Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Going back a bit for content's sake:


Greater command in what regard? You can complain about Obama's handling of the economy all you like, but, to quote Diamond Joe, "facts matter"; disagreement, no matter how vehement, does not equate to precedence.


Does such information include the specific loopholes and deductions which he and Romney have so often promised to close? Because he'd be a fucking scholar if he would finally clue us in. Until then, that "great deal of information" means zilch.


Has he made clear his stances on military welfare reform, or lack thereof?

Ribbing aside, Biden's expertise is something that can be used in a practical sense; foreign policy, after all, is guided far less arbitrarily than is domestic. Should Romney/Ryan eke out a victory come November, congressional gridlock will nevertheless prevent the administration (as it has for the past four years—look at last August) from taking any real action on the economy regardless of how gutting its results would certainly be. Ryan, therefore, is infinitely less likely to have a significant hand in economic reform than Biden has and would in regard to foreign affairs. Vice presidential power, as you know, is limited; for it spur actual discussion, we must be pragmatic. And you're not.


As you often do, and with such precision!

"But then no artist expects grace from the vulgar mind, or style from the suburban intellect."


...by further encumbering those who can't afford it. Or is there some previously undiscovered demographic residing in the Garden of Eden (of Missouri) that can handle far higher tax burdens?

Tip: When a politician tells you that he "can make it work" without offering specifics, he's almost always full of shit.


Romney's Mass-Care reform—the arguable centerpiece of his oeuvre as a public servant—adds direct federal funds to state Medicaid, ensures quality control and regulation of care by way of an unelected insurance exchange board, penalizes those businesses that refuse to cover employees and mandates that coverage, regardless of extent or form, is necessary for all who reside in the state. And it's no different in those regards from the Affordable Care Act.

Hell, he's gone on the record in the last month alone stating that he'd bolster coverage for those with preexisting conditions, those in school (until age 26) and those unable to purchase insurance through self-employment or small business. He publicly opposes the program on a federal level not because it violates his ideology, but that of his current base, e.g. those like you who actually believe that he could repeal the act in the first place.


Which neither man has backed up in any way, shape or form since first formulating this talking point. Zero specifics, zero direct answers and therefore zero credibility.


Like a massive, unrequested increase in defense spending and an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Sounds like a solid trim to me.


The ticket seems quite content in announcing its "safe" (i.e. pandering) cuts, though. Strange that it would be so assertive in what its base wants to hear only to leave the rest up to the House.


That's the problem.


Obama's first two years in office were dedicated to bipartisan compromise, and look at what came out of that. The fact of the matter is that his initiatives will be and have been vigorously opposed by House Republicans (whom I'm sure will maintain their majority, as will Senate Democrats) in every case; it is their unwillingness to cooperate, as was evident during the debt ceiling crisis, that's fucked us more than any executive mandate. To say otherwise is willful ignorance.


You're like a living, breathing Fox News tagline.


He's recovered the 4.3 million jobs lost since he first took office and added an additional 100,000-plus jobs to his net creation record in the past two months alone. He's attempted to compromise with those who, as I've said, have taken every opportunity to decry him as a politician and American. He's certainly not my ideal candidate—he is, however, the only viable counter when the deluded and misinformed (comme vous) would rather Pandora's box.

In all fairness, unelected institutions often start out well but quickly get corrupted by the American system. Just look at the Fed or FnF or the EPA or even the military. How long will it take for the Medicaid "death panels" to be corrupted in turn?

I am very queasy about these kinds of really wonky circuitous transfers of funds between institutions. With as few exceptions as possible, funds should be allocated at the level they are to be spent. More bad stuff comes out of the American political system when feds fund states, states fund counties, and contractors bill to public institutions than any direct funding in this country. Obviously it's necessary for certain services that have to be administered locally based on need (e.g., roads, education, mail service, civil defense, etc), but it tends to turn ugly fast. With something as abstract and complex as healthcare, I can't trust the process.

Obamacare's great triumph was banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and guaranteeing coverage for all. The rest of it seems pretty bad.

The employment bit, for example. Companies must now provide healthcare for employees. No problem, ship jobs abroad...or just hire interns and illegal immigrants. That's not to say that "compassionate conservatism" (i.e., sick people die in the streets) is the answer, it's clear a more holistic approach is needed.

Obama's promises about expanding coverage further are just political talk, that appeals to a certain demographic because such things are their immediate concern. As with Romney's proposal to axe Medicare completely, I don't believe Obama truly believes he will ever have the mandate to do what he says he wants to. And even if he could, it wouldn't make a difference.

Perhaps we should be grateful Obama has at least made things a little better. However, the flip side is Obama's lack of real greatness. He's not Lincoln or FDR. He's not even LBJ. He's not a gamechanger. He never ascended the podium and shocked the GOP and Dems alike into silence with a bold New Deal. That is Obamacare's fatal flaw.

A mandate must be sought for a bold new domestic social program. Simple as that.

