kylemittskus wrote:Personally, I think the argument you and Mother were having was absurd,

I agree that it was absurd, not so sure it was worthy of the label "argument" ;)

mother wrote:Not true. Some things are subjective and some things are not.

You could argue that Romney joked at others expense more, but that it didn't make him less gracious- the determination of graciousness is subjective. You cannot legitimately argue the fact that more of his jokes were at others expense than Obama's jokes were at others expense. I can think of no legitimate way to make that question subjective.

Mark is not remotely dumb, so I don't for a minute think he doesn't understand the difference between subjective and objective.

I went back thru BOTH raw footage videos of Obama and Romney's speeches there.

Subjectively, although I was trying to be objective about it, I reviewed their jokes. I counted about 18/19 jokes by Romney and 20 jokes by Obama.


Joking about themselves:

Obama made about 5.5 jokes (Holding up traffic for next 4 years (.5); Napping in 1st debate; Chris Matthews joke; Anniversary Debate; House Ruth (didn't) Built; & crowd hoping to see Michelle) including himself as the "butt".

Romney made about 6 jokes (Wardrobe; he and Obama chatting as if Tuesday didn't happen; NY's highest spiritual leader getting them on their best behavior (.5); Wine into Water and Water into Wine (.5); Gov. Cuomo 1 Term / father Gov; Designated driver; & Debate Prep - refrain from alcohol for 65 years) including himself as the "butt".


Joking about the other:

Obama made 3 jokes about Romney ( Cuomo for Pres.; Buying stores; & Not popular foreign trip) and 1 joke about Ryan (2 hour or so).

Romney made 5 jokes about Obama (Redistributing wealth; 4 weeks ago; St. Peter didn't build church; Lean on Clinton; & blame Pope John Paul II) and 2 jokes about Biden (Joe Biden laugh at anything; Biden Charm - Fed Election Comm).


So about even on self-jokes, and not quite double on the jokes Romney made about Obama.

However, Obama didn't say Romney's name until around 5:31 into his speech. While Romney referred to "President Obama" at 1:51 into his speech. Also, Romney opened by thanking everyone, while Obama opened with a joke about Clint Eastwood and everyone sitting in their chairs before thanking everyone.

Romney (at around 8:13) talked about the President having many fine and gracious moments, and around 8:20 said that the President "has many gifts and a beautiful family that would make any man proud."

Obama (around 8:45) on the other hand only said he admired Romney as a family man & father. He also talked about their "different political perspectives" and that he felt they both shared hope that the next 4 years would "reflect the decency and willingness to come together for a higher purpose that are on display this evening."


Subjectively to me (or dishonestly and/or delusionally to some), Obama failed in the graciousness test: by failing to mention Romney by name in the first 2 minutes; by bringing up bin Laden; and by not saying anything nice about Romney other than "Family Man & Father" (among other non-gracious things) whereas Romney complimented Obama about more than just his family.

kylemittskus wrote:Easy killer. I was joking about the delusional thing. I just forgot the . I was defending you. Personally, I think the argument you and Mother were having was absurd, but I didn't, nor do I, think you were lying during any of it.

Edited for clarity.*

So I have a choice being delusional or dishonest? Please don't "help" any more.


Edit: And it was absurd, because as usual, both of us were talking past the other.

Plus, I wasn't the one who insulted the other's intelligence and honesty here. I was trying to point out that I thought both were gracious, and was attacked for that (1+1=3 comment). Then, when trying to mention specifics, was attacked again (dishonest comment).

Reviewing both videos more in depth made me change my mind that both were gracious to the previous post's conclusion.


And I was tempted to do the IFTFY on "I just forgot the . I was defending you.", changing it to "I just forgot I was defending you."

MarkDaSpark wrote:
Edit: And it was absurd, because as usual, both of us were talking past the other.

I'm still trying to figure out how we missed each other without realizing it.

Plus, I wasn't the one who insulted the other's intelligence and honesty here.

FWIW I don't think the joke about Cuomo really counts as at Romney's expense, but 3:1 vs 2:1 isn't worth debating. Personally I think it was uncouth for either to take any swipes at the other.

I think you both owe me about eight minutes of my life, I don't care about how you divy up the ratio but I want em back!

Is it time to just retire the Poli"ticks" threads altogether?

rpm wrote:Is it time to just retire the Poli"ticks" threads altogether?

Nah, there's still utility here, but at this point we've all formed our opinions of who we're voting for, I think that much is obvious.

bhodilee wrote:Nah, there's still utility here, but at this point we've all formed our opinions of who we're voting for, I think that much is obvious.

