

Obama was confident and collected, whereas Romney had to rudely interrupt the awful mediator just to rebuke like the condescending asshole he is.

How the fuck is that presidential? Why are we talking about how many notes Obama took instead of Romney's inability to take a punch like a grown up?

Romney didn't let up because every word he says is rehearsed garbage designed to display confidence. Obama actually thinks as he talks, and that's a bad thing? 

Obama will come back learning that you can't debate like a grown up with an asshole like Romney, and hopefully next time the moderator says "Let's not, you rude motherfucker" quite more often.


----------



## Semichastny

I liked Romney, his plan to speed up our collapse into bankruptcy seemed much more effective then Obama's plan to silly plan to slightly increase our speed.

Edit: The like showed up after a restarted my browser


----------



## GuitaristOfHell

Romney to me lost here
" You didn't cooperate with republicans when creating Obamacare."
" It was a Republican idea"


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Treeunit said it.


----------



## Treeunit212

GuitaristOfHell said:


> Romney to me lost here
> " You didn't cooperate with republicans when creating Obamacare."
> " It was a Republican idea"



Obama had virtual ALL of the zingers, clever comparisons, and disses that would have otherwise thrown the debate audience into a roaring mob, because it sure as fuck did at the state theater I watched from. 

I haven't paid close enough attention to any debate like this before, so perhaps that's why I'm so stunned Romney is being crowned the victor.


----------



## Watty

Everyone will always say their side won the debate, so what's the point declaring a winner? (Especially evident in youtube videos debating religion.....ugh)

In the first 5 minutes, I loved how Mitt tried to say that his plan was different from Obama's. The only difference between what he said and what Obama said was that Mitt chose to number his points (further reinforcing the idea that they were rehearsed) whereas Obama spoke about them in a manner indicating thought while speaking, if not only to encompass a larger idea that to pin each one into a taking point.

On a different note, Obama didn't even bother bringing out the 47% guns and such, so perhaps he let Mitt play himself up only to be shot down later...don't care much either way as I'm not voting for Mitt regardless of how well he performed tonight or any other night.

Also, EVERY time I hear Mitt say he wants Americans to be able to pursue liberty, I die a little inside. He's convinced himself that liberties that infringe on archaic religious traditions are automatically moot. How can LGBT folks pursue the same liberties as straight folks when they're being denied rights?! I know Obama would have looked childish asking him that in the middle of the debate, but I really want to see how Mitt would respond (at this stage in the gamne, not surrounded by other candidates who are even more crazy religiously than he is - as odd as that sounds). I'm glad I live in Washington, where we're about to pass a marriage equality act that will even the proverbial playing field; though I'm not happy that it had to be evened out in the first place...

LET THE FACT CHECKING........COMMENCE!!!


----------



## tacotiklah

Even Obama fell into a trap that I cannot stand: When asked a direct question about jobs, he goes on and on about how his wife is awesome and other bullshit. If I wanted an opinion on the state of your marriage, I would ask "So how's your lovely wife?". In this case, I wanna know how you're gonna put my ass back to work. That's like me asking someone what number comes after 2 and they start telling me how photosynthesis works.


----------



## Necris

ghstofperdition said:


> That's like me asking someone what number comes after 2 and they start telling me how photosynthesis works.


Oxygen is the number 2 of photosynthesis.


----------



## Watty

ghstofperdition said:


> Even Obama fell into a trap that I cannot stand: When asked a direct question about jobs, he goes on and on about how his wife is awesome and other bullshit. If I wanted an opinion on the state of your marriage, I would ask "So how's your lovely wife?". In this case, I wanna know how you're gonna put my ass back to work. That's like me asking someone what number comes after 2 and they start telling me how photosynthesis works.



He mentioned it because it's their 20th wedding anniversary... A major milestone in today's society to be sure. Granted the question wasn't answered in the first 40 seconds of his reply, but he led up to it. If you paid attention to what the political analysts were saying, a major point of contention was whether or not Obama could come across as jovial and compassionate. He accomplished that and transitioned nicely into the question; as if the next 10 minutes of talking weren't enough to answer the question...?

And I think it's laudable when people think the president can directly put "[their] ass back to work." The president merely helps foster the environment in which job creation becomes a viable and desirable outcome, which (granted) hasn't been as successful as it could have been at this point in time. With all the companies that Mitt claims create jobs out there with CEO's being paid millions every year, what's another employee who will only cost them 50k a year? Job creation is as much about profit and greed as it is about fixing our economy. This should be evident enough given that the reason we're in this mess in the first place revolves around rich people wanting to get even more so as a result of gambling with money that wasn't theirs to begin with. 

And to clarify, are you not working because people won't hire you, or are you not working because you won't apply for a job you feel is "beneath" your qualifications?


----------



## tacotiklah

I'm not working because 1.) My area has over 17% unemployment so the the job market is saturated with other people looking for work and 2.) My area is notorious for discrimination against transpeople looking for a job. So yeah, there's where the government could REALLY help me find a job. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's their anniversary and all. But going on and on about your wife when you are asked a direct question sounds like the kind of political waffling that I can't stand. I believe when you are asked a straight question, then you are obliged to give a straight answer. 

I don't care if he sounds jovial or upbeat, I care that he's going to do his job. That's ALL I care about. I wanna know what his plan is and how he plans to execute it. If it is something logical, feasible and doable, then I'm all for it. If it isn't, then I wanna hear what the other guy's plan is. If neither of them can come up with anything that sounds like it's in the right direction, then I want to hear someone else's ideas on the subject.

Also, spending 10 minutes to answer a question that you only have 2-3 minutes to answer is ridiculous. You should be going into a debate knowing what you plan to say long before you say it, and in a way that won't send most of the attention inept people of America into a coma. In other words, avoid over elaborating on minor details and put more emphasis on the major points.


Note that I feel Obama won this debate, but I do have some qualms about how he did it. I feel that he wasn't aggressive enough on some of his points, although he did come out swinging on a few that made me laugh my ass off. Mitt of course keeps spinning the same bullshit he has been for a while now. Then of course I was unimpressed with Obama making his anniversary a key issue in the debate. Make it a footnote, not the very first thing out of your mouth.

I'm willing to bet that if Obama came out a bit more harshly and more focused in the next debate, Mitt will have a snowball's chance in hell. For some people it's not what you say, but how you say it that matters.


----------



## Watty

ghstofperdition said:


> I'm not working because 1.) My area has over 17% unemployment so the the job market is saturated with other people looking for work and 2.) My area is notorious for discrimination against transpeople looking for a job. So yeah, there's where the government could REALLY help me find a job.



Sounds like it might behoove you to think about switching to a different industry, or, at the very least, pick up a part time job doing something else? Sometimes you have to embrace the fact that people suck and will treat you differently as a result of who you are; that's life. I'm not saying you should change, but you can't walk through life claiming that everyone HAS TO accept you for who you are because it's not going to happen. And if you're against the discrimination, I don't get why you'd be irked by anything Obama said...he's going to be the candidate more likely to sympathize with your position and pass legislation to help...I'm thinking Mitt would say something like "it's your choice, it's your problem" if he didn't have cameras on him...

And aren't there laws requiring that employment not be denied on the basis of gender or sexual orientation? People who don't want to hire a trans will find a way to legally justify it (other qualifications come to mind), so the government isn't going to be able to do much for you in that respect. That is, unless you had the funds to take it up the court system and could prove it...but then we're right back to people sucking and the circle begins again!



ghstofperdition said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's their anniversary and all. But going on and on about your wife when you are asked a direct question sounds like the kind of political waffling that I can't stand. I believe when you are asked a straight question, then you are obliged to give a straight answer.



Waffling would imply that he didn't know how to answer. He did know how, and given what I mentioned about his strategy in the debate, he elected to do so after the comments regarding his marriage. Politicians are notrious for dodging direct questions, I thought that was evident to everyone? See Paul Ryan a few days ago about the tax plan for an even better example. 



ghstofperdition said:


> I don't care if he sounds jovial or upbeat, I care that he's going to do his job. That's ALL I care about. I wanna know what his plan is and how he plans to execute it. If it is something logical, feasible and doable, then I'm all for it. If it isn't, then I wanna hear what the other guy's plan is. If neither of them can come up with anything that sounds like it's in the right direction, then I want to hear someone else's ideas on the subject.



Then you shouldn't have bothered to watch the debate at all as they rarely answer anything other than how much mud will the candidates choose to throw at one another's policies and principles. This one wasn't all that bad, but it's only because Obama chose to fight fair.



ghstofperdition said:


> Also, spending 10 minutes to answer a question that you only have 2-3 minutes to answer is ridiculous. You should be going into a debate knowing what you plan to say long before you say it, and in a way that won't send most of the attention inept people of America into a coma. In other words, avoid over elaborating on minor details and put more emphasis on the major points.



I meant to say that they talked about jobs and other related topics for the following 15 minutes or so and that you should have been able to find an answer to your question in what was said during that time.


----------



## tacotiklah

Watty said:


> Sounds like it might behoove you to think about switching to a different industry, or, at the very least, pick up a part time job doing something else? And if you're against the discrimination, I don't get why you'd be irked by anything Obama said...he's going to be the candidate more likely to sympathize with your position and pass legislation to change it...I'm thinking Mitt would say something like "it's your choice, it's your problem" if he didn't have cameras on him...



I'm 100% sure that's EXACTLY what Romney would say, hence why I'd never vote for that scumbag. Nothing about this debate has ever swayed me from wanting to vote for Obama. That doesn't mean that I have to like everything Obama does, and I also like to be objective about things that I like and dislike and not pander to one party or another. Hence why I'm registered as an undecided voter because I vote across party lines in order to pick the candidate that I most agree with regardless of what party they identify with. In this case, I agree completely Obama would do the best job in ensuring that there are safeguards against discrimination against LGBTs in the workplace in all 50 states.

As far as work goes, I'm actually a full-time student right now and as such I get paid in the form of grants and loans. Obama did an AWESOME job of adequately laying out the groundwork for how he has helped students across the country pay for college, and it has certainly helped me as I learn a new trade and grow as an individual. Full marks for Obama on this one.



Watty said:


> Waffling would imply that he didn't know how to answer. He did know how, and given what I mentioned about his strategy in the debate, he elected to do so after the comments regarding his marriage. Politicians are notorious for dodging direct questions, I thought that was evident to everyone? See Paul Ryan a few days ago about the tax plan for an even better example.



If Obama wanted to differentiate himself from every other politician, not going on and on about his home life would have been the way to do that. This was the kind of thing I expected from Mitt tbvh. Obama DID lay out his plan, but I would have rather he came out of the gate talking about jobs and things like that because of the fact that is what is on the majority of American's minds right now. Mitt actually took that bull by the horns and that's about the only thing that he really had going for him in this debate. Now if you go and fact check what Mitt says, you're gonna see that bullshit meter explode. However, the fact that Mitt made it a real point long before Obama did will only help Mitt. Obama has to come out with focus on jobs first and foremost if he wants to grab the attention of the swing states. If Obama did this, not only would he have facts and mathematical logic on his side, but he'd also do so in a way that would get people to actually pay attention to what he has to say. (the whole point of a debate in other words) 



Watty said:


> Then you shouldn't have bothered to watch the debate at all as they rarely answer anything other than how much mud will the candidates choose to throw at one another's policies and principles. This one wasn't all that bad, but it's only because Obama chose to fight fair.



I watch the debate because I prefer to actually care about what goes on in the world outside of my house. That doesn't mean I have to like it or condone it. 



Watty said:


> I meant to say that they talked about jobs and other related topics for the following 15 minutes or so and that you should have been able to find an answer to your question in what was said during that time.



Well he eventually got to his point. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to debates with timed responses, you don't take forever trying to get to your main point. You get to it in a clear, concise manner and eschew over-elaboration and useless jargon.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.
This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

From what i've gathered from this...







...Just thought it was fitting.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.
> This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)



As a person studying in business and economics, I can tell you first hand that it does NOT make a person a better leader. A better accountant definitely, a better economist sure, but NOT a better leader. Remember that the sole purpose of a business is to turn a profit. If a business could legally throw their own mother under a bus to make more money, I bet you anything that said business would do it. Remember also that the business is out to make more money for itself, NOT you. 

Romney will run the government in a way that increases his own pockets, and not in a way that will actually benefit you.


----------



## petereanima

Well, I should have gone to sleep, that wasn't really worth for me staying up after all (that thing started 3:30 a.m. locally).

Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.


----------



## tacotiklah

petereanima said:


> Well, I should have gone to sleep, that wasn't really worth for me staying up after all (that thing started 3:30 a.m. locally).
> 
> Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.



+rep for this because this is so sad, yet so goddamn true! 

I would have appreciated if Obama had taken Mitt to task a bit more for some of the idiotic things Mitt has been saying as of late, but I gotta admit that he tried to stay classy about it.


----------



## Lasik124

Treeunit212 said:


> I find it _extremely_ disheartening that even NPR is calling the debate for Romney, simply because he was aggressive and that's all voters will notice. It was frantic, defensive energy with no basis in factual reality.
> 
> Obama was confident and collected, whereas Romney had to rudely interrupt the awful mediator just to rebuke like the condescending asshole he is.
> 
> How the fuck is that presidential? Why are we talking about how many notes Obama took instead of Romney's inability to take a punch like a grown up?
> 
> Romney didn't let up because every word he says is rehearsed garbage designed to display confidence. Obama actually thinks as he talks, and that's a bad thing?
> 
> Obama will come back learning that you can't debate like a grown up with an asshole like Romney, and hopefully next time the moderator says "Let's not, you rude motherfucker" quite more often.



I'll just make my response what this guy said


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

petereanima said:


> Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.



Well keep in mind when the candidates have these debates they're not trying to convince any Republican to vote Democrat or liberal to vote conservative, but instead trying to sway the undecided voters in their favor.

In that sense, I think Romney 'won' because of his aggression and what have you because after that night (and that night alone) I think more undecided voters would be more confident in Romney than Obama.


----------



## synrgy

The majority of the "questions" were bullshit to begin with, and both men were allowed to divert to talking points instead of answering the questions as posed.

Put differently, I'm not surprised at the perceived 'results' being based on poise. If there are no real questions, and no real answers, what the fuck else are we supposed to judge? 

The whole thing was embarrassing.


----------



## lurgar

petereanima said:


> Well, I should have gone to sleep, that wasn't really worth for me staying up after all (that thing started 3:30 a.m. locally).
> 
> Has America really gone down so far, that the more aggressive speaker is automatically the "winner" now? You must be kidding me. Well, than why waste time with debattes, let them battle royal in a cage match, or just let them drop their pants and whoever has the bigger balls, wins.



This is American politics now. One of the main reasons the debate was called for Romney wasn't because he was talking the truth or had amazing ideas or anything. It was simply because he was more aggressive and caught Obama offguard with his brand new positions. Fact checking is already not being very kind to Romney, but that doesn't matter to people. What matters is who is more aggressive and who is more assertive. Facts are based on your own personal reality and if you can't articulate that in a short little soundbyte then it must be too complicated to actually make sense and you must be making fun of my intelligence so therefore you're wrong and all of your ideas are wrong what am I even talking about now?

It's much easier to appeal to be peoples' reactive nature than their intellectual one especially when people have been fed the idea that the most educated and most intelligent people are the "elite" and look down upon the common man.


----------



## Watty

TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.



You forgot to mention that the bulk of his knowledge and experience is limited to the private sector, which I would think is a fair amount different than taking over the economic system for the entire country (not to mention its effects on the world stage). I'd imagine it's much easier to appease the interests present in a single state than to try and fight all the influence that is involved with making decisions involving the entire country. All it takes is for a few people to take a bribe from a company to break the system, and no amount of economic experience can combat that sort of thing.



TRENCHLORD said:


> This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)



Again, each side will call their own and it seems like you did just that. If this is indeed the case, it's only because Obama chose not to bring up the gaffes that Mitt's made over the course of his campaign; something I can respect Obama for even more now. And what exactly does shit come off like when concerning a presidential debate?

Overall, Romney sounded as if he was reading from a script most of the time; I mentioned early that the first point they made was exactly the same. The only difference being that Mitt numbered the points, which I suppose will be seen as a plus for those looking for "structure" in what they believe their candidate will be responsible for doing once he hits the White House. However, I think Obama was appealing more towards the folks that can read between the proverbial lines, as it were, and......*wait this all sounds bullshit doesn't it? Of course it does....you can spin things any way you want!* If Mitt does win the election, it will be because conservative voters get false information from places like Fox news that spin it as such and don't bother to check their facts. I've said it once, and I'll say it again....I know some older folks who honestly believe that Obama breaks down doors and does back flips at press conferences. You can't compete with that sort of blind indifference to the truth, and these sorts of uninformed voters are what the Republican's are counting on. The one thing we can take solace in is that these folks will be dying off soon and we can finally move forward instead of backward.

For me, it boils down to fact that I'd rather live in a slightly unstable country where everyone has the same rights and privileges instead of one where theology grows into a governing force and the income gap gets even wider than it is now. I don't know if Obama can fix everything he inherited from the Republicans, or if he'll be able to do much after winning (given that the Republicans will continue to block the Dem's out of spite for having lost the election)...but I do know that he's representative of where I'd like to see this country headed. Out of the religiously based stone age and into prosperity; after all, we've seen in work in the Scandinavian nations, right?


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney has soooo much more knowledge and experience in business and economics.
> This was an easy slam dunk for Romney. Most of the experts and commentators seem to be agreeing that Obama came off like shit. (but he's still a nice guy lol)



And John Kerry beat the pants off Bush in their first debate, and we all know how that election turned out. Don't count your chickens, etc.

The general consensus does seem to be that Romney came off looking better, but the fact checks indicate that Romney was significantly more...truth-challenged, shall we say, in his responses. I'm sure that's gonna come back to bite him in the form of campaign ads in a couple of days.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Watty said:


> You forgot to mention that the bulk of his knowledge and experience is limited to the private sector, which I would think is a fair amount different than taking over the economic system for the entire country (not to mention its effects on the world stage).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, each side will call their own and it seems like you did just that. If this is indeed the case, it's only because Obama chose not to bring up the gaffes that Mitt's made over the course of his campaign; something I can respect Obama for even more now. And what exactly does shit come off like when concerning a presidential debate?
> 
> For me, it boils down to fact that I'd rather live in a slightly unstable country where everyone has the same rights and privileges instead of one where theology grows into a governing force and the income gap gets even wider than it is now. I don't know if Obama can fix everything he inherited from the Republicans, or if he'll be able to do much after winning (given that the Republicans will continue to block the Dem's out of spite for having lost the election)...but I do know that he's representative of where I'd like to see this country headed. Out of the religiously based stone age and into prosperity; after all, we've seen in work in the Scandinavian nations, right?


 
I didn't "forget" anything. I call it like I see it, and would gladly take Mitt, with over 25yrs real world business experience over a whole lot more of nothing .


----------



## vampiregenocide

I'm yet to watch the debate, but I will say this:

Looking better in a debate does not mean you're a better politician. It seems to me that American politics seems a lot more popularity based, and less based on actual polices. You can say anything you want, as long as it's what people want to hear and you present it in a relatable way. Then you can get people on your side, however selfish your intentions may be. That's the way American politics is at the moment, and so how people come across is irrelevant in terms of how capable they are, it's how well they know their facts and how they respond to criticism. The worrying thing is that because of the superficial nature of American politics, that this debate could be turned around purely on the basis Obama may not have been as on the ball as Romney, despite having much more noble policies.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> I didn't "forget" anything. I call it like I see it, and would gladly take Mitt, with over 25yrs real world business experience over a whole lot more of nothing .



