heh

So, thoughts on the debate?

kylemittskus wrote:So, thoughts on the debate?

Does it matter?

kylemittskus wrote:So, thoughts on the debate?

Obama was actually there.

Obama lied about Libya, Candy Crowley backed him up, until after the debate she corrected herself. FAIL.

Obama had no answer for attacks on record.

Romney's still a bit of a bozo, but not nearly so much as Obama

In the focus groups, the only people who were big for Obama were women who were worried about lady parts more than reality.

Will the debate hurt Romney?
Unlikely.

Will the debate help Obama?
Not much.

The same polls that said Obama 'won' the debate, showed that people thought Romney was better on the economy, taxes, jobs, health care, etc.

Bottom Line: other than getting the professional pundits juices going (like Chris Matthews), the debate didn't move the needle.

I agree. I can't see it changing much. Obama did poorly with record stuff. I think Romney did poorly with the tax plan question and attack.

I do not understand this outrage? obsessive commenting? whatever you want to call it with what mother posted above, though. I completely understood what Romney meant when he said binders of women. I don't get why this is such an explosive phrase.

kylemittskus wrote:I agree. I can't see it changing much. Obama did poorly with record stuff. I think Romney did poorly with the tax plan question and attack.

I do not understand this outrage? obsessive commenting? whatever you want to call it with what mother posted above, though. I completely understood what Romney meant when he said binders of women. I don't get why this is such an explosive phrase.

because it is funnier than hell

Binders full of women isn't explosive, it's goofy. I lol'd.

Oh, and lady parts are reality if you happen to be a lady. It will cease being an issue when they cease trying to make laws about it.

chemvictim wrote:Oh, and lady parts are reality if you happen to be a lady. It will cease being an issue when they cease trying to make laws about it.

Legalize prostitution!!!

Seriously.

kylemittskus wrote:So, thoughts on the debate?

I think Obama "won" this debate by a larger margin than drunk uncle Joe beat lil Pauley by, however I'm not sure how much it will help anyone.

Romney just plain screwed up a number of opportunities, and had this affinity for grabbing the third rail... And he looked like a spoiled rich kid a few times, which was really unhelpful for him.

Frankly nobody who thinks honestly about it can believe Romney is a fiscal conservative at this point- he's reversed just about every position he had in the primary that qualified him as such. I'm so relieved he's going to start a trade war with China while running up our national debt by decreasing tax revenues (keeping the richest the same and decreasing everyone elses taxes = less revenue, sorry, simple math, and it doesn't work any better for Romney than Obama) and moving away from socialism by increasing Pell grants, pumping more money into the military industrial complex, and supporting cost prohibitive green energy initiatives...

Basically you either get a fiscal Obama with all the positive social policies that he's been working towards, and maybe a huge war in the middle east leading to the decimation of Israel -or- a fiscal Obama who is the enemy of everything socially good and right.

This election really sucks, thank goodness my vote doesn't actually matter, huh?

kylemittskus wrote:Legalize prostitution!!!

Seriously.

Fine by me. A whole new category of "job-creators." Mitt should love that.

mother wrote:I think Obama "won" this debate by a larger margin than drunk uncle Joe beat lil Pauley by, however I'm not sure how much it will help anyone.

Romney just plain screwed up a number of opportunities, and had this affinity for grabbing the third rail... And he looked like a spoiled rich kid a few times, which was really unhelpful for him.

Frankly nobody who thinks honestly about it can believe Romney is a fiscal conservative at this point- he's reversed just about every position he had in the primary that qualified him as such. I'm so relieved he's going to start a trade war with China while running up our national debt by decreasing tax revenues (keeping the richest the same and decreasing everyone elses taxes = less revenue, sorry, simple math, and it doesn't work any better for Romney than Obama) and moving away from socialism by increasing Pell grants, pumping more money into the military industrial complex, and supporting cost prohibitive green energy initiatives...

Basically you either get a fiscal Obama with all the positive social policies that he's been working towards, and maybe a huge war in the middle east leading to the decimation of Israel -or- a fiscal Obama who is the enemy of everything socially good and right.

This election really sucks, thank goodness my vote doesn't actually matter, huh?

