DescentBB

well, I hope they keep the crap weather down in the Gulf. I am off to VA in the morning for a few days, and don't want a hurricane to mess up my fishing!

The Dems better watch out. There's another possible hurricane forming named Joyce. She just might take aim farther north, next week. Better watch out in VA callmeslick!

time to necro this thread.

So, according to Chris Matthews it looks like the score is now Romney/Ryan 1, Obama/Biden 0.


Wow, I agree with Chris; that's definitely the way I would call it too - only with less slobber.

On to the veep debate.

I'm honestly not sure why so much importance is still placed on debates in this day and age. (Lord knows you couldn't pay me enough to watch one.) I mean, there was obviously a time when they played a huge role in people's perception of a candidate, but in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, if you haven't made up your mind on these two guys either way by now, just what rock have you been living under over the past umpteen months? And yet they still gain a viewership in the tens of millions. Bizarre.

they even played it live on TV here (australia), at 10 or 11 am or so. But i accidentally forgot about it, sorry

Top Gun wrote:I'm honestly not sure why so much importance is still placed on debates in this day and age. (Lord knows you couldn't pay me enough to watch one.) I mean, there was obviously a time when they played a huge role in people's perception of a candidate, but in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, if you haven't made up your mind on these two guys either way by now, just what rock have you been living under over the past umpteen months? And yet they still gain a viewership in the tens of millions. Bizarre.

yea, why would anyone want to hear the candidate call each other out when the other is spinning crap against them. you can learn SO much more from the political ads than you could ever learn from the point counter point and the body language of the actual candidates themselves.

I think my favorite lines of the debate were.

1. Obama telling the Moderator he should change the topic now. he lost the debate at that point.
2. when Obama tried to blast the 2 billion in Big oil tax breaks. and Romney pointed out to him that, yes that 2 billion should be on the cutting block, but that 2 billion was chump change compared to the 90 billion in tax breaks Obama gave green energy, and Obama didn't have a rebuttal.


Look. when Chris Matthews and Bill Maher BOTH think you suck. then you REALLY must have sucked

It will be interesting to see if the polls change after the complete humiliation Obama experienced at the hands of Romney. It's one thing to be close in a debate and quite another to show the American voters what a complete incompetent you are. I guess Obama was so used to the softball questions he's been getting that he thought the debate would be the same way. I liked in particular how Obama kept trying to perpetuate the lie that Romney wanted 5 trillion in tax cuts and Romney would bulldog his way in and say it was not true. Romney was aggressive and assertive while Obama was at best lackluster. I guess it is easy to give speeches and say what ever you want even though they may not be true. Without his friendly teleprompters, Obama showed the world how much he lacked in debate skills. I guess he should find a new debate trainer. And I liked the new phrase Romney came up with...trickle down government.

Top Gun wrote:I'm honestly not sure why so much importance is still placed on debates in this day and age. (Lord knows you couldn't pay me enough to watch one.) I mean, there was obviously a time when they played a huge role in people's perception of a candidate, but in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, if you haven't made up your mind on these two guys either way by now, just what rock have you been living under over the past umpteen months? And yet they still gain a viewership in the tens of millions. Bizarre.

What is bizarre is that you are comfortable with people forming the opinions for their political choices out of the "benevolence" (oftentimes pablum and silliness) of the "news cycle".

Yea Woody, but according to slick, it was all planned that way.

I was never a Romney supporter, but the guy sure has backbone…something Republicans seem to lack these days.

And that tired old crap from the president, that’s been putting me to sleep the last 4 years sure didn’t help him, in my eyes.

Well Spidey, comrade Slick will have a hard time sugar coating the smartest guy around. Seems even the lefty commentators are cannibalizing him:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82000.html

Spidey wrote:Yea Woody, but according to slick, it was all planned that way.

Yea they've been spinning it that way for weeks. the sad part is when they get to the Foreign policy debates it's going to get even worse for Obama. especially when they hit on what happened in Bengazi.

For MSNBCers, it was a sign of The End Times. Perennial Obama Fan Club President Chris Matthews lamented the whole ordeal, whining this “wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t.”

Matthews erupted into a vein-throbbing rant about how Obama should be watching MSNBC to learn his debate talking points. “Where was Obama tonight?! He should watch, well not just 'Hardball,' Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O'Donnell]. He would learn something about this debate,” he vented. Perhaps the new soundtrack for “Hardball,” will be “After The Thrill Is Gone.”

Throughout much of the media universe, the Obama faithful were distraught by the president's poor performance.

