The Debate: A Sorry Affair...

[Ben]

The Debate: A Sorry Affair - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifldI6VRMa0&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

I had better things to do than watch the debate. Like fall asleep -- ha ha! :)
America. Home of circa 315 million people. And we have to choose between two men. Who went to the same school. Who are both multi-millionaires. Who are backed by the same big corporations.
Follow Gore Vidal's advice and don't vote... :)
As Professor Tom Ferguson pointed out: this was effectively a debate between two wings of a corporate boardroom.

The Debate: A Masterful Liar Defeats a Man Without Conviction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTD33JYpCd0&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

How Do You Take Your Poison?

by: Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_do_you_take_your_poison_20120924/

[underdog6]

obama got his ass handed to him LOL! So much for the magic obama.

[trish]

The liar performed well, but course lying will always get you an advantage.

[robertlouis]

The liar performed well, but course lying will always get you an advantage.

There was an interesting article in The Observer in the UK a few weeks ago which examined the shift into a "post-truth" media age. Pioneered here by the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail, but in the US it seems to have been adopted wholesale as a strategy by at least one political party. Guess which one.....

Where's George Orwell when you need him?

[flabbybody]

obama got his ass handed to him LOL! So much for the magic obama.
I watched in disbelief. I thought he was beyond terrible. The million dollar question is how it will move the poll numbers. I'm guessing the swing states will tighten up.
We'll know very soon

[Prospero]

Very depressing. Din't see the debate and right afterwards the NY Times declared it a draw - but everyone else has clearly given Romney an advantage. A very poor performance by Obama by all accounts. he needs fire in his belly or the GOP will steal this one - with godawful results afterwards.

[Prospero]

A line from Yeats occursto me re the debates

"The best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity."

[Prospero]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-asks-father-why-he-was-acting-like-suc,29795/

[broncofan]

I watched debate beginning to end. I thought Obama lacked the energy of Romney, but it was a debate between two intelligent men. However, debates really seem to be judged on style. It is quite obvious when you see posts like those of underdog that they did not get much beyond the respective energy levels of the two candidates.

On substance, I thought Romney clearly peddled in falsehoods by pretending that Obama was going to gut Medicare and Obama explained one time what PPACA does with respect to Medicare (the 716 billion dollars at issue) but it did not keep Romney from repeating himself. Overall, Romney did a better job of presenting his views in a rosy manner, but for those who are aware that what he said was deceptive or untrue, it was very unconvincing.

[broncofan]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-dominated-debate-say-pundits-trying-to-figu,29800/

[Ben]

Debate means disagreement. There isn't much they disagree on. I mean, maybe on issues of taxation.
If Romney said he doesn't believe in taxation, well, then they can have a debate... :) If Romney believes in so-called "free" markets, well, we should get rid of taxes altogether.
But the likes of Romney don't believe in pure markets because the business community don't want them. It'd be a disaster. They are serving their own interests. And their own interests dictate: lower taxes and bailouts for them. And tax increases for everyone else to cover their butts when the whole thing blows up -- ha ha ha! As it does. Periodically. Because pushing for freer markets, as it were, creates a lot of instability. And when crashes happen big business rely on big government to come to the rescue. (Now Ron Paul is opposed to this. So, what would happen? Crash happens in '08. No rescue from the public sector. How would that play out.)
A majority of Americans think taxes on the rich should be increased. But this isn't seen as: politically realistic. Meaning: the rich don't want it.

Ron Paul on Taxing the Wealthy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIhrE7BIYgk)

[Ben]

VP Debates, Everyone Loses | Brainwash Update - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb474QnX6Fc&feature=plcp)

A shame Ron Paul didn't win the nomination:

Ron Paul - This military spending doesn't defend us (19-Jul-11)(GLOBAL FOCUS series - US) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXlB3XecbV4)

It's good that Paul won't endorse Mitt Romney.... As Ron Paul disagrees with both Obama and Romney....
And, too, the Superclass, as it were, have their two men in place -- as Paul articulates.

