Just watched the Debate

[switch]

V-8 *cruiser* yah!

[switch]

Coca Cola, sometimes war.

[flatline]

Oct 4, 2012 10:40:03 GMT 2 switch said:

V-8 *cruiser* yah!

Never seen this before.
just lol.
great

[par73]

that rammstein track is a classic

[milkman]

"So if you're 60 or older you can stop listening now"

[switch]

I cannot believe the spin is that Romney won the debate. In my opinion, Obama kicked the shit out him. Obama was cool as a motherfucker, totally on message.... it was just body blow after body blow...


"Look, Romney was always going to have a good night on style points,” conceded Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, who still judged his boss to be the winner. “I’ve been telling you guys that for a very long time, but look, we won this debate tonight because we talked directly to the American people about plans. Romney couldn’t do it. He stayed on defense the entire time. He couldn’t lay out a tax plan that made any sense. You know he spent a bunch of time trying to defend his Medicare positions in states like Ohio and Florida; that’s gonna be a real problem for him.”


Read more: www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81999.html#ixzz28M3UTKkD




"In debates over Romney's tax plan, health care, and Medicare, Obama didn't prosecute his case nearly as powerfully as his opponent. At times the president seemed to think merely by appealing to voters' deductive reasoning he'd make his point. "Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate." That's a circuitous way to make a rather simple point. Obama did that again and again."

www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57525792/romneys-big-night/?tag=MidDeep;HeroImage

HOLY SHIT SON--- OBAMA MADE THE HUGE MISTAKE OF RELYING ON THE AMERICAN POPULATION'S ABILITY TO REASON DEDUCTIVELY.

[homer]

They just stood on their respective sides of issues and both spoke well.

The best thing Romney said in my opinion was "I'm not going to continue to fund something if it requires we borrow money from China."

Obama didn't really have a response, he clearly wants more government and to continue funding these programs we already have but we just don't have money for...even if you raise taxes on the top 2%.

How you can get behind Obama's spending plan for the economy when we are in this severe debt means you must not have ABILITY TO REASON DEDUCTIVELY.

[milkman]

So what was Romney's plan for raising revenue again? Lower taxes, increase military budget, keep Medicare for the currently elderly as it is ("if you're over 60 you can tune out now," *cruiser* the youth) while letting our infrastructure rot, slashing everything that accrues value in the future like educational institutions and programs, doing nothing about the 3 trillion+ dollars of student debt, and dumping schizos on the street? Yea that will totally work.

The thing that most annoys me about republicans/libertarians is how they "oppose the State" but do everything in their power to expand the repressive apparatus. They hate the "wellfare state" but are all for feeding the police state. You want to talk about costs? Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

Honestly I actually hope that Romney wins. The cooptive, faux Leftism of the center Right i.e. the democrats pulls the wool over our eyes. The naked, unvarnished oligarchy that Romney would set into motion, I hope, a real Leftist movement that will leave the hard Right nostalgic for the soft cuddly institutional "left" of today, believe me.

Also I am so very amused by your argument that anyone who does not have your political views cannot reason deductively, which is in itself is neither deductive nor reasonable. But keep "having faith," its what you're good at.

[switch]

The point as I'm sure you're aware despite the troll post (Homer) is that the Obama administration has been one of the most bipartisan administrations when it comes to economy in history and has in fact effectively (through countless bipartisan meetings and dialogues including with people like Paul Ryan) stopped the flow of fiscal blood that the Bush administration inflicted upon the american people DESPITE NOT RAISING REVENUE by allowing the parts of the Bush tax cuts to expire (while the GOP is still trying to make these permanent!)

Obama hit Romney like half a dozen times with the 2 trillion increase in defense spending from the Ryan plan and Romney dodged every time. Obama was like "my opponent will repeal dodd-frank, like an idiot and then replace it with the same bill" and Romney was like "uhm, uhm, yup" and Obama even managed to defang "Obamacare" by just relentlessly reminding everyone that the Affordable Care Act was a GOP plan all along...