Trench, can you please explain how Romney's business experience translates into better policy for the nation? Or better yet, can you explain *what* his policies are, particularly with regard to economics? Obama got at least one thing right in yesterday's debate: Romney's proposed 20% tax cut reduces government revenue by $5 trillion over 10 years, and Romney has offered no specifics on his plan to make that cut revenue-neutral - he just insists that he has a plan and it will work. You might be willing to take that on faith, but I'm not.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> I didn't "forget" anything. I call it like I see it, and would gladly take Mitt, with over 25yrs real world business experience over a whole lot more of nothing .



You're comfortable with electing a greedy business man as your leader? Because somebody has had financial success in the business world by no means makes them qualified to lead the United States.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

...and the other thing is, I don't think Romney looked better last night at all. That's what's baffling me. He stood there with a fake grin on his face the entire time Obama spoke, then made aggressive remarks every time he opened his mouth - remarks that were often truthfully inaccurate, if not simply acute and easy to understand. Obama's rebuttals were more elaborate, and often successfully dismissed what Romney had said previously. The difference is that he was his calm and cool self. I think the real problem is that people have no idea what those two were talking about and so they just paid attention to the tone and cadence of what was being said.


----------



## troyguitar

I'm still voting for the Canada party.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> ...and the other thing is, I don't think Romney looked better last night at all. That's what's baffling me. He stood there with a fake grin on his face the entire time Obama spoke, then made aggressive remarks every time he opened his mouth - remarks that were often truthfully inaccurate, if not simply acute and easy to understand. Obama's rebuttals were more elaborate, and often successfully dismissed what Romney had said previously. The difference is that he was his calm and cool self. I think the real problem is that people have no idea what those two were talking about and so they just paid attention to the tone and cadence of what was being said.



This was precisely my take-away from the debate. Since when is being overly aggressive and, my bigger peeve, cutting off the moderator considered "winning" debate stature?


----------



## TemjinStrife

I love how people are touting Obama as inexperienced. I'd rather have a community organizer running my country than a CEO


----------



## petereanima

I personally raged a bit when Romney was talking about "export increase"....he obviously forgot that it was the Bush administration that executed an export-embargo over the whole electronics industry for parts that could (!) be used in defense-applications, or are only built to the specifications that are required in such applications. That did not only business-relationships all over the world, it ended almost in some catastrophes - because we also didn't get urgent needed spare parts for the power plants. You had to file a zillion of forms, signed and stamped by all companies and persons involved, hand that over to the US state Departement for checking and approval...which took them between 1-2 years...

Awesome, "its approved now" - "thanks, we had the meltdown 1 year ago, not needed anymore"...


----------



## tacotiklah

TemjinStrife said:


> I love how people are touting Obama as inexperienced. I'd rather have a community organizer running my country than a CEO



Romney has never been president. Obama is still the current serving president. HOW THE FUCK IS HE INEXPERIENCED? 
I have to ask the people that think Obama is inexperienced, have you been paying any attention to the last four years? If so, then you'll notice that a half black man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was elected as president and is currently serving in the Oval office. He has been for almost 4 years now. 

Mitt Romney has NEVER been POTUS. Ever.

I would call Mitt Romney inexperienced because of this. If you honestly believe otherwise, then I'm wondering how the hell you even manage to scrape together a high enough I.Q. to dress yourself in the morning. 



Adam Of Angels said:


> You're comfortable with electing a greedy business man as your leader? Because somebody has had financial success in the business world by no means makes them qualified to lead the United States.



It's funny how as a business woman, I addressed this exact thing and Trench completely ignored what I posted. But don't just take my word for it, there's a great article on why business people absolutely suck at running a country:
http://strategicbusinessnow.com/general/why-businessmen-shouldnt-be-politicians/


----------



## morrowcosom

I thought it was funny how the media put at least as much coverage into analyzing body language and voice tonality as the issues at hand. 

I felt like I was watching High Stakes Poker. 

Metaphor used by media that will occur with 24 hours: Mitt Romney has put Obama on a stone cold bluff because he is looking down and feigning a smirk, as well as having a broken voice. Mitt seizes the opportunity to re-raise with a bluff of his own. Obama calls. Romney stares confidently at Obama and calls him out in an assertive voice, putting him on middle pair. The river comes and Romney hits top pair. Mitt value bets and Obama calls putting him on a bluff. They each reveal their hands and Romney scoops a huge pot. 

Starting hands: 
Romney: AK off-suit 
Obama: 65 suited

Post play analysis: 
Conservative viewpoint- Romney should have went all-in on the river because Obama still would have called, thinking he was beating Romney's bluff. Romney would have then possessed all of Obama's chips, cashed out and bought the White House. 

Liberal viewpoint- Romney should have never re-raised Obama after putting him on a weak hand. Romney was being too aggressive and therefore an asshole that did not know what he was doing. He should have just folded because Obama is a nice guy and wasn't being mean during his debate.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Varcolac said:


> Really disappointed with Obama tonight. Not that he didn't say the right things, but that his delivery was lacklustre and he could have been far harder on Romney. I was worried this might happen: everyone's been so used to "Romneyshambles" that a simply competent performance looks like a win.



DING. Man talks shit.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

I watched the whole thing live, while skyp'ing with some American friends.

It's disapointing that only 2 minutes or so were spent on banking reform and the official interpretation of the banking collapse and bailout.

Healthcare was a well represented issue, though Romney was absent of detail as Obama pointed out, quickly and effortlessly.

Interesting that Mitt's final words, choosing to speak last (a well known psychological manipulation), were pledging to increase military spending. 

Here's looking forward to thursday (11th, 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time) for the next debate with the running-mates. Perhaps they will have more detail than Romney was able to provide.

_Debate Schedule_
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/


----------



## tacotiklah

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> I watched the whole thing live, while skyp'ing with some American friends.
> 
> It's disapointing that only 2 minutes or so were spent on banking reform and the official interpretation of the banking collapse and bailout.
> 
> Healthcare was a well represented issue, though Romney was absent of detail as Obama pointed out, quickly and effortlessly.
> 
> Interesting that Mitt's final words, choosing to speak last (a well known psychological manipulation), were pledging to increase military spending.
> 
> Here's looking forward to thursday for the next debate with the running-mates. Perhaps they will have more detail than Romney was able to provide.



I'm convinced that Paul Ryan will manage to undo any perceived gain that Mitt had from this debate. There are very few people in the world that have their head THAT far up their own ass.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

"hellooooo...... can anyone feed down a torch??? It's pretty dark in here..."







+







To be honest, Ryan's been of my radar so I shouldn't really be making any comments about him. I'll go and find out what I've been missing out on!

1:54 regarding military spending



Romney was quite keen to accredit Ryan as co-author/co-signee of the policies he was so vague on during the debate. It looks like a lot of responsibility will be on his shoulders on the 11th.

Here he is performing at the Repblican National convention (August 2012).


Ryan Vs Obama 2010


----------



## tacotiklah

Paul Ryan is obsessed with Ayn Rand, but ever since becoming Mitt's running mate, Paul Ryan has been denouncing (poorly) all of his objectivism leanings due to the pressure of the religious right. Basically he believes whole-heartedly in caring about no one else but himself, but now has to put on this fake face of altruism in order to appease both his church and Mitt's mormon leaders.

Does this upcoming debate come with vomit bags?


----------



## Necris

I'd like to see Biden bring up Ryans vote in favor of the Budget Control Act which is going to cut military spending by half a trillion dollars*. If he would go on to point out Ryan's continued denials of his vote along with the hypocrisy of the the people who claim the government can't create/has no business creating jobs and are now whining about all the government funded jobs the Budget Control Act will remove that would make my night.


*This bill something I'm in favor of as well, but I would love to see Paul Ryan flounder about trying to distance himself from the bill and lie his way out of his partial responsibility; something he has already failed to do once.


----------



## Xaios

ghstofperdition said:


> Even Obama fell into a trap that I cannot stand: When asked a direct question about jobs, he goes on and on about how his wife is awesome and other bullshit.



I call it the "Palin Fallacy." Simply replace "wife" with "moose."


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Obama spends 50yrs worth of "corperate welfare $" in his first term on these failed green energy shams, and the liberals still support him lol.
These shams were a complete belly-up bust and a total waste of tax payer cash.
I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.
I'd personally save some cash by cutting food stamps down to whatever it takes to buy beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month.
Go to any public housing unit and look how many seriously over-weight and morbidly obese people there are (but they sure are a hurtin for the food stamps though lol.


That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.



You mean the military spending _cut?_ If you were responding to Necris, that is.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama spends 50yrs worth of "corperate welfare $" in his first term on these failed green energy shams, and the liberals still support him lol.
> These shams were a complete belly-up bust and a total waste of tax payer cash.
> I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.
> I'd personally save some cash by cutting food stamps down to whatever it takes to buy beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month.
> Go to any public housing unit and look how many seriously over-weight and morbidly obese people there are (but they sure are a hurtin for the food stamps though lol.
> 
> 
> That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.



Romney's talking point about "green energy" spending was an old and thoroughly-refuted line of bullshit: a good chunk of that spending went to "clean coal", nuclear waste abatement, energy infrastructure, and other projects that were definitely not solar-and-wind. Three out of three dozen firms which participated in the federal loan guarantee program have filed for bankruptcy, and Tesla Motors is paying back its loans while it's in Chapter 11. That's less than 10%, not the "half" that Romney claimed. He also overlooked the fact that Congress built an financial cushion into the program *on the expectation* that some of these startups would fail, and the total loss to taxpayers has been *less* than that cushion. Google "Romney 90 billion green energy fact check" and you'll get more details than your brain can absorb.


----------



## Watty

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama spends 50yrs worth of "corperate welfare $" in his first term on these failed green energy shams, and the liberals still support him lol.
> These shams were a complete belly-up bust and a total waste of tax payer cash.
> I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.
> I'd personally save some cash by cutting food stamps down to whatever it takes to buy beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month.
> Go to any public housing unit and look how many seriously over-weight and morbidly obese people there are (but they sure are a hurtin for the food stamps though lol.



Trying (albeit failing) is typically better than not having tried at all. I'd rather reach the end of our fossil fuel supply knowing what will be a good investment and a bad investment which can only be determined by having exercised some real world research. You make it sound like it was self evident that the businesses in which the money was invested would fail, which is simply not the case...Did Obama influence a choice that was less than fruitful? Yes. Would another have made the same choice? Possibly. Will blaming him for actions taken in good faith to secure our energy independence do any good moving us forward? No.

For your second point, did you mean "spend" or "spent?" Each completely changes the tone of what follows...if you meant to say "spent," you insinuate your belief in the fact that Obama knew people would die and therefore should have prevented it. This is almost akin to saying that we should give over complete autonomy in order for the government to control (militarily-speaking) every aspect of our lives to prevent a terrorist attack from taking place. You can never predict what a group of people will do when prompted in such a way that inspires their willingness to die for what they believe. Thinking anything to the contrary is naive to say the least.

If you meant "spend," I would refer you to study what could actually be done to "protect" said embassies. How do you protect a building from an armed mob (of several thousand) dead set on killing those inside? Would you hire a small army to be present at each embassy, 24/7/365? I could cite numerous speakers who have said that anything is possible with "God on your side," which is exactly what these people believe. They wanted a way in and they would have found one regardless of how secure the facility was in the middle of "hostile" territory.

I'm with you on the food stamps thing, but some people genuinely need it to survive. I think it's the same type of deal as was assumed with the drug testing for welfare. A few people ruin it for everybody else, and, when push came to shove, it was determined that the drug problem was virtually non-existent. So, does the welfare program need reform? Sure. Also, you cite morbidly obese people as being an indication of how the system is broken; you again _forget_ to investigate why that might be the case. Have you been into a grocery store lately and looked at what certain things cost? Want to eat healthy? It'll cost you.....BIG time. You'd pay more for a few apples than you would for an entire box of donuts; when confronted with keeping your family healthy or keeping your family fed, you'd tend to think the latter would be the better option. After all, better alive and unhealthy than...well, dead.




TRENCHLORD said:


> That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.



What is "real" energy? What is "unreal" energy? I'm guessing you see anything that's a fossil fuel as being a source of real energy, which is great for the short term...but is ultimately unsustainable. Our country is like a tanker ship, it takes a long time to turn. Obama is trying to start that turn so that when the fossil fuels run out, we're not facing the iceberg and saying "oh shit....hard to starboard!" I'm proud to work for an energy company that values renewables and invests in them to promote independence for the future. We see coal as a supplemental source, used only to ensure that lower rates can be maintained until such a time as the government sees fit to finally move "all in" when it comes to "real" energy, which, by my estimation is energy that will last indefinitely.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama spends 50yrs worth of "corperate welfare $" in his first term on these failed green energy shams, and the liberals still support him lol.
> These shams were a complete belly-up bust and a total waste of tax payer cash.
> I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.
> *I'd personally save some cash by cutting food stamps down to whatever it takes to buy beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month.*
> Go to any public housing unit and look how many seriously over-weight and morbidly obese people there are (but they sure are a hurtin for the food stamps though lol.
> 
> 
> That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.




If you were waiting for a philanthropist of the year award, keep waiting. 

Usually the right touts how it's the defender of christian values, but the emboldened part here shows that fallacy in all its hypocrisy. Remember how Christ asked people to do for others? That didn't mean the bare fucking minimum. 

I got it, when these corporate bastards finally set their sights on cutting your job, you are only deserving of "beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month" for your whole family k?
You don't get to have nutritionally viable food, but rather less calories than a prison inmate because it's all your fault for siding for the very people that put you in this position to begin with. Okie dokie?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> If you were waiting for a philanthropist of the year award, keep waiting.
> 
> Usually the right touts how it's the defender of christian values, but the emboldened part here shows that fallacy in all its hypocrisy. Remember how Christ asked people to do for others? That didn't mean the bare fucking minimum.
> 
> I got it, when these corporate bastards finally set their sights on cutting your job, you are only deserving of "beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month" for your whole family k?
> You don't get to have nutritionally viable food, but rather less calories than a prison inmate because it's all your fault for siding for the very people that put you in this position to begin with. Okie dokie?


 
Fair enough points, but I'm not speaking for the right, and definetly not speaking for christians lol. (neither one would want me lol, no wonder right?)
And fuck the prisoners, I'd cut them down to about 500cals/day and see if they ever come back .


----------



## Varcolac

Yeah, the reason people keep returning to prison is the top-class catering...


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> Fair enough points, but I'm not speaking for the right, and definetly not speaking for christians lol. (neither one would want me lol, no wonder right?)
> And fuck the prisoners, I'd cut them down to about 500cals/day and see if they ever come back .



And that tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you, Trench.


----------



## Jakke

Poor moderator got completely run over...

Romney has a very douchy way of being a dick without coming off as one as one.


----------



## vampiregenocide

TRENCHLORD said:


> That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.



Stick with this 'real energy and see how much longer it lasts. Green energy is the future and without risks progress is never made.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama spends 50yrs worth of "corperate welfare $" in his first term on these failed green energy shams, and the liberals still support him lol.
> These shams were a complete belly-up bust and a total waste of tax payer cash.
> I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.
> I'd personally save some cash by cutting food stamps down to whatever it takes to buy beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month.
> Go to any public housing unit and look how many seriously over-weight and morbidly obese people there are (but they sure are a hurtin for the food stamps though lol.
> 
> 
> That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.



You mean the three out of three dozen green energy startups that failed, while the rest doubled green energy jobs?

You're STILL vomiting falsehoods about the *CONSULATE that the president has no authority over?

There's a New Mexico Mayor that tried to live on just food stamps for a week. Know what he said? "I'm light headed and I can't do this anymore." The idea that anyone is _choosing_ welfare or food stamps instead of working for their needs is the epitome of right wing bullshit, but you just keep eating it up...

What constitutes "real energy"? Is coal more real because mining it shortens your life span by thirty years and leads to more green house emissions than any other fuel source? Do you realize that Greenland virtually melted last summer? There are methane deposits frozen in ice that, if released, would likely shift the global climate into another ice age.

This is the kind of self fulfilling prophecy of religious extremists that think the end of the world is imminent, but refuse to see that WE'RE the ones bringing it.


----------



## Jakke

vampiregenocide said:


> Stick with this 'real energy and see how much longer it lasts. Green energy is the future and without risks progress is never made.



In my opinion nuclear is the future, "green energy" (bio mass, wind, solar, and water) is far to dependent on the environment around it. 
I can just take my own country for example, we live with a big part of the country above the polar circle, in the winter the sun rises at about 8.30 and sets at 3.30 (pm), in the winter there are not really any winds to speak of, and most of our rivers are built to capacity (that is, without harming any wildlife). Not to mention that wind power is so inneffiecient that we have to build loads of towers, which will fuck up nature, and nature generates a lot of income for us.

So when are we in most need of power? Well... In the winter.


Nuclear power is safe, and it evolves all the time, the current plans for gen 4 power plants will almost completely eliminate the problem of waste, and make the fuel last many times longer. Unfortunately nuclear power has suffered a character assassination, which makes many people frown at it, but currently it's the best alternative for power we have. Is it perfect? No, but what power source is?

We need to stop burning dinosaurs though


----------



## vampiregenocide

Yeah you're right, it's better than burning fossil fuels, and a lot of other common green energy sources are fine on a small scale, but not a large scale.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I don't mean to pick on anybody, so Trench: don't take this that way... but, when somebody corrects you when you're wrong, it's respectful to acknowledge it.


----------



## Treeunit212

Jakke said:


> In my opinion nuclear is the future, "green energy" (bio mass, wind, solar, and water) is far to dependent on the environment around it.
> I can just take my own country for example, we live with a big part of the country above the polar circle, in the winter the sun rises at about 8.30 and sets at 3.30 (pm), in the winter there are not really any winds to speak of, and most of our rivers are built to capacity (that is, without harming any wildlife). Not to mention that wind power is so inneffiecient that we have to build loads of towers, which will fuck up nature, and nature generates a lot of income for us.
> 
> So when are we in most need of power? Well... In the winter.
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is safe, and it evolves all the time, the current plans for gen 4 power plants will almost completely eliminate the problem of waste, and make the fuel last many times longer. Unfortunately nuclear power has suffered a character assassination, which makes many people frown at it, but currently it's the best alternative for power we have. Is it perfect? No, but what power source is?
> 
> We need to stop burning dinosaurs though



Which country do you live in?

I had a Biology professor that was a Nuclear Engineer in the Navy for the largest aircraft carrier in the fleet, the USS Ronald Reagan. He had high hopes for nuclear, but admitted there would be alternatives for any situation. Smart guy.

There's countries like Brazil that function almost entirely on hydro power, but the environmental trade off is on par with fossil fuels. Can't really blame them, being developing and all.

As far as the US, I'd like to see more of everything. You can't outsource a green job.


----------



## Jakke

^Sweden, we suffer from our even weather and our long and dark winters.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Treeunit212 said:


> There's countries like Brazil that function almost entirely on hydro power, but the environmental trade off is on par with fossil fuels. Can't really blame them, being developing and all.



They're currently building a dam that will destroy a huge area of rainforest and displace thousands of tribes people who until recently weren't even aware of the outside world. It's even worse than fossil fuels in my opinion.


----------



## Lives Once Abstract

Ive never been to keen on Obama. But I fucking hate romney. I would consider myself Republican, and i think Romney is just stupid. he more or less speaks without realizing what it means. Or doesnt really take any time to "open his mind before his mouth" (motionless in white ref.) 

I was raised in a republican home, and generally tend to fall more conservative on my views. I used to think I was a true conservative until my senior year in highschool taking US Gov. took a test found out Im actually very moderate. 

DONT VOTE ON PARTY ALONE.


----------



## Jakke

vampiregenocide said:


> They're currently building a dam that will destroy a huge area of rainforest and displace thousands of tribes people who until recently weren't even aware of the outside world. It's even worse than fossil fuels in my opinion.



Indeed, we have as much hydro power as we can have without screwing with people and animals around the dams.


