The Trombone Forum

Practice Break => Purely Politics => Topic started by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 05:55AM



Title: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 05:55AM
Here you go!

This one is about foreign policy and should be interesting since the 2nd debate's memorial moment was regarding Libya. I guess that will make a great starting point.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 18, 2012, 05:57AM
Yeah, Romney's supposed to have his biggest disadvantage for this one, but his disadvantages haven't really panned out all that well so far, so we'll see.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 18, 2012, 06:35AM
Here you go!

This one is about foreign policy and should be interesting since the 2nd debate's memorial moment was regarding Libya. I guess that will make a great starting point.

...so you keeping pounding - in the hope some will take it as fact.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 06:58AM
...so you keeping pounding - in the hope some will take it as fact.
Ummmm....because it is.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 07:00AM
...so you keeping pounding - in the hope some will take it as fact.

I think that a lot of people have the same reaction as I have described. It's not just me.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Russ White on Oct 18, 2012, 07:02AM
I think that a lot of people have the same reaction as I have described. It's not just me.

True, roughly 15-20%, the TEA Party fringe.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 18, 2012, 07:07AM
True, roughly 15-20%, the TEA Party fringe.


:) Good shot. :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 18, 2012, 07:10AM
I think that a lot of people have the same reaction as I have described. It's not just me.

Well, a lot of people "agree" in that they see that as a key moment in the debate, but generally people are interpreting it as a moment to Obama's favor, and I'm guessing you've worked it out so it goes the other way (rather, you accept the rhetoric of those who have worked out the mental gymnastics because it arrives at a "conclusion" that pleases your personal sensibilities--it tickles your rather handicapped ears). In fact it showed that Romney's using American deaths for his own political purposes, and it showed that it's a line Obama won't put up with him, crossing because it dishonors those very Americans, who Obama considers friends. That's the way that little exchange played in the media as well ... at least in the real world. I'm sure that's the case for Faux (et al).


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 07:14AM

... at least in the real world.

What in the world would you know about the 'real' world? LOL!

Yesterday, everybody spent all day trying to explain that moment in the debate: meaning candy really screwed the pooch for obama. She thought she was helping when in fact...NOT.



Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 07:16AM
In fact, on Tuesday, I bet a lot of you guys are going to start playing the 'blues', so get your licks in order.  :D


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 07:27AM

Well, a lot of people "agree" in that they see that as a key moment in the debate, but generally people are interpreting it as a moment to Obama's favor, and I'm guessing you've worked it out so it goes the other way (rather, you accept the rhetoric of those who have worked out the mental gymnastics because it arrives at a "conclusion" that pleases your personal sensibilities--it tickles your rather handicapped ears). In fact it showed that Romney's using American deaths for his own political purposes, and it showed that it's a line Obama won't put up with him, crossing because it dishonors those very Americans, who Obama considers friends. That's the way that little exchange played in the media as well ... at least in the real world. I'm sure that's the case for Faux (et al).
"generally people are interpreting it as a moment to Obama's favor"?  Sure. If your an idiot, Kool-Aid drinking, head-in-the-sand, left wing lunatic.  I agree.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 18, 2012, 07:36AM
In fact, on Tuesday, I bet a lot of you guys are going to start playing the 'blues', so get your licks in order.  :D

Actually, I am  going to be playing the blues.  And some Handel as well.  My quintet is going to be playing a bunch of it for Christmas and we have a rehearsal on Tuesday.

I'd like to see if Romney does another "etch-a-sketch" moment and swings around.  I mentioned in the last debate thread that his comments about the Chinese weren't going down well in China -- and we need them as a big trading partner.

So we shall see...


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 07:44AM
I mentioned in the last debate thread that his comments about the Chinese weren't going down well in China

Well, since they have no vote in our election, even tho' they have contributed heavily to obama's campaign funds, and funds don't count as votes, Mitt is fine.



Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 18, 2012, 07:45AM
Actually, I am  going to be playing the blues.  And some Handel as well.  My quintet is going to be playing a bunch of it for Christmas and we have a rehearsal on Tuesday.

I'd like to see if Romney does another "etch-a-sketch" moment and swings around.  I mentioned in the last debate thread that his comments about the Chinese weren't going down well in China -- and we need them as a big trading partner.

So we shall see...

Obama has his faults.  I think they are called wing-nuts.  But at least I pretty much know who Obama is.  I have no idea who Romney is - today.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 07:48AM
Obama has his faults.  I think they are called wing-nuts.  But at least I pretty much know who Obama is.  I have no idea who Romney is - today.

That's because you've been getting all your information about rmoney on this trombone forum. You need to broaden your internet info web sites between your video recordings (I listen to them BTW).


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 18, 2012, 08:30AM
Well, since they have no vote in our election, even tho' they have contributed heavily to obama's campaign funds, and funds don't count as votes, Mitt is fine.


Will you still be singing the same tune if they decide to retaliate against Romney by cutting off supply lines?  How you gonna do your networking with no cable, no interface boxes, and no computers?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 18, 2012, 08:33AM
That's because you've been getting all your information about rmoney on this trombone forum. You need to broaden your internet info web sites between your video recordings (I listen to them BTW).


One thing I have noticed about you is that you make assumptions and present them as facts.  You don't know where I get my news.

So YOU'RE the one! Lol.  If you have any suggestions for improvements I can make, please let me know - either on one of those posts or a PM.  Thanks.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 08:37AM
Will you still be singing the same tune if they decide to retaliate against Romney by cutting off supply lines?  How you gonna do your networking with no cable, no interface boxes, and no computers?

Hey, first thing we can do is re-open Campaq here in Houston! Man, would that be great. Everytime I went to their campus, they always had the greatest looking babes I ever seen in one building. 

Bring it on!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 08:40AM
One thing I have noticed about you is that you make assumptions and present them as facts.

I probably learned that behavior from my fellow trombonites here.  :dontknow:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 18, 2012, 08:43AM
Hey, first thing we can do is re-open Campaq here in Houston! Man, would that be great. Everytime I went to their campus, they always had the greatest looking babes I ever seen in one building. 

Bring it on!


How is Compaq going to build any computers with no components? :evil:



Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 08:47AM
How is Compaq going to build any computers with no components? :evil:



Maybe you're not aware, but they built it. They didn't buy MOBOs, Power supplies, etc.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Stretch Longarm on Oct 18, 2012, 09:06AM
Here you go!

This one is about foreign policy and should be interesting since the 2nd debate's memorial moment was regarding Libya. I guess that will make a great starting point.

Well, according to everything I've read or heard, Women's issues was the memorial moment in this last debate. it appears that Rmoney thinks women belong in the kitchen, and that they are a commodity that he can acquire when needed by 'catalog shopping'. Compared with Obama's passage of the Lilly Ledbetter law very early in his presidency, and the fact that Rmoney never did address the young lady's question about equal pay for women, I'd agree that women's issues was the memorial moment.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Russ White on Oct 18, 2012, 09:07AM
That, and failing to show any appreciable space between his policies and those of W. Major fail!!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 18, 2012, 10:06AM
Maybe you're not aware, but they built it. They didn't buy MOBOs, Power supplies, etc.

I used to build Compaq's motherboards.  That business has moved to China.  Most of the components you need to build a computer are now made somewhere in Asia, whether the base electronics from China, hard drives from Thailand, assembly in Malaysia, etc.

Dell buys stuff from Asia.  Even Gateway buys stuff from Asia and then does final assembly in the Dakotas.  IBM PCs and Laptops are now made by Lenovo (China) and the Servers are contracted through them.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 18, 2012, 10:22AM
In the beginning (mid 80s), compaqs cost around 2500 which was very expensive back then. I didn't think I would ever have anything better than my radio shack model one. Dell changed that and forced compaq to quit building their own, and start putting pieces together, to get their prices down below a thousand to compete.
Shut down china and start making them again here. We can crank Texas Instruments up again to build our own chips.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 18, 2012, 10:27AM
I like your idea, but the folks with the money seem to not agree with us.

I have a collection of microchannel PCs that were wonderful in their day but are horribly obsolete now.  And talk about overpriced, the original IBM PC was over $5,000 in 1983!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 18, 2012, 10:58AM
I agree that Romney has to tread lightly on Libya--it's a bit of a glass heel for Obama, but it looks bad to try to take political advantage of it. I'm sure he's figuring out in advance how to finesse it.

Stevens's father said he didn't want his son's death politicized, so even if it's a reasonable point of discussion it may not play well for Romney. I didn't hear many people refer to it as 'the memorable event of the debate' other than the people who were whining about Candy Crowley (another one for the 'No fair, they're cheating' thread). The people who want the debate moderators to sit there like potted plants and let the candidates talk should ask Jim Lehrer how that worked out for him.

As far as starting a trade war with China, it would be horribly inflationary. I've never seen any reputable economists who propose it, but there are no doubt some somewhere.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 18, 2012, 11:01AM
I agree that Romney has to tread lightly on Libya--it's a bit of a glass heel for Obama, but it looks bad to try to take political advantage of it. I'm sure he's figuring out in advance how to finesse it ...

Yup. He wins if he can raise questions, but if he looks like he's trying use the bodies to beat on Obama he loses ... big time.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 18, 2012, 11:19AM
The biggest difference the embassy attack will make in the debate is that its recency and Obama's and the SD's apparent mishandling of it will keep Obama from using Gadafhi's toppling as a feather in his cap, along with ending the Iraq war and killiug bin Laden. Even though Obama toppled a dictator at a tiny fraction of the gold and blood the previous president required in Iraq (including these most recent deaths), this is happening close to the election and that's what people will remember about Libya right now.

I actually think Obama's a pretty good foreign policy president. His foreign policy has been better than his domestic policy, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 18, 2012, 11:26AM
I predict that no one in here will agree who won said debate.  :D


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 18, 2012, 11:35AM
I predict that no one in here will agree who won said debate.  :D

That's not as safe as you think. Most of us agreed on who won the first one.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Graham Martin on Oct 18, 2012, 04:34PM
Well, according to everything I've read or heard, Women's issues was the memorial moment in this last debate. it appears that Rmoney thinks women belong in the kitchen, and that they are a commodity that he can acquire when needed by 'catalog shopping'. Compared with Obama's passage of the Lilly Ledbetter law very early in his presidency, and the fact that Rmoney never did address the young lady's question about equal pay for women, I'd agree that women's issues was the memorial moment.

Yep, the "I went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks? And they brought us whole binders full of women." :eek: remark has gone right around the world as being typical of the man. I am not surprised at this level of interest in view of the fact that our PM's views on misogyny have also gone viral around the world. She made our opposition leader look like an idiot and got herself a huge world fan club.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-17/misogyny-redefined-after-gillard-speech/4317468

The battle for the female vote is extremely important - even in the U.S., I am told. :good:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 18, 2012, 04:55PM
Remember when Reagan made that cave-man remark to a woman's group? A Republican way of thinking, or just a co-winky-dink?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 18, 2012, 05:55PM
That's not as safe as you think. Most of us agreed on who won the first one.

If Romney wins we can agree, but if Obama wins "some" confuse what they feel with thinking, and won't accept it.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 06:11PM

If Romney wins we can agree, but if Obama wins "some" confuse what they feel with thinking, and won't accept it.
Yes. In your own wee mind.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Charlie bone on Oct 18, 2012, 07:14PM
Did anyone watch the Alfred E. Smith dinner? I was surprised at how funny Romney was. Obama was pretty funny too.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Russ White on Oct 18, 2012, 07:18PM
Yep, the "I went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks? And they brought us whole binders full of women." :eek: remark has gone right around the world as being typical of the man. I am not surprised at this level of interest in view of the fact that our PM's views on misogyny have also gone viral around the world. She made our opposition leader look like an idiot and got herself a huge world fan club.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-17/misogyny-redefined-after-gillard-speech/4317468

The battle for the female vote is extremely important - even in the U.S., I am told. :good:


This was another example of Rmoney lying through his teeth. Women's groups brought the binders to both candidates prior to the election to promote women in the administration of whoever won. Rmoney's claim he "sought them out" is the same pure horse s**t as so much of what he says.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 18, 2012, 07:23PM
My wife pointed out something interesting too.

Romney says he balanced budgets in Massachusetts.  Well, it's not quite how it sounds.  There is a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts that requires a balanced budget.  So it wasn't through his wonderful leadership :/


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 07:37PM
This was another example of Rmoney lying through his teeth. Women's groups brought the binders to both candidates prior to the election to promote women in the administration of whoever won. Rmoney's claim he "sought them out" is the same pure horse s**t as so much of what he says.
You think this is a big deal Russ? Desperate for something? anything? 
GALLUP 52-45 FOR ROMNEY!!! Stick a fork in obama.  He's done.
Here's another Obama lie btw;
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/18/14539433-fact-check-obama-wrong-on-model-for-the-nation-debate-claim?lite
and another
Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
and another
Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
and another
Obama repeated his claim that he’d put tax rates on the affluent no higher than they had been under President Clinton.

Obama: [F]or above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. We created 23 million new jobs.

That’s true only for federal income tax rates, which Obama would restore to pre-Bush levels for family income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals.) But, as we’ve noted before, Obama already has enacted new taxes that also will fall on those same taxpayers. For those high-income persons, the new health care law contains a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, and a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax surcharge on wages and salaries exceeding those thresholds.

As a result many, if not most, high-income persons will pay more in federal taxes under Obama’s proposed rates than they did under Clinton.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 07:52PM
My wife pointed out something interesting too.

