Oct 3rd Presidential Debate Thread

[Back]

Debate coming up tonight! Talk about it here if you want.

Watch the debates on XBOX and get some free armor for Halo.


Microsoft will actually dole out (http://rewards.xbox.com/get-yours/landing/election-2012) a free Halo 4 Warrior Avatar Armor outfit to anyone who watches three of the four debates on their Xbox.

http://rewards.xbox.com/get-yours/landing/election-2012

[Kuyuk]

CNN.com says they're covering it live at 7pm est, but... it's 706 and nothing is showing.

Lame.

[4a6c1]

All my news channels have it on late....8pm. CST

[Kuyuk]

I dont have a TV...

It's finally on CNN, it's just the pregame talking.. boring, bring on the goons!

[Atlanteax]

Romney using "Middle Class being CRUSHED" every chance he can get ... Obama keeps looking down thinking "goddammit Biden"

[Androidpk]

Romney using "Middle Class being CRUSHED" every chance he can get ... Obama keeps looking down thinking "goddammit Biden"

Yup! He even specifically said "buried".

[Atlanteax]

Romney clearly seems prepared for tonight.

[4a6c1]

True. He only looks half as uncomfortable as he usually looks.

[Showal]

They're soooooooooooo handsome.

[Rucca]

"I like Big Bird. I even like you, Jim."

[4a6c1]

Yeah I loled.

[Beguiler]

OMG, humor! I like Big Bird too...

[Androidpk]

If he had said Oscar instead I would have voted for him.

[Kuyuk]

I always wonder what they're looking down and writing/doing.

I think they're doodling...

[Kuyuk]

Seems women like obama better than Romney, and men dislike obama more; based on the 39 person thing on cnn...

[~Rocktar~]

"An unelected board to decide what kind of services you can have" aka Death Panals


Obama is floping like a fish out of water on the dock dealing with Romney's direct and focused attack.

[Reliel]

"Yup. This is politics."

-Me, shortly after tuning in.

[Atlanteax]

Wow, James Carville said that Obama did not seem to want to be at the debate...

[4a6c1]

I always wonder what they're looking down and writing/doing.

I think they're doodling...

They're writing their responses to arguments. It's a lawyer thing I think because I've seen lawyers do it.

Romney impressed me. Best debate I've seen from him. He must have some excellent coaches. Still....big bird will be a meme within the hour.

[Kuyuk]

He didnt make very good points. IMO. He spoke coherently about the topics, but romney essentially gave people bullet points, whereas Obama just spoke about the topic.

[4a6c1]

I think if Obama practiced he practiced technique, not talking points. He took a measured risk in assuming Romney would have bad technique, go on the defensive and lose his points in nervousness. I don't think he was counting on flat out practiced lies. Props to Romney. He's come a long way.

[~Rocktar~]

I think if Obama practiced he practiced technique, not talking points. He took a measured risk in assuming Romney would have bad technique, go on the defensive and lose his points in nervousness. I don't think he was counting on flat out practiced lies. Props to Romney. He's come a long way.

Obama has been counting on flat out practiced lies for 4 years, why would he not count on them now?

[Parkbandit]

Romney easily won that round.

This isn't the format for Obama... poor guy can't use a teleprompter.

[Androidpk]

http://i47.tinypic.com/j0wmxx.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Why are we pissing away tax payer money on PBS? 20 years ago maybe.. today? No way.

[Paradii]

Why are we pissing away tax payer money on PBS? 20 years ago maybe.. today? No way.


Yeah, we better go after the 445.2 million dollar expenditure out of the 2.469 trillion dollar annual budget. Why address the real issues at hand when we have all these strawmen to play with?

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah, we better go after the 445.2 million dollar expenditure out of the 2.469 trillion dollar annual budget. Why address the real issues at hand when we have all these strawmen to play with?

So since it isn't the quantity that you want, we should just do nothing. Right. There is this little thing about a kid and starfish that comes to mind. Every little bit helps and you must start somewhere.

[Androidpk]

So since it isn't the quantity that you want, we should just do nothing. Right. There is this little thing about a kid and starfish that comes to mind. Every little bit helps and you must start somewhere.

Sure. How about we start with our overly bloated defense budget. Oh wait, no, if we cut that Canada will invade us and sell our womens to Mexico!

[Tgo01]

Yeah, we better go after the 445.2 million dollar expenditure out of the 2.469 trillion dollar annual budget. Why address the real issues at hand when we have all these strawmen to play with?

Sounds good. Why don't you throw 50 bucks my way every once in a while since you don't care about such a small amount compared to your huge budget.

[~Rocktar~]

Sure. How about we start with our overly bloated defense budget. Oh wait, no, if we cut that Canada will invade us and sell our womens to Mexico!

I would love to cut out the massive boondoggle spent on developing a second engine for the F35 at the behest of a Democrat congress. All to build union jobs in Democrat states. Great place to start.

[Latrinsorm]

If you think Paradii is making $276,000 a year you are not very familiar with scientists.

[Androidpk]

The second engine is a start though to be honest that whole weapons program is turning into one gigantic money pit.

[Tgo01]

If you think Paradii is making $276,000 a year you are not very familiar with scientists.

Get your math outta here! This is politics!

[Paradii]

If you think Paradii is making $276,000 a year you are not very familiar with scientists.

Hey, I make 16√276000, buddy.

[sst]

I just remember 4 years ago everyone was gaga over how great a speaker President Obama was. What changed?..

[Androidpk]

I just remember 4 years ago everyone was gaga over how great a speaker President Obama was. What changed?..

4 years is enough time to see through someones bullshit?

[~Rocktar~]

I just remember 4 years ago everyone was gaga over how great a speaker President Obama was. What changed?..

Teleprompter got recalled maybe?

All kidding aside, it's real easy to throw rocks at the glass house you are not in especially when you get put on a pedestal of being the second black president, ok, half black and so on. It's not so easy when you have 4 years of seeing the truth of the world and when your own party has seen you as too Liberal/Socialist to really support in Congress. It also sucks when you find out that those who were saying that what you wanted to do won't work were right. There is a reason for the old saying "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach."

[Wheelerm]

I just remember 4 years ago everyone was gaga over how great a speaker candidate Obama was. What changed?..

What changed is he was elected president. People were tired of being fed cat shit and wondered if dog shit tasted any better. Predictably, it didn't taste any better.

[Rallorick]

watching the presidential debates is the most effective way to get people to decide voting is pointless... we're fucked.

[Archigeek]

Listened for half an hour on my way home, then watched for about another 15 minutes. My only conclusion is that Jim sucked as a moderator, the "topics" were too mashed together and he'd basically say, "now we're going to talk about health care" when they'd already been talking about it for 10 minutes.

Other than that, on the radio, Romney sounded very polished, and started out sounding very gracious and strong. I don't think his math works, but he sounded good, and did a pretty good job. One of the problems for Obama, is that when ahead in the polls, a person can end up playing "prevent defense." And just like in football, your opponent is going to score some points. There was nothing earth shattering on either side, but I think I give this one to Romney.

[Rallorick]

I don't get it... I don't think either side made a real point.

and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a revenue nuetral tax cut... isn't that basically a revenue cut that's revenue neutral? I mean, it sounds nice and all...

[WRoss]

From an objective standpoint:

Romney did very well early on. If you don't fact check him, he's looking pretty good. Remember that Bush (you know that guy that can't speak well) did a 5 point turn in the Bush v Gore debates.

Obama really struggled to be the orator that we knew last election. It's also going to hurt him how narrow he looked in that suit. He wasn't spot checking Romney like he needs too.

[Drew]

CNN: 67% say Romney beat Obama in debate (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

[WRoss]

CNN: 67% say Romney beat Obama in debate (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

No surprise. Obama wasn't ready for that debate. I wonder how much Syria shelling turkey (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/world/europe/turkey-syria-tension/index.html) had to do with how tired he looked.

[Merala]

I honestly don't feel like I heard anything new from Romney, and I could tell Obama just wasn't in it. I found myself thinking Obama wasn't present through a lot of it, but every time Romney spoke I would just ask, "How?"

He didn't really outline much, sounded like a whole lot of talking points and very little real information.

[Fallen]

I don't think Obama did poorly, simply that Romney did well. He had his talking points down and took it to the president whenever he had the chance. Last night showed that Romney is an excellent debater, but it didn't really change my mind on any of his policies.

[Parkbandit]

Listened for half an hour on my way home, then watched for about another 15 minutes. My only conclusion is that Jim sucked as a moderator, the "topics" were too mashed together and he'd basically say, "now we're going to talk about health care" when they'd already been talking about it for 10 minutes.

Other than that, on the radio, Romney sounded very polished, and started out sounding very gracious and strong. I don't think his math works, but he sounded good, and did a pretty good job. One of the problems for Obama, is that when ahead in the polls, a person can end up playing "prevent defense." And just like in football, your opponent is going to score some points. There was nothing earth shattering on either side, but I think I give this one to Romney.

He certainly came across as very defensive last night.

[Parkbandit]

No surprise. Obama wasn't ready for that debate. I wonder how much Syria shelling turkey (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/world/europe/turkey-syria-tension/index.html) had to do with how tired he looked.

Probably not very much, given his attendance record on intelligence briefings.

[everan]

Finally, someone who understands that raising tax RATES does not increase tax REVENUE. In fact, it has the opposite effect. He needs to work on explaining that better, but he's on the right track.

Mitt Romney - Change we can believe in.

[Parkbandit]

Poor Chris Matthews had an on camera meltdown last night.

That guy isn't stable.

[everan]

I honestly don't feel like I heard anything new from Romney, and I could tell Obama just wasn't in it. I found myself thinking Obama wasn't present through a lot of it, but every time Romney spoke I would just ask, "How?"

He didn't really outline much, sounded like a whole lot of talking points and very little real information.
He explained that there are many ways to accomplish the goal and that he wasn't going to come in and dictate how it needed to be done. He said he would work with the opposition to craft plans that reflect compromise while preserving the goal.

