2012 presidential debates

I agree that he didn't touch on the reasons why Romney shouldn't be elected and it was disappointing.

  On 10/5/2012 at 1:28 AM, YO303 said:

I sometimes ask myself why are people still buying into this bullshit then i realize most people are fucking idiots.

it is not a question of how much people are buying in, it is more a question of what they are not buying. it pays to know the rules of the game. once one knows the rules, then the likelihood that one can be tricked (no matter how dim one is) goes down dramatically. those who are in power, whether it be political or otherwise, they do not want those they have power over, to know the rules, this is planet earth 101- they do not want us to know wrong from right. they do not want us to be empowered with the truth or they can not control us anymore. they can not make us sick or continue to brainwash us or imprison our hearts and minds. they would not be able to lead us to slaughter, like they have been, for thousands of years. whether one believes it is a 'they' or an 'it', the rules we need to know remain the same. we must break free, as individuals - as a community who believes in a unified system based on love (in all its detail) and knowledge (prioritized and relevant in relation to simplicity and community infrastructure) and truth. don't let anybody tell you differently, there is right and there is wrong and there is truth and falseness - knowing the difference is what we are here to do!

  On 10/5/2012 at 4:23 AM, Redruth said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 1:28 AM, YO303 said:

I sometimes ask myself why are people still buying into this bullshit then i realize most people are fucking idiots.

 

it is not a question of how much people are buying in, it is more a question of what they are not buying. it pays to know the rules of the game. once one knows the rules, then the likelihood that one can be tricked (no matter how dim one is) goes down dramatically. those who are in power, whether it be political or otherwise, they do not want those they have power over, to know the rules, this is planet earth 101- they do not want us to know wrong from right. they do not want us to be empowered with the truth or they can not control us anymore. they can not make us sick or continue to brainwash us or imprison our hearts and minds. they would not be able to lead us to slaughter, like they have been, for thousands of years. whether one believes it is a 'they' or an 'it', the rules we need to know remain the same. we must break free, as individuals - as a community who believes in a unified system based on love (in all its detail) and knowledge (prioritized and relevant in relation to simplicity and community infrastructure) and truth. don't let anybody tell you differently, there is right and there is wrong and there is truth and falseness - knowing the difference is what we are here to do!

what is right?

who is "we"?

  On 10/5/2012 at 3:36 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

just believe what you want to believe

i believe in life after love

  On 10/5/2012 at 4:57 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

who is "we"?

"you" if you want it to be

  On 10/5/2012 at 5:11 AM, Redruth said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 4:57 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

who is "we"?

 

"you" if you want it to be

I don't get it, are you the Chief Representative of Vague Platitudes at Boomkat?

how can six words lodge cher so deep in my brain? get her out, it's killing me

you might even say i'm really not strong enough, no

  On 10/5/2012 at 5:16 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I don't get it, are you the Chief Representative of Vague Platitudes at Boomkat?

lol

  On 10/5/2012 at 5:23 AM, luke viia said:

how can six words lodge cher so deep in my brain? get her out, it's killing me

lol

  On 10/5/2012 at 5:11 AM, Redruth said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 4:57 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

who is "we"?

 

"you" if you want it to be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHLqvme1uew

  On 10/5/2012 at 3:17 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 3:15 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 2:53 AM, vamos scorcho said:

Politics, law... shameful things in this day and age.

 

yeah - fuck society! who needs order and all that kind of bullshit.

 

dude if you would only like, open your mind, youd realize that there really is no such thing as a social contract and this is all perpetuated by the banks

You clowns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEBwp2IAdMA

notice at about 2:18 romney removes papers from his pocket and places them on the podium.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4006904

in the video above you can see romney retrieve the papers from the podium and eventually hand them off to his son.

people on the reddit are saying that in some of the previous presidential debates notes weren't allowed, although all the rules for this debate aren't known. the first debate was an inside job you guys.

i saw an obama aide grab a folder off his podium after the families both walked off stage, not sure if it was against the rules. Not to imply that you are trying to come up with excuses for Obama's horrible performance last night, but whatever the case is, the blame lays squarely on him. Even if his campaign staff told him to play it completely passively or even said 'keep looking down, if you look up you will seem like an angry black man' he didn't have to listen to them

Either Obama willingly took a dive, his mojo has completely evaporated or he subconsciously wants to lose the election because being the president fucking sucks.