-

Fellow MSNBC host Ed Schultz echoed the panic and added Obama “created a problem for himself on Social Security tonight. He agrees with Mitt Romney.” “I was absolutely stunned tonight,” Schultz concluded. In fact, MSNBC’s focus group of “undecideds,” all thought Romney did well.

lol well at least MSNBC admits they are running Obama's presidency. you gotta give them that.

dissent wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I'm honestly not sure why so much importance is still placed on debates in this day and age. (Lord knows you couldn't pay me enough to watch one.) I mean, there was obviously a time when they played a huge role in people's perception of a candidate, but in the era of the 24-hour news cycle, if you haven't made up your mind on these two guys either way by now, just what rock have you been living under over the past umpteen months? And yet they still gain a viewership in the tens of millions. Bizarre.

What is bizarre is that you are comfortable with people forming the opinions for their political choices out of the "benevolence" (oftentimes pablum and silliness) of the "news cycle".

I don't particularly care how people get their information or don't, but come on...these two candidates are extremely polarizing as far as both sides are concerned, and there's been such a massive amount of exposure on what each of them says they want to do, coupled with reams of analysis on whether or not those claims hold up, that I fail to see how anything either one of them could do would change the average voter's overall perception of them. (Though I have to admit, Romney basically saying he'd cut off funding for Big Bird probably wasn't the best idea. ) Haven't there been several polls suggesting that there are comparatively few undecided voters out there?

Honestly, even if I was madly in love with one of these candidates, you still couldn't pay me enough to watch a debate in this format. The pseudo-moderation, the false veneers of mutual respect, the quibbling over minor phraseology...it's just nauseating. I've known what I was going to do with this election for months now, so I have no use for any of it.

"I'm going to say something controversial here," Gore said on Current TV, the channel he helped found. "Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don't know .

according to Gore Obama blew the debate because the air was too thin

heh hehehehe ahahahahaha AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHA

That’s rich, only AlGore could tie losing a debate to some environmental factor.

I can’t wait to hear tc find a way to blame Bush.

I'm going to score the veep debate as a wash, style-wise. Although I think Ryan's closing statement was better, and better delivered, than Biden's.

So, my running tally -

Obama/Biden - 0.5 .................. Romney/Ryan - 1.5

Well if laughing and mocking your opponent is what the Democrats were looking for, then it was a clear win for Biden.

I thought Ryan got spanked.

Spidey wrote:Well if laughing and mocking your opponent is what the Democrats were looking for, then it was a clear win for Biden.

When it comes to Paul Ryan, that's pretty much the only way to respond to him.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:Well if laughing and mocking your opponent is what the Democrats were looking for, then it was a clear win for Biden.

When it comes to Paul Ryan, that's pretty much the only way to respond to him.

Heh, I wouldn't go that far. Actually, I thought Ryan did a great job, but it wasn't enough for me. I actually think Ryan did better than Romney, and Romney spanked Obama. Martha Raddatz did a fantastic job moderating. Also, the format made for a really interesting debate. I guess I was taken in by Biden's slick-talk, haha. But, that's what these things are for. It's a personality contest. No matter what policies they intend to enact, nothing will get done in the end.

I thought the Moderator did a respectable job. neither side would ever be 100% happy.

both side stuck to their talking points
.
Biden never answered the 1st question about Libya. he totally blew it off

Ryan said his "if you dont have anything nice to say" comment too many times.

Biden was disrespectful. he acted like an old man that kept saying "stupid little kid" with his smirking. my wife and I both watched the debate at first we thought it was a nervous laugh, then she kept commenting on how his demeanor was really getting to her. outside of the hardcore Democrats, I'm not sure that it sold well with the general public.

Proverbs 29:9

When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,
The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest..

WaPo fact checks the veep debate.

hehe

Yeah, I'd bet all day Paul Ryan is the idea man .

EDIT:Obama is losing friends Slick.

Little baby Ryan asking papa Romney: "Daddy, daddy! Can I shoot those lazy loser kids' balloons?"

While comrade Slick and his democratic party cohorts, are high on taxing the crap out of everyone, lets see what the most revered Democrat thought about it (and no it ain't Clinton). The following are excerpts from a speech JFK gave in 1962.

"KENNEDY: This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities of private expenditures."

"KENNEDY: When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment."

"KENNEDY: Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

It is a wonder how much the Democratic party has shifted over the intervening years.

Except none of that works anymore since virtually all manufacturing is done in China. A tax cut in America will only funnel more money (and more debt) to China.

Last time I checked, it isn't 1962 anymore.

Ha. The world is completely different than it was in Kennedy's time. All those American jobs are gone. Today, robots do all the trading on Wall Street, not people. We are globalized. It's a whole new game. Time to learn it and make new rules. We can't fix our economy without first realizing it is completely intertwined with the global economy. I have yet to see a solution presented by Republican nor Democrat, nor anyone here for that matter, to address the complexity of this situation.

