Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Debate, lets actually discuss content

Oct 4, 2012#1

Necronic

Since the other thread isn't about the content of the debate I thought it was appropriate to have a seperate thread where we could do that.

For me the biggest problem was that up until now Romney has always focused on the ends, and never outlined the means. This debate was his last chance to do so. And yet again, he only talked about what he's going to do, not how he's going to do it. Apparently he's going to cut taxes, increase funding to medicaire, and balance the budget.

The only thing he really said about how he would do it was "It will be a bi-partisan agenda". Infact he used this as a dodge to actually outline any details of his plans. Because he has no interest in steam-rolling the views of the other members of the government he sees no reason to have a "Big Plan".

My mistake, I could have sworn you were runnign for President. Not a committee chair. There is simply no way I will elect someone who's idea of leadership is letting everyone else come up with the ideas. Because if that was the case we don't need a president, we just need a forum moderetor.

Oct 4, 2012#2

Charlie Don't Surf

this thread should have zero replies because there was no content to that debate

Oct 4, 2012#3

Necronic

So I'll assume you're a Lyndon LaRouche supporter.

Oct 4, 2012#4

GasBandit

Gary Johnson 2012.

Oct 4, 2012#5

strawman

If a third party wants to eat at the same table, they're going to have to spend as much money as the other parties on campaigning to bring the public on board with their ideas. I think the american public would love to have multiple choices, but debate or no, they won't learn about the other options unless they campaign as hard.

Johnson probably won't even have a good showing in his home state, nevermind anywhere else.

Oct 4, 2012#6

GasBandit

stienman said:
If a third party wants to eat at the same table, they're going to have to spend as much money as the other parties on campaigning to bring the public on board with their ideas. I think the american public would love to have multiple choices, but debate or no, they won't learn about the other options unless they campaign as hard.

Johnson probably won't even have a good showing in his home state, nevermind anywhere else.

Yeah, it's the usual 3rd party catch 22. You won't win votes unless you campaign hard, you can't campaign hard without spending lots of money, you can't spend lots of money without raising lots of money, and you can't raise lots of money unless you've shown you can win lots of votes.

But as always, I wonder if the story might not be very different if we had instant runoff elections instead of primaries. List the candidates in order of your preference. That way, you can vote for a 3rd party candidate and not "throw your vote away" if he gets eliminated in the runoff... you'll automatically vote for your demopublican of choice if your higher choice(s) fail.

Oct 4, 2012#7

Charlie Don't Surf

Jill Stein actually or maybe the Socialist Party guy (name escapes me)

Oct 4, 2012#8

Covar

stienman said:
If a third party wants to eat at the same table, they're going to have to spend as much money as the other parties on campaigning to bring the public on board with their ideas. I think the american public would love to have multiple choices, but debate or no, they won't learn about the other options unless they campaign as hard.

Johnson probably won't even have a good showing in his home state, nevermind anywhere else.

Reminds me of when Big Ten schools claim that Boise St doesn't deserve a BCS consideration because they don't play any good schools, like those in the Big 10. Of course they don't mention that they set the schedules and refuse to play a school like Boise St, because it against their interests. Third Party politics reminds me of that. Also Fuck College Football.

Oct 4, 2012#9

Zappit

Romney hits on plans and principles,the details of which are super-duper secret to everybody but him, and Obama hit him on the super secret details that haven't really been discussed at all by Romney.

Oh, and fuck Big Bird, apparently. Sesame Street is a welfare neighborhood.

This is a thing that happened between the two men battling to lead us.

Oct 4, 2012#10

GasBandit

Because we all know nobody would EVER figure out a revenue stream that could support a megapopular children's program like Sesame Street other than government subsidy.

Oct 4, 2012#11

strawman

GasBandit said:
Because we all know nobody would EVER figure out a revenue stream that could support a megapopular children's program like Sesame Street other than government subsidy.

Didn't we just talk about this in the honey boo boo thread?

Do you think that a privately owned and operated tv network could stick to its principles for long and still turn a profit?

Look at scifi, tlc, amc, discovery, etc. entropy rules where entertainment dollars are required for funding.

I think the govt has a role to play in funding some art and entertainment. Not much, but a little tiny bit. While I think Romney would be good for us in other ways, I believe he's going too far in some ways.

Keep in mind that the govt isn't funding PBS. PBS is pulling on some funds the govt has made available. If that we're actually a profitable thing to do, we'd see competition for those dollars. govt funding does one thing, and one thing only for PBS: it provides just enough incentive to avoid commercial dollars that would warp their programming.

Oct 4, 2012#12

GasBandit

I don't think I partook in the honey boo boo thread.

At any rate, I don't oppose public broadcasting funding on a budgetary basis, I oppose it as a matter of principle. As for funding the arts, there's all kinds of banal shit that has been created because of the inanity that is the National Endowment for the Arts.

As for individual channels turning awful, I think that's because we're on the cusp of the next paradigm shift in content delivery - people want specific content, not specific channels, and the technology is there to deliver it to them. The future of visual entertainment, I believe, is going to be live delivery of content on demand, or perhaps direct subscription to a given show. It's the next logical step after DVRs, Netflix, Hulu and Bittorrent.[DOUBLEPOST=1349389238][/DOUBLEPOST]Basically, what I'm saying is they could sell episodes of Sesame street on itunes for 50 cents an episode and rake in more money than God, without compromising their ideals or vision.

Oct 4, 2012#13

Zappit

I really, really don't agree with that one, Gas. Patronage has been a part of the art world for centuries, so the Endowment helps keep really experimental art out there. There has been some impressive work, contributions to our very culture, produced through that program.

As for that paradigm shift, seriously? The notion that programming would move completely into such a format seems just a tad farfetched. There will still be a place for channel surfing. It's the method that helps generate interest in the properties that people seek on the Internet in the first place. How many properties would never get any real shot on a system like that. DVR has a great future, as we prefer to see these things on our own terms, but Sesame Street would not sell like gangbusters at that price, because you limit the content delivery that way, particularly to people who aren't so tech savvy or don't have an Apple product. That turns entertainment into a playground for the more affluent. Selling episodes supplements he revenue a show produces. Relying on it will kill it.

Oct 5, 2012#14

GasBandit

Zappit said:
I really, really don't agree with that one, Gas. Patronage has been a part of the art world for centuries, so the Endowment helps keep really experimental art out there. There has been some impressive work, contributions to our very culture, produced through that program.

As for that paradigm shift, seriously? The notion that programming would move completely into such a format seems just a tad farfetched. There will still be a place for channel surfing. It's the method that helps generate interest in the properties that people seek on the Internet in the first place. How many properties would never get any real shot on a system like that. DVR has a great future, as we prefer to see these things on our own terms, but Sesame Street would not sell like gangbusters at that price, because you limit the content delivery that way, particularly to people who aren't so tech savvy or don't have an Apple product. That turns entertainment into a playground for the more affluent. Selling episodes supplements he revenue a show produces. Relying on it will kill it.

I'm sure many a record publisher or radio broadcasting owner once thought the same about itunes and personal media devices. The former are only clinging to life through litigating breath back into their business model, and the latter are atrophying away more every year (believe me, I'm on the front lines of that one).

Most TVs sold these days (and gaming consoles for that matter) already have netflix built into it, some even have hulu already. Western Digital sells a tiny box called WD Live that incorporates all that, plus youtube and a number of other services along with the ability to play back just about any contemporary video file for under $100.

Oct 5, 2012#15

strawman

GasBandit said:
Most TVs sold these days (and gaming consoles for that matter) already have netflix built into it

I'm pretty sure that the majority of TVs being sold in the US right now are still regular TVs. Internet TV still have a $100-200 premium over their counterparts, and there are still more regular TVs than smart TVs available for sale in any given shop.

It's a rare blueray player that doesn't include netflix and hulu these days, but there are a lot of signs pointing to bluray failure to penetrate the market enough, due to online video and upconverting DVD players.

Oct 5, 2012#16

Azurephoenix

stienman said:
It's a rare blueray player that doesn't include netflix and hulu these days, but there are a lot of signs pointing to bluray failure to penetrate the market enough, due to online video and upconverting DVD players.

AKA people don't give two shits about the quality of their video/audio... kind of like low quality MP3's.

Makes me sad.

Oct 5, 2012#17

sixpackshaker

Also people have sunk a huge amount of money into their DVD collections, and with upconverting players they can delay the purchase for a while. Then there is issue with Blue Ray players not being affordable until just last year.

Oct 5, 2012#18

Azurephoenix

sixpackshaker said:
Also people have sunk a huge amount of money into their DVD collections, and with upconverting players they can delay the purchase for a while. Then there is issue with Blue Ray players not being affordable until just last year.

I can definitely appreciate that (I had a pretty extensive DVD collection). It's just that once I set up a dedicated home theatre in my basement with a 60 inch high definition TV and a pretty good surround sound setup, your standard 480p compressed to hell DVD footage with it's stereo sound just wasn't cutting it anymore

Oct 5, 2012#19

Bowielee

Quite frankly, the vast majority of people aren't nearly as hooked into HD stuff as the average geek is. They just want the cheapest TV they can get.

Sure, you or I may insist on top of the line electronics, but that certainly isn't the case for most people.

Oct 5, 2012#20

sixpackshaker

Man, this is a great derail...

Oct 5, 2012#21

Bowielee

It wouldn't be Halforums if threads didn't derail within the first few pages.

Unless, of course, the thread is fluff to begin with.

Oct 5, 2012#22

Azurephoenix

Bowielee said:
Sure, you or I may insist on top of the line electronics, but that certainly isn't the case for most people.

I can't even rent Blu Rays around here anymore as all the rental places are gone. There also isn't any digital delivery of HD content up here (proper HD content, I don't count 720p with stereo sound as "HD"). The silver lining is that for the cost of two movie tickets I can usually buy the Blu Ray when it is released. That's what I've been doing for a while now and have just been skipping going to the theatre entirely.

(wow... I didn't even realize how badly I've been derailing this thread... sorry guys)

Oct 5, 2012#23

strawman

OBAMA'S DOMESTIC ECONOMIC POLICIES HAVE KILLED BLURAY.

DVD - NOT THE MEDIA WE WANT, BUT THE MEDIA WE DESERVE.

HONEY BOO BOO - BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND OF THE PEOPLE.

Oct 5, 2012#24

GasBandit

Also take merchandising into account.. I had forgotten sesame street toys and other kids products are probably making hundreds of millions a year. Why do they need a federal subsidy again?

Oct 5, 2012#25

Bowielee

Yes, because Sesame Street is the only thing on PBS... :rolleyes:

Oct 5, 2012#26

Covar

Because otherwise the Children's Television Workshop would have no choice but to retool the programming into a reality program about muppets training preschoolers for pageants obviously. After all without government programming that is what every television program has to be retooled into because of the gobs and gobs of money gained by the 83% of American's in the Honey Boo Boo demographic.[DOUBLEPOST=1349455864][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
Yes, because Sesame Street is the only thing on PBS...

Quick he's pointing out the flaws in the argument as originally presented! Change the premise!

Oct 5, 2012#27

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Also take merchandising into account.. I had forgotten sesame street toys and other kids products are probably making hundreds of millions a year. Why do they need a federal subsidy again?

To be honest I'm not convinced they do. Currently PBS only gets 7% of its funding from the federal subsidy. The entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting allowance from the federal govt is only 450 million. A pittance really, when you consider that Oil subsidies are 2.8 billion.