And sorry for those who think it's 'conspiracy theorist' to think there are powers above the president inside the USA, but i can guarantee that we haven't seen the end of the PNAC Bush era yet, regardless of who's president. Maybe Romney will just make it easier for them to continue whatever they planned to escalate in the post 9/11 wake of erosion of civil liberties (which are not just for terrorists they are for all of us). The democrats now resemble a center to center right party and the old 'right wing' era during Clinton has gotten so insane that it's borderline unapologetically fascist. I'm not saying martial law is coming, but whatever is coming is going to make things worse than they already are, not just in our country. I think whatever happens to Bradley Manning and Assange in the near future will mark a distinct tipping point in how things will play out, not in the elections but for all future generations. NDAA is no laughing matter, and going by history these types of civil liberties erosions don't get magically reversed. It requires a large public outcry and push back, which sadly i cannot see happening at any point. To those out there who think these only apply to 'terrorists' or inherently evil people, you aren't reading closely enough. Any activist (US citizen or not) who threatens the US government's power in a meaningful and significant way is in danger, whether they themselves realize it or not. There is now an invisible and undefined line which if you cross it you could be indefinitely detained without any criminal charges .

it may have been a handkerchief that he removed from his jacket at the beginning of the debate. oh, well. the conspiracy was fun while it lasted.

I hate to take a shit on anyones parade or anything but they will all tell you want to hear (or in Obamas case not so much) until elected and then they will have a sudden case of amnesia, no matter who you vote for.

I vote Cher for President, at least she will genuinely forget. They say Botox absorbs your thoughts.

Romney is too pro-war.. thinking of him being president makes me honestly fear for the future. Think of the kind of meetings he and Netanyahu would have.

  On 10/5/2012 at 4:05 PM, mafted said:

Romney is too pro-war.. thinking of him being president makes me honestly fear for the future. Think of the kind of meetings he and Netanyahu would have.

I think a lot of Obama supporters and liberals are convinced he's dramatically more pro-war than Obama when he's really not. I think American military intervention (beyond the vast array of covert ops of course) in Iran is quite unlikely (see my two paragraphs below). An assumption that's easy to make that Romney is inherently a hawk or neo-con, etc. and I do it myself all the time. He and the GOP are inherently more hawkish than Obama with the rhetoric of course. They basically just assail Obama with flat out lies and misinformation in order to say he's a bad military leader, weak, for major defense cuts, etc. Still, they still try to insist that Obama is waffling on Syria and that he's some kind of hypocrite because of the Libyan operations. Of course they never offer an explanation why nor a alternative to what Obama is doing now. They are vague for many reasons. First of all, they know Obama's policies are not very different than there own. Secondly, they have a huge evangelical and fundamentalist base, mostly Christian, that is convinced the end of the world is both near and will occur in and around Jerusalem - hence the tough on Iran, we must defend Israel at all costs rhetoric. I have no idea how many Mormons are just as revelation-oriented as right-wing Christians, but personally I think Mitt isn't one and even sensible to know that any further military action in the middle east without Arab or EU backing (as with Libya) is an insane notion. In that sense, he's all talk and not much scarier than Obama.

I AM however curious about his stance on Afghanistan and overall military deployments overseas, which is my main interest in the next debate. Right now there is a very understated but very real anti-intervention movement brewing among Republicans. Not just Ron Paul fans or the more sincere Tea Party people either - a lot of average GOPers are very much okay with pulling out of Afghanistan ASAP. Granted, much of it is based on the debt concerns but a lot of them also seem to admit the futility of the operations there. It's something I've noticed with a lot of conservative friends and family but am fully aware would never be openly embraced by the party itself - again, that's why they're so vague.