Go ahead, give it a shot. And try not to be pedestrian about it.

Krom wrote:Except none of that works anymore since virtually all manufacturing is done in China. A tax cut in America will only funnel more money (and more debt) to China.

Last time I checked, it isn't 1962 anymore.

Perhaps because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world is one of the reasons why those manufacturing jobs are in China.

Why would lowering/raising a tax that nobody pays make any difference?

woodchip wrote:Perhaps because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world is one of the reasons why those manufacturing jobs are in China.

How simple. You really think corporate tax breaks will send companies streaming back into the United States? So, no worries about environmental impact, the labor market, insurance, geographic location relative to target market, access to resources and raw materials, cost of national and international transportation, currency exchange rates, tariffs and embargoes, and the direction their competitors are going?

Sounds great. Better be one hell of a tax break though, haha.

So what you denier's are saying is lets tax the corporations and small businesses more and that will be the magic wand to get the economy going? (woodchip does a Biden face)

woodchip wrote:So what you denier's are saying is lets tax the corporations and small businesses more and that will be the magic wand to get the economy going? (woodchip does a Biden face)

Neither of us said that at all. We are asking you why you think this single talking-point you have been brainwashed into believing is a economic cure-all will work. Corporate tax rates are just one small part of a very complex picture, part of which I've stated above. There is no "magic wand" to fix the economy. And, I never said we should raise taxes on businesses. That's your over-active imagination again.

I think people who buy into government BS and don't really understand the economy are the ones going for the "it's so complex--there is no easy fix" argument. Have you ever heard of the word "principle"? There are always sound principles, in any situation, that will yield the best results.

It's a 2 edged sword really. First off, America's politicians should have never sold off all those jobs, but secondly, if they hadn't, America is a big cesspool is 20-30 more years. What do I care, I'm an apeman:), I like good food and water, clean air and my pee-pee rubbed every now and then . Nothing last forever I guess.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think people who buy into government BS and don't really understand the economy are the ones going for the "it's so complex--there is no easy fix" argument. Have you ever heard of the word "principle"? There are always sound principles, in any situation, that will yield the best results.

Sounds like you should apply for Bernanke's job. With your easy fix "principle," the US should be on track in a few days. Good luck with that.

Oh, and before you get all crazy with the economics talk, we went down that road already.

Krom wrote:Why would lowering/raising a tax that nobody pays make any difference?

It wouldn't I'm betting, but they want a deep tax break sooooooooo bad, they're willing to sit on their trillions of extra cash that's lying around (instead of helping our economy) just to nuke Obama and get a favored son as president, who will be sure to grease their skids generously.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... d=rss_null

tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote:Why would lowering/raising a tax that nobody pays make any difference?

It wouldn't I'm betting, but they want a deep tax break sooooooooo bad, they're willing to sit on their trillions of extra cash that's lying around (instead of helping our economy) just to nuke Obama and get a favored son as president, who will be sure to grease their skids generously.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... d=rss_null

Wouldn't you, if you were them?

Here's how I'd put it on an individual level: If you were anticipating a big paycut, would you go out and buy a new car "to help the economy?" I wouldn't.

If I had a sudden windfall of cash, I'd sure as hell buy something. Not a car, of course, but probably a sweet new PC rig, or at least a pile of new additions to my ever-burgeoning DVD collection. Money is there to be spent, not to sit on for no particularly good reason.

snoopy wrote:Here's how I'd put it on an individual level: If you were anticipating a big paycut, would you go out and buy a new car "to help the economy?" I wouldn't.

Eh. A better analogy would be:

If you were an investor anticipating a big paycut, but there was a chance that a huge investor boycott would prevent the paycut, would you stop investing?

For a large conspiracy of investors, it would make sense to take the risk of slowing/stopping investments.
For an individual investor or small group, they'd keep investing.

So it really comes down to whether you think there is a conspiracy large enough to have an effect. (I'm fairly skeptical, since it would require such a massive collaboration.)

In either case, if there really is a huge amount of money being witheld until after the election, the economy should get a bit of a boost afterward.

Top Gun wrote:If I had a sudden windfall of cash, I'd sure as hell buy something. Not a car, of course, but probably a sweet new PC rig, or at least a pile of new additions to my ever-burgeoning DVD collection. Money is there to be spent, not to sit on for no particularly good reason.

If you compare the 1.7 Trillion cited to the ~15 Trillion GDP of the US, you're looking at ~1.5 mo of GDP cash, which isn't exactly what I'd consider a "windfall." I try to keep more than that in reserve in my personal finances.