There are also studies out there that show that the CPB funding results in about 21k employees and 1 bil in revenue. So you have a system that recieves negligible federal funding, provides services that are massively higher than the funding, and returns a solid amount of revenue.

The main point, however, is that it's a distraction and a non-issue. We have a 1 trillion dollar budget deficit. The CPB makes up less that 1 half of one percent of that deficit. And yet it's now taking up 50% of our conversation on the economy.

Oct 5, 2012#28

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Yes, because Sesame Street is the only thing on PBS...

Well, surely sesame street can share it's money with nova, right? I mean, that's what the end goal is here, right? Somebody getting money somebody else earned?

Oct 5, 2012#29

strawman

Yeah, I think it's a mistake for Romney to even address it. "PBS is only costing one dollar per American per year. However that's still 450 million that could be used for schools, roads, and Medicare. We should make sure that we are truly correctly prioritizing even our small expenditures. It only takes a few hundred such small expenditures to add up. PBS is simply one public example of federal government costs that we need to scrutinize."

Oct 5, 2012#30

Gilgamesh

-PBS should totally get off the governement dollar and charge for it's programming, that way only those with solid incomes can get the education it provides. It's not enough they get private schools and better technology to learn with, they should have one of the few things the poorer communities rely on for side-teaching-

Is that really your stance? Unreal.

Oct 5, 2012#31

Covar

As stated above 93% of PBS funding comes from private donations and other sources, So you're right without the government only the Rich would have access to Educational TV. :rolleyes:

Oct 5, 2012#32

strawman

Gilgamesh said:
wow, the amount of fail in this thread is amazing.

Are you sure you're in the right forum? You seem to have us confused with a better forum.

Good point on the fact that the children's programming on PBS is possibly critical to the low income community.

Oct 5, 2012#33

Gilgamesh

I removed that line, I felt it was inappropriate. Just got a little shook up by the premise. Myself growing up low end middle class learned alot from great PBS shows. My children, when we first started out high end low class learned alot from great PBS shows.

To think that someone would say those shows would be left to special interests/producers/executives? Just makes me cringe.

Oct 5, 2012#34

strawman

Covar said:
As stated above 93% of PBS funding comes from private donations and other sources, So you're right without the government only the Rich would have access to Educational TV.

My understanding is that the CPB which produces the programming doesn't actually receive federal funds directly. They sell shows to Tv stations that receive the funding. So the question is, will the TV stations go away without federal funding, or will the CPB change its production if the stations no longer have federal funding?

Can non PBS stations and networks buy episodes of Sesame Street? Could we see Sesame Street and other CPB shows on NBC, ABC, etc?

Oct 5, 2012#35

Gilgamesh

I'll all for non-PBS stations giving money to be able to show episodes of Sesame Street on major networks, however as was stated, that's not the only show on PBS that's been great over the years. Also, I'd only be for the purchasing of episodes to air and not the program as has been stated before, we've seen what's happened to things that are taken over by executives (TLC Channel, History etc).

Oct 5, 2012#36

Necronic

I know that for myself this is probably the first year I am going to donate to NPR. It's the only radio station I listen to, and I probably get 2-3 hours of listening from it a day.

Oct 5, 2012#37

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I know that for myself this is probably the first year I am going to donate to NPR. It's the only radio station I listen to, and I probably get 2-3 hours of listening from it a day.

I donated once to NPR because of Riders Radio Theater. BUT I NEVER RECEIVED MY TOTE BAG.

Oct 5, 2012#38

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
I donated once to NPR because of Riders Radio Theater. BUT I NEVER RECEIVED MY TOTE BAG.

...the plot thickens.

Oct 5, 2012#39

Necronic

The tote bag is a lie

Oct 5, 2012#40

GasBandit

And I have been a libertarian EVER SINCE.

Oct 5, 2012#41

Espy

Man, I hope CBS can carry Sesame Street someday soon. I've always felt like it was missing a continuous stream of commercials for sugary snacks and over-piced toys.

Oct 5, 2012#42

strawman

Honestly I think PBS should release an app and website using the netflix model. $60 per year for unlimited on demand streaming of all their programs, past and present. No commercials. No pledge drives.

Or skip the content distribution themselves and license their content to netflix and hulu directly.

Oct 5, 2012#43

Gilgamesh

While still keeping their free network programming. I agree.

Oct 5, 2012#44

Hailey Knight

Is this for real?

Oct 5, 2012#45

Gilgamesh

I posted about it in the Politics thread.

Oct 5, 2012#46

ThatNickGuy

This is the closest I got to watching the debate. I think it's more accurate and realistic.

Oct 5, 2012#47

strawman

Quotemander Prime said:
Is this for real?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...omney-did-not-bring-cheat-notes-to-the-debate

Oct 5, 2012#48

Gilgamesh

That honestly prooves nothing, but again, I'm not 100% sure he'd be dumb enough to bring cheat notes.

Oct 5, 2012#49

strawman

All I'm saying is that there is a reasonable explanation.

Oct 5, 2012#50

Gilgamesh

Again, I'm not saying he did it. I'm also saying I'm sure he didn't. I'm simply stating that it wouldn't have surprised me if the fact were true.

At this point it's all moot, Obama is going to win, regardless of the way these debates turn out. I purposely took the day after the election off, JUST to listen to GoP radio all day.

Oct 5, 2012#51

strawman

It does seem like a foregone conclusion, doesn't it? However the political winds can Chang significantly in mere weeks. We'll see.

Oct 5, 2012#52

Gilgamesh

stienman said:
It does seem like a foregone conclusion, doesn't it? However the political winds can Chang significantly in mere weeks. We'll see.

Who's Chang? Oh shit, China Shadow Society throws in their own candidate in at the last second?!

Oct 5, 2012#53

strawman

You know china owns the US anyway. Might as well pull away the curtain and make it official.

Oct 5, 2012#54

Gilgamesh

Roll credits!

Oct 6, 2012#55

GasBandit

Hope and Chang, bitches!

Oct 6, 2012#56

GasBandit

On the one hand though, the only president who ever got re-elected when his approval rating was below 50% was dubya, and he was 49% (and it was still a close thing, even with a wartime economy and 5% unemployment Kerry came surprisingly close to winning despite being Dukakis 2.0). Obama's been mid 40s for most of this campaign, though oddly enough he seems to have had a bump up to 52% after the debate, inexplicably enough. Maybe it was just a reminder to his dogwashers that they needed to carry more water for him. At any rate, it'll be interesting to see if it keeps its head above water, or if it slips back down around the 47% level it's been orbiting for months, and if the trend holds true or not.

The conventional wisdom says it'll come down to what ohio does. Seems to me every election always comes down to just what one or two states does.

"Does that seem right to you?"

Oct 6, 2012#57

AshburnerX

It's not even just one or two states. It's actually more like 5 counties (or parishes or whatever your state calls them).

Honestly, Ohio really is the barometer of how things are going in the US. When the economy starts going bad (and when it starts going well), we feel it months or years before everyone else. For us, the recession started in 2004 and it's actually quite a bit better now. It's also got a fair mix of big cities (Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo) and rural counties, so we have a pretty even amount of Liberal and conservative voters. It's basically a miniature version of the US, if you look at it's from a electoral standpoint.

Oct 8, 2012#58

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
On the one hand though, the only president who ever got re-elected when his approval rating was below 50% was dubya, and he was 49% (and it was still a close thing, even with a wartime economy and 5% unemployment Kerry came surprisingly close to winning despite being Dukakis 2.0). Obama's been mid 40s for most of this campaign, though oddly enough he seems to have had a bump up to 52% after the debate, inexplicably enough. Maybe it was just a reminder to his dogwashers that they needed to carry more water for him. At any rate, it'll be interesting to see if it keeps its head above water, or if it slips back down around the 47% level it's been orbiting for months, and if the trend holds true or not.

As I told you before, your tiny amount of data is not enough to constitute a true statistical trend. I checked it myself.

Oct 9, 2012#59

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
As I told you before, your tiny amount of data is not enough to constitute a true statistical trend. I checked it myself.

Well, then there's some other folks out there who need to be corrected as well, because I'm not the only one saying it.

"No incumbent president has won re-election with an approval rating consistently in the 40s." - Matt Dowd, ABC News, "A Tale of Two Unelectable Candidates"

“Historically, two presidents below 50% in their final approval rating before the election — George W. Bush and Harry Truman — won, and three, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, lost.” - Gallup, quoted in this NewsMax article.

(W. was 49, Truman was 43).

Though I guess that also brings up a good point about indicators - the infamous "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline was put in because the paper had to go to press before even the east coast results were in, so they had to rely on the prediction of Arthur Sears Henning who had accurately predicted 4 of the previous 5 elections. So nothing's a sure bet.

Oct 9, 2012#60

AshburnerX

I honestly don't trust polls when it comes to presidential elections, especially ones performed by news networks. There is simply too much incentive for them to make people believe the race is close. This one... probably isn't. Romney is doing better with his recent debate performance and I'm almost certain Biden will bomb his debate, but I honestly don't think it's going to be enough to undo the Romney 47% comment. Even my family, who (with the exception of my brother, mother, and I) are staunch Republicans, decided that it was too much and half of them aren't even planning to vote anymore. They've literally written off the next 4 years.

Oct 9, 2012#61

Gilgamesh

Ryan is just going to pull a Romney in this debate and back-track on all their previous campaign promises/plans to make them look better in the Public's eye.

It's one thing to lie consistently in a debate, it's another to completely change your stance from one day to the next because it sounds good on TV.

Oct 9, 2012#62

Necronic

stienman said:
You know china owns the US anyway. Might as well pull away the curtain and make it official.

I wish people would stop perpetuating this. Do you know how much of the US debt China actually owns?

Oct 9, 2012#63

Covar

Necronic said:
I wish people would stop perpetuating this. Do you know how much of the US debt China actually owns?

Enough for Obama to rag against china in a campaign commercial?

Oct 9, 2012#64

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
Well, then there's some other folks out there who need to be corrected as well

Yup. Media know very little about statistical analyses, despite quoting statistics incessantly.

Oct 9, 2012#65

Tress

Necronic said:
I wish people would stop perpetuating this. Do you know how much of the US debt China actually owns?

Even better - what country owns the majority of American debt?

America.

Oct 9, 2012#66

strawman

Necronic said:
I wish people would stop perpetuating this. Do you know how much of the US debt China actually owns?

The US has about 16 trillion debt, and china owns 1.2 trillion of it. Only about 5 trillion is owned by foreign entities, the remaining 11 trillion or so is held by US entities.

Over the last four years

- the amount of foreign owned debt went up from 3 trillion to 5 trillion
- the credit rating for the US was downgraded twice - from AA+ to AA to AA-

Chances are good these two figures are related - US entities are finding better investments to place their money in, and foreign investors are gobbling up unpurchased US bonds.

We're still rocking a 1 trillion deficit - in fact this is the fourth straight year we've increased our debt by 1 trillion dollars. If you thought 11 trillion dollars was a huge debt - it's only taken 4 years to increase that by 33%.