[Kuyuk]

He explained that there are many ways to accomplish the goal and that he wasn't going to come in and dictate how it needed to be done. He said he would work with the opposition to craft plans that reflect compromise while preserving the goal.

Sounds exactly like what Obama said 4 years ago, and then when he got elected the Republicans didnt work with him at all.

[everan]

Sounds exactly like what Obama said 4 years ago, and then when he got elected the Republicans didnt work with him at all.
Congress had a Democratic majority 4 years ago. Instead of working with the Republicans, they steamrolled them. That's why the plans that got passed were unbalanced. And that's why there was such a backlash during the mid-term elections. A good leader works 'with' the minority, he doesn't say I have the votes so I don't care what you say.

[Parkbandit]

Sounds exactly like what Obama said 4 years ago, and then when he got elected the Republicans didnt work with him at all.

A good leader finds a way. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. Even Bush did it.

Obama was never interested in working with the Republicans. He shut them out of most of the decision making when it came to Healthcare.. and only had a televised "healthcare summit" when it was politically necessary for him to do so. Obama is a charismatic guy who reads extremely well.. but an effective leader he has never been.

Romney did a pretty good job of pointing out his accomplishments of doing this in Massachusetts last night.

[Sorcasaurus]

Personally, I was getting annoyed by Romney interupting Obama or speaking through the moderator so frequently. It doesn't change what either of them was saying, but there were times when I felt he was just trying to talk through everyone. Can't argue with someone if they don't let you speak?

He was also quoting a number of statistics very quickly, in groups. It left me with the impression that it was intentional to make it harder to fact check on the spot. There were some great points in there, it just means I have some fact checking to do before I believe him. Too many times it's just a tactic to hide shaky statistics or half truths.

Obama seemed unwilling to engage fully in the debate. At one point (I'll edit with the quote when I can) he seemed to be whining, and nearly called Romney a flat out liar. For someone who was such an "inspiring figure" entering the office, he looked surprisingly frustrated and reserved.

I wasn't overly impressed with either canidate last night. :sniff:

[Tgo01]

Sounds exactly like what Obama said 4 years ago, and then when he got elected the Republicans didnt work with him at all.

Probably because for a while there Obama's idea of "working" with Republicans was "Hey, here is my plan, vote 'yes' on it. Thanks."

[Tgo01]

Thread: Oct 3rd Presidential Debate Thread

Delusional, revisionist history.

Yup, that about sums up your reputation comment I must admit. How did Obama "work" with Republicans when it came to healthcare? Let's not forget every compromise that was made was because they didn't even have every Democrat they needed on board in order to pass the legislation.

[Atlanteax]

Personally, I was getting annoyed by Romney interupting Obama or speaking through the moderator so frequently. It doesn't change what either of them was saying, but there were times when I felt he was just trying to talk through everyone. Can't argue with someone if they don't let you speak?

Yet Obama's speaking time exceeded Romney's by 3 full minutes.

[Sorcasaurus]

Yet Obama's speaking time exceeded Romney's by 3 full minutes.

I didn't mean to imply Obama wasn't speaking, simply how Romney chose to. Interrupting also changes the subject. Romney kept Obama on the defensive side of the conversation, seemingly because many times big O started to turn the corner from explanation to accusation there was something new to defend against injected into the conversation. Proving, explaining, or debunking a statement takes more time than throwing it out there, and Romney had plenty of ammo last night (my comment says nothing about validity of their statements). Personally I think the time difference reflects who was on the defensive more than anything else.

Both candidates went over their allotted time blocks, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that three minutes over the entire debate necessitated his methods. It wouldn't make him any less wrong/right to wait.

TLDR: Not necessary, but, I'm a stickler for manners.

[Tgo01]

TLDR: Not necessary, but, I'm a stickler for manners.

Did you catch the part where Obama told the moderator he was wrong and Obama insisted he still had 5 seconds left to speak before the moderator "interrupted" him?

[droit]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/03/fact-checking-denver-presidential-debate/

Looks like Obama had a few "half-truths" here and there, but Romney sure took the cake in the truth-stretching department. It's hard to argue against a man who makes up his own facts.

[Back]

I thought Obama was tired, overly courteous, and not aggressive enough. Romney seemed wired and was fairly personable. But I heard Romney saying just about anything he could to get elected which I can't blame him for. Obama sounded more realistic but unfortunately that sounds pretty damn flat in an election campaign.

[Sorcasaurus]

Did you catch the part where Obama told the moderator he was wrong and Obama insisted he still had 5 seconds left to speak before the moderator "interrupted" him?

At no point did I say Obama was well mannered. I criticized Romney for an excess of interruptions and talking through people.


To that exchange:

Do you know he was wrong? I don't. There is a timer behind the moderator/audience that shows the time they have remaining. There is a difference between poor manners and standing up for yourself. Did he then go well over 5 seconds, yes. The format went to hell well before that exchange, but I don't remember taking issue with anyone for talking too long, just when they started.

[Tgo01]

At no point did I say Obama was well mannered.

Do you know he was wrong? I don't. There is a timer behind the moderator/audience that shows the time they have remaining.

I laughed.

"At no point did I say Obama was well mannered. But do you even know if Obama was wrong? He was just standing up for himself from this mean moderator who wanted to cut him short five seconds. Besides the format already went to hell thanks to Romney so who cares?"

[Parkbandit]

I thought Obama was tired, overly courteous, and not aggressive enough. Obama sounded more realistic but unfortunately that sounds pretty damn flat in an election campaign.

Other excuses I've heard:

The altitude.
Romney didn't win, Obama just wasn't on his A game.
It's Jim Lehrer's fault. Doesn't he know he's supposed to help Obama??
Obama just didn't show up tonight. Everyone has a bad day.
Romney lied for 90 minutes, it's not fair!
Who is to say that Obama really lost? It's an opinion. I think he won!
John Kerry didn't coach him enough.
John Kerry was his coach!
Obama was just another victim of the Incumbent Debate Curse!
Obama didn't fail.. someone else made him fail.
It's really Bush's fault.
How can he possibly have enough time to prepare for the debate with all the golf he's been playing?
Jim Lehrer is obviously a racist.
It was Obama's anniversary and he didn't get Michelle anything.
Obama can't do it all.. debate prep, go on Letterman and the View... it's too damn much!

[Merala]

My problem with that is all I heard about was the end goal. I didn't hear anything, not even a jumping point for Romney's way of doing this. If his plan is to let everyone else decide on how it needs to be done without any idea or starting point himself, that sounds kind of lazy. I'm fine with collaboration, but he should have some basic ideas. I didn't hear one of them, all I heard was it won't raise the deficit or burden the middle class.

[Sorcasaurus]

"At no point did I say Obama was well mannered. But do you even know if Obama was wrong? He was just standing up for himself from this mean moderator who wanted to cut him short five seconds. Besides the format already went to hell thanks to Romney so who cares?"

I too dislike direct quotes; they are so much less convenient. Please don't put words in my mouth, it changes this from a discourse to you talking to yourself. It's wasted effort to type it all up if you want the latter.

Going from your added words, it looks like you missed the point as well. You're mixing up what they said with how they said it, and deflecting a negative comment about Romney with more about Obama. Are you going to say Romney was a beacon of good manners for all to behold? Or are you just looking for a way to bash Obama? I've already stated neither impressed me and will help on that second front too. I just haven't gotten there yet.

From the link Droit gave:

So we previously have rated Mostly True a claim that Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."


I was wondering how the math worked out when Romney said he'd lower taxes, and then reduce deductables to help offset it. It's a great way to claim you lower taxes and end up charging more. They still don't provide the numbers behind it though :(

[Latrinsorm]

This again is the Kerry playbook: surprise everyone by showing up strong in the first debate.

...and he lost, Ernesto.

[Wrathbringer]

4092

[Tgo01]

I too dislike direct quotes; they are so much less convenient. Please don't put words in my mouth, it changes this from a discourse to you talking to yourself. It's wasted effort to type it all up if you want the latter.

No need to get all upset, I was just summarizing your post.


You're mixing up what they said with how they said it, and deflecting a negative comment about Romney with more about Obama.

I could care less about your negative comment about Romney. I just find it funny you claim to care so much for manners yet you only point out Romney's bad manners.


Are you going to say Romney was a beacon of good manners for all to behold?

Boy talk about putting words into people's mouth.



Or are you just looking for a way to bash Obama?

Oh the irony.

[Parkbandit]

My problem with that is all I heard about was the end goal. I didn't hear anything, not even a jumping point for Romney's way of doing this. If his plan is to let everyone else decide on how it needs to be done without any idea or starting point himself, that sounds kind of lazy. I'm fine with collaboration, but he should have some basic ideas. I didn't hear one of them, all I heard was it won't raise the deficit or burden the middle class.

The job of a leader is to put forth the vision. I think he articulated that pretty well last night. He won't spend money unless it's worth borrowing from China to do it. He won't give a tax cut that will contribute to the deficit.

I will give you that he was short on specifics.. like which loopholes and deductions are you doing away with.. what taxes are you actually cutting and by how much... how are you going to balance the budget.. because we can't afford another bullshit of "Hey, the budget will be balanced by 2033!".. we need the budget balanced within 4 years.

His debate performance really reminded me of Reagan last night (yea, I was alive for his debates and remember them... so fuck you all) about setting forth the direction he would like to take government. A stark difference from Obama's last 4 years and Obama's vision.

Now.. I don't know if he actually believes in all that Conservative dogma he was speaking about last night.. my hope is that he does, but who knows. He is from Massachusetts.... but for me, at least it's a positive turn from where we are currently headed.

[Sorcasaurus]

I don't fault Romney for being short on specifics in the debate. They are big enough problems that there has to be a certain degree of ideals vs hard numbers, but publishing a starting point somewhere would help his cause. I'm interested to see if he can demonstrate that they were actual convictions last night instead of pandering to his audience.

[Suppressed Poet]

To me the whole election comes down to the number one issue for most Americans, the economy. Who is the better canidate to address this from an high level perspective?

