[tenderman100]

(10-14-2012 02:57 PM)Kona Wrote:  

But then they throw in their little racist crap every now and then like this:

(10-14-2012 04:05 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

And that Obama! He's clean and articulate, doncha know.

People like this are racists, but they are way bigger pussies.

Aloha!

Uh, you'd better learn to read carefully.

I didn't say this. I am quoting Uncle Joe Biden, who said it about Obama, before crazy Joe was tagged to be VP.

So who's the racist now?

You know, there is a thesis held by many that leftists are stupid. Watch out that you don't add to the evidence.

[speakeasy]

Yo tenderman, you've gotten temporary bans in the forum before for being a hothead and taking personal stabs at people on political matters. Why do you insist on continuing this type of behavior?

[rationalize_this]

(10-12-2012 08:59 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

You know what would have been cooler, if Biden and Ryan threw down a bare knuckle fight till one of them got K.O. or tapped out. I think Biden would kick his ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8uOUdQg2AQ
Paul Ryan does p90 like its his job. I also have a source on the hill that says he puts up 225 on bench no problem.

[tenderman100]

(10-14-2012 05:35 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yo tenderman, you've gotten temporary bans in the forum before for being a hothead and taking personal stabs at people on political matters. Why do you insist on continuing this type of behavior?

Hey, did I call anybody stupid? I don't think so.

Did someone call me a racist? I think so.

[Kona]

(10-14-2012 06:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 05:35 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yo tenderman, you've gotten temporary bans in the forum before for being a hothead and taking personal stabs at people on political matters. Why do you insist on continuing this type of behavior?

Hey, did I call anybody stupid? I don't think so.

Did someone call me a racist? I think so.

Hey tenderman,

Who called you a racist?

Did you use some clever wording to throw some subtle little racist crap out there? Is that why you think someone called you a racist?

Of course you didn't call anyone stupid, you were nice and clever not too.

Some people are good at throwing up screens so they can deny later that they said what they said.

I call those people pussies. I think they should come right out and say what they think. If they don't like black guys, for example, they should come right out and say it. At least then I'd respect them for having some balls.

Aloha!

[Capitán Peligroso]

For those of you who might be inclined to think that Joe Biden is a gaffe prone big mouth...why would Strom Thurmond's family have had him deliver one of the eulogies at Senator Thurmond's funeral? Here's a sample of what he said:

Quote:

But I do know that friendship and death are great equalizers, where our differences become irrelevant and the only thing that is left is what’s in our heart.

The whole thing takes about five minutes to read, and is well worth reading whether you're a republican or democrat. For me, I'd have the dude with me in a foxhole, as a wingman, and I'm proud to have him as my vice president. He's simply one of the greatest statesmen of our time... the evidence is there for anyone who is willing to honestly look for it.

[Capitán Peligroso]

For those of you who might appreciate something a little bit more direct, Biden vs. Romney Ryan at last weeks debate:

[Capitán Peligroso]

Mitt Romney has been talking out of both sides of his mouth for his entire career. It's one thing to change your mind on an issue when you're confronted with new evidence; Mitt Romney has been on both sides of every issue you can think of. If you are a right-winger (and I count a few of you among friends and relatives) can you really believe that Romney has the integrity to carry out what he's told you he's going to do? These following videos are just a sample of the bullshit he's told the American people during this campaign. There's lots more bullshit available from years past for anyone who wants to dig it up; it isn't hard to find. These are short, so you can get back to the game and travel sections, which is where we really should be spending most of our time.

Here's part I:

Here's part 2:

Lest anyone say this is something people have selectively edited, this is all stuff the dude has said in the last year or so. The main reason he won the debate in the court of public opinion is because he articulated a middle of the road vision better than Obama did that night. But if you have been following the campaign for the last year or Mitt Romney for the last 20 years, you know his own words are a damning counterpoint. The evidence is there if you're willing to look at it. And for those of you who aren't the world is passing you by, kind of like this:

Hint: Mitt Romney is Michael, republican voters are Fredo. Don't buy that bullshit.

[ElJefe]

I still owe Athlone a response, but Capítan... the definition of a politician is there tendency to say what people want to hear. Show me a politician who has never lied or flip-flopped?

Is that so much worse than making excessive promises and failing to deliver?

[Excelsior]

(10-15-2012 01:58 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

I still owe Athlone a response, but Capítan... the definition of a politician is there tendency to say what people want to hear. Show me a politician who has never lied or flip-flopped?

He doesn't need to honor your request because it doesn't deal with any claim he made.

The behavior at issue here is not the fact that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped at all. Most politicians flip-flop, and we are all aware of this. Nothing in Capitan's posts indicates that he is without knowledge of this basic reality.

The issue at hand here is the consistency and extent of that flip-flopping from Mitt Romney, which seems to go beyond the extent seen from most politicians (hence the abnormal amount of attention paid to it in his case).

Quote:

Is that so much worse than making excessive promises and failing to deliver?

I suppose that's a judgement call for each individual to make.

