2012 debates

[Shady]

After Mitt gets rid of tax deductions they wont. Or would just like to talk about all about Mitts plan separably. The only reason PBS is only 12% funded by the feds is because they are a charitable donation so much the public makes donations to a cause they believe in and get a deduction for it. Stop pretending the other parts of Romney's plan wont kill PBS.

Nobody could kill PBS because they have the means to be self sufficient. There's a market for their programming, and can continue to offer it on their own, without any problems, and without any tax money.

[sharkman]

I've read the last two pages of this thread, and one thing is obvious. Romney's win has Obama supporters rattled. "He lied!, He cheated!, He changed his policy! WAAAA!" And they trot out slick new videos produced by leftwing activists down south or maybe even the Obama administration itself. They report Obama's critique of Romney as if it is in then fact.

We all know Ryan is going to beat old man Biden in the next debate. But if Romney wins the next one(isn't it on foreign policy?) there could be a meltdown.

[kimmy]

I've read the last two pages of this thread, and one thing is obvious. Romney's win has Obama supporters rattled. "He lied!, He cheated!, He changed his policy! WAAAA!" And they trot out slick new videos produced by leftwing activists down south or maybe even the Obama administration itself. They report Obama's critique of Romney as if it is in then fact.

We all know Ryan is going to beat old man Biden in the next debate. But if Romney wins the next one(isn't it on foreign policy?) there could be a meltdown.

Do you disagree that the policies Romney talked about during the debate are different from the ones that he has been campaigning on all year?

-k

[punked]

Nobody could kill PBS because they have the means to be self sufficient. There's a market for their programming, and can continue to offer it on their own, without any problems, and without any tax money.

If you think having Big Bird tell kids, half way through a show, to go out and buy some delicious frosted flakes, and that coco-puffs are part of a balanced diet so PBS can make extra dollars then you don't understand what good early childhood education is. It isn't entertainment it is the one place on TV a parent who works double shifts in New York can turn on (because it is free it isn't a part of some cable package) and know their child will be shown what is actually good for them. You need that one place on TV where its information can't be bought by the highest bidder.

PBS could easily become TLC or the History channel but last time I turned those channels on they weren't educating me they were showing me Honey Boo Boo, and Pawn Stars. If you think that is what PBS should be driven by ratings and censored by their media ad buyers then we can't even talk about this Shady.

[punked]

Then why do some province's health care coverage differ in some of the procedures they cover? Why do some provinces offer full prescription drug coverage, while others do not? Would you consider that the same quality of care?

I do not. I think the Federal government we have right now is violating the Charter everyday. That doesn't mean the law doesn't exist and hasn't been tested. The Supreme court of Canada has already ruled the Charter applies to Health care Shady.

I will say "the same comparable services" is open to interpretation but pretending our federal government doesn't have play a role in it is ignorant and stupid. It is right there in section 32 of the charter.

This IS NOT THE SYSTEM Mitt Romney wants. If that is what your believe no wonder you support Romney you don't know what he stands for, you don't know the laws in your own country, and your arguments are very poor and almost never supported by the actual facts.

Do me a favor read a book sometime Shady.

[Guest American Woman]

I've read the last two pages of this thread, and one thing is obvious. Romney's win has Obama supporters rattled. "He lied!, He cheated!, He changed his policy! WAAAA!"

Or perhaps the reality behind the criticism has Romney supporters rattled.....

[kimmy]

Especially among economic illiterates.

I gather "economic illiterates" is the generic term for everybody who doesn't swallow the "rah-rah deregulation!" horseshit.

The turd in a punch bowl was the lowering of lending standards that was suppose to initiate more home ownership of lower income individuals, that wouldn't otherwise qualify for loans. How'd that end up working out?

The claim that the government made banks lend out all those risky mortgages has been debunked so many times on this board that it's getting to be like the "who's on first?" routine. You (or Seinfeld or Pliny) spout this crap, then the facts are presented and you abandon thread and make the same claim 2 days later in a new thread. It's like Whack-A-Mole.