Jokes need not be factual to be funny. In fact some of the best jokes play off people's unreasonable fears. China is a rising economic superpower, and everybody is wondering where it's going from here. Most countries are irritated at its currency manipulation. While it's quickly becoming a world player, it still has a long way to go before it overshadows the US. However in terms of raw numbers of workers and manufacturing output, many recognize the possibility that it could do so in the long run. Further they have purchased US debt at an unprecedented rate over the last decade. So no, they don't in any way, shape, or form "own" the US or even a significant portion of it, but there is reason to consider their position in terms of our debt. While our debt is large-ish, our GDP still keeps pace with our debt even in the downturn, so it's not a big problem.

Still, dissecting a joke is like dissecting a frog. Disgusting, smelly, and everyone feels worse off for the experience.

Oct 17, 2012#67

strawman

Well, the only thing that made me scratch my head during last night's town hall debate (apart from what the candidates said, which was worthy of a lot of head scratching) was that the moderator turned into a real time fact checker at one point, and backed up President Obama's assertion that he called the embassy attack and act of terror the day after it occurred. While one could argue semantics (he did not call the attacks an act of terror, but did indicate that acts of terror would be pursued) it seems that the moderator of the debate overstepped her bounds - well beyond simply redirecting and pressing an issue (which is something she wasn't supposed to do, but I'm glad she did) she actually participated in the debate.

There are some reports floating around that CNNs on-screen time keeping showed the President got 3 more minutes of talking time than the Governer, but finding no stories on CNN's own website, nor screenshots I don't know the veracity of the report.

Obama showed a marked improvement between this debate and the first debate, though, and many instant polls have him winning this one.

I really, really wish the debate had been about foreign policy as originally advertised though.

Oct 17, 2012#68

Gilgamesh

No, the third debate is about Foreign Policy.

Yes Obama got 3 more minutes, I watched it.

Yes Obama won the debate (on content and appearance)

Oct 17, 2012#69

Shakey

I'm guessing a good chunk of that time came from when Romney specifically asked Obama to explain the drop in permits to drill on federal land. The moderator gave the floor to Romney, and he basically turned it over to Obama.

Oct 17, 2012#70

Gilgamesh

Shakey said:
I'm guessing a good chunk of that time came from when Romney specifically asked Obama to explain the drop in permits to drill on federal land. The moderator gave the floor to Romney, and he basically turned it over to Obama.

Yep, I'm by no means saying Obama was perfect, I'm not that biased but yes the reason Obama got more time was because Romney kept giving it to him.

I think my favorite part was right in the beginning when Romney tried the same shit he pulled in the first debate (always trying to get the last word, regardless of whether it was his turn to speak) and the moderator shut him down.

Oct 17, 2012#71

Dirona

Question! I'm Canadian, and I generally don't follow politics, even at home, but this morning Romney's comment about "binders full of women" has exploded all over my Internet. Can I get some context please?

edit: found some rush transcripts, but I'd like a bit more... something. Analysis, cultural context?

Oct 17, 2012#72

Gilgamesh

Dirona said:
Question! I'm Canadian, and I generally don't follow politics, even at home, but this morning Romney's comment about "binders full of women" has exploded all over my Internet. Can I get some context please?

A voter asked: In today's economy why are women still paid less than men for the same work/job and what will you do to help change that?

Obama responded by telling the voter about the changes he's put in place and the bill he signed that does address that and help equality in pay.

Romney responded by telling the voter that for his cabinet positions all he had were male applicants, so he made his team go and look for women who were qualified until he had -binders full of women- to choose from.

Oct 17, 2012#73

Ravenpoe

Dirona said:
Question! I'm Canadian, and I generally don't follow politics, even at home, but this morning Romney's comment about "binders full of women" has exploded all over my Internet. Can I get some context please?

edit: found some rush transcripts, but I'd like a bit more... something. Analysis, cultural context?

The question was about how the candidate would improve work equality, and Romney said when he became governor, he turned away the men that were presented for his cabinet, and asked his staff to find qualified women, who then turned up "binders full of women"

Oct 17, 2012#74

GasBandit

Oct 17, 2012#75

GasBandit

This video is not wadsworth-compatible, watch it from the beginning. If you don't watch it, well, I'll summarize: these man-in-the-street interviews were conducted yesterday, 4 hours before the debate actually BEGAN.

!

Oct 17, 2012#76

GasBandit

And here's Schmoyoho on PreziDebate2012 #2.

Oct 17, 2012#77

strawman

Nice quick turnaround for them!

Oct 17, 2012#78

GasBandit

stienman said:
Nice quick turnaround for them!

Yeah really, "autotune the news" used to take weeks.

Oct 17, 2012#79

strawman

GasBandit said:
Yeah really, "autotune the news" used to take weeks.

They really seemed to lose a lot of momentum once they started looking at putting their work on media networks and skipping the internet. I'm glad to see they're doing a bit more again, but I wish they'd restart autotune the news. I really think they could have millions of regular viewers if they produced a monthly or weekly autotune the news show, and they'd get quite a chunk of ad revenue from it.

I suppose it's not that interesting to them anymore though - they're probably making a chunk of money off work they're doing for other companies.

Oct 17, 2012#80

Dirona

Gilgamesh said:
A voter asked: In today's economy why are women still paid less than men for the same work/job and what will you do to help change that?

Obama responded by telling the voter about the changes he's put in place and the bill he signed that does address that and help equality in pay.

Romney responded by telling the voter that for his cabinet positions all he had were male applicants, so he made his team go and look for women who were qualified until he had -binders full of women- to choose from.

Ravenpoe said:
The question was about how the candidate would improve work equality, and Romney said when he became governor, he turned away the men that were presented for his cabinet, and asked his staff to find qualified women, who then turned up "binders full of women"

Thank you Gents. Any ideas as to why this particular asinine sound-bite got so widely distributed? Or is that more a question of meme creation than politics?

Oct 17, 2012#81

Gilgamesh

Meme creation. Just latched onto an amusing phrase.

Oct 17, 2012#82

Dirona

That's what I figured. Thanks!

Oct 17, 2012#83

GasBandit

Heh, heard this one tonight, gave me a chuckle... "Ms Crowley, put the gun down, and let Governor Romney answer the question..." "BUT IT'S A TRICK, MR PRESIDENT! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?!"

Oct 18, 2012#84

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Heh, heard this one tonight, gave me a chuckle... "Ms Crowley, put the gun down, and let Governor Romney answer the question..." "BUT IT'S A TRICK, MR PRESIDENT! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?!"

Even I don't get that.

Oct 18, 2012#85

Ravenpoe

I enjoyed Mitt Romney's answer to gun control being marriage and two-parent homes.

It's like he pulled the wrong answer from his crib-sheet.

Oct 18, 2012#86

Espy

Ravenpoe said:
I enjoyed Mitt Romney's answer to gun control being marriage and two-parent homes.

It's like he pulled the wrong answer from his crib-sheet.

Well, if his point was that in order to raise better citizens then bettera better home life isn't really a terrible answer, even if it is only part of the answer. In fact, I would bet that Obama would agree with the basic premise (how can you not?). However, the problem is, once again, Romney says things awkwardly and in ways that seem designed to offend people.

Oct 18, 2012#87

Gilgamesh

Espy said:
Well, if his point was that in order to raise better citizens then bettera better home life isn't really a terrible answer, even if it is only part of the answer. In fact, I would bet that Obama would agree with the basic premise (how can you not?). However, the problem is, once again, Romney says things awkwardly and in ways that seem designed to offend people.

Because he's reading from a mental script he was taught, not because it is his actual idea/opinion.

Oct 18, 2012#88

Ravenpoe

Espy said:
Well, if his point was that in order to raise better citizens then bettera better home life isn't really a terrible answer, even if it is only part of the answer. In fact, I would bet that Obama would agree with the basic premise (how can you not?). However, the problem is, once again, Romney says things awkwardly and in ways that seem designed to offend people.

It sounded like his answer was meant to not piss off his nra base, and then deflect by throwing out one of his sound bites of how family is good.

Oct 18, 2012#89

@Li3n

"Please proceed, Governor."

Heh, even Romney felt something was amiss and stuttered a little... too bad for him he didn't stop.

Dirona said:
Thank you Gents. Any ideas as to why this particular asinine sound-bite got so widely distributed? Or is that more a question of meme creation than politics?

You mean besides the fact that "binders full of women" sounds like something Buffalo Bill would say?

Gilgamesh said:
Even I don't get that.

Haven't you heard? Fact-checking transcripts is just another form of liberal bias...

Oct 18, 2012#90

Shakey

Espy said:
Well, if his point was that in order to raise better citizens then bettera better home life isn't really a terrible answer, even if it is only part of the answer. In fact, I would bet that Obama would agree with the basic premise (how can you not?). However, the problem is, once again, Romney says things awkwardly and in ways that seem designed to offend people.

If he can't speak in a debate without offending people, how will he handle the rest of the world leaders? He came of as saying a big portion of the gun violence comes from single parents. Look at the big shootings in Aurora and Ft Hood, hell even Kazynski. Did they come from single parent families?

Even the problems from low income violence don't necessarily come from single families, but the environment and economic situation surrounding them. Having two parents won't magically change that. Is it a bad thing? No, obviously having a good family life with both parents will go a long way towards keeping kids out of trouble and gangs. Comments like that just make it look like he doesn't really understand whats going on and wants to blame lifestyles he doesn't approve of.

If he meant a better home life, he should have just said that. Instead he said we need more traditional marriage homes, because they're always better.

Oct 18, 2012#91

Gilgamesh

I really really wish there would have been any kind of question on Gay rights that night. To watch Romney back-track on that would have been amazing.

Oct 18, 2012#92

ScytheRexx

P.S. I know it's not an exact quote, it's the idea that Romney would use single parenting as a stance on troubled kids using guns, while standing next to a president who was raised by a single mother.

Oct 18, 2012#93

@Li3n

You know who was raised by both his parents?! Stalin!!!

Oct 18, 2012#94

Espy

Shakey said:
If he can't speak in a debate without offending people, how will he handle the rest of the world leaders? He came of as saying a big portion of the gun violence comes from single parents. Look at the big shootings in Aurora and Ft Hood, hell even Kazynski. Did they come from single parent families?

Even the problems from low income violence don't necessarily come from single families, but the environment and economic situation surrounding them. Having two parents won't magically change that. Is it a bad thing? No, obviously having a good family life with both parents will go a long way towards keeping kids out of trouble and gangs. Comments like that just make it look like he doesn't really understand whats going on and wants to blame lifestyles he doesn't approve of.

If he meant a better home life, he should have just said that. Instead he said we need more traditional marriage homes, because they're always better.

Obviously I'm not defending the comment, just saying I think I know what he was trying to say, which was something most of us would agree with. This has been a constant problem for Romney, his foot lives in his mouth.

Oct 18, 2012#95

Shakey

Espy said:
Obviously I'm not defending the comment, just saying I think I know what he was trying to say, which was something most of us would agree with. This has been a constant problem for Romney, his foot lives in his mouth.

I know. My main point was that a president needs to be able to communicate properly. If he honestly can't express himself good enough so that the American people understand what he means, how will he fare with non-english speaking people. Maybe it's because he's trying to pander to the base, and doesn't necessarily believe everything he's saying. I don't know, but from what I've seen most of his presidency would be dedicated to apologizing and trying to explain what he means after others have told him what he should have said.

I really would like to vote republican again some day, but they make it so hard.

Oct 18, 2012#96

GasBandit

Single parenting is the run in society's nylons.