In one scenario, you get a guy whose goals you can sort of get. He may not reach all of these goals, but you know generally what he is as he tries. You can come close to pinning down where he stands and what he can be called, and (by extension) where your own goals stand relative to his.

In the other, you get a guy whose stance you can't predict at all and whose goalposts seem to move consistently. You can't pin down his actual goals, and you can't be sure what he really is, or (by extension) where you stand relative to him.

Which one is superior? I prefer the honesty of the first approach and find it more respectable/trustworthy, but I suppose you may favor the latter as a superior or at least equal approach.
If that works for you, then so be it. For just how many others it will work remains to be seen.

[Deluge]

(10-14-2012 10:45 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Bush went into Iraq with UN backing

Not sure if srs. Afghanistan was UN backed, Iraq wasn't. The Secretary General even explicitly said that the invasion was illegal in the eyes of the UN.

[speakeasy]

I have a question for you guys that think Obama is a lousy president, and I'll read your responses with an open mind. What tragic mistakes did Obama make in his presidency that make him such an awful president?

To me, it's not good enough to simply say Obama is bad because the economy is doing poorly and unemployment and debt are high. Because there's a lot of debate as to the extent that Obama is actually responsible for these things. You can make a tenable case that if Republicans were in charge the last 4 years, the economy would still be in bad shape. What I want to know is are there any specific actions Obama did that we in retrospect can say were major mistakes that led to the economy we now have?

I think back on GWB, who even hard-right conservatives try to distance themselves from as a failed presidency. You can point to very specific, tragic decisions he made that ran the nation into the ground. To the point that it's not even debatable. He launched a clusterfuck of a war on falty information that cost us $4 trillion and thousands of lives. He failed to finish the war in Afghanistan while Bin Laden was releasing more videos than Jay Z. He also cut taxes at a time of war. The first president to ever do so. This was the single biggest thing he did to turn Clinton's projected surplus into a deficit. Part of the reason we are in so much debt now can be traced back to that this catastrophic economic policy. He did nothing to temper the housing bubble and Wall Street shenanigans that allowed it to flourish. He knew that this funny money was the only thing keeping the economy afloat. By the time the bubble was pricked, he was already on his way to retirement in Crawford, TX.

Those are three concrete examples of where Bush seriously fucked up and we can blame him for an economic downturn. So I ask you Romney supporters, what specific things has Obama done that you can say are responsible for the bad economy. It would also be nice if you could explain what Republicans would've did differently if anything.

[The_CEO]

"David Stockman argues that the Romney campaign’s refrain is “dead wrong" -- the refrain being that the Republican candidate is prepared to help the sputtering U.S. economy because he transformed struggling companies and created jobs. Instead, Stockman says, it’s “crony capitalism” and central bank help that’s made gambling on failing companies a relatively safe bet.

“Mitt Romney was not a businessman,” he wrote. “He was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses.”

Stockman goes on to write: “Bain’s billions of profits were not rewards for capitalist creation; they were mainly windfalls collected from gambling in markets that were rigged to rise.”

Romney’s tenure at Bain has fueled controversy on the campaign trail. The Romney campaign touted the candidate’s experience at Bain, describing his work there as “fixing companies that were broken and giving new companies a shot at success.” But some -- particularly some former workers at companies owned by Bain -- see it differently. Many have staged protests, including one outside the Republican National Convention in August, accusing Bain of shipping their jobs overseas.

The Obama campaign also hasn’t held back, accusing Romney and Bain of pioneering the practice of outsourcing in a July ad.


Stockman’s criticism may come as more of a shock given his point of view. Stockman was the budget director for Republican idol Regan until 1985, when he resigned in protest over deficit spending. He was also a managing director at the now-defunct Wall Street firm Salomon Brothers. and has experience in private equity and leveraged buyouts himself, according to The Daily Beast post.

Still, this isn’t the first time Stockman has come out against the Romney campaign. He wrote in August of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s budget that it’s, “devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...drain.html

[ManAbout]

FINALLY! More information about Romney's Tax Plan.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[ElJefe]

(10-15-2012 02:27 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

the consistency and extent of that flip-flopping from Mitt Romney, which seems to go beyond the extent seen from most politicians

In one scenario, you get a guy whose goals you can sort of get... you know generally what he is as he tries...

In the other, you get a guy whose stance you can't predict at all...

I think in politics and in life actions matter more than words. What matters is what people do when they actually get into office. Do I think it's aggravating that Romney switches positions? Yes. Do I think he's being honest? Not really. Do I think he knows what he's doing? Absolutely.

the more I follow this election, the more I'm convinced Romney is the competent executive, and Obama is a lost boy who is a far superior speaker, whose speeches give every left-wing intellectual, journalist, college-kid, minority and single mother wet panties. But anyone with half a brain knows it's just pathos. It's just a siren song for us, the Odysseuses of today. Executing all these fancy ideas is simply not plausible. But he got elected anyways. And looking at why? It's because folks took him seriously! LOL! Boy, did they get surprise when all his yapping turned out to be easier said than done.

So in the final analysis, the question is: All politicians are liars - the very nature of politics and TV demands it. Which lie do you find the most unbearable?