Ron Paul Refuses to Endorse Romney - CNBC 10/11/2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t3vZeJvb9U)

[Ben]

Interesting analysis by George Carlin....
The business sector adores politicians that are lazy, unprincipled and utterly corrupt to, of course, further their own interests.

The Truth About Republicans by George Carlin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKMy65dyz4&feature=related)

[Ben]

Leaked Debate Memo Confirms Debates CAN'T Be Interesting - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glYNycQXJf0&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Glenn Greenwald:

The lame rules for presidential debates: a perfect microcosm of US democracy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/16/presidential-debate-issues

[Prospero]

Interesting take on the character of Barack Obama by former BBC correspondent to the US - published yesterday in the London evening Standard.

Barack Obama: the White House's cool operator
As Barack Obama prepares for tonight’s Presidential debate, Justin Webb gives a telling glimpse of a supremely polished politician and modern family man — but one who lacks the common touch

Two chairs face each other in the centre of a book-lined room. We are in the bowels of the White House waiting for Barack Obama to give his first British TV interview since taking office.

I had tried to move the chairs closer together. Big mistake: “Sir! Sir! Step away from the chairs, Sir!”

It was a reminder from the Secret Service that Barack Obama, cool and game-changing as he seemed to many in those early days, was still, is still, an American President: a head of state whose life is lived in a bubble of privilege and security and toadying and loneliness. A man who must find a way of being true to his personality, true to himself, in conditions that are, well, unique.

He bounded in and we had the usual few minutes of smalltalk or silence that come before any big interview as the sound engineer checks the levels and the cameraperson alters the lighting. I decided that we must talk. This was too big an opportunity to pass up. And I knew the subject: a few weeks before the interview my son Sam had been struck down, his life altered for ever, by a horrible incurable illness called type one diabetes. By coincidence the President had mentioned this condition in a speech about stem cell research only days before we spoke.

“Mr President, thank you,” I said, “we appreciated you mentioning type one diabetes. My son has just developed it and we are still coming to terms with the change …”

His response was telling. He knew more about this unusual autoimmune condition than I did. He knew the science. He knew the effect it can have on families. But I had spoken to previous White House incumbents and what the President did not do is what they certainly would have — he did not feel my pain, or pretend to. He remained separate. Not aloof — that is too strong a word — but unmoved. Where Clinton would have grasped my hand and Bush would have had us on our knees in prayer, Obama kept his cool.

I liked him for it. Good old George W — actually much misunderestimated as a decent human being in my view — would have been warm to the extent of tearfulness but would not have had the foggiest idea about diabetes. Obama then seemed to me and, way more importantly, to the American people, to be a breath of cool fresh air. His calm, his self-possession — they felt good to a nation tired of being led from the heart.

But now? Insiders have been horrified by the President’s failure to use one of the great tools of the modern Oval Office: the telephone. Presidents phone people to put pressure on them, to flatter them, to cajole and bully and harass and seduce. Obama can’t, apparently, be bothered. He prefers to spend time with his family. Staff members make the calls.

That tells you a great deal about Barack Obama. On the plus side, he loves his wife and kids. It’s not for show. He is a modern father. And he is no more interested in chatting to idiot congressmen than he is in faking concern for the sadness of a passing BBC reporter.

On the minus side ... well, he is too cool to get involved in the great grapple of politics, the hugs, the arm-wrestles, the grip-and-grins. He does not see the point. And that, I think, leads directly to his lacklustre debate performance against Mitt Romney, which so shocked Democrats and reinvigorated Republicans.

Folks, Barack Obama does not do this stuff. There is something disengaged about him. America will have to decide whether that matters.

Justin Webb presents the Today programme on Radio 4 and was the BBC’s chief Washington correspondent for eight years.

[broncofan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/who-won-the-debate-oddsmakers-weigh-in/2012/10/17/386e8ca8-1846-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html

How to get a sense of who won the debate? See what those with money at stake say. They have Obama's chances of winning the election going up following last night's debate.