Oct 18, 2012#97

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Single parenting is the run in society's nylons.

Wouldn't it be great to cut that number down by allowing a certain group of people to get married?

Oct 18, 2012#98

Frank

Stop trying to destroy America.

Oct 19, 2012#99

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Wouldn't it be great to cut that number down by allowing a certain group of people to get married?

Are you saying single parent mothers will spontaneously become lesbians... without 5 shots of tequila?

Oct 19, 2012#100

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Are you saying single parent mothers will spontaneously become lesbians... without 5 shots of tequila?

Yes, that's exactly it.

Oct 19, 2012#101

Charlie Don't Surf

The assertion / idea that liquor makes someone into a homosexual is pretty offensive and backward.

Oct 19, 2012#102

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
The assertion / idea that liquor makes someone into a homosexual is pretty offensive and backward.

don't forget and true.

Oct 19, 2012#103

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
don't forget and true.

Nah!

Oct 19, 2012#104

GasBandit

STFU Charlie.

Oct 19, 2012#105

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Nah!

I've personally seen otherwise, so I dunno what to tell ya brosef.

Oct 19, 2012#106

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
I've personally seen otherwise, so I dunno what to tell ya brosef.

I posit that liquor lowers their inhibitions enough to engage in homosexual behavior that they'd probably do otherwise if not for the systemic discrimination and hatred toward homosexuals in society, religions, and government.

Oct 19, 2012#107

Azurephoenix

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I posit that liquor lowers their inhibitions enough to engage in homosexual behavior that they'd probably do otherwise if not for the systemic discrimination and hatred toward homosexuals in society, religions, and government.

I would say you're probably correct in some cases... but certainly not all.

Oct 19, 2012#108

GasBandit

I believe Shegokigo once remarked upon it fondly, even.

Oct 19, 2012#109

Covar

Alchol makes drunk people do things they wouldn't do when sober. Who would have thunk it?

Oct 19, 2012#110

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I posit that liquor lowers their inhibitions enough to engage in homosexual behavior

Correct

Charlie Don't Surf said:
that they'd probably do otherwise if not for the systemic discrimination and hatred toward homosexuals in society, religions, and government.

Incorrect

Oct 19, 2012#111

Ravenpoe

Gilgamesh said:
Incorrect

If someone is willing to engage in homosexual activity while intoxicated, then they must have some level of homosexual predisposition (which is a complicated factor), so it therefore could be reasoned that without social stigma against the act, they may have been more willing to engage while sober.

Oct 19, 2012#112

Gilgamesh

Ravenpoe said:
If someone is willing to engage in homosexual activity while intoxicated, then they must have some level of homosexual predisposition (which is a complicated factor), so it therefore could be reasoned that without social stigma against the act, they may have been more willing to engage while sober.

That's a great theory but proven incorrect in reality. In my personal experience (which I do not claim creates an opinion into fact but simply shapes how I view the previous comment as incorrect) the people I've seen commit different levels of homosexuality due to intoxication have been prior and after 100% straight with zero inclination toward homosexuality and it definitely had nothing to do with the -social stigma- of being homosexual.

They're simply willing to try something, they've never tried before, because of lowered inhibitions. They were never gay and never had gay tendencies.

Oct 19, 2012#113

sixpackshaker

It really is the same as the person that lowers their standards, and wake up next to an ugly person after drinking.

Oct 19, 2012#114

Gilgamesh

What's really funny is that Charlie Don't Surf doesn't realize I was agreeing with him and disagreeing with GasBandit. Then again GasBandit wasn't being serious in the first place.

Oct 19, 2012#115

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
It really is the same as the person that lowers their standards, and wake up next to an ugly person after drinking.

Or just wanting attention and an alibi.

Oct 20, 2012#116

@Li3n

sixpackshaker said:
It really is the same as the person that lowers their standards, and wake up next to an ugly person after drinking.

So it is a convenient excuse to engage in behaviour society would punish you for (with mocking in case of the ugly person) then.[DOUBLEPOST=1350761444][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gilgamesh said:
They're simply willing to try something, they've never tried before, because of lowered inhibitions. They were never gay and never had gay tendencies.

This has proven itself as the truly no exceptions trope over and over again: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoBisexuals

Oct 20, 2012#117

sixpackshaker

@Li3n said:
So it is a convenient excuse to engage in behaviour society would punish you for (with mocking in case of the ugly person) then.

No it pretty much means that person got raped by an ugly person.

Oct 20, 2012#118

@Li3n

sixpackshaker said:
No it pretty much means that person got raped by an ugly person.

Only if they didn't get pregnant...

Oct 22, 2012#119

GasBandit

A different thread reminded me of my favorite VP debate...

Oct 22, 2012#120

Adam

I love watching real time reactions to the debate.

Reality wise, Romney got lit up one side and down.

Oct 22, 2012#121

Krisken

Honestly, a sitting president shouldn't lose a foreign policy debate with a governor. Still, neither one of these two could stick to foreign policy.

Oct 22, 2012#122

Gilgamesh

I enjoyed watching Obama walk all over Romney on this debate. It was expected since it's Foreign Debate. Sadly that's what the GoP thought would go differently.

Oct 22, 2012#123

jwhouk

Horses and Bayonets, everyone.

Oct 22, 2012#124

Gilgamesh

jwhouk said:
Horses and Bayonets, everyone.

That was such a hilarious burn moment, I actually cheered out loud.

In the end the debate actually isn't going to change the election, and by the looks of it, it's going to be closer to what I first thought it was going to be, but thankfully its still going to be an Obama win (checking the electoral map).

Oct 23, 2012#125

Shakey

Romney basically rolled over for this debate. I think he made every comment as " I agree with Obama, but if I made rainbows come out of my butt it would be awesome". Obama really laid him down with the navy comment. But really this debate showed that there wasn't much of a difference between the two.

Oct 23, 2012#126

bhamv3

jwhouk said:
Horses and Bayonets, everyone.

I think that's going to be the most meme-tastic thing to come out of this election.

Oct 23, 2012#127

Krisken

bhamv3 said:
I think that's going to be the most meme-tastic thing to come out of this election.

It can go right next to "Binders full of women". Who won these debates? The internet.

Oct 23, 2012#128

sixpackshaker

The internet is always full of win.

Oct 23, 2012#129

GasBandit

My favorite debate tweet:

It's like listening to two serial killers arguing about what kind of van to buy#debate— Frankie Boyle (@frankieboyle) October 23, 2012

Oct 23, 2012#130

Gilgamesh

My favorite was this tweet and counter tweet:

Donald J. Trump -- Stop congratulating Obama for killing Bin Laden. The Navy Seals killed Bin Laden. #debate

Scary Beans ‏-- Stop congratulating The Navy Seals for killing Bin Laden. Some guns and also some bullets killed Bin Laden. #debate

Oct 23, 2012#131

Charlie Don't Surf

I like how they tripped over each other to support drones murdering children more fullheartedly

Oct 23, 2012#132

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I like how they tripped over each other to support drones murdering children more fullheartedly

I'm quite glad neither of them have plans to remove drones.

Oct 23, 2012#133

Charlie Don't Surf

yeah, they wouldn't support it if they didn't know most of America was that bloodthirsty already

Oct 23, 2012#134

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, they wouldn't support it if they didn't know most of America was that bloodthirsty already

Exactly. It's why we're the best country in the world. We have the most efficient ways to kill people and we're only getting better at it.

Oct 23, 2012#135

Adam

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, they wouldn't support it if they didn't know most of America was that bloodthirsty already

Oct 23, 2012#136

Gilgamesh

Adam said:
View attachment 8604

Shhh, let him keep giving me the tasty tasty tears.

Oct 23, 2012#137

Charlie Don't Surf

it is funny that I'm "crying" about innocent people being killed routinely by bombs

Oct 23, 2012#138

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
it is funny that I'm "crying" about innocent people being killed routinely by bombs

Then tell the AQ leaders to leave their kids at home...

Oct 23, 2012#139

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf Don't you think you'd be more effective if you posted other sources of information regarding the problems you see with the candidate's positions?

It's so easy, too - merely a simple google search away:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html

Independent studies suggest that drone strikes are not only killing more civilians than the administration admits, but also that they are not nearly as effective as claimed.

Oct 23, 2012#140

Charlie Don't Surf

Drone Strikes are pretty evil to anyone that does a modicum of research - confirmed

Oct 23, 2012#141

Gilgamesh

Charlie isn't trying to have a actual conversation, he just likes to throw out vastly argumentive and unsupported opinions that stir up issues and then never respond with anything of substance. Cmon now, everyone knows this by now?

He's doing it 100% to troll and the only way to respond is to take him at that value, it's how I find so much entertainment in the jokes he posts. He's basically Westboro lite (not the anti-gay thing but the opinions with no substance).

Oct 23, 2012#142

sixpackshaker

Really, how are we to handle our enemies that hide behind civilians in a "neutral" country?

Oct 23, 2012#143

Gilgamesh

sixpackshaker said:
Really, how are we to handle our enemies that hide behind civilians in a "neutral" country?

He has zero answers for that.

Oct 23, 2012#144

sixpackshaker

OK then I'll add a response along his lines...

Lets fight like our enemies and car bomb entire city streets (at random,) and kill feminists for wanting an education...

Oct 23, 2012#145

Gilgamesh

No no, he'll just respond that violence/killing is never the answer.

Oct 23, 2012#146

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/klein-drones-morning-joe?CMP=twt_gu

we're already using the terrorists' tactics:

(1) Klein's justification - we have to kill their children in order to protect our children - is the exact mentality of every person deemed in US discourse to be a "terrorist". Almost every single person arrested and prosecuted over the last decade on terrorism charges, when asked why they were willing to kill innocent Americans including children, offered some version of Joe Klein's mindset

Oct 23, 2012#147

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/klein-drones-morning-joe?CMP=twt_gu

Yep, like I said. We're damn effective. Kill their terrorist parents and the kids before they can grow up to be terrorists. Win-Win.

Oct 23, 2012#148

Charlie Don't Surf

congratulations, you're a sociopath

Oct 23, 2012#149

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
congratulations, you're a sociopath

Better than a dead terrorist.

Oct 23, 2012#150

Shakey

Drone use definitely needs to be looked at. We don't need to stop using them, but we need a stricter policy on how and when they're used. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. Sure we'll kill the current leaders, but we'll just breed even more with all the innocents killed.

Oct 23, 2012#151

Gilgamesh

Shakey said:
Drone use definitely needs to be looked at. We don't need to stop using them, but we need a stricter policy on how and when they're used. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. Sure we'll kill the current leaders, but we'll just breed even more with all the innocents killed.

Now there's an informed opinion and post that can be taken seriously. One I can also agree with completely.

Oct 23, 2012#152

GasBandit

Today, the only healthy mindset is sociopathy. Anything else is just wheat into the thresher.

Oct 23, 2012#153

strawman

Shakey said:
Drone use definitely needs to be looked at. We don't need to stop using them, but we need a stricter policy on how and when they're used. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. Sure we'll kill the current leaders, but we'll just breed even more with all the innocents killed.

I think drones have fundamentally changed the airstrike. We are performing missions with drones that we would NOT have performed with manned aircraft. A single drone flight is cheaper, a lost drone is cheaper, they are smaller and fly longer, and you can switch out pilots in mid flight and make decisions with the decision maker right behind you.