-k

[punked]

The claim that the government made banks lend out all those risky mortgages has been debunked so many times on this board that it's getting to be like the "who's on first?" routine. You (or Seinfeld or Pliny) spout this crap, then the facts are presented and you abandon thread and make the same claim 2 days later in a new thread. It's like Whack-A-Mole.

-k

This is the scary part. I don't know who said but I know it is a horrible man that lead some horrible government in History "If the lie is big enough and you repeat it enough, everyone will believe it." Even when it is debunked everyday Shady's side keeps thinking that if they keep telling the big lies in the face of evidence that they will become true.

Either debunk what we say with citations like we do or stop it. All this will lead to is a race to the bottom. Shady you are wrong.

[punked]

Do you disagree that the policies Romney talked about during the debate are different from the ones that he has been campaigning on all year?

-k

Haven't seen one of them yet actually challenge any of the lies Mitt told unless it is with "but he wont the debate!!! SCOREBOARD" I don't care if he won the debate. I care about his policy, his charter, and how he will govern and so should they no matter if they are left wing or right wing or (like Smallc) centrists.

Edited October 6, 2012 by punked

[Bitsy]

Some regulations are hurting the economy. Dodd-Frank is a boon to big banks, and breaking the backs of small banks. The exact opposite of what most people would want, no?

The turd in a punch bowl was the lowering of lending standards that was suppose to initiate more home ownership of lower income individuals, that wouldn't otherwise qualify for loans. How'd that end up working out?

It absolutely is, at least for anyone that actually knows the details of Dodd-Frank. Most of you don't, or just pretend you do.

Yes, in her usual know-nothing fasion. Ignorance is bliss.

Shady, my only contribution to this post was the compliment to Kimmy. All of your other rants are directed to others.

[WIP]

Here's what was missing from the network broadcast (which I had no intentions of watching to begin with)....I finally got around to listening to the audio podcast version of Expanding The Debate - a special 3 hour episode of DemocracyNow on Thursday, which included two of the "fringe" parties excluded by the collusion of the Republican/Democrat Parties. The 3 hour broadcast actually starts with a half hour segment on how the two major parties have conspired to shut out third party participation in the debates. The presidential debate begins about 31 minutes in the episode.

Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party were provided the opportunity to answer Jim Lehrer's mostly softball questions at the Duopoly's debate. For some reason, Gary Johnson - the Libertarian Party candidate, declined the opportunity to appear and have his say. Whatever his ideological reasons, it's a stupid tactic by a candidate who is also being ignored by the mainstream media, which wants to portray Democratic and Republican politics as the be-all and end-all of political opinion in the U.S.

And the reasons why expanding the debate and challenging a two party duopoly of the political process is so important, has a lot to do with what IS Not said, rather than what the candidates said during the debate. Here's a brief look at some of the issues that neither Romney nor Obama even mentioned, but have been mentioned by some of the observers I consider important, like Glenn Greenwald: poverty, climate change and the environment, declining wages, NDAA and related threats to civil liberties, corporate financing of candidates etc.. Americans who believe that Romney and Obama or the Democratic and the Republican parties actually represent all the issues and the spectrum of political opinion in their country are complete fools!

[Bitsy]

Some regulations are hurting the economy. Dodd-Frank is a boon to big banks, and breaking the backs of small banks. The exact opposite of what most people would want, no?

Fact check Romney claim that Obama’s “kiss to Wall Street was killing small banks”.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10/04/obama-romney-debate-dodd-frank/

It absolutely is, at least for anyone that actually knows the details of Dodd-Frank. Most of you don't, or just pretend you do.

Fact check Romney’s claim of Obama’s ‘kiss to Wall Street’

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/fact-checking-obamas-kiss-to-wall-street/

[punked]

I see to remember some president that didn't have Dodd Frank ended his presidency with the wall street lower then when he started. I that President was not Obama who has seen a huge gain on wall street. Doesn't matter though because I Shady would say red is green if that is what Romneys, talking point was.

[Michael Hardner]

A funny animation that covers the debate in their inimitable style.

[Guest American Woman]

Good article from the Rollling Stone: The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies

It'll be interesting how this debate plays out over time. I read an interesting OP - will the media focus on who won the debate or will Romney's debate lies become the story? Good question. Will Romney's debate lies become the story?