[broncofan]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-s-binders-full-of-women-comment-sets-internet-ablaze.html

This is a decent article on one of the highlights of the debate for me. It was interesting to see Romney handle questions at a townhall meeting from a latino, a woman asking about women's rights, and an African-American man. When it came to the question about equality in women's pay, he was clearly uncomfortable and did not have a very good answer formulated. So, he spun some awkward story about looking for women staffers and putting women to work.

Bottom line: he kind of sounded like he really didn't give a shit but that he wanted their vote.

[loveboof]

When it came to the question about equality in women's pay, [Romney] was clearly uncomfortable and did not have a very good answer formulated. So, he spun some awkward story about looking for women staffers and putting women to work.


I thought this was an interesting answer because for me it did not represent equality at all!

In his story, he was presented with mostly male applicants for positions in his staff. When he questioned this, he was told that those men are the most qualified people for the roles. For Romney to then seek out women to fill the positions just for the sake of it is clearly positive discrimination. When the most qualified people are being overlooked just so there can be the appearance of equal rights is not what equality is all about imo.

[trish]

Frankly, I don't believe his story. He does have a record of lying. You really think it occurred to Romney to ask why there are no applications from women? Not on your life.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

Last night's Presidential Reality-Show script with a resurgent Obama trying to recapture his cool mojo ca. 2008 was a pathetic display of what we have become as a society.

Two violent psychopaths circling each other on stage looking like they want to box each other over who gets to send American Sons and Daughters off to die in the next Banker Financed War.

Get those shovel ready-grave digging jobs primed for the next round of stimulus.

---SPOILER ALERT---

Obama wins this November, as a term-limited President can completely disregard the Law, the People, and the polls and instead concentrate on the agenda set by his Puppet-Masters over at the Federal Reserve.

4-More Wars, 4-More Wars!

[trish]

Scare-Crow, Puppet-Masters. Really? I know it's Halloween, but grow up.

[Prospero]

Yep - and Scarecrow has taken to calling the Government in the US fascists . I wonder if he ever actually read anything about Facism in Germany - Pathetic.

Scarecrow is full of delusional conspiracy theories... perhaps with a gun and playing in the woods with his Militia chums?

C'mon Scarecrow tell us how the US Government was really behind 9/11 and the oklahoma bombing?

[ed_jaxon]

Binders full of women. Reminds me of another guy.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

:fu:
Yep - and Scarecrow has taken to calling the Government in the US fascists . I wonder if she ever actually read anything about Facism in Germany - Pathetic.

Scarecrow is full of delusional conspiracy theories... perhaps with a gun and playing in the woods with her Militia chums?

C'mon Scarecrow tell us how the US Government was really behind 9/11 and the oklahoma bombing?


###

LMAO, um Germany was Nazism, Italy was fascism, looks like you might need to take some of your own "advice."

And while having read several of your previous posts, I realize you hate to be bothered by things such as facts, but even Benito Mussolini praised Jesus-Christ-Roosevelt for copying his political system via implementation of the New Deal.


"Your [Roosevelt] plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation."
Benito Mussolini
New York Times, 1933


Also of note, both Churchill and Roosevelt thought fondly of Mussolini referring to him as a "Roman Genius" and "Admirable Gentleman each respectively.(1)

That you are unable to refute that both Romney and Obama are violent thugs and instead offer hyperbolic inference and Ad hominem indicates the depth of your intellect.

As for fascism, it is a philosophy which espouses Centralized Government Control of the economy in conjunction with Corporate ownership.

I would love to see you argue that the current system we endure is anything but Government-Controlled/Corporately Owned.

As for 9/11, when you spend a decade bombing the middle east, you really should not be surprised that 20 idiots with box cutters could hijack a plane knowing full well the passengers onboard would be disarmed having surrendered that right in 1996.

Add to that Liability limits granted to airlines in the late 1970's pertaining to security, as well as the General incompetence of anyone who works in government and you have the recipe for a perfect storm.


(1)Una Storia Segreta : The Secret History of Italian American Evacuation and Internment During World War II - Heyday Books, 2001

[loveboof]

LMAO, um Germany was Nazism, Italy was fascism, looks like you might need to take some of your own "advice."