Romney says he balanced budgets in Massachusetts.  Well, it's not quite how it sounds.  There is a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts that requires a balanced budget.  So it wasn't through his wonderful leadership :/
Umm. Yes it was.  He made the proposals for the cuts to balance the budget.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Russ White on Oct 18, 2012, 08:08PM
He issued over 800 vetoes. More than 90% of them were overridden. He left office with a lower approval rating than W did. By any measure he was incredibly mediocre. At best. During his administration nothing got significantly better, or worse. Just what we need.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 18, 2012, 08:18PM
He issued over 800 vetoes. More than 90% of them were overridden. He left office with a lower approval rating than W did. By any measure he was incredibly mediocre. At best. During his administration nothing got significantly better, or worse. Just what we need.

Yeah yeah yeah, facts ... whatever.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 08:19PM
He issued over 800 vetoes. More than 90% of them were overridden. He left office with a lower approval rating than W did. By any measure he was incredibly mediocre. At best. During his administration nothing got significantly better, or worse. Just what we need.
Lets see.  A Republican in a dark blue state.  What would you expect?
What got worse Russ?
Tough love.  You can't please everyone.  Those who want free stuff didn't like him.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 08:20PM

Yeah yeah yeah, facts ... whatever.
Shut the hell up, you idiot. Your one liners are pathetic.
You're incapable of discussing anything with anyone that disagrees with you.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 18, 2012, 10:07PM
What got worse Russ?

In his post, he said, "nothing got significantly better, or worse."

You need to read posts before you respond to them.

Also, I thought I was supposed to the the angry guy, according to you. You can't stop calling people 'idiots' when they have the audacity to disagree with your little crayon scribblings.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 11:00PM
In his post, he said, "nothing got significantly better, or worse."

You need to read posts before you respond to them.

Also, I thought I was supposed to the the angry guy, according to you. You can't stop calling people 'idiots' when they have the audacity to disagree with your little crayon scribblings.
Are you Russ's spokesman now?
Not significantly worse would imply things got worse, just not significantly.  I'd like to know what that or those are.
Was reading comprehension a struggle for you in school?
You are the angry guy.  I was laughing at bvb like I always do.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 18, 2012, 11:26PM
Are you Russ's spokesman now?
Not significantly worse would imply things got worse, just not significantly.  I'd like to know what that or those are.
Was reading comprehension a struggle for you in school?
You are the angry guy.  I was laughing at bvb like I always do.

'Not significantly better or worse' implies things stayed about the same. It makes no more sense to ask, "What got worse?" than to ask, "What got better?"

You've used the 'reading comprehension' line many times with people who disagree with you. People understand full well what you write, because it's at a rudimentary level. Some of us just don't agree with it.

And calling other forum members 'idiots' again and again isn't just good clean fun. In your case, it supplants substantive discussion.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 18, 2012, 11:35PM
'Not significantly better or worse' implies things stayed about the same. It makes no more sense to ask, "What got worse?" than to ask, "What got better?"

You've used the 'reading comprehension' line many times with people who disagree with you. People understand full well what you write, because it's at a rudimentary level. Some of us just don't agree with it.

And calling other forum members 'idiots' again and again isn't just good clean fun. In your case, it supplants substantive discussion.
X  Wrong. Some things may have gotten better and others worse.  A little more unemployment.  A few more people on welfare. Less services. etc.It's that simple.
Discussion with likes of bvb is not possible so good clean fun is all that there is.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 19, 2012, 12:34AM
Not significantly worse would imply things got worse, just not significantly.  I'd like to know what that or those are.

Is there anyone here--one single person--who really believes you have a genuine, abiding curiosity as to which things got insignificantly worse?

Obvously not. If you insist on being a troll, at least try to be plausible.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 04:10AM
You've used the 'reading comprehension' line many times with people who disagree with you. People understand full well what you write, because it's at a rudimentary level. Some of us just don't agree with it.
 
And calling other forum members 'idiots' again and again isn't just good clean fun. In your case, it supplants substantive discussion.

Is there anything he's posted in a while that doesn't?
 
Yet he's incessantly fed.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 04:51AM
I see that a prediction I made on a similar thread has come true; name-calling.  I am batting 1000% on my predictions.  How are you doing? :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 19, 2012, 05:33AM

Is there anything he's posted in a while that doesn't?
 
Yet he's incessantly fed.
And you continue to post.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 19, 2012, 05:34AM
I see that a prediction I made on a similar thread has come true; name-calling.  I am batting 1000% on my predictions.  How are you doing? :)
Funny how you don't notice the name calling from the left.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 05:39AM
Funny how you don't notice the name calling from the left.

I made no mention of left OR right. :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 19, 2012, 05:43AM
Is there anyone here--one single person--who really believes you have a genuine, abiding curiosity as to which things got insignificantly worse?

Obvously not. If you insist on being a troll, at least try to be plausible.
Hailing your mob?  Put the bottle down. You're pathetic, again.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Stretch Longarm on Oct 19, 2012, 11:25AM
Shut the hell up, you idiot. Your one liners are pathetic.
You're incapable of discussing anything with anyone that disagrees with you.

Is there a Mod here who can take this guy off the forum for repeatedly violating the Terms? Too much vitriol that is degrading into insulting name-calling, and it should be stopped.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BiggieSmalls on Oct 19, 2012, 11:36AM
Quote
Is there a Mod here who can take this guy off the forum for repeatedly violating the Terms? Too much vitriol that is degrading into insulting name-calling, and it should be stopped.

:good:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ronkny on Oct 19, 2012, 11:56AM
Is there a Mod here who can take this guy off the forum for repeatedly violating the Terms? Too much vitriol that is degrading into insulting name-calling, and it should be stopped.
Sure.  It's just me. The lefties here can do no wrong.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 12:02PM
Let's change the "Terms" to allow for rougher conduct and post a warning to view or engage at our own risk.  A lot of times the name-calling is meant as a form of humor - as in taking a shot at someone. :) I just edited a post I made earlier where I called Ronk a "knucklehead". I did it as a joke. But that may be lost on sensitive people who may only read the words and don't understand the context.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 12:07PM
Sure.  It's just me. The lefties here can do no wrong.

By George, I think he's got it!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 12:36PM
Seriuosly, some of the Child Boards - by nature of their content SHOULD allow for a lot more leeway. I have never seen Ronk make any kind of a rude comment on the Parent Boards. Everyone gets it that content on those boards must remain civil. Not so clear on these minor boards. Let the boys & girls have a board where they can play harder.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 19, 2012, 02:40PM
Shut the hell up, you idiot. Your one liners are pathetic.
You're incapable of discussing anything with anyone that disagrees with you.

Ronk, you are pushing it. If this was my forum, you'd be out on your sorry ***. Try and play nice. (if you are capable of doing so)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 05:22PM
He's only demonstrating his own true colors, as always.
 
Why would I care in the least what he says or what he thinks (well, besides the fact that he can cast votes to impose his intellectually depraved, infantile vapidity upon others)? He demonstrates on a perpetual basis in here that his mind-spooey is worthy of zero respect or attention, which is generally what I give it.
 
Moving on ... eh?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 05:30PM
Yeah, but it won't be the same. :/ 'Niff. 'Niff. Ronk was the one we ALL loved to hate and now he's gone. Wah! Wah! Wah! From now on, it will be Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. That's no stretch.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 05:44PM
Yeah, but it won't be the same. :/ 'Niff. 'Niff. Ronk was the one we ALL loved to hate and now he's gone. Wah! Wah! Wah! From now on, it will be Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. That's no stretch.

Gone? Why do you say that?
 
In any case, if that's true he won't likely be gone for very long. And while the post count will drop significantly, the average post quality will just as significantly improve. That's pretty plainly a desirable trade-off.
 
No?
 
If he is gone we may even recover some of the old participants who left as soon as the mental sewage first stank the place up, and that would be fantastic!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: dj kennedy on Oct 19, 2012, 06:00PM


Shut the hell up, you idiot. Your one liners are pathetic.
You're incapable of discussing anything with anyone that disagrees with you.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 06:14PM

Gone? Why do you say that?

Well, hasn't he been - shunned?  I mean, if one of us were to stick up for him, then wouldn't we be guilty by association?  I called him a "knucklehead" and then I quickly edited my post so that someone couldn't copy it and make me out to be evil as well. Bruce has called him, "Drillmeister". Is Bruce evil?


In any case, if that's true he won't likely be gone for very long. And while the post count will drop significantly, the average post quality will just as significantly improve. That's pretty plainly a desirable trade-off.
 
No?

So, are you saying that you will not miss his knuckleheaded and drillmeistered way of ignoring facts and engaging simply in hyperbole?  Where is the, "Jane, you ignorant slut" kinda schtick going to come from?  Where is the mindless John Belushi-esque dialogue going to come from?  Will we all be destined to a plain vanilla, "Blah, blah, blah"? 


If he is gone we may even recover some of the old participants who left as soon as the mental sewage first stank the place up, and that would be fantastic!

I agree that a higher level dialog would be ideal.  But, when the going gets tough and the cowards run, then what is left?  Ivory tower dialogue is always welcomed.  But if we scorn the base, then where would DJ Kennedy be?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 06:28PM
Shut the hell up, you idiot. Your one liners are pathetic.
You're incapable of discussing anything with anyone that disagrees with you.

Yeah ... I saw that, but it's not unusual from him.
 
But whatever.
 
If TPTB decided they'd had enough of him or that enough of the members had, I certainly can't blame them.
 
If it goes the way these things seem to have gone most of the time in the past they'll let him back in before too long, just on a short leash.
 
 --
 
At any rate, hopefully the Obama camp will get it right for the third debate and he'll throw the smack down on Romney as has been expected all along, and then he'll go into the final stretch with a nice advantage ... we'll see.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 06:32PM

Yeah ... I saw that, but it's not unusual from him.
 
But whatever.
 
If TPTB decided they'd had enough of him or that enough of the members had, I certainly can't blame them.
 
If it goes the way these things seem to have gone most of the time in the past they'll let him back in before too long, just on a short leash.
 
 --
 
At any rate, hopefully the Obama camp will get it right for the third debate and he'll throw the smack down on Romney as has been expected all along, and then he'll go into the final stretch with a nice advantage ... we'll see.

You have ignored my post because you know that I am right.  I have found that many on this forum ignore my posts when they know I am right.  It is only when I am wrong that the slings and arrows fly.  Lol  THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :good:  :good:  :good:  :good:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: tbone62 on Oct 19, 2012, 07:05PM
The third one should be interesting.  I ended up getting sucked into watching the second one, and I ended up watching almost the whole thing.  As a result, I now have a much better feel for what I think of the candidates and how they conduct themselves and how well suited I think they are to the job of president. Although both have some strong points, I think one is much more suited by virtue of personality and apparent thought processes and temperament than the other candidate is. I expect the third debate will likely reinforce that impression, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if there is compelling evidence that my impression was not correct.  

Incidentally, I do not and never have been someone who votes strictly along party lines because neither party will ever manage to field a whole slate of candidates who all have credentials that would make them good public officials.  In other words, I'm not voting for someone I think is not suited for the job just because they say they're a Republican or a Democrat.  There have been many really horrible candidates (and elected officials) from both parties in the years since I've been old enough to pay attention, and I'm not going to vote for one of them if I can possibly help it.  We need a diverse mix of thoughtful, intelligent, ethical people in those jobs who are willing to work for the public good, and not people who are just "yes-men/women" spouting an agenda. 

Regarding Romney's "binders full of women" remark, which I found amusing, it did bother me that his staff seemed to have so much trouble finding any female applicants for the available jobs.  I was also bothered because Romney stated that he had to tell them to go see if they could find some women for those jobs.  I mean, doesn't it seem like his staffers should have looked at the applicants BEFORE they took the list to Romney and made some effort to find a more diverse group for his review in the first place?  It just strikes me as a strange thing to not think about.




Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 07:15PM
You have ignored my post because you know that I am right.  I have found that many on this forum ignore my posts when they know I am right.  It is only when I am wrong that the slings and arrows fly.  Lol  THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :good:  :good:  :good:  :good:

You are aware that online forum discussions don't tend to happen in real time, right?
 
I didn't even see your post before now. Sorry--didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything like that. But apparently you like to read a lot of bias confirmation/affirmation into uncertainty, even if it's really just confusion.
 
Knock yourself out with that, man. Enjoy.
 
Note:
Clearly you didn't respond to this post immediately because you were afraid to.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 07:21PM

You are aware that online forum discussions don't tend to happen in real time, right?
 
I didn't even see your post before now. Sorry--didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything like that. But apparently you like to read a lot of bias confirmation/affirmation into uncertainty, even if it's really just confusion.
 
Knock yourself out with that, man. Enjoy.
 
Note:
Clearly you didn't respond to this post quickly enough because you're afraid to.

Ehhhhhh.  No do-overs or tab-backs.  You blew it and you knew it.  By-gones, though. Lol.  Oh, and don't you just hate the slow-pokes among us who drag up a 24-hour or 36-hour or 48-hour old post and make a big deal out of it?  Sorry, slow-pokes, but this is the information age and you either have to be "with it" or "out of it". Lol.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 07:27PM
Ehhhhhh.  No do-overs or tab-backs.  You blew it and you knew it.  By-gones, though. Lol.  Oh, and don't you just hate the slow-pokes among us who drag up a 24-hour or 36-hour or 48-hour old post and make a big deal out of it?  Sorry, slow-pokes, but this is the information age and you either have to be "with it" or "out of it". Lol.