----------



## Randy

Lives Once Abstract said:


> Ive never been to keen on Obama. But I fucking hate romney. I would consider myself Republican, and i think Romney is just stupid. he more or less speaks without realizing what it means. Or doesnt really take any time to "open his mind before his mouth" (motionless in white ref.)
> 
> I was raised in a republican home, and generally tend to fall more conservative on my views. I used to think I was a true conservative until my senior year in highschool taking US Gov. took a test found out Im actually very moderate.
> 
> DONT VOTE ON PARTY ALONE.



+rep for you, sir

I'm in much the same boat. I'm a registered Democrat, campaigned for Obama in 2008 but I'm not married to the party and I've been disappointed in Obama. The only reason I will (or might...?)be voting for Obama is a vote against Romney, because I genuinely don't like where the current crop of Republicans (at the federal level) want to take things and I don't trust how.... malleable Romney is from day-to-day, week-to-week.

Yes, this election I'm voting with the party but I'll be holding my nose in doing it. As a background, I vote and have even campaigned for Republicans and left-leaning candidates in local elections. It all depends on the person, depends on the seat. I'd also put out there that corruption and/or interests that run counter to 'the people' knows no party boundaries.


----------



## Lives Once Abstract

Honestly I could go on and on about why we should do away with political parties. 

And I really hate to say this but; from what I have learned about Mormons (which Romney happens to be) I would never vote for him for that reason alone. Normally I don't let anyone's religion determine ANYTHING. In this case, however, Mormons literally take bits and pieces from different scriptures in the Christian bible and put them together to say whatever they want to say, and still use the bible as a credible source for their teachings. 

It would be like me doing this




Randy said:


> I will be voting for Romney, because I genuinely like where the current crop of Republicans (at the federal level) want to take things and I don't vote for Republicans and left-leaning candidates in local elections.



I used fragments of your sentences with nothing but copying and pasting to say what I wanted you to say. When in reality you said: 


Randy said:


> ...The only reason I will (or might...?)be voting for Obama is a vote against Romney, because I genuinely don't like where the current crop of Republicans (at the federal level) want to take things and I don't trust how malleable Romney is from day-to-day, week-to-week.
> 
> ...I vote and have even campaigned for Republicans and left-leaning candidates in local elections. It all depends on the person, depends on the seat. I'd also put out there that corruption and/or interests that run counter to 'the people' knows no party boundaries.



Taking things out of context is LYING. There's nothing else to say about it. And if this man, Mitt Romney wasn't in the race to RUN our country, I would say nothing about his religious preference. I'm not trying in any way to dig at his spiritual life. But, I have witnessed Mormons do this. And I'm not in anyway okay with the possibility of the president of our country being Romney. I'm very sorry if this upsets anyone, I really am. But, when it comes to government and people running our country, every aspect MUST be looked at. 

I'm sorry...


----------



## BucketheadRules

Apparently it was measured that in this debate, Romney gave, in all the time he spoke (less than 40 minutes), something like twenty-five statements which were all proven to be inaccurate - but which he asserted as fact. I think that says quite a lot. Either this man doesn't know shit about what he's saying, or he's a bare-faced liar. Whichever of those is the case, it's not a ringing endorsement.


Certainly not the kind of guy I want to see at the helm of one of the most powerful countries in the world.


----------



## synrgy

BucketheadRules said:


> Apparently it was measured that in this debate, Romney gave, in all the time he spoke (less than 40 minutes), something like twenty-five statements which were all proven to be inaccurate - but which he asserted as fact.



Please know that I'm not asking because I disbelieve, but because I'd like the ammunition for discussions I may have elsewhere: Do you have a source for that claim?


----------



## Jakke

synrgy said:


> Please know that I'm not asking because I disbelieve, but because I'd like the ammunition for discussions I may have elsewhere: Do you have a source for that claim?



At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress

EDIT: Ninja'd.


----------



## Jakke




----------



## Curt

I am a registered democrat, but that doesn't go to say that I feel entitled to ALWAYS support the left. I just generally agree with the left's moral stance. I can't say Obama is the shining example of what a president should be... But I can tell you Romney is a perfect example of what a president SHOULDN'T be. Our party system is beyond flawed.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

The very concept of the party system is ridiculous and childish to begin with. It would make sense if we just voted for _people_, not democrats or republicans, but one guy or another.. It seems to me that people need a team to root for or else they'd be confused.


----------



## Curt

I agree, honestly. I think a lot of the people here in Kansas ride so heavily with the repulican party just to fight for the (presumed) good guys. Much the same with the democratic party in left leaning states. Following blindly without question is undeniably in many of us. I was, as a young child up until my junior year in high school, the same way.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't mean to pick on anybody, so Trench: don't take this that way... but, when somebody corrects you when you're wrong, it's respectful to acknowledge it.


 
Oh Obama will have plenty of time to acknowledge his lies and falshoods during his next four years in Chicago. 

And to top it off, he's just as big of dumbass as Biden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws


----------



## Curt

Lies and Falsehoods? As if one single politician in history isn't equally guilty? Especially Romney?   

"Game Over: Insert Coin To Continue"


----------



## vampiregenocide

TRENCHLORD said:


> Oh Obama will have plenty of time to acknowledge his lies and falshoods during his next four years in Chicago.



Well when America gets run into the ground by Romney and his band of merry men, I will save you a spot in the UK.


----------



## Curt

vampiregenocide said:


> Well when America gets run into the ground by Romney and his band of merry men, I will save you a spot in the UK.


If Romney is elected, the UK will likely be my new home.


----------



## YngwieJ

TRENCHLORD said:


> Oh Obama will have plenty of time to acknowledge his lies and falshoods during his next four years in Chicago.
> 
> And to top it off, he's just as big of dumbass as Biden.



People make mistakes when speaking all the time. Did you graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard? Didn't think so, dumbass.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> Oh Obama will have plenty of time to acknowledge his lies and falshoods during his next four years in Chicago.
> 
> And to top it off, he's just as big of dumbass as Biden.




Trench, please promise the rest of us you'll never take a job as an intern for Romney. If you do, there's a high likelihood that we'll end up seeing you in the news involved in a sex scandal with Romney with your head under his desk.

I've never seen a person follow one political candidate so blindly and sheep-like as you and I have to say, it's actually pretty scary. Even more terrifying is that the candidate you follow so blindly is considered a snake in the grass by ALL political parties. Nobody actually trusts the man because he will tell you he's for whatever he thinks will get your vote, then when he thinks he has it, he will implement what the fuck ever he wants depending upon his current mood. He epitomizes everything that was ever wrong with a politician (which you claim to hate and have a dislike of), yet you come crawling and lick his fingers like a whipped cur. 

This is why America will go to shit. Not because of a politician or even a group of them, but because of the ineptitude of the voters that elect them in.


----------



## vampiregenocide




----------



## tacotiklah

^Well, since when has Mitt EVER done anything fair or played by the rules?
Of course his fanbase will fawn over his 'bad boy' attitude and say he's a badass for being a rebel. Except the whole point of the rules being in place was for a fair and sporting debate. 

Mitt is like George W. Bush all over again, except Bush was actually too dumb to have any malice in his lies and deceptions. Not dear old Mittens.

Edit:
Sadly though, it seems that Mitt had a handkerchief and not notes there:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...omney-did-not-bring-cheat-notes-to-the-debate

While it would be fitting with his character, he was only guilty of wiping the sweat off his brow while he told those 27 whoppers.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I dunno, I've been seeing reports claiming it was just a tissue he threw out.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Didn't look like soft tissue to me. Besides, why get it out then? Why not leave it in your pocket and put it in the bin after?


----------



## Treeunit212

vampiregenocide said:


>



Tissue My ass.

(in instant replay slow motion)


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> Trench, please promise the rest of us you'll never take a job as an intern for Romney. If you do, there's a high likelihood that we'll end up seeing you in the news involved in a sex scandal with Romney with your head under his desk.


 
 More of your sex fantasies Jessica?

Romney will be far too busy undoing Obama's economic stranglations and moving this country forward again. (no time for golf and bjs)


----------



## Mordacain

TRENCHLORD said:


> More of your sex fantasies Jessica?
> 
> Romney will be far too busy undoing Obama's economic stranglations and moving this country forward again. (no time for golf and bjs)



Just so we're clear Trench, the last time we had someone moving the economy really forward, they were getting BJs, just saying.


----------



## Treeunit212

Mordacain said:


> Just so we're clear Trench, the last time we had someone moving the economy really forward, they were getting BJs, just saying.


----------



## YngwieJ

TRENCHLORD said:


> Romney will be far too busy undoing Obama's economic stranglations and moving this country forward again. (no time for golf and bjs)



Please, point us to some of these "strangulations" that Obama put in place and Romney claims he'll remove that we haven't already debunked as being non-harmful regulations.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

YngwieJ said:


> Please, point us to some of these "strangulations" that Obama put in place and Romney claims he'll remove that we haven't already debunked as being non-harmful regulations.


 
Coal, natural gas, oil, Obamacare


----------



## Treeunit212

YngwieJ said:


> Please, point us to some of these "strangulations" that Obama put in place and Romney claims he'll remove that we haven't already debunked as being non-harmful regulations.



Remember, Romney's all for regulations now that he's flip flopped back to being a centrist Republican just for the debate. 

I'd be appalled the GOP isn't at his throat for the logical things he said Wednesday night, until I realize they don't give a shit about anything but regaining control.


----------



## YngwieJ

TRENCHLORD said:


> Coal, natural gas, oil, Obamacare



You mean like point #1 in the link that others already provided you?

And how many times has Romney gone back and forth on what he would keep and remove from Obamacare? He has proved to be incompetent when it comes to picking policy decisions. That's probably why he hasn't laid out any policy decisions.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Oh Obama will have plenty of time to acknowledge his lies and falshoods during his next four years in Chicago.
> 
> And to top it off, he's just as big of dumbass as Biden.





I was referring to when you said this:



TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama spends 50yrs worth of "corperate welfare $" in his first term on these failed green energy shams, and the liberals still support him lol.
> These shams were a complete belly-up bust and a total waste of tax payer cash.
> I'd much rather him have spent the cash on protecting the embassies, so I'm all for the military spending increase.
> I'd personally save some cash by cutting food stamps down to whatever it takes to buy beans, rice, milk, and tuna for the month.
> Go to any public housing unit and look how many seriously over-weight and morbidly obese people there are (but they sure are a hurtin for the food stamps though lol.
> 
> 
> That alone is plenty enough for me to give the new guy, who sounds much more "real energy" friendly, the job.



...and celticelk said this:




celticelk said:


> Romney's talking point about "green energy" spending was an old and thoroughly-refuted line of bullshit: a good chunk of that spending went to "clean coal", nuclear waste abatement, energy infrastructure, and other projects that were definitely not solar-and-wind. Three out of three dozen firms which participated in the federal loan guarantee program have filed for bankruptcy, and Tesla Motors is paying back its loans while it's in Chapter 11. That's less than 10%, not the "half" that Romney claimed. He also overlooked the fact that Congress built an financial cushion into the program *on the expectation* that some of these startups would fail, and the total loss to taxpayers has been *less* than that cushion. Google "Romney 90 billion green energy fact check" and you'll get more details than your brain can absorb.



..and then you said nothing.


----------



## bob123

Treeunit212 said:


> Which country do you live in?
> 
> I had a Biology professor that was a Nuclear Engineer in the Navy for the largest aircraft carrier in the fleet, the USS Ronald Reagan. He had high hopes for nuclear, but admitted there would be alternatives for any situation. Smart guy.
> 
> There's countries like Brazil that function almost entirely on hydro power, but the environmental trade off is on par with fossil fuels. Can't really blame them, being developing and all.
> 
> As far as the US, I'd like to see more of everything. You can't outsource a green job.



I did the same thing as your professor... Nuclear power IS the future. Like it or not, no other energy source comes even close to the power production and cleanliness of a nuclear power plant. "Cleanliness" is a relative term, the waste product is water. Each power plant has enough space to safely self contain fuel waste for 50+ years of continous operation.


We are currently developing our fuels to make them last longer. MUCH more expensive, but lasts longer and produces less waste. 

Our biggest pot hole are the ignorant hipsters that preach against without any base of intelligence to speak of. 



And on a lighter note, the Reagan is the same exact size as the other 8 nimitz class carriers lol.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> Remember, Romney's all for regulations now that he's flip flopped back to being a centrist Republican just for the debate.
> 
> I'd be appalled the GOP isn't at his throat for the logical things he said Wednesday night, until I realize they don't give a shit about anything but regaining control.


 
I watched every single primary debate that was televised, and I never once heard Romney propose eliminating regulations altogether.
That's the demoncratic patry talking point line that just isn't going to work this time.
People (at least enough people I should say) are smart enough to know that conservatives are for sensible regulation, not governmental dictation.


----------



## bob123

TRENCHLORD said:


> *People (at least enough people I should say) are smart enough to know...*




Lol. I cant believe you said this.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> I watched every single primary debate that was televised, and I never once heard Romney propose eliminating regulations altogether.
> That's the demoncratic patry talking point line that just isn't going to work this time.
> People (at least enough people I should say) are smart enough to know that conservatives are for sensible regulation, not governmental dictation.



No one is saying he's proposing going back to the stone age. That would be Ron Paul you're thinking of.

Romney responded to Obama's attacks by saying he's never had these policies or ideas, when according to every fact check I've seen, *he has.*

EVEN IF Obama was wrong on every single attack, it just further illustrates how little we know about this clown.

He's getting pummeled in the post-debate fact checks. 27 lies in 38 minutes. The "death panel" talk that was deemed lie of the year in 2010. The Medicare scare mongering that's also been debunked completely.

This is why I think the debate is only a temporary bump for Romney. If he wanted swing voters to trust him, he failed miserably.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> More of your sex fantasies Jessica?
> 
> Romney will be far too busy undoing Obama's economic stranglations and moving this country forward again. (no time for golf and bjs)



Nope, it was pointing out you're too busy riding Romney's dick to actually look at anything objectively. I'm not one to hate on anyone's game, but there comes a time when people need to focus on something other than dick-riding their own party. 

But hey, I've become accustomed to republicans stuffing cotton in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!!"


----------



## Treeunit212

ghstofperdition said:


> Nope, it was pointing out you're too busy riding Romney's dick to actually look at anything objectively. I'm not one to hate on anyone's game, but there comes a time when people need to focus on something other than dick-riding their own party.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Well he's gaining, and I doubt it's anything other than swing voters he's gaining with, but time will tell I'm sure. Right and Left loyalist are very unlikely to jump over to the other side, so any gain is the swingers.
Presidential Polls 2012: After Debate, Polls Show Romney Gaining in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well he's gaining, and I doubt it's anything other than swing voters he's gaining with, but time will tell I'm sure. Right and Left loyalist are very unlikely to jump over to the other side, so any gain is the swingers.
> Presidential Polls 2012: After Debate, Polls Show Romney Gaining in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia



I will never be able to fully grasp the power of ignorance in the American electorate.


----------



## Lives Once Abstract

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well he's gaining, and I doubt it's anything other than swing voters he's gaining with, but time will tell I'm sure. Right and Left loyalist are very unlikely to jump over to the other side, so any gain is the swingers.
> Presidential Polls 2012: After Debate, Polls Show Romney Gaining in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE STATES HAVE SO MANY MORE ELECTORAL VOTES THAN THE REST OF THE 47! Those three states will determine Romney's UNDENIABLE victory! 

And I'm sorry maybe I should say 57... "Cuz Obombuhs fuqqin s2pid "
its pretty damned obvious he wasn't being serious. Theres no way. 

Using logic, and what seems to me lately "not-so-common sense" to debate your views on the presidential race would be nice dude. Because all you've said is mostly worthless and just going to piss people off. HUMILITY dude. When people just blindly attack we have things like LGB communities that hate everyone... because "oh your different, fuck you" you cant just talk shit and expect to be given any kind of credibility. Check out this song. 

especialy right at 3:10.


Lyrics:
What the fuck?
Put your teeth to the curb, cuz right now I'm gonna stomp your fucking face in
I hope you drown in all the cum you fucking swallow, to get yourself to the top
You're just a trend, just a fucking disease, 
How could you look at yourself in the mirror?
You stand for nothing and your heart is untrue
Every single thing about you's just a clone of the last "you"

All I want is to reach someone, 
to say something that could change their life forever
To let them know they're not alone, you're not alone
So many people wanna see me fail, 
so fucking clever but I'll spit in your face
I'll make sure you remember me

If all these words you speak of meant a thing
I'd take back all the lines against you that I sing
But I know that there's nothing real inside
Your heart's invested in feeding everyone lies

I've seen so many of you come and go, 
That's cuz you're in it for all the wrong fucking reasons
You can't expect to live off of lies and survive
I am who I am, this is what we are, 
I don't care if this offends you, or your worthless god

To all the kids who's letters I receive
The broken hearted, the damaged just like me
I will be your voice to let the world know we stand as one
We're standing right here so come and fucking get us

Open your mind before your mouth
Or come and fucking get us
Open your mind before your mouth
I'll be the end of your decadence

If all these words you speak of meant a thing
I'd take back all the lines against you that I sing

If all these words you speak of meant a thing
I'd take back all the lines against you that I sing
But I know that there's nothing real inside
Your heart's invested in feeding everyone lies

I may not have built this kingdom but, 
I'll make fucking sure that I protect it from you.


----------



## Necris

^ I cringed once I saw you were going to let a song give your opinion for you.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Trench makes a point, it gets shut down with facts, and then he responds to a post that didn't call him out on something worth discussing. I just want to see an actual debate here, thus why I asked for a proper response, but oh well, I'll just keep reading


----------



## flint757

Jakke said:


> In my opinion nuclear is the future, "green energy" (bio mass, wind, solar, and water) is far to dependent on the environment around it.
> I can just take my own country for example, we live with a big part of the country above the polar circle, in the winter the sun rises at about 8.30 and sets at 3.30 (pm), in the winter there are not really any winds to speak of, and most of our rivers are built to capacity (that is, without harming any wildlife). Not to mention that wind power is so inneffiecient that we have to build loads of towers, which will fuck up nature, and nature generates a lot of income for us.
> 
> So when are we in most need of power? Well... In the winter.
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is safe, and it evolves all the time, the current plans for gen 4 power plants will almost completely eliminate the problem of waste, and make the fuel last many times longer. Unfortunately nuclear power has suffered a character assassination, which makes many people frown at it, but currently it's the best alternative for power we have. Is it perfect? No, but what power source is?
> 
> We need to stop burning dinosaurs though





bob123 said:


> I did the same thing as your professor... Nuclear power IS the future. Like it or not, no other energy source comes even close to the power production and cleanliness of a nuclear power plant. "Cleanliness" is a relative term, the waste product is water. Each power plant has enough space to safely self contain fuel waste for 50+ years of continous operation.
> 
> 
> We are currently developing our fuels to make them last longer. MUCH more expensive, but lasts longer and produces less waste.
> 
> Our biggest pot hole are the ignorant hipsters that preach against without any base of intelligence to speak of.
> 
> 
> 
> And on a lighter note, the Reagan is the same exact size as the other 8 nimitz class carriers lol.



I agree Nuclear has great potential, however, tidal power, if given proper financial support, has a far more stable and safe future. Tidal Current Turbines are in their infancy, but have the potential to produce a lot of power and can actually fluctuate with supply and demand. Currently the only actual tidal power is tidal barrages which have harmful affects on nature, but it is only a matter of time. Solar and wind, location pending, have the potential for sustainability as well. There are places where the sun shines almost all the time or the wind is constant. The panhandle of Texas has a shit ton of windmills. 

