2012 presidential debates

the whole third party debate--> link (too dumb to embed from the code that they provide)

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:22 AM, delet... said:

the whole third party debate--> link (too dumb to embed from the code that they provide)

cheers!

Stayed in the same hotel as Mitt Romney on Monday night. His staff were really rude and awful, and one drunken young man conceded to me that they'd lost the debate. They ordered eight huge pizzas and didn't share. More inside information when I'm not literally dying of alcohol poisoning

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  On 10/24/2012 at 5:13 PM, Iain C said:

Stayed in the same hotel as Mitt Romney on Monday night. His staff were really rude and awful, and one drunken young man conceded to me that they'd lost the debate. They ordered eight huge pizzas and didn't share. More inside information when I'm not literally dying of alcohol poisoning

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

not surprising. Im telling you, Obama has this election; the polls are just being manipulated to make it a tight race. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Obama's handlers told him to throw the first debate to make it more "exciting".

*takes off aluminum hat*

The media is for sure running with this horse-race narrative to make it more exciting and the masses tuned in on every exciting twist and turn of every poll under the sun.

OK so on Tuesday morning some bigwig republican was getting out of his car outside the front of the hotel. I have no idea who he was but he seemed important, kind of a 1% vibe about him. I was just stood with my colleague having a cigarette and looking cool. Anyway some other republican comes out to greet him and as they're chatting, one of them drops his glasses. Because I'm a polite guy, I bent over to pick them up and handed them to him...

And he didn't even LOOK at me, let alone say thankyou. Just glanced at me sideways and held his hand out - like I was his servant or staff or something. Maybe he thought I was, but I doubt many republicans wear trousers as ball-crushingly tight as me. Anyway they're all arseholes.

Also, before I even knew Romney was in the hotel, I was in a lift a WHOLE bunch of well-dressed people came in - probably seven or eight of them, dressed up to the nines. Some teenage girls and even a toddler. Felt I should meet the natives, so I said to one of the women "Wedding?" and she said "No, debate!" and that's when I kind of twigged. Plus it explain the literally hundreds of police outside.

All the guys looked a bit like him, so I assume they were relatives. They seemed OK. One of them called me a "kind man". I suppose if I were black they'd have treated me differently.

America is a frightening country for someone as left-wing as I am. I have renewed respect for people like Awepittance who are politcally active here in the face of absolutely obscene hostility. And renewed contempt for liberal idiots like compson who just want to smoke weed and hate muslims.

  On 10/24/2012 at 5:45 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

*takes off aluminum hat*

...um...can i take that hat off your hands, if you don't mind?

  On 10/24/2012 at 8:36 PM, Iain C said:

And renewed contempt for liberal idiots like compson who just want to smoke weed and hate muslims.

Damn wtf?

RUDE

tune in here at around 3pm pst / 6pm est

http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

i'll be discussing the tragedy of the Republicans idiotically positioning themselves to the right of Obama's continuation of Bush policies

or if you get cable

New York State and North East US

New York City & Northern New Jersey – Time Warner Cable channel 135;

Buffalo, NY – Time Warner Cable channel 194;

Rochester, NY – Time Warner Cable channel 194;

Binghamton, NY – Time Warner Cable channel 196;

Syracuse, NY – Time Warner Cable channel 196;

Portland, ME – Time Warner Cable channel 159;

Augusta, ME- Time Warner Cable channel 195;

DC Metro Area

Comcast -­ channel 274;

Verizon Fios -­ channel 455;

Cox Cable -­ channel 473;

RCN Cable -­ channel 33;

Over the Air -­ digital channel 30.4;

Dish Networks (DC Area Only) -­ channel 8084.

California

Los Angeles -­ Time Warner Cable channel 236;

San Diego & North County -­ Time Warner Cable channel 222;

South San Diego (Banning & Yucca Valley) – Time Warner Cable channel 236;

Greater San Francisco Bay Area -­ Comcast Cable channel 103.

Some kid on facebook just defended Anne Coulter by saying that "retard" is a "scientific" term used in the DSMIV and that nobody should be offended by the word "retard." He went on to say that "clinical professionals" refer to people with the "clinical" term "retard."

