2012 presidential debates

I hope so, Breitbart keeps spewing shit beyond the grave.

the article is nowhere near as great as the comments below it lol

Wait... Obama is gay and has a coke habit?

Who came up with that particular stroke of genius!?

as if those are bad things

BHO just got my vote

the world is gone

lol

  On 10/18/2012 at 11:29 AM, lumpenprol said:

hehe. Yeah you've got the academic overview that I lack, though I would say that the stock market is only one indicator of market freedom. Many (most?) businesses aren't listed/haven't gone public, so they don't encounter that.

 

Also not getting into the concept of guanxi, which I'm sure you're aware of and is pretty unique.

 

My overall point would be this though:economics moves in life cycles just like anything else, and China has been going through (and maybe already finished) a boom period where they came out of Communism with a thirst for unfettered free enterprise (probably not unlike the thirst in the US after the Depression and conclusion of WW2). Of course it doesn't take long for the West to impose more regulations and rules, for foreign conglomerates (mcdonalds, starbucks, etc) to start making inroads, for the new rich to learn how to protect their gains and entrench themselves by skewing the rules in their favor. Just like the US.

Hey, first sorry if the tone of my last response came off as dickish.

When I say market though, i don't mean only stock market. State Owned Enterprises, subsidies to various industries, tariffs and other barriers to entries are all ways in which the government puts a very firm, very uninvisible hand into the market. Sometimes it works, others, ehhh not so much. Depends a lot on the institutions and the people they have running the bureaucracy. I think I'm looking at this from a different POV (much more macro) so maybe that's where the misunderstanding (mostly on my side i think) is coming in. I do agree that fewer, better enforced regulations are much more effective.

An example - canadian banks are in much better shape than American banks, yet there are fewer regulations. But they actually get enforced.

Obviously my understanding of Guanxi is way more limited than yours, but I'm not sure if I would consider it completely unique to China. Networks and trust, as well as industry influence/prestige are an important part of doing business anywhere in the world.

I guess in the west there's more of a reliance on the ability to enforce contracts through the judiciary system, but I know if I'm doing renovations to my house for example, I have my painter or contractor who I trust.

And yes, corporations will always look out for their own bottom line. Which is why (totally unrelated) i find hatred for a corporation fucking hilarious.

I finally got a chance to watch some of the debate, it seemed that it was much more even than the first one. I didn't actually think Romeny's "binders of women" gaffe was that bad - certainly nowhere near as bad as the bit where he didn't know that Obama had declared the Benghazi attacks "an act of terror" the day after. Also, Obama saying "run the transcript" needs to become a meme (in the internet sense of the word).

it blows my mind that people are talking about the Benghazi line in Romney's favor. Im not even kidding.

Co-worker: LOL OBUMMER COULD ONLY REPLY WITH "PLZ GO AHEAD" LOL RAMNEYS GOT HIM THIS TIEM

Me: Is it possible that Obama knew Romney was walking into a lie, and thus allowed Mitt to tie his own rope?

Co-worker: TYPICAL "LIE"BERAL MEDIA STOOGE. Y DONT YOU GO FELLATE ANOTHER CNN MODERATOR

This is obviously exaggerated....but unfortunately and sadly only slightly so.

i mean the idiocy of it all is that the term 'terrorism' or 'terrorist act' is now (post 9/11) a catch all for any type of organized attack against an american overseas, and especially those attacks done by arabs or muslims. IT's an idiotic and nonsensical paradigm from the outset to criticize the president for not using the word enough or in the right way (even though he idiotically did just like Bush would have)

If Romney would have stuck to the idea of the ambassador asking for extra security and writing it in his private journal (which was found i believe by Time magazine after the fact) he might have come out ahead, instead he set Obama up for a volleyball spike by turning it into meaningless labels of what the attack was or wasn't. Huge mistake on his part imo for trying to play on Obama's Bushistic turf, of course Obama is going to call it terror as he would any other attack that happens in the future. It's a strange republican disconnect that they pretend (or maybe they are for real?) Obama isn't on board with the war on terror, he has been for his entire presidency. He's not being tepid about it, i mean the guy went on TV and claimed the assassination of Osama was as heroic as us going to the moon. Maybe not enough for them? It's possible i guess, but from the first 2 months of his presidency it was already far too much for me to take anything he says seriously from that point forward.