To me, and I work in financial services, Obama has performed terribly thus far. I am not a fan of regulation. Last year some over-zealous senator from Chicago passed an act that doesn't work like he thought, plus threatens my ability to compete in the market. Obama is a firm suporter of this act, no surprise. I think Obama genuinely means well, but his policies are flawed and he is incompetent in understanding how the American economy works.

I don't personaly like Romney. I think it is apparent he is running for his own self interests, and for many reasons I don't feel that he is genuine. He is, however, a smart businessman and I do believe he is better qualified (having a sucessful track record as a governor). His policies remind me of Regan, which is both a good and bad thing. I do wish though that the Republicans put up a better canidate.

[Parkbandit]

I don't fault Romney for being short on specifics in the debate. They are big enough problems that there has to be a certain degree of ideals vs hard numbers, but publishing a starting point somewhere would help his cause.

Here is an excellent starting point:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Merala]

The job of a leader is to put forth the vision. I think he articulated that pretty well last night. He won't spend money unless it's worth borrowing from China to do it. He won't give a tax cut that will contribute to the deficit.

I will give you that he was short on specifics.. like which loopholes and deductions are you doing away with.. what taxes are you actually cutting and by how much... how are you going to balance the budget.. because we can't afford another bullshit of "Hey, the budget will be balanced by 2033!".. we need the budget balanced within 4 years.

His debate performance really reminded me of Reagan last night (yea, I was alive for his debates and remember them... so fuck you all) about setting forth the direction he would like to take government. A stark difference from Obama's last 4 years and Obama's vision.

Now.. I don't know if he actually believes in all that Conservative dogma he was speaking about last night.. my hope is that he does, but who knows. He is from Massachusetts.... but for me, at least it's a positive turn from where we are currently headed.

What I was really getting at is the fact that I heard nothing new. If you've been following the campaign, even modestly, you'd have heard everything said by both candidates before last night. I was sorely disappointed.

[Parkbandit]

What I was really getting at is the fact that I heard nothing new. If you've been following the campaign, even modestly, you'd have heard everything said by both candidates before last night. I was sorely disappointed.

See, and I was just the opposite. I've been following the race pretty closely, but I have never heard Romney espouse conservative principles like he did last night, all night. I didn't disagree with anything he was talking about.

[Merala]

Most of his big "game changer" policies were things I had already heard. His five point plan, reduction of government, the voucher program.

Also, I felt like emphasizing that the current seniors on medicare won't face any changes was a shameless ploy to convince seniors in swing states, of which there are a lot, to vote for him even though he's changing medicare based on the idea that it "won't affect me."

That said, Romney did a whole lot better than I thought he would. I was really hoping for a good laugh considering how many times he's made himself look silly in the media. Romney did win, but I don't feel like I learned much. I guess nothing was a bit of an over exaggeration.

[Jarvan]

Well, here is the funny thing about Medicare, Merala. If something isn't changed in it, it will go bankrupt before those seniors are even dead. Well, not bankrupt, but it will make our current deficit look like small change issues.

I won't say Mitt's or Ryan's plan is a good plan. Problem really is, Obama HAS no plan. He could have fixed the issue, or even addressed it when he had complete control. Instead he bashes the Repubs for having a plan. Disagree with a plan sure, but before you bash it, put out your own plan.

Want to know the funniest thing about Medicare is?

Even with it, seniors still tend to go bankrupt, you NEED private insurance as well. Go figure.

[Showal]

4 years is enough time to see through someones bullshit?

Probably why after all these years, Ron Paul has never been elected.

[Parkbandit]

Also, I felt like emphasizing that the current seniors on medicare won't face any changes was a shameless ploy to convince seniors in swing states, of which there are a lot, to vote for him even though he's changing medicare based on the idea that it "won't affect me."


What would you want him to do.. change the way Medicare handles everyone that has retired now? That isn't feasible or wise. No, he is doing the right thing by making sure that anyone 55 and older will be grandfathered into the Medicare system the way it is currently designed... and the program will have to change for those younger than 55. But if you just do what Obama wants to do and kick the can down the road for someone else to make difficult choices, it will be bankrupt by 2024... so clearly we need to make some changes to the program.

If anyone is being disingenuous on Medicare, it's Obama. He cut waste and "saved" 700 billion? No, that isn't what he did at all.. he simply said we're going to be reimbursing less for the same services.. which resulted in hospitals and doctors refusing to take Medicare as a form of payment. And that 700 billion went right to paying for Obamacare to make it revenue neutral for the CBO.

[Parkbandit]

Probably why after all these years, Ron Paul has never been elected.

I hope you know what you just started. NO ONE FUCKS WITH RON PAUL AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!

NNNOOOO OOOONNEEE!

[TheEschaton]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion the world is fucked and there's no saving it.

[g++]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion the world is fucked and there's no saving it.

Wow, I hope you don't try to reason with any burglars with that attitude Mr.

[everan]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion the world is fucked and there's no saving it.
Fear not. I don't like the phrase 'too big to fail' but we're like an aircraft carrier steaming along, and both of these guys are like a tiny rudder. Whichever one gets elected is going to tilt that tiny rudder a little bit one way or the other, but in the end, it's only going to change a few degrees.

Or maybe that's exactly what you mean, you think we're heading into a waterspout and neither of them has the ability to navigate us around it.

[Parkbandit]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion the world is fucked and there's no saving it.

Oh relax... 2016 is right around the corner and you know Hillary will be running. Let's give Romney a chance to right the ship.


Wow, I hope you don't try to reason with any burglars with that attitude Mr.

I snort chuckled.

[Some Rogue]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion the world is fucked and there's no saving it.

Nothing a few well placed bombs can't fix right???

[Shari]

Romney easily won that round.

This isn't the format for Obama... poor guy can't use a teleprompter.

You know I say this out of love...but damn....Dad, is that you? Because it freaks me the FUCK OUT how much your posting style reminds me of him. :(

On a side note, I did text my dad last night and told him I was hesitant to admit to him that Romney killed it last night. I was worried I might cause him to have a heart attack. I still don't know what I'm going to do, I'm reminded of the Southpark episode when they had to vote between a douchebag or a shit sandwich.

[Parkbandit]

You know I say this out of love...but damn....Dad, is that you? Because it freaks me the FUCK OUT how much your posting style reminds me of him. :(

There's nothing hotter than a hot woman with daddy issues....



On a side note, I did text my dad last night and told him I was hesitant to admit to him that Romney killed it last night. I was worried I might cause him to have a heart attack. I still don't know what I'm going to do, I'm reminded of the Southpark episode when they had to vote between a douchebag or a shit sandwich.

I've always said that Romney isn't the perfect candidate for me.. but from what I heard last night, he's far closer to it than I thought possible. I actually contributed more money to his campaign and will be working at a phone bank this weekend. What's your number.. maybe I'll try to talk you into voting for him......

[Shari]

There's nothing hotter than a hot woman with daddy issues....



I've always said that Romney isn't the perfect candidate for me.. but from what I heard last night, he's far closer to it than I thought possible. I actually contributed more money to his campaign and will be working at a phone bank this weekend. What's your number.. maybe I'll try to talk you into voting for him......

LOL. Nice try. I get peppered weekly with political emails from my Dad already, but thanks for the offer. ;)

He likes to brag to me that he blogs (which makes me giggle just in itself) on some site and it gets so out of control he gets death threats PM'ed him. Maybe I should give you HIS number. Ya'll could become BFF's.

[Parkbandit]

LOL. Nice try. I get peppered weekly with political emails from my Dad already, but thanks for the offer. ;)

He likes to brag to me that he blogs (which makes me giggle just in itself) on some site and it gets so out of control he gets death threats PM'ed him. Maybe I should give you HIS number. Ya'll could become BFF's.

Pulease... I have a father in law who sends me shit like this:



THIS MIGHT BE AN EYE OPENER FOR SOME. IT NEEDS TO AT LEAST BE SEEN BY ALL THOSE VOTING FOR POSITIONS OF HIGH AUTHORITY. WE NEED A STRONG GOVERNMENT NOW! OUR VOTE WILL DETERMINE OUR FUTURE. PLEASE PASS THIS ON.
Read the bottom part Re: PS: and let it sink in. A lot of voters forgot about that.

ENJOY




John G. is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year has all but evaporated. With the stock market crashing and new taxes coming his way, John assumes now that he will work to his dying day.

John has a granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the latest fashions, and loves to go out to nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned hard for Barack Obama. After the election she made sure her grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received a big I told-you-so earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that her party is taking over.

Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her 3 bedroom townhouse... Like she has done many times in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking for some financial help.

Here is his reply:



Sweetheart, I received your request for assistance. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I'm sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own...."The Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me explain.

Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as you know, but we have never had the fancier things like European vacations, luxury cars, etc... We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed. Your president is raising our personal and business taxes significantly. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people... Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less for us, and we must cut back on many business and personal expenses.

You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my office for more than 23 years? The one who always gave you candy when you came over to visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't afford to pay her salary and all of the government mandated taxes that go with having employees.... Your grandmother will now work 4 days a week to answer phones, take orders and handle the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will lose even more income.

I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I called him at school this morning. He already knows about it and he's upset because he will have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to Greenland to survey the polar bears.

That's just the business side of things. Some personal economic effects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. But by your vote, you have chosen to help others -- not at your expense -- but at our expense.

If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call 202-456-1111 202-456-1111 202-456-1111 202-456-1111 . That is the direct phone number for the White House.. You can also contact the White House here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/%C2%A0;...

You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote Republican... You said Mr. Obama is going to be the People's President, and is going to help every American live a better life. Based on everything you've told me, along with all the promises we heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to transfer some stimulus money into your bank account. Have him call me for the account number which I memorized years ago.

Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all my life: Those who vote for a president should consider the impact on the nation as a whole, and not be just concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem to realize is all of the money he is redistributing to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called "less fortunate") comes from tax-paying families.

Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Well guess what, honey? Because we own a business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way, but in the real world, we are far from it..

As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper... You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money; less money for everything, including granddaughters.

