2012 presidential debates

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:17 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:14 AM, compson said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:04 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

 

i may seriously disagree with you on some things, but you are certainly welcome here. just dont expect everyone to pick up what you are throwin' down, i spose.

 

the whole name-calling thing wasn't the intention. but talking about our duty to impose our sense of morality on a pretty foreign culture that was created and nourished under far different circumstances seriously starts ringing some neo-colonial bells, if you get my drift.

 

It only gets that drift because the media has carefully designed the dialogue so that you can justify supporting the two party system (democrats) even though they propagate the same types of foreign policies. If you cross a line, it signals an extreme/violent approach to the problem. Obama is considered by the Muslim world to be less favorable than Bush in polls, yet we have the majority of so called "anti-war" voters supporting him.

 

i am voting third party and i still believe that a country whose citizens feel a responsibility to civilize or enforce their morality on others outside of their cultural/ethnic/historical heritage, are symptomatic of racial institutionalization. In essence, we cannot force another sovereign entity to learn killing is wrong and unjust by killing/hurting as many of them as possible.

 

We have seen what this type of thinking does before, many times, with ghastly results.

I have never suggested this and have been talking about non-violent approaches, but I am not sure if you are directing that as a critique or just a general observation. We need to lead by example, by improving our government so that others model it... but we can also improve other places by speaking up about it and opening up a broader discussion about how we can improve life for everyone. We need to learn how as human beings to live amongst another without killing each other. Focus on that first then we can deal with other more first world problems issues that the media fixates on most.

In honor of this grate thread, I would like to invite all of you to join me in chatmm tomorrow as we simultaneously tune-in to the Rush Limbaugh show at 12pm EST.

Thank you.

  On 10/25/2012 at 4:04 AM, compson said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 1:34 AM, Iain C said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:27 PM, baph said:

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)

 

I'm talking about compson personally not Greens generally. I just think it's odd that somebody can support nominally left wing parties while holding mad right wing views.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Which views exactly and can you quote them? And don't beat around the bush man, you essentially called me a racist idiot. Back that shit up if you are gonna play that game. I don't think I have ever said something like that about anyone on a forum.

Fuck off, I don't owe you anything.

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:45 AM, Iain C said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 4:04 AM, compson said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 1:34 AM, Iain C said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:27 PM, baph said:

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)

 

I'm talking about compson personally not Greens generally. I just think it's odd that somebody can support nominally left wing parties while holding mad right wing views.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Which views exactly and can you quote them? And don't beat around the bush man, you essentially called me a racist idiot. Back that shit up if you are gonna play that game. I don't think I have ever said something like that about anyone on a forum.

 

Fuck off, I don't owe you anything.

well fuck you too

Shit Gettin' Cray in Here

And now we've got a good ole US American debate goin yeeeehaw

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

Nah, I just hate it when people talk about politics.

  On 10/25/2012 at 9:17 AM, Squee said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

 

Nah, I just hate it when people talk about politics.

So don't read the thread...duh.

  On 10/25/2012 at 10:14 AM, azatoth said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 9:17 AM, Squee said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

 

Nah, I just hate it when people talk about politics.

 

So don't read the thread...duh.

You probably shouldn't have made that initial comment about compson, IainC. It was an unnecessarily combative jab that really didn't have anything to do with the thread (really), and brought back sour notes that had somewhat dissipated.

So that line of back and forth moaning ends in this thread now, tah. That goes for the others that piled on too. Anyway, it's not like this thread hasn't got many other great hot buttons to push already, plenty of stuff to write reams about.

Just started watching the third party debates... if this shit got media coverage in the US like some completely ridiculous hot topics this country would be in a full blown revolution. Makes me a bit uncomfortable that it's being ignored. Couple weeks ago I was on another political forum and brought up Breaking the Set, but the topic/thread was removed/banned because the admins on the site claim that RT is Russian propaganda. However I recently saw a thread covering this third party debate that it seems only RT posted up on the internet. Gonna see if I can make the case that there is clearly hypocritical attitudes on display. If one of the only media outlets providing third party candidates debate coverage is a Russian propaganda network, than how knee deep in propaganda does that make our networks?