O M G!!! A "fiscal" Obama working on "all" the positive social programs???? Man, you must really be drinking the Kool-Aid every hour on the hour.

What positive social programs??? Oh wait, you mean the communist programs.

He's so far left, it's ridiculous. He's failed on fixing the economy. He's failed on foreign policy. He's failed to salute the flag. He's failed to keep most of the promises he made in 2008. So it's time to fire him.

And give me the "Obama" who won't screw Israel, or let it be "decimated". Our one true ally in the Middle East. The only one who doesn't keep stabbing us in the back, supporting terrorism.

MarkDaSpark wrote:

What positive social programs??? Oh wait, you mean the communist programs.

Yes, them.
And the ones that don't force other peoples religious dogma down everyone else's throats, or up their va-jay-jays.

Obama is not a communist. He certainly has some socialist leanings (so does Romney), but put the black lists away.

I really dislike Romney's socially conservative views, as I've said many times, but Obama really has turned me off over the past 4 years. Another election where we are left with a bad choice and a worse choice. Opinions, of course, differ as to which is which.

MarkDaSpark wrote:O M G!!! A "fiscal" Obama working on "all" the positive social programs???? Man, you must really be drinking the Kool-Aid every hour on the hour.

What positive social programs??? Oh wait, you mean the communist programs.

He's so far left, it's ridiculous. He's failed on fixing the economy. He's failed on foreign policy. He's failed to salute the flag. He's failed to keep most of the promises he made in 2008. So it's time to fire him.

And give me the "Obama" who won't screw Israel, or let it be "decimated". Our one true ally in the Middle East. The only one who doesn't keep stabbing us in the back, supporting terrorism.

Failed to salute the flag? Seriously?

I like a lot of Obama's social policies, and they have nothing to do with communism. Live and let live, mind your own business, etc. Works for me.

I'm curious to know what you want from the President when it comes to Israel. Invade Iran?

chemvictim wrote:
I'm curious to know what you want from the President when it comes to Israel. Invade Iran?

Umm, no.
I want Israel to be confident that there is a clearly delineated red line past which we will attack Iran. (That doesn't mean the red line is made public, just that there is one, it's rock solid, and that Bibi and his defense staff know exactly what it is).

I also want the president to quit with the arab/persian muslim appeasement totally insaney. "Those People" do not understand nuance, to them it is weakness. It only speeds the decline of american influence in those regions, and emboldens the enemies of Israel.

Absent the first and to some degree the second want, I fear that Israel will launch a unilateral war against Iran that could be avoided. And it will be Barry's fault.

Edit: You know what the road to hell is paved with, right?

mother wrote:Edit: You know what the road to hell is paved with, right?

Yellow bricks? Wait...

mother wrote:Umm, no.
I want Israel to be confident that there is a clearly delineated red line past which we will attack Iran. (That doesn't mean the red line is made public, just that there is one, it's rock solid, and that Bibi and his defense staff know exactly what it is).

I also want the president to quit with the arab/persian muslim appeasement totally insaney. "Those People" do not understand nuance, to them it is weakness. It only speeds the decline of american influence in those regions, and emboldens the enemies of Israel.

Absent the first and to some degree the second want, I fear that Israel will launch a unilateral war against Iran that could be avoided. And it will be Barry's fault.

Edit: You know what the road to hell is paved with, right?

Primroses? Oh wait, no, that's the *path* to hell, before it's paved.

I have, for some time, been very tempted to write something titled 'Paving the Primrose Path: [insert subject here],' just because it would seem to be a catchy and clever (if too-cute) title, but haven't.

On the bright side, I actually saw my first positive Obama ad that didn't attack using falsehoods.

Too bad he hasn't been using those type of ads from the beginning.

MarkDaSpark wrote:On the bright side, I actually saw my first positive Obama ad that didn't attack using falsehoods.

Too bad he hasn't been using those type of ads from the beginning.

Really? I haven't seen a Romney one yet.












*stir*

bhodilee wrote:Really? I haven't seen a Romney one yet.



*stir*

I haven't seen nary a Romney ad either. Probably because they gave up on the Democratic Socialist Republic of California.

But every one of Obama's ads that I've seen here have been total BS until that one.

MarkDaSpark wrote:I haven't seen nary a Romney ad either. Probably because they gave up on the Democratic Socialist Republic of California.