In conclusion, I am the most unbiased person in the world.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I missed this post.

1. Just because some powers are paper tigers doesn't mean that others are as well.

2. Iran suffered greatly in the Iran-Iraq War yet fought on for eight long years. Seventy years ago, the Japanese made the same miscalculation you are making here.

3. Iran can and will strike back at the US if we bring war to them. The "hurr durr werrea fuck u up" argument is moronic. We stand to suffer just as much as they do. Americans think otherwise because it has been 150 years since America has fought a war on its own soil (and even then only on a small part of it) and they are sheltered from the reality of how bad it is, welfare notwithstanding.

4. Go read Schwarzkopf's autobiography. It was he, Powell and the military who grossly overestimated the Iraqis - the politicians were very sure the Gulf War would be quick and easy. It was also Schwarzkopf and Powell who infuriated then-Defense Secretary Cheney by insisting against occupying Iraq, instead preferring to neutralize Saddam then leave him alone, under the belief that the occupation would be a quagmire. He also claims that it was by US edict that Israel did not bomb Iraq during the war, because the result would be to unite the Middle East for Saddam and against the US.

5. You should go read books about nations that are about to make big mistakes. I recommend The Guns of August or The Peloponnesian War. America is not the first nation to wander into a war high on hubris convinced that only the other side has something to fear.


EDIT: I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Iran-Iraq War. It seems pretty impartial, and is written by an ESL. It's interesting reading. Despite massive aid to Iraq by basically the entire world - the US, EU, USSR, PRC and Arabs - the Iranians managed to break more than even, mostly through extreme cunning and discipline.

The Arabs have a reputation for ineptitude. Persians do not.

EDIT2: Those who think that the American military are "good people" and that the Muslims are "animals" should read the article in full. The things it documents Reagan and other Americans doing (knowingly and deliberately helping the Iraqis kill thousands of innocent Persian women and children, the US Navy blowing up a civilian airliner for no reason, killing over 60 children then trying to cover it up) are utterly despicable by any standard.

Of course, those America-hating bigots on military welfare don't believe in reading. Go figure.

One wonders what their children will think of them, their bigotry and militarism, in 50 years, when America is poor and ruined.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The exchange boards, though, have already been skewered by conservatives. Regulation generally only extends to those organizations left (mostly) untouched by the media—as the "death panels" have been criticized so heavily (though misguidedly so, in the majority of cases) they're far more susceptible to public review. Corruption is certainly possible, if not probable; the public, however, has been exposed to this institution (or at least knowledge of its existence) and therefore, I predict, infinitely more likely to involve itself should allegations—no matter how erroneous—surface.


Nor can I. But what's the alternative? In a perfect world, none of this would be an issue and healthcare would be ultimately decided upon at a federal level with adroitness and benevolence; that is, however, not the case. Concessions happen. Gridlock happens. Irresponsible policy-making happens. The current system doesn't work, nor does the ridiculous voucher program proposed by Ryan. The Affordable Care Act is at the very least an improvement, to some extent.


Agreed.

I missed the first eight minutes of this conversation so I didn't hear the rules. In normal debates, a question is asked of Candidate A, then B get's equal time to answer, then A and B get a short response... right? So far, around 50 minutes in, she told them they didn't get a follow-up after their two-minute answers. Minutes before she told Romney that he couldn't reply to one of Obama's responses. Did the rules change where candidates don't get to follow-up?

I want a binder full of women. I dunno who handed Mitt one, but I want one too.

Crowley was a great moderator, and I really enjoyed this debate.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I caught the last 20 minutes or so. Romney having his head so far up his ass was pretty hilarious when the bullshit got so thick the moderator had to stop him and say "That isn't how things happened" and he kept on going with it anyways.

Obama getting buttmad about Libya was pretty impressive too.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

By the time Obama got to the "solders in caskets" line, it was already won. Everything after that—particularly Romney's misquote of the Rose Garden speech—was downhill for the GOP. The "angry black man" persona decided to show its face tonight, and it was worth it.

TLDR: the status quo and federal reserve won the debate, the general population lost.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/ ... nd-debate/



God I fucking love Fox News....is it bad that sometimes I have trouble not feeling like I'm reading an article from The Onion?

Do you guys think Obama did enough to slow Romney's momentum? Obama probably pulled back from of his fleeting support of women and I'm sure he did wonders for his campaign after that abomination of a performance in the first debate. This time, the President showed up... but, again, so did Romney. I think it's hard to say there was an absolute winner in this exchange, so I'm going with a TIE.

Both men were too aggressive, had their share of lies, missteps and strong moments.

Romney had his statement about the Rose Garden speech, which at the time, the moderator jumped in to 'fact check'... when, as she later stated, Romney was right with the overall point about the Administration misleading about the attack being a protest. Even the Rose Garden speech implied that the attack was because of the anti-Islam video... but, I don't think that moment in the debate is as large of an issue as some think it will be considering the Libya investigations are still on-going and the President and his Administration still hasn't leveled with the American people. This is still a serious issue, not a "bump in the road," as the President once said. Going into a Foreign Policy debate next week, it'll be interesting to see what developments come out.