As for the debate, the only person who produced commentary of any substance was Obama. Romney spoke only in generalities and stated only what he didn't intend to do (going against everything he previously stated). I love how he now loves the poor, avoided (as best he could) talking about the wealthy, and basically said he didn't intend to do anything (that is what shifting responsibility to the state really is....it ain't my fault ). He has been campaigning very hard on an entire other policy and campaign than he did tonight and it was intentional (did I mention also low). When you convince everyone one things and then they prepare a debate against said things, only to then say "I was fucking with you" would throw anyone off. Romney avoided talking about the negative ramifications of his plan entirely. Like medicare vouchers, yeah it doesn't affect current elderly, but it affects everyone else (and so cleverly excluded from his speech). I like Obama's jab at that too where he says if your 56 you might want to listen (in other words 4-8 years from retirement when Romney can officially wash his hands on the issue, after all he will no longer need your vote).

Obama had very good rebuttals. I did not appreciate Romney's arrogance in the slightest and neither did my mom who is for the most part a republican. He spent half the time basically agreeing with Obama and not elaborating on what is different while making everyone think they are polar opposites. The ironic thing, also pointed out by Obama, is his notion of bringing both sides together on all policies and wanting to remove a heavily democrat bill (not going to happen as a "team").

I'll take my chances with a guy who support his plan enough to show it to me and not hide behind "faith" in just the man alone. If you think about it that approach will appeal very well to the religious right.


----------



## Necris

Adam Of Angels said:


> Trench makes _an assertion_, it gets shut down with facts, and then he responds to a post that didn't call him out on something worth discussing. I just want to see an actual debate here, thus why I asked for a proper response, but oh well, I'll just keep reading




You get used to it. 

I wish Obama supporters would stop making shitty excuses as to why he did so poorly in the debate, honestly some of the excuses sound like things you would expect from Republicans such as "He didn't have his Teleprompter.". Really, that's what you want to go with?  You know somethings gone wrong when it seems as though your supporters and your Vice President could talk your opposition into the Whitehouse on their own.

He was off his game, let it go and hope he does better on the next one.


----------



## Curt

That debate was a faceplant from both sides. Romney might have seemed to have "won". But both of them were far from prepared.

I'm just ready to see if the next debate makes me as humiliated to be a U.S. citizen as the last. We need another Clinton. Not a candidate with his head up his ass, and a president with no backbone... Obama is Mr. Nice Guy. And while that isn't terrible, he could use a little fire under his ass.

/opinion


----------



## Watty

TRENCHLORD said:


> People (at least enough people I should say) are smart enough to know that conservatives are for sensible regulation, not governmental dictation.



Uh, wha? I know it's slightly off topic, but since when are Republicans NOT for governmental dictation? I paraphrase, of course, but:

"Thou shalt be screwed if born with a vagina; literally and _legitimately_" (c wat i ded thar?)

**Go and have lots of sex honey, just know that if (WHEN) you get pregnant, the government gets to regulate your will for 9 months.....don't worry thought, it'll be sensible regulation!**

"We must have more children of broken homes to continue to make more broken homes. After all, if there are no broken homes to leech off the government, how can we blame the 47%?"

_*That sack of cells moved into a more acidic region of her uterus....MURDERER!!!!!*_

"Marital rights shall be denied on the basis of a figment of a collective imagination"

_**but Mom.....King Saul had hundreds of women to fuck, why can't I have more than one?**_

So, let's recap, we've got rape, abortion, contraceptive issues, LGBT marriage rights....I miss anything else? I'm sure I did...This is the type of shit that happens when you mix your religious alcohol with my secular fruit punch. Might be fun at first (not really), but you then come to realize you're simply instating your own variant of Sharia law (what political post would be complete without a Palin/Bachman slam?) and you're too drunk to notice Jesus is taking the helm (or was it wheel?) and steering the country into the stone age. The only problem being that the rock blocking the entrance to this cave will be too large for anything short of an army of migrant workers to move it; too bad you deported them all. We moved away from hopscotch when we realized Pokemon was an option. I mean, do you honestly think our country is going to pick a country representative of the backdrop from a Game of [rich] Thralls over Bulbasaur (You think you can stop me with your Onyx, bro?)?! Fuck no they won't....we're smarter than one step forward and 40 (days) back.

_Soooooooo many puuuuuunnnnnnnssssssss!_ I'm sorry...*not*


----------



## flint757

I personally didn't think he did bad, maybe people just set the bar a little too high, I don't know.

He stuttered through some parts, but that is how he talks, nothing new and I prefer a thinker over someone who blurts the first thing to reach their lips. The only part I didn't like was that he didn't try and set the standard for the debate, but it is admittedly hard IMO when someone is going to sit their and literally lie about the specifics in several policies his group supported or passed. In terms of actual information I just don't see how anyone could think Romney won. His speech had 0 substance, I still have no clue what he intends to accomplish as president beyond repealing Obamacare and replacing it with "something".

This is an excuse, but I think Romney changed his policy positions, all of a sudden, at that moment (and has left his official policy ambiguous enough to flip flop without flip flopping) so that he could throw off Obama at this critical juncture and it worked. So if I assume that I'm right then the next debates will be far more in Obama's favor. In terms of content Obama won, he only lost (apparently) in the charisma department according to what I'm reading here. I personally don't put a whole lot of merit in such things.


----------



## Isan




----------



## Watty

Lives Once Abstract said:


> Check out this song.



Uhhhh......no?

I'll refrain from finding any political significance in a aural assault fronted by a wannabe who thought that by becoming obscenely colorful, he could buy the respect of his desired peers. Though I will admit it would be hilarious to think of a candidate with a horrible saggy neck tattoo and fucked up lobes, eh?


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Lives Once Abstract said:


> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE STATES HAVE SO MANY MORE ELECTORAL VOTES THAN THE REST OF THE 47! Those three states will determine Romney's UNDENIABLE victory!
> 
> And I'm sorry maybe I should say 57... "Cuz Obombuhs fuqqin s2pid "
> its pretty damned obvious he wasn't being serious. Theres no way.
> 
> Using logic, and what seems to me lately "not-so-common sense" to debate your views on the presidential race would be nice dude. Because all you've said is mostly worthless and just going to piss people off. HUMILITY dude. When people just blindly attack we have things like LGB communities that hate everyone... because "oh your different, fuck you" you cant just talk shit and expect to be given any kind of credibility. Check out this song.
> 
> especialy right at 3:10.
> 
> 
> Lyrics:
> What the fuck?
> Put your teeth to the curb, cuz right now I'm gonna stomp your fucking face in
> I hope you drown in all the cum you fucking swallow, to get yourself to the top
> You're just a trend, just a fucking disease,
> How could you look at yourself in the mirror?
> You stand for nothing and your heart is untrue
> Every single thing about you's just a clone of the last "you"
> 
> All I want is to reach someone,
> to say something that could change their life forever
> To let them know they're not alone, you're not alone
> So many people wanna see me fail,
> so fucking clever but I'll spit in your face
> I'll make sure you remember me
> 
> If all these words you speak of meant a thing
> I'd take back all the lines against you that I sing
> But I know that there's nothing real inside
> Your heart's invested in feeding everyone lies
> 
> I've seen so many of you come and go,
> That's cuz you're in it for all the wrong fucking reasons
> You can't expect to live off of lies and survive
> I am who I am, this is what we are,
> I don't care if this offends you, or your worthless god
> 
> To all the kids who's letters I receive
> The broken hearted, the damaged just like me
> I will be your voice to let the world know we stand as one
> We're standing right here so come and fucking get us
> 
> Open your mind before your mouth
> Or come and fucking get us
> Open your mind before your mouth
> I'll be the end of your decadence
> 
> If all these words you speak of meant a thing
> I'd take back all the lines against you that I sing
> 
> If all these words you speak of meant a thing
> I'd take back all the lines against you that I sing
> But I know that there's nothing real inside
> Your heart's invested in feeding everyone lies
> 
> I may not have built this kingdom but,
> I'll make fucking sure that I protect it from you.




First off, those 3 states along with a small handfull of others do ultimately decide most elections, this one being no different.
Most states are basically a given to one side or the other.

Secondly, Obama was absolutely serious when he said 57 states.
It very well could have been fatigue or jet-lag or whatever.
Most people's ears catch that instantly because it's so ingrained (having 50 states/stars on the flag), but oh well, could've been an honest mistake,
I don't think so. 

And finally, that song , , ; Is that supposed to convey hate or disdain or something towards me ? lol
Just a bit tender sounding at times if that is the intended function of it's posting, but to each his own I guess .


----------



## bob123

TRENCHLORD said:


> First off, those 3 states along with a small handfull of others do ultimately decide most elections, this one being no different.
> Most states are basically a given to one side or the other.
> 
> Secondly, Obama was absolutely serious when he said 57 states.
> It very well could have been fatigue or jet-lag or whatever.
> Most people's ears catch that instantly because it's so ingrained (having 50 states/stars on the flag), but oh well, could've been an honest mistake,
> I don't think so.
> 
> And finally, that song , , ; Is that supposed to convey hate or disdain or something towards me ? lol
> Just a bit tender sounding at times if that is the intended function of it's posting, but to each his own I guess .





Give me a fucking break dude, you REALLY think a man with a harvard law education was dumb enough to believe there 57 states? Also, ignore the song post, you shouldn't take people that voice other peoples opinions as their own seriously.


----------



## vampiregenocide

You guys still haven't grasped how 'debates' with Trench go have you?


----------



## Jakke

We are fundamentally optimists.


----------



## YngwieJ

bob123 said:


> Give me a fucking break dude, you REALLY think a man with a harvard law education was dumb enough to believe there 57 states? Also, ignore the song post, you shouldn't take people that voice other peoples opinions as their own seriously.



Of course that's what he thinks. Obama must not know how many states there are because he wasn't born in the US. OMG it all makes sense now!!!


----------



## Jakke

The plot thickens...


----------



## Varcolac

YngwieJ said:


> Of course that's what he thinks. Obama must not know how many states there are because he wasn't born in the US. OMG it all makes sense now!!!



Except he was! His dad wasn't a Kenyan economist, he was an American COMMUNIST. It's like, exactly the same sounds in a different order! Glenn Beck's logic is infallible! OH MY GAWD. It's a decades-old Liberal conspiracy to uh... get a mixed-race guy into the White House who's pretty much centre-right on all the issues but keeps getting voted down by the far right because he's not about to cut all government expenditure and launch an invasion of Russia.

GO LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

There's actually a film that promotes this theory (along with a fair few other slurs and baseless ad hominems), which was sent out to swing state voters. Whenever I think that Trenchlord has hit a new low, I remember that film and realise that he hasn't even reached the bottom of the barrel yet.


----------



## Jakke

Apparently his mother was a porn-star too...


----------



## bob123

Varcolac said:


> Except he was! His dad wasn't a Kenyan economist, he was an American COMMUNIST. It's like, exactly the same sounds in a different order! Glenn Beck's logic is infallible! OH MY GAWD. It's a decades-old Liberal conspiracy to uh... get a mixed-race guy into the White House who's pretty much centre-right on all the issues but keeps getting voted down by the far right because he's not about to cut all government expenditure and launch an invasion of Russia.
> 
> GO LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
> 
> There's actually a film that promotes this theory (along with a fair few other slurs and baseless ad hominems), which was sent out to swing state voters. Whenever I think that Trenchlord has hit a new low, I remember that film and realise that he hasn't even reached the bottom of the barrel yet.






For a man from london, I sure dig your style


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Also, there's this old televangelist named Jack Van Impe who preaches about how Obama is the biblical anti-Christ, and sells DVD's about it... It's fucking awesome.


----------



## flint757

Frankly if we are going to go with end of the world conspiracies I'd put my money on Romney. After all, if he wins it will happen only a week after the "end of the world". 

Obama has set up policies that help people, a lot more than some religious groups who claim the same.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Adam Of Angels said:


> Also, there's this old televangelist named Jack Van Impe who preaches about how Obama is the biblical anti-Christ, and sells DVD's about it... It's fucking awesome.



Speaking of that...

Why Obama Is the Least Efficient Antichrist Ever | Cracked.com


----------



## Treeunit212

flint757 said:


> Frankly if we are going to go with end of the world conspiracies I'd put my money on Romney. After all, if he wins it will happen only a week after the "end of the world".
> 
> Obama has set up policies that help people, a lot more than some religious groups who claim the same.



It's worth noting that Mitt Romney is part of one of the craziest religious groups out there, next to Scientology.

It's also worth noting that he gave more than twice as much money to his own church than he paid in taxes. 

And that ladies and gentleman is why this time around, religion *does* matter. 

How anyone can trust that this man will put the country before his own ideologies is beyond me.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Didn't he pay his legal share of taxes?
If he didn't, wouldn't he be in jail?
Is it wrong to donate as much as possible or as much as one wishes to one's own church or choice of charity?
Sure seems like an extremely generous act to me.

Is it wrong to invest or deposit one's own private money into foriegn investments and accounts?
Seems like a wise and diversified plan to me.
Seems like a textbook example of Mitt Romney being the wise, smart, and law-abiding business man/citizen that he is. 

Sorry that people just get so jealous, but it seems like such a butthurt thing when people attack another citizen's free right to do as they want with their own money,
and then try to make it sound unethical or criminal or greedy.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TRENCHLORD said:


> Didn't he pay his legal share of taxes?
> If he didn't, wouldn't he be in jail?
> Is it wrong to donate as much as possible or as much as one wishes to one's own church or choice of charity?
> Sure seems like an extremely generous act to me.
> 
> Is it wrong to invest or deposit one's own private money into foriegn investments and accounts?
> Seems like a wise and diversified plan to me.
> Seems like a textbook example of Mitt Romney being the wise, smart, and law-abiding business man/citizen that he is.
> 
> Sorry that people just get so jealous, but it seems like such a butthurt thing when people attack another citizen's free right to do as they want with their own money,
> and then try to make it sound unethical or criminal or greedy.




Well, he most likely wouldn't be in jail if he didn't pay in full last year, but he'd certainly be penalized pretty hard. The problem is not whether or not he paid his so called legal share, the problem is that he paid twice as much to his church.. Why is that ugly? Because he's running for President, and the country is in worse shape than his church is. I wouldn't expect him to pay extra to the IRS than is necessary (I actually don't even think they'd except it to begin with), but it just looks bad, because he paid the same percentage as some of my near-poverty stricken friends last year.


----------



## Watty

TRENCHLORD said:


> Didn't he pay his legal share of taxes?
> If he didn't, wouldn't he be in jail?
> Is it wrong to donate as much as possible or as much as one wishes to one's own church or choice of charity?
> Sure seems like an extremely generous act to me.



Might be nice to have some proof of the first account instead of simply throwing the question out there. I've heard 13%, I've heard 19 years of released returns, and I've heard Swiss bank accounts...sounds much more fishy than Obama saying, "Tax Returns? Sure, here you go."

Is it wrong to donate so much to a tax exempt cult that you can make your tax return look different than it is? Less generous than suspect, to be sure. And, in addition....most of us paid a larger percentage of our income to the IRS than did Romney; how is that right? 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Is it wrong to invest or deposit one's own private money into foriegn investments and accounts?
> Seems like a wise and diversified plan to me.
> Seems like a textbook example of Mitt Romney being the wise, smart, and law-abiding business man/citizen that he is.



Not wrong at all, in fact, it IS smart and wise....as you've stated. However, when those foreign investments happen to be in places that act as tax shelters or fail to be mentioned on the return at all....we begin to run into a problem. And to go along with this point, take a point of comparison from torrenting. Is it a legal means of getting digital information? _Technically._ Does that make it right? Well, that's up to the individual to decide. If you're okay doing things that are morally questionable, then it's fine. As the POTUS and a major figure on the world stage, I would like to think that he wouldn't advocate doing things that are _technically_ legal and would instead focus on doing things outside the grey area. After all, he does claim to be part of a belief system that reinforces "good" behavior...



TRENCHLORD said:


> Sorry that people just get so jealous, but it seems like such a butthurt thing when people attack another citizen's free right to do as they want with their own money, and then try to make it sound unethical or criminal or greedy.



He made better choices than most people with his money, and I say more power to him. (Though, from what I understand, he didn't start with nothing...having rich parents sure as hell doesn't NOT give you a head start, eh?) However, I don't believe that a man who's never been in touch with poverty in any sort of significant way can help get this country out of the hole it's in. I favor a universal social contract, not one modified by Romney to cater to the "job creators."


----------



## Watty

vampiregenocide said:


> You guys still haven't grasped how 'debates' with Trench go have you?



The Devil's Advocate is an interesting part to play, however I find it infinitely more interesting shoot that character full of holes when the ground on which he stands is made of sand. Especially with his avatar...shoot that sumoabitch in the FACE!

**


----------



## flint757

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, he most likely wouldn't be in jail if he didn't pay in full last year, but he'd certainly be penalized pretty hard. The problem is not whether or not he paid his so called legal share, the problem is that he paid twice as much to his church.. Why is that ugly? Because he's running for President, and the country is in worse shape than his church is. I wouldn't expect him to pay extra to the IRS than is necessary (I actually don't even think they'd except it to begin with), but it just looks bad, because he paid the same percentage as some of my near-poverty stricken friends last year.



The issue is rich people have the money to find every single loop hole possible. If you removed the loop holes he paid well below what he is supposed too I'm sure. Is it legal? Yes, but since when does legality make something right. As an example, off the top of my head, it is Westboro's legal right to protest funerals (or was, but that isn't the point), but it isn't right. He pays less than the majority of tax payers. I'm sure the rebuttal will come back to him paying more in the literal sense, however, percentage is the only way to judge "fairness" and he does not pay his fair share. Never mind that at some point money just becomes obscene (not to mention what he does with it and how he got it, but out of everything that is his business).

To pretend like starting as a wealthy child is not a HUGE leg up is naive. It is rare to see a poor kid who came from a rich family and even then it is because they chose it not because it was the cards they were dealt.

It is also relevant to note that he works for the government and wants to run for the top position so paying your fair share to make a difference is something we would expect. To presume anyone is jealous is moronic and childish, I could care less how much money someone has, but if you are part of the problem and running for a position to further that problem it is not something anyone should just ignore. It also makes him look dishonest and shady to hide so much about himself considering even his father (and everyone else) releases the proper amount of files. In that instance it is a trust problem more than a money problem.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Watty said:


> Especially with his avatar...shoot that sumoabitch in the FACE!
> 
> **


 
I'd give you a hand for that one, but I have no hands .
(makes jacking off a bit complicated as well)


----------



## flint757

TRENCHLORD said:


> Didn't he pay his legal share of taxes?
> If he didn't, wouldn't he be in jail?
> Is it wrong to donate as much as possible or as much as one wishes to one's own church or choice of charity?
> Sure seems like an extremely generous act to me.



Charity yes, but getting a tax break for charity is not generous IMO. At that point it is just business and that is an important distinction when referring to someones character. I personally think the tax exempt status of churches is wrong, but that is neither here nor there. It doesn't look good though that, in a way, he works for the church he gives money too and as a side effect gets some tax exemptions I'm sure.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Is it wrong to invest or deposit one's own private money into foriegn investments and accounts?
> Seems like a wise and diversified plan to me.
> Seems like a textbook example of Mitt Romney being the wise, smart, and law-abiding business man/citizen that he is.



It is the smart decision, legal is murky, but he isn't going to jail over it. The issue is, if he wins, he will become the face of our country for 4 years (if he wins I doubt he will get more than 4 honestly). He does not represent the values of our country and comes off as not having 'faith' in it. Legality aside it just looks bad to tax dodge when, if everyone were being honest, it wouldn't hurt him to pay what he actually should. When you invest outside the country, don't invest in your country and get a paycheck from the government as well it just looks bad (because it is). If he wasn't running for president I, and probably most people, would care less about his money or existence. Since he is running that makes it relevant.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Sorry that people just get so jealous, but it seems like such a butthurt thing when people attack another citizen's free right to do as they want with their own money, and then try to make it sound unethical or criminal or greedy.



It is not jealousy and my butt feels just fine.  It may not be criminal, but it is without a doubt greedy. In fact his behavior is practically the definition of greed. Unethical is something that can be argued, but another day.