Eh. I'm almost sure I'm voting for Romney, but I'm still at the edge. I'd like to talk about propositions, but they're state-specific so not really appropriate in this type of thread.

kylemittskus wrote:Eh. I'm almost sure I'm voting for Romney, but I'm still at the edge. I'd like to talk about propositions, but they're state-specific so not really appropriate in this type of thread.

I was thinking the other day it would be nice if Congress was ONLY allowed to propose bills based on federal issues. Not State issues like tax breaks for arrow manufacturers. That way your state rep only dealt with Federal Potty Emergency! and it would be up to your state legislature to kick up bills to the federal level. So it would be Nebraska specifically that asks for arrows or whatever. If ten states ask for basically the same thing they could hire someone to write the bill for consideration once at the federal level.

Hold each state to say ten requests per year, and the State Federal Reps had to abstain from voting that issue.

Obviously, you'd have a lot to work out, but seems like it may streamline things.

bhodilee wrote:Nah, there's still utility here, but at this point we've all formed our opinions of who we're voting for, I think that much is obvious.

I will just leave next time I don't feel like being here, without dramatic declaration as to why...

As to presidential votes- there are only a few of us that were ever remotely independent, no?

We have a choice between a dissapointment with some major foreign policy weaknesses, and a congress that will prevent him from getting anything done, and a billionaire governor, former son of a governor, who interests in no conceivable way could align with the middle class, who will say absolutely anything to get elected, and who picked an extremist for a running mate.

That said my rights and the rights of my friends and family come first, and I can't bring myself to vote for people that insist they want to take those rights away. I also think Romney would sell out our nation to big business and the theocratic anti-science bunch. Something we can ill afford 10-20 years down the line.

So I will vote against my own wallet (and *knock on wood* hopefully a lot) and in mortal fear over what happens with Israel, and I will hold it against the Republican party with extreme prejudice.

PS The only reason I'm still voting this year is to support a Republican at the state level, so put that in your pipe and smoke it!

mother wrote:I will just leave next time I don't feel like being here, without dramatic declaration as to why...

As to presidential votes- there are only a few of us that were ever remotely independent, no?

We have a choice between a dissapointment with some major foreign policy weaknesses, and a congress that will prevent him from getting anything done, and a billionaire governor, former son of a governor, who interests in no conceivable way could align with the middle class, who will say absolutely anything to get elected, and who picked an extremist for a running mate.

That said my rights and the rights of my friends and family come first, and I can't bring myself to vote for people that insist they want to take those rights away. I also think Romney would sell out our nation to big business and the theocratic anti-science bunch. Something we can ill afford 10-20 years down the line.

So I will vote against my own wallet (and *knock on wood* hopefully a lot) and in mortal fear over what happens with Israel, and I will hold it against the Republican party with extreme prejudice.

PS The only reason I'm still voting this year is to support a Republican at the state level, so put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Ha! Very well said, although I feel I need more convincing to be terrified about the Israel situation.

To everyone else: Don't go away, Republicans! This is the only place I have to go learn what *sane and intelligent* conservatives are thinking, and why!

chemvictim wrote:Ha! Very well said, although I feel I need more convincing to be terrified about the Israel situation.

To everyone else: Don't go away, Republicans! This is the only place I have to go learn what *sane and intelligent* conservatives are thinking, and why!

Chem, seriously. Be terrified. The situation is beyond bad and only getting worse. Israel's metaphorical back is being pushed up against a wall and they're rightfully sick of it. If you had a maniac threatening to destroy your entire home, you'd strike first. And if they do, we do. And just like in every other similar situation where there's a literal madman on the loose who needs to be stopped, nothing good comes from it except hopefully madman goes away. And then whomever follows is hopefully better. Or we rinse and repeat.

kylemittskus wrote:Chem, seriously. Be terrified. The situation is beyond bad and only getting worse. Israel's metaphorical back is being pushed up against a wall and they're rightfully sick of it. If you had a maniac threatening to destroy your entire home, you'd strike first. And if they do, we do. And just like in every other similar situation where there's a literal madman on the loose who needs to be stopped, nothing good comes from it except hopefully madman goes away. And then whomever follows is hopefully better. Or we rinse and repeat.

Okay...but even if I become appropriately terrified, so what? What can we do about said maniac other than squish him? We can threaten to squish him. Somehow I doubt he's impressed...what will be will be. I gotta say though, I'm guessing there's an upper limit on the number of middle eastern countries we can successfully war with at one time.

chemvictim wrote:Okay...but even if I become appropriately terrified, so what? What can we do about said maniac other than squish him?

I think I've opined before about this here.

We need to make sure the Israelis know we WILL squish the maniac before he gets nukes. We also need to stop pretending with the nuance totally insaney regarding Israel and the basket of nuts in the neighborhood. Bibi may be a bit difficult to deal with, but he's a teddy bear compared to Erdogan, Morsi, etc.

Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons even if you don't think they would actually use them (riiight) because it would trigger a proliferation nightmare scenario with Egypt and the Gulf states joining the nuclear arms race.

One lunatic with the bomb is bad enough news for the survival of Israel, can you imagine if they all had them? Particularly because they would definitely eventually nuke each other, and you know nobody would pass up that opportunity to drop a few megatons on Tel Aviv...

rpm wrote:Is it time to just retire the Poli"ticks" threads altogether?

I hope not.
Well my son is getting married in Washington DC on Nov 5th, so I get to be in DC from 2nd to the 7th. This ought to be interesting.

mother wrote:I think I've opined before about this here.

We need to make sure the Israelis know we WILL squish the maniac before he gets nukes. We also need to stop pretending with the nuance totally insaney regarding Israel and the basket of nuts in the neighborhood. Bibi may be a bit difficult to deal with, but he's a teddy bear compared to Erdogan, Morsi, etc.

And how to we do this? Make promises? I think the current administration has already made that promise, again and again. So, I guess I understand what you want to happen, but I don't understand what you want done in order to achieve it.

chemvictim wrote:And how to we do this? Make promises? I think the current administration has already made that promise, again and again. So, I guess I understand what you want to happen, but I don't understand what you want done in order to achieve it.

By, behind closed doors, telling the Israeli's where that "red line" is. By not putting out there that "all options are on the table" only to have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs come out and take military action off the table. By not suddenly changing from calling Israel "our closest ally in the region" to "one of our closest allies in the region." Should I continue?

To best sum it up: by not trying to play both sides against the middle and instead BE CREDIBLE.

Edit: The problem is that Obama's current modus operandi both makes the Iranians (and other enemies of all that is good and right in that neighborhood) bolder, but makes Israel feel like they must do something before it's too late, because they are not willing to bet their existence on Obama doing something in time.

mother wrote:By, behind closed doors, telling the Israeli's where that "red line" is. By not putting out there that "all options are on the table" only to have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs come out and take military action off the table. By not suddenly changing from calling Israel "our closest ally in the region" to "one of our closest allies in the region." Should I continue?

To best sum it up: by not trying to play both sides against the middle and instead BE CREDIBLE.

Edit: The problem is that Obama's current modus operandi both makes the Iranians (and other enemies of all that is good and right in that neighborhood) bolder, but makes Israel feel like they must do something before it's too late, because they are not willing to bet their existence on Obama doing something in time.

this talks about the red line and military action.

Do you have sincere doubt that we'll be right in the middle of this conflict, if and when it does occur? Or do you just want the administration to be more vocal about it? I don't want the president to sound too eager for war. As for what they're talking about behind closed doors, we wouldn't know.

chemvictim wrote: this talks about the red line and military action.

Do you have sincere doubt that we'll be right in the middle of this conflict, if and when it does occur? Or do you just want the administration to be more vocal about it? I don't want the president to sound too eager for war. As for what they're talking about behind closed doors, we wouldn't know.

And what is wrong with sounding too eager for war if that prevents or delays the need for a war?

mother wrote:And what is wrong with sounding too eager for war if that prevents or delays the need for a war?

Indeed, the best way to ensure there will be a war is to be unprepared to fight one in a world where there are people who want power and resources.

Of course, if recent reports that the Obama administration has given assurances to Iran recognizing their "nuclear rights" are correct, the situation is even more dangerous.

If Obama is reelected, either the Israelis will strike Iran or Iran will get nukes by June. There is no way Obama will go to war to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons - unless it's in the aftermath of attacks on US forces after an Israeli strike. Any view to the contrary is risible.

There is going to be a war in the Middle East, probably next year. The only question is how it will start.

mother wrote:And what is wrong with sounding too eager for war if that prevents or delays the need for a war?

Clearly you're convinced that it will prevent or delay the war. Could there be negative consequences? Will it hurt our reputation if we appear to be chomping at the bit to engage in yet another war? I don't think any of us can be sure about it...

chemvictim wrote:Clearly you're convinced that it will prevent or delay the war. Could there be negative consequences? Will it hurt our reputation if we appear to be chomping at the bit to engage in yet another war? I don't think any of us can be sure about it...

IMO, we are left with two really horrible options. Option one: threaten to go to war and actually do so if need be or Option two: actually go to war.

kylemittskus wrote:IMO, we are left with two really horrible options. Option one: threaten to go to war and actually do so if need be or Option two: actually go to war.