I was pretty bored, so I figured I'd play with the troll a little by indicating that while "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" exist in the DSMIV (and their usage is soon to be deprecated by the DSMV), "retard" is not used in the DSMIV as a noun to refer to patients. Retard is almost universally considered a pejorative.

His response was hurhur I never said it was used as a noun. But retard and mentally retarded have the exact same meaning! your statement is inaccurate! Nobody should be offended by being called retard because I am not offended by it! Fucking whiny libs! Manufactured outrage! You are the retarded one because you do not understand my words! All you are doing is criticizing Anne Coulter for using a verb instead of a noun!

It was hilarious. Is that DSMIV line coming from some Fox News talking point?

The manufactured outrage point is sort of independently hilarious though, because Anne's shtick is a two-phase troll. It's not what she says that lowers political discourse in the country, it's the way the troll is designed to shape that discourse, eg: phase 1 of troll: Anne says "retard," knowing that it is considered politically incorrect and that a few "libtards" will whinge about; phase 2 of troll: "conservatives" will then become outraged over perceived liberal sensitivity. I mean, it's entry level shit by internet standards, but I'm continuously surprised at how willing everyone is to let her play the game and erode actual political conversation.

  On 10/24/2012 at 9:44 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 8:36 PM, Iain C said:

And renewed contempt for liberal idiots like compson who just want to smoke weed and hate muslims.

 

Damn wtf?

 

RUDE

Vote Green. Smoke weed. Hate Muslims. That's about right isn't it?

  On 10/24/2012 at 9:57 PM, baph said:

Some kid on facebook just defended Anne Coulter by saying that "retard" is a "scientific" term used in the DSMIV and that nobody should be offended by the word "retard." He went on to say that "clinical professionals" refer to people with the "clinical" term "retard."

 

I was pretty bored, so I figured I'd play with the troll a little by indicating that while "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" exist in the DSMIV (and their usage is soon to be deprecated by the DSMV), "retard" is not used in the DSMIV as a noun to refer to patients. Retard is almost universally considered a pejorative.

 

His response was hurhur I never said it was used as a noun. But retard and mentally retarded have the exact same meaning! your statement is inaccurate! Nobody should be offended by being called retard because I am not offended by it! Fucking whiny libs! Manufactured outrage! You are the retarded one because you do not understand my words!

 

It was hilarious. Is that DSMIV line coming from some Fox News talking point?

lol, you should just link him to this for fun, I doubt he's intelligent enough to grasp the irony once he starts using these terms: http://en.wikipedia....oural_disorders

He also sounds like the kind of person who uses the terms "Orientals" and "Queer" because political correctness is a fascist liberal conspiracy or says he should be allowed to say "Negro" because the NCAAP still does - but also likely the same offense asshole who cries about the war on Christmas and that white Christians are under attack in America. Maybe I should start adding the handful of fringe friends and family members so I can laugh at such absurd conservative rhetoric, such stupidity is beyond getting riled up over.

I'm concerned with those that favor sharia law and radical islamic beliefs which oppress women and education. By being concerned with that I am not ignoring the cause for why. I think all people are equal and I am a fan of Abby's show and ideals. But that doesn't mean I am going to pretend that other forms of radical religious beliefs aren't bad. The West may be the cause for it, hard to get down to the history involved with shaping culture, but stuff like this I think (below) is ok to protest because I do support the ideals of freedom of religion, speech and equality.

  Quote

Darwish noted that half of the voters in Egypt voted against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia, while Egyptian voters in the USA supported the Islamist agenda in far greater percentages, perhaps even 95%. She finds that these voters in the USA are more radical than the Egyptian populace overall.

So I reject any prior statements that unnecessarily generalize this. I don't see whats wrong with liking weed? or voting third party?

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:08 PM, joshuatx said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 9:57 PM, baph said:

Some kid on facebook just defended Anne Coulter by saying that "retard" is a "scientific" term used in the DSMIV and that nobody should be offended by the word "retard." He went on to say that "clinical professionals" refer to people with the "clinical" term "retard."