I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry. The free lunches are over... I have no money to give you now. So, congratulations on your choice for "change." For future reference, I encourage you to try and add up the total value of the gifts and cash you have received from us, just since you went off to college, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next 4 (or 8) years. I have not kept track of it, Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our hearts.

Remember, we love you dearly.... but from now on you'll need to call the number mentioned above. Your "Savior" has the money we would have given to you. Just try and get it from him.

Good luck, sweetheart.



Love, Grandpa
P. S.
This tells the whole story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.
Don ' t just skim over this, it ' s not long, but read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the
day democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush ' s Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at $12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush ' s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH!
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd
took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans
on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky
for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush..
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress
since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending,
when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions
to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus
spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these
massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.
That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.
After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold
since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized,
unless each of us sends it on!

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine."—

[Parkbandit]

and videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

[TheEschaton]

Case in point about why I have very little hope for the future of this country. ;)

[Showal]

There's nothing hotter than a hot woman with daddy issues....



I've always said that Romney isn't the perfect candidate for me.. but from what I heard last night, he's far closer to it than I thought possible. I actually contributed more money to his campaign and will be working at a phone bank this weekend. What's your number.. maybe I'll try to talk you into voting for him......

You can call me!

[Parkbandit]

You can call me!

You are a hot woman with daddy issues?

:nutty:

[RSR]

You are a hot woman with granddaddy issues?

:nutty:

fixed.

[Showal]

You are a hot woman with daddy issues?

:nutty:

No but I'd enjoy a call trying to convince me to vote for Romney.

[Shari]

Pulease... I have a father in law who sends me shit like this:




Is it bad that the only thing I could get out of this was, "Wow, your father-in-law is still alive?"


/flees

[Parkbandit]

Is it bad that the only thing I could get out of this was, "Wow, your father-in-law is still alive?"

/flees

You are dead to me.

[4a6c1]

SOMEBODY GET THE PRESIDENT A MONSTER ENERGY DRINK

That's what I was thinking.

Chris Matthews....god. That was fucking hilarious. Watch it.

http://gawker.com/5948903/icymi-chris-matthews-in-full+on-meltdown-mode-shouts-where-was-obama-tonight

Anyway, the fact checkers tore Romney a new one right after the debate so that's that. Not that it matters for the people that already made their minds up. BTW, did he flip and then flop and then FLIP BACK TO THE FLOP?? Was that the liberal Romney last night? I didnt even recognize him. His bullshit was too good. In other words, if I was a Tea Party Republican/ie far right wing, I would be pissed at Romney right now. He talked about immigration and working across the isle and preserving medicaid. He was clearly trying to appeal to independants.

McGovern moment!! Tea Party extremists should take this opportunity to ask themselves why Romney sounds like a liberal in front of the world and a Rand capitalist in private.

[Tgo01]

AARP tells Obama to stop mentioning them. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/aarp-obamacare-nonpartisan-obamacare-debate_n_1940365.html?ref=topbar)


Just when President Obama thought he and the AARP were going steady, he got handed a break up note.

Turns out the AARP wasn’t so into the president citing the advocacy group as a supporter of Obamacare during Wednesday night’s debate. The American Association of Retired Persons, as it is formerly known, issued a statement today emphasizing its nonpartisan stance, likely due to the following comments made by the president during the debate:

"So, I don’t think vouchers are the right way to go. And this is not my own -- only my opinion. AARP thinks that the savings that we obtained from Medicare bolster the system, lengthen the Medicare trust fund by eight years. Benefits were not affected at all," he said.

For its part, the AARP, which has expressed support for the health reform law in the past, said in a statement that it wants to stay removed from either candidate’s campaign.

While we respect the rights of each campaign to make its case to voters, AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign. AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party.

Some have questioned the AARP's motivation for supporting Obamacare in the first place. Last month, Senator Jim Demint (R-S.C.) criticized the organization in a Politico op-ed for selling out seniors by allegedly gaining a $1 billion windfall off of Obamacare’s $716 billion cut to Medicare.

Indeed, the effect Obamacare is having on seniors appears somewhat unclear. While Obama's health care reform has saved Medicare recipients $3.7 billion in prescription drug costs since 2010, some drug plan premiums may soon rise by up to 23 percent, according to a recent report by Avalere Health.

I was surprised to read about this because I remember how the organization was making a mess in their pants over Obamacare a couple of years ago, but now they don't want Obama to mention them?

Weird.

[Tgo01]

Speaking of the election, the number of yard signs people have up in my neighborhood are very different than last election year around this time. Last time there were about 14 Obama yard signs and only around 6 McCain signs, now I've only seen 2 Romney signs and no Obama signs. I think that speaks volumes about both candidates this time around.

In other news though 7-11 has already predicted the winner, Obama. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/7-11-eleven-election-coffee-poll-obama-romney_n_1936571.html?ref=topbar)


Mitt Romney should take a big gulp -- 7-Eleven shoppers have already decided on President Obama.

According to 7-Eleven's "7-Election" poll, which allows coffee drinkers to pick a blue cup for Obama or a red one for Romney, Obama is leading with 60 percent of "votes." Romney currently has 40 percent.

[Seizer]

Is it even fair to call that charade a debate last night? God, I wanted to puke watching both of them. Only fun I got out of it was watching Gary Johnson throw in his quips. I was so bored to death with the staged puppet show.

[Showal]

Speaking of the election, the number of yard signs people have up in my neighborhood are very different than last election year around this time. Last time there were about 14 Obama yard signs and only around 6 McCain signs, now I've only seen 2 Romney signs and no Obama signs. I think that speaks volumes about both candidates this time around.

In other news though 7-11 has already predicted the winner, Obama. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/7-11-eleven-election-coffee-poll-obama-romney_n_1936571.html?ref=topbar)

Well, that settles it. Why even have the election at this point?

[Rallorick]

This post interested me..


To me the whole election comes down to the number one issue for most Americans, the economy. Who is the better canidate to address this from an high level perspective?

To me, and I work in financial services, Obama has performed terribly thus far. I am not a fan of regulation. Last year some over-zealous senator from Chicago passed an act that doesn't work like he thought, plus threatens my ability to compete in the market. Obama is a firm suporter of this act, no surprise. I think Obama genuinely means well, but his policies are flawed and he is incompetent in understanding how the American economy works.

But what president has ever understood the economy the way they should? I seems like if you look at history, the only impact I have ever really seen stemmed from Reagan, and his idea of spending into debt... which of course stimulated business, but it also etched a benchmark in the ND. Sad truth, maybe, but politics is policy, and a strong economy is pretty resiliant under very difficult conditions... on the other hand, a weak economy can, at best, be propped up by government for a few years before it fails, which is what it was going to do anyway. I don't know, just my take.


I don't personaly like Romney. I think it is apparent he is running for his own self interests, and for many reasons I don't feel that he is genuine. He is, however, a smart businessman and I do believe he is better qualified (having a sucessful track record as a governor). His policies remind me of Regan, which is both a good and bad thing. I do wish though that the Republicans put up a better canidate.

Because they can't win - or at least the conditions are against them. Most stronger potential candidates are going to wait for more ideal conditions, which will be next time around. That's probably over-simplifying it, but if I were a strong potential candidate, I wouldn't waste my one shot at the ticket this time, if I can wait 4 years and try my luck against Biden.

[Parkbandit]

Is it even fair to call that charade a debate last night? God, I wanted to puke watching both of them. Only fun I got out of it was watching Gary Johnson throw in his quips. I was so bored to death with the staged puppet show.

You must not watch too many Presidential debates.. because that was one of the rare ones where they actually speak with each other and not just give canned answers all night long to the moderator.

[Parkbandit]

Because they can't win - or at least the conditions are against them. Most stronger potential candidates are going to wait for more ideal conditions, which will be next time around. That's probably over-simplifying it, but if I were a strong potential candidate, I wouldn't waste my one shot at the ticket this time, if I can wait 4 years and try my luck against Biden.

There is no way Biden will be the Democratic nominee. It will be Hillary.

Biden has made himself into a punch line. No one, not even in his own party, takes him as a serious candidate.

[4a6c1]

It was bullshit wrapped in bullshit. If you liked it you probably don't remember what non-bullshit smells like.

The last honest president was Eisenhower. YEAH I SAID IT.

[Kuyuk]

I was kind of dreading the VP debate...

Biden is a joke; and Ryan is a giant douchebag when he speaks..

[Showal]

It was bullshit wrapped in bullshit. If you liked it you probably don't remember what non-bullshit smells like.

The last honest president was Eisenhower. YEAH I SAID IT.

Carter was pretty honest.

BUT FDR ALL THE WAY.

[Showal]

There is no way Biden will be the Democratic nominee. It will be Hillary.

Biden has made himself into a punch line. No one, not even in his own party, takes him as a serious candidate.

I'm curious if it will be Hillary, but I don't really know who else it'd be. But you're right, it won't be Biden. He'll probably try but he's unelectable.

[Geijon Khyree]

Here is an excellent starting point:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Thats nice.

http://www.PresidentialDebt.org

[Latrinsorm]

Did you request permission before using/linking???

[Merala]

I'm really not sure how I feel about Hillary, and I'm a woman and a Democrat. If they had a decent Republican candidate I might consider voting red next election if Hillary won the nomination. Don't tell my dad, he'd disown me.

[Geijon Khyree]

Assassins Creed III DLC will solve all of this.

[Parkbandit]

It was bullshit wrapped in bullshit. If you liked it you probably don't remember what non-bullshit smells like.

The last honest president was Eisenhower. YEAH I SAID IT.


I'll defer to your expertise on what shit smells like I suppose.

But go back and watch the last few Presidential debates. They always want the candidates to engage each other instead of the moderator or camera. This happened on Wednesday.

I guess I wouldn't enjoy them so much if my candidate came across as completely inept either.

[Parkbandit]

I'm curious if it will be Hillary, but I don't really know who else it'd be. But you're right, it won't be Biden. He'll probably try but he's unelectable.