Pretty much. Of course, if Obama is reelected, no one with take the possibility that we will go to war seriously, which makes the war absolutely inevitable...it just changes the character of the war and makes it more likely that it will be a nuclear war.

rpm wrote:Pretty much. Of course, if Obama is reelected, no one with take the possibility that we will go to war seriously, which makes the war absolutely inevitable...it just changes the character of the war and makes it more likely that it will be a nuclear war.

This is where I'm less convinced. War? Yes. Nuclear? Maybe. The idea that someone would actively and knowingly start such a thing is so beyond my reach of logic that I find it hard to wrap my head around. Doesn't mean it's not so, but really...?

kylemittskus wrote:This is where I'm less convinced.

What I would like to avoid is a preemptive strike by Israel. Would be a disaster. The scenarios under which this would go nuclear are all much more likely if Israel is the aggressor.

Now I can almost promise you the proxies of Iran will use WMD, just not nuclear weapons.

So...it's hopeless and depressing.

chemvictim wrote:So...it's hopeless and depressing.

Yep, drink more wine

ERMD wrote:Yep, drink more wine

You could have saved us much angst by simply suggesting that about 3 pages ago.

In other news, I got my mail in ballot. My Denver, Colorado ballot has 16 options for President plus a write in spot.

ERMD wrote:Yep, drink more wine

It's almost time to take that advice!

News we can all get behind- TSA is pulling those damned nude-o-scopes at JFK and LGA.

(They used the potentially cancer causing back-scatter machines)

mother wrote:News we can all get behind- TSA is pulling those damned nude-o-scopes at JFK and LGA.

(They used the potentially cancer causing back-scatter machines)

I love that you call them nude-o-scopes. And I sort of can't believe we've accepted these things to begin with.

rpm wrote:Pretty much. Of course, if Obama is reelected, no one with take the possibility that we will go to war seriously, which makes the war absolutely inevitable...it just changes the character of the war and makes it more likely that it will be a nuclear war.

I'm curious about this view. He hasn't really been too shy about killing people who needed to be dead, and he hasn't let little things like boundaries and allies stop him. Why wouldn't he merrily go to war with Iran? Aside from we absolutely can't afford it.

Also, what makes Israel more important than Saudi Arabia for the US in the region? Seems like the Saudis are positioned better militarily and have a lot of oil. Loyalty is always a concern I guess. Not ever going to be an issue with Israel.

bhodilee wrote:
Also, what makes Israel more important than Saudi Arabia for the US in the region?

I'm just not going to answer that one, ok?

mother wrote:I'm just not going to answer that one, ok?

That's too bad, I'd like to know the answer. I'm not saying one is more important than the other, I'd just like to know why one is more important than the other. From a US Standpoint, it seems debatable.

bhodilee wrote:That's too bad, I'd like to know the answer. I'm not saying one is more important than the other, I'd just like to know why one is more important than the other. From a US Standpoint, it seems debatable.

Only one group of us was chosen and it wasn't SA.

bhodilee wrote:That's too bad, I'd like to know the answer. I'm not saying one is more important than the other, I'd just like to know why one is more important than the other. From a US Standpoint, it seems debatable.

How long you got????

But the long and short of it is that we can trust Israel, but we can't trust anyone else long term in that region.

They're talking about Israel stuff on the debate now. I'm listening with interest.

Edit: R and O appear to have the same position - we will stand with Israel if it is attacked, we will not allow the nukes, military only as last resort. There's no difference.

Romney is reliving his foreign trip here on the stage. I didn't expect the disparity on this debate to be as large as it is. Obama's experience in the Oval Office is really showing here.

Romney is FAR more a businessman than a diplomat and it shows

kylemittskus wrote:Only one group of us was chosen and it wasn't SA.

Wasn't me either for that matter. So aside from cheering for the home team, what's the reason? I'm not advocating anything, I'm legitimately curious.

bhodilee wrote:Wasn't me either for that matter. So aside from cheering for the home team, what's the reason? I'm not advocating anything, I'm legitimately curious.

How about this:


In the entirety of the Umma I think there have only ever been 2 Nobel laureates in the sciences. (Which is SUPER sad considering how much the Muslim world contributed to sciences and humanities back during the dark ages. Do you realize we would have lost most of our knowledge of the Greeks without Muslim Scholars? Google Al Kindi, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Khaldun if you don't know what I'm talking about )

How about the fact that Israel is a modern democracy?

How about the fact that Israel is the only country in the region that protects the rights of minorities (and women)? Nowhere else in the middle east are *muslims* freer than in Israel. I don't think I need to point out the situation for Christians, Jews, Hinus, Buddhists, Atheist... Do you know where gay Gazans go to get their pride on? Tel Aviv.

Name a product other than oil or terror that comes from Saudi Arabia.

[BTW Jews have a totally different reason, and we're deathly serious about never again, but you're not always on the short list for genocide like we are]