This is why the 3rd debate will be the most fascinating, Romney has already backed himself into a corner by trying to position himself as being to the right on foreign policy compared to Obama. It is virtually impossible to be in this position. The only cards he can play are things like our stance on Russia, China (he'll have to carefully tread, which he seems incapable of doing) and Iran (easier). Everything else however isn't going to work. If he was smarter politically he could bring up all of Obama's other broken promises in this area such as the NDAA, the NSA illegal wiretapping still taking place and his refusal to close gitmo. But then again if Romney said something like 'You've validated all the policies you criticized during your 2008 campaign. Can you admit right now Cheney was right and that you needed all the tools you claimed were 'illegal' in your campaign?' he would be criticized or look bad for himself validating Bush policy.

  On 10/19/2012 at 12:57 AM, Awepittance said:

i mean the idiocy of it all is that the term 'terrorism' or 'terrorist act' is now (post 9/11) a catch all for any type of organized attack against an american overseas, and especially those attacks done by arabs or muslims. IT's an idiotic and nonsensical paradigm from the outset to criticize the president for not using the word enough or in the right way (even though he idiotically did just like Bush would have)

 

If Romney would have stuck to the idea of the ambassador asking for extra security and writing it in his private journal (which was found i believe by Time magazine after the fact) he might have come out ahead, instead he set Obama up for a volleyball spike by turning it into meaningless labels of what the attack was or wasn't. Huge mistake on his part imo for trying to play on Obama's Bushistic turf, of course Obama is going to call it terror as he would any other attack that happens in the future.

exactly. just more bullshit nu-terror jingoism.

lol holy shit Ben Stein argues against Fox News taxes talking points on Fox and Friends: http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/10/18/ben-stein-with-all-due-respect-to-fox-were-goin/190730

  On 10/19/2012 at 12:57 AM, Awepittance said:

i mean the idiocy of it all is that the term 'terrorism' or 'terrorist act' is now (post 9/11) a catch all for any type of organized attack against an american overseas, and especially those attacks done by arabs or muslims. IT's an idiotic and nonsensical paradigm from the outset to criticize the president for not using the word enough or in the right way (even though he idiotically did just like Bush would have)

 

If Romney would have stuck to the idea of the ambassador asking for extra security and writing it in his private journal (which was found i believe by Time magazine after the fact) he might have come out ahead, instead he set Obama up for a volleyball spike by turning it into meaningless labels of what the attack was or wasn't. Huge mistake on his part imo for trying to play on Obama's Bushistic turf, of course Obama is going to call it terror as he would any other attack that happens in the future. It's a strange republican disconnect that they pretend (or maybe they are for real?) Obama isn't on board with the war on terror, he has been for his entire presidency. He's not being tepid about it, i mean the guy went on TV and claimed the assassination of Osama was as heroic as us going to the moon. Maybe not enough for them? It's possible i guess, but from the first 2 months of his presidency it was already far too much for me to take anything he says seriously from that point forward.

 

This is why the 3rd debate will be the most fascinating, Romney has already backed himself into a corner by trying to position himself as being to the right on foreign policy compared to Obama. It is virtually impossible to be in this position. The only cards he can play are things like our stance on Russia, China (he'll have to carefully tread, which he seems incapable of doing) and Iran (easier). Everything else however isn't going to work. If he was smarter politically he could bring up all of Obama's other broken promises in this area such as the NDAA, the NSA illegal wiretapping still taking place and his refusal to close gitmo. But then again if Romney said something like 'You've validated all the policies you criticized during your 2008 campaign. Can you admit right now Cheney was right and that you needed all the tools you claimed were 'illegal' in your campaign?' he would be criticized or look bad for himself validating Bush policy.

never gonna happen. no way in hell the Republicans are going to be comfortable with a candidate that is against anything related to Patriot-Act surveillance tactics and assassination of US citizens (hint hint: non-white US citizens, you know, the dirty ones).

If the liberals are having pipe dreams about Obama being against defense spending and militarism, the other side is having one just as bad on the idea that anyone in any position to represent the Republican party is going to actively rail against our increasingly military and civil aggression.

  On 10/19/2012 at 1:50 AM, compson said:

lol holy shit Ben Stein argues against Fox News taxes talking points on Fox and Friends: http://mediamatters....ere-goin/190730

doesn't make up for that intelligent design documentary he pushed but I'm glad to see him being so blunt and logical on Fox

yeah, Ben Stein is a weirdo but he was on point there.