I think Obama's best moment was his last chance to speak...

It felt like a repeat of the 'Hope and Change' campaign of 2008 and I'm sure that still resonates with some people. With how negative both campaigns have been, it's nice to see a little bit of friendliness between the two men... especially how they both looked like they wanted to kick the shit out of each other earlier in the debate. The fact that Obama used this as his closing remarks was a pretty good move, too.

Romney's best moment was when the black man asked, "Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012?" Obama tried talking to his accomplishments... but then, Romney says...

President Obama needs to make a case for why people should give him another four years. During the debates, he's been forced to defend his record and he hasn't painted a convincing picture on how the next four years could be better. Will "I need more time" be a good reason to sway the undecided voters since they've been living in the realities that Romney spoke of. Romney, while not specific in some cases, is offering a different path. Romney's "It doesn't have to be this way" compared to Obama's "I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing" is the choice that the undecided voters will have. Which way will they go?

I think this debate was enough for the Obama campaign to take a breather but it wasn't the knock-out punch that they needed. Romney is currently riding the momentum of the last debate and he had another solid performance -- not flawless, but not awful like the Presidents first debate. Romney is still polling much better than he was a month ago, and that's put him on equal footing with Obama. Obama did well enough to regain the confidence needed but I'm not sure it was enough to reverse the tide and create the +3/5% lead he had during the last year.


What about that quote do you take issue with?

If Obama actually believes what he said about Romney - or that the leak was just that - he's a fool. Really though, the entire thing is one big charade...on one level or another.

Undecided voters are morons. Don't pretend their decision-making process is rational.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Not even a little bit.

Why is it so hard for you clowns to admit your side did poorly? Everyone agrees the first Obama performance was lackluster. Take this one on the cheek, you pussy; your candidate got shit on last night.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I didn't get to see it last night.

from what I've read obama's just dancing to the strings of whoever is behind the curtain, and romney is getting tied up in them as we speak.

I think my first post still is applicable on this subject. No one won, america loses.

Obama did better than he did in the first debate, and comparatively, it was a campaign victory. Obama could've driven the final nail in his campaigns coffin and he didn't do that... but when it came to the issues, both candidates had their strengths and weaknesses.

Romney was stronger on immigration, the economy, energy policy and laying out his four-year plan.
Obama was stronger on women's issues, piggy-backing on why Romney isn't Bush and he looked very presidential.
Neither man could've possibly won the exchange on education and I can't imagine either man won a ton of 'likability' points because they were both being confrontational. It's hard to tell where the points for 'Crowley Correction' go considering the timeline on information dissemination is a complete cluster-fuck with this Administration, with everyone contradicting everyone else... but, we're to check the transcripts... so...

Romney was partially right and partially wrong; Yes, Obama did say "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden, but not explicitly to the Libyan attack. Petty, I know. During that same speech, Obama also implied that the attack was a response to the anti-Islamic video. The President did say, on Sept 18, to David Letterman, that extremists and terrorists used a video as an excuse to carry out an attack. On Sept 19, the head of the NCC said it was a terrorist attack. On Sept 20, Press Secretary Jay Carney said it was a terrorist attack. On Sept 21, Hillary Clinton said it was a terrorist attack. Everyone that matters, by Sept 21, called the attack a terrorist attack or that it was done by terrorists... but on Sept 20 and Sept 24, the President couldn't tell Univision and Joy Behar that this was a terrorist attack. "We're still doing an investigation," he says. On Sept 25, in front of the UN, Obama tells the world that this attack was a response to a video... and not an act of terrorism. If the President, on Sept 12, was referencing the Libyan attack with, "Acts of Terror", then why couldn't he (or his UN ambassador) say it in nearly a dozen public engagements? Romney was wrong in saying the President didn't use those words, but the over-all criticism about how the information was released and handled, and how the President didn't call it 'terrorism,' is spot on. Worth mentioning that, even though it was an "Act of Terror", apparently Obama has a justification on why he didn't explicitly call it an "Act of Terror"... even though, as he and Crowly said, he did.

Also, I'm not the only one having a hard time calling this a decisive victory for either man.


Then there's this CBS Real Time Poll, which showed 37% of respondents saying Obama won, 33% saying it was a Tie, and 30% saying Romney won.

This wasn't like the first debate where everyone knew Obama lost. This is heavily split. Polls are within the margins of error and, if I find more from sites that aren't Huffington Post/Daily Kos/Fox News, I'll post them. Editorials are all over the place, with those in the bag for either candidate declaring victory, while a good number are calling it a tie. I get that you want to think Obama won this one with some massive blow to Romney... but, I just do see it that way. Solid performance all around. Both guys had their moments, but there was no clear winner.