Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 21,541 Views
  • 503 Replies
New Topic
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 10:47:37

At 10/3/12 10:22 AM, 24901miles wrote:
At 10/3/12 10:13 AM, TheMason wrote: * The policy that caused the financial collapse was set in motion by Clinton in 1999.
Citation.

A quick google search yields a few people trying to pin "the collapse" on Clinton to bypass the argument that 2000-2008 Bush-Cheney-Congress is at fault.

I've actually posted this link so often on this BBS.

Would a New York Times article written in 1999 (before Bush was even in office), suffice? Clinton is the one that allowed FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC to buy mortgages made to 'subprime' mortgage applicants. This is what set the stage for the financial collapse.

Here's a few highlights from the article:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

"''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''"

Clinton essentially caved to demands from both social groups and big finance. But here's the thing...even dealing with a flailing economy...Bush did nothing to defuse the time-bomb this Clinton de-regulation had. So don't think I'm trying to let Bush off the hook here. I'm pointing out that the crash is a result of a policy that Clinton started. Bush I think deserves blame and fault...but not all of it. Nor do I think that the Democrats are the answer given that this is a Clinton-era policy that lead to the collapse.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 10:56:40

At 10/3/12 10:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unless anything weird happens, all we have got between now and the election are the debates. As it is right now, Obama has a slim lead.

Agreed. I think Obama's chance of winning are between 52-54%.

However there are three 'weird' things that have some reason to be expected:

* September unemployment report.
* Benghazi fall-out.
* The Eurozone is starting to percolate.


Based on Romney's history with words, I would have to say the debates give a decided advantage to Obama.

For the most part I agree with you. However, one word of caution: 1980. Going into the debates Reagan was not the Reagan we know today. Political watchers expected him to fail and then Carter would waltz into a second term. Didn't work out that way.

Now, I know Romney has a history that is very much the antithesis of Reagan's communication skills. But I hope that his campaign is competent enough to have him going through strong debate prep.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 47
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 12:10:48

It seemed like it would be an easy win for Obama, considering how the hate that's been going around Romney lately, but I looked at some polls and they're actually pretty close, with some people saying that the debate tonight might actually make it or break it for Romney. Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag. Romney hasn't supported change that America is striving for, like leaving Afghanistan or legalizing gay marriage.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 12:56:36

At 10/3/12 12:10 PM, Ericho wrote: Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag.

I was thinking about this in response to Camaro's post.

Is Obama really that great of an orator? He gives great teleprompter and has great delivery. But tonight he is sharing the stage with a person who wants his job. No teleprompter. No cheering crowds of supporters. But there will be instant feedback. It's not his element. And the last time he had to do it was four years ago.

On the other hand, Romney had to do it only a few months ago. He didn't do that well on the first couple of debates but he was winning them by the end. So Romney may go into this debate with an edge, considering that being the economy is Obama's most vulnerable issue.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 15:18:30

At 10/3/12 10:56 AM, TheMason wrote: But I hope that his campaign is competent enough to have him going through strong debate prep.

Definitely possible, but Romney seems self-depricatingly reluctant to hand control of his campaign to the experts who would be able to achieve such a result.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 17:55:50

At 10/3/12 12:56 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 10/3/12 12:10 PM, Ericho wrote: Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag.
I was thinking about this in response to Camaro's post.

Is Obama really that great of an orator? He gives great teleprompter and has great delivery. But tonight he is sharing the stage with a person who wants his job. No teleprompter. No cheering crowds of supporters. But there will be instant feedback. It's not his element. And the last time he had to do it was four years ago.

The whole teleprompter thing is just a myth derived from the Rove Strategy: attack your opponents strengths. Hoover used a teleprompter. LBJ used a teleprompter. Reagan used a teleprompter. Every president since the invention of the damn things has used them. The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth. Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event. Do you really think that before Obama most presidents gave impromptu speeches, or are you going to admit that note cards and teleprompters are essentially the same exact thing?

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 19:19:34

At 10/3/12 10:34 AM, TheMason wrote: Weak, just weak. Sorry, I quoted you directly so you cannot claim 'out of context'.

And you still managed to take it out of context. You were responding to a comment that supposedly said that nothing was to be expected, that comment however was saying that the White House had little knowledge of a specific attack.