 

I was pretty bored, so I figured I'd play with the troll a little by indicating that while "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" exist in the DSMIV (and their usage is soon to be deprecated by the DSMV), "retard" is not used in the DSMIV as a noun to refer to patients. Retard is almost universally considered a pejorative.

 

His response was hurhur I never said it was used as a noun. But retard and mentally retarded have the exact same meaning! your statement is inaccurate! Nobody should be offended by being called retard because I am not offended by it! Fucking whiny libs! Manufactured outrage! You are the retarded one because you do not understand my words!

 

It was hilarious. Is that DSMIV line coming from some Fox News talking point?

 

lol, you should just link him to this for fun, I doubt he's intelligent enough to grasp the irony once he starts using these terms: http://en.wikipedia....oural_disorders

 

He also sounds like the kind of person who uses the terms "Orientals" and "Queer" because political correctness is a fascist liberal conspiracy or says he should be allowed to say "Negro" because the NCAAP still does - but also likely the same offense asshole who cries about the war on Christmas and that white Christians are under attack in America. Maybe I should start adding the handful of fringe friends and family members so I can laugh at such absurd conservative rhetoric, such stupidity is beyond getting riled up over.

Oh he absolutely included a discussion of how no gay person should be offended by being called gayqueerfag because those are just descriptors of his or her sexual preference and to be offended would be to admit that that sexual preference is wrong. "It would be like someone calling me an idiot whitey! It doesn't hurt me at all!"

I bowed out of the "conversation," obviously. He dug is own intellectual grave. I ain't even bovvered!

A big reason why I don't support Obama anymore his how he has been a war mongering Bush II. I almost fully supported Ron Paul back in 2007 because he seemed most peace like candidate/option, but then he lost and Obama was seemingly good second option. Now I support Jill Stein.

but Sharia law is not equatable to 'radical islamic' beliefs generally speaking. This is a right-wing talking point that has been debunked by almost every unbiased researcher. the idea that Sharia law as it exists in the united states is 'radical' is not accurate. The way Sharia law as it's used in other parts of the world, that's debatable. I'm all for an open discussion about the damage that organized religion poses on society as a whole, but not in the context of american politics when not looking at religion as a whole. To center in on islam or the muslim religion being a problem that relates to the united states at all is basically falling into the trap that the US government has set up for us. So what i'm saying is to hone in on Islam specifically as being problematic is not useful, unless you aim to reinforce the idea that 'islam' leads to 'radical islam' leads to 'a terrorist threat' i dont think there is much point to bring it up at all.

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

but Sharia law is not equatable to 'radical islamic' beliefs generally speaking. This is a right-wing talking point that has been debunked by almost every unbiased researcher. the idea that Sharia law as it exists in the united states is 'radical' is not accurate. The way Sharia law as it's used in other parts of the world, that's debateable

The poll is concerning the law in Egypt which is more radical than that in the united states?

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:20 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

but Sharia law is not equatable to 'radical islamic' beliefs generally speaking. This is a right-wing talking point that has been debunked by almost every unbiased researcher. the idea that Sharia law as it exists in the united states is 'radical' is not accurate. The way Sharia law as it's used in other parts of the world, that's debateable

 

The poll is concerning the law in Egypt which is more radical than that in the united states?

  Quote

while Egyptian voters in the USA supported the Islamist agenda in far greater percentages, perhaps even 95%. She finds that these voters in the USA are more radical than the Egyptian populace overall.

Unless i'm misreading the above, it seems highly manipulative and designed to reinforce false right wing belief systems in the united states. It seems to be implying that Egyptian americans support 'radical islam' 95% whereas in egypt its a lot less. How do they define radical islam? What statistical analysis was used to back this up ?it seems highly off base to me, to put it mildly. To me it just sets out to marginalize an already very much hated part of the american population unfairly.

Iain C, respectfully, where'd the conflation of the U.S. Green Party with Muslim Hatin' come from?

I must have missed a particularly important detail there.