You can send drones on wild goose chases, and if a goose shows up then you've got something you can act on immediately.

Because of the lower cost of total resources, it's tempting to overuse them, or to put them into positions where a snap decision has to be made, and rather than saying, "It's better to wait for the right decision even if we miss the window of opportunity" we're saying, "It's better to use the window of opportunity even if we make the wrong decision."

Not only that, but we are trying to convince the world that drones are fundamentally different than manned craft, and therefore are putting them in places we would not or could not place manned craft politically or physically. This is surely going to bite us later on when other countries have advanced drone capabilities.

Still, I'm all for anything that makes Ender's Game come closer to reality. We've already got the iPad, Virgin is going to build hotels in space, and all we need now are remotely commanded fleets of space fighters.

Oct 23, 2012#154

GasBandit

I can't wait to own my own molecular disruptor.

Oct 23, 2012#155

strawman

GasBandit said:
I can't wait to own my own molecular disruptor.

Which, of course, will only cause endless debate on the latest mass disrupting and whether disrupter control needs to be tightened.

Oct 23, 2012#156

GasBandit

stienman said:
Which, of course, will only cause endless debate on the latest mass disrupting and whether disrupter control needs to be tightened.

Oh, trust me. Within 3 seconds of me getting my hands on one, there will be no debate. Nor will there be a consensus.

Oct 23, 2012#157

Shakey

stienman said:
I think drones have fundamentally changed the airstrike. We are performing missions with drones that we would NOT have performed with manned aircraft. A single drone flight is cheaper, a lost drone is cheaper, they are smaller and fly longer, and you can switch out pilots in mid flight and make decisions with the decision maker right behind you.

You can send drones on wild goose chases, and if a goose shows up then you've got something you can act on immediately.

Because of the lower cost of total resources, it's tempting to overuse them, or to put them into positions where a snap decision has to be made, and rather than saying, "It's better to wait for the right decision even if we miss the window of opportunity" we're saying, "It's better to use the window of opportunity even if we make the wrong decision."

Not only that, but we are trying to convince the world that drones are fundamentally different than manned craft, and therefore are putting them in places we would not or could not place manned craft politically or physically. This is surely going to bite us later on when other countries have advanced drone capabilities.

Still, I'm all for anything that makes Ender's Game come closer to reality. We've already got the iPad, Virgin is going to build hotels in space, and all we need now are remotely commanded fleets of space fighters.

Exactly. There's really too much of a disconnect with what we're actually doing now. It's too bad, but the reality of war doesn't really strike home until one of our own dies. The people in charge never have to worry about putting our own in danger, so we can run these missions with little to no risk of upsetting our own people. And like you said, it's become so cheap and easy why not? Unfortunately neither candidate will do anything about it.

Oct 23, 2012#158

strawman

It's such a complex calculation anyway. We lack on the ground intelligence - it's too expensive. But now that the cost of a mission is cheap, and the cost of messing up is low, then it's easy to send a mission out on little info, and use that mission not only to gather info, but to strike if the real-time information gathering yields something actionable.

On the one hand it's an incredible capability - The U2 spy plane is nothing compared to this.

On the other hand it's so incredibly cheap and easy to abuse. Why invest more in intelligence that puts our people in harms way, but gathers better information when we can simply send out a plane on all the plausible theories and skip actually thinking about the data we might have otherwise obtained through more difficult and time consuming means.

Oct 23, 2012#159

GasBandit

And Schmoyoho completes their hat trick:

!

Fun fact: Yes, the US Military still has and uses bayonets and requires troops to train with them.

Oct 23, 2012#160

Adam

GasBandit said:
And Schmoyoho completes their hat trick:

!

Fun fact: Yes, the US Military still has and uses bayonets and requires troops to train with them.

As recently as 2010 they tried to remove it but retirees complained.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...diers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training

Oct 23, 2012#161

Krisken

Adam said:
As recently as 2010 they tried to remove it but retirees complained.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...diers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training

Maybe we should teach our soldiers to throw spears. You know, for old times sake.

Oct 23, 2012#162

GasBandit

Adam said:
As recently as 2010 they tried to remove it but retirees complained.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...diers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training

That article spends more than half of its real estate showing the benefits of bayonets...

The objections to ending the training are occasionally practical.

In 2004, with ammunition running low, a British unit launched a bayonet charge toward a trench outside of Basra, Iraq, where some 100 members of the Mahdi Army militia were staging an attack. The British soldiers later said that though some of the insurgents were wounded in the bayonet charge itself, others were simply terrified into surrender.

Instilling such terror is at the heart of the philosophical argument for keeping bayonet training, historians say.
“Traditionally in the 20th century – certainly after World War I – bayonet training was basically designed to develop in soldiers aggressiveness, courage, and preparation for close combat,” says Richard Kohn, professor of military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bayonet training is, in short, used to undo socialization – to “basically to try to mitigate or eradicate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other,” Mr. Kohn says. It is one of the challenges in US or Western society “where we have such reverence for the individual, where we socialize our people to believe in the rule of law, and all of that,” he adds. “What you’re doing with young people is trying to get them used to the highly emotional and irrational and adrenaline-filled situations in which they are liable to find themselves whether they are within sight of the enemy or not – and the reluctance to take a life.”

Oct 23, 2012#163

Adam

So it's absolutely impossible to replace bayonet training which has been used once in 60 years with something more useful? I just want to get clarification on what you're saying here so as I don't misinterpret what you're trying to defend.

Oct 23, 2012#164

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Fun fact: Yes, the US Military still has and uses bayonets and requires troops to train with them.

Which is not even remotely close to the point, but still hilarious.

Oct 23, 2012#165

Krisken

Adam said:
So it's absolutely impossible to replace bayonet training which has been used once in 60 years with something more useful? I just want to get clarification on what you're saying here so as I don't misinterpret what you're trying to defend.

I'm telling you, spears, bows, and throwing knives. Cutting edge (get it?) technology.

Oct 23, 2012#166

GasBandit

Adam said:
So it's absolutely impossible to replace bayonet training which has been used once in 60 years with something more useful? I just want to get clarification on what you're saying here so as I don't misinterpret what you're trying to defend.

First, I want to see your data to back up that it's been used only once, especially, when that article cites twice and wikipedia makes it sound a lot more common -

The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War (see Battle of Mount Tumbledown), the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[35] In 2004 in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand to hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and 9 prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[36] This engagement brought to notice the tactical use of the weapon for close combat and the sheer psychological effect it can have.

British forces in Afghanistan have used bayonets on numerous occasions. In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[37] In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011.[38]

At any rate, my assertion is that it sounds hip and trendy to talk smack about bayonets being passe on TV as a sound byte, but all it really does is display an ignorance of military reality (that bayonet tactics are still winning battles today). If the problem is 10 weeks of basic isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, maybe a better solution would be to make basic training longer?[DOUBLEPOST=1351026799][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gilgamesh said:
Which is not even remotely close to the point, but still hilarious.

The point is Obama is ignorant in matters military.

Oct 23, 2012#167

Charlie Don't Surf

i can't believe you're really having this conversation / arguing this point. i honestly thought the thing I read about conservatives really defending this bayonette thing was a joke

Oct 23, 2012#168

Krisken

Funny, I thought the quip made a good point on how little Romney knew about the military and its needs, especially when he keeps advocating for equipment the military keeps screaming they don't need.[DOUBLEPOST=1351027038][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
i can't believe you're really having this conversation / arguing this point. i honestly thought the thing I read about conservatives really defending this bayonette thing was a joke

Believe it. 'Our guy is bad, but your guy is worse' is the cornerstone of this election. For everyone involved.

Oct 23, 2012#169

Adam

So, again, just to clarify, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training says that bayonet training could be replaced by something better and your defense to that is to bring up the fact that the British Army has used bayonets 3 times in the past 60 years and that the idea that 'bayonets are passe' displays an ignorance of military reality that apparently, once again, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training would not agree with.

Now, I'm not fond of argument appeals to authority, but the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training, the guy who would know if the problem is 10 weeks of basic isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, saying that bayonets are passe, would tend to get me thinking I should believe him instead of, to be polite, you.[DOUBLEPOST=1351027424][/DOUBLEPOST]I, also, like commas today.

Oct 23, 2012#170

strawman

Krisken said:
he keeps advocating for equipment the military keeps screaming they don't need.

Out of curiosity, I've seen this bandied about a lot but haven't been curious enough to research it. What equipment is he advocating that the military says it doesn't want or need?

Oct 23, 2012#171

Adam

stienman said:
Out of curiosity, I've seen this bandied about a lot but haven't been curious enough to research it. What equipment is he advocating that the military says it doesn't want or need?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/13/romney-ryan-ticket-hits-obama-admin-on-ohio-made-tanks/

Oct 23, 2012#172

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
The point is Obama is ignorant in matters military.

Funniest thing I've read all day.

Oct 23, 2012#173

Krisken

Thanks Adam

It's nice to not have to do the leg-work myself.

Oct 23, 2012#174

GasBandit

Once again I take comfort in knowing my view is divergent from Charlie's - and anyone's whose isn't, should reflect on that situation for a moment.

I'm not saying Romney is a military genius. Far from it. I'm saying that particular remark on the part of Obama was ignorant. He rattled off a snide sound bite to try to deflect that part of the reason the US is having such problems projecting its power is because our navy is less than half the size it was during the 90s, and he did it in a factually inaccurate way.

Adam said:
So, again, just to clarify, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training says that bayonet training could be replaced by something better and your defense to that is to bring up the fact that the British Army has used bayonets 3 times in the past 60 years and that the idea that 'bayonets are passe' displays an ignorance of military reality that apparently, once again, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training would not agree with.

Now, I'm not fond of argument appeals to authority, but the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training, the guy who would know if the problem is 10 weeks of basic isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, saying that bayonets are passe, would tend to get me thinking I should believe him instead of, to be polite, you.[DOUBLEPOST=1351027424][/DOUBLEPOST]I, also, like commas today.

For not wanting to appeal to authority, that is exactly what you just did. The Lieutenant General's opinion is not shared by a number of other military personnel of higher and lower rank. Also, do you assert that unless I rattle off every single instance of bayonet use, with sources, here in this thread that the uses didn't happen? Do you assert that the battles fought by the British in the same wars and campaigns as us bear no tactical significance to the US Military?

If 10 weeks isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, I reiterate, wouldn't the first logical thought of any rational, thinking human being be that maybe basic training is too short?

Oct 23, 2012#175

Adam

Krisken said:
Thanks Adam It's nice to not have to do the leg-work myself.

I keep my bayonet handy for any requests like that.

Oct 23, 2012#176

sixpackshaker

Wow, I tend to keep up on military affairs. But I had no idea that we were building new M1's over the last 20 years. I thought they were only retrofitting the old tanks we had laying around since the end of Desert Storm and the Cold War.

Oct 23, 2012#177

Krisken

When people want to be partisan and make hay from nothing, nothing can stop them. This is what I have learned while I was away.

Oct 23, 2012#178

GasBandit

Krisken said:
When people want to be partisan and make hay from nothing, nothing can stop them. This is what I have learned while I was away.

When the other side does it, it's being partisan and making hay from nothing. When one's own side does it, it's standing up for (insert the blank, or simply "what you believe").