Hard to tell if you're really this confused, or if you're just trying to replace Ronkny ...
 
Whatever--no matter.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 07:29PM

Hard to tell if you're really this confused, or if you're just trying to replace Ronkny ...
 
Whatever--no matter.

SEE!!!!!  You miss him already! Lol.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 07:31PM
Regarding Romney's "binders full of women" remark, which I found amusing, it did bother me that his staff seemed to have so much trouble finding any female applicants for the available jobs.  I was also bothered because Romney stated that he had to tell them to go see if they could find some women for those jobs.  I mean, doesn't it seem like his staffers should have looked at the applicants BEFORE they took the list to Romney and made some effort to find a more diverse group for his review in the first place?  It just strikes me as a strange thing to not think about.

Yeah ... could be Romney just blew it trying to tell the story, or it could be that he was buelshiteing and he didn't catch the inconsistencies on his way through it. I suspect a bit of both, probably heavy on the latter given his record on that sort of thing. I'd suspect the same if it were Obama, but with less (not absent) buelshiteing.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: tbone62 on Oct 19, 2012, 07:32PM
Quote from: Geezerhorn
  I agree that a higher level dialog would be ideal.  But, when the going gets tough and the cowards run, then what is left?  Ivory tower dialogue is always welcomed. 

Quote from: Geezerhorn
Ehhhhhh.  No do-overs or tab-backs.  You blew it and you knew it.  By-gones, though. Lol.  Oh, and don't you just hate the slow-pokes among us who drag up a 24-hour or 36-hour or 48-hour old post and make a big deal out of it?  Sorry, slow-pokes, but this is the information age and you either have to be "with it" or "out of it". Lol.

Quite frankly, the level of discourse in a number of these topics is such that it is impossible to even read this stuff without being bogged down by all the name-calling and bickering. I don't really care who's right and who's wrong.  I would just like to be able to have a discussion about the issues without feeling like I'm venturing into a war zone.  You want diverse opinions from a diverse segment of the membership?  Then make it a little more pleasant and respectful and quit labeling people.  You know, it's quite possible to disagree and discuss without devolving into disrespectful diatribes and childish name-calling.  Earnest discussion and questioning are fine, but smart-assed one-upmanship doesn't accomplish anything.

Incidentally, I am not targeting anyone in particular but am commenting on trends I've seen.

And now, back to the original topic, which I believe was "Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate."   That and Binders Full of Women.  And Romnesia - what a funny play on words!  Now that might be a good topic.  :clever:  Funniest slips of the tongue and most creative coined terms for this election.  There must be binders full of them out there and geez, I work full tome and can't possibly keep up with them all by myself!   :)




Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 07:39PM
Oops.  Just what is "real time" anymore?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 19, 2012, 07:45PM
I have not been altogether innocent of getting rude in here. But I usually ended up walking away, and in some cases apologized privately to offended parties. I once pmed ronk and said I was sorry for addressing him as wrongkey.

I hope that some degree of peace will reign in here...for awhile.



Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 07:47PM
I have not been altogether innocent of getting rude in here. But I usually ended up walking away, and in some cases apologized privately to offended parties. I once pmed ronk and said I was sorry for addressing him as wrongkey.

I hope that some degree of peace will reign in here...for awhile.



Nice follow up.  It takes a man...

Why can't we all just get along? :) :) :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: dj kennedy on Oct 19, 2012, 07:48PM
where  inDEED  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=====
  IF  NOT
4  NINCOMPOOPS
   AND  DUMMIES  
OH  MOURN        4  stoopidos  
  cry     heavy  tears  
 and wring hands  
   thy  ears  cleansed  of  hurtful  slang
and  non  logical  thought
   -------------
 alas  poor  wrong key  
   we  knew him  well

twisted and tormented   by  deep  sociopathological  leanings
  turning upon himself  
like  flesh eating amoeba
  -----------
smells  like sulphur  
  i  am not  a  crook
i did  not have sex w  that  girl
    and  other famous  quotes
--------
   WHERE  GOETH  THE   WIND  
WHERE  GOETH  THE PASSING OF  GAS
  LOOK  
           LOOK
                      LOOK
-----
  itsa  cloud
      itsa    drop
          itsa       puke


Well, hasn't he been - shunned?  I mean, if one of us were to stick up for him, then wouldn't we be guilty by association?  I called him a "knucklehead" and then I quickly edited my post so that someone couldn't copy it and make me out to be evil as well. Bruce has called him, "Drillmeister". Is Bruce evil?
So, are you saying that you will not miss his knuckleheaded and drillmeistered way of ignoring facts and engaging simply in hyperbole?  Where is the, "Jane, you ignorant slut" kinda schtick going to come from?  Where is the mindless John Belushi-esque dialogue going to come from?  Will we all be destined to a plain vanilla, "Blah, blah, blah"? 

I agree that a higher level dialog would be ideal.  But, when the going gets tough and the cowards run, then what is left?  Ivory tower dialogue is always welcomed.  But if we scorn the base, then where would DJ Kennedy be?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 07:52PM
where  inDEED  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=====
  IF  NOT
4  NINCOMPOOPS
   AND  DUMMIES  
OH  MOURN        4  stoopidos  
  cry     heavy  tears  
 and wring hands  
   thy  ears  cleansed  of  hurtful  slang
and  non  logical  thought
   -------------
 alas  poor  wrong key  
   we  knew him  well

twisted and tormented   by  deep  sociopathological  leanings
  turning upon himself  
like  flesh eating amoeba
  -----------
smells  like sulphur  
  i  am not  a  crook
i did  not have sex w  that  girl
    and  other famous  quotes
--------
   WHERE  GOETH  THE   WIND  
WHERE  GOETH  THE PASSING OF  GAS
  LOOK  
           LOOK
                      LOOK
-----
  itsa  cloud
      itsa    drop
          itsa       puke



Yeahhhhhhhh.  What DJ said.  Oh, I'm a "square". What do I know, right Deej? Lol


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 19, 2012, 07:58PM
The usual source of the actual problem is that, probably due to the anonymity of the Interwebs, some people think insults to others' intelligence in the form of blatant and very often completely infantile nonsense that they almost certainly wouldn't attempt in person, should get a pass, or maybe their egos just can't handle being called on it when the do make such an attempt. That's how it seems to start 99% or so of the time, anyway.
 
So Greg, you weren't obliged by propriety to apologize, it's just that the actual initial offense may have been stealthy. You took a shot just as much if by an assailant who quickly disappeared as if he'd stood there to claim responsibility. Such is the nature of aggressive, and particularly selective (dishonest), vapidity.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 08:01PM
The usual source of the actual problem is that, probably due to the anonymity of the Interwebs, some people think insults to others' intelligence in the form of blatant and very often completely infantile nonsense that they almost certainly wouldn't attempt in person, should get a pass, or maybe their egos just can't handle being called on it when the do make such an attempt. That's how it seems to start 99% or so of the time, anyway.
 
So Greg, you weren't obliged by propriety to apologize, it's just that the actual initial offense may have been stealthy. You took a shot just as much if by an assailant who quickly disappeared as if he'd stood there to claim responsibility. Such is the nature of aggressive, and particularly selective (dishonest), vapidity.

So, Ronk was the lone gunman on a grassy knoll?  I don't think so... :) :) :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 08:08PM
So, Ronk was the lone gunman on a grassy knoll?  I don't think so... :) :) :)

We are making Ronk out to be our Poster Boy for being bad.  Point is, lots of us are guilty - by degree.  Let's fess up.  Who among us is perfect in that regard?  Maybe Ronk took it to the nth, but if we are all being honest, who of us laid the subtle stepping stones?  FREE RONK!  FREE RONK!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: tbone62 on Oct 19, 2012, 08:25PM
If others violate the TOU they may also be suspended or banned.

Now can we please make an effort to get back to the original topic?   


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: dj kennedy on Oct 19, 2012, 08:28PM
well  i  think  everyone   would benefit   by  watching a few  utubes    of

 RANDY  ''MACHO MAN''  SAVAGE  

    OH  YEAH  
--------------------
  of  course  his ego
   is  only  matched  
    or  perhaps  
     surpassed  
        by
   sculptors
--------------------

 


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 19, 2012, 08:48PM
Now can we please make an effort to get back to the original topic?   

What is your prediction, then? 

My prediction is that Obama will lose - intentionally.  Why?  He doesn't want to be President again.  Been there, done that.  He wants to make money and have a chance to succeed Jimmy & Billy in becoming THE best X-Pres we have ever had - who are still alive.  What is his competition in that regard, other than the aforementioned?  W?  H?

The big question is: how can he lose - intentionally - without it seeming so?  How can he mastermind defeat, with honor?  How can he do that AND not have a "failed presidency as a black President"? 

Look.  Obama has a place in the history books.  That can never be un-done.  Let another minority candidate take it further, if they can.  Now show me that money.  That's how I would see it if I was him.

Oh, and bring back Ronk. :) :) :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: dj kennedy on Oct 19, 2012, 09:54PM
predict
romney  --looks  like ww3  -us empireagainst the world
------
 immigration policy -----smoke and furious
-------
   trade policy -china bashing
--------
 latin america  --yankee  go home
----------
  africa  --can see it from alaska
-------


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: RedHotMama on Oct 20, 2012, 03:57AM
Seriuosly, some of the Child Boards - by nature of their content SHOULD allow for a lot more leeway. I have never seen Ronk make any kind of a rude comment on the Parent Boards. Everyone gets it that content on those boards must remain civil. Not so clear on these minor boards. Let the boys & girls have a board where they can play harder.

There is a great deal of leeway allowed in this particular section, but even here, there ARE limits. It is still part of TTF and members should bear this in mind when posting. Thanks.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 05:27AM
There is a great deal of leeway allowed in this particular section, but even here, there ARE limits. It is still part of TTF and members should bear this in mind when posting. Thanks.

Thanks for the response.  I believe we all take the main board very seriously because that is who we are.  I personally see the child boards as entertainment only.  It occurred to me that a child board could be set up for more of a no-holds-barred format.  However, I think you're mentioning that, "It is still part of TTF..." is important and bears repeating.  There are lots of no-holds-barred forums on a wide range of topics - including politics - out there.  TTF should be above that, on all of it's boards.  That said, it's still nice to have a little wiggle room on some of the child boards.  But name-calling - in all it's forms, to include intellectual belittling - should stop.  Let's ALL take a higher road from now on and I say this being just as guilty as anyone.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: dj kennedy on Oct 20, 2012, 05:30AM
high road  --politics  --that would be  something new


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: djdekok on Oct 20, 2012, 05:33AM
People mustn't mistake the political threads for mutual admiration societies, or the front yards of our youth where we built snow forts and stowed Buddy-size stashes of snowballs (Elf reference) to lob like so many grenades at unsuspecting passers-by, acting surprised when someone actually has the temerity (and the arm strength) to return fire.

Oh, and predictions?  The POTUS will fail to convince voters that he's been effective in the area of foreign policy, Bin Laden or no Bin Laden.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 05:46AM
Disagreements are fine.  I don't think I will ever match up politically with ronkny, DDickerson, or djdekok.  But that doesn't mean I have to insult or belittle them.  If I want to be peevish I might use a less serious name for them, but I do respect their opinions.  And to some extent most of them respect mine.

The problem is when the disagreement degenerates into name calling without any argument.

Example:

"Obama is going to win"

Good response: "No he's not; Romney is smarter"
Bad response" "You are an idiot"


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 06:19AM
Do you think that deep down inside, Obama really wants another 4 years? He's already in the history books as our first minority Pres. I personally think that he would now prefer the money which seems to go with being an X-Pres.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 07:20AM
In 1936 things weren't looking that good either.  Still, Roosevelt ran for a second term and won.

I think Obama would be a happier camper if:

1.  The TEA Party representatives elected in 2010 lost their seats to moderate Democrats.
2.  The Democrats regained the supermajority in the Senate, or got rules that eliminated the "casual filibuster".
3.  Grover Norquist dies.

All of these might force the Republicans to try to work with him instead of against him.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 20, 2012, 07:26AM
In 1936 things weren't looking that good either.  Still, Roosevelt ran for a second term and won.

I think Obama would be a happier camper if:

1.  The TEA Party representatives elected in 2010 lost their seats to moderate Democrats.
2.  The Democrats regained the supermajority in the Senate, or got rules that eliminated the "casual filibuster".
3.  Grover Norquist dies.

All of these might force the Republicans to try to work with him instead of against him.

I think that while you're at it, he needs a democrat majority in the house too. The only way the dems can get anything done is to have control over the entire government, tyranical power, so to speak. They don't listen to what the people want because they think they know best. :)

Heck, while you're at it, make it illegal to be a conservative. Only liberal repubs are allowed.  :evil:

There! Now can we get back to work?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 08:15AM
I think that while you're at it, he needs a democrat majority in the house too. The only way the dems can get anything done is to have control over the entire government, tyranical power, so to speak. They don't listen to what the people want because they think they know best. :)

Heck, while you're at it, make it illegal to be a conservative. Only liberal repubs are allowed.  :evil:

There! Now can we get back to work?

That doesn't sound like good democracy in action to me. How's about both parties get on the same page and work together? Would you like to see that, instead? I sure would. I don't believe I just said, "how's". :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 08:36AM
I think that while you're at it, he needs a democrat majority in the house too. The only way the dems can get anything done is to have control over the entire government ...

You were basically right up to that point, and then you veered off course, and then you completely lost it and went over the persecution complex cliff.
 