(edited for fucking typo, fuck)

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

but Sharia law is not equatable to 'radical islamic' beliefs generally speaking. This is a right-wing talking point that has been debunked by almost every unbiased researcher. the idea that Sharia law as it exists in the united states is 'radical' is not accurate. The way Sharia law as it's used in other parts of the world, that's debatable. I'm all for an open discussion about the damage that organized religion poses on society as a whole, but not in the context of american politics when not looking at religion as a whole. To center in on islam or the muslim religion being a problem that relates to the united states at all is basically falling into the trap that the US government has set up for us.

I'm not about to make this into a big discussion, so I will just say this, there is little to be done on that front, so I agree, we should just promote positive change here at home rather than direct attention towards Islam, but at the same time I think Obama's attitude and some other "liberal" generalizes the problem too much out of political correctness, so what we are left with perhaps is a poor understanding amongst the cultures over our values. Basically we should protest oppression where ever it exists and I think there is certainly some of that going on in the Middle East, and that poll seems to suggest that their motivation is purely religious and not religious freedom. If there is other polling to suggest that women's equality, freedom of religion and education are favored in most middle east countries than I am obviously wrong and do apologize for any kind of hateful attitude.

Also this:

  Quote

Obviously, the fact that an American policy contributes to anti-Americanism in the Muslim world isn't by itself a decisive argument against the policy. But ever since terrorism became a significant threat to American interests, this consideration has belonged in the policy cost-benefit calculus. All the more so in the wake of the Arab Spring, when the policies of Egypt and some other Muslim countries are more responsive to popular opinion, and anti-American sentiment can therefore translate more directly into anti-American policies.

  Quote

There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith.

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:17 PM, Awepittance said:

To center in on islam or the muslim religion being a problem that relates to the united states at all is basically falling into the trap that the US government has set up for us.

^ this especially, especially regarding "the war on terror" and its implications domestically

I don't like Sharia in and of itself but the fact is it's irrelevant to me as an American - Christian laws are being passed against the LGBT community and against pro-choice establishments and rights, government-funded AND privately funded, among other things.

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:15 PM, baph said:

I bowed out of the "conversation," obviously. He dug is own intellectual grave. I ain't even bovvered!

right on

i still dont really understand the context or details of the poll, the real meaning of it is lost to me and i think to anyone who is a critical thinker. I'm not trying to minimize oppression of women or absurdly misguided sexual repression that exists in the muslim world. I'm trying to understand how islam has any noticeable effect in the context of American society. That poll implies that Egyptian americans are far more 'radical' than Egyptians living in Egypt, which i simply cannot believe. It doesn't make sense on it's face. If youc ould supply me the sourcing for that poll i would be happy to examine it and come to my own conclusion

and the idea that i'm trying to promote is that Islam in general has a lot of things worthy of hatred from free-thinking people. This is obvious, and clearly why it has worked so well to push a specific agenda the US government wants to push. Whenever the US government or any government for that matter wants to strip it's entire citizenry of civil liberties, it chooses a group that most people can get on board the hate-train for. It was done with communists, right-wing anti government militia groups and now muslims (which encompasses a far ranging set of ideologies, unlike communism and militia groups). It's the oldest trick in the book, and to focus in on it specifically and to take it as a serious issue that we must face is not taking history and America's manipulative agenda into account. It's selective, intentionally so. Our American apparatus is not concerned of the threat Islam poses on freedom in the world, it's concerned that a population is increasingly becoming heavily anti american and isn't afraid to continually talk about it and promote it. IF they weren't muslim we would go after them for something else, it really is that simple.

Speaking of third party candidates, it's amazing how much momentum and relevance Ron Paul lost compared to his presence in 2008. While I still admire him personally I'm quite over supporting him overall. I use to be an apologist for his supporters, now I think those around are now just cult followers where they should be supporting one of the 3rd party candidates.

I think it was this thread, but anyway awepittance mentioned how disappointing, if not flat-out wrong, it was for him to not to run as a 3rd party candidate, especially since he's leaving Congress. I keep getting annoyed seeing a local head shops with Ron Paul 2012 and "Ron Paul for president" signs. I'm curious how many will write him in on the ballot.