Oct 23, 2012#179

Adam

GasBandit said:
For not wanting to appeal to authority, that is exactly what you just did. The Lieutenant General's opinion is not shared by a number of other military personnel of higher and lower rank. Also, do you assert that unless I rattle off every single instance of bayonet use, with sources, here in this thread that the uses didn't happen? Do you assert that the battles fought by the British in the same wars and campaigns as us bear no tactical significance to the US Military?

If 10 weeks isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, I reiterate, wouldn't the first logical thought of any rational, thinking human being be that maybe basic training is too short?

A number of other military personnel of higher and lower rank: (from your article)
Former U.S. Marine Doug Miller (64), of Hiawatha, Kan.
Retired Maj. Gen. Ed Usher, president and CEO of the Marine Corps Association & Foundation
Ken Trbovich, president and CEO of Ontario Knife Co. (Supplier of bayonets)
Retired USMC Col. Michael Belcher

GasBandit said:
I'm not saying Romney is a military genius. Far from it. I'm saying that particular remark on the part of Obama was ignorant. He rattled off a snide sound bite to try to deflect that part of the reason the US is having such problems projecting its power is because our navy is less than half the size it was during the 90s, and he did it in a factually inaccurate way.

1. What was factually ignorant about the military using "fewer horses and bayonets"? Factually, subtantially across the board 100% correct.

2. Agreed, the US is having a lot of problems projecting naval power. All of those great naval battles over the past 30 years have...wait, what?

Analogy Time!

What you're suggesting is that in the 10 weeks that we have basic training (I'm not going to debate the length of basic training, it wasn't mentioned in the debate and your hand-waving about it being the problem is just an attempt to scuttle around the crux of the argument you're trying to make), that privates should learn a maneuver that has for the most part been relegated to history, analogous to training secretaries how to use a Dvorak keyboard on the off chance that it may come in handy.

Limited time and limited resources mean you have to be smart with where you're spending it, a fairly conservative economic principle if ever I've heard one. If instead they were taught how to use knives in close quarters, there's no doubt that they'd get more value out of it.

OH LOW AND BEHOLD, Stripes Magazine comes to my rescue:

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ru...the-army-eliminated-bayonet-training-1.137356

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.
“The reason they don’t is because the training had nothing to do with the realities of the battlefield,” Larsen told The Rumor Doctor.
Worse yet, soldiers were bringing their own knives to the combat zone, and that proved to be dangerous they didn’t know how to fight with knives, Larsen said. Mostly, he said, soldiers used the knives as tools.
“And [when] they’re confronted with an enemy in hand-to-hand struggle, they have forgotten about it being a weapon, but the bad guy sees it on them and grabs and pulls it out and stabs them with it,” he said.
To make bayonet training relevant again, the Army got rid of the bayonet assault course, in which soldiers fixed a bayonet to the end of a rifle, ran towards a target while yelling and then rammed the bayonet into the target center. Instead, soldiers learn in combatives training how to use a knife or bayonet if someone grabs their primary weapon.

Also, Naval ship counts throughout history:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000

Obama's term has seen the first growth in the number of ships since 1988

Oct 23, 2012#180

Krisken

GasBandit said:
When the other side does it, it's being partisan and making hay from nothing. When one's own side does it, it's standing up for (insert the blank, or simply "what you believe").

Hey man, however you have to spin it to feel good about it, you do that. I thought you weren't for either candidate, though, and should really be above this nonsense.

Oct 23, 2012#181

Gilgamesh

Seriously, I'm loving this debate.

Oct 23, 2012#182

jwhouk

(shrug)

All I see from that list is that the US Navy has more ships - period - compared to 100 years ago.

Oct 23, 2012#183

strawman

Adam said:
Also, Naval ship counts throughout history:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000

Obama's term has seen the first growth in the number of ships since 1988

Ships that appear during one administration were ordered one or more administrations ago.

How many new ships have been ordered in the last four years?

Oct 23, 2012#184

Adam

stienman said:
Ships that appear during one administration were ordered one or more administrations ago.

How many new ships have been ordered in the last four years?

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43468

Oct 23, 2012#185

sixpackshaker

A carbine with 6" of steel poking out from under the barrel does not have much reach for thrusting and fighting.

From that article it looks like the Army will teach a new batch of recruits how to fight with a knife, as a side arm.

Oct 23, 2012#186

Bubble181

stienman said:
Ships that appear during one administration were ordered one or more administrations ago.

How many new ships have been ordered in the last four years?

Who cares? Does any really, seriously believe that the problem of the US armed forces (no matter which ones) is that they're too small or don't have big enough guns? 'Cause, no offense, but that's almost akin to the faith Orks put in More Dakka.
Updating/modernizing/preparing for new challenges, whatever. I understand that we (the Western world) need armies and especially yours. How much you're willing to spend on it and whatever - your concern. But.... Gah. If there's one thing the US doesn't need, it's "more".

Oct 23, 2012#187

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Hey man, however you have to spin it to feel good about it, you do that. I thought you weren't for either candidate, though, and should really be above this nonsense.

I'm still for Gary Johnson. But the "horses and bayonets" bit is what's burning up the internet today, so it's what I'm talking about.

Adam said:
A number of other military personnel of higher and lower rank: (from your article)
Former U.S. Marine Doug Miller (64), of Hiawatha, Kan.
Retired Maj. Gen. Ed Usher, president and CEO of the Marine Corps Association & Foundation
Ken Trbovich, president and CEO of Ontario Knife Co. (Supplier of bayonets)
Retired USMC Col. Michael Belcher

1. What was factually ignorant about the military using "fewer horses and bayonets"? Factually, subtantially across the board 100% correct.
2. Agreed, the US is having a lot of problems projecting naval power. All of those great naval battles over the past 30 years have...wait, what?

1) Every soldier issued an M-16 is still issued a bayonet for it. If we are using "less bayonets" then it's because we have less soldiers - which is also part of the problem Obama's trying to gloss over.
2) Naval power is the only way to project power. There's only so much a C-130 can lift, and everything else is done by the navy. If you don't have a navy, you can't project power on land, either. Aircraft Carriers and their escorts and tenders, you know, the things Obama was so proud of? Cut. In. Half.

Analogy Time!
What you're suggesting is that in the 10 weeks that we have basic training (I'm not going to debate the length of basic training, it wasn't mentioned in the debate and your hand-waving about it being the problem is just an attempt to scuttle around the crux of the argument you're trying to make),

Now wait just a consarned minute. On what grounds do you wave away my assertion that an appropriate way to deal with not having enough time to train would be to increase training time, other than the fact that it completely lets the air out of your side? The "crux" of my argument is that contemporary, modern battles are still being won through the use of bayonets, which I have documented.

that privates should learn a maneuver that has for the most part been relegated to history, analogous to training secretaries how to use a Dvorak keyboard on the off chance that it may come in handy.

Limited time and limited resources mean you have to be smart with where you're spending it, a fairly conservative economic principle if ever I've heard one. If instead they were taught how to use knives in close quarters, there's no doubt that they'd get more value out of it.

I didn't read where a Dvorak keyboard defeated 100 insurgents at once and won 3 battles in the last 10 years. You've stretched your metaphor too far. So long as guns run out of ammunition, and physics still says you can stab harder with a spear than a knife, a bayonet will still be an indispensable piece of military kit.

Oct 23, 2012#188

Adam

GasBandit said:
I'm still for Gary Johnson. But the "horses and bayonets" bit is what's burning up the internet today, so it's what I'm talking about.

1) Every soldier issued an M-16 is still issued a bayonet for it. If we are using "less bayonets" then it's because we have less soldiers - which is also part of the problem Obama's trying to gloss over.
2) Naval power is the only way to project power. There's only so much a C-130 can lift, and everything else is done by the navy. If you don't have a navy, you can't project power on land, either. Aircraft Carriers and their escorts and tenders, you know, the things Obama was so proud of? Cut. In. Half.

Looked at the CBO estimates, the Navy's own shipbuilding plans and the Navy's historical ship force levels. You're entitled to your opinions GB, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Nothing has been Cut. In. Half.

GasBandit said:
Now wait just a consarned minute. On what grounds do you wave away my assertion that an appropriate way to deal with not having enough time to train would be to increase training time, other than the fact that it completely lets the air out of your side? The "crux" of my argument is that contemporary, modern battles are still being won through the use of bayonets, which I have documented.

No one is talking about increased training time except you. Unless Obama says it has to be Cut. In. Half. which I don't believe he has.

I await with bated breath all of your refutations to facts, figures and publications I've posted.

Oct 23, 2012#189

GasBandit

Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

Number of naval vessels in 1990: 570. Number in 2011: 285. What do those two numbers divide out to become?

Oct 23, 2012#190

Adam

21 years of cuts blamed on Obama's 4. Sure.

Oct 23, 2012#191

GasBandit

Adam said:
21 years of cuts blamed on Obama's 4. Sure.

I didn't say he cut them. I said we have half what we had in 1990, and that's where a lot of our projection problems come from. I hold Clinton responsible for his part in drawing it down most of the way, and Bush for letting it sit there as well. However, last night Obama said we have less ships and that is OK, indicating he doesn't see the current level as a problem. I do.

Oct 23, 2012#192

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm just sickened that the argument is about the size of the increase in military spending. As if cutting it is not even a fucking option.

Oct 23, 2012#193

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'm just sickened that the argument is about the size of the increase in military spending. As if cutting it is not even a fucking option.

I feel the same way about entitlements.

Oct 23, 2012#194

Adam

In the end, Romney = Obama = Bush = Clinton.

You want to know why?

I'm Canadian! HAHAHHA, FUCK Y'ALL!

Oct 23, 2012#195

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
I feel the same way about entitlements.

Um. It's not in the same ballpark. Romney and a Republican Congress would absolutely cut entitlements. Neither Romney norBama would decrease military spending by a cent.

Oct 23, 2012#196

Tress

I think it's time we unveiled a new twist on an old forum meme that is sorely needed:

STFU Gas.

Oct 23, 2012#197

Gilgamesh

At least unlike Charlie, Gas uses examples and strong arguments to support his views. Though sometimes skewed to fit his position, it's still hundreds of times better than anything put out by the other STFU candidate.

Oct 23, 2012#198

Krisken

Gilgamesh said:
At least unlike Charlie, Gas uses examples and strong arguments to support his views. Though sometimes skewed to fit his position, it's still hundreds of times better than anything put out by the other STFU candidate.

Now that would be a mighty fine debate. Is bad reasoning better than no reasoning? Misinformation better than no information?

Oct 23, 2012#199

jwhouk

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Oct 23, 2012#200

Krisken

jwhouk said:
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But the one-eye king has glaucoma.

Oct 23, 2012#201

Zappit

Yeah, we're reducing the amount of ships, but do we really need more? Hell, we're getting to the point where we'll have a real combat fleet of drones that could conceivably launch a significant offensive. Our aircraft carriers are our greatest naval strength, and with the advent of cyber warfare, we're seeing it's possible to shut down population centers from half a world away.

War is changing. Slower battleships won't get the job done the next time the world goes to all hell. The military is gradually shifting away from that, and they want to. Romney wants to throw money at them, money they didn't ask for, and tell them to go play. Diplomacy is paramount now, especially given the knack that certain countries have for cyber warfare. The next big war that doesn't involve a Middle Eastern country will be extraordinarily different from any other before. Romney has spent a big portion of his life as the boss, answering to no one and taking what he wants, consequences be damned. We saw how awkward and foolish he was on his overseas trip. He'll be Isreal's buddy, but he'll fuck up everywhere else.