When have you seen a Clinton not want to be in the spotlight? If Bill could get the law changed, he would run again.. but unless something drastic happens in her life, Hillary will run in 2016.. despite what she claims now.

[Atlanteax]

AARP tells Obama to stop mentioning them. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/aarp-obamacare-nonpartisan-obamacare-debate_n_1940365.html?ref=topbar)

I was surprised to read about this because I remember how the organization was making a mess in their pants over Obamacare a couple of years ago, but now they don't want Obama to mention them?

Weird.

Apparently the AARP had 'Hope' but saw the truth about 'Change' involving a train-wreck, and are looking to exit before the tracks run out.

[Atlanteax]

When have you seen a Clinton not want to be in the spotlight? If Bill could get the law changed, he would run again.. but unless something drastic happens in her life, Hillary will run in 2016.. despite what she claims now.

And we'll have a lot of Republicans potentially voting for her.

If anything, Dems should be hoping Romney wins so that it is more likely Hillary is elected in 2016.

[Back]

And we'll have a lot of Republicans potentially voting for her.

If anything, Dems should be hoping Romney wins so that it is more likely Hillary is elected in 2016.

You act as if winning is all that mattered. What matters is electing the right person for the job so our country goes in the right direction.

You giving political strategy advice to democrats is a joke.

[Atlanteax]

You act as if winning is all that mattered. What matters is electing the right person for the job so our country goes in the right direction.

You giving political strategy advice to democrats is a joke.

Hillary is a "the right person"

Obama is *not*

Unfortunately, Hillary is not running in 2012

[sst]

I think it will be fun to watch, I'm expecting a Biden highlight reel.

[Tgo01]

And I thought Rush Limbaugh had some crazy ass theories. The man who invented the internet and global warming says Colorado's high altitude is to blame for Obama's poor debate performance. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/al-gore-blames-altitude-barack-obama-presidential-debate-2012-who-won_n_1940297.html?ref=topbar)


“I’m going to say something controversial here,” Gore started, “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust. I don't know... Maybe."

Current TV host Cenk Uygur interjected saying he came in from Los Angeles and was able to just guzzle some coffee, but comedian John Fugelsang did not think Gore's theory was that far-fetched.

"It's really different. The first time I ever did stand-up in Denver I had the same exact effect," Fugelsang said. "I flew in that day and when your lungs aren't acclimated to that kind of air, yeah, it makes you drawn, it makes you off. The president had an off night."

[4a6c1]

Can't wait for Candy Crowley.

*disco dance*

[Showal]

When have you seen a Clinton not want to be in the spotlight? If Bill could get the law changed, he would run again.. but unless something drastic happens in her life, Hillary will run in 2016.. despite what she claims now.

I am not arguing that she will try to run. I'm curious as to whether or not she'll get the democratic nomination.

[Parkbandit]

And we'll have a lot of Republicans potentially voting for her.

In a contest between Hillary and Obama.. sure. But in a contest between Hillary and a viable Republican candidate.. no way.



If anything, Dems should be hoping Romney wins so that it is more likely Hillary is elected in 2016.

Depends on what happens. If Obama is re-elected and the economy recovers despite his efforts.. then Hillary could run as Obama 2.0. "Look what he did with the economy! I will continue!" If Carter's 3rd term ends up the way his 2nd term did... a Democrat won't have a prayer of being elected for another decade.

[Parkbandit]

And I thought Rush Limbaugh had some crazy ass theories. The man who invented the internet and global warming says Colorado's high altitude is to blame for Obama's poor debate performance. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/al-gore-blames-altitude-barack-obama-presidential-debate-2012-who-won_n_1940297.html?ref=topbar)

LOL. I was kidding about the altitude excuse the day after the debate... that's fucking awesome that AL GORE uses it.. plus adds on global warming.

How is it global warming has a negative effect on Obama but not Romney? GLOBAL WARMING IS RACIST!?

[Showal]

LOL. I was kidding about the altitude excuse the day after the debate... that's fucking awesome that AL GORE uses it.. plus adds on global warming.

How is it global warming has a negative effect on Obama but not Romney? GLOBAL WARMING IS RACIST!?

GORE DIDN'T BLAME GLOBAL WARMING FOR ANYTHING ... this time. But seriously. He just blames the altitude. Annnnnd Denver is 5300 ft above sea level or something like that? That's not really altitude. Real noticeable effects of altitude start at roughly 8000 ft. I know some people do have real issue with Denver, but I doubt it's a common experience and I think it's silly to blame that for Obama's performance.

Also, if you ever have a chance to drive to the top of Mt. Washington in NH, you'll see what I mean. It's 6,288 ft about sea level. You climb to the top and it's an upsetting experience, not because of the altitude, but because of who's already up there. You get there to a parking lot and a visitor center that has a ton of fat people walking around eating hot dogs. And pretty much all the fat people are pretty comfortable walking around at that altitude. Then you have to wait in line to get a picture at the summit sign.

[Parkbandit]

I am not arguing that she will try to run. I'm curious as to whether or not she'll get the democratic nomination.

Who else would they nominate?

Kerry? LOL
Biden? LOLx2
Gore? LOLx17

[Showal]

Who else would they nominate?

Kerry? LOL
Biden? LOLx2
Gore? LOLx17

I don't know, but out of the other three choices you've put out there, she's certainly the best candidate. 4 years prior to Obama's campaign, I remember people saying she was the likely candidate. I don't think anyone included among the options for viable candidates at that time "Obama? LOLx#". So, I'll stick to my statement of "I don't know."

Maybe Barney Frank will run. I'd love to hear him talk throughout the whole campaign. Or Boston's Mayor Menino. These are voices I could listen to all day. Their speech patterns are amazing for sound bites.

Menino: Drugs lead to Billy Joel. http://www.mumblesmenino.us/mumbling/Drinkin%20Leads%20To%20Ox%20Weed%20Heroin%20%20Bil ly%20Joel.wma

[Androidpk]

Hondo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUHeWl6jX0

[Showal]

Hondo was a vital part of the team.

[Showal]

Colorado beer? Ugh!
Their actions have become ionic.
Grabowski.
Varitek splitting the uprights.
But the best happens at 2:28. THAT was a close one.

http://youtu.be/NBtRmuiN9IE

[Kuyuk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=pqJpf6tidn0&NR=1

around 2:40; the car window thing is hysterical...

[Back]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/307939_10151454137109848_1452497722_n.jpg

[Back]

Knowing Obama as a shrewd politician I would not be surprised if he went with the risky tactic of letting Romney have the first debate on purpose. He is not usually so petulant. He is the guy who got Bin Ladin. He has the swag. So it is possible, and I admit extremely risky, that he actually let Mitt appear to win that debate so he can trounce him for the next two saving his coupe de grace for the last one.

Like I said it would be very risky if this were the case but ultimately could turn out to be extremely effective.

[Androidpk]

I seriously doubt that dude and that is one of the worst excuses I have heard for Obama's performance.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know, but out of the other three choices you've put out there, she's certainly the best candidate. 4 years prior to Obama's campaign, I remember people saying she was the likely candidate. I don't think anyone included among the options for viable candidates at that time "Obama? LOLx#". So, I'll stick to my statement of "I don't know."

What? Just about anyone who knew anything about politics knew Obama would run in 2008.. or 2012 at the latest. His speech in 2004 was all the rave.

Most people knew he would run.. few however believed he could beat Hillary to the nomination.


Maybe Barney Frank will run. I'd love to hear him talk throughout the whole campaign. Or Boston's Mayor Menino. These are voices I could listen to all day. Their speech patterns are amazing for sound bites.

There is nothing amazing about how Barney Frank speaks... nothing.

[Parkbandit]

Knowing Obama as a shrewd politician I would not be surprised if he went with the risky tactic of letting Romney have the first debate on purpose. He is not usually so petulant. He is the guy who got Bin Ladin. He has the swag. So it is possible, and I admit extremely risky, that he actually let Mitt appear to win that debate so he can trounce him for the next two saving his coupe de grace for the last one.

Like I said it would be very risky if this were the case but ultimately could turn out to be extremely effective.

And I thought "high altitude" was the absolute dumbest excuse that someone could come up with.

Grats on beating it. By like 10 fold.

[Tgo01]

Knowing Obama as a shrewd politician I would not be surprised if he went with the risky tactic of letting Romney have the first debate on purpose. He is not usually so petulant. He is the guy who got Bin Ladin. He has the swag. So it is possible, and I admit extremely risky, that he actually let Mitt appear to win that debate so he can trounce him for the next two saving his coupe de grace for the last one.

Like I said it would be very risky if this were the case but ultimately could turn out to be extremely effective.

Obama looked dumb on purpose! Because...because...people...like dumb politicians?

[Some Rogue]

http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/i-meant-to-do-that.png

[Back]

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA (breathe) HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bZxs09eV-Vc

[Showal]

What? Just about anyone who knew anything about politics knew Obama would run in 2008.. or 2012 at the latest. His speech in 2004 was all the rave.

Most people knew he would run.. few however believed he could beat Hillary to the nomination.



There is nothing amazing about how Barney Frank speaks... nothing.

I am saying I don't know but I'm sure there will be another serious democratic candidate fighting for the nomination against Clinton that's not on your LOL list.

Did the Barney Frank joke really just go over your head like that? I expect more out of you, PB. But whatever, at least you didn't give a horrible excuse for Obama's poor debate performance like Back. Does anyone other than Back believe that crock of shit? Jarvan, maybe? I bet he has some good insight into this theory. This is almost as good as Back's poll on what will win: love or hate?

[Parkbandit]

I am saying I don't know but I'm sure there will be another serious democratic candidate fighting for the nomination against Clinton that's not on your LOL list.

Did the Barney Frank joke really just go over your head like that? I expect more out of you, PB. But whatever, at least you didn't give a horrible excuse for Obama's poor debate performance like Back. Does anyone other than Back believe that crock of shit? Jarvan, maybe? I bet he has some good insight into this theory. This is almost as good as Back's poll on what will win: love or hate?

I feel ashamed. I apologize for letting you down.