But every one of Obama's ads that I've seen here have been total BS until that one.

I haven't seen ads from either of them. Not that I'm complaining or anything.

kylemittskus wrote:I haven't seen ads from either of them. Not that I'm complaining or anything.

+1

Unfortunately the pure negative BS seems to be at every level. In CT here the worst is the Senate race between Chris Brown (D) and Linda McMahon (R). It's so bad it's not even humorous!

mother wrote:+1

Unfortunately the pure negative BS seems to be at every level. In CT here the worst is the Senate race between Chris Brown (D) and Linda McMahon (R). It's so bad it's not even humorous!

You couldn't make that race up.

I think Chris Brown should beat the hell out of Linda McMahon and when he turns to egg on the crowd she can get up, do the whole "Real American" fire up the crowd thing, then beat him with a folding chair and then cue her theme song "Umbrella"

mother wrote:+1

Unfortunately the pure negative BS seems to be at every level. In CT here the worst is the Senate race between Chris Brown (D) and Linda McMahon (R). It's so bad it's not even humorous!

Actually, I find the Murphy/McMahon match-up remarkably entertaining. (not sure how Brown got in the middle of this - reminds me of an old joke when Junior Brown's dad was governor of California and LBJ was president....). Murphy's a small time sleezeball who couldn't pay his bills and is owned by his wealthy backers, and McMahon a big time sleezeball who owns a sleezy entertainment company. I figure McMahon, being a rich sleezeball, is slightly less corruptible the Murphy and less likely to do damage in the Senate than Murphy (but it's a close run thing....) Things are so funny, they've even revived the old American tradition of burning effigies of politicians. What fun!

kylemittskus wrote:I haven't seen ads from either of them. Not that I'm complaining or anything.

Same here, which makes me curious as to where the ~$2B in funding they've raised between the two of them is going.

jawlz wrote:Same here, which makes me curious as to where the ~$2B in funding they've raised between the two of them is going.

90+% to the 5-10 (number depends on who you listen to) "competitive" states... which of course includes Colorado.

rpm wrote:Actually, I find the Murphy/McMahon match-up remarkably entertaining. (not sure how Brown got in the middle of this - reminds me of an old joke when Junior Brown's dad was governor of California and LBJ was president....). Murphy's a small time sleezeball who couldn't pay his bills and is owned by his wealthy backers, and McMahon a big time sleezeball who owns a sleezy entertainment company. I figure McMahon, being a rich sleezeball, is slightly less corruptible the Murphy and less likely to do damage in the Senate than Murphy (but it's a close run thing....) Things are so funny, they've even revived the old American tradition of burning effigies of politicians. What fun!

Woops! I guess I figure he beats his girlfriend/wife or something...

joelsisk wrote:90+% to the 5-10 (number depends on who you listen to) "competitive" states... which of course includes Colorado.

We're right next to Iowa and our local TV is their local TV. I'm inundated with f'n ads! Everyone else in Nebraska is like, what ads?

rpm wrote:Actually, I find the Murphy/McMahon match-up remarkably entertaining. (not sure how Brown got in the middle of this - reminds me of an old joke when Junior Brown's dad was governor of California and LBJ was president....). Murphy's a small time sleezeball who couldn't pay his bills and is owned by his wealthy backers, and McMahon a big time sleezeball who owns a sleezy entertainment company. I figure McMahon, being a rich sleezeball, is slightly less corruptible the Murphy and less likely to do damage in the Senate than Murphy (but it's a close run thing....) Things are so funny, they've even revived the old American tradition of burning effigies of politicians. What fun!

awww, that's not nearly as fun

We have constant ads for Dean Heller vs Shelley Berkley, and I get fliers in the mail almost every day. Pretty annoying. I don't really like either of them. What to do?

chemvictim wrote:We have constant ads for Dean Heller vs Shelley Berkley, and I get fliers in the mail almost every day. Pretty annoying. I don't really like either of them. What to do?

Dart boards are useful if you really dislike them equally. Is there a Libertarian or Green party candidate on the ballot? Vote for one of them. Or, simply don't vote that line on the ballot.

rpm wrote:Dart boards are useful if you really dislike them equally. Is there a Libertarian or Green party candidate on the ballot? Vote for one of them. Or, simply don't vote that line on the ballot.