We've had Obama's lies, even if he believed them himself (which just makes him naive and that's a poor atribute for a President to have). What about a new liar, but a realistic and competent one at that. I think it's reasonable to let a new liar sit in the Oval office.

The fixation with Romney's lies has more to do with the fact people just don't want him to win. We could fuss about Obama's broken promises all day. And we do. It just depends who you ask what is most important.

So I don't buy that Romney's flip-flopping is important. But that's just me thinking that listening to what politicians say is entertainment, not discourse or debate. That's attaching too much value to it, taking it too seriously, as I wrote above.

(10-16-2012 03:18 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

explain what Republicans would've did differently

Bush was the biggest disaster ever to befall the Republican Party. He had one-party rule for four years (if not six) and the entire country behind after 9-11. He could've done anything he wanted. And he blew it. Sigh...

Has Obama tried to fix any of Bush's mistakes? No. Why? Because they essentially believed the same things. They believe the government can and should keep it's promises of entitlements to the American people. Entitlements that either must be reformed, or taxes that must be increased astronomically. Neither will acknowledge, either through cowardice or through ignorance, that we are royally screwed. They both believed in more wide home-ownership (that sparked the crisis), they both believed in saving big business from collapse (what happened to "if you're unable to fail, you shouldn't succeed"), and so on.

A war? It's not a war. It's a colonial enterprise that has went and is going badly and been extremely uneffective in its stated goals of "civilizing the savage" and "saving the barbarian" from his wicked ways. Because that's how progressives view devout Muslims that live in mud-huts in far off places and execute women for adultery. For all their mindless babbling, these guys (GWB & Obama) still believe they have a mission to save the world. From itself. Really it's beta. It's like thinking you can save a bitch from herself. I doubt Romney is different. I can understand the desire to do this. I used to think it was a good idea myself. But after seeing Iraq... you'd need national conscription and 2 million US ground-troops in Iraq and a merciless, Roman-like attitude to pacifying the locals. It'd be like Claudius and Britain all over. A lot of blood and tears. And for what? Whatever it is. it's not a war. It's colonization.

A war is what we might have with China in 20 years when they've caught up with us militarily. How the fuck are we supposed to pay for a real war with a real competitor if we cannot even figure out how to pay for peace?

My hope is that Romney will not be as miserable a failure as the last two Presidents. I think I have good reason to believe this as far as domestic policy is concerned, even if I think he is too timid.

But as Dave Stockman points out, that's probably too optimistic:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000109364

Stockman is an interesting guy and this relates to the Ferguson video I put up.

There is massive nation-wide thievery going on. The baby-boomers and those before them are taking way more out of government than they ever paid in. They are saddling the future generations with this debt. Ryan's plan is not too vicious. It's too meek!

That's the point you need to take with you from Stockman. It's all lies. No one REALLY has the guts to say to 60 million baby-boomers "You guys didn't pay enough for this party, so you're not getting any".

So, I doubt Republicans are much better, but I'm hoping Romney with his executive experience and experience as governor in Massachussetts working with people who disagree with him, he'll be able to do at least some good.

Obama has done nothing good for this economy. He's let the Fed print money to keep Wall St profits record high (Romney wants to get rid of Bernanke - I hope that means replacing him with a Volcker Jr.), he has not cut back on defense in a serious way (Romney does not want to cut defense, but he does have some interesting thoughts on wasteful spending in the Pentagon), he has spent enormous sums of money on projects that create no value (auto-bailouts, green energy, and so forth), he talked about nuking Pakistan, but Pakistan is still fucking us in the ass while we grin (I hope Romney would be much tougher), and he's weak on immigration when it's destroying our labor market (Romney claims he'd get tough and bring in more high-skilled immigrants, which is the only way to keep America ahead). Finally, he somehow seems to think that America has done wrong and needs to right these wrongs by "apologizing" or catering to barbaric regimes in the Middle East or elsewhere. Typical progressive thought process. The West has done so much evil, we should use our massive wealth (lol) to fix it all. Getting Osama bin Laden was the work of 5 years of intelligence work. If anything, GWB deserves credit for that as he deserves the blame for everything else.

(10-16-2012 10:21 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

FINALLY! More information about Romney's Tax Plan.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

funny!

Yeah, we've had this debate already. The Obama campaign is misquoting Feldstein and Rosen. Romney's plan works if you include dynamic effects. That's a reasonable assumption. In addition, only $1 trillion dollars is missing over a 10-year period. That's 100bn a year. That's 0.6 percent of GDP. Perspective please.

So... basically I don't think these guys are all that different. They're both part of the establishment whose legitimacy is based on massive theft of our younger generations and those not yet born. Nonetheless, I think Romney's understanding of the financial system and his executive experience and personal character tells me he'd do a better job than Obama, who has had his chance.

Love it or hate, that's how I see things.

The main reason I'd vote for Obama would be so that he could run this country into the ground faster and we could just get the coming bankruptcy and hyperinflation over with and have progressives and their sick ideas of social justice discredited for ever.

EDIT: watch this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15...68106.html