Woosh.

:(

[Showal]

I feel ashamed. I apologize for letting you down.

Woosh.

:(

Apology accepted and we can go back to being friends.

[Showal]

And here is my mind blowing theory on why Obama lost that debate. He was unprepared and underestimated Romney who was clearly well practiced and well rehearsed. Whatever the reason you throw out, it is clear that Obama did not come to Denver expecting to meet the Romney who was there. Even if altitude played a role, which it surely did not, it is no secret that Denver is high above sea level. He was unprepared and he was out classed. I'm sure everyone has their opinion, but only the future debates will really tell if this was transient or something endemic.

[Back]

And here is my mind blowing theory on why Obama lost that debate. He was unprepared and underestimated Romney who was clearly well practiced and well rehearsed. Whatever the reason you throw out, it is clear that Obama did not come to Denver expecting to meet the Romney who was there. Even if altitude played a role, which it surely did not, it is no secret that Denver is high above sea level. He was unprepared and he was out classed. I'm sure everyone has their opinion, but only the future debates will really tell if this was transient or something endemic.

What is interesting is how the perception of the winner of the debate is being based solely on appearance. The substance of the debate clearly went to Obama. But then I guess I am not surprised considering the audience.

[Showal]

What is interesting is how the perception of the winner of the debate is being based solely on appearance. The substance of the debate clearly went to Obama. But then I guess I am not surprised considering the audience.

Sorry. I wasn't drunk for the debate.

[Tgo01]

What is interesting is how the perception of the winner of the debate is being based solely on appearance. The substance of the debate clearly went to Obama. But then I guess I am not surprised considering the audience.

So now your theory is that Obama really won the debate even though he lost? Doesn't this sort of contradict your earlier theory that Obama lost on purpose?

[Back]

So now your theory is that Obama really won the debate even though he lost? Doesn't this sort of contradict your earlier theory that Obama lost on purpose?

Based on the facts I feel Obama won. Based on appearance Romney looked better. My mind was made up before the debate so it does not really matter.

A vote for Romney is a vote to kill Big Bird.

[Tgo01]

Based on the facts I feel Obama won. Based on appearance Romney looked better. My mind was made up before the debate so it does not really matter.

A vote for Romney is a vote to kill Big Bird.

Sesame Street makes more money than PBS receives in federal funding. This whole Romney is going to kill Big Bird is stupid.

[Back]

Sesame Street makes more money than PBS receives in federal funding. This whole Romney is going to kill Big Bird is stupid.

Romney does not want to borrow money from China to fund PBS? Thats about the stupidest thing I have heard him say so far. But it appeals to a certain segment of the population. The cold heartless bastards who want to roast Big Bird.

[Atlanteax]

Looks like Back is on a full-blown rant.

In the meantime, it is quite obvious that PBS does not depend on federal spending to support Sesame Street...

The funding is (presumably) to support PBS programs that are 'unprofitable' to maintain (likely educational programs suffering from poor viewership and lack of advertising revenue).

Sesame Street will survive, PBS just needs to get creative with its other programming.

[Showal]

I, for one, am emotionally attached to PBS. But I readily admit it is like my dog. There is a great ROI on PBS in a non traditional sense. I saw a figure that PBS costs the taxpayer less that $2 per person. No outcome is generated by PBS for what it produces, however I credit it with a lot of entertainment and partially for shaping who I am. I watched a ton of PBS growing up and I had a science professor in 7th grade that gave extra credit for writing a summary of Nova episodes. Those episodes got me interested in science and history and travel. I became a scientist, in part because of this programming. I am glad that the government funds PBS because I may not have realized I was even interested but this provided a source for me to discover that interest. However, I also have a mind that is wired for science, it connects better with me than say finances. Would I have found this interest? Yeah, probably, because I excelled in math and science, but it certainly helped. And recently, I've casually began learning more and more physics directly after a NOVA episode that I recently watched
I really see arguments from both sides. I think cutting PBS as a starting point is like saying you're skipping your second helpings of stuffing on Thanksgiving to try to lose weight. But small bits of funding here and there add up. I don't want to see it lose funding, but if it is, I suppose that's a good reason for me to stop dragging my feet and financially support programming that I value, kinda like the fund drives say.

[Parkbandit]

I, for one, am emotionally attached to PBS. But I readily admit it is like my dog. There is a great ROI on PBS in a non traditional sense. I saw a figure that PBS costs the taxpayer less that $2 per person. No outcome is generated by PBS for what it produces, however I credit it with a lot of entertainment and partially for shaping who I am. I watched a ton of PBS growing up and I had a science professor in 7th grade that gave extra credit for writing a summary of Nova episodes. Those episodes got me interested in science and history and travel. I became a scientist, in part because of this programming. I am glad that the government funds PBS because I may not have realized I was even interested but this provided a source for me to discover that interest. However, I also have a mind that is wired for science, it connects better with me than say finances. Would I have found this interest? Yeah, probably, because I excelled in math and science, but it certainly helped. And recently, I've casually began learning more and more physics directly after a NOVA episode that I recently watched
I really see arguments from both sides. I think cutting PBS as a starting point is like saying you're skipping your second helpings of stuffing on Thanksgiving to try to lose weight. But small bits of funding here and there add up. I don't want to see it lose funding, but if it is, I suppose that's a good reason for me to stop dragging my feet and financially support programming that I value, kinda like the fund drives say.

Or....... they could do what every other TV station does... sell advertising.

The intention of subsidizing PBS was to bring educational programs to people. It was one of 4 channels we received on our TV.. NBC, CBS, ABS and PBS. Those were the only choices most people had. That isn't the case any longer and it certainly shouldn't be subsidized in this day of hundreds of channels and the Internet. It's just something left over from 40 years ago when it was needed.

Cut the fucking cord.

[Aluvius]

No advertising on PBS is sort of the point though. Since they don't accept advertising they don't have to program to suit advertisers. Which is why you don't see Jersey Shore there and why it has the most foreign news bureau's of any US broadcast outlet. I spent 7 years on the station side of national advertising. FOX News, MSNBC, Hee Haw, Honey Boo Boo, Sitcom Fat Guy with Exasperated Wife 9, etc are all thanks to advertising controlling content.

Forcing PBS to accept advertising would be like forcing HBO to run on advertising, instead of Game of Thrones we'd get Lives of the Lannisters or whatever shit middle america wants to be drip-fed that week.

[Tgo01]

Forcing PBS to accept advertising would be like forcing HBO to run on advertising, instead of Game of Thrones we'd get Lives of the Lannisters or whatever shit middle america wants to be drip-fed that week.

So what you're saying is people who want to actually watch PBS should buy a subscription to the channel instead of everyone paying to have the channel on the air? Makes sense to me.

[Tgo01]

The only poll that matters has Romney ahead .7 points. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls) This day 4 years ago they had Obama up 5.6 points.


AH HA HA HA HA HA HA (breathe) HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bZxs09eV-Vc

I didn't even watch this video until I read this story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/sesame-street-obama-ad_n_1951405.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl3|sec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D217631) about it today.


The folks on "Sesame Street" aren't happy with the Obama campaign.

The Sesame Workshop, which runs "Sesame Street," put out a statement on Tuesday asking the campaign to take down a cheeky ad that prominently features Big Bird.

The ad mocks Mitt Romney's vow to end the federal subsidy to PBS. It paints Big Bird as the shady criminal mastermind behind a raft of financial scandals.

The Sesame Workshop objected to having its characters used in a partisan context, as it said in its statement:

Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.

I don't see how you (you as in Back and you as in Democrats) can have a problem with Romney's desire to cut funding to PBS yet have no problem with Obama using big bird in political campaign ads without getting Sesame Street's permission first. I actually think Obama's move was a lower class act than Romney's. But seeing as how the ad worked wonders for Back I guess it was a brilliant move on Obama's part.

[Atlanteax]

I don't see how you (you as in Back and you as in Democrats) can have a problem with Romney's desire to cut funding to PBS yet have no problem with Obama using big bird in political campaign ads without getting Sesame Street's permission first. I actually think Obama's move was a lower class act than Romney's. But seeing as how the ad worked wonders for Back I guess it was a brilliant move on Obama's part.

Back is a believer in double-standards.

[Deathravin]

I don't see those two as remotely connected in any way... I think the Obama Campaign should have passed the idea to the Onion or SNL and let it be that. Sure...

But trying to link the two is equally disingenuous. Romney's (and republican party's) desire to cut a specific program from the federal budget because you perceive that it has a bias against your party is a perfectly valid political discussion.

Using a product of a government program in a campaign ad is an issue with campaign practices.

Again we've been successfully shifted from real issues and are focusing on bullshit. 'amurka!.

[Parkbandit]

No advertising on PBS is sort of the point though. Since they don't accept advertising they don't have to program to suit advertisers. Which is why you don't see Jersey Shore there and why it has the most foreign news bureau's of any US broadcast outlet. I spent 7 years on the station side of national advertising. FOX News, MSNBC, Hee Haw, Honey Boo Boo, Sitcom Fat Guy with Exasperated Wife 9, etc are all thanks to advertising controlling content.

Forcing PBS to accept advertising would be like forcing HBO to run on advertising, instead of Game of Thrones we'd get Lives of the Lannisters or whatever shit middle america wants to be drip-fed that week.

To be honest, PBS can go stand on the street corner and beg for all I care. It is not the responsibility of our government to spend tax dollars on a TV station.

[Androidpk]

I don't see how you (you as in Back and you as in Democrats) can have a problem with Romney's desire to cut funding to PBS yet have no problem with Obama using big bird in political campaign ads without getting Sesame Street's permission first. I actually think Obama's move was a lower class act than Romney's. But seeing as how the ad worked wonders for Back I guess it was a brilliant move on Obama's part.

Yes, I am sure that PBS is seething with rage at Obama over this. Good call.

[Parkbandit]

I don't see those two as remotely connected in any way... I think the Obama Campaign should have passed the idea to the Onion or SNL and let it be that. Sure...