There's an IAP candidate listed on my helpful sample ballot. He seems like an unusual fellow. The first line on his page says " I'm a Rocky Mountain boy and I'm here to help you save the Constitution." He also says, "I am David Lory Van Der Beek. I am of sound mind. I am a fulfilled, happy, healthy, will American man. I will never commit suicide." Okay, then. Back to Berkley and Heller. LOL

In other news, I can vote early starting Sunday, at the grocery store. For some reason that seems weird to me.

chemvictim wrote:There's an IAP candidate listed on my helpful sample ballot. He seems like an unusual fellow. The first line on his page says " I'm a Rocky Mountain boy and I'm here to help you save the Constitution." He also says, "I am David Lory Van Der Beek. I am of sound mind. I am a fulfilled, happy, healthy, will American man. I will never commit suicide." Okay, then. Back to Berkley and Heller. LOL

In other news, I can vote early starting Sunday, at the grocery store. For some reason that seems weird to me.

Well, David Lory Van Der Beek sounds like he'd be fun to watch at any rate. What's his position on lady parts?

rpm wrote:Well, David Lory Van Der Beek sounds like he'd be fun to watch at any rate. What's his position on lady parts?

Missionary?


Sorry, just had to do it!

rpm wrote:Well, David Lory Van Der Beek sounds like he'd be fun to watch at any rate. What's his position on lady parts?

He's married with kids, so I'm assuming he's in favor. :P

Actually, he says abortion is murder, and terrible act victims should take the morning-after pill to avoid getting preggo. At least he's not anti-contraceptive!

You know what I thought was odd? He's in favor of increasing welfare. And he thinks the federal gov't is "stealing" land from the states and herding the people into cities. For my part, I like having all these public lands.

Mr. Van Der Beek for some reason reminds me of some of the candidates for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, of Monty Python fame.

chemvictim wrote:He's married with kids, so I'm assuming he's in favor. :P

Actually, he says abortion is murder, and terrible act victims should take the morning-after pill to avoid getting preggo. At least he's not anti-contraceptive!

You know what I thought was odd? He's in favor of increasing welfare. And he thinks the federal gov't is "stealing" land from the states and herding the people into cities. For my part, I like having all these public lands.

There is a certain libertarian logic to combining a strong pro-life conviction that would generally limit abortion (other than Plan B for certain victims) with a strong preference for supporting the use of birth control.

Assuming (1) the knowledge of birth control is virtually universal, (2) the general availability of birth control, (3) the activities potentially resulting in the gravid state are between consenting adults (or two consenting near adults...), then if one believe life begins at conceptions, it wouldn't be unreasonable to take a view that the two who tangoed without adequate precautions had taken their chances and had to live with the consequences of their ostensibly adult actions.

I wouldn't go that far myself, but I'd can't say I'd object to limitations after the first trimester (which was the original Roe position, since pretty much vitiated to permit terminations right up through delivery).

rpm wrote:There is a certain libertarian logic to combining a strong pro-life conviction that would generally limit abortion with a strong preference for supporting the use of birth control.

While I don't agree with this position, I can respect it.

I've read some more Vanderbeek nuggets of wisdom. I'm thinking it would be super fun to go out drinking with this guy, although he is Mormon so it's probably not going to happen.

http://ccnviap.org/vanderbeek/

"I'm going live as a wild and free American man."

"2012 is not the end of the world, go tell your masters that 2012 is the end of their world and the beginning of our world."

"I want to share a word on secret elite societies that have laid the foundation of our destruction. I speak of the Bilderbergs, Bohemian Grove, Council on Foreign Relation, Trilateral Commission and all the Bloodlines of the illuminati. If they have dug a pit to hell for the American people, if they think they have covenanted with Satan as their god, then I covenant with the American people that I will go into the dark recesses of society and root out the satanist elites and bring them to justice."

rpm wrote:
I wouldn't go that far myself, but I'd can't say I'd object to limitations after the first trimester

I'm comfortable with that. Does that surprise you? However, there should be something in place for the rare cases of mother's life in danger, or those (again, rare, but still) horrible genetic problems that get detected later in pregnancy.