The question for the press over the next few days is increasingly clear: Will the big story be about Mitt Romney’s debate victory — which, in turn, is almost certainly all about style points and Barack Obama’s flat performance? Or will it be about Romney’s repeated failures to stick to the facts?

[...]

I’d suggest keeping an eye on whether the neutral press starts devoting more time to fact checking Romney’s mendacity than it does to Romney’s presentation and stylistic victory. If it does, any potential large Romney bounce from the debate could well be undercut.

[cybercoma]

Most likely people who went into the debate undecided care more about the content than the performance, and therefore are more likely to fact-check what was said. That's not going to turn out so well for Romney.

Do you get a sense of this talking to people and watching the news in the States?

[cybercoma]

Exactly. He literally knows nothing about it. Likes to pretend though.

[cybercoma]

Yes, I saw Jon Stewart's take and thought he nailed it.

However, it's the aftermath that is going to be remembered and right now Romney is looking like a self-admitted "completely wrong" about that 47% comment but I'll still kill Big Bird douche-bag.

Compare that to a President who looks tired or is hilariously defended by the likes of Al Gore based on altitude and Obama comes off as, at worst, disinterested.

To most people being a douche-bag is worse than being tired and disinterested.

Tired and disinterested in a debate that happened on his wedding anniversary, when there will be 2 more presidential ones to follow and a VP one.

Edited October 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

If you think providing good quality early childhood education at a cheep cheep price is a waste no wonder you are find giving Romney's largest donor a tax cut that in one year would pay for the Federal share of PBS funding for 500 years. I think PBS is a better place to put money then more trickle down that doesn't work.

Did you happen to see the comments below? Someone asks, "what would Eisenhower say?"

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, ... Their number is negligible and they are stupid." --Republican President Dwight D. Eienhower

[sharkman]

Good article from the Rollling Stone: The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies

It'll be interesting how this debate plays out over time. I read an interesting OP - will the media focus on who won the debate or will Romney's debate lies become the story? Good question. Will Romney's debate lies become the story?

The question for the press over the next few days is increasingly clear: Will the big story be about Mitt Romney’s debate victory — which, in turn, is almost certainly all about style points and Barack Obama’s flat performance? Or will it be about Romney’s repeated failures to stick to the facts?

[...]

I’d suggest keeping an eye on whether the neutral press starts devoting more time to fact checking Romney’s mendacity than it does to Romney’s presentation and stylistic victory. If it does, any potential large Romney bounce from the debate could well be undercut.

I don't usually do this anymore, but I got a little curious about what that bastion for news accuracy, the Rolling Stone magazine, would have to say. First off, is anyone surprised that a liberal publication is not going to like Romney? Of course not.

The first "lie" they discusss is this nonsense about a 5 trillion tax cut. A simple look at the numbers shows that they use the time frame of an entire decade to sex up the number to a nice even 5 trillion. Second,they ignore that Romney's adjusting his numbers and instead go for the orginal percentages, because they can pad their numbers more this way. Third, Romney won't even be in power if he wins 2 elections for president, for the last 2 years, so the extrapolation is mere speculation. And the pont is, Romney can adjust his plan and change his mind, he's trying to make a proposal that gets him hired.

The second point is silly, really. Since Romney won't name specific loopholes and deductions he'll end, the calculations used are offbase. Romney may be not naming names because it doesn't matter what specifics he uses, his opponent will claim it won't work, so now all Obama can claim is that Romney won't get specific. Something Obama has had to do a lot. The Tax Policy Center does not have all of the numbers, therefore, and is speculating where and what cuts will and will not happen. How can you be accurate when you do that?

They name the Tax Policy Center's conclusions with out any methodology on how it got there, we're just supposed to not trust Romney, but trust them. I think both should be viewed with some suspicion, I never trust anyone who just wants you to believe them without backing it up with at least something. But the idea that Romney's proposed cut on estate tax is a plain attempt at manipulating the voter. First of all, an estate that gets divided up during a will has been paying all kinds of taxes since it came into existance. Some estates are poor, some are rich, but all deserve to pass on what they've accumulated without the government taking yet another cut just because someone died. But anyway, to suggest it's aimed at the wealthy is just more class warefare and it shows to what depth some Obama supporters will go.