But trying to link the two is equally disingenuous. Romney's (and republican party's) desire to cut a specific program from the federal budget because you perceive that it has a bias against your party is a perfectly valid political discussion.

Using a product of a government program in a campaign ad is an issue with campaign practices.

Again we've been successfully shifted from real issues and are focusing on bullshit. 'amurka!.

I don't believe PBS funding should be cut because PBS tends to lean left. I believe PBS funding should be cut because we shouldn't be subsidizing a TV station to keep it afloat in 2012.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, I am sure that PBS is seething with rage at Obama over this. Good call.

Where did he say they were? He simply stated that PBS released a statement today saying that the character Big Bird was used without their permission.

[Tgo01]

But trying to link the two is equally disingenuous. Romney's (and republican party's) desire to cut a specific program from the federal budget because you perceive that it has a bias against your party is a perfectly valid political discussion.

I think we can all agree it's pretty shitty what Obama did. Can we agree on that? You sort of kind of hinted that you think Obama was wrong to do so but you didn't really come out and say it.

[Deathravin]

To keep Honey Boo Boo bullshit off of PBS I would be fine upping it's budget from 0.012% to 0.02%

The real question is why we're having a conversation about 0.012% instead of 38.619% that we spend on Defense or any of the other things we throw our money away on. Why this particular 0.012%?

[Deathravin]

I think we can all agree it's pretty shitty what Obama did. Can we agree on that? You sort of kind of hinted that you think Obama was wrong to do so but you didn't really come out and say it.

I forgot you need everything outright stated. Understanding subtlety requires education.

[Androidpk]

Where did he say they were? He simply stated that PBS released a statement today saying that the character Big Bird was used without their permission.

I said that, go get some reading glasses.

[Tgo01]

Yes, I am sure that PBS is seething with rage at Obama over this. Good call.

Did you not read the article at all? Sesame Workshop has made it pretty clear it's unhappy with Obama's campaign for using one of their characters in a political ad, especially a political attack ad. I doubt they are "seething with rage" about it but it's pretty silly to claim Sesame Workshop doesn't give a shit at all.

[Tgo01]

I forgot you need everything outright stated. Understanding subtlety requires education.

Well there you go, was that so hard Back?

OH SHIT I'm sorry Deathravin. No idea how I made that mistake.

[Deathravin]

Yes... Politics is full of bullshit, rhetoric, sleeze and douchbaggery... If you dummies aren't willing to give a shit about fixing the political system at large, can we get on with discussing the actual issues?

Nah. You're all too busy worrying about what brand of tie the president wears, how that is an obvious slight to the other tie manufacturers and if Romney wears the magic underwear. I forgot why I stopped coming here, thanks for the refresher.

[Back]

I didn't even watch this video until I read this story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/sesame-street-obama-ad_n_1951405.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing6|dl3|sec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D217631) about it today.

I don't see how you (you as in Back and you as in Democrats) can have a problem with Romney's desire to cut funding to PBS yet have no problem with Obama using big bird in political campaign ads without getting Sesame Street's permission first. I actually think Obama's move was a lower class act than Romney's. But seeing as how the ad worked wonders for Back I guess it was a brilliant move on Obama's part.

Its more about the humor for me. Romney had a poor delivery on that one. HE'S AFTER BIG BIRD!!! If we are in that much trouble that we need to cut PBS then fine. I don't think we are. And I am certain we could cut more out of defense spending without us even noticing.

Sesame Workshop is well within their rights to make that request and I agree with them.

[Tgo01]

Yes... Politics is full of bullshit, rhetoric, sleeze and douchbaggery... If you dummies aren't willing to give a shit about fixing the political system at large, can we get on with discussing the actual issues?

Nah. You're all too busy worrying about what brand of tie the president wears, how that is an obvious slight to the other tie manufacturers and if Romney wears the magic underwear. I forgot why I stopped coming here, thanks for the refresher.

Did someone get that promotion you've been after or something? You seem wound awfully tight, go get a massage at a happy ending massage parlor or something.

[Androidpk]

Did you not read the article at all?

I did.

[Parkbandit]

To keep Honey Boo Boo bullshit off of PBS I would be fine upping it's budget from 0.012% to 0.02%

The real question is why we're having a conversation about 0.012% instead of 38.619% that we spend on Defense or any of the other things we throw our money away on. Why this particular 0.012%?

What is your rationale for spending tax payer money on PBS every year?

[Parkbandit]

I said that, go get some reading glasses.

I read perfectly.. it's actually your inability to communicate effectively that is the problem here.

[Parkbandit]

Its more about the humor for me. Romney had a poor delivery on that one. HE'S AFTER BIG BIRD!!! If we are in that much trouble that we need to cut PBS then fine. I don't think we are. And I am certain we could cut more out of defense spending without us even noticing.

Romney didn't have a poor deliver on it. He is saying that there is no logic to borrow money from China to continue to keep pet projects like PBS afloat. You disagree with that?

We're 16 TRILLION dollars in debt right now... and you don't think we're in trouble?

[Parkbandit]

Yes... Politics is full of bullshit, rhetoric, sleeze and douchbaggery... If you dummies aren't willing to give a shit about fixing the political system at large, can we get on with discussing the actual issues?

Nah. You're all too busy worrying about what brand of tie the president wears, how that is an obvious slight to the other tie manufacturers and if Romney wears the magic underwear. I forgot why I stopped coming here, thanks for the refresher.

The only one talking about ties and underwear around here is you.

But seriously, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

[Showal]

Or....... they could do what every other TV station does... sell advertising.

The intention of subsidizing PBS was to bring educational programs to people. It was one of 4 channels we received on our TV.. NBC, CBS, ABS and PBS. Those were the only choices most people had. That isn't the case any longer and it certainly shouldn't be subsidized in this day of hundreds of channels and the Internet. It's just something left over from 40 years ago when it was needed.

Cut the fucking cord.

I also believe that lack of advertisement is sort of what makes PBS great. I don't think government funding is crucial to letting that continue. You kind of missed the point of my post though. PB, you're doing that a lot lately. Stop it. Here, let me make a joke that I think you'll get easily. PBS should lose government funding and be forced to have Barney Frank conduct any speaking that occurs on the channel for a minimum of three years. He has to narrate everything and run all fundraisers. That'll keep them afloat.

[Androidpk]

I read perfectly.. it's actually your inability to communicate effectively that is the problem here.

Oh really? Please show me where in my comment about PBS I mention that Tgo1 said it. I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand simple concepts like this.

[Aluvius]

Isn't it also odd that the social conservatives hate the most wholesome programming on television? For the most part, other than the gender things like My Two Mommies, PBS is teaching 1950's values like hard work, intellectual curiosity, interest in science, citizenship, respect for veterans, sense of our shared history, etc. Conservatives should be supporting it. Its the most conservative social program the government funds.

I'm turning 40 this month and as someone who was raised in a Reagan Republican household, I never would have thought I'd see things turn 180 degrees like this in my lifetime. The Republican party has become the party of the radicals. Its bizarro world to me. My poor parents have even stopped watching FOX News.

[Parkbandit]

I also believe that lack of advertisement is sort of what makes PBS great. I don't think government funding is crucial to letting that continue. You kind of missed the point of my post though. PB, you're doing that a lot lately. Stop it. Here, let me make a joke that I think you'll get easily. PBS should lose government funding and be forced to have Barney Frank conduct any speaking that occurs on the channel for a minimum of three years. He has to narrate everything and run all fundraisers. That'll keep them afloat.

I got what you are saying.. you feel that PBS had a role in your life and your professional choices. That's great.. and back then, perhaps that would be true. Today though, there are literally thousands of other places that people turn to for that sort of inspiration.. and they don't require the US taxpayer funding it. And like you said, if you feel that strongly about it.. time to pony up.

[4a6c1]

Isn't it also odd that the social conservatives hate the most wholesome programming on television? For the most part, other than the gender things like My Two Mommies, PBS is teaching 1950's values like hard work, intellectual curiosity, interest in science, citizenship, respect for veterans, sense of our shared history, etc. Conservatives should be supporting it. Its the most conservative social program the government funds.

I'm turning 40 this month and as someone who was raised in a Reagan Republican household, I never would have thought I'd see things turn 180 degrees like this in my lifetime. The Republican party has become the party of the radicals. Its bizarro world to me. My poor parents have even stopped watching FOX News.



The Republican party is no longer for the people by the people. The eternal hope of laissez faire capitalism drives the current Republican party. It's a party for the business of making money and by the business of making money.

[Parkbandit]

Oh really? Please show me where in my comment about PBS I mention that Tgo1 said it. I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand simple concepts like this.

You quoted Tgo01's post when you responded with this post:


Yes, I am sure that PBS is seething with rage at Obama over this. Good call.

And since Tgo01 also responded, questioning your post, perhaps you are the one with the communication difficulty.

[Parkbandit]

Isn't it also odd that the social conservatives hate the most wholesome programming on television? For the most part, other than the gender things like My Two Mommies, PBS is teaching 1950's values like hard work, intellectual curiosity, interest in science, citizenship, respect for veterans, sense of our shared history, etc. Conservatives should be supporting it. Its the most conservative social program the government funds.

I'm turning 40 this month and as someone who was raised in a Reagan Republican household, I never would have thought I'd see things turn 180 degrees like this in my lifetime. The Republican party has become the party of the radicals. Its bizarro world to me. My poor parents have even stopped watching FOX News.

What budget cuts do you support... because I could come up with equally ridiculous conclusions to what you are against.

[Androidpk]

You quoted Tgo01's post when you responded with this post:



And since Tgo01 also responded, questioning your post, perhaps you are the one with the communication difficulty.

This is your proof? Oh you are hilarious. All you're doing is proving that you have no comprehension but we already know that don't we?

[Tgo01]

Isn't it also odd that the social conservatives hate the most wholesome programming on television? For the most part, other than the gender things like My Two Mommies, PBS is teaching 1950's values like hard work, intellectual curiosity, interest in science, citizenship, respect for veterans, sense of our shared history, etc. Conservatives should be supporting it. Its the most conservative social program the government funds.