The reason Obama hasn't been able to get anything, as everyone knows (even most of those who deny it), is that the foundation of the GOP platform has been impeding, blocking, resisting, and in any and every way hampering him from anything and everything he proposes, even if they proposed the same exact thing yesterday. When we let adults behave this way it's not good. When we let adults who make decisions for all of us that can be disastrous. Unfortunately in US society very few seem to be encouraged in the slightest to think like adults, particularly on the right wing (denial of ambiguity and uncertainty, easy answers, conformity, comfort/affirmation supporting the denial). GOP adults need to get their nursery in order, and then we should have more than enough to return to the social climate in which the infants have minimal influence. As-is we have too few adults to get this process in motion, though many on the right and middle seem to be recognizing this, finally, and adjusting. The Wingnut death grip on the GOP and the resulting gridlock looks like it's finally starting to grind down, or it may have been for a while now, but we're now seeing the flare-up of histrionics you get when a less than completely rational social movement gets the smack down--very much like the tantrum a child throws when he knows he's just not getting his way.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 20, 2012, 08:40AM
There is a great deal of leeway allowed in this particular section, but even here, there ARE limits. It is still part of TTF and members should bear this in mind when posting. Thanks.

I agree 100%. If we don't draw the line somewhere, it is chaos in here. I am afraid that behavior such as Ronk consistently exhibited chased people off.

If some find such behavior charming, I am afraid you are in the minority.

I don't tolerate jerks as easily now as I did in the past. And he was a jerk.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 09:03AM
I agree 100%. If we don't draw the line somewhere, it is chaos in here. I am afraid that behavior such as Ronk consistently exhibited chased people off.

If some find such behavior charming, I am afraid you are in the minority.

I don't tolerate jerks as easily now as I did in the past. And he was a jerk.

Oh. Ok. Let's pick at the scab again see if we can make it bleed. If it bleeds, we can kill it. I thought we already did.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 09:15AM
Oh. Ok. Let's pick at the scab again see if we can make it bleed. If it bleeds, we can kill it. I thought we already did.

If you really want to stop talking about this, how about we start with you since you're the one going on about it the most ... eh?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 09:23AM

If you really want to stop talking about this, how about we start with you since you're the one going on about it the most ... eh?

That's fine. I'll take fall if it gets us ALL off this.

Why is Rmoney still tight with the woman's vote?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 09:29AM
...

Why is Rmoney still tight with the woman's vote?

He must have 'em in binders :evil:

Seriously, I'm beginning to see Romney as the Great White Hope and Obama as Jack Johnson.  The parallels to the play are striking.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 09:32AM
He must have 'em in binders :evil:

Bazingah!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 20, 2012, 09:35AM
He must have 'em in binders :evil:

The thought that liberals don't know what binders are used for is kinda frightening!  :evil:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 09:39AM
The thought that liberals don't know what binders are used for is kinda frightening!  :evil:

Isn't what they find when they raid a perv's house?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 20, 2012, 09:41AM
Isn't what they find when they raid a perv's house?

Binders? LOL!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 09:48AM
The thought that liberals don't know what binders are used for is kinda frightening!  :evil:

The problem is that liberals and moderates recognize binders aren't where women are kept, and far right Republicans can't seem to figure out what's actually going on at all (communication and understanding English and all that kinda thing).
 
I guess we need to have a little banter and goofy insult exchanges (rather than more serious ones) to make the transition from inanity to substance (hopefully) less abrupt.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 20, 2012, 09:52AM

The problem is that liberals and moderates recognize binders aren't where women are kept,

Oh yeah? You need to go tell it on the mountain where your friends can hear. They seem to think otherwise. Normal people didn't even think anything about it when it was said. They knew what it meant.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 09:54AM
Oh yeah? You need to go tell it on the mountain where your friends can hear. They seem to think otherwise. Normal people didn't even think anything about it when it was said. They knew what it meant.

I was just running with the theme of the banter, but I agree. It was an awkward way to put it at worst, but everyone understood exactly what he meant. A lot of people read into it, some can even make a fair argument for doing so to a limited extent, but for the most part it's just ammo for mockery very loosely connected to anything of substance, at best, a lot like McCain's "That one!" comment last time around.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 09:59AM

I was just running with the theme of the banter, but I agree. It was an awkward way to put it at worst, but everyone understood exactly what he meant. A lot of people read into it, some can even make a fair argument for doing so to a limited extent, but for the most part it's just ammo for mockery very loosely connected to anything of substance, at best, a lot like McCain's "That one!" comment last time around.

I didn't think anything about it at the time either.  It was the late-night clowns who made a funny of it. By "late-night clowns", I mean the TV commedians, not anyone here. :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 20, 2012, 10:05AM
I've got a crystal ball that I'm using to predict the outcome of Monday's night debate, but, sorry to say, I dropped it this morning, and it busted into a million pieces.

The tiny crystal pieces are hard to differntiate, so it is taking my a lot of time in putting it back together again, but don't fear. I should have the predictons ready to go by at least Tuesday or Wednesday.

That's the good news!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Thomas Matta on Oct 20, 2012, 11:08AM
From "The Gaurdian":

Quote
The delicious irony is that the phrase was supposed to show us Romney the feminist. As governor of Massachusetts, he explained: "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Instead, he managed to conjure an image confirming every feminist's worst fears about a Romney presidency; that he views women's rights in the workplace as so much business admin, to be punched and filed and popped on a shelf. Worse still, it was irrelevant to the question he'd actually been asked, about pay inequality. And, according to several fact-checkers, untrue. He didn't ask for the binders full of women. The list was compiled before he even took office. It wasn't just a gaffe: it was a Freudian slip, a filibuster and a falsehood.

It also wasn't even the daftest part of his answer. That would have to be this bizarre promise: "We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women."

So anxious, they'll hire women. Subtext: so desperate, they'll hire anyone. Even you, ladies. The implication being that in Romney's dream economy employers will grind their teeth and chew their nails until, in a lengthy silence at the tenth tense board meeting, one brave executive tentatively suggests "Guys, I hate to say it, but I think we need to hire people without penises."

Again, not only is it stupid, but it's addressing a question no one has asked. The problem is that women are paid less for the same jobs, not that the labour market isn't flooded enough for employers to take a charitable gamble on them.

Romney's attempt to paint himself as a feminist only proved he doesn't know what the word means. That's why whole binders full of women won't be voting for him.

Maybe this will give you all SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT other than SLAMMING ONE ANOTHER.

One can only hope.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 12:58PM
From "The Gaurdian":
 
Maybe this will give you all SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT other than SLAMMING ONE ANOTHER.
 
One can only hope.

The only "slamming one another" that's been going on for a while now is people who seem unable to stop talking about it. It slowed to a more jocular kind of transition and stopped. Now if people will talk about the issue at hand rather than how we should stop slamming each other, we can really move on ... eh?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 01:44PM
What can we expect from Bob Schieffer? This will be his third job as moderator of the third debate.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 02:02PM
Schieffer's job is going to be keeping Romney in line.  I expect he will try his thus-far successful strategy of trying to get in the first, last, and middle words on everything.  Even when a clear set of statistics showed that Obama actually got a couple of more minutes in the last debate, the overall impression was that Romney wouldn't shut up and listen; he'd propound his ideas instead.

I also hope that Schieffer can keep both of them on the question.  Politicians in general like to answer a different question if the one asked is either embarrassing or something they don't know.  I've seen both Obama and Romney do this.

Tuesday will be the proof.  I'm going to be playing a rehearsal and may have to listen second hand to at least some of the debate.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 20, 2012, 02:05PM
Now if people will talk about the issue at hand rather than how we should stop slamming each other, we can really move on ... eh?

OK, it's real simple... even you foggy-brained libs can understand if you pay really close attention.   :idea:

The "issue at hand" is Romney vs. Obama.  First of all, Obama's record is not good: He had no previous experience in any part of governance that matters, and his tenure in the White Office has been marked by broken promises, profligate spending, increasing debt, and dilettante foreign policy dithering. By any measure his administration has been a painful failure, a jumble of irrational spending and misguided thinking.

Romney, OTOH, has a history of experience and success in both governance and business. It's Romney's time!  We need to fire Barry and hire Mitt...this country can't afford or tolerate four more years of Barry's spending and amateurish bungling.




Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 02:17PM
Can I take issue with your bone-headed Conservative picture?

1.  The economy has hit something we haven't seen since the 1930s.  And this one is different enough that what worked back then doesn't work now.  Obama has not succeeded because (1) the Republicans have been refusing to work with him and have instead adopted a "make him a one term President by preventing him from doing anything" and (2) NOBODY knows what will work, including your "savior" Romney.

2.  Romney has never had to deal with a lackluster economy like this either.  In his Bain Capital days if a concern wasn't making money he sold it off and put people out of work.  It's brutal, and is exactly what you don't  want to do in a time when we have stubbornly high unemployment.  Romney's tenure in Massachusetts was unremarkable.  And he's even running away from the signal achievement of his administration: Romneycare.

3.  Obama's "lack of experience" isn't very different from some other Presidents we have admired: JFK, Taft, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt.  For that matter, how different is it from Sarah Palin?

Romney has demonstrated that he can espouse any of a dozen different approaches depending on whom he's talking to.  You folks derided John Kerry for that in 2004; now it's good? :evil:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 02:41PM
Can I take issue with your bone-headed Conservative picture?

1.  The economy has hit something we haven't seen since the 1930s.  And this one is different enough that what worked back then doesn't work now.  Obama has not succeeded because (1) the Republicans have been refusing to work with him and have instead adopted a "make him a one term President by preventing him from doing anything" and (2) NOBODY knows what will work, including your "savior" Romney.

2.  Romney has never had to deal with a lackluster economy like this either.  In his Bain Capital days if a concern wasn't making money he sold it off and put people out of work.  It's brutal, and is exactly what you don't  want to do in a time when we have stubbornly high unemployment.  Romney's tenure in Massachusetts was unremarkable.  And he's even running away from the signal achievement of his administration: Romneycare.

3.  Obama's "lack of experience" isn't very different from some other Presidents we have admired: JFK, Taft, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt.  For that matter, how different is it from Sarah Palin?

Romney has demonstrated that he can espouse any of a dozen different approaches depending on whom he's talking to.  You folks derided John Kerry for that in 2004; now it's good? :evil:

You can't use facts in your discussions with right-wing people. It's like those dumb video games we used to play. You have to jump up & down on one leg while twirling your sword overhead. Unfortunately, that approach makes no sense, but it opens the secret door.  Remember when Picard had to learn how to spreak in metaphor to communicate with a bizare race? Right-wing people live in a fantasy world and don't understand logic.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 02:52PM
I must confess, Geezer, I'm not a Star Trek fan so I don't know the episode you refer to.

But I understand your point.  We have some Right Wing folks who will continue to spout the same platitudes forever regardless of whether they make sense or not.  Then again we have some Left Wing folks with a similar attitude.

I just wish they'd stop being so binary:  I may not like Romney and I may prefer Obama, but not because I espouse everything he is (or isn't) doing.  Enumerating Obama's failures won't convince me to change my mind, either.  I have too much experience with Romney.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: tbone62 on Oct 20, 2012, 03:01PM
From "The Gaurdian":
Quote
The delicious irony is that the phrase was supposed to show us Romney the feminist. As governor of Massachusetts, he explained: "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Instead, he managed to conjure an image confirming every feminist's worst fears about a Romney presidency; that he views women's rights in the workplace as so much business admin, to be punched and filed and popped on a shelf. Worse still, it was irrelevant to the question he'd actually been asked, about pay inequality. And, according to several fact-checkers, untrue. He didn't ask for the binders full of women. The list was compiled before he even took office. It wasn't just a gaffe: it was a Freudian slip, a filibuster and a falsehood.

It also wasn't even the daftest part of his answer. That would have to be this bizarre promise: "We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women."

So anxious, they'll hire women. Subtext: so desperate, they'll hire anyone. Even you, ladies. The implication being that in Romney's dream economy employers will grind their teeth and chew their nails until, in a lengthy silence at the tenth tense board meeting, one brave executive tentatively suggests "Guys, I hate to say it, but I think we need to hire people without penises."

Again, not only is it stupid, but it's addressing a question no one has asked. The problem is that women are paid less for the same jobs, not that the labour market isn't flooded enough for employers to take a charitable gamble on them.

Romney's attempt to paint himself as a feminist only proved he doesn't know what the word means. That's why whole binders full of women won't be voting for him. 


Thanks for posting this quote!  I enjoyed reading it.  :)

As I posted in this topic a few pages ago ( http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,65419.msg911070.html#msg911070 ), the context of the binders comment is what bothered me, not the comment itself, which I found a bit amusing.  The statement I highlighted in the above quote absolutely jumped out at me during the debate itself.   And shall we add minorities and the handicapped in with the women, Sir?  Perhaps you have binders for them as well?  I want to know what you're going to do to address the fact that many employers simply will not promote equally qualified women over a man, or even pay them a comparable salary for the same job.  While we're addressing employment and pay issues here (which decidedly were not adequately addressed during Debate 2), how about figuring out why it's okay for corporate profits to be heading skyward while working class people - if they can find a job - are working longer hours for stagnant pay and with fewer and fewer benefits? 