Anyway, the joke is that this was the best chance Romney is going to get. The next debate (after Biden crushes weasel boy Paul Ryan on the 11th) will be, I imagine, Foreign Policy where Romney has literally nothing to go on. On the other hand, Romney's lack of a record might play well with the pundents who think Romney "won" this debate because he "looked better" or whatever

milkman said:

The naked, unvarnished oligarchy that Romney would set into motion, I hope, a real Leftist movement that will leave the hard Right nostalgic for the soft cuddly institutional "left" of today, believe me.

That's what people said would happen with Bush in 2000 and 2004. They were wrong. If anything Obama's administration has seen the most militant left-wing response to date in the form of Occupy movement.

[asmo]

I wouldn't be surprised if a members of Deer voted one of the worst Presidents in history back to a second term, yep no surprise there.

Also your argument about Obama sucking in his 4 years and blaming it on Bush is like Deer blaming it on Coop for losing in mwc, nope not Bush/Coop fault, you just suck.

[switch]

I'm a canadian.

[homer]

Oct 4, 2012 22:30:50 GMT 2 milkman said:

So what was Romney's plan for raising revenue again? Lower taxes, increase military budget, keep Medicare for the currently elderly as it is ("if you're over 60 you can tune out now," *cruiser* the youth) while letting our infrastructure rot, slashing everything that accrues value in the future like educational institutions and programs, doing nothing about the 3 trillion+ dollars of student debt, and dumping schizos on the street? Yea that will totally work.

The thing that most annoys me about republicans/libertarians is how they "oppose the State" but do everything in their power to expand the repressive apparatus. They hate the "wellfare state" but are all for feeding the police state. You want to talk about costs? Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

Honestly I actually hope that Romney wins. The cooptive, faux Leftism of the center Right i.e. the democrats pulls the wool over our eyes. The naked, unvarnished oligarchy that Romney would set into motion, I hope, a real Leftist movement that will leave the hard Right nostalgic for the soft cuddly institutional "left" of today, believe me.

Also I am so very amused by your argument that anyone who does not have your political views cannot reason deductively, which is in itself is neither deductive nor reasonable. But keep "having faith," its what you're good at.

I didn't say anyone who doesn't agree with me can't reason deductively I was just quoting switch as a joke (huge overreaction), but without making a bunch of predictions about what is going to happen if Romney wins... like you have a crystal ball, and you can see thousands of schizo's are running in the streets going crazy while the military institution runs the state and millions of people are in Prison! (Btw I'm all for legalization of certain drugs and think a lot of non-violent prisoners are costing us a lot more money and doing pointless time right now, I agree our prison system has become an industry.)

Let me just say....
It's really hard for the economy to recover when the nation is trillions in debt (a lot more than the student debt @ 3 trillion. I'm in student debt right now, but I pay it every month, cause I knowingly took out a loan, expecting to have to pay it back, why should people in debt not have to pay it back? )

You can't spend more than you take in, bottom line, especially when your already in a national debt snowballing out of control.

So while you argue against Romney having any plan, you've not addressed how the Democratic party is going to deal with the debt.

[switch]

The democratic platform for debt reduction involves slight changes to the military-industrial complex ("military reform"; "ending" the war in Iraq, but really preparing for war with Syria and Iran) and new revenue from allowing the bush tax cuts for earners over 250,000 dollars to expire. Tax code reforms also took place, and the Dems and Repubs made some changes to the health and education systems in 2011 to reduce their costs.

But the problem is really that the US is doomed because the enormous weight of the military-industrial complex is slowly (now more quickly) crushing the american economy. The same thing happened to Britain in the years before the First World War.

You can read about Obama's platform here:

www.barackobama.com/issues/

obama said:

The President has put forward a specific, balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases that reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, including $1 trillion in spending cuts he signed into law last summer as part of a deal with Congressional Republicans. His plan includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases, while bringing annual domestic spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level in 50 years.