Who said anything about anyone hating anything on PBS?

[Androidpk]

Who said anything about anyone hating anything on PBS?

Obviously Aluvius is since you quoted his post.

[4a6c1]

Guess what PBS is airing right now??! Comparisons between Ted Kennedy and Romney. No comparison!

[Showal]

I got what you are saying.. you feel that PBS had a role in your life and your professional choices. That's great.. and back then, perhaps that would be true. Today though, there are literally thousands of other places that people turn to for that sort of inspiration.. and they don't require the US taxpayer funding it. And like you said, if you feel that strongly about it.. time to pony up.

I don't really agree that there are literally thousands of other places today. I remember in high school, you could watch history channel and see something history related. Turn it on now, you get Pawn Stars, Top Gear, Cajun Pawn Stars, Counting Cars and American Pickers. Animal planet used to be good for actual educational stuff about animals, now it's Pitbulls and Parolees, My Cat from Hell, and a talent show. Even Discovery's lost it with ice road truckers, all those shows about finding gold, and deadliest catch. Seriously, where can you go nowadays to see programming that's educational for the sole purpose of being educational? Where can you go to see a good documentary on something that may be somewhat obscure?

Someone said it earlier. You go with commercials, you tend to get reality TV bullshit eventually.

I'm still not arguing that PBS needs government funding. I am, however, arguing against there being thousands or even several other decent options available. There is a good deal of value to be found in PBS programming. I'm thinking of young children not knowing what to search for on the internet because they don't necessarily know a topic exists. That line of programming is actually relatively difficult to come by nowadays, and possibly even harder with the amount of bullshit you need to wade through.

[Tgo01]

You could watch that fat guy eat himself to death on the travel channel. If that isn't quality, educational TV then I don't know what is.

[4a6c1]

You could watch that fat guy eat himself to death on the travel channel. If that isn't quality, educational TV then I don't know what is.

Oh god. I'm afraid to google that.

[Tgo01]

Oh god. I'm afraid to google that.

It's Man vs Food. He isn't literally eating himself to death but he goes around the country doing these "challenges" like eating 5 pounds of steak in an hour. Just doesn't seem very healthy to me.

[Back]

It's painful to watch actually.

[Kuyuk]

Makes me hungry most of the time..

[NocturnalRob]

http://bashfulglances.ytmnd.com/

[Atlanteax]

Romney is *LEADING* Obama in more pools now...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/national-polls-indicate-dead-heat-in-obama-romney-battle/?hpt=hp_t2

Welcome to *Hope and Change* in 2012 =)

[Tgo01]

Romney is *LEADING* Obama in more pools now...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/national-polls-indicate-dead-heat-in-obama-romney-battle/?hpt=hp_t2

Welcome to *Hope and Change* in 2012 =)

People are showing support for their presidential candidate by swimming now?

[NocturnalRob]

Clearly racist.

[Atlanteax]

Obama on his Debate performance:


I think it's fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, it's hard to sometimes just keep on saying and what you're saying isn't true. It gets repetitive," Obama said

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/obama-on-debate-i-was-just-too-polite/?hpt=po_c2

[Atlanteax]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204530504578079232194509700.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it's all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn't a mystery at all.

If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there's a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.

Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative. What the debate did to the president is what the Yankees' 0-4 series against the Tigers did at least momentarily, to the team's relationship with their city. "Dear Yankees, We don't date losers. Signed, New Yorkers" read the Post's headline.

America doesn't date losers either.

Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn't do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that's what he did.

And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.

...

Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.

He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he'd been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn't really listen, doesn't really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like "window dressing." One spoke of Obama's surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a "country club Republican." He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. "Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures," Mr. Woodward writes.

Mr. Obama's was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans. Through it all he was confident—"Eric, don't call my bluff"—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.

They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.

Mr. Woodward's portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there's probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that's what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.

People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.

They didn't see some odd version of the president. They saw the president.

And they didn't like what they saw, and that would linger.

Bumping this thread since it references the 1st debate... bolded for emphasis.

[Tgo01]

It's funny reading these news articles about Obama having to face a "tough" decision of either continuing his campaigning or actually put in some presidential work time and address the hurricane crises that is going to affect nearly 20% of Americans.

I know this has nothing to do with the debate but I didn't feel like making a thread for this.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny reading these news articles about Obama having to face a "tough" decision of either continuing his campaigning or actually put in some presidential work time and address the hurricane crises that is going to affect nearly 20% of Americans.

I know this has nothing to do with the debate but I didn't feel like making a thread for this.

In what world is that "funny"? Both candidates have cancelled events.

And LOL at the idea of the WSJ ever giving Obama "advice."

[Tgo01]

In what world is that "funny"? Both candidates have cancelled events.

It's funny because if this had been any other president the headlines would read "(Insert president here) attends fancy fundraiser dinner while Americans die in the street." But since it's Obama the headlines read something like "Obama has a tough decision to make."

How is this a tough decision? He's the fucking president, stop your campaigning and act like it.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny because if this had been any other president the headlines would read "(Insert president here) attends fancy fundraiser dinner while Americans die in the street." But since it's Obama the headlines read something like "Obama has a tough decision to make."

How is this a tough decision? He's the fucking president, stop your campaigning and act like it.

This conservative meme is hilarious, given the Super PACs, News Corp, the right wing web sphere, and the sheer push of conservative talk radio. CNN being in the tank for Romney this time makes it even more hilarious.

[Tgo01]

This conservative meme is hilarious, given the Super PACs, News Corp, the right wing web sphere, and the sheer push of conservative talk radio. CNN being in the tank for Romney this time makes it even more hilarious.

Whoa wait, what?

[Warriorbird]

Whoa wait, what?

http://www.redstate.com/users/erick/

Now a CNN employee.

[Tgo01]

http://www.redstate.com/users/erick/

Now a CNN employee.

No I mean what does any of that have to do with what you quoted me on?

[Tgo01]

You were putting forth the "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA SO NICE TO OBAMA" line.

Oh I see, you hate the truth. Carry on then.

[Warriorbird]

Oh I see, you hate the truth. Carry on then.

Right. I come with actual evidence and you come with "the truth." Got it.

[Tgo01]

Right. I come with actual evidence and you come with "the truth." Got it.

Evidence that the media isn't being nice to Obama because some guy got hired at CNN?

You got me, the entire media is out to get Obama.

[Warriorbird]

Evidence that the media isn't being nice to Obama because some guy got hired at CNN?

You got me, the entire media is out to get Obama.

Way to neglect the rest of what I said, but we can focus down. Given that you're curiously enough not familiar with the right wing blogosphere, it'd be the equivalent of that Kos guy from Daily Kos being hired to be in charge of political editorials at Fox News.


Thread: Oct 3rd Presidential Debate Thread

CNN is in the tank for Romney because of one person? Do you even take yourself seriously at this point?


So yes, yes I actually do. Combine it with that well placed debate poll he put out.

[Jarvan]

Way to neglect the rest of what I said, but we can focus down. Given that you're curiously enough not familiar with the right wing blogosphere, it'd be the equivalent of that Kos guy from Daily Kos being hired to be in charge of political editorials at Fox News.


Thread: Oct 3rd Presidential Debate Thread

CNN is in the tank for Romney because of one person? Do you even take yourself seriously at this point?


So yes, yes I actually do. Combine it with that well placed debate poll he put out.

WB, are you sure you live in the same country as the rest of us?

I just wondering if you reside in some alternate reality where CBS, NBC, ABC, pretty much every major newspaper, and yes CNN are simply extensions of the Republican party.

Fox's opinion people are more conservative. Then again, pretty much everyone else that has opinion people (all of them) are so far left they have two left feet and two left hands for fear of anything to do with the right. Then again, maybe you consider Rachel Maddow unbiased, but I assure you, no one with more then two braincells does.

Lets just tally it up though.

CNN, FOX - In the tank for Romney maybe the WSJ as well.

NBC, ABC, CBS.. 90% of every read newspaper in the country in the tank for Obama.

Yep, the mainstream media is out to get him.

[Atlanteax]

http://www.redstate.com/users/erick/

Now a CNN employee.

If this your idea of 'evidence' ... no wonder how the bulk of your statements are void of logic.

[Warriorbird]

WB, are you sure you live in the same country as the rest of us?

I just wondering if you reside in some alternate reality where CBS, NBC, ABC, pretty much every major newspaper, and yes CNN are simply extensions of the Republican party.

Fox's opinion people are more conservative. Then again, pretty much everyone else that has opinion people (all of them) are so far left they have two left feet and two left hands for fear of anything to do with the right. Then again, maybe you consider Rachel Maddow unbiased, but I assure you, no one with more then two braincells does.

Lets just tally it up though.

CNN, FOX - In the tank for Romney maybe the WSJ as well.

NBC, ABC, CBS.. 90% of every read newspaper in the country in the tank for Obama.

Yep, the mainstream media is out to get him.

Actually, given the rate that News Corp has been buying up newspapers, 90% wouldn't fall into that category at all.

And Atlanteax, you clearly haven't been watching CNN or viewing it online. You've just been reading a conservative newspaper and reading reports from a conservative strategy think tank... hmm.

[Jarvan]

Actually, given the rate that News Corp has been buying up newspapers, 90% wouldn't fall into that category at all.

And Atlanteax, you clearly haven't been watching CNN or viewing it online. You've just been reading a conservative newspaper and reading reports from a conservative strategy think tank... hmm.

So I take it you do think the mainstream media is out to get Obama then?

If so.. may I recommend a vacation here http://www.swvmhi.dmhmrsas.virginia.gov/swvmhi/

[Atlanteax]

So I take it you do think the mainstream media is out to get Obama then?

If so.. may I recommend a vacation here http://www.swvmhi.dmhmrsas.virginia.gov/swvmhi/

Well, he *did* blame the moderator for Obama's first debate, and found the moderators since to be fault-less.

@ WB, I check CNN daily, it does not strike me as a conservative outlet. If anything, 'liberal stories' are plentiful.