Back to the hypothetical war: the fact is the most likely military action between Israel and Iran is a preemptive strike by Israeli against all Iranian nuclear facilities and if that occurred neither Romney NOR Obama would come close to fully condemning such action - in fact they'd likely clear air-to-air attacks on any Iranian aircraft attempting to shoot down Israeli jets over Iraq and other "allied" Arab nations from bases in the Gulf. Iran has a very real motivation to be aggressive, but conservatives never acknowledge that country's utter lack of resources to actually fire a long-range rocket. That's why just support proxy entities like Hezbollah instead. I also personally don't think Israel will carry out such a strike anyway because of both political sanity from enough of their own politicians as well as tactical caution - they don't have long-ranger bombers and airborne refuelers like the US or even the EU.

I'm more worried about Romney being steadfast about not making cuts to military spending - he's outright a supporter of actually expanding already inefficient and expensive projects like the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense budget is the most bureaucratic, lobbyist invested, and flat-out inefficient branch of Federal government spending - so much so that equipment and weapons program decisions are contrary to the actual needs of the military. For example, current cuts call for retiring many A-10 jets, an aircraft utilized more than any other fighter aircraft in the USAF inventory, and yet no consideration is made to cut expensive air superiority aircraft like the F-22 or JSF. That kind of spending bullshit is likely the most relevant thing regarding Romney and the military imo. Obama, as usual, is mute on the issue.

usa is a corporation and like all economically viable corporations (including america, uk, eu, canada, etc etc) the bottom line is the share holders remain satisfied and the profit to loss margins remain black. 'they' will do anything to sustain profitability and no obama's or romney's (fleshy windbags) and certainly no 'little people', will have anything to say regarding this. unless of course, we stop supporting their corporation, their flawed system and instead, completely and exclusively (if you don't know what this means, then you should learn what this means) support the 'alternative'. the alternative being an economy based on the polar opposite of what constitutes their current, capitalist systems, their profit based, 'free' market economy. this is true for our uk or eu or any of our countries around the world and yes they are ours, not theirs

and i actually hoped that the "polar opposite" is a hyperlink when i saw it underlined

everything you say in this thread is some vague idealism mixed with vast ignorance and reductions.

can you at least acknowledge the vast differences between eu countries and the us ? can you properly define the current system and its flaws and its desired opposite - the un-'free' un-market economy ? who's "us" and who's "they" ?

  On 10/5/2012 at 1:18 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

hint: its to win votes aka. everyone pays attention to rhetoric, no one pays attention to evidence.

the fact that this is so true is the saddest and most frightening thing (to me)

  On 10/5/2012 at 6:20 PM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 1:18 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

hint: its to win votes aka. everyone pays attention to rhetoric, no one pays attention to evidence.

 

the fact that this is so true is the saddest and most frightening thing (to me)

Yeah +1 on that. It's not really any different in the UK to be honest.

  On 10/5/2012 at 6:06 PM, eugene said:

and i actually hoped that the "polar opposite" is a hyperlink when i saw it underlined

 

everything you say in this thread is some vague idealism mixed with vast ignorance and reductions.

 

can you at least acknowledge the vast differences between eu countries and the us ? can you properly define the current system and its flaws and its desired opposite - the un-'free' un-market economy ? who's "us" and who's "they" ?

It's useless responding to anything troon says. It's all vague, nonsensical whimsy of zero value.

Leave him to posting recent music releases, everything else is throwaway.

  On 10/5/2012 at 6:44 PM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 6:20 PM, sneaksta303 said:

  On 10/5/2012 at 1:18 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

hint: its to win votes aka. everyone pays attention to rhetoric, no one pays attention to evidence.

 

the fact that this is so true is the saddest and most frightening thing (to me)

 

Yeah +1 on that. It's not really any different in the UK to be honest.

yes - that's it in a nutshell

welp, time to just enjoy the following debates for the shitshows that they are.

Unemployment numbers have come in, if he wasn't far ahead enough already, Obama is definitely getting re-elected.

  On 10/4/2012 at 11:01 AM, vamos scorcho said:

the worst thing about the debates is that i'm the only person i know who didn't watch them. can't believe you supposedly intelligent people still pay even the smallest amount of attention (respect) to this raging tornado of bullshit.

  On 10/4/2012 at 11:06 AM, vamos scorcho said:

i promise all here that there is more value in just 1 single fart than in the absolute totality of time spent thinking, discussing, and watching political events, candidates, philosophies, tv things for the past 4 months

You're an idiot.