But what I find stunning, Homer, if that you seem to maintain that Obama and Romney are actually antagonists with different goals, when in fact they have very similar goals: reduce government spending, strengthen the military, preserve American power, protect the power of the wealthy and elite. Their budgets may differ slightly and there are of course some minor ideological difference between the center right and the center far right, but on the whole the two have almost identical platforms. Romney's is just a little more aggressive. Romney would probably build the super-dreadnought carriers, nuclear powered attack submarines, future soldiers, and space-fighters and anti-ICBM weapon systems and skunkwork project aircraft a little faster. That's about it really.

[homer]

Oct 4, 2012 22:32:29 GMT 2 switch said:

The point as I'm sure you're aware despite the troll post (Homer) is that the Obama administration has been one of the most bipartisan administrations when it comes to economy in history and has in fact effectively (through countless bipartisan meetings and dialogues including with people like Paul Ryan) stopped the flow of fiscal blood that the Bush administration inflicted upon the american people DESPITE NOT RAISING REVENUE by allowing the parts of the Bush tax cuts to expire (while the GOP is still trying to make these permanent!)

Obama hit Romney like half a dozen times with the 2 trillion increase in defense spending from the Ryan plan and Romney dodged every time. Obama was like "my opponent will repeal dodd-frank, like an idiot and then replace it with the same bill" and Romney was like "uhm, uhm, yup" and Obama even managed to defang "Obamacare" by just relentlessly reminding everyone that the Affordable Care Act was a GOP plan all along...


Anyway, the joke is that this was the best chance Romney is going to get. The next debate (after Biden crushes weasel boy Paul Ryan on the 11th) will be, I imagine, Foreign Policy where Romney has literally nothing to go on. On the other hand, Romney's lack of a record might play well with the pundents who think Romney "won" this debate because he "looked better" or whatever

milkman said:

The naked, unvarnished oligarchy that Romney would set into motion, I hope, a real Leftist movement that will leave the hard Right nostalgic for the soft cuddly institutional "left" of today, believe me.

That's what people said would happen with Bush in 2000 and 2004. They were wrong. If anything Obama's administration has seen the most militant left-wing response to date in the form of Occupy movement.

They should be one of the most bi-partisan administrations when it comes to debt, because it's a crisis level number that's being ignored by almost everyone. I can't give them Kudos for doing what absolutely must be done (trying to get everyone to cooperate) for something that will either lead to this nations preservation or total ruin. I'm not interested in who won the debate since it's all conjecture and opinion anyways.

I just don't agree with the Democratic strategy at all for dealing with the debt, it seems everyone just says "we need to tax the richest more" That may be some small solution, but as far as the debt number is concerned that's a drop in the bucket, the U.S. Government is spending out of control, you can blame it on the defense budget, but it's across the board, I understand most of these programs are designed to help people (while many who don't need help also take advantage of them), but it doesn't make sense to spend money helping people if the money does not exist to begin with. People act indignant as if the republican party does not want to help the poor, the fact of the matter is now, that there is no money. All money is borrowed, no money for welfare, social security, medicare, or the defense budget, every cent of tax dollars is long since spoken for.

So I'm not saying Bush had nothing to do with this and it was all Obama's fault, and I'm not saying we need to bolster the defense budget and make huge cuts everywhere else, but I feel most democrats and the administration in power is ignoring a simple rule of math, while hoping for some miracle, and that is you can not spend more money than you take in while addressing the issue. In fact you need to spend significantly less money than you take in.

People were taking care of themselves long before there were or ever was government programs, and they will have to do so again for awhile or the country will just continue down the never ending abyss of unpayable interest on a multi trillion dollar debt.

[switch]

I suggest you read Woodward's latest book, The Price of Politics and then read your post above again.