  On 10/19/2012 at 12:53 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

it blows my mind that people are talking about the Benghazi line in Romney's favor. Im not even kidding.

 

Co-worker: LOL OBUMMER COULD ONLY REPLY WITH "PLZ GO AHEAD" LOL RAMNEYS GOT HIM THIS TIEM

 

Me: Is it possible that Obama knew Romney was walking into a lie, and thus allowed Mitt to tie his own rope?

 

Co-worker: TYPICAL "LIE"BERAL MEDIA STOOGE. Y DONT YOU GO FELLATE ANOTHER CNN MODERATOR

 

This is obviously exaggerated....but unfortunately and sadly only slightly so.

If I internally pronounce those co-worker statements pursuant to your spelling and typography, they sound exactly like my father. Thanks, Smetty, you bastard.

Jon Stewart asked Obama about some of the things i mentioned in my earlier post and he deflected it by saying 'i've made modifications and provisions in those laws' to prevent them from effecting our civil liberties, too bad jon stewart didn't followup by asking 'like what?'

  On 10/18/2012 at 4:19 AM, lumpenprol said:

totally agree on that, there was one surreal "I'm getting my ass whipped moment" when Romney pressed Obama on something and Obama, being not quick on his feet, couldn't think of anything else to say but "please go on." And Romney was like "um...you're not disagreeing with what I'm saying?" Was pretty facepalm.

you're completely misinterpreting what went on in this exchange if you think romney came out on top. when obama said "please proceed, governor", he was getting out of the way to allow romney to embarrass himself.

  On 10/19/2012 at 11:03 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

  On 10/18/2012 at 4:19 AM, lumpenprol said:

totally agree on that, there was one surreal "I'm getting my ass whipped moment" when Romney pressed Obama on something and Obama, being not quick on his feet, couldn't think of anything else to say but "please go on." And Romney was like "um...you're not disagreeing with what I'm saying?" Was pretty facepalm.

 

you're completely misinterpreting what went on in this exchange if you think romney came out on top. when obama said "please proceed, governor", he was getting out of the way to allow romney to embarrass himself.

In hindsight but at first I thought it was possible Obama had made a small slip up on wording. I was unfamiliar with his speech after the attack.

regardless of who you support or whatever, debatewise that "plz proceed....could you repeat that Candy?" is the closest thing you are going to get to a smackdown in a pres. debate.

amazingly this had very little effect on the polls.

if romney ends up winning this election, he may have very well done so on the basis on the first debate...for the first time in the history of televised american debates...my guess is because of the incredibly entrenched partisan media machines.

  On 10/19/2012 at 11:46 AM, compson said:

  On 10/19/2012 at 11:03 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

  On 10/18/2012 at 4:19 AM, lumpenprol said:

totally agree on that, there was one surreal "I'm getting my ass whipped moment" when Romney pressed Obama on something and Obama, being not quick on his feet, couldn't think of anything else to say but "please go on." And Romney was like "um...you're not disagreeing with what I'm saying?" Was pretty facepalm.

 

you're completely misinterpreting what went on in this exchange if you think romney came out on top. when obama said "please proceed, governor", he was getting out of the way to allow romney to embarrass himself.

 

In hindsight but at first I thought it was possible Obama had made a small slip up on wording. I was unfamiliar with his speech after the attack.

same, from my far remove over here in China I still can't tell if Candy erroneously supported Obama's position, or if Obama did clearly state it was "an act of terror." Too much disinformation flying around.

Edit: in any case, I don't think Obama was laying a trap with the "plz proceed." He didn't want to give a clear answer one way or another (he probably forgot what he actually said) - imo.

Ok, after viewing some youtube clips, I've changed my mind. Guess he knew very well what he said. But he was playing semantics; it seems he was speaking generally about "acts of terror", not the Benghazi situation specifically.

In any case, the reason it probably didn't resonate around the world as a smackdown is anyone with half a brain realizes "shit happens" and everyone has the potential to be blindsided by terrorism. The economy is what this election is about.

The "please proceed" was brilliant. Perfectly executed. Being all president like on Romney's ass. Not sure why anyone would interpret that differently.

Anyways, please proceed.

lol. I'll proceed if you help me out with this hole I'm digging...