What do I expect from the third debate?  I'm not going to make predictions as to who will win or lose the debate.  Quite frankly, that's not why I would want to watch it.  What I would LIKE to see is a clear plan to address the questions raised in Debate 2.  For Debate 3, I'd like to see some sort of logical, responsible philosophy regarding foreign policy and some indication that the candidates' interpersonal skills, thought processes, and plans are conducive to handling foreign policy firmly, but also with some understanding of other cultures, customs, and view of the world.  My problem with pinning this whole win/lose thing on these debates is that the only thing we really can get from them is short bits about various topics, and what I really want to see is detail.  Exactly HOW do they propose to deal with these issues?





Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 03:03PM
I must confess, Geezer, I'm not a Star Trek fan so I don't know the episode you refer to.

But I understand your point.  We have some Right Wing folks who will continue to spout the same platitudes forever regardless of whether they make sense or not.  Then again we have some Left Wing folks with a similar attitude.

I just wish they'd stop being so binary:  I may not like Romney and I may prefer Obama, but not because I espouse everything he is (or isn't) doing.  Enumerating Obama's failures won't convince me to change my mind, either.  I have too much experience with Romney.

Unfortunately, both extremes tend to think of this race in terms of black and white. I have always felt that a true leader is able to interpret, make sense of and translate all the grey areas in world and domestic affairs into a plan of action that we can all get behind. I have to give Obama low marks there. But Rmoney strikes me as a throw-back to the sheer greed of the 80-90 decade.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 20, 2012, 03:19PM
Oh. Ok. Let's pick at the scab again see if we can make it bleed. If it bleeds, we can kill it. I thought we already did.

Relax. You were the one saying you wanted him back in here. This was my response.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 20, 2012, 03:25PM
OK, it's real simple... even you foggy-brained libs can understand if you pay really close attention.   :idea:

The "issue at hand" is Romney vs. Obama.  First of all, Obama's record is not good: He had no previous experience in any part of governance that matters, and his tenure in the White Office has been marked by broken promises, profligate spending, increasing debt, and dilettante foreign policy dithering. By any measure his administration has been a painful failure, a jumble of irrational spending and misguided thinking.

Romney, OTOH, has a history of experience and success in both governance and business. It's Romney's time!  We need to fire Barry and hire Mitt...this country can't afford or tolerate four more years of Barry's spending and amateurish bungling.

Please, Romney's experience is well documented. He is good at vulture capitalism, cutting salaries, padding the pockets of his and his colleagues, and out sourcing labor to foreign countries. Now tell me how that experience would help the USA again?

Oh, and while I am at it need I point out how many lies he continues to espouse, both in the debates and elsewhere. All of this combined with his penchant for changing positions on every issue from day to day makes me less than confident that he would be a good choice for president.

But that's me.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 20, 2012, 04:01PM
Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Too bad Romney wasn't in charge of the International Trombone Festival last summer in Paris. I remember a lot of folks here complaining there weren't enuff women utilized. Romeny would have utilized his binders full of women and made you guys happy. :)



Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 04:03PM
Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Too bad Romney wasn't in charge of the International Trombone Festival last summer in Paris. I remember a lot of folks here complaining there weren't enuff women utilized. Romeny would have utilized his binders full of women and made you guys happy. :)



Nice shot!  :good:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 04:08PM
From "The Gaurdian":
Quote
The delicious irony is that the phrase was supposed to show us Romney the feminist. As governor of Massachusetts, he explained: "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
 
Instead, he managed to conjure an image confirming every feminist's worst fears about a Romney presidency; that he views women's rights in the workplace as so much business admin, to be punched and filed and popped on a shelf. Worse still, it was irrelevant to the question he'd actually been asked, about pay inequality. And, according to several fact-checkers, untrue. He didn't ask for the binders full of women. The list was compiled before he even took office. It wasn't just a gaffe: it was a Freudian slip, a filibuster and a falsehood.

It also wasn't even the daftest part of his answer. That would have to be this bizarre promise: "We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women."

So anxious, they'll hire women. Subtext: so desperate, they'll hire anyone. Even you, ladies. The implication being that in Romney's dream economy employers will grind their teeth and chew their nails until, in a lengthy silence at the tenth tense board meeting, one brave executive tentatively suggests "Guys, I hate to say it, but I think we need to hire people without penises."

Again, not only is it stupid, but it's addressing a question no one has asked. The problem is that women are paid less for the same jobs, not that the labour market isn't flooded enough for employers to take a charitable gamble on them.

Romney's attempt to paint himself as a feminist only proved he doesn't know what the word means. That's why whole binders full of women won't be voting for him.
Thanks for posting this quote!  I enjoyed reading it.  :)
 
As I posted in this topic a few pages ago ( http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,65419.msg911070.html#msg911070 ), the context of the binders comment is what bothered me, not the comment itself, which I found a bit amusing.  The statement I highlighted in the above quote absolutely jumped out at me during the debate itself.   And shall we add minorities and the handicapped in with the women, Sir?  Perhaps you have binders for them as well?  I want to know what you're going to do to address the fact that many employers simply will not promote equally qualified women over a man, or even pay them a comparable salary for the same job.  While we're addressing employment and pay issues here (which decidedly were not adequately addressed during Debate 2), how about figuring out why it's okay for corporate profits to be heading skyward while working class people - if they can find a job - are working longer hours for stagnant pay and with fewer and fewer benefits?

There's one of the more reasonable negative takes on the comment.
 
Something I'd argue that reveals is that Romney's only real message is that he'll address all of your concerns ... rhetorically, and as presented. He demonstrates a tunnel vision that belies he's fixated on tickling ears--form over substance again, which may be why right wingnuts can stand him and haven't started hero-worshiping another candidate. Because if you actually consider the facts important at all, the far right should have no love for Romney at all. This is also a huge part of the Romney problem. We aren't really certain which Romney will actually take office.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 04:33PM
Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Too bad Romney wasn't in charge of the International Trombone Festival last summer in Paris. I remember a lot of folks here complaining there weren't enuff women utilized. Romney would have utilized his binders full of women and made you guys happy. :)

Why?  How many of them were trombone players? :dontknow:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 04:43PM
Why?  How many of them were trombone players? :dontknow:

Good question. If there any, I hope they could get home in time from that silliness to clean house and cook dinner.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: sly fox on Oct 20, 2012, 05:16PM
Romney said:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said: 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
. . .

of course, this is not what happened, as previously reported, the material was provided prior to the election to each side as an effort of a nonprofit bipartisan group attempting to increase the number of women in state government.

Mitt did not go to them, they went to both candidates.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 20, 2012, 05:18PM
You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 05:25PM
You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.
It's W's legacy and it will take YEARS to put it all back together - if we still can.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 05:30PM
No, I guess I don't.

Obama has cut spending by eliminating the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is cutting back on military spending.

He is eliminating social programs that don't work.

We need to take more of your hard-earned money and use it to pay down the deficit.

But we also have a lot of obligations that were established under previous administrations.  It is a long-term contract to build an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine.

During the entire Bush Administration the Republican congress authorized increase after increase of the debt ceiling.  When Obama took office we had a 10 trillion dollar debt and a 42% deficit in the budget.  You guys on the Right think you can simply cut your way to solvency, but it doesn't work that way.  You have nobody to blame for this mess but yourselves.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 05:34PM
You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.
 
Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.
 
Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.

I don't think you have much of a case for any of those claims. All I see is right wing dogma. I'm not impressed that a lot of far right wingers think this is what's been happening, because they don't really concern themselves much at all with the facts (all form, no substance--no concept of nuance or anything that complicates the bottom line, assuming they're even paying any attention to the actual bottom line to begin with--that sort of thing), so you're going to need to actually make a case rather than to preach. Preaching has a credibility problem with those who are interested in substance and things like facts.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: elmsandr on Oct 20, 2012, 05:37PM
You guys still don't get it.  You "can't see the forest for the trees."  You fret about women's pay, abortion, gun control, and Mitt changing his mind on some minor issues. Yes, minor...as in inconsequential to the overall future of our country.

Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Men, step back and take a long look at what Obama has done to our country, and where he wants to take us...bankruptcy, class warfare, and second rate nation status.  We desperately need a more sensible, more levelheaded, more moderate president.
Wait, what?

I'm still not certain why people thing Obama's a liberal...  Hillary was the liberal candidate.  Obama beat her by being a centrist.  His landmark 'achievements', the stimulus and Obamacare, we're both drafted with many Republican ideals in order to get some bi-partisan support, not that it helped.  Heck, he even ditched his favored immigration reform to take up a bill that had been sponsored by several republicans, just to have it spat beck in his face.

So, let's vote for the self declared "severe conservative" so that we can have a more moderate president?  Not sure where Romney the moderate thought line is coming from.  Is that Romney version 39.0 that was just released?

Cheers,
Andy


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 05:42PM
Not sure where Romney the moderate thought line is coming from.  Is that Romney version 39.0 that was just released?

Being more moderate is what won him popularity in MA. He's good at appealing to whoever he has to appeal to. Unfortunately for him (or possibly us) right now that means right wingnuts. If he were to get into office we're not sure who that would be, or who that would become, so we don't really know who'll show up to play president at any given time if Romney wins. Right now it looks like it would probably be the wingnuts' Romney, at least to start out.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 20, 2012, 05:53PM
Romney's actually a pretty impressive guy, and he's done well at almost everytthing he's done.

My only reservations about voting for him:
1) I don't know which Mitt Romney's going to show up after the inauguration.
2) Supreme Court nominations.

Other than that, I think either guy would do well. It's a common trope in every election to say, "In a nation of 300 million, these are the best two guys we could find?"

But I think these are two pretty good guys.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 20, 2012, 05:57PM
Don't you understand what Obama is doing?  He is spending us out of existence!  He's selling out our children's future with his blind Utopian liberal agenda.  And his foreign policy?  What foreign policy? It's a joke, and so is Hillary.  Our great nation deserves better than this out-of-control dilettante president.

Just to pick two points:

Name three Obama policies that reflect blind liberal Utopianism.
And what exactly is your beef with his foreign policy? Can you be specific? I think he's been better in foreign policy than in domestic policy.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 20, 2012, 05:59PM
Romney's actually a pretty impressive guy, and he's done well at almost everytthing he's done.
 
My only reservations about voting for him:
1) I don't know which Mitt Romney's going to show up after the inauguration.
2) Supreme Court nominations.
 
Other than that, I think either guy would do well. It's a common trope in every election to say, "In a nation of 300 million, these are the best two guys we could find?"
 
But I think these are two pretty good guys.

With the exception of #1, a concern that's been dramatically exacerbated by the political climate and the way Romney's responded through the campaigning, I tend to agree. Once Huntsman was rejected (no surprise) I was kind of surprised the wingnuts didn't eliminate Romney in short order, but they actually managed to choose the best remaining option. If I knew Governor Romney would take office I'd be okay with that--not especially pleased, but okay. The real problem is the wingnut influence on the right.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 20, 2012, 07:03PM
I've got a crystal ball that I'm using to predict the outcome of Monday's night debate, but, sorry to say, I dropped it this morning, and it busted into a million pieces.

The tiny crystal pieces are hard to differntiate, so it is taking my a lot of time in putting it back together again, but don't fear. I should have the predictons ready to go by at least Tuesday or Wednesday.

That's the good news!

You had a crystal ball? I didn't know that anyone on this forum had any balls. :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 20, 2012, 08:22PM
Just to pick two points:

Name three Obama policies that reflect blind liberal Utopianism.
And what exactly is your beef with his foreign policy? Can you be specific? I think he's been better in foreign policy than in domestic policy.
1. $90 billion for "Green Jobs"  through the stimulus bill. 
2. ObamaCare
3. $5 trillion increase national debt through his policies.

Foreign policy?  Bowing and scraping to rag head royalty when he first took office.  Snubbing the Brits, and now, the Benghazi debacle, i.e. gross negligence in protecting our diplomats.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 20, 2012, 08:53PM
1. $90 billion for "Green Jobs"  through the stimulus bill. 

So you don't want him to try anything to stimulate the economy?

2. ObamaCare

Are you aware that this is a direct copy of Romneycare? 
Are you also aware that nothing that costs you has yet to be implemented?

3. $5 trillion increase national debt through his policies.

He was handed an economy in the skids, with a tax cut to make it that much harder to make ends meet.  In bad times the Government needs to run at a deficit in order to hopefully make it back when times get better.  Our last administration decided to run at a deficit during good times and make things much worse.

Foreign policy?  Bowing and scraping to rag head royalty when he first took office.  Snubbing the Brits, and now, the Benghazi debacle, i.e. gross negligence in protecting our diplomats.

I seem to remember a picture with George W. Bush walking hand in hand wiht a Saudi prince.  That doesn't count in the same way?

I didn't really see any of this "kowtowing" you speak of.  He's ignored the Pakistanis to fly drone missions to get Al Qaida.  He has laid low for the Arab Spring in hopes of not seeming overbearing (I'm sure if he had been more forceful I'd hear you screaming about how interventionist he was).  He hasn't done more than pay lip service to the Palestinians (which is way more than Israel would like).

I think I hear an external issue here. ;)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 20, 2012, 11:57PM
1. $90 billion for "Green Jobs"  through the stimulus bill. 
The largest chunk of that is improving energy efficiency, which includes weatherizing homes. I got a tax credit to replace the light fixtures in my business. I'm not quite sure that qualifies as 'liberal utopianism', unless you define the term down pretty far. It reduces our energy dependence and creates jobs for people in that industry. The $21B spent on green energy is in the form of loans, and most of those companies are still solvent and paying back the loans.

Quote
2. ObamaCare
No matter what you think about ObamaCare (and I don't like it), it hardly qualifies as 'liberal utopianism'. Insurance mandates have been a long-time Republican proposal, starting with the Heritage Foundation and Nixon, and culminating in RomneyCare. Like it or not, it's not 'liberal utopianism'.