National Socialism is pretty much fascism... (just fyi)

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

National Socialism is pretty much fascism... (just fyi)

They are very similar, different flavors of totaitarianism if you will, as they differ in some key areas like abolition of states and fascism has no belief in purity of race.

As such, Nazism bills itself as a "socialist" philosophy, i.e. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei/National Socialist German Workers Party, which says the State should provide all aspects of life to the pure individual, whereas Fascism states that the individual lives only to serve the State, but that the State owes nothing to the individual.

Nazism also believed in eliminating all socio-economic classes by the purification of the race, whereas Fascism sought to maintain a class system between the "regular people" and the "Administrators of Government."

[Stavros]

:fu:

LMAO, um Germany was Nazism, Italy was fascism, looks like you might need to take some of your own "advice."

And while having read several of your previous posts, I realize you hate to be bothered by things such as facts, but even Benito Mussolini praised Jesus-Christ-Roosevelt for copying his political system via implementation of the New Deal.

Also of note, both Churchill and Roosevelt thought fondly of Mussolini referring to him as a "Roman Genius" and "Admirable Gentleman each respectively.(1)

That you are unable to refute that both Romney and Obama are violent thugs and instead offer hyperbolic inference and Ad hominem indicates the depth of your intellect.

As for fascism, it is a philosophy which espouses Centralized Government Control of the economy in conjunction with Corporate ownership.

I would love to see you argue that the current system we endure is anything but Government-Controlled/Corporately Owned.

As for 9/11, when you spend a decade bombing the middle east, you really should not be surprised that 20 idiots with box cutters could hijack a plane knowing full well the passengers onboard would be disarmed having surrendered that right in 1996.

Add to that Liability limits granted to airlines in the late 1970's pertaining to security, as well as the General incompetence of anyone who works in government and you have the recipe for a perfect storm.

(1)Una Storia Segreta : The Secret History of Italian American Evacuation and Internment During World War II - Heyday Books, 2001

Darkskyscarecrow I think you know that the terms 'fascism' and 'fascist' have become catch-alls for the nationalist dictatorships that divided Europe during the 1920s and 1940s, and which led directly into one of the most destructive wars in history.

If you want to be precise, yes, Fascism is an Italian concept but only applicable to Italy, as there are differences between it and National Socialism in Germany, and Falangism in Spain. Fascism was an extreme form of nationalism which argued that the state was the expression of the people and the people the expression of the state -the actualization of an idea called Italy; hence the core slogan: Everything in the State, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State.

Fascism as an ideology sets itself apart from Marxism by arguing that Marx attempted to transform Hegel's spiritual dialectic concerned with individual development, into a materialist dialectic concerned with the development of society as a whole. Fascism rejects the dialectical reasoning of Hegel, yet wants to retain Hegel's argument that the modern state is an expression of the people turned into an abstract, though Germany did not exist when he was alive. He didnt live long enough to see how the modern state would develop and how criminals would cite him as their authority.

The idea that Fascism is in any way related to the USA is frankly absurd, not just because of the specific context of Italy I have just referred to, but because even as a term of abuse, Fascism, Fascist, etc, does not apply. Mussolini's early admirers from far and wide were supposedly impressed with the transformation of a state notorious for its shambolic public services into one in which -allegedly- the trains ran on time. When Mussolini came to power in 1922, the composer Puccini was delighted -he had always been impressed with the efficient way the Germans ran their state, and hoped this German influence was going to re-shape the new Italy into something similar. And then he died. The reality is that Italian Fascism ruled through violence and fear, not consensus, it was no more the organic expression of the Italian people than an aria from La Boheme, an opera set in Paris. The net result of Fascism was a state in ruins.

The argument that the USA is in hock to corporate interests is laughable to anyone who knows the history of that country. Far from being any kind of fascist state, the expression of a collective, be it organic, abstract or utopian, the USA is a union of 50 states which have their own laws, rather than one; that if you add in the Federal, it has 51 legislatures rather than one, and so on. If the USA was a slave to corporate interests, the so-called Sherman Act of 1890 would not have been used in 1911 to break up Rockefeller's Standard Oil Empire; in the last few years, the corporate power of the oil industry would not have allowed the Federal Government to ban offshore drilling as it did, and so on. That does not mean corporate interests are not powerful, they are, but they also only have as much power as the American people allow.