When he has his money in other nations, its like being the captain of a ship (especially if he is POTUS) and having the life boat ready for just you. When a man has nothing to lose it makes you question their decisions. If he doesn't intend to set roots how do we know the decisions he is going to make is actually in our best interest? This is especially true when you think about SS, medicare, medicaid and welfare which are all things people in his financial position never have to worry about. He has nothing to lose, for him or his family, by cutting back or all together eliminating such policies. That is why it matters. He was born rich and he will die rich, no matter how we adjust taxes. Even if he paid half of his income in taxes he'd still die rich.

Since were on the subject if you only effectively need say less than 10% of your income yearly that means 90% can be invested or just blown. This is why the rich get richer. People who make significantly less have far less to invest, if any at all, and luck or investment is pretty much the only way to get rich to such extremes in this era. To presume you have to be smart to be in his position is illogical; who you know, where you start and luck are far more relevant to financial success than intelligence.

As a group, the smartest people based on IQ, are probably not ridiculous wealthy, as making a difference in research and what not doesn't necessarily pay well.


----------



## Watty

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'd give you a hand for that one, but I have no hands .
> (makes jacking off a bit complicated as well)



Not surprised to see you'd have to resort to jacking off...continuing to support a candidate who represents an assault on women's rights isn't going to get you a lot of tail. That is unless they happen to be full of the Lord already, in which case you probably wouldn't want to sex her up, what with him being able to get as big as he wants. #Godspenis


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Watty said:


> Not surprised to see you'd have to resort to jacking off...continuing to support a candidate who represents an assault on women's rights isn't going to get you a lot of tail. That is unless they happen to be full of the Lord already, in which case you probably wouldn't want to sex her up, what with him being able to get as big as he wants. #Godspenis


 
Me thinks you worry too much ./ aka- conspiracy theorist
Like Romney is going to start smashing women's rights hhahahaha, doesn't sound plausible to me.


----------



## flint757

If you find that in the conspiracy territory how can you not feel the same about half the stuff you post dude. Some of the things you say about Dem's and Obama fall under the same umbrella of unlikely policies or conspiracies. 

That being said it seems rights is defined differently by each individual. There are a lot of policies that the republican party, in general, are advocating that many people feel are an assault on theirs or others rights. Then there are some who don't think that is what is occurring or just simply want to stomp on someone else's rights. It seems the defining difference is not whether someone is being impeded, but rather whether they needed said right to begin with on how they view such things. That being said people who have no need for such rights shouldn't exactly be writing the policies on those rights either.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> Me thinks you worry too much ./ aka- conspiracy theorist
> Like Romney is going to start smashing women's rights hhahahaha, doesn't sound plausible to me.



Romney doesn't even know where Romney stands on abortion, but insists that he does. 
Romney Insists His Abortion Position Is "Clear," Which Is News To Everybody

And wait, he seems to wanna restrict access to contraception which would minimize the need for abortions:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/romney-ever-changing-birth-control-stance


Yeah, Romney is a misogynist like a great many of his ilk. It's up to a woman as far as what goes on in her body, not crusty old men who suck at politics.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> Romney doesn't even know where Romney stands on abortion, but insists that he does.
> Romney Insists His Abortion Position Is "Clear," Which Is News To Everybody
> 
> And wait, he seems to wanna restrict access to contraception which would minimize the need for abortions:
> Romney's Ever-Changing Birth Control Stance | Mother Jones
> 
> 
> Yeah, Romney is a misogynist like a great many of his ilk. It's up to a woman as far as what goes on in her body, not crusty old men who suck at politics.


 
I would hardly call not wanting to pay for Sandra Fluke's "protection" from the ramifications of HER daily sex acts an infringment on women's rights,
nor would I call not wanting my tax $s to go to elective sex change surgery, which is the kind of extremist governmental regulation
(imposing laws that make these elective activities the financial responsibility of tax payers and fellow insurance customers)
that the current extremist far leftist democratic party supports.
Sandra Fluke argued for sex-change insurance mandate in 2011 | The Daily Caller

She's always welcome to go slutting around on her own dime though. 
Power to her, right.(?)


----------



## Waelstrum

^ If you look at the statistics on trans suicides you might not consider sex changes to be so 'elective'.


----------



## tacotiklah

TRENCHLORD said:


> I would hardly call not wanting to pay for Sandra Fluke's "protection" from the ramifications of HER daily sex acts an infringment on women's rights,
> nor would I call not wanting my tax $s to go to elective sex change surgery, which is the kind of extremist governmental regulation
> (imposing laws that make these elective activities the financial responsibility of tax payers and fellow insurance customers)
> that the current extremist far leftist democratic party supports.
> Sandra Fluke argued for sex-change insurance mandate in 2011 | The Daily Caller
> 
> She's always welcome to go slutting around on her own dime though.
> Power to her, right.(?)



First off, with politics aside, you fail in your inability to distinguish between gender and sexual orientation. Assuming that all transwomen are sluts really just proves that you're a transphobe. Yay you right?

As for paying for transgender-related healthcare, gender dysphoria is still a medical condition and as such, should be covered by insurers. It is the general consensus of the A.P.A. (American Psychological Association, for those that don't know) that the only successful treatment for those with Gender Dysphoria is to transition to the opposite sex, a part of which includes Hormone Replacement Therapy, and Gender Reassignment Surgery. Note that not all transgender persons need to transition, because they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, or the degree to which they do suffer is minimal to the point that transition would be counter-productive. Hence why being transgender in and of itself is no longer classified as a mental disorder by the APA in the new DSM-V. (which is considered the go-to book for all mental health professionals in terms of mental disorders), yet gender dysphoria still is considered a mental disorder. As was mentioned, the transperson suicide rate is at 47% in terms of number of transpeople that have actually attempted suicide and over 80% in terms of transpeople that have considered it. Yeah, real fucking elective huh? Ever stop to consider that people with attitudes towards transgender people much like your own were the number one cause of that statistic? Of course not, because you give no fucks about anyone but yourself.

Next, who Sandra Fluke sleeps with is no one's business but her own. Since she isn't fucking kids or animals, it's nobody's business. That includes you.

Next, assuming that a woman is a slut because she wants to be fiscally and socially responsible by preventing an unwanted pregnancy and would like better access to doing so is clear misogyny. I bet you're a real catch with the ladies... 

Finally, you fail miserably for bad trolling and even worse debate tactics given the fact that you are responding to a transwoman with misogynistic, transphobic comments. Yeah, that will totally get me to see your side of things right? 


Edit: I also see this common misconception that a "sex change" consists of one magical operation that will turn "Jack" into "Jill". Nope, not by a long shot. There can be up to 10 procedures that need to be done. Things like electrolysis, facial feminization surgery, orchidectomy, hormone therapy complete with having to visit several doctors just for that alone, breast augmentation (if hormone therapy fails or is deemed too dangerous for the patient), masectomy(for transmen), and a host of other surgeries. This process can take over a decade and a cost of up to $100,000. If a person is paying into an insurance company, they have every right to expect the cost of these procedures to be covered since they are in fact, medically necessary. Which brings me to yet a second point, which I'm surprised as hell nobody else has picked up on here:

Medical insurance paying for the cost of medical treatments is NOT taxpayer money. You are paying a premium (usually monthly) and that money is funded by a private insurance company. Again, instead of stopping for a second and thinking about it, you let the fear-mongering of faux news scare you into thinking the slutty tranny will take all your money and use it for their weirdo ends. Once again, you fail.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Waelstrum said:


> ^ If you look at the statistics on trans suicides you might not consider sex changes to be so 'elective'.


 
I get your point. For some it might be a necessity for a sense of well being, but is providing happyness a legitimate role of the government?
I say providing safety and an enviorement in which opportunity for upward economic mobility exist should be the fiscal priority.

We will go right off the fiscal cliff we're zooming towards now if we begin down the road of government funded and regulated happyness provisions.

What if some wannabe athlete is depressed and suicidal because he/she can't make it to the next level? What if he/she is too weak to compete at that level?
Do we pay for his/her TRT (as tax-payers or just fellow insurance company customers absorbing the financially shared risk)?

Do we pay for tummy-ties just because a weak willed (or just uncaring) citizen/fellow customer decides to have thanksgiving feast every day of the year?


----------



## Varcolac

Trench, why do you hate women so much? Slutting around? Daily sex acts? For someone who apparently isn't a Christian, you sure have one hell of a puritanical streak to you. 

Your core point of accountability and funding may be arguable, but as anyone over the age of twelve can tell you, you don't win arguments by spewing rampant misogyny all over the internet.

But, as you've opened Pandora's box on that one, I'll call it as I see it. To call you a cunt would be an insult to vaginas everywhere. You're pathetic.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

ghstofperdition said:


> First off, with politics aside, you fail in your inability to distinguish between gender and sexual orientation. Assuming that all transwomen are sluts really just proves that you're a transphobe. Yay you right?


 

You're just making no sense now.
I was clearly reffering to my disdain at the thought of paying for Sandra Fluke's birth control.
You are now falsly accusing me of calling transgenders all sluts .

I was simply saying that i don't want tax payers paying for Ms. Fluke's kinky nights. (hell, I'd do her myself, and i'd feel it my (as the cummer) obligation to pay for her morning after, not the taxpayers responsibility).


As for your discriminatory statement accusing me of being a "transphobe",
I assure you that I support everyone's right to do whatever they want in regaurds to their own bodies and personal relationships.
I'm a loyal supporter of personal freedoms .


----------



## Waelstrum

TRENCHLORD said:


> I get your point. For some it might be a necessity for a sense of well being, but is providing happyness a legitimate role of the government?
> I say providing safety and an enviorement in which opportunity for upward economic mobility exist should be the fiscal priority.
> 
> We will go right off the fiscal cliff we're zooming towards now if we begin down the road of government funded and regulated happyness provisions.
> 
> What if some wannabe athlete is depressed and suicidal because he/she can't make it to the next level? What if he/she is too weak to compete at that level?
> Do we pay for his/her TRT (as tax-payers or just fellow insurance company customers absorbing the financially shared risk)?
> 
> Do we pay for tummy-ties just because a weak willed (or just uncaring) citizen/fellow customer decides to have thanksgiving feast every day of the year?



Are you not aware of the difference between being un-happy and suicidal? If I spill ice-cream on my lap, I get a bit un-happy. It would take considerably more than that to want to end it all. If there is a certain condition that has a 47% suicide rate, I'd say that warrants any treatment of that condition to be considered vital.

Having an unfulfilled ambition is not the same as having a mental condition, and I'm sure you know that. At this point, it seems that Poe's law fits your posts quite accurately.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Varcolac said:


> Trench, why do you hate women so much? Slutting around? Daily sex acts? For someone who apparently isn't a Christian, you sure have one hell of a puritanical streak to you.


 
It's you who are casting the negative on sluts, not me.
I love sluts, that's the ones I always went for at the bar .

We just don't want to pay for individual behavior options.
It';s her pussy, she can assume some responsibility for it herself.
Tell her to at least fuck guys who will spring for the morning after pill .
Shouldn't be her right to make taxpayers pay for her freakon.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's you who are casting the negative on sluts, not me.
> I love sluts, that's the ones I always went for at the bar .
> 
> We just don't want to pay for individual behavior options.
> It';s her pussy, she can assume some responsibility for it herself.
> Tell her to at least fuck guys who will spring for the morning after pill .
> Shouldn't be her right to make taxpayers pay for her freakon.



Sandra Fluke's activism was in favor of the ACA provision that requires private insurance companies to offer contraception coverage as part of the private insurance that private individuals pay for. Exactly where are your tax dollars at work here, Trench?


----------



## flint757

Don't bother he only responds to points he thinks he can defend.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> Don't bother he only responds to points he thinks he can defend.



True, but I prefer not to let his points go unchallenged, for the benefit of other readers. Not everyone exhibits Trench's extreme level of epistemic closure, and thank gods for that.


----------



## flint757

Indeed. It's alright, it lets me know I'm probably right or at least in the ball park when I get ignored.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Considering that the things Trench has been saying in this thread are astonishingly misinformed, I highly doubt he has any idea whether you are right or wrong.


----------



## tacotiklah

It's like dude, if I wanted to listen to what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh think on any given subject, I'd just listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. I don't need Trench to regurgitate it for me.


----------



## flint757

Adam Of Angels said:


> Considering that the things Trench has been saying in this thread are astonishingly misinformed, I highly doubt he has any idea whether you are right or wrong.



Haha, I suppose that is true. Well damn now i'm a little sad inside.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

Interesting last 4 pages... 

Is it safe to discuss the original topic yet?

Interesting about the green technology investments. The story I heard was: Although Solyndra Solar was a more advanced technology, by the time it was ready, conventional solar production was at a peak in cost efficiency.

I have severe doubts regarding officially sanctioned fossil fuel alternatives. After all, it's not in the interests of politicians to solve these problems efficiently, due to the stranglehold "big oil" oligarchs have on the globe.





(Independent suspension FTW)

Predictions of peak oil have been abundant in the past yet the end has never come. By inflating the perception of oil as a rare commodity "big oil" have cemented their position and increased revenue. The distinct possibility remains that there are large deposits of fossil fuels left deliberately untapped and uncharted, artificially manipulating the profits from existing known supplies.
After all, the United States Govt. and the Saudi leadership have had very close ties, especially during the Bush years, as head of the CIA, and are committed to maintaining the petro-dollar of OPEC.

Out of these debates I'm hoping to gain an insight into the candidates promises for dealing with the Federal Reserve, Oil corporations and their continued military expansionism.
It's a shame that they cannot simply agree that feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and extending equality to all are mandatory commitments for a government in this day and age, and move on to discuss actions which have global significance.

I have a sinking feeling this is where Romney wants to create jobs...



Obama's authorisation of drone strikes has been a talking point lately, after some confusion regarding reported numbers: some suggest these have been exaggerated. We live in the age of the electronic, remotely controlled assassin.


----------



## flint757

The creating jobs to cost of increasing military funding ratio is not going to be good IMO, but that does seem to be a part of his unspoken plan.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

I think the unspoken part of his "plan" is dominance over China and Russia, with the aid of European and middle Eastern allies. Ensuring unrivalled economic, natural resources and military deterrent in perpetuity. The same could be said of Obama.

It will be on the domestic issues where the differences become more apparent.

Remember last time the US missile shield was in the news?


(Russia Today exists purely to pour scorn and outrage at the West, rarely discussing Russian internal politics, but raises many issues for further research)



It's funny, if the developed world's civilian population retrofitted electric engines to their existing personal vehicles and kept their savings in silver, the old paradigm would collapse and it would mean free hugs for everyone.


----------



## Watty

@ Ryan - Might be more beneficial to post the content of the videos (as well as your take on it) in text...not a huge deal, but with how much spin any given source will have, seems counterproductive to link a bunch of videos.

On a lighter note; I loved the BillO vs. Stewart debate; especially the chair bit at the end. Stewart definitely won that one hands down...Most of what was discussed echoed what was presented at the debate. Obama hailed as the creator of the larger portion of the debt and no mention of how it takes a long ass time to turn the ship that is our nation. "Bush." "Is." "Gone." ....classic massing of the point, Bill. I do wish, however, that Stewart has incorporated some sort of a religious dig in his naming of the mountain on which the Republican's live. (Odd also that he chose a mountain, most old folks live in the desert, right?)


----------



## flint757

Europe and the middle east would be stupid to do so though. If that really is the only thing holding back ultimate dominance then it'd be in their interest to make sure there is more than one world power I'd think. It does seem though that domestic issues are where they differ the most, although one is ever so slightly more diplomatic than the other in foreign affairs (as a side effect better received).

As an aside my only problem with China is that they are run more like a business than a country (sound familiar ) and as a side effect their people are not freer and they are one of the worlds largest polluters. They put financial interest first and are becoming a problem in places like Africa and other developing worlds environmentally. 

I find it funny so many citizens don't look at all the outcomes from a policy and are so adamant that "this time it will be different". I mean a lot of countries have more 'socialist policies' and they are the better for it, not worse. Yet so many are certain that it is the end of the US if we were to do the same. They can point to Spain and Greece all they want, but that is a fallacy as more countries are doing well than not. If we grouped all the countries with our current policies I'm certain not all are doing bad and not all are doing good, people have a habit of generalizing and oversimplifying to push their interests and original thesis. In this case it is the selfish behavior of wanting to not pay taxes as far as I can tell.

To put my POV in perspective I think the Revolution that started our nation turned into a good thing, things needed to change and that the people deserve a voice in their government, all of which were motivators for the revolution and overall good, but I think our issue with the taxes of that era was very childish considering it was actually cheaper than the homeland was paying. In any case, the revolution is the example people seem to use most to make taxes out as this evil entity that needs to be eliminated, but they miss the actual point, it was the lack of representation (which we have today) not the taxes themselves. 

That is where the line in the sand is being drawn for this election; those who are okay with more taxes and those that aren't. Some things seem to be driven by religion as they have an opinion even when it has no effect on them, like gay rights or even the women's health stuff involving insurance. I mean why do they care if the government makes insurance we pay for cover something, especially if it is not them or their insurance that is involved/affected. If it does affect them or their insurance that is another story I suppose, but a lot of the loud voices I've been hearing are not directly or indirectly affected by such policies.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

Putin reacts to Romney:


*@Watty*, they're all less than 10 minutes, although the "Who killed the electric car" is a full documentary, has been around for a while and has been seen by a lot of people (old news).

Presenting clips which I think are relevant to the *omissions* of the Presidential candidate's debate in their original format avoids additional layers of personal bias. However the videos are mostly footage of direct sources.

Questions regarding nuclear deterrents, surrounding the planet with missile sites, regulation of the financial markets, Asia and the middle east were all avoided, either through brevity or complete omission during the debates.
I'd want to know the candidates thoughts before I voted...

Is that a new O'Reilly vs Stewart interview? Bill makes me angry on so many levels. Just thinking about him makes me angry. His whole persona and belief in "loudest = rightest"... 
Does anyone take him seriously?

It's funny, watching Stewart, how afraid the mainstream are of him. Is the word "satirist" in common use in America?

*@Flint757* Obama has been representing US' interests abroad for long enough to have personal experience with the leaders of many nations. Perhaps experience is the key to his "diplomatic skills"?

China was under monarchistic (Imperial Qing Dynasty) rule which was overthrown in the 1911 revolution, which threw the country into civil war until 1949, when "On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China.... The last fighting between Nationalist and Communist forces ended with the communist capture of Hainan Island in May 1950."

_Quoted source; wiki article linked below._

For me to write more than a paragraph of their history would be an insult and disservice to the Chinese people.

As a fellow Republican* whose nation overthrew the yoke of Imperialism, surely you must have some sympathy for other nations that shared the turmoil of revolution?

*_not the party_

Here's some Chinese history to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Revolution_(1949)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_China


China, like Russia, is attempting to build good will in developing nations with a hope of developing economic diversity and supplies of natural resources, looking to the future.
Though reports differ of the methods, depending on bias, it is undoubtedly a method of securing energy independence and security.

The European Union is the misguided attempt to bring the various sovereign states under control of unelected bureaucrats, furthering the economic agenda of global banking institutions. 
Early on, the British government saw it as an opportunity to prevent the growth of German military strength after World War II and the foundations were built on a coal and steel pact between the nations of Europe. 
However, French idealism and hope for the inherent decency of human beings began building foundations for a larger scale project, with notable contributions from many Europeans.
(Based on my interpretation of Churchill's diaries and those of his close advisors)

The nations which are fairing poorly under the Union sacrificed control of their currencies to join and have subsequently been manipulated by banking institutions to provide tangible collateral for loans based on the fractional reserve model.

I was recently in Greece, where there are many protests. There is grave dissatisfaction there and a general disdain for the democratic process, as their leaders are in a severely compromised situation and have limited options available to them.
Hardship has once again come to a nation blessed with incredible natural beauty, history and the birthplace of reason.