The most obvious choices were a national health care program, a public option, or a health insurance mandate. Obama signed the most conservative of the three.

Quote
3. $5 trillion increase national debt through his policies.
That's not true. The debt has increased by that much in four years, but it's not all because of Obama's policies. I'm not making an excuse here. The budget is set before the president takes office, and he has no control over it for the first fiscal year. He inherited Bush's war spending, Wall St. bailout, and tax cuts, all of which continued to add to the deficit before he could effect any policy. A lot of the deficit is in the form of specific obligations that a president can't reverse. There's no question that some of Obama's policies have led to higher spending (like escalation in Afghanistan and the stimulus package), but his policies haven't contributed $5 trillion to the debt. In any case, Bush Jr. turned a surplus into a massive debt, and regardless of the wisdom of that decision, I wouldn't call that 'liberal utopianism.'

Quote
Foreign policy?  Bowing and scraping to xxx xxxx royalty when he first took office.  Snubbing the Brits, and now, the Benghazi debacle, i.e. gross negligence in protecting our diplomats.

Sorry, but the first two points are not a substantive criticism of his foreign policy; they're a matter of decorum, not policy (and I should mention that you used an offensive term--I censored it in my quote in case you want to remove it from your post).

The 'Benghazi debacle' is a tragedy, but unfortunately that type of thing happens in every administration.

Reagan lost over 200 Marines in Beirut (the worst since Iwo Jima), then said he would stand up to terrorists, then pulled out (a military base ought to be easier to secure than a consulate, seeing that it's full of soldiers). He also had the Iran/Contra scandal, which involved secretly providing arms to a regime that was plainly hostile to America. Carter had the hostage crisis and the failed rescue. Bush pere was heavily criticized, especially from the right, for not marching into Baghdad (though he looks smarter every year) and for encouraging the Shi'ites to rise up, then not backing them.  Clinton had the national humiliation of Somalia where we pulled out our troops in defeat after our soldier's corpse was dragged through the streets, and the criticism that he stood by while hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were hacked up with machetes.

Bush the second allowed troops to enter Baghdad without a realistic plan other than having flowers thrown at them, and in doing so destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure. The de-Ba'athification program resulted in most of the qualified people being shut out of gov't and contributed to the collapse of post-invasion Iraq. The Abu Ghraib incident undermined Iraqi support for America, harmed the war effort, and put our troops at risk.

I'm not minimizing the screwup at Benghazi, but putting it in historical perspective.

There's a lot of room to criticize Obama, and I might yet vote for Romney, just to get the country moving again. But the most severe criticism of Obama, such as your saying that he's a liberal Utopian, traffics in hyperbole and half-truth (or less than half-truth).


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: djdekok on Oct 21, 2012, 04:06AM
1. $90 billion for "Green Jobs"  through the stimulus bill. 
2. ObamaCare
3. $5 trillion increase national debt through his policies.

Foreign policy?  Bowing and scraping to rag head royalty when he first took office.  Snubbing the Brits, and now, the Benghazi debacle, i.e. gross negligence in protecting our diplomats.

Don't forget the Netanyahu (spelling?) debacle.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 06:14AM
In PA, the voter photo ID law was shot down for this election, and rightly so.  It was a ploy by the GOP to influence the outcome.  Just how much of an impact does voter fraud play anyway?  Why would I vote multiple times?  What is in it for me?  Is there enough money in the campaign coffers to buy votes?  I could see that for some kind of local election, but a national election?  What am I missing here?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 11:00AM
Don't forget the Netanyahu (spelling?) debacle.

What was the debacle? I thought that was well handled. Obama's suggestion--that we use the pre-war borders as a basis and swap territory after that--was sound. If we're going to have some responsibility for Israel's security, we need to hold their bellicosity in check.

A large contingent of people in this country seem to believe that if Netanyahu disagrees with us, we must be doing something wrong. The latest criticism from Netanyahu is that we won't agree to a 'red line' in Iran. Maybe I'm foolish, but I don't think we should let a foreign leader send our troops to war. Even most of Netanyahu's own people don't support his most extreme views, so why should we?

These things are blown out of proportion and distorted by Obama's opponents in hopes of costing him Jewish votes. That scarcely qualifies as a debacle.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: SensitiveJohn on Oct 21, 2012, 11:55AM
Bowing and scraping to rag head royalty when he first took office.
In addition to the ethnic slur, there is also the blatant misrecollection.

http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2009/04/15/george-bush-kisses-a-saudi-prince/


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 12:17PM
...Bowing and scraping to *** **** royalty...

If the above (which I edited out, but can still be seen in his original post) IS an ethnic slur, then it is in violation of the TOU and should be dealt with.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 12:37PM
If the above (which I edited out, but can still be seen in his original post) IS an ethnic slur, then it is in violation of the TOU and should be dealt with.

I sympathize, and you may be right, but it serves to shed light on the true colors of a significant chunk of the anti-Obama crowd.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 12:44PM

I sympathize, and you may be right, but it serves to shed light on the true colors of a significant chunk of the anti-Obama crowd.

I would like to refrain from making the inappropriate comment of one be a negative reflection on others. I believe the comment reveals more about the OP than anyone else.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 21, 2012, 01:31PM
If the above (which I edited out, but can still be seen in his original post) IS an ethnic slur, then it is in violation of the TOU and should be dealt with.
Ethnic slur? What ethnic slur? I know ethnic slurs, and that ain't one.  How about "towel head?"  Would that be better?   :idea:

Ask any military personnel returning from the Middle East what they call them.  The appellation "rag head" for the indigenous people of that region is considered proper and polite by those people.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 01:43PM
This isn't that region. I don't use terms like that. Seems that you do. Good luck.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 01:48PM
Ethnic slur? What ethnic slur? I know ethnic slurs, and that ain't one.  How about "towel head?"  Would that be better?   :idea:
 
Ask any military personnel returning from the Middle East what they call them.  The appellation "rag head" for the indigenous people of that region is considered proper and polite by those people.

Don't be such a coward. The connotation in which it was written was obviously derogatory. Own up like an adult or just let it pass, but don't try and pretend you didn't mean it as it appears to any reasonable reader.
 
Foreign policy?  Bowing and scraping to rag head royalty when he first took office.  Snubbing the Brits, and now, the Benghazi debacle, i.e. gross negligence in protecting our diplomats.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 21, 2012, 02:26PM
Ethnic slur? What ethnic slur? I know ethnic slurs, and that ain't one.  How about "towel head?"  Would that be better?   :idea:

Ask any military personnel returning from the Middle East what they call them.  The appellation "rag head" for the indigenous people of that region is considered proper and polite by those people.

I know you go back far enough and I'll bet you remember the guys from Viet-Nam referring to the Vietnamese as "gooks".  That wasn't any less of an ethnic slur and is just as incorrect.

Feel free to call them "rag heads" in private discussion, but not on a public platform like this.

I can now clearly understand your objections to Obama.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ssking2b on Oct 21, 2012, 03:28PM
I've never seen so many people commenting about things they obviously understand only from talking points anywhere in my life!  I really hope you guys will consider one important thing:  if someone doesn't do the job, they need to be replaced.  Would you keep someone in your section who played out of tune or  sloppy because they might have inherited a bone that wasnt a good horn?  You might cut them some slack, but how long do you let that go on before you just have to realize some one isn't up to the gig.  You cant continue to excuse issues because somebody else started it.  If you cant cut it better than this in 4 years with out crying about your predecessors' issues, why are you deluding your self about what you might do with another 4 years on our dime?  No 2 ways about it...our President has tried, but he hasn't even gotten as far as he should  have toward fixing it.   Will we again fall for it being someone else's fault? A different approach is usually called for when the one you persue  wont work. Unfortunately our President doesn't have one.

2 more thoughts...what surplus was that?  There wasn't any $$$ in the bank, it was projected based on all goes along they way you think it will.  Nothing inconvenient like 9/11 should come along...THERE WAS NEVER ACTUALLY A REAL  EXISTING SURPLUS!  And lastly, green energy is great but giving $$$ to the companies picked by their ability to contribute to your campaign and watching them squander it and wind up in bankrupcy, thus costing me and you our precious tax $$$ is beyond foolish.  It is contemptible regardless of what ever your politics might be.

A last shot...ethnic slurs are reprehensible, so are the childish political smears.  We can agree to disagree without impugnig the political party of your/our choice and concocting a positivly juvenile parinoid delusional view of the other guy.  If you can't do that you don't belong in the room with the adults.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 21, 2012, 03:29PM
Don't be such a coward. The connotation in which it was written was obviously derogatory. Own up like an adult or just let it pass, but don't try and pretend you didn't mean it as it appears to any reasonable reader.

Coward?  >:( Well genius, of course my reference to "rag heads" was derogatory. It was meant to be...and consensus of your fellow countrymen would freely agree with that tern, and cast them in no less a disreputable light. I'm not pretending or equivocating about anything, except insofar as observing the politically correct restraints of this website.

Be careful that your political correctness obsession doesn't stifle all open discussion in this particular forum.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 03:33PM
Coward?  >:( Well genius, of course my reference to "rag heads" was derogatory. It was meant to be...and consensus of your fellow countrymen would freely agree with that tern, and cast them in no less a disreputable light. I'm not pretending or equivocating about anything, except insofar as observing the politically correct restraints of this website.

Be careful that your political correctness obsession doesn't stifle all open discussion in this particular forum.

It will have no effect on the good ones...


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 21, 2012, 03:53PM
I know you go back far enough and I'll bet you remember the guys from Viet-Nam referring to the Vietnamese as "gooks".  That wasn't any less of an ethnic slur and is just as incorrect.
Feel free to call them "rag heads" in private discussion, but not on a public platform like this.
I can now clearly understand your objections to Obama.
 

Bruce, I not only remember "the guys from Viet Nam," I was one of them!  IIRC, we usually didn't refer to them as "gooks", it was more often the "VC" or "Charley."...and you do not clearly understand my objections to Obama at all!!  With your political correct sensors set on "full," you think it's because of his half-blackness.  WRONG!

It's not because he is 50% black, it's because he's 100% America despising socialist.  His clear goal (for those of you paying attention) is to turn America into an income-redistributed, Euro-weenie, socialist state...and the bankruptcy that goes with it!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:00PM
I've never seen so many people commenting about things they obviously understand only from talking points anywhere in my life!  I really hope you guys will consider one important thing:  if someone doesn't do the job, they need to be replaced.  Would you keep someone in your section who played out of tune or  sloppy because they might have inherited a bone that wasnt a good horn?  You might cut them some slack, but how long do you let that go on before you just have to realize some one isn't up to the gig.  You cant continue to excuse issues because somebody else started it.  If you cant cut it better than this in 4 years with out crying about your predecessors' issues, why are you deluding your self about what you might do with another 4 years on our dime?  No 2 ways about it...our President has tried, but he hasn't even gotten as far as he should  have toward fixing it.   Will we again fall for it being someone else's fault? A different approach is usually called for when the one you persue  wont work. Unfortunately our President doesn't have one.

2 more thoughts...what surplus was that?  There wasn't any $$$ in the bank, it was projected based on all goes along they way you think it will.  Nothing inconvenient like 9/11 should come along...THERE WAS NEVER ACTUALLY A REAL  EXISTING SURPLUS!  And lastly, green energy is great but giving $$$ to the companies picked by their ability to contribute to your campaign and watching them squander it and wind up in bankrupcy, thus costing me and you our precious tax $$$ is beyond foolish.  It is contemptible regardless of what ever your politics might be.

A last shot...ethnic slurs are reprehensible, so are the childish political smears.  We can agree to disagree without impugnig the political party of your/our choice and concocting a positivly juvenile parinoid delusional view of the other guy.  If you can't do that you don't belong in the room with the adults.

I agree with the first sentence and the last paragraph, but they both sound like a condemnation of the rest of your own post, which reads like a list of talking points.

You'll notice that I was careful to mention that I wasn't making excuses for Obama, but simply disputing the $5 trillion number as too high. A president isn't responsible for legislation passed before he was elected, or for the existing fiscal year, which is already budgeted, or for non-discretionary items, like interest on existing debt. That hasn't changed. Obama's policies added to the federal debt, but not five trillion, in case accuracy matters.

To answer your question, a budget surplus occurs when you take more money in than you're spending. The reason that there was 'no money in the bank' is that it reduced the debt rather than piling up. I don't think it's typical that there are large piles of federal money sitting around in case we need it. Clinton ran budget surpluses--that's not even a matter of dispute. I don't give him much credit for it, because he benefitted from the tech bubble, which eventually burst.

Your point that we shouldn't keep someone who hasn't done the job is obvious (that's why it's a talking point). What's less obvious is whether Obama has done the job, and more importantly, which of our two choices will do a better job. I'm not a big Obama booster, but most of the criticism of Obama on this thread is cartoonish, crude, and simple-minded. If I ask what Obama's foreign policy failures have been, and people come up with bowing to a *** ****, or buying the British Prime Minister a crummy gift, it isn't a particularly substantive discussion.

If you want to talk about people who discuss topics they don't understand, you're welcome to try to substantively rebut anything I've written. Please leave your talking points at home.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:01PM
It's not because he is 50% black, it's because he's 100% America despising socialist. 

You haven't made one point to validate that opinion.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:02PM
Be careful that your political correctness obsession doesn't stifle all open discussion in this particular forum.