If the Federal Reserve has a lot of influence, it could be because the USA is a capitalist country and the management of its currency and fiscal regime is rather important.

And if you don't like it, you have the option of creating a political movement to change it.

[DarkSkyScareCrow]

Darkskyscarecrow I think you know that the terms 'fascism' and 'fascist' have become catch-alls for the nationalist dictatorships that divided Europe during the 1920s and 1940s, and which led directly into one of the most destructive wars in history.

The mutation of a word over the time is immaterial as anyone who spends a fair amount of time studying the bureaucratic regulatory state can see the parallels to fascism.

Further, the Treaty of Versailles is in large part responsible for the creation of the dictators who rose to power.

If however you have a different conclusion, then we will have to agree to disagree.



If the Federal Reserve has a lot of influence, it could be because the USA is a capitalist country and the management of its currency and fiscal regime is rather important.

That you think a private bank that:

arbitrarily sets interest rates
(which are supposed to be a market function designed to grade Risk, i.e higher risk = higher interest/lower risk = lower interest, poor borrow repayment history = higher risk, etc)

Is able to Print at will a wholly fiat currency which has led to a 99% devaluation of the dollar over the last 100 years.

Can use Tax dollars to buy up toxic assets while passing the assets of value through to another member bank (see Bear Stearns Silver ETF/Jp Morgan Fire Sale)

Equates to a "Capitalist Country", is such an utterly absurd conclusion, that I can only assume you have read only government textbooks as the basis for your education.

There was a reason the Constitution has no call for a Private Central Bank to control the economy, as well as why from 1836 after defeat of the 2nd Central Bank until 1913, America prospered and the wealth of the middle class grew.

But by all means, lets continue paying Income Tax in the form of interest payments on the national debt to a Private Bank.

Land of the Free: Now please remove your shoes and allow this blue gloved psychopath inspect your child's genitals.

[Ben]

Jill Stein, presidential candidate for the Green Party, was arrested. Makes sense.
Why would the Dems and Republicans want actual competition in the political system.
We should keep the present duopoly. So Americans can choose between a banker, Romney, and a guy that serves the bankers -- ha ha!
We've a lovely meaningful democratic society. I mean, there is so much profundity in our democratic system.
And remember ol' Ralph Nader wanting to participate...

Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President gets taken - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKwwPVO8bNk)

Nader's Ticket to the Debate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZRRimf3Ps)

[Ben]

Gary Johnson Explains What We Didn't Hear In Last Night's Debate:

Gary Johnson Explains What We Didn't Hear In Last Night Debate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kWor_Hbf3s)

[broncofan]

Darkskyscarecrow,
I don't mean this as ad hominem, but you're sounding a little bit like a fascist plantation owner, a neo-con stooge, a man who spent his afternoon jerking off Goldman and Sachs, and then had the Lehman Brothers cum on his face...a sweatshop slave driver, a sweatshop laborer, a guy who fondles sweatshop laborers while eating a bologna sandwich....a guy who exported showerheads to Germany in the 1940's and sharpened pikes to Vlad of Tepes in the 15th Century.

I don't think this is ad hominem since it's mostly political. Let me know if you think it's unfair. It's just how your sounding based on one of the sentences you wrote.

P.S your cow Bessie is starting to sound a little fascist as well, you should have her checked out.;) :)

[Stavros]

The mutation of a word over the time is immaterial as anyone who spends a fair amount of time studying the bureaucratic regulatory state can see the parallels to fascism.
Further, the Treaty of Versailles is in large part responsible for the creation of the dictators who rose to power.
If however you have a different conclusion, then we will have to agree to disagree.
That you think a private bank that:
arbitrarily sets interest rates
(which are supposed to be a market function designed to grade Risk, i.e higher risk = higher interest/lower risk = lower interest, poor borrow repayment history = higher risk, etc)

Is able to Print at will a wholly fiat currency which has led to a 99% devaluation of the dollar over the last 100 years.