The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.

To begin with we've had 11 years with no incident, next that doesn't matter when there is insider info to the militia.

1) You say the plots are foiled. You do realize you're contradicting yourself here. UBL called for attacks and we took these threats seriously and prepared for them. If you look at the security detail in Benghazi, it was woefully inadequate for the locale.

No. Bin Laden was unable to do any type of attack outside of Afghanistan because most people in his network were dead. Combined with the heightened intelligence Al-Qaeda itself is unable to commit any attacks directly. Thus many of these "attacks" are committed by groups/individuals who aren't Al-Qaeda.

But Islamic terrorists aren't credible, when the attacks in Oslo Norway happened initially an islamic group in Oslo claimed responsibility for the attack. The militia which attacked the embassy were not in communication with Al-Qaeda. i.e. Islamic terrorist groups constantly threaten, but it's not clear when they're actually realistic.

2) They still have a good network in this part of the world. They are organized and involved in the events on the ground from Syria, to Egypt, to Tunisia, to Lybia.

No they're not. This is why say an attack like 9/11 hasn't occured since, this is why all the terrorist attacks were random; the underwear bomber the Fort Hood shooting the storming of the embassy. Because so many have died the network has been unable to effectively work together. Now they're present of course in certain area's trying to build up grassroots support by joining rebel forces but those groups tend to be formed without any connection to mainstream Al-Qaeda. because of the intense attacks by NATO they're no longer an effective force.

3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.

Oh wow. What a terrible argument. Using this logic Reagan was responsible for 9/11 because he trained Bin Laden. Nevermind the arms leftover by Qaddaffi's army.

4) A coordinated attack in the US is not impossible...but highly, highly improbable. In the Middle East, a coordinated attack by al-Qaida is very much a possibility.

That's what I was saying anyway. My point is that you're acting like it was in some way linked to Al-Qaeda when they're not very reliable.

Too bad the State Department has limited intel and investigative powers. From the stuff I've seen...al-Qaida had a hand in this.

Oh great so you know more about this than the State department.

When.

After the attack?

WTF? What part of my statement are you trying to disassemble with that rambling paragraph.

You keep a detachment of Marine guards in an embassy. You keep a helicopter ready in case the government decides they want you gone so you can get out of town. See, when the army turns and the government turns...they usually let the US get their ppl out because they don't want a war with the US.

....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.

On the other hand, a detachment of Marines could give the embassy/consulate staff a reasonable chance of surviving a coordinated terrorist attack. Instead Stevens was given a couple of CIA guys for protection.

Um he did have that, 4 Americans died 2 of those were Navy SEALS.

Bad guess. I think Obama made the right choice in taking out the Somali pirates during the Maersk Alabama hostage crisis...and then taking out UBL. In retrospect, I think invading Iraq was a very bad mistake on the part of Bush. Bush sent the military into Iraq without a coherent strategy for winning the post-invasion...Bush bungled Iraq.

I didn't say anything about Bush.

In this case the Obama administration displayed their incompetence. When you take this on top of the rest of his history, I don't think the charge of incompetence is that much of a stretch. I think its so obvious it should overcome any bias.

.....What history? I'm not sure what you mean by incompetence. You mean things like Reagan failing to kill Gaddaffi? Invading Iraq? Invading Somalia?


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 23:12:52

The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-03 23:34:15

At 10/3/12 11:12 PM, TheKlown wrote: The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwIr_dsuyCs&feature=plcp


BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-04 00:32:58

At 10/3/12 05:55 PM, Feoric wrote:
The whole teleprompter thing is just a myth derived from the Rove Strategy: attack your opponents strengths. Hoover used a teleprompter. LBJ used a teleprompter. Reagan used a teleprompter. Every president since the invention of the damn things has used them.

yeah but you can't use a teleprompter in a debate.

The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth.

I wouldn't be so certain about that.

in fact, he's made some pretty massive gaffes. one that stands out, perhaps above all others, one, that if not by ANYONE else would have caused them to be laughed off the stage of politics. Just imagine of Bush or McCain said that. it would have been front page news for a week. of course ,the media tried its damnedest to not show off his gaffes as they did with Bush's gaffes.

Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event.
there's a difference between a speech and a debate. in a speech, no one talks back.

Do you really think that before Obama most presidents gave impromptu speeches, or are you going to admit that note cards and teleprompters are essentially the same exact thing?

Given the amount of stuttering Obama did, I'd say he misses being able to use his teleprompter. not to mention, even Huffington Post grudgingly gives Romney the victory (and then slams the living shit out of him for what he didn't mention, while making no mention of what Obama didn't mention). fun night.

not as much of a myth as you want it to be.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-04 09:18:52

At 10/3/12 11:12 PM, TheKlown wrote: The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.

Let's not write him off yet. He still has 2 more debates to hopefully win, and his VP also has a debate to hopefully win. I say hopefully, because based on Romney's tone, the debates could go either way. In my opinion, if Obama starts attacking Romney personally, we could see Romney lose his cool, and start yelling potentially. He already lost it when he basically bullied Ron Paul (or was that someone else) over something Paul called him out on. Let's not forget that 90% of Romney's statements were total lies.

Remember that 716 billion Romney talked about? That's actually the amount Obama saved by cutting waste from Medicare, i.e. stuff that was not helping Medicare thrive and was probably dragging it down. Let's not forget that Obama cut spending on useless programs recently (I forget which ones at the moment), and wants to invest in renewable energy as well as bring oil and coal production to the States. If Obama can keep his cool like he did next time and attack Romney with a straight face, he could win the next debate. Let's look at all of the ammo Obama has:

- the 47% remarks
- women's rights
- gay rights
- The Affordable Care Act of 2012
- RomneyCare
- supporting China's cheating
- Romney's "Just let it die" comments regarding the auto industry in Detroit
- the amount of companies Bain Capital has destroyed, and the amount of jobs Bain has destroyed as well

The list goes on and on and on...Anyways, I'm going to go write these suggestions to Obama himself. Wish me luck!


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Blank Slate

I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-04 19:25:34

It seems pretty strange how people think Romney won if you saw the debate beginning to finish but all other points it seemed well a mediocre tie. In the beginning Romney got pretty far but as it progressed the ugly dull face of politics loomed as both candidates took the same stances on the same issues. Something is wrong when the moderator has to find differences between the candidates constantly and fails to do so. I felt Romney did an effective manouever helping define himself more and defend previous attacks, but he just didn't drive anything home. He didn't provide any plan, which I guess helped him so that Obama couldn't destroy it. And then there's the thing where both candidates say things they claim are facts but contradict each other. Obama claims there's a tax break for outsourcing jobs Romney claims there isn't, Obama says Romney will cut taxes too much Romney say he won't. I wish there was some fact checkers who constantly fact checked all of their statements once they said it. Other than that this is a good victory for Romney when everything leading up to it was a miserable joke.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Jpresley777
Jpresley777
  • Member since: Oct. 1, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-04 21:36:03

I say he loses.
But based on his rapping skills in the video below
he may just have a chance to repeat.

http://elvisrecommends.com/obamas-rap

* All in good fun..

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-04 22:01:32

At 10/3/12 05:55 PM, Feoric wrote: ... The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth. Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event. ...

* In the past when Obama has had to give impromptu speeches or deal with events that were not heavily controlled he has shown himself to be very prone to gaffes and verbal missteps. Now you may say that 'Obama is a lawyer so he's used to things like cross-examination'. That would be true if he were a trial lawyer, but he wasn't.

* Last night he went into a situation where things were unscripted. He did not know the questions in advance, much less Romney's arguments and rebuttals. That he is not good at impromptu speaking was evident last night in the debates, he withered under fire from Romney.

* Jefferson Jackson Dinner...irrelevent. It is still a prepared speech that he can rehearse ahead of time...and there is not someone who wants your job actively refuting what you have to say.

* LBJ, Reagan, other presidents, notes, etc...all a strawman argument. Those presidents and speaking techniques are not what I was talking about. I'm talking about Obama's ability as a orator. I was making the point that he is not the great communicator that other presidents were: Clinton, Reagan, JFK, FDR...three of the last four great communicators we had as presidents were Democrats. Obama has had his moments...like all presidents do...but he is not one of the greats with or without a teleprompter.