Oct 23, 2012#202

bhamv3

Zappit said:
The next big war that doesn't involve a Middle Eastern country will be extraordinarily different from any other before.

Dear God I hope I'm not in the middle of this one.

Oct 23, 2012#203

Azurephoenix

Real power projection has always been and will always be from the sea. Predator drones, hellfire missiles, smart bombs, laser guided munitions, beyond line of sight guns, satellite targeting, aerial bombardment, air superiority... all fine ways of destroying the enemy's forces.

However,

You will always need infantry to root out the final remnants and occupy territory. To get infantry from one continent to another and to deploy them in any significant numbers takes naval vessels. Hell, those vessels are also what transport most of the things I mentioned up above.

Oct 23, 2012#204

Gilgamesh

Holy shit how did I miss this?
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/...ars-slams-obama-for-not-doing-it-in-four.html

Oct 23, 2012#205

drifter

Fun fact: battleships haven't been used since the first Iraq War. Missile destroyers have made the battleship obselete, and there are no battleships currently in service in any navy in the world.

Other fun fact: the U.S. has as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined (almost twice as many if you include LHAs).

Oct 23, 2012#206

Tiger Tsang

Adam said:
Looked at the CBO estimates, the Navy's own shipbuilding plans and the Navy's historical ship force levels. You're entitled to your opinions GB, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Nothing has been Cut. In. Half.

No one is talking about increased training time except you. Unless Obama says it has to be Cut. In. Half. which I don't believe he has.

I await with bated breath all of your refutations to facts, figures and publications I've posted.

After pointing out his Bullcrap about Obama having 2 years of a Filibuster proof Congress *when it was around 14 nonconsecutive weeks* and then he sprouted the same LIE "the next day or two after with some nonsense about Snowe and Dukakis shoring up the the Senate vote, he just put himself into the Troll Zone. He's trying to the be the Rush Limbaugh of Halforums.

Oct 24, 2012#207

AshburnerX

drifter said:
Fun fact: battleships haven't been used since the first Iraq War. Missile destroyers have made the battleship obselete, and there are no battleships currently in service in any navy in the world.

In active service. There are several museum ships that are still operated by their respective navies. These ships aren't actively able to engage in combat but it's entirely possible they could be re-armed in short order if there was ever a situation dire enough to warrant it.

As for obsolesce... this is current true. However, a sudden leap in missile defense technology could conceivably make large cannons necessary again. It's one of the reasons why the US is researching laser and rail/coilgun technology so aggressively in tandem with missile defense: they know it's only a matter of time until missiles become obsolete and whoever makes the breakthrough first is going to have a huge advantage on the world stage.

Oct 24, 2012#208

Bubble181

Also, "number of ships" is a ridiculous yardstick. Comparatively, between 1990 and 2011, the US Navy today can put more troops anywhere in the world faster than ever before. Unless having a warfleet of 10,000 canoes sounds like a good plan to you, this is a better way of measuring naval effectiveness.

Oct 24, 2012#209

papachronos

Gilgamesh said:
Holy shit how did I miss this?
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/...ars-slams-obama-for-not-doing-it-in-four.html

I'm no Romney stooge, but is it possible those quotes were taken out of context? He says "we'll balance THE budget" in one, then "hasn't balanced A budget" in the other. Perhaps he was referring to the President's lack of business experience? Or the fact that we've not had a budget passed and approved since before Bush left office?

Cause if those quotes are the same context, damn, he's dumber than even his handlers knew.

Oct 24, 2012#210

Gilgamesh

No what I mean is, other than that quote, he HAS said MULTIPLE times that he can balance the budget within 2 terms. Yet constantly uses Obama's failure to do it in one term is one of his favorite attacks. I never released this until I stopped and thought about it.

Oct 24, 2012#211

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
the US is having such problems projecting its power

Oh man, i had forgotten how hilarious you can be when you put your mind to it.

Oct 24, 2012#212

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
Gas uses examples and strong arguments .

rofl

Oct 24, 2012#213

Gilgamesh

Charlie Don't Surf said:
rofl

The fact that you laugh at this is the textbook definition of ironic.

Oct 24, 2012#214

GasBandit

So it turns out that we actually have more bayonets now. Three times as many.

Oct 24, 2012#215

Gilgamesh

It's hilarious that people (including you Gas) are focusing in on the word bayonet when it had nothing to do with the actual context of the point. However, it's pretty much expected that latching onto to an out of over all context word is going to be the only way most Republicans or Libs can respond. It's like the Jon Stewart interview -optimal- line all over again. At this point, it's just damn funny to see how hard Repubs and Libs try.

Oct 24, 2012#216

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
So it turns out that we actually have more bayonets now. Three times as many.

OK, there is a warehouse in San Antonio stuffed to the gills with bayonets, left over from the Vietnam War.

Oct 24, 2012#217

Covar

Gilgamesh said:
It's hilarious that people (including you Gas) are focusing in on the word bayonet when it had nothing to do with the actual context of the point.

Hey, house majority leaders have lost their job because of such things. Also I assume people have just learned from Joe the Plumber and want to gloss over the actual context in favor of an unrelated detail that allows them to deflect from the actual statement.

Oct 24, 2012#218

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
OK, there is a warehouse in San Antonio stuffed to the gills with bayonets, left over from the Vietnam War.

Nope. As I said before, every soldier issued a gun is still issued a bayonet, and turns out we have more soldiers now than the quoted date - before WW1 (back when we were isolationist and had a small army and navy, the naval size of which we have again).

@Li3n said:
Oh man, i had forgotten how hilarious you can be when you put your mind to it.

Compared to the stroll in the park gulf war 1 was, yes, we are having trouble projecting power.[DOUBLEPOST=1351092430][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Um. It's not in the same ballpark. Romney and a Republican Congress would absolutely cut entitlements. Neither Romney norBama would decrease military spending by a cent.

Ironically, you have more faith in Romney being a conservative than I do. He wouldn't touch entitlement spending with a 10 foot pole. He's a Massachusetts Republican, not a flyover-country Libertarian.

Oct 24, 2012#219

Gilgamesh

Yet he openly talks about getting government money to pay for his Olympics back in his 2002 video. He took gobs of money and openly said it was the best option.

Oct 24, 2012#220

Bubble181

Gas: nobody cares whether or not the army has more bayonets. It was a sound bite. It was a way to succinctly make a point. had he said bow & arrow, would you have been content?Or sticks? Or Gatling guns? The point was "technology of which we don't need any more right at this moment".

Oct 24, 2012#221

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Yet he openly talks about getting government money to pay for his Olympics back in his 2002 video. He took gobs of money and openly said it was the best option.

I think you misread me. I agree with you on this point. By saying he's a Massachusetts Republican, I am implying he is not conservative.

Bubble181 said:
Gas: nobody cares whether or not the army has more bayonets. It was a sound bite. It was a way to succinctly make a point. had he said bow & arrow, would you have been content?Or sticks? Or Gatling guns? The point was "technology of which we don't need any more right at this moment".

"Nobody" cares about the sound bite because the talking heads are all on Team Biter. If nobody cared about it, it wouldn't have been tweeted nine jillion times in the first half of the week.

Bows and Arrows, yes. Sticks wouldn't have been a good sound byte. Gatling guns would have been innacurate because we still use them in our A-10s and M163s.

I'm not sure I'd still agree with the point he was trying to make, but at least the sound byte everybody keeps jizzing themselves over would be less sophomoric.

Oct 24, 2012#222

Krisken

Like this argument?

Oct 24, 2012#223

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Like this argument?

Oct 24, 2012#224

Krisken

Love you too, buddy

I'll be honest, though, it would have been nice to have a discussion on what was missing in the debate (Mexico and the drug war, drone strikes, illegally detaining individuals, Guantanamo Bay, dozens of other countries that were ignored in favor of the usual Israel fellation). Instead we're just as guilty as everyone else, focused on the usual nonsense of politics in the information age.

Oct 24, 2012#225

GasBandit

I shouldn't even have to go into why neither candidate wants to touch the mexico problem.

Oct 24, 2012#226

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
I shouldn't even have to go into why neither candidate wants to touch the mexico problem.

Because there's shit-all they can do about it. That's the biggest reason.

Oct 24, 2012#227

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Because there's shit-all they can do about it. That's the biggest reason.

Neither actually wants to do anything about it. Republicans (the ones in charge of the GOP, not the rank and file voters themselves) want the cheap, exploitable labor, and democrats want the potential votes from low income minorities.

Oct 24, 2012#228

Adam

GasBandit said:
I shouldn't even have to go into why neither candidate wants to touch the mexico problem.

Crabs?

Oct 24, 2012#229

GasBandit

Adam said:
Crabs?

If only.

Oct 24, 2012#230

AshburnerX

Fixing Mexico at this point would require sending a large, standing army into the region and just overthrowing the current government. Then we'd have to go door to door and basically drive out the drug cartels. It would be Iraq and Afghanistan all over again, except on our doorstep and against an enemy that has a foothold in America already.

To put it mildly, fixing Mexico is beyond our means unless we're willing to have a long, bloody conflict against an enemy that will simply move if things get too difficult.

Oct 24, 2012#231

Charlie Don't Surf

AshburnerX said:
To put it mildly, fixing Mexico is beyond our means unless we're willing to have a long, bloody conflict against an enemy that will simply move if things get too difficult.

or willing to legalize it

Oct 24, 2012#232

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
or willing to legalize it

Weed maybe, but I see a hard road for legalizing cocaine.

Oct 24, 2012#233

Tress

Fixing Mexico actually involves fixing their economy, so the dangerous life of work with the drug cartels is no longer appealing. If people can earn a decent living doing something safe, they'll take the safe option. But fixing Mexico's economy requires a whole bunch of things Americans don't want to do.

Oct 24, 2012#234

Gilgamesh

-Fixing Mexico- is a term that just doesn't exist.

It's just that simple. If you want to fight the Drug Program then you fight it on the Borders. Not the pathetic attempt at bullshit they're doing down. You want to send a standing Army to Mexico? Unnecessary. Send one to the border. Kill/Stop the smuggling and you solve OUR part of the problem.

Living near the Mexican border about 3/4ths of my life I can tell you that they very openly traffic drugs back and forth all over South Texas because the force they're using to try and stop it is pathetic.

Oct 24, 2012#235

GasBandit

And every time someone talks about stepping up the force to prevent it, someone starts screaming about racist nazis.

Oct 24, 2012#236

Charlie Don't Surf

nah, just racist fascists that'll probably detain or shoot at anyone that "looks" like a drug dealer just like they ask papers for anyone that "looks" like an illegal

Oct 24, 2012#237

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
And every time someone talks about stepping up the force to prevent it, someone starts screaming about racist nazis.

Pretty much yeah. Mostly because a huge majority of the Border Patrol agents I've met ARE racist assholes. Even funnier? Alot of them are hispanic.

Oct 24, 2012#238

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Pretty much yeah. Mostly because a huge majority of the Border Patrol agents I've met ARE racist assholes. Even funnier? Alot of them are hispanic.

Now, now, it has been decisively shown that only white people can be racist.

Oct 24, 2012#239

strawman

Tress said:
...fixing their economy, so the dangerous life of work with the drug cartels is no longer appealing.