As for the idea that Romney is lying since he has changed some of his proposed policies, it's just more fearmongering. Look, this is how it works in business. Someone interested in a job, position or contract submits a proposal and the board, or company(in this case the American people) take a look at it and might say, we like this and this part, but don't think this last partis going to work. So the person in question(in this case, Romney) reworks parts of his proposal and re-submits it. That's what partly happened in the debate. So all of these 'that's not what he said before' claims are simply not aware of what's going on. And of course, Obama supporters are calling him a liar and worse, because that's simply what they do.

3) The main bone of contention here is the 8+ million part time workers. They do not define them at all, just use the number. But the thing is, many people were employed full time, got laid off, and could only find part time work, most likely with no benefits. So they are underemployed because they still want and need a full time job to pay the mortgage, car payments and other bills. Obama would rather not think about them but they are in trouble too.

4)On this one, they may or may not have a point, you here many things on this. But even if Obamacare is started up without such panels, when you hear that they are forcing Catholic hospitals to do things that go against their conscience, it's not a stretch to give the panesl more power.

5)This is just another case where Romney has the right to adjust his plan to make it more acceptable to his prospective employer, the American people. So to claim he's lying is just being obtuse.

Edited October 6, 2012 by sharkman

[msj]

I've read the last two pages of this thread, and one thing is obvious. Romney's win has Obama supporters rattled. "He lied!, He cheated!, He changed his policy! WAAAA!" And they trot out slick new videos produced by leftwing activists down south or maybe even the Obama administration itself. They report Obama's critique of Romney as if it is in then fact.

This is complete BS.

Romeny is being called a liar not simply because I say so or becauase Bubber says so.

IOW, we are not doing an ad hominem.

Bubber clearly pointed to Jon Stewart and if you were to go watch the clip you would know that Stewart substantiated his charge of being a liar.

Furthermore, I substantiated my charge with a link where one can clearly follow up the charge with real evidence (and such a quantity that is clearly disturbing).

As for changing his policy, that has also been clearly broken down in the media and requiries not futher substantiation for anyone who does not live in a cave or under a rock.

As for cheating, well, we know that Romney supporters think some kind of cheating is going on over at the BLS with respect to the unemployment rate.

Too bad Jack Welch has so much experience at cooking the books that he thinks everyone is doing it too.

Oh, and once again, sharkman, the links are all there to substantiate the claims being made.

So, instead of focusing on us calling Romney a policy changing liar and Welch a crazy book cooker I recommend that you follow up the evidence we have provided to substantiate such charges rather than simply imply that all we are doing are conducting ad hominem attacks.

[Shady]

I gather "economic illiterates" is the generic term for everybody who doesn't swallow the "rah-rah deregulation!" horseshit.

The claim that the government made banks lend out all those risky mortgages has been debunked so many times on this board that it's getting to be like the "who's on first?" routine. You (or Seinfeld or Pliny) spout this crap, then the facts are presented and you abandon thread and make the same claim 2 days later in a new thread. It's like Whack-A-Mole.

-k

That's complete nonsense, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Government regulation lowered lending standards so that people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for mortgages, would qualify. In particular, it was government institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that were the chief architects of these new loans. Private banks had a choice to either compete with Freddie and Fannie, or lose business. That can't be debunked because it's fact. No matter how many times you wanna bury your head in your ass and refuse to accept the truth.

[Shady]

Good article from the Rollling Stone: The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies

Do they go into any of Obama's lies? Because he had some whoppers.

[Shady]

Either debunk what we say with citations like we do or stop it. All this will lead to is a race to the bottom. Shady you are wrong.

I've provided so many citations and threads, from the Washington Post, The New York Times, etc. But you people continue to lie about the cause. Apparently you et al think that if you lie about it enough, people will start to believe you.

[punked]

I've provided so many citations and threads, from the Washington Post, The New York Times, etc. But you people continue to lie about the cause. Apparently you et al think that if you lie about it enough, people will start to believe you.

Your links just say polls say Romney wo, the debate. None of them ever address your lies.