All in all...you claim that this is a myth created by Karl Rove. Judging by last night's debate performance this myth is: CONFIRMED.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-04 22:18:36

At 10/4/12 09:18 AM, HiryuGouki wrote: ...his VP also has a debate to hopefully win.

Biden is a liability for the campaign, while Ryan is a budgetary wonk and knows the numbers forwards and backwards. Where I was worried about Romney...I'm not worried about Ryan because how weak his opponent is. But hey...Romney did surprise last night along with Obama.


... as well as bring oil and coal production to the States. ...

You might want to do some research into how the administration has dealt with these issues over the past four years (and not what he says now to get your vote).


- the 47% remarks

That it was not brought up last night tells me that the campaign has done some focus group testing and found that this is actually a non-starter. Or, they know by bringing it up allows Romney a chance to confront it and repair the damage (therefore it would be better for Obama to let his PAC proxies use it). Most likely it is a combo of the two.

- women's rights
- gay rights

These only work on 'single issue' voters who are radical about these issues. Chances are...they were not going to vote for Romney anyway. Also...women's rights are somewhat subjective. Not every woman thinks that being opposed to Sandra Fluke (sp?) is the same thing as being a misogynist.

- The Affordable Care Act of 2012

Not enough to make a strong case for Obama. It's a better environment for it than in June, but a plurality (51%) still favor its repeal.

- RomneyCare

That was brought up last night in the debate, which is a tactical mistake because now the opponent can deal with it head-on. So now it is nullified as an issue.

- supporting China's cheating

You're getting a little wonky here, plus Romney can fire back that Obama waited until late in the election cycle to do anything about...making the claim that Obama was just playing politics.

- Romney's "Just let it die" comments regarding the auto industry in Detroit

This is Romney's "You didn't build it" sound bite, and it could cost him Ohio. Of all the things you've spelled out, this is the one that poses any threat.

- the amount of companies Bain Capital has destroyed, and the amount of jobs Bain has destroyed as well

Bain has an 80% rate of success with their mergers and acquisitions...which is actually pretty stellar for the business they are in. So when you look at the numbers and facts...you are being lied to my friend.

But at the same time, Romney does need to answer these allegations head on with these facts and point out that Obama and/or his proxies are lying and provide the facts. If not...Romney deserves to lose.


The list goes on and on and on...Anyways, I'm going to go write these suggestions to Obama himself. Wish me luck!

I would suggest that you take a few courses on electoral behavior, campaigning workshops with Democrats on Campus, and work on a few campaigns as a staffer (college kids can do this on the state legislative level) before you start advising the Obama campaign.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 00:11:17

At 10/3/12 07:19 PM, Warforger wrote: And you still managed to take it out of context. You were responding to a comment that supposedly said that nothing was to be expected, that comment however was saying that the White House had little knowledge of a specific attack.

No...I'm not taking it out of context. I'm pointing out that the following premise of your argument is wrong:
that the level of warning the Obama Administration had was about as ambiguous as the warning the Bush Administration had.

Now they may not have know the specifics about number of militants and timing. But they did have a target (US interests in Libya) and a date (9/11). That, from a military/national security perspective, is far more specific than the "an attack is imminent" warning Bush had.

The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.
To begin with we've had 11 years with no incident, next that doesn't matter when there is insider info to the militia.

To begin with you have to look no further than Wikipedia to see you are incorrect.

And there are ways of countering insiders with the militia. You simply give them the day off and have security run by US personnel. That's the way we've done it before.

No. Bin Laden was unable to do any type of attack outside of Afghanistan because most people in his network were dead. Combined with the heightened intelligence Al-Qaeda itself is unable to commit any attacks directly. Thus many of these "attacks" are committed by groups/individuals who aren't Al-Qaeda.

1) UBL was in Pakistan soon after 9/11.

2) You simply do not know how al-Qaida operates. It is a multi-headed hydra designed to operate even if UBL or al-Zawahiri were isolated. Here's some reading for you.


But Islamic terrorists aren't credible, when the attacks in Oslo Norway happened initially an islamic group in Oslo claimed responsibility for the attack. The militia which attacked the embassy were not in communication with Al-Qaeda. i.e. Islamic terrorist groups constantly threaten, but it's not clear when they're actually realistic.