----------



## flint757

Yeah this is the first election in awhile where I've been hearing how Russia is a threat all over again. I think he missed the memo that you can believe in Reaganomics without Russia being the #1 enemy, completely independent variables. Republicans, this time around, are doing what they do best, fear mongering.

[EDIT]

I look in to the info you posted. 

Interestingly, on the note of China, they made a compelling case for leniency for developing countries. Europe and the US had very poor environmental policies while going through the industrial age. The argument was we should be more lenient to developing nations environmental policies as it isn't feasible to grow otherwise, it requires a far higher initial investment. In other words, the more developed world is handicapping the rest with restrictions only feasible by those imposing them. From a historical and policy standpoint I agree with that assessment, but since we all breathe the same air I can't help feeling like unless everyone holds similar policies it loses its impact.

I know little of European economics, I'd be happy to do some research however. My point of bringing Spain and Greece into it is that because a country like Greece has social programs and went under during the recession some use that as the excuse for why such policies don't work when it does in so many other places.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

Here he (Romney) is a year ago...


*Yawn*


----------



## TRENCHLORD

celticelk said:


> Sandra Fluke's activism was in favor of the ACA provision that requires private insurance companies to offer contraception coverage as part of the private insurance that private individuals pay for. Exactly where are your tax dollars at work here, Trench?


 
If you would just read my posts more carefully you would understand that I specified the increased cost of everyone's insurance from bullshit like this.

When the government mandates that private carriers include coverages that makes everyone's insurance rates higher.

My point was clear.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

flint757 said:


> Indeed. It's alright, it lets me know I'm probably right or at least in the ball park when I get ignored.


 

Hey, I get on here and type a couple great posts(insert chuckles here) and go on about my night .

Not meaning to ignore anyone, but spending much time truth speaking to people who refuse to listen makes no sense at all.
It's fun for a short while, but I'd rather diversify my time, sorry.

I'll clearly state again that mandating idiot coverages from PRIVATE companies DOES raise the rates for all the other customers.

I'm not paying for dudes to have their penis chopped off just because the government claims it's a necesarry procedure.
That is the epitome of governmental over-regulation to force a PRIVATE company to cover that sort of thing.


----------



## flint757

It's all in good fun dude... 

On some level I agree and only because I'd equate it with a boob job, which isn't covered, and can cause some women back problems. That being said medical procedures shouldn't be so ridiculously expensive, no matter the type, in the first place. I will also agree that the more procedures done obviously the more losses an insurance company will incur.

That being said, things like birth control, even if we ignore the actual medical significance, would save insurance companies money. Having a baby is not cheap; it adds to ones coverage (additional person), and socially, if not in a proper place financially, affects everyone as well because now said person needs food stamps or welfare just to survive as they are now below the poverty line. Like anything preventive care and screening help lower the chances, diseases and babies alike, that we need to use our insurance for things that do cost the insurers a lot of money.

On another note if they can't hack it maybe it is time they stepped out, health should not be a commodity sold to the highest bidder. It is mighty hard to pursue happiness if you're deathly ill from something easily preventable. We fund their administrative cost and profit margin, if it was just our tax dollars it would actually be more efficient as the government does not work for profit and ultimately shouldn't. Most old people will agree that medicare is amazing, especially if you were able to retain part of your insurance from your old job.

Despite what Fox tells people the government does not screw up everything and ironically the group that waste the most resources is the military, which is what Fox and a lot of Repub's want us to funnel more money in too it seems.


----------



## Waelstrum

^ Back problems don't have a 47% mortality rate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe there are some things that should not be done for profit. I also believe that the three ideals on which your country are founded are best done by the government. (That is: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) I would define life to mean universal health care, liberty to mean the justice system and defence*, and the pursuit of happiness to mean social mobility. When I look at American politics, it seems like only one of your parties is following the ideals of the founding fathers (who incidentally weren't perfect, what with all the racism).


*Would you look at that, a lefty liberal saying that it is important to have a military (in moderation)


----------



## flint757

Waelstrum said:


> ^ Back problems don't have a 47% mortality rate.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I believe there are some things that should not be done for profit. I also believe that the three ideals on which your country are founded are best done by the government. (That is: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) I would define life to mean universal health care, liberty to mean the justice system and defence*, and the pursuit of happiness to mean social mobility. When I look at American politics, it seems like only one of your parties is following the ideals of the founding fathers (who incidentally weren't perfect, what with all the racism).
> 
> 
> *Would you look at that, a lefty liberal saying that it is important to have a military (in moderation)



Well numbers aside, I'm sure some women and men are depressed by other cosmetic problems. Some women are depressed about their body to an extreme of it affecting their welfare as well. It is a cosmetic surgery, things are getting altered and rearranged, but for the most part your body will function the same. I don't deny it is expensive and I feel like a lot of things should be either covered or just cheaper in general, but if we are forced to pick and choose that wouldn't be on my list (assuming the list had a limit). The issue is the psychological aspect involving it being there in the first place for some people, but the procedure itself is fixing a surface problem. After reassignment are their any stat's that show that suicide is any less likely (implication being that the surgery wouldn't resolve that problem)? In most instances I imagine outsiders are a big part of the problem (bullying, lack of support, etc.) I don't deny that some feel the need for it and that it does have negative affects leading to a high suicide rate, but when other life threatening problems aren't covered (suicide is ultimately a choice even if they don't feel they have one) I can't advocate the coverage of arguably elective surgeries.

I agree entirely with the second part. I'm not being insensitive either,as I do feel bad for those suffering, but when we are having trouble getting the right to accept basic health coverage for citizens and so much else that isn't covered it is not something I can logically call a priority.


----------



## celticelk

TRENCHLORD said:


> If you would just read my posts more carefully you would understand that I specified the increased cost of everyone's insurance from bullshit like this.
> 
> When the government mandates that private carriers include coverages that makes everyone's insurance rates higher.
> 
> My point was clear.



First, what you said was "Shouldn't be her right to make taxpayers pay for her freakon." That certainly implies that your *tax dollars* would be going to pay for Fluke's birth control, which is not the case.

Second, as has already been pointed out to you, you miss the point that funding birth control via insurance substantially reduces the number of payouts for things like prenatal care and birth, miscarriage, etc. That could well *reduce* overall insurance rates, particularly given that those are fairly high-cost items, and birth control is pretty cheap.


----------



## CannibalKiller

Republican logic:
Obama didn't sort out the economy, so we're going to make the country a Mormon theocracy.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Hey, I get on here and type a couple great posts(insert chuckles here) and go on about my night .
> 
> Not meaning to ignore anyone, but spending much time truth speaking to people who refuse to listen makes no sense at all.
> It's fun for a short while, but I'd rather diversify my time, sorry.
> 
> I'll clearly state again that mandating idiot coverages from PRIVATE companies DOES raise the rates for all the other customers.
> 
> I'm not paying for dudes to have their penis chopped off just because the government claims it's a necesarry procedure.
> That is the epitome of governmental over-regulation to force a PRIVATE company to cover that sort of thing.



How much does a child cost to raise until age 18? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Did you know that an unwanted child is much more likely to resort to a life of crime? Exactly 18 years after Abortion was legalized, crime rates dropped across the board like clockwork. And we're not even talking about Abortion, we're talking about birth control. This is more than preventing babies, this is a women's health issue. Who the fuck is asking you what a woman needs in order to live a healthy lifestyle?

What is the societal cost of overpopulation? Pollution, consumption, etc? Since Industrialization, the average carbon footprint of a single individual is measured in kilotons. There is a cost to everything, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

What is this truth speaking you refer to? It's been pointed out that you ignore more rebukes of your opinions than pretty much anyone else on this forum. You seem to be really fond of expressing your own views, but when it comes to expanding them beyond your bubble of perceived reality, you fail. Hard.


----------



## Varcolac

Treeunit212 said:


> What is this truth speaking you refer to? It's been pointed out that you ignore more rebukes of your opinions than pretty much anyone else on this forum. You seem to be really fond of expressing your own views, but when it comes to expanding them beyond your bubble of perceived reality, you fail. Hard.




Welcome to Bullshit Mountain. The alternate reality in which Trench, Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney's savings live.


----------



## Treeunit212

Varcolac said:


> Welcome to Bullshit Mountain. The alternate reality in which Trench, Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney's savings live.


----------



## Syrinx

TRENCHLORD said:


> Didn't he pay his legal share of taxes?



Well another example of why I don't trust a thing he says..

One day he claims he will never pay more taxes then he's legally obligated to (I fully support this, why would anyone do such a thing?), then he intentionally does not claim as much as he is legally allowed on his donations so he can keep up his other claim that he's never paid lower than 13% in tax and thus paying more than he obligated to.


----------



## flint757

In other words he is a snake in the grass, who was lying and to cover it up didn't take all of his deductions. Not the least bit surprised, after all no better gig than the president, you make a lot of money till the day you die for doing absolutely nothing (after you leave office).


----------



## Randy

I forget who made the point earlier in this thread (sorry ) but the fact he gives more to the Mormon church than he does to the country he "loves so much" is quite telling.


----------



## Isan




----------



## Semichastny

Randy said:


> I forget who made the point earlier in this thread (sorry ) but the fact he gives more to the Mormon church than he does to the country he "loves so much" is quite telling.



I saw a guy on some faith channel address a large crowd and say "It's ok to be a christian before being an american!". It was very disturbing.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

What's worse is that people are willing to be American or Christian before being a Decent Human Being... And in those instances, they usually get the meaning of those things wrong anyway.


----------



## Treeunit212

Randy said:


> I forget who made the point earlier in this thread (sorry ) but the fact he gives more to the Mormon church than he does to the country he "loves so much" is quite telling.



That was me. (^.^)



Semichastny said:


> I saw a guy on some faith channel address a large crowd and say "It's ok to be a christian before being an american!". It was very disturbing.



My International Relations book features a pie chart comparison of the top five most Muslim countries and the top five most Christian countries. The question was:

_Are you first a citizen of your country or first a member of your religion?_

Muslim: 60% religion, 22% country, 18% other.

Christian: 24% religion, 62% country, 14% other.

In the Muslim world, Islam provides a stronger sense of community and belonging than any border ever will. At the same time, something like 60% of Americans think America was founded as a Christian nation.

It's scary/reassuring/mostly scary how similar we really are.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

If romney wins ill have to stop referring to american dollars as freedom dollars.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Stealthdjentstic said:


> If romney wins ill have to stop referring to american dollars as freedom dollars.


May I suggest "magic-undie bucks" as a suitable alternative?


----------



## celticelk

Treeunit212 said:


> My International Relations book features a pie chart comparison of the top five most Muslim countries and the top five most Christian countries. The question was:
> 
> _Are you first a citizen of your country or first a member of your religion?_
> 
> Muslim: 60% religion, 22% country, 18% other.
> 
> Christian: 24% religion, 62% country, 14% other.
> 
> In the Muslim world, Islam provides a stronger sense of community and belonging than any border ever will.



What's the colonial and political history of those five "most Muslim" countries? The greater portion of the Muslim world has been colonized by the West for so long that it's really no surprise if the inhabitants feel a greater sense of identity with their religion.


----------



## flint757

And it would also add to their general hate for the western world as well, I imagine.


----------



## CannibalKiller

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this here yet, but I'll bring it up either way.
Part of being a Mormon is using "God's gifts" to the benefit of the Mormon Church. So, if a Mormon became President, he would have to use that power for the benefit of the Mormon Church, essentially making America a theocracy. I think if everyone knew this Romney wouldn't even be a candidate.


----------



## lurgar

CannibalKiller said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this here yet, but I'll bring it up either way.
> Part of being a Mormon is using "God's gifts" to the benefit of the Mormon Church. So, if a Mormon became President, he would have to use that power for the benefit of the Mormon Church, essentially making America a theocracy. I think if everyone knew this Romney wouldn't even be a candidate.



But he wouldn't be Obama and he believes in God and is a good business man. That is literally the line of thought that will occur if you bring that up.


----------



## Jakke

^He believes in *a* god, who lives on the planet Kolob...


As for the debate... Using the Gish Gallop should be instantly bannable in any debate.


----------



## flint757

Religion doesn't matter to Americans unless you are an Athiest or Muslim. They treat all other faith as the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Catholics and Jews had a rough time for awhile IMO as well, politically, but religion is instantly overlooked/ not important to get rid of Obama since 'that is all that matters'.


----------



## Treeunit212

celticelk said:


> What's the colonial and political history of those five "most Muslim" countries? The greater portion of the Muslim world has been colonized by the West for so long that it's really no surprise if the inhabitants feel a greater sense of identity with their religion.



The history is that more often than not, those borders were drawn by western powers with no respect to the tribal territories already in place. Similar to Africa, except when you look at places like Northern Iraq with the Kurds, there's more of a Israel/Palestine situation.


----------



## flint757

There is a laundry list of justifiable reasons for big portions of the world to hate western society. That being said the reasons I have heard over the last decade don't reflect those reasons AFAIK.


----------



## Lives Once Abstract

CannibalKiller said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this here yet, but I'll bring it up either way.
> Part of being a Mormon is using "God's gifts" to the benefit of the Mormon Church. So, if a Mormon became President, he would have to use that power for the benefit of the Mormon Church, essentially making America a theocracy. I think if everyone knew this Romney wouldn't even be a candidate.


 
Yes, but, we shouldn't get too carried away with the fact that the president has alot less power than he's made out to have. I don't want him in office sure, but also, I'm more concerned with whos in congress. The president isn't a monarch, but its still a possition of power in the U.S. federal government. 

Also, (this is off topic, but still on topic...) I'm kinda interested to see how aggressive the VP debate will be.  They won't hold back as much as the other two.


----------



## Semichastny

Lives Once Abstract said:


> Yes, but, we shouldn't get too carried away with the fact that the president has alot less power than he's made out to have. I don't want him in office sure, but also, I'm more concerned with whos in congress. The president isn't a monarch, but its still a possition of power in the U.S. federal government.



Just because something has been enumerated on a piece of parchment doesn't mean that is how it is in real life. Remember all the problems and issues tied directly to the last president?


----------



## Konfyouzd

vampiregenocide said:


> It seems to me that American politics seems a lot more popularity based, and less based on actual polices.



We learn politics in elementary school for student government and it NEVER changes from there...



> Pizza EVERY day!



Then the next year...



> He couldn't even give you pizza every day last year, how is he going to be a better president now?



Meanwhile he's just a figure head...


----------



## flint757

Congress has more policy power and on paper the president hardly has any beyond veto and policy setting.

However, in the past 50 years-ish, the presidential position has been given (by force originally, now it seems willingly) the ability to make wartime decisions. When we are at 'war' the president holds a lot more power. So as I see it, it isn't in a presidents best interest to end war. 

Think of the healthcare bill; he did not write it and sign it then that is that. Congress had to create the bill, vote on it and then and only then was he given the opportunity to sign it. This is how all bills are handled so giving it his name as a nickname doesn't even make sense.

His ability to appoint, veto and set the agenda can wield a lot of power, but Congress has the ability to ignore his agenda and override his veto's. So the only semi-absolute power is the power of appointment (something Congress has as well). I think anyone he appoints also has to be approved by congress so even that isn't all that absolute.

People want things to happen so fast and on such a grand scale that nothing is going to change until peoples perspective changes. Can't climb a flight of stairs by skipping all the steps in the middle. It all starts at the local level.


----------



## Watty

Let's hope Ryan gets called out on some key points tonight instead of Joe being complacent and respectful like Obama was...


----------



## flint757

Agreed, but all he has to do is what Romney did. "I didn't say that", "I'm not doing that". "Don't look over here, what about the death panels". While Romney was more direct and aggressive attitude wise, nothing of substance was said and Obama had nothing new to add because we already know his plan if you just read it online.

Despite Ryan being the bigger liar I think he'll be more respectful. Romney was a humongous ass the entire night! I felt really bad for the moderator.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Obama has acknowledged he had a bad night and was too 'polite', a mistake he can't afford to make next time as the polls have turned in Romney's favour. Obama needs to really get some teeth.


----------



## highlordmugfug

vampiregenocide said:


> *Obama has acknowledged he had a bad night and was too 'polite',* a mistake he can't afford to make next time as the polls have turned in Romney's favour. Obama needs to really get some teeth.


I read that, and the fact that he realizes that now makes me look forward to the next debate.


----------



## flint757

Those polls mean absolutely nothing IMO.


----------



## Watty

flint757 said:


> Those polls mean absolutely nothing IMO.



Not just your opinion man...watch one of the latest Daily show's episodes; they do a fantastic bit with polls.

How do you best convince sheep to follow where you lead? Why, with concocted data, of course! (I love how the right is crying over the unemployment number being too good right before the election, and consequently sees no issue with pushing unreliable information right down their constituents' throats).


----------



## Jakke

Guis.. Google "completely wrong".


----------



## Necris

Good god, Biden needs to shut the fuck up when Ryan is talking, getting the facts out there is important but not at the expense of looking like a total cunt.


----------



## Semichastny

Necris said:


> Good god, Biden needs to shut the fuck up when Ryan is talking, getting the facts out there is important but not at the expense of looking like a total cunt.



I can't believe I am wasting my life watching this debate.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Yeah, Chris said it... Biden needs to chill the fuck out.


----------



## Semichastny

Ryan dodged an incredible amount of questions and lied his ass off. Biden was a crotchety old man who interrupted to much. Great...


----------



## Treeunit212

I disagree. Biden only interrupted when Ryan was lying or repeating lies Biden had already addressed.

ALTHOUGH I didn't like when Biden was attacking the moderator for her questions or follow ups.

Biden's smiling and laughing could go either way. He simply reacted to every lie Ryan said. It's now his fault Ryan was lying right out of the gate. 

I'm gonna go ahead and say that, with A LOT more certainty, Biden and Obama won this one.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Treeunit... Using logic again...


----------



## Treeunit212

Konfyouzd said:


> Treeunit... Using logic again...


----------



## Necris

I thoroughly enjoyed watching Paul Ryan be asked for specifics on the "Romney/Ryan 5 point plan to cut taxes for everyone without cutting anything to fund it" and fail to deliver only after trying and failing to dodge the question entirely. The real icing on the cake for me was hearing him concede that they had no plan (although certainly not in such direct manner) and wanted to work with Congress to find a plan that works, something that would have to be done after the election and certainly wouldn't be achieved in a short amount of time.


----------



## Semichastny

Treeunit212 said:


> I disagree. Biden only interrupted when Ryan was lying or repeating lies Biden had already addressed.



Which is more or less why he interrupted so much


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Yeah, I noticed that Biden only interrupted when he felt that Ryan was lying... that just happened to be at least half of the debate. T'was entertaining, though.


----------



## Treeunit212

Semichastny said:


> Which is more or less why he interrupted so much


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

I understand Biden's disrespectful behavior and what not

but wow Paul Ryan is a douche


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Looks like Bieden was having a good time up there.


----------



## lurgar

After the first debate, my Facebook feed was a nonstop conservative photo feed and anti-Obama rhetoric. 

After this debate, it's been mostly silent except for some people mad that Biden was "rude." And one guy who is basing his entire vote on the abortion issue.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

lurgar said:


> After the first debate, my Facebook feed was a nonstop conservative photo feed and anti-Obama rhetoric.
> 
> After this debate, it's been mostly silent except for some people mad that Biden was "rude." And one guy who is basing his entire vote on the abortion issue.



Same, except for the abortion rant, it was a picture of Bieden with some... not really funny caption. 

EDIT: Since I believe someone posted the Obama/Romney hair swap...


----------



## SpaceDock

I swear these polls and twitter feeds are filled with repubtards faking to be independent undecided voters. I can't believe people support the Romney Ryan ticket.


----------



## Necris

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> EDIT: Since I believe someone posted the Obama/Romney hair swap...