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:07 AM, Awepittance said:

another counter to (godel?) the idea that there isn't a gate keeping establishment. How was the 3rd party debate completely ignored by all 3 major 24 hour news channels, including the one (CNN) who's biggest star, Larry King hosted the debate. He explained before the debate that he 'dislikes moderating' and felt it was an important cause for him, to give 3rd parties a platform. Seems newsworthy in and of itself and clearly there has been a mainstream media blackout of the event. The concept that it won't make them money to give the event any coverage whatsoever doesn't hold water. At this point it's pretty obvious the corporate power structure doesn't want to undermine their narrow narrative, the illusion of choice between 2 corporate backed candidates.

I see where you're coming from and I do agree that it's pretty much impossible for 3rd party candidates to get heard.

Whether or not the members of mainstream media have a coordinated strategy to ignore a debate like that is something which is near impossible to confirm. It might be interesting to check the contracts of the networks televising the official debates. Who knows. Somewhere in all the legalise might be a portion where it says that media-institutions are not allowed to show debates outside of the official ones. I can imagine that in reality the reasoning is "all of the above".

If there's something of an "establishment", this group will never be all encompassing. So there needs to be some leverage to get other groups on board. Whether or not things like this get to contracts and/or side-letters is very unlikely of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in all the legalese, some parts might suggest things like this. And possible with a completely rational goal (and more likely, with some (un)wanted 'side-effects').

Some outlets might be contractually denied to cover other debates. And other outlets might put the focus on the official debates because there is more money in showing those. I mean, what's the commercial value of the 3rd party debate?

I do think it's odd that there isn't some state-run outlet which shows debates like this.

On a tangent: there's an interesting documentary about Obama's early days in the White House. It's made by a Frenchman so it might be independentish and from the European point-of-view. It's called "Obama: Great Expectations". One of the things getting attention is the close-Guantanomo debacle, the Israeli-Palestina conflict. How things started with great ambitions, and how things seem to fall apart. It;s a great recap of what went wrong. And why.

I hope the link works. Its on a Dutch network (the docu is in English), so there might be some legalese problems for US-ians to view it.

http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/afleveringen/1298965

it's really safe to act open minded about islam. its so politically correct and an easy way to make yourself look superior.

all organized religion is toxic. you want to worship a god? do it all by yourself.

  On 10/25/2012 at 7:26 PM, marf said:

it's really safe to act open minded about islam. its so politically correct and an easy way to make yourself look superior.

all organized religion is toxic. you want to worship a god? do it all by yourself.

that's all you got?

  On 10/25/2012 at 2:44 PM, compson said:

If one of the only media outlets providing third party candidates debate coverage is a Russian propaganda network, than how knee deep in propaganda does that make our networks?

That's pretty much it. They can only hypocritically use the propagandist tag against RT. Because every major media outlet in the US, that they might be quoting to illustrated 'reasoned' or 'balanced' opinion, is edited with an agenda of redacting anything intresting that might have been brought up by the citizens of the state. Whole topics of interest to large swaths of the public are ignored or belittled.

Sure if you want to find out about putin doing a false flag operation in dagestan. well RT aren't going to be the place you go to to find out about it. But for what happens in the rest of the world, RT has been a useful source of timely and considered coverage.

so i just saw this commercial tonight on tv and wanted to see what peoples thoughts were on it.

  On 10/26/2012 at 1:25 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

so i just saw this commercial tonight on tv and wanted to see what peoples thoughts were on it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UnX7TNFIELg

this guy is an idiot.

Red Hungary is as socialist as the Soviet Union was communist. What a load of garbage.

  On 10/26/2012 at 1:25 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

so i just saw this commercial tonight on tv and wanted to see what peoples thoughts were on it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UnX7TNFIELg

This is pathetic. Take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy? Pfft.

I am really tired of the notion that people with lots of money create good jobs, its simply not true. You take motivation and incentives from people when they feel they cannot even aspire to anything, even if they wanted to. I know I can never be a multimillionaire, its just not in the cards... But it seems some people are still under the assumption that the American dream didn't have an expiration date.

There exists corporate welfare as most of you know. We will pay over 100 billion in direct government subsidies to corporations, which doesn't include tax loopholes or trade barriers, which will make that number much higher... it makes me sad that this is not well discussed, but right-wingers bitch about government aiding its people in any way... 100 billion is more than the government spends on education for its children. You ask me: That's what is fucking pathetic.