This suggests that once we fix our economy, our own drug problems will be resolved.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Oct 24, 2012#240

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Nope. As I said before, every soldier issued a gun is still issued a bayonet, and turns out we have more soldiers now than the quoted date - before WW1 (back when we were isolationist and had a small army and navy, the naval size of which we have again).

Heh, americans and history... (the words you're looking missing are "we entered", and btw, Romney actually said 1917)

GasBandit said:
Compared to the stroll in the park gulf war 1 was, yes, we are having trouble projecting power.

You mean the stroll in the park that ended at the Iraqi border because an actual invasion would just be a quagmire the US didn't want to be involved in?[DOUBLEPOST=1351108779][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
Now, now, it has been decisively shown that only white people can be racist.

I'm willing to bet most people you think of as hispanic consider themselves white...

Oct 24, 2012#241

Charlie Don't Surf

@Li3n said:
I'm willing to bet most people you think of as hispanic consider themselves white...

see: George Zimmerman

Oct 24, 2012#242

Adam

Charlie Don't Surf said:
see: George Zimmerman

WHARGLBHARGL

Oct 24, 2012#243

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
You mean the stroll in the park that ended at the Iraqi border because an actual invasion would just be a quagmire the US didn't want to be involved in?

In this thread: the euro who guffaws at american world awareness thinks baghdad is at the iraqi border.

My father spent a great deal of time in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne, ya dink.

I'm willing to bet most people you think of as hispanic consider themselves white...

That's a foolhardy wager to take against someone living in south texas. A foolhardy wager indeed.

Oct 24, 2012#244

Gilgamesh

The racist Hispanics I'm talking about would never be considered white by a mile. It's ridiculous how if they some how manage to get legal (even though they weren't born here or their parents weren't) they suddenly want to -deport all the illegals-.

Oct 24, 2012#245

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
The racist Hispanics I'm talking about would never be considered white by a mile. It's ridiculous how if they some how manage to get legal (even though they weren't born here or their parents weren't) they suddenly want to -deport all the illegals-.

It's the "fuck you, got mine" mentality that is in most of the conservative movement's loudest supporters. Among older people it's "fuck all entitlements except the ones I use (medicare, caid, social security), etc

Oct 24, 2012#246

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's the "fuck you, got mine" mentality that is in most of the conservative movement's loudest supporters. Among older people it's "fuck all entitlements except the ones I use (medicare, caid, social security), etc

Just about as many of those as "fuck you, gimme yours" mentalities on the other side.

Oct 24, 2012#247

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Just about as many of those as "fuck you, gimme yours" mentalities on the other side.

when it comes to "Fuck you, got mine" compared to "fuck you, I need yours to not die in the street", I side with the latter :heart:

Oct 24, 2012#248

Adam

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Oct 24, 2012#249

Krisken

Adam said:
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Yaaaaayyy!

Oct 24, 2012#250

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
when it comes to "Fuck you, got mine" compared to "fuck you, I need yours to not die in the street", I side with the latter

No, you don't. You side with the ones who think it's unfair they have to have a job to afford a plasma screen.

Oct 24, 2012#251

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
No, you don't. You side with the ones who think it's unfair they have to have a job to afford a plasma screen.

As opposed to siding with the ones that think it's unfair they can only buy 3 Ferraris or take 4 European vacations?

Oct 24, 2012#252

Krisken

Oct 24, 2012#253

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
As opposed to siding with the ones that think it's unfair they can only buy 3 Ferraris or take 4 European vacations?

As opposed to the ones that took responsibility for themselves, studied in school, made the most of the opportunities available to them, stayed clear of drugs, live within their means and don't particularly feel like carrying the ones who decided not to do so.

Oct 24, 2012#254

Krisken

Or you could say as opposed to the ones who started out with an advantage given to them over centuries of wealth and affluence, did drugs but were forgiven for being wealthy, and live within the means of their trust funds.

See? It's funny that both views, while they can be accurate describing a particular demographic of society, make you look reactionary and utterly oblivious to the possibility that all these aspects can be applied. One doesn't negate the other. That's the problem with spitting the 'rich people are horrible' and 'poor people are horrible' memes.

Oct 24, 2012#255

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Or you could say as opposed to the ones who started out with an advantage given to them over centuries of wealth and affluence, did drugs but were forgiven for being wealthy, and live within the means of their trust funds.

See? It's funny that both views, while they can be accurate describing a particular demographic of society, make you look reactionary and utterly oblivious to the possibility that all these aspects can be applied. One doesn't negate the other. That's the problem with spitting the 'rich people are horrible' and 'poor people are horrible' memes.

The ones I describe far outnumber the ones you describe. I described a large chunk of the american population while you and Charlie there describe micropercentages.

Oct 24, 2012#256

Krisken

GasBandit said:
The ones I describe far outnumber the ones you describe. I described a large chunk of the american population while you and Charlie there describe micropercentages.

I'm sorry, do you have proof of that? No? Didn't think so. Know why? They are UNFOUNDED PERCEPTIONS. They make you sound like a lunatic partisan hack, and rightly so.

Oct 24, 2012#257

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I'm sorry, do you have proof of that? No? Didn't think so. Know why? They are UNFOUNDED PERCEPTIONS. They make you sound like a lunatic partisan hack, and rightly so.

I'm sorry, are you asserting that the majority of the population is not simply living within their means, but is either desperately poor or bewilderingly wealthy?

Oct 24, 2012#258

Charlie Don't Surf

yeah, we're just talking at each other at this point

Oct 24, 2012#259

Krisken

GasBandit said:
I'm sorry, are you asserting that the majority of the population is not simply living within their means, but is either desperately poor or bewilderingly wealthy?

Really? Is that what you read out of what I said? Egads.

Oct 24, 2012#260

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yeah, we're just talking at each other at this point

Sounds like a debate to me.

Oct 24, 2012#261

Charlie Don't Surf

dammit, I was just about to make that joke

shit, I'm agreeing with you more than Romney at the foreign policy debate, ABORT ABORT

Oct 24, 2012#262

Tress

STFU Gas.

Oct 24, 2012#263

Covar

Krisken said:
Or you could say as opposed to the ones who started out with an advantage given to them over centuries of wealth and affluence, did drugs but were forgiven for being wealthy, and live within the means of their trust funds.

Those fucking assholes, making me have a job to afford my HDTV. They should have to give me their money.

Oct 24, 2012#264

Krisken

Covar said:
Those fucking assholes, making me have a job to afford my HDTV. They should have to give me their money.

Yes, thank you for illustrating how meaningless debate is here and why the Presidential debates are as vapid and substance-less as they are.

Oct 25, 2012#265

@Li3n

Gilgamesh said:
It's ridiculous how if they some how manage to get legal (even though they weren't born here or their parents weren't) they suddenly want to -deport all the illegals-.

Well unless you're a injun that is the american way...

On a more serious note though, i've seen plenty of people that i would consider "white guys with a tan because they live in a mediterranean climate" being considered non-white by americans... also, jews... how are most of them not white?

GasBandit said:
In this thread: the euro who guffaws at american world awareness thinks baghdad is at the iraqi border.

My father spent a great deal of time in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne, ya dink.

Because not knowing about WW1 is equivalent to not knowing about a small military intervention over some oil... (and my comment was more about how expected that was of you to dis-consider the war before the us joined).

But like you obviously do know when WW1 actually took place, i do realise that any conflict like that would require entering the enemy country, if only to disrupt their supply lines, i wasn't being literal.[DOUBLEPOST=1351169549][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
As opposed to the ones that took responsibility for themselves, studied in school, made the most of the opportunities available to them, stayed clear of drugs, live within their means and don't particularly feel like carrying the ones who decided not to do so.

No tax breaks for you though...

Oct 25, 2012#266

Covar

Krisken said:
Yes, thank you for illustrating how meaningless debate is here and why the Presidential debates are as vapid and substance-less as they are.

I'm sorry, I forgot only you and Charlie are allowed to use pointless hyperbole and edge cases. Perhaps I should have made a snide remark about how much better I am than people posting here and how know one will debate with me.

Also Presidential debates are vapid and substance-less because they're nothing more than political pornography, providing masturbation material for the candidate's supporters.

Oct 25, 2012#267

strawman

Covar said:
Presidential debates are vapid and substance-less because they're nothing more than political porn

Sad, but true. It does give the general public who aren't interested in visiting rallies, etc, to see how the candidates speak and carry themselves in somewhat unscripted situations, which can help one understand their character a bit better. But that's only useful for those who don't actually research their options and read things the candidates have written, or have approved to be released in their name anyway.

Oct 25, 2012#268

Adam

stienman said:
Sad, but true. It does give the general public who aren't interested in visiting rallies, etc, to see how the candidates speak and carry themselves in somewhat unscripted situations, which can help one understand their character a bit better. But that's only useful for those who don't actually research their options and read things the candidates have written, or have approved to be released in their name anyway.

So the majority then.

Oct 25, 2012#269

GasBandit

Tress said:
STFU Gas.

You wish. I never shut up. Except at 7 eastern.

Oct 25, 2012#270

Krisken

Covar said:
I'm sorry, I forgot only you and Charlie are allowed to use pointless hyperbole and edge cases. Perhaps I should have made a snide remark about how much better I am than people posting here and how know one will debate with me.

Also Presidential debates are vapid and substance-less because they're nothing more than political pornography, providing masturbation material for the candidate's supporters.

Covar, I haven't been using hyperbole. Snide, absolutely, and it's because I can always predict what you are going to write. I guess I just read your post out of habit. If you think I was being hyperbolic, perhaps you need to expand your news sources beyond Gas Bandit.

As for the political porn comment, I agree with the concept for the primary, but not for the general elections. During the primary Romney was 'teh most conservative of the conservative'. Now he's a middle of the road peacenik. Neither candidate went to their base in the last debate, but tacked to the middle.

Oct 25, 2012#271

Charlie Don't Surf

"severely conservative"

Oct 25, 2012#272

jwhouk

Wait, wait... FLYOVER COUNTRY? Gas, I thought you were based in Texas??? You LIVE in ####in' "Flyover country"!!

Oct 25, 2012#273

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
Wait, wait... FLYOVER COUNTRY? Gas, I thought you were based in Texas??? You LIVE in ####in' "Flyover country"!!

Yes. I was using it to indicate how new englanders think of us. To a Texan, "Massachusetts" is just as much an epithet as "Flyover Country."

Oct 26, 2012#274

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Yes. I was using it to indicate how new englanders think of us. To a Texan, "Massachusetts" is just as much an epithet as "Flyover Country."

New England's the bit wedged between New York and Canada, Flyover Country's the bit between New York and Los Angeles, and Texas's the bit between Disneyworld and Los Angeles, right? :whistling:

Oct 26, 2012#275

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
New England's the bit wedged between New York and Canada, Flyover Country's the bit between New York and Los Angeles, and Texas's the bit between Disneyworld and Los Angeles, right?

It's not very exact. Basically, "flyover country" is usually everything that isn't deep, deep blue state territory adjacent to an ocean.

Oct 26, 2012#276

Silent Bob

stienman said:
Sad, but true. It does give the general public who aren't interested in visiting rallies, etc, to see how the candidates speak and carry themselves in somewhat unscripted situations, which can help one understand their character a bit better. But that's only useful for those who don't actually research their options and read things the candidates have written, or have approved to be released in their name anyway.

Forums