Holy shit Joe Biden is Reagan.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I was thinking the same thing. It's a sign! 

And Ryan looks like a fucking nutjob psycho chemo patient.


----------



## Murdstone

I liked how one of the final questions was what they would say to the soldier who commented that all advertising between candidates is anymore is low blows and attacks and how this type of competition isn't beneficial to politics. When asked to respond, Ryan proceded to list about a dozen things that Obama did wrong or lied about.

Stay classy.


----------



## lurgar

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


>



It's Reagan vs. Anthony Hopkins.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Ryan looks insanely creepy with Biden's hair. His good looks are in his hair alone, apparently.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Adam Of Angels said:


> Ryan looks insanely creepy with Biden's hair. His good looks are in his hair alone, apparently.



Even with the hair, Ryan looks a bit freaky, IMO.


----------



## Sunyata

The eternal muppet frown...not a good look.
Also, that widows peak makes me uncomfortable too. It's like those elementary school kids who all gel their hair up like little fools.


----------



## flint757

Murdstone said:


> I liked how one of the final questions was what they would say to the soldier who commented that all advertising between candidates is anymore is low blows and attacks and how this type of competition isn't beneficial to politics. When asked to respond, Ryan proceded to list about a dozen things that Obama did wrong or lied about.
> 
> Stay classy.



My thought exactly. 

Both kind of led into politics despite the question basically being a one sentence answer, but Biden gave an overall more sincere, semi-good answer and Ryan kind of fell off the deep end. Half way through that question I thought Ryan may have forgotten what the question actually was.


----------



## YngwieJ

flint757 said:


> My thought exactly.
> 
> Both kind of led into politics despite the question basically being a one sentence answer, but Biden gave an overall more sincere, semi-good answer and Ryan kind of fell off the deep end. Half way through that question I thought Ryan may have forgotten what the question actually was.



I was really scratching my head at both of their answers. I expected Biden to go into the SCOTUS decisions on _Citizen's United v. FEC_ and _Freespechnow.org v. FEC_ and trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn these cases and go back to the funding rules for PACs under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. And I expected Ryan to be Ryan and either simply dodge the issue or show support for the court's decision.

But instead, Biden spent maybe five seconds acknowledging that there's a problem with Super PAC funding, and Ryan, ironically, used the same mudslinging tone that the ads use. I'm really not sure what his goal was here, and I don't think either of them really understood the question.


----------



## flint757

The question or rather the expected answer was IMO to say, "Yes, I feel ashamed, but when one side is attacking you the only thing that you can do is attack back or defend your position. The truth is people seem to respond better to more aggressive ads and if our opponent is the only one attacking, while it makes us look more civilized, ultimately doesn't help win any votes for us. It is a sad fact of politics."

I mean the question wasn't exactly a showstopper, Ryan just took the opportunity to mud sling as justification for mudslinging. The biggest problem with a Romney/Ryan ticket is how, while I know what they think they want to do, they have not shown us how nor can we be sure if their numbers will even be accurate (math not adding up IMO). The rest is "Well, I'm going to take this stance unless it doesn't work out, then never mind."


----------



## Randyrhoads123

Ryan really got grilled in this debate. I think that Biden did an excellent job of dismantling all the bullshit that got thrown around, and that he had specific answers and plans. He knew the facts and pushed them hard which, to me, is a very good thing. I also thought that the moderator did a good job of keeping the candidates on track, and seeking answers more aggressively. I can't wait to see how Obama changes his game for the next presidential debates after Biden's performance tonight. If it's anything like Biden's, then Romney is gonna have a hell of a time.


----------



## flint757

I preferred the format better this time around, they don't need to be on a large stage IMO. The intimate table setup is better acoustically and it seems to yield better results from the debaters. I thought the moderator was doing a fair job as well.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I've seen quite a few people praising Romney for being aggressive against Obama during the first debate. Now that Biden was the "aggressor", those same people were calling him rude and saying he was a hard-ass...


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Martha was fucking awesome.

Joe Biden was like a fucking steamroller of aggression.

Ryan was like a college class president dodging the questions of why you should trust anything that he says at all, repeating himself over and over and spewing bile at every turn.


----------



## Konfyouzd

SpaceDock said:


> I swear these polls and twitter feeds are filled with repubtards faking to be independent undecided voters. I can't believe people support the Romney Ryan ticket.



It's not that. They simply don't want Obama and think that change means immediate gratification.


----------



## Konfyouzd

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I've seen quite a few people praising Romney for being aggressive against Obama during the first debate. Now that Biden was the "aggressor", those same people were calling him rude and saying he was a hard-ass...



Ya don't say...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Konfyouzd said:


> Ya don't say...



Just pointing out double standards. 

Also find it funny how my relatives are claiming Biden's laughing was interrupting Ryan while he was getting this "facts" accross.


----------



## Konfyouzd

People are gonna like who they like regardless of what the debates and fact checkers uncover.

We all watch TRENCHLORD post whatever will make the conservative candidate look good and the liberal one look bad. That's not a phenomenon limited to SSO or even the internet. That's how a lot of ppl really think. Same works in reverse. 

My dad wouldn't vote conservative if they were literally the only choice.

I got a Republican--excuse me--"Libertarian" friend that told me if I really wanna be free I should vote for the Tea Party. 

I think I'm free enough.  

I know what they say ab assuming but typically the guy/gal who presents himself/herself most intelligently w/o being arrogant strikes me as the better leader regardless of what end of the spectrum they prefer. 

That said one's opinion on *certain* topics can still cost them my vote should I choose to do so.


----------



## Randy

I had a dream last night that Paul Ryan was my substitute teacher and the subtext was that everyone in the class thought the guy was joke and were trying to contain laughter, etc. I felt \sorry for the guy and then at the end of class, he gave away unripened plantains to all the students. I didn't really have any use for plantains but I was going to take them anyway (I was raised that not accepting a gift is rude) until he mentioned that if anyone wasn't planning on eating them, he'd appreciate it if we gave them back because he and his family are poor and could use them. Then I felt really bad for him and after class, I went by his place to cheer him up and he asked me if there was a batting cage somewhere nearby and if I could take him to it. 

This post is almost entirely off topic.  My guess is that the dream was an offshoot of the fact I kinda felt sorry for the guy during the debate. I totally agree the guy's a bullshit peddler but the way he was tripping over himself in the beginning, the way most/all his swings missed their mark and his repeated attempts to be courteous... it was a bit painful to watch.


----------



## Konfyouzd

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I was thinking the same thing. It's a sign!
> 
> And Ryan looks like a fucking nutjob psycho chemo patient.



Also kinda looks like John Stewart.


----------



## lurgar

Today, I see that lame CNN poll is being used to call this debate a draw. Not entirely surprised to be honest. The usual conservative comment postings are either calling Biden a meanie, using the Bible to condemn Biden, or saying that Ryan won because he was composed and Biden was a meanie. 

I don't want to gloat on Facebook about this, but it is really tempting. If I gave in, I have a feeling (being in a very conservative part of Texas) I might be threatened with physical violence for my viewpoints. Again.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Ridiculous dream, Randy.. but I also felt bad for him last night - he was particularly respectful of, if not slightly intimidated by Biden, and Biden was just a condescending old man.


----------



## synrgy

I was much happier with Raddatz as the moderator. She did a pretty fantastic job.

This was my favorite moment:

RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You have refused -- and, again -- to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?

RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the...

RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics?

I only wish *every* debate moderator was that tough, on *every* question. What I've been waiting for, for years now, is the Jeff-Bridges-in-Newsroom-style "You're not answering the question, Sir..". Every time they start to dodge, call those fuckers out! We'll never get better politicians if we don't demand that the entirety of our press stop allowing our politicians to bullshit all the time.

Sure, I know: 'If the networks don't agree to softball, the politicians won't show up on the networks.' AWESOME! That's a WIN! "You want softball? Go play softball, Senator. PS - Good luck on your reelection campaign, Tough Guy."


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Ridiculous dream, Randy.. but I also felt bad for him last night - he was particularly respectful of, if not slightly intimidated by Biden, and Biden was just a condescending old man.





synrgy said:


> I was much happier with Raddatz as the moderator. She did a pretty fantastic job.
> 
> I only wish *every* debate moderator was that tough, on *every* question. What I've been waiting for, for years now, is the Jeff-Bridges-in-Newsroom-style "You're not answering the question, Sir..". Every time they start to dodge, call those fuckers out! We'll never get better politicians if we don't demand that the entirety of our press stop allowing our politicians to bullshit all the time.
> 
> Sure, I know: 'If the networks don't agree to softball, the politicians won't show up on the networks.' AWESOME! That's a WIN! "You want softball? Go play softball, Senator. PS - Good luck on your reelection campaign, Tough Guy."



I agree on the two of these together. 

No double standard, here. It was wrong for Romney to walk all over President Obama and the moderator in the first Presidential debate, and it was certainly disrespectful for Vice President Biden to do a lot of the same. Given, I wouldn't excuse it altogether, but I'd put an asterisk next to what Biden did because there were some really 'in your face' lies and cheapshots in there that he _did_ hold his tongue for. Likewise, the moderator did a much better job wrestling them back on topic and if somebody (either direction) said something that warranted a retort, she allowed it.

Not letting Vice President Biden off the hook, on principal, he should've been more courteous but considering the specifics, I didn't think it was as off-putting as Romney's performance.


----------



## Semichastny

This is just a very sad presidential election.


----------



## Treeunit212

Semichastny said:


> This is just a very sad presidential election.



I'd say the same, but I'm too young to be able to have paid this close attention to any of the previous.

I'm making up for it this time around.

Some things to consider, courtesy of Factcheck.org, my favorite source of fact checks. Instead of calling everything a lie, they rank order the severity between the candidates; something more people should be doing rather than just calling all politicians blatant liars.

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations


----------



## Stuck_in_a_dream

Semichastny said:


> This is just a very sad presidential election.



IMHO, politics (in a democracy or even a pseudo-democracy) is ugly no matter how you cut it. I didn't like Obama's '08 campaign for the extreme lack of details and I thought he sounded like a scam, mind you I am a liberal. So I think it always was and it's always gonna be the choice between the lesser of two evils. 

I enjoyed last night's debate as it showed in a much clearer way (than the 1st) where to draw the lines between the two camps. More facts = less blur = more clarity as to where everyone stands. 

I honestly believe that Romney is a moderate Republican but unfortunately at this day and age it's a fictional character. In order to get elected by the Repubs., he had to present himself in a way that is now alienating him from the moderate in-the-middle voters.

Being a new immigrant to this wonderful country, I was shocked by what the republicans get away with. But judging by the number of still 'undecided' voters a few weeks before the election, there should be no wonder. In any case, I can not put it more eloquently than Seth Macfarlane did in this...


----------



## Konfyouzd

Nine...

... Eleven... 

I love it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Treeunit212 said:


> FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations



So... Biden exaggerated and Ryan lied, I'm so surprised


----------



## Scar Symmetry

synrgy said:


> I was much happier with Raddatz as the moderator. She did a pretty fantastic job.
> 
> This was my favorite moment:
> 
> RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You have refused -- and, again -- to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?
> 
> RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the...
> 
> RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics?
> 
> I only wish *every* debate moderator was that tough, on *every* question. What I've been waiting for, for years now, is the Jeff-Bridges-in-Newsroom-style "You're not answering the question, Sir..". Every time they start to dodge, call those fuckers out! We'll never get better politicians if we don't demand that the entirety of our press stop allowing our politicians to bullshit all the time.
> 
> Sure, I know: 'If the networks don't agree to softball, the politicians won't show up on the networks.' AWESOME! That's a WIN! "You want softball? Go play softball, Senator. PS - Good luck on your reelection campaign, Tough Guy."



This, with a slice of this on top, with a side of this.

Also, I'm surprised at the distaste for Biden's behaviour. Was it slightly immature for an old man? Yes. Was there pressure to be aggressive (note the importance of this election...) given the previous debate? Yes. Did he school Ryan? Yes. Did I feel bad for Ryan...? No.

Ryan shouldn't have been in that seat in the first place and Biden knew it, hence his behaviour.


----------



## Treeunit212

Before Trench even says anything.


----------



## Necris

I actually have Fox News on right now, I love how when talking about the past debate one of the guests on the show said "The Democrats always have to complain about everything" and then went on to whine about how terrible Martha Raditz was as a moderator, the cognitive dissonance is palpable.


----------



## Semichastny

Necris said:


> I actually have Fox News on right now, I love how when talking about the past debate one of the guests on the show said "The Democrats always have to complain about everything" and then went on to whine about how terrible Martha Raditz was as a moderator, the cognitive dissonance is palpable.



That is what faith-based thinking will do to a person.


----------



## Watty

Semichastny said:


> That is what faith-based thinking will do to a person.



Among other things.....can't forget ALL the other things.


----------



## Semichastny

Watty said:


> Among other things.....can't forget ALL the other things.




TEA PARTY AND THE RIGHT 
By Chris Mooney 

_"[This is a portion of the essay]... adapted from Chris Mooney&#8217;s forthcoming book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science&#8212;and Reality, due out in April from Wiley. [link at the bottom]"_

"I can still remember when I first realized how naïve I was in thinking&#8212;hoping&#8212;that laying out the &#8220;facts&#8221; would suffice to change politicized minds, and especially Republican ones. It was a typically wonkish, liberal revelation: One based on statistics and data. Only this time, the data were showing, rather awkwardly, that people ignore data and evidence&#8212;and often, knowledge and education only make the problem worse.

Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It&#8217;s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

Those facts are these: Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the &#8220;radiative&#8221; properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can&#8217;t explain what we&#8217;re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and their smokestacks.

Such is what is known to science--what is true (no matter what Rick Santorum might say). But the Pew data showed that humans aren&#8217;t as predictable as carbon dioxide molecules. Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming, as of 2008 Democrats and Republicans had cleaved over the facts stated above, like a divorcing couple. One side bought into them, one side didn&#8217;t&#8212;and if anything, knowledge and intelligence seemed to be worsening matters.

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one&#8217;s political party affiliation, one&#8217;s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one&#8217;s level of education. And here&#8217;s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn&#8217;t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science&#8212;among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the &#8220;smart idiots&#8221; effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It&#8217;s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists&#8212;and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

And most of all, for many liberals.

Let&#8217;s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about &#8220;death panels.&#8221; People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can&#8217;t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them&#8212;to argue, argue, argue about why we&#8217;re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation&#8217;s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.

No less than President Obama&#8217;s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it&#8217;s an &#8220;education problem.&#8221;

But the facts, the scientific data, say otherwise.

Indeed, the rapidly growing social scientific literature on the resistance to global warming (see for examples here and here) says so pretty unequivocally. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well&#8212;and are confident they don&#8217;t need any more information on the issue.

Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. In a recent survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselves&#8212;they considered themselves &#8220;very well-informed&#8221; about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they &#8220;do not need any more information&#8221; to make up their minds on the issue.

But it&#8217;s not just global warming where the &#8220;smart idiot&#8221; effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government &#8220;death panels.&#8221; According to research by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were &#8220;paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.&#8221; Well-informed Democrats were the opposite&#8212;quite certain there were no &#8220;death panels&#8221; in the bill.

The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.

The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year&#8212;and it failed badly.

Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that&#8217;s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, &#8220;Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria&#8212;true or false?&#8221 as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., &#8220;If Person A&#8217;s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B&#8217;s risk is double that of A, what is B&#8217;s risk?&#8221.

The result was stunning and alarming.* The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.*

Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science&#8212;e.g., a political conservative or &#8220;hierarchical-individualist&#8221;&#8212;then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group&#8212;&#8220;egalitarian-communitarians&#8221; or liberals&#8212;who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change&#8212;which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls."

http://www.alternet.org/story/15425...science_--_and_reality?page=entire&paging=off


----------



## YngwieJ

Thank you for that article Semichastny. I have seen research before that suggests that higher education actually tends to shift peoples views farther right or farther left. It's quite an interesting hypothesis. The author of this article seemed to think (as most of us probably do) that the higher your level of education and scientific understanding, the more likely you are to be liberal, especially on the issue of global warming. We would think that higher education would guide people's views on issues, but instead, we see that they use their knowledge and understanding to further their own political bias. 

So the more education a person has, the more likely he/she is to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative. This might also explain why undecided voters seem to be the most idiotic group of people. It baffles me that some people are still unsure whether they want to vote for Obama or Romney. Undecided voters seem to be the people who know nothing about the issues, don't know where the candidates stand on issues, don't even know where they themselves stand on the issues, and are simply trying to pick who looks the best, sounds the best, or who the celebrities are voting for. It's not very comforting to know that these people are the ones that will decide the outcome of the election.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Raise taxes + spend more, then raise taxes and spend more.
Great plan Dems.

Biden sounded alright on the radio, but when I finally got the chance to sit down and watch lol.
Seemed to not be taking this stuff very seriously, although I know it was his way of showing disagreement.

I didn't find Joe to be rude or mean though, just his normal meat-headed self.
Didn't appreciate being lied to reguarding the gross inconsistancies of the administrations conflicting statements pertaining to the Libyian terrorist attack.
Also it's a fact that Biden himself voted for the same wars that he seemed to be condeming Ryan for.

If we can just do away with much of the government excess money wasting, we can easily afford some more wars lol.


----------



## flint757

Har har....No

Ryan tried to play off like he knew what he was talking about regarding foreign affairs. He had proven, even to the moderator based on her retorts, that he couldn't give a clear answer nor a valid one. In regard to foreign affairs I agree with Biden that Afghanistan will not own up to their own responsibility without a deadline. Ryan's opinion was a proven invalid opinion back from several years ago when Obama promised to bring the troops home last go around. Same about nuclear weapons; doesn't matter if they have the material if they don't have a weapon. (and they currently don't even have the material either). 

Romney/Ryan want to start more wars and continue our current one all the while supposedly shrinking the budget. Never mind that Bush and Reagan both increased national debt and yet somehow the Republicans have the right plan 'this' time.

If you think fighting someone else's war is more important than a country taking care of its people you are fucked up in the head. 

If you wanted to avoid hypocrisy then you would be against ANY 'unnecessary' government spending which would be, I assume for you, a lot of social programs, but also war (one of the biggest portions of our debt and future debt).

I'd be willing to bet, regarding Libya, that any info that confirmed your opinion of Dem's, regarding the incident, you'd take it without question, but if evidence were exposed the other way (much like the info presented on the thread about the incident) you would immediately dismiss it as dishonest or a cover up. There is no bias in your opinion at all.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> Raise taxes + spend more, then raise taxes and spend more.
> Great plan Dems.
> 
> Biden sounded alright on the radio, but when I finally got the chance to sit down and watch lol.
> Seemed to not be taking this stuff very seriously, although I know it was his way of showing disagreement.
> 
> I didn't find Joe to be rude or mean though, just his normal meat-headed self.
> Didn't appreciate being lied to reguarding the gross inconsistancies of the administrations conflicting statements pertaining to the Libyian terrorist attack.
> Also it's a fact that Biden himself voted for the same wars that he seemed to be condeming Ryan for.
> 
> If we can just do away with much of the government excess money wasting, we can easily afford some more wars lol.



What part of "balanced approach" do you not understand? 

Oh. Right. The part that includes slightly raising taxes on the wealthiest people in America. 

And the reason we need to peddle down the debt and spending is so we can afford to *start more wars*? 

Bullshit mountain is wiiiiiiiide, and bullshit mountain is deep.

And bullshit mountain is tall. My oh my it is tall.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Treeunit212 said:


> What part of "balanced approach" do you not understand?


 
 If there's one thing that's for sure, it's that the Dems have no freaking idea at all what a balanced budget is.

They had two years controling the house, senate, and executive branch, and yet still couldn't even get a budget plan passed (not that they have ever wanted a budget plan, they clearly don't want any spending limits imposed on themselves).