Can use Tax dollars to buy up toxic assets while passing the assets of value through to another member bank (see Bear Stearns Silver ETF/Jp Morgan Fire Sale)

Equates to a "Capitalist Country", is such an utterly absurd conclusion, that I can only assume you have read only government textbooks as the basis for your education.

There was a reason the Constitution has no call for a Private Central Bank to control the economy, as well as why from 1836 after defeat of the 2nd Central Bank until 1913, America prospered and the wealth of the middle class grew.

But by all means, lets continue paying Income Tax in the form of interest payments on the national debt to a Private Bank.

Land of the Free: Now please remove your shoes and allow this blue gloved psychopath inspect your child's genitals.


The mutation of a word over the time is immaterial as anyone who spends a fair amount of time studying the bureaucratic regulatory state can see the parallels to fascism.
Further, the Treaty of Versailles is in large part responsible for the creation of the dictators who rose to power.
If however you have a different conclusion, then we will have to agree to disagree.

But I do not see any parallels between the USA and Mussolini's Italy, or Franco's Spain, or Nazi Germany, or Quisling's Norway, or Pavelic's Croatia and so on. I don't even see a parallel between the 'bureaucratic regulatory state' and fascism.
The Treaty of Versailles was in large part responsible for the creation of the dictators who rose to power-? Not sure what role it played in the Spanish Civil War, perhaps you can enlighten us on that one; and presumably the debates in Italy on the state of the country before the First World War you consider as irrelevant as the 'communist threat' after it-?

So I do have different conclusions, which means no debate, as you are not interested in what I have to say.

That you think a private bank that:

arbitrarily sets interest rates
(which are supposed to be a market function designed to grade Risk, i.e higher risk = higher interest/lower risk = lower interest, poor borrow repayment history = higher risk, etc)

Is able to Print at will a wholly fiat currency which has led to a 99% devaluation of the dollar over the last 100 years.

Can use Tax dollars to buy up toxic assets while passing the assets of value through to another member bank (see Bear Stearns Silver ETF/Jp Morgan Fire Sale)

Equates to a "Capitalist Country", is such an utterly absurd conclusion, that I can only assume you have read only government textbooks as the basis for your education.

There was a reason the Constitution has no call for a Private Central Bank to control the economy, as well as why from 1836 after defeat of the 2nd Central Bank until 1913, America prospered and the wealth of the middle class grew.

But by all means, lets continue paying Income Tax in the form of interest payments on the national debt to a Private Bank.

Land of the Free: Now please remove your shoes and allow this blue gloved psychopath inspect your child's genitals.

-The Federal Reserve is not a wholly private bank

-It does not issue a 'fiat currency' because it doesn't issue currency at all, the United States Department of the Treasury does that

-between 1839 and 1913 there was a Civil War in which nearly a million people died, in which the economy of the US was severely disrupted -a most peculiar concept of prosperity and middle class satisfaction

-your dates make it difficult to trace the economic growth of the US in the second half of the 19th where factors such as population growth, and tariffs may have led to the accumulation of capital but a lack of industrial growth and competition, where there is an argument that it wasn't production that grew as much as the service industry; where there were few effective laws to stop Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan et al creating giant corporations that stifled competition...dare I say it is a little more complicated than you think?

My children do not have genitals, and I have told them not to speak to blue men.

[Prospero]

Do you think this forum needs a new section where people like Scarecrow and jamie could post?

[Prospero]

Analysis of Romney's mistruths from the latest debate 31 lies!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/

[broncofan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/fact-check-crowley-critics-debate/index.html

I love how Candy Crowley's correction of Mitt Romney mid-debate is somehow seen as an act of partisanship. It is not the only time during the debate that Romney clearly misstated the facts but it is the only time that both requested a look at the transcripts. What was there was unambiguous. Is there anything wrong with fact-checking something like that during a debate? Not if it's a clearcut issue like this was. It prevents people from being confused and thinking Romney made a valid point when he was actually off the mark.