Yeah, the death knell of any discussion is when you drive out the bigots.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:05PM
Be careful that your political correctness obsession doesn't stifle all open discussion in this particular forum.

Of course you need to presume a PC obsession on my part, which is pretty amusing.
 
It's just more cowardice, this time of the intellectual variety (can't imagine anyone having a valid objection to an idea you like--rather can't handle the notion). It's a definitive pattern in wingnut types.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:07PM
Yeah, the death knell of any discussion is when you drive out the bigots.

It's not fair to use sarcasm on these guys, man. It just confuses them and they get scared, and that just makes them angry and aggressive.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:12PM

It's not fair to use sarcasm on these guys, man. It just confuses them and they get scared, and that just makes them angry and aggressive.

I'm not using sarcasm on 'these guys', because 'these guys' comprise a hypothetical construct of yours. I'm responding to the person who posted.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:18PM
I'm not using sarcasm on 'these guys', because 'these guys' comprise a hypothetical construct of yours. I'm responding to the person who posted.

Calm yourself, I'm using "those guys" as in Titus and those who think like him (who may or may not be "these guys" here on the forum, but I suspect only a few of "them" are).
 
You can get hypersensitive about Us vs. Them thinking (and I can understand that) to where you don't recognize categorical terminology, man.
 
Relax. Now you've just confused him further by saying you're not using sarcasm--the following conditional won't typically register.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 04:24PM
OBTW; PC has nothing to do with this Forum's rules of conduct.  Ethnic or racial slurring is against the rules, which apply to all. A grey area is - what is a slur vs. what is a shot. Some of us will take a shot. When it becomes a slur, it crosses the line.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:25PM

Calm yourself, I'm using "those guys" as in Titus and those who think like him (who may or may not be "these guys" here on the forum, but I suspect only a few of "them" are).
 
You can get hypersensitive about Us vs. Them thinking (and I can understand that) to where you don't recognize categorical terminology, man.
 
Relax. Now you've just confused him further by saying you're not using sarcasm--the following conditional won't typically register.

For the record, I was being sarcastic.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:28PM
OBTW; PC has nothing to do with this Forum's rules of conduct.  Ethnic or racial slurring is against the rules, which apply to all. A grey area is - what is a slur vs. what is a shot. Some of us will take a shot. When it becomes a slur, it crosses the line.

I was a little disappointed that Bruce quoted the ethnic slur without commenting on it.

Yes, it's a slur. If one of my employees used the same slur in front of a customer (regardless of race, ethnicity or creed), he would remain in my employ for the amount of time that it took me to open the door with his head.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 04:33PM
I was a little disappointed that Bruce quoted the ethnic slur, and that it wasn't commented upon.

Yes, it's a slur. If one of my employees used the same slur in front of a customer (regardless of race, ethnicity or creed) he would remain in my employ for the amount of time that it took me to open the door with his head.

I understand. However, there are times - such as testifying in court - where it is appropriate to make the point in such a way that there can be no misinterpretation.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:38PM
For the record, I was being sarcastic.

Also for the record, I understand your anti-Us vs. Them thing. The problem child's "you guys" as imposed in spite of contrary evidence, and it was specifically a dismissal of those he was arguing against--intellectual laziness combined with intellectual cowardice (ignore any actual contrary points and dismiss them en-masse from all detractors--presume they're all the same). What I was saying is there are a number of people like Titus, wherever they may be, and they aren't typically very good at dealing with sarcasm, etc. It's just experience with people, man. You don't just pretend none of your experience with people counts because you're dealing with a different individual right now, do you? You allow room for individual variation of course, but that's a different matter.
 
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but you're a bit gunshy about it I think. And I understand that as well.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:40PM
OBTW; PC has nothing to do with this Forum's rules of conduct.  Ethnic or racial slurring is against the rules, which apply to all. A grey area is - what is a slur vs. what is a shot. Some of us will take a shot. When it becomes a slur, it crosses the line.

Be careful not to cross the line into presuming to make calls for the moderators, man. The rules are relaxed in here, and you need to accept that if you want to participate in here. Let them make those calls. They do just fine. If you disagree then PM or email them, but presuming to make calls you think they should make is out of line.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 04:44PM

Be careful not to cross the line into presuming to make calls for the moderators, man. The rules are relaxed in here, and you need to accept that if you want to participate in here. Let them make those calls. They do just fine. If you disagree then PM or email them, but presuming to make calls you think they should make is out of line.

No such intention on my part at all. Sorry if my post came across that way. I was speaking hypothetically.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 04:48PM
I understand. However, there are times - such as testifying in court - where it is appropriate to make the point in such a way that there can be no misinterpretation.

That would be a good point if naming the person who was bowed to were an inferior option to calling him a *** ****.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 04:53PM

Be careful not to cross the line into presuming to make calls for the moderators, man. The rules are relaxed in here, and you need to accept that if you want to participate in here. Let them make those calls. They do just fine. If you disagree then PM or email them, but presuming to make calls you think they should make is out of line.

OTOH, apparently it is acceptable to make a public call for a Mod to intercede - as in Stretch vs. Ronk.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:56PM
I really hope you guys will consider one important thing:  if someone doesn't do the job, they need to be replaced.  Would you keep someone in your section who played out of tune or  sloppy because they might have inherited a bone that wasnt a good horn?  You might cut them some slack, but how long do you let that go on before you just have to realize some one isn't up to the gig.  You cant continue to excuse issues because somebody else started it.

The analogy doesn't fit very well though. What we have is someone who seems to be a very good player, but who is being thwarted by the others in the section, screwing with his horn and his music and his chair, and anything and everything they can to make him play poorly and screw up. In that case you want to replace the jerks who can't play well with other children, not the one who seems to be a good player if every effort he made to do so weren't hampered by the problem children.
 
It's frankly rather disconcerting that many fellow adults can't recognize the problem childrens' behavior, and blame the results on their target. I thought most of us figured that one out in junior high, or at worst in high school. It's really Sandbox101 stuff though.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 04:57PM
That would be a good point if naming the person who was bowed to were an inferior option to calling him a *** ****.

I am not presuming to speak for another, be it Mod or otherwise. But it is my understanding that rational and above-board talk is never unacceptable. After all, this is a chat forum, no?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 04:59PM
OTOH, apparently it is acceptable to make a public call for a Mod to intercede - as in Stretch vs. Ronk.

Nope. I'd take the same view of that, personally, if it were repeated. I also take a dim view of people who feel the need to "tell on" other posters for being big meanies and such (though that's more of a personal character weakness thing than a presumptuousness/out of line kinda thing).


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 05:10PM

Nope. I'd take the same view of that, personally, if it were repeated. I also take a dim view of people who feel the need to "tell on" other posters for being big meanies and such (though that's more of a personal character weakness thing than a presumptuousness/out of line kinda thing).

I understand your idealism (not meant as a shot).  But what I was referring to is what the term "precedent" means.  Stretch set it, if he wasn't corrected for doing it.  That said, I don't want to sound like a Philadelphia Lawyer - if you know what I mean.  So, to put you on the spot, you are saying that it was wrong of Stretch to publicly call on a Mod?  I also understand the tattle-tale point of yours.  No one likes a snitch.  Is it being a snitch for doing a Stretch? :)  I'm confoozled. :)

Edit  OBTW, I just love the user name "Stretch Longarm".  So cool. /Edit


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 05:23PM
I understand your idealism (not meant as a shot).
Mentality, perhaps?
 
But what I was referring to is what the term "precedent" means.  Stretch set it, if he wasn't corrected for doing it.  That said, I don't want to sound like a Philadelphia Lawyer - if you know what I mean.  So, to put you on the spot, you are saying that it was wrong of Stretch to publicly call on a Mod?
I wouldn't use that term. It's not really the right category. I'd say it was bad form, but repetitive bad form can cross the line and continue into "wrong" territory. None of this is to be construed as what I think the Mods should do or think, by the way. These are questions about my personal positions.
 
I also understand the tattle-tale point of yours.  No one likes a snitch.  Is it being a snitch for doing a Stretch? :)  I'm confoozled. :)
Well, I don't equate "snitch" with "tattle-tale", but yeah, I think you're reading my point right.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 05:48PM
This IS a shot. Did it ever occur to you that what you consider as mental tectonic plates come across as extreme hair-splitting? :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 21, 2012, 06:13PM
Can we please  get back to discussing the debate?  I'm tired of the back and forth over the use of the ethnic slur.  Let's drop it and go on.  Please!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Stretch Longarm on Oct 21, 2012, 06:23PM
Byron, you can call it "tattling" or "snitching" if you want, but when the topic degrades from conversation, to histrionics, to downright abusive, slanderous outlashing, it's in nobody's best interest. Even in this part of the forum.

So I called on a Mod. Sue me. If you think you can reason an apology, or a relaxing of Ronkny's attitude, go for it (although historically, you are one person who continually excites him, right or wrong - and you know that you yank his chain as much as he yanks everyone else's. Children, all of you.

I'm going to go practice.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 21, 2012, 06:56PM
Byron, you can call it "tattling" or "snitching" if you want, but when the topic degrades from conversation, to histrionics, to downright abusive, slanderous outlashing, it's in nobody's best interest. Even in this part of the forum.
 
So I called on a Mod. Sue me. If you think you can reason an apology, or a relaxing of Ronkny's attitude, go for it (although historically, you are one person who continually excites him, right or wrong - and you know that you yank his chain as much as he yanks everyone else's. Children, all of you.
 
I'm going to go practice.

Jeezus H, why do people have such trouble paying attention to what the frack is going on ...
 
Who wrote what?
 
Who raised the issue?
 
I didn't.
 
I wouldn't have.
 
Not a big deal to me.
 
Now please, carry on with the actual topic of discussion, eh?
 
Damn!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 21, 2012, 06:58PM
I predict no change in the hard-core viewpoints.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 21, 2012, 09:29PM
Can we please  get back to discussing the debate?  I'm tired of the back and forth over the use of the ethnic slur.  Let's drop it and go on.  Please!

I just returned to the site after a few hours, and man, what a torrent of verbosity has appeared since I left.

Baronbone, Pianoman and Geezer have been so wrapped up in expounding on their moral and intellectual superiority that they completely lost track of the original thread!  Not to worry; this behavior is harmless, and completely consistent with that of your usual leftwing zealot.

These people become so full of themselves that their liberalism becomes a religion...and a fanatical religion at that.  These unfortunates are almost always beyond help, and are best left to themselves to muddle through reality as best they can.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 21, 2012, 09:59PM
I just returned to the site after a few hours, and man, what a torrent of verbosity has appeared since I left.

Baronbone, Pianoman and Geezer have been so wrapped up in expounding on their moral and intellectual superiority that they completely lost track of the original thread!  Not to worry; this behavior is harmless, and completely consistent with that of your usual leftwing zealot.

These people become so full of themselves that their liberalism becomes a religion...and a fanatical religion at that.  These unfortunates are almost always beyond help, and are best left to themselves to muddle through reality as best they can.

I quoted your entire post and responded to it, and now you're saying I'm off-topic.

Nice try.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: RedHotMama on Oct 22, 2012, 01:18AM
Thank goodness the debate is tonight and we can finally shut down this benighted topic!!!! :mad:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 22, 2012, 04:15AM
Thank goodness the debate is tonight and we can finally shut down this benighted topic!!!! :mad:

Or pseudo-topic, rather ...


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 22, 2012, 04:16AM
I just returned to the site after a few hours, and man, what a torrent of verbosity has appeared since I left.
 
Baronbone, Pianoman and Geezer have been so wrapped up in expounding on their moral and intellectual superiority that they completely lost track of the original thread!  Not to worry; this behavior is harmless, and completely consistent with that of your usual leftwing zealot.
 
These people become so full of themselves that their liberalism becomes a religion...and a fanatical religion at that.  These unfortunates are almost always beyond help, and are best left to themselves to muddle through reality as best they can.

Don't be angry. Don't lash out at your confusion.
 
Find a local adult literacy program.
 
The ALA offers them all over the country.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 05:06AM
I just returned to the site after a few hours, and man, what a torrent of verbosity has appeared since I left.

Baronbone, Pianoman and Geezer have been so wrapped up in expounding on their moral and intellectual superiority that they completely lost track of the original thread!  Not to worry; this behavior is harmless, and completely consistent with that of your usual leftwing zealot.

These people become so full of themselves that their liberalism becomes a religion...and a fanatical religion at that.  These unfortunates are almost always beyond help, and are best left to themselves to muddle through reality as best they can.

I take this as one of the best compliments I have ever received on this Forum!  Thank you!  To be compared in the same company as the Piano Man and The Baron is a high honor that I will try to live up to!  I am not worthy. :)

RHM; we're just gettin' wahmed up. :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 22, 2012, 05:30AM
Now here's what I'd really like to see:

(http://assets.amuniversal.com/eb33b1e0fa04012ff506001dd8b71c47)

From the strip "Non Sequitur" by Wiley Miller


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 05:32AM
Yes!  Or have them both sitting in dunk tanks!


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 22, 2012, 05:52AM
Thank goodness the debate is tonight and we can finally shut down this benighted topic!!!! :mad:

Then we can start a 'What did you think of the 3rd debate?" topic.  :)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 22, 2012, 05:57AM
Then we can start a 'What did you think of the 3rd debate?" topic.  :)

Nice!
 
 :good:
 
Nice one on you too, Bruce!
 
Helluvanidear!
 