This election has proved (to me) without a doubt that if it wasn't a joke before my time, it is now.

see, i don't know how to feel about it. i mean, i kinda get what he was saying but honestly America is nowhere near what Hungry was and never will be. and other than that he gives no actual reason why he is voting republican. and Audio, you deffinitly will not be a millionaire with that attitude. seriously, i do believe anyone can become a multimillionaire, even you. doesn't matter where you start.

and smetti, Hungry in the 50s was socialist. all the way into the 80's it was socialist. it was owned by the Soviet Union, which was a socialist state. and he was making reference to the Hungarian Revolution that happened in '56 where the local populace revolted against the Soviet run government and the thousands that fled the country before the Soviets came back. but i really dont want to debate this.

That ad is quite hyperbolic. Also what's with the subtitles? I understood everything he said. In fact, his accent sounds kinda fake.

  On 10/26/2012 at 2:56 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

see, i don't know how to feel about it. i mean, i kinda get what he was saying but honestly America is nowhere near what Hungry was and never will be. and other than that he gives no actual reason why he is voting republican. and Audio, you deffinitly will not be a millionaire with that attitude. seriously, i do believe anyone can become a multimillionaire, even you. doesn't matter where you start.

 

and smetti, Hungry in the 50s was socialist. all the way into the 80's it was socialist. it was owned by the Soviet Union, which was a socialist state. and he was making reference to the Hungarian Revolution that happened in '56 where the local populace revolted against the Soviet run government and the thousands that fled the country before the Soviets came back. but i really dont want to debate this.

i can't tell if you are being facetious or not.

There's socialist and there's socialist. I think he doesn't get that. France is socialist, as is germany and sweden. Hitler was a national socialist. Hence there's socialist and then there's socialist. It's a label that has been applied to good and bad projects. And added to economies in smaller or larger doses. The US is socialist if you are a corporation, retired or the military.

And yes this guy is an idiot. The undercurrent of his argument was that he is a wealth creator. Which obviously leads down the path to him thinking that because of this elevated status, well why shouldn't he not pay tax, after all he's employing people who pay tax, he's wealth creating. And so on.

  On 10/26/2012 at 6:41 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/26/2012 at 2:56 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

see, i don't know how to feel about it. i mean, i kinda get what he was saying but honestly America is nowhere near what Hungry was and never will be. and other than that he gives no actual reason why he is voting republican. and Audio, you deffinitly will not be a millionaire with that attitude. seriously, i do believe anyone can become a multimillionaire, even you. doesn't matter where you start.

 

and smetti, Hungry in the 50s was socialist. all the way into the 80's it was socialist. it was owned by the Soviet Union, which was a socialist state. and he was making reference to the Hungarian Revolution that happened in '56 where the local populace revolted against the Soviet run government and the thousands that fled the country before the Soviets came back. but i really dont want to debate this.

 

i can't tell if you are being facetious or not.

what dleet said, i won't split ideological hairs, but "Socialist" Hungary was an authoritarian puppet state, who had a centralized economy BUT it was completely dictated by a foreign power on every single matter...if you have absolutely no say in your economic affairs, how the fuck can you claim to represent ANY ideology other than imperialism/neo-colonialism? Can you consider that falling within the definition of socialism?

Maybe, if you considered Japan in the late 40s, South Korea up to the 80s, the Phillippines in the 1900s, and Cuba around the same time as democratic republics.

Like dleet said, the closest thing we have in a real govt. representing an independent socialist model is the hybrid govts. of Wester/Central/Northern Europe.

again, sorry to sound like an ass, but it really gets in my craw this constantly spewed mantra that the Soviet Union was communist. Maybe in one or two Siberian villages for about three months of the Civil War, after that, Communism has very little to do with anything that happened in that country, other than its name being conveniently used by the ruling cadres for agitprop.

oh, i totally understand about the communism thing. real Marxist communism has not actually been implemented anywhere in the world. ever. only varying degrees of extreme Socialism. thats western ignorance for ya, just straight up saying theyre communist. it so much easier to be stupid then to actually know what youre talking about.

and the hungry thing, yeah you make a point. i didn't really know what you were saying before. yeah the people had no say at all about there government and economy is based on the people not the government. so in reality, Hungry wasnt a red state but still labeled one.