For Republicans looking at a transcript and unbiasedly reporting that a statement was made is unfair. Not voter suppression, not repeatedly misstating the truth, but correcting falsehoods. Lovely people.

[Ben]

Analysis of Romney's mistruths from the latest debate 31 lies!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/

And:

Greg Palast: "Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions From The Rescue of Detroit"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwG_sBQU7OQ

[Ben]

Unstacking the Deck: The Status Quo, Third Parties, and You: (http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/10/15/unstacking-the-deck-the-status-quo-third-parties-and-you/)

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/10/15/unstacking-the-deck-the-status-quo-third-parties-and-you/

[Quiet Reflections]

I love this video. if you have 4:34 minutes give it a shot

OBAMA vs ROMNEY - The Final Presidential Debate (RAP NEWS 16) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU)

[Prospero]

Last night's debate......

[danthepoetman]

....

[martin48]

I don't understand too much about Americian politics (except Romney is a rich asshole) but I thought the symbols for your two parties represent the average weight and intelligence of a US voter :)

[Willie Escalade]

I don't understand too much about Americian politics (except Romney is a rich asshole) but I thought the symbols for your two parties represent the average weight and intelligence of a US voter :)

Well I know I'm no jackass; don't know why they chose that symbol.

[Prospero]

"War was invented to teach Americans about geography" Ambrose Bierce

[Willie Escalade]

Maybe if he got fucked he'd realize he needs to focus on women's health in a more positive and realistic way.

[Winkle]

I love this video. if you have 4:34 minutes give it a shot

OBAMA vs ROMNEY - The Final Presidential Debate (RAP NEWS 16) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU)

These two rapping alot lately lol.

http://youtu.be/dX_1B0w7Hzc

[martin48]

.....

[martin48]

Well I know I'm no jackass; don't know why they chose that symbol.


Apparently the donkey was first associated with Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass, and Jackson decided to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, the cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous.

But what would a Brit know

[fred41]

But what would a Brit know

about as much as google I guess..lol.

[natina]

NOT REALLY,DO THE UNTRAINED EAR YOU MIGHT THINK THAT

but

Romney's Debate Technique

Mitt Romney's over the top October 3rd debate performance used a technique forbidden in policy debates known as "spreading" taken to a creationist extreme.

Policy debaters started talking fast in the 1960s, when a team from the University of Houston figured out that speed allowed them to cram more arguments into a timed speech than their opponents would physically be able to negate. -- Jay Caspian Kang Wired, "High School Debate at 350 WPM"

Romney's version of that technique, known as the Gish Gallop, developed by Duane Gish, the creationist, combined spreading with purposeful lying, resulting in the "flood of B.S. technique" that Romney used to dominate the first debate with President Obama. It's common among creationists and climate science deniers refuse to debate on the merits by flooding their opponents with false information leaving them without time to keep up with the lies and, as a result, appearing pedantic and professorial in their responses.

Wiki:

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.

The "Gish Gallop"... usually characterized as "lists", titled "100 reasons why..." or similar. Thus, the points raised in the gallop are often very short and non-specific. It takes a lot of effort to fully refute everything and it is far easier for the galloper to add another question than it is for the respondent to formulate a suitable answer, which is the point behind the tactic.

An example in the climate science arena, a "Climate Gish Gallop of Epic Proportions," shows how climate change deniers flood the debate with so many points already proven false that the person listening to or reading their presentation simply can't keep up with all the rebuttals.

The lies win.

In other words, it's cheating and will get the debater thrown off the team. Hopefully, the American people will be smarter than the pundits and moderators and do exactly that to Romney, throw him out for cheating, lying and not acting in the spirit of our democracy, in November.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-ritz/romneys-creationist-debat_b_1941995.html?utm_hp_ref=politics



obama got his ass handed to him LOL! So much for the magic obama.

[Ben]

Too funny:

Wrap-Up: Obama & Romney Agree!

WRC Wrap-Up: Obama & Romney Agree! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7VQ2yacLrc&feature=plcp)