Another way to do it ... Terry Tate: Debate Moderator! (here's a preview for those who aren't familiar with the classic: Terry Tate: Office Linebacker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94))


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 06:37AM
Children,

Here is a source for political opinion we can all sink our teeth into. :)

 http://stumpyscorner.blogspot.com


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: greg waits on Oct 22, 2012, 09:38AM
Ethnic slur? What ethnic slur? I know ethnic slurs, and that ain't one.  How about "towel head?"  Would that be better?   :idea:

Ask any military personnel returning from the Middle East what they call them.  The appellation "rag head" for the indigenous people of that region is considered proper and polite by those people.

"Rag head" is clearly an ethnic slur. Obviously you are so insensitive that it could never occur to you that it would be offensive to someone.

Your statement that such a foul reference is considered proper and polite by "those people" is laughable if it weren't so scurrilous.

And btw, "those people" makes you sound a lot like Mrs Romney. Oh wait, you are a right winger. Now the racial insensitivity makes complete sense.

And yes, it is a violation of TOU.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: SensitiveJohn on Oct 22, 2012, 09:43AM
Every time that Slick Willard tells a lie, you have to drink.  And, every time Obama fails to challenge those lies, you have to drink again.  I expect to be butt wasted by the end of the debate.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 10:06AM
Every time that Slick Willard tells a lie, you have to drink.  And, every time Obama fails to challenge those lies, you have to drink again.  I expect to be butt wasted by the end of the debate.

C'mon over! :-)


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 22, 2012, 10:25AM
I bought the "official" version (http://www.democraticstuff.com/DebateDrinkingGame-PK44822), which was of course more of a campaign contribution than anything (I felt compelled to make another donation after the first debate).


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 22, 2012, 10:43AM
Every time that Slick Willard tells a lie, you have to drink.  And, every time Obama fails to challenge those lies, you have to drink again.  I expect to be butt wasted by the end of the debate.

I would expect you to be wasted after the 1st 15 minutes. :evil:

Do you have enough stuff to drink that much?


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: SensitiveJohn on Oct 22, 2012, 12:36PM
I'll have to stock up at the packie on my way home.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: dj kennedy on Oct 22, 2012, 03:11PM
desperate     email  from  barak michelle   bill    casper the ghost 
  for funding  ads 
 WHATS  $$$$$$$$$$$$$  MONEY  HAVE TO DO W IT  ???????????????????????????????
=============


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ssking2b on Oct 22, 2012, 03:27PM
Will you still be singing the same tune if they decide to retaliate against Romney by cutting off supply lines?  How you gonna do your networking with no cable, no interface boxes, and no computers?

I hope they do.  We can do all the computing and neworking we want to right here with the systems we can manufacture at home.  They can't afford to screw over their biggest consumer market.  Get real...get a clue.  They may posture, but they want ourbusiness.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: ssking2b on Oct 22, 2012, 04:02PM
I agree with the first sentence and the last paragraph, but they both sound like a condemnation of the rest of your own post, which reads like a list of talking points.

You'll notice that I was careful to mention that I wasn't making excuses for Obama, but simply disputing the $5 trillion number as too high. A president isn't responsible for legislation passed before he was elected, or for the existing fiscal year, which is already budgeted, or for non-discretionary items, like interest on existing debt. That hasn't changed. Obama's policies added to the federal debt, but not five trillion, in case accuracy matters.

To answer your question, a budget surplus occurs when you take more money in than you're spending. The reason that there was 'no money in the bank' is that it reduced the debt rather than piling up. I don't think it's typical that there are large piles of federal money sitting around in case we need it. Clinton ran budget surpluses--that's not even a matter of dispute. I don't give him much credit for it, because he benefitted from the tech bubble, which eventually burst.

Your point that we shouldn't keep someone who hasn't done the job is obvious (that's why it's a talking point). What's less obvious is whether Obama has done the job, and more importantly, which of our two choices will do a better job. I'm not a big Obama booster, but most of the criticism of Obama on this thread is cartoonish, crude, and simple-minded. If I ask what Obama's foreign policy failures have been, and people come up with bowing to a *** ****, or buying the British Prime Minister a crummy gift, it isn't a particularly substantive discussion.

If you want to talk about people who discuss topics they don't understand, you're welcome to try to substantively rebut anything I've written. Please leave your talking points at home.
Rebutting your comments is pretty simple.  You don't know what you are talking about in terms of the Clinton surpluses. The supposed surplus never really existed, and no money was put into lowering the National debt.  The entire thing was an accounting ploy, a manipulation that President Clinton was  a part of willingly. That is the real fact. If i quoted a talking point, too too bad.  When it comes down to it, you and i, as well as the rest of this crew will be criticized no matter what we say because someone else will disagree. But,  being unhappy with the job Obama has done doesn't make anyone into a wing nut, loon,  or any other term these guys like to throw around.  I own a small business that has nothing to do with music, and i have earned my opinions in the real world.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 04:56PM
Rebutting your comments is pretty simple.  You don't know what you are talking about in terms of the Clinton surpluses. The supposed surplus never really existed, and no money was put into lowering the National debt.  The entire thing was an accounting ploy, a manipulation that President Clinton was  a part of willingly. That is the real fact. If i quoted a talking point, too too bad.  When it comes down to it, you and i, as well as the rest of this crew will be criticized no matter what we say because someone else will disagree. But,  being unhappy with the job Obama has done doesn't make anyone into a wing nut, loon,  or any other term these guys like to throw around.  I own a small business that has nothing to do with music, and i have earned my opinions in the real world.

You must be very happy.  I hope your success continues.  My wife and I are a LOT better off than we were 4 years ago.  Since we are retired and living off our investments, including the return off our social security investment, when the stock market it up - so is our income.  We are also very happy and hope our success continues under Obama's second term.  However, I still predict that this 3rd debate will change no opinions on either extreme end.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 22, 2012, 05:41PM
Rebutting your comments is pretty simple.  You don't know what you are talking about in terms of the Clinton surpluses. The supposed surplus never really existed, and no money was put into lowering the National debt.  The entire thing was an accounting ploy, a manipulation that President Clinton was  a part of willingly. That is the real fact. If i quoted a talking point, too too bad.  When it comes down to it, you and i, as well as the rest of this crew will be criticized no matter what we say because someone else will disagree. But,  being unhappy with the job Obama has done doesn't make anyone into a wing nut, loon,  or any other term these guys like to throw around.  I own a small business that has nothing to do with music, and i have earned my opinions in the real world.

I understand your point. Treating trust fund obligations as debt erases the surplus (although even using that method of accounting, Clinton erased almost all of the deficit--during his last fiscal year, the debt rose by only $18B).

That doesn't rebut the underlying point--since Clinton's 'surpluses' (I put that in quotes for you) and Bush's deficits were accounted for in the same way, the swing between the two administrations was the same. In other words, you're counting the 'surplus' accounting as chicanery, but if so it was the same chicanery in both administrations, and treating SS obligations as deficits would make Bush's deficits even worse.

The biggest problem with Bush's policies wasn't just the deficit--it's that he used deficit spending and monetary policy to punch up an already overheated economy, and in doing so created simultaneous housing, banking, and stock panics which nearly sank the economy.

For what it's worth, you'll look in vain for a post in which I call anyone a wing nut. Unlike you (and many other people on this forum), I don't refer to 'these guys'--I'm responding specifically to you. I don't think there's anything wrong with opposing Obama, and I don't think it makes anyone a 'loon' to do so, since about half of the country opposes him.

Like you, I've earned my opinions as a small businessman, having been self-employed full-time for a couple of decades and have met a payroll varying from $300,000-500,000 for damn near fourteen years. That having been said, I don't discount the validity of people who earned their opinions a different way.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 22, 2012, 05:48PM
I hope they do.  We can do all the computing and neworking we want to right here with the systems we can manufacture at home.  They can't afford to screw over their biggest consumer market.  Get real...get a clue.  They may posture, but they want ourbusiness.

I challenge you to name me ONE PC/Laptop/etc. that is made in the USA.  I'd bet you can't do it.

IBM Thinkpads are made in China, as are all IBM Desktops (which sport the name Lenovo).
HP and Compaq are made in China.
Dell is assembled in the US from Chinese parts.
So is Gateway.
Apple?  Ever hear of Foxcon (a Chinese company)?
Sony?  Japanese.

There are some Servers and Workstations still made in the US, but I don't think anybody is going to buy a $10,000 device that weighs 100 pounds to do e-mail.

Go into Staples and look at the digital infrastructure.  See how much of it is made in China.

If you want to use American made gear, you are pretty much limited to stuff from the Pentium II and Pentium III era.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Titus62 on Oct 22, 2012, 06:24PM
But,  being unhappy with the job Obama has done doesn't make anyone into a wing nut, loon,  or any other term these guys like to throw around.  I own a small business that has nothing to do with music, and i have earned my opinions in the real world.

Yes, ssking2b, there is a coven of hard core leftwingers on this site who assume that anyone who attacks Obama is a malicious racist bigot, and not because Barry is an arrogant, capitalist-hating socialist ideologue who has the worst record of any recent president, and is hell bent on turning our beloved capitalist country into a Socialist Euroweenie-style Nanny state.

Oh, and don't use words like "********," even though that's what everyone in our armed forces calls our hated Islamic enemies.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: SensitiveJohn on Oct 22, 2012, 06:55PM
Barry
Slick Willard


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 07:44PM
So clearly, Romney is a throw-back to the 80's.  :good:


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 22, 2012, 07:51PM
So clearly, Romney is a throw-back to the 80's.  :good:

For starters, yeah.
 
The president took the governor to politics school again on this one, more forcefully than he did in the second debate. Romney looked like he was running out of talking points and didn't have the chops to elaborate or talk around them very much. Obama was clear about Romney's Etch-E-Sketch problem, which largely disarmed the strategy (very unlike the first debate).
 
I'm not sure it'll have a large bottom line/vote effect, but I think it'll probably give Obama a bit of a surge. No one's running away with the election, that's for sure, but I think Obama probably earned himself enough of a nudge to keep the presidency--can't really say with any honest confidence because we're so divided, and because I can't easily lie to myself as some can.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 08:06PM

For starters, yeah.
 
The president took the governor to politics school again on this one, more forcefully than he did in the second debate. Romney looked like he was running out of talking points and didn't have the chops to elaborate or talk around them very much. Obama was clear about Romney's Etch-E-Sketch problem, which largely disarmed the strategy (very unlike the first debate).
 
I'm not sure it'll have a large bottom line/vote effect, but I think it'll probably give Obama a bit of a surge. No one's running away with the election, that's for sure, but I think Obama probably earned himself enough of a nudge to keep the presidency--can't really say with any honest confidence because we're so divided, and because I can't easily lie to myself as some can.

That's a pretty good from-the-hip impression. I wonder what others will post after they do their catch-up reading on what their opinions "ought" to be.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 22, 2012, 08:10PM
That's a pretty good from-the-hip impression. I wonder what others will post after they do their catch-up reading on what their opinions "ought" to be.

I think a lot of people, like me, are getting their post-debate "coaching" from watching the Giants get to the World Series and the Bears beat up on the Lions right now.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 22, 2012, 08:23PM
Yes, ssking2b, there is a coven of hard core leftwingers on this site who assume that anyone who attacks Obama is a malicious racist bigot, and not because Barry is an arrogant, capitalist-hating socialist ideologue who has the worst record of any recent president, and is hell bent on turning our beloved capitalist country into a Socialist Euroweenie-style Nanny state.

Oh, and don't use words like "********," even though that's what everyone in our armed forces calls our hated Islamic enemies.

I'm the one who called you out on the ethnic slur. I don't "assume that anyone who attacks Obama is a malicious racist bigot." I assume that people who use disgusting ethnic slurs are bigots, and that includes you. If you had called the guy a sand ****** or a camel jockey, I would have responded the same way. In case you didn't notice, many of our allies in the Mideast also wear turbans.

People have all sorts of reasons to oppose Obama, just as with other presidents. That doesn't make them bigots.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Geezerhorn on Oct 22, 2012, 08:25PM
I believe I could have more respect for Romney if he had admitted changing his stance on topics during the past several months as a learning process as a result of the campaign. He could have pointed out how Obama has changed and matured during his past four years in office. I could see that as an honest man being honest. But nooooooooooo.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: Piano man on Oct 22, 2012, 08:33PM
I thought Mitt was at a disadvantage here, because any distance he put between Obama's policies and his own potential ones could cause alarm. For instance, would he have us confronting Iraq or Syria any more quickly? You don't want to look like GWB to a nation that's tired of dimly-understood wars.

I was surprised how often he endorsed Obama's policies and how often he broke ranks with Bush. Still, it wasn't a blowout. My prediction that Romney wouldn't go heavy on Libya was borne out, so I'm smarter than the rest of you.

Both of them repeated themselves a lot--at one point, Obama repeated an entire long sentence almost word-for-word, and he appeared to have 'wrong and reckless' and 'keep the American people safe' tattooed on the back of his hand.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: RedHotMama on Oct 23, 2012, 12:54AM
Ask any military personnel returning from the Middle East what they call them.  The appellation "rag head" for the indigenous people of that region is considered proper and polite by those people.

Sorry pal, but that IS an ethnic slur, at least on here. I don't much care where else it's used or by whom (and I don't think you chose the best example), but not by TTF members, thanks.


Title: Re: Predictions for the 3rd Presidential Debate
Post by: RedHotMama on Oct 23, 2012, 12:54AM
And where's the new topic, so that I can throw the switch on this bugger?????