Everyone knows that you can't spend your way out of debt.
If Obama had his way he would pass another huge stimulas so that he can hand out more cash to his buddies and campaign contributers.
Corruption at his/it's filthiest from MR. I'm gonna reform Washington .


----------



## flint757

Dude you have no idea what you are talking about, you are not Obama's lover in the night who gets whisper of his sweet secrets. 

Here is the stimulus spending without bias (only data).

The Stimulus Plan: A Detailed List of Spending - ProPublica

Make of it what you will, I'm sure you will come up with some sort of an opinion.


----------



## Treeunit212

TRENCHLORD said:


> If there's one thing that's for sure, it's that the Dems have no freaking idea at all what a balanced budget is.
> 
> They had two years controling the house, senate, and executive branch, and yet still couldn't even get a budget plan passed (not that they have ever wanted a budget plan, they clearly don't want any spending limits imposed on themselves).
> 
> Everyone knows that you can't spend your way out of debt.
> If Obama had his way he would pass another huge stimulas so that he can hand out more cash to his buddies and campaign contributers.
> Corruption at his/it's filthiest from MR. I'm gonna reform Washington .



I'm sorry. Did you just tell me Democrats don't know the first thing about a balanced approach?







May I remind you of the *surplus* that Democratic president Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush on a silver platter, one which was reached after the first Bush ran up some debt himself?

Oh and um, funny story, but George H.W. Bush lost re-election because he worked with Democrats to slightly raise taxes to pay off the debt incurred by the Reagan Administration. That's why his Republicans turned on him, because how dare he try to apply that balanced approach, right?

Now, what did Bush Junior do with that 100 billion surplus? _He turned it into a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit by 2009._ And you want to pretend Republicans gave a flying fuck about the Deficit before Barack Obama was in office?

Bullshit Mountain just became Mount Everest. Bravo.

When House Republicans effectively held the debt ceiling for political hostage, it caused the Dow to plummet 634 points in one day, and is cited as the main reason S&P decided to downgrade the entire country&#8217;s credit rating. Not because of the level of debt, but because our current political culture is so volatile and irrational as to allow such a phenomenon to occur in the first place.

So forgive me if I laugh at your notion that Republicans give a flying fuck about this country anymore when they are willing to watch it crumble to the ground before raising taxes.


----------



## Necris

TRENCHLORD said:


> If there's one thing that's for sure, it's that the Dems have no freaking idea at all what a balanced budget is.
> 
> They had two years controling the house, senate, and executive branch, and yet still couldn't even get a budget plan passed (not that they have ever wanted a budget plan, they clearly don't want any spending limits imposed on themselves).



A majority for two years, under this president? Really? It's a nice talking point that works wonders on the uninformed but if you want to have the real number try 133 days. That's how long the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Why so much finger pointing? Dems this... Repubs that... This is the same petty BS I hate ab the commercials.

We've established long ago that it shouldn't be a team sport. Why do we discuss it as such? We want the leaders to stick to the issues and we ourselves can't avoid the same mudslinging they use in a half-assed attempt to sway us one way or another. 

Don't argue w fools. Observers know not who is who.


----------



## Necris

double post


----------



## Scar Symmetry

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm gonna reform Washington .



A tall black man would like to have a quiet word with you.


----------



## Semichastny

TRENCHLORD said:


> Lower taxes + spend more, then lower taxes and spend more.
> Great plan Repubs.


Fix'd

Edit: Here is a nice picture,


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Necris said:


> A majority for two years, under this president? Really? It's a nice talking point that works wonders on the uninformed but if you want to have the real number try 133 days. That's how long the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate.


 
Obama's budget proposals from the last few years have earned him ZERO (0) votes in the Senate, so he's a long long way from being filibustered out of passing the budget.
Nice try, the excuse pile just keeps stacking up higher and higher .


----------



## Necris

Actually I was just telling you your numbers were wrong. I have no interest in making an excuse for the fact that they keep refusing to vote in favor of a budget, it's inexcusable.


----------



## YngwieJ

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama's budget proposals from the last few years have earned him ZERO (0) votes in the Senate, so he's a long long way from being filibustered out of passing the budget.
> Nice try, the excuse pile just keeps stacking up higher and higher .



False. Obama's budget isn't what was rejected. The Senate's version of the Obama budget was rejected. Most presidential budgets are around 2000 pages long. Obama's was 1900 pages. The version that the Senate decided to put out and vote on... 56 pages. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sconres41pcs/pdf/BILLS-112sconres41pcs.pdf

So why was it 56 pages? Well the Senate Republicans cut out all the specifics so that they could just leave a small shell remaining of it with which to craft their own budget as they go throughout the year. Of course, they had no intention of actually doing this. They knew it would never pass, because no Democrat would vote for that. The Republicans didn't even want to do that, so they all voted no as well. It was purely a gimmick to bring up later and say, "Look! Obama can't even get a Democrat to vote for his budget!"

So much for bipartisanship. It looks like the only thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on right now is... how idiotic Republican Senators are.


----------



## YngwieJ

Just heard that Jill Stein and her running mate were arrested trying to get into the debate today.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein arrested outside debate | The Raw Story

It would be interesting to see a lot more of the third party candidates coordinate something like this together to get more media exposure.


----------



## flint757

It doesn't help much people flock behind the "well they should have garnered more popularity" and for whatever reason have an opinion on all 3rd parties without knowing ANYTHING about them. Someone in the comment section mentioned the green parties lack of political involvement which is actually not true, they are pretty active in local areas, even if not congressional. It is annoying when people have a problem with the political system, but aren't willing to do anything about it, thinking that all politicians will end up corrupt once they are there. They may be right, but being okay with the familiar corrupt to not try the only 'potentially' corrupt candidates seems like a poor argument.

I'm half considering becoming a politician at this point, maybe an Athiest electrical engineer can affect some change.


----------



## Watty

flint757 said:


> I'm half considering becoming a politician at this point, maybe an Athiest electrical engineer can affect some change.



I think just the first half would be good enough at this point...though, as a fellow engineer, I know the second part couldn't hurt.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

flint757 said:


> maybe an electrical Athiest can affect some change.



Fixed. This sounds metal 

I'm clearly tired.

So what did we think about the debate, folks?


----------



## The Somberlain

Where can I get these "binders full of women?"

Obama was nice and aggressive, but did not wow me a stellar candidate, but Romney delivered with his many, many asinine remarks.


----------



## YngwieJ

Nothing in the debate really surprised me. Both bent the truth to a fair extent. I wasn't really happy with Romney's answer on the assault weapons ban, and I believe he even said that the US has a ban on assault weapons. But as far as I know, that ban expired back in 2004 and was never renewed (correct me if I'm wrong).

Obama completely dodged the question on Libya security and talked about what the administration did after the attack and I was really surprised that Romney didn't address the security issues before the attack. Instead they both ended up arguing over whether Obama called it a terrorist attack or not, and that took far too long. Romney had a huge chance in the Libya discussion and he missed out. As most pundits are saying, this was really the turning point in the debate and I'd agree.

The debates are really nothing more than a bunch of empty rhetoric and neither candidate will pursue or keep all of the promises that they claim in these debates, so it's really upsetting that many undecided voters make up their minds based on what they hear and see in the debates. I think the League of Women Voters summed it up pretty well in 1988:


> "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."


 League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud" | League of Women Voters


----------



## Jakke




----------



## Watty

You guys hear about how they're ripping the girl who asked about the equal pay? I hadn't bothered to look to see if it was true, but it serves a prime example of how stupid people are with their "public domain" on twitter....


----------



## flint757

Didn't watch the debate this go around so no idea what you are talking about, but not surprised if it were in fact true.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim




----------



## Watty

flint757 said:


> Didn't watch the debate this go around so no idea what you are talking about, but not surprised if it were in fact true.



Turns out the gal had posted things like:

1) Getting wet when someone said "happy hour"
2) Loving the equivalent of Four Loko #blackout
3) Fuck Tha Police

Among other things...


----------



## highlordmugfug

Jakke said:


>



Keith Ablow goes on my list of shitheads.


----------



## lurgar

Watty said:


> Turns out the gal had posted things like:
> 
> 1) Getting wet when someone said "happy hour"
> 2) Loving the equivalent of Four Loko #blackout
> 3) Fuck Tha Police
> 
> Among other things...



No fun allowed if you want to be serious ever. I guess if you can't answer the question decently enough then you start to look elsewhere to blame or to divert attention.


----------



## synrgy




----------



## flint757

If that's true then why does he keep claiming that Obama failed. If he thinks Obama hasn't created jobs then he's met his expectations right.


----------



## Watty

lurgar said:


> No fun allowed if you want to be serious ever. I guess if you can't answer the question decently enough then you start to look elsewhere to blame or to divert attention.



I agree with the second part of your statement; attacking her for asking a question that involves more than 50% of the US population trivializes the issue to the point of incredulity.

However, I would take issue with your preface to that statement. In what way is killing your kidneys and blacking out fun? I've never been drunk or even buzzed, so maybe there's some magical thing that happens when you pass out, but inviting rape, theft and general mischief doesn't sound like a good time to me...


----------



## flint757

In terms of mistreating my body drinking is my least favorite. 

Don't enjoy hangovers and I typically go overboard (in the moment it is fun)...as such I just don't drink very often. 

I think his point was she can be serious at any point in time and live a fun life outside of the serious conversation. Fun is definitely not a universal concept.


----------



## Watty

flint757 said:


> I think his point was she can be serious at any point in time and live a fun life outside of the serious conversation. Fun is definitely not a universal concept.



Heard, and it's what I figured he meant, but it didn't necessarily come across as such.


----------



## lurgar

Watty said:


> However, I would take issue with your preface to that statement. In what way is killing your kidneys and blacking out fun? I've never been drunk or even buzzed, so maybe there's some magical thing that happens when you pass out, but inviting rape, theft and general mischief doesn't sound like a good time to me...



I don't really drink either honestly. I just don't like that this woman has made some questionable decisions with her partying and some conservative pundits are using that as a way of discrediting her. I hate that crap when it happens to any particular side of an issue and I don't see the need for it. It's not in the same league as this, but I do remember when Sarah Palin was announced as the VP pick for the GOP, there were some nasty rumors from the left about how she was covering for her daughter being pregnant and it was really childish and pissed me off. 

On the other hand, if this question were something along the lines of "I'm a single mother on welfare, what would you do to help me get on my feet?" and then it was discovered she had been tweeting about blacking out from drinking and other bad decisions, then yes, this would definitely discredit her. 

Hopefully I'm not rambling too much; I can clarify what I mean if something is confusing.


----------



## Watty

Nah man, I gotcha....I just hate being lumped in with the crowd my age that gets blackout drunk on a regular basis. Whenever it comes up in conversation (as I perceived it did...), I get a bit animated. Thanks for getting us back on topic regardless!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim




----------



## flint757

Can someone fill me in on the joke that I've been seeing about this binder. 

I assume it is debate related and I decided I don't care about the debates anymore as college is a tad more important (already made my decision as well) so I didn't see it...


----------



## lurgar

Really odd comment by Romney during the debate.


----------



## flint757

Not sure how his history translates for the whole country compared to an actual bill that got signed. 

Reminds me of his comment about illegal immigrants working under him 'accidentally'. Not sure if looking for exclusively women is a good idea either, the idea is just to treat people equally. Some people just don't get it, but he phrased that quite odd.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Yeah, imagine if he had said, "I had binders full of black people that we could choose from." I know he meant well, but I think he's too far out of touch to get it.


----------



## flint757

Kind of wish he did, that'd be hilarious.


----------



## tacotiklah

My buddy (guitarman700 on here) posted this on his facebook and I spend the next minute or so cackling:






Oh god, I'm gonna be banished to Mitt's personal binder.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^WOW 


Edit: I still crack up when I look at this. Mitt in that fucking hat. Unbelievable.


----------



## synrgy

Not for nothing, here's an interesting linguistic take on Romney's use of the phrase "take it bankrupt":

Mitt Romney takes &#8216;em bankrupt. The rest of us do a double-take. | Language is Awesome

Note: The article makes its bias very clear, more than once. It's presented as an op-ed; nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Konfyouzd

flint757 said:


> Not sure how his history translates for the whole country compared to an actual bill that got signed.
> 
> Reminds me of his comment about illegal immigrants working under him 'accidentally'. Not sure if looking for exclusively women is a good idea either, the idea is just to treat people equally. Some people just don't get it, but he phrased that quite odd.


 
Well Affirmative Action is apparently levelling the playing field too (we couldn't possibly do that by learning stuff--or by ppl getting over the fact that not looking like you =/= not as smart as you)... 

And yes... That was the worst possible phrasing ever. Who the hell catalogs women in binders just in case Mitt Romney needs to hire a bunch in a hurry to make a point?


----------



## Scar Symmetry

lurgar said:


> Really odd comment by Romney during the debate.




IMMENSELY out of touch. Fuck this guy. I really hope this guy isn't voted in.


----------



## lurgar

Scar Symmetry said:


> IMMENSELY out of touch. Fuck this guy. I really hope this guy isn't voted in.



But you see, the other guy is a socialist communist kenya muslim who's going to hand the USA over to the UN first chance he gets....after he is reelected. 


I really do hope he isn't elected and I will do what little I can (unless the GOP changes in the next 10-20 years, Texas will go blue due to the rising minority population). I'd be better off pissing into the wind.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

lurgar said:


> ....after he is reelected.


----------



## flint757

Yeah I love how first time around they said the same things they are saying now, but the new word is that his first term was just a smoke screen so he could really do it this time. Stupid is stupid. Politics is subjected to too much confirmation bias.


----------



## tacotiklah

flint757 said:


> Kind of wish he did, that'd be hilarious.



I saw somebody quip on the post that had that gif I posted here with this: "Well if the women are all able to fit in binders, perhaps you are slicing them too thin..."


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Big B is smashing Flip-Flop Willy in round 3. It's like watching a dad tell off his son for lying.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Just saw this posted on my FB newsfeed.


----------



## flint757

I think we can all agree that Romney is just a dumb ass who is only wealthy in life because he is cut throat and started with a lot to begin with. (some people underestimate that fact IMO)


----------



## Tang

"We have these things called aircraft carriers.."


----------



## Watty

Tang said:


> "We have these things called aircraft carriers.."



I loved it when Obama called him out on the whole early 1900's Navy thing. Bayonets and shit....lol


----------



## synrgy

Just want this to go on the record. Don't forget to check the author..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

Not only did he lie about what he said in this 2008 op-ed during tonight's debate, but it's also worth noting that in this same op-ed, he predicted that the auto industry would collapse if the bailout went through.

But I personally know several people who don't give a fuck that he's incontrovertibly full of shit; they're voting for Not-Obama no matter who it is.

In fairness: I voted for Not-Bush in '04.


----------



## tacotiklah

Again, I almost died laughing at this:





Obama finally did what I've been wanting him to do; tear that lying bastard Romney a new asshole. I respect Obama for wanting to at least try to be civil in earlier debates, but Romney has just been asking for someone to take him to the woodshed in a debate.


----------



## Varcolac

ghstofperdition said:


> Again, I almost died laughing at this:
> http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t194/lightningmetal/Funny%20Memes/horsesandbayonets.jpg[IMG]
> 
> Obama finally did what I've been wanting him to do; tear that lying bastard Romney a new asshole. I respect Obama for wanting to at least try to be civil in earlier debates, but Romney has just been asking for someone to take him to the woodshed in a debate.[/QUOTE]
> 
> If you search Twitter for #romneymilitarycomplaints it's pretty hilarious.
> 
> @cenkuygur
> Our armed forces had twice as many catapults in 56 AD as we do today. #romneymilitarycomplaints
> 
> @0_Canada
> "Why, Mister President, is your spending on cannonballs THOUSANDS OF TIMES LESS than under Thomas Jefferson?" #RomneyMilitaryComplaints
> 
> @DanielRLeonard
> How can we defeat thousands of Roman phalanx without more bronze shields and spears?! #RomneyMilitaryComplaints
> 
> @maxomai
> We haven't produced enough scuta and gladii to field the legions necessary to take Gaul #RomneyMilitaryComplaints
> 
> @cenkuygur
> The Vikings have three times the dragon ships we do! #romneymilitarycomplaints
> 
> And my personal favourite:
> 
> @_gllz_
> @HermelaLA @cenkuygur The Ethiopians have twice as many war elephants as us!! #romneymilitarycomplaints


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

"Mitt, the 1980's called. They want their foreign policy back"


----------



## Varcolac

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> "Mitt, the 1980's called. They want their foreign policy back"



"foreign policy from the '80s, social policy from the '50s, economic policy from the '20s." 

ZING.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Varcolac said:


> @0_Canada
> "Why, Mister President, is your spending on cannonballs THOUSANDS OF TIMES LESS than under Thomas Jefferson?" #RomneyMilitaryComplaints
> 
> 
> @_gllz_
> @HermelaLA @cenkuygur The Ethiopians have twice as many war elephants as us!! #romneymilitarycomplaints


----------



## Thyber

I saw a part of it, and all I heard was Romney repeating Obama?


----------



## Thyber

Thing I found funny was that on almost every statement that Romney agreed on with Obama, Mitt said "I'd do the same, but faster, earlier, higher, heavier and better"


----------



## flint757

Yes because the president has the magical ability to make bills go through each layer of congress faster and he totally has the power to make 'everyone' agree. 

For a man who has worked in government he doesn't know a lot about how it functions.


----------



## flint757

You'd think he'd have to take a Government 101 class at some point. 

President is only the last step in the process...


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

Al Jazeera to broadcast the 3rd party candidates debate globally, after Gill Stein's arrest while protesting lack of media coverage.

Green party candidate Jill Stein's arrest highlights presidential debate stitch-up | Amy Goodman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk



Just saw this today as there is no mention of the existence of US politics outside the two prominent parties in the UK media.

Off to watch round: III O vs R...


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples

flint757 said:


> You'd think he'd have to take a Government 101 class at some point.
> 
> President is only the last step in the process...



This is the reason that gary johnson and ron paul supports irritate the shit out of me when they say johnson or paul would fix everything and get everything just fantastic.

as if the president really runs the damn country.
and if congress would give two shits about what they have to say.

and if I hear one more upper-middle class teenage "lax bro" say their "policy is liberty" i'm gonna go off on someone.


----------



## synrgy

I got into a ridiculous back-and-forth with an old acquaintance on FB, today. I posted the same op-ed Mitt Romney wrote in 2008 that I posted a page ago in this thread, along with my own comment that the predictions he made in the article proved incorrect. It was like talking to a politician, all day long.

Opening paragraph of the article reads as follows:



> IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It wont go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.



So, this guy spent all day trying to convince me that Romney wasn't wrong because - separately from the above prediction - he goes on to say the industry needs to change. Related, this guy somehow misses that Romney _also_ says that if the bailout happens, the industry _won't_ change; further clarification of the idea behind the prediction quoted above.

So, I just kept hammering on the one thing: "Was Romney correct when he said that the industry would collapse if we bailed it out?" and he just absolutely refused to answer it. He'd ramble on and on about how the _unrelated_ ideas in the article somehow made Romney correct, while completely refusing to answer the simple question.

Anyway, I was close to cut-pasting the whole damn interaction here, but then I realized I'm supposed to be an adult, so I decided to summarize it, instead? 

I just don't get it. Romney chose to go with blatant hyperbole, and now that it's biting him in the ass, he and all his supporters seem to think they can rewrite history only a few years after the fact. I mean, sure, DUH: We couldn't just keep cranking out Suburbans and Hummers forever. That Captain-Obvious observation doesn't nullify the Fear Campaign prediction the entire article is predicated upon, does it? Am I being irrational?


----------



## YngwieJ

Don't forget to watch the third party debate tonight. They're speaking to candidates now and will be holding the debate at 9ET.

Third Party Presidential Debate - YouTube!


----------