You need to learn about the process of radicalization. Al-Qaida operatives do not just go waltzing into organizations they wish to infilitrate and say: "Hi, I'm Abdul and I want to talk to you about joining al-Qaida." They infilitrate and organize and in the cases of militias in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Iraq...direct activities. All without letting the participants know they are part of an al-Qaida operation.


No they're not. This is why say an attack like 9/11 hasn't occured since, this is why all the terrorist attacks were random; the underwear bomber the Fort Hood shooting the storming of the embassy. Because so many have died the network has been unable to effectively work together. Now they're present of course in certain area's trying to build up grassroots support by joining rebel forces but those groups tend to be formed without any connection to mainstream Al-Qaeda. because of the intense attacks by NATO they're no longer an effective force.

*sigh*

This is not why a 9/11 attack hasn't occured since. There are two main reasons:
1) Increased security measures in the US and countries that fly to the US.
2) al-Qaida diverted their resources to fighting the US in Iraq.

Now you talk about connections to 'mainstream Al-Qaeda' (sic); there never has been such a thing. Al-Qaida uses a modified cell structure that uses many, many cells so that even if the uppermost cell is compromised the organization can live on. A good novel demonstrating this would Robert Heinlen's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Furthermore, al-Qaida is known for it's technological savy in the way it communicates. For example, it found a way to imbed messages in the empty spaces of .jpg files. They used sports and porn pics to imbed these messages and send them back and forth to one another to avoid detection. Therefore, it would be near impossible to stamp out every network of cells.

3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.
Oh wow. What a terrible argument. Using this logic Reagan was responsible for 9/11 because he trained Bin Laden. Nevermind the arms leftover by Qaddaffi's army.

Too bad for you, it's not a terrible argument. The difference is at the time, the thought was we would allies in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan used the money to train elements that would become the Taliban to fight an insurgent war against India. Instead they returned to Afghanistan full of Islamic zeal and anti-west/outsider conviction.

In Libya we just assumed the rebels were Jeffersonian Democrats...with 30+ years of experience telling us not to. Essentially, Obama didn't learn from Reagan's mistake.

That's what I was saying anyway. My point is that you're acting like it was in some way linked to Al-Qaeda when they're not very reliable.

Now who's twisting words? I'm saying that in the Middle East a coordinated attack by al-Qaida IS a very likely probablity. You're saying its not.

Oh great so you know more about this than the State department.

I know what capabilities the State Department has. Ergo, on the open source stuff at least, I know better who to listen to. And it's not State.

When
After the attack?

Dude! You realize you just lost this point, don't you? The point is: a Marine security detachment should have been deployed long before the attack. That it was not in place by 9/11 is a sign of the administration's incompetence in National Security matters.


....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.

Yes it does.

Um he did have that, 4 Americans died 2 of those were Navy SEALS.

Um...no he did not have that. As we learn more about the attack he did not have the full security complement for an embassy in the region/country...nor were the facilities properly hardened against such an attack. As for the former Navy SeALs, so? Make a Marine Embassy Detachment, this does not.

I didn't say anything about Bush.

No, you made an ad hominem accusation that I would not be as critical as a president I supported. I'm pointing out that you are wrong. Here's a few more gems for you:

I like Reagan as a president over the first Bush. But:

Reagan didn't really have many military successes. Grenada, while ultimately successful, was a bungling operation that only succeeded b/c of the inadequacy of the invaders we pushed out. Other than that, Reagan didn't do much militarily. Bush I on the other had was rather successful militarily (Panama, Iraq, early stages of Somalia). Clinton was mixed. Somalia was a travesty that was bungled at his level. But OPERATION: Desert Fox and the Kosovo Air Campaigns were very effective.

... I'm not sure what you mean by incompetence. ...

Obama has damaged our reputation with France, England, Israel and even proven ineffective in South Korea. He missed a chance at change in Iran. He is indecisive in making military decisions that really count such as the surge in Afghanistan...when you already have troops committed and fighting you do not take weeks to weigh all options. You either send in more or pull everyone out. I personally think he should've pulled us out of there instead of sending in a surge.

And please do not bring up killing UBL. The killing of one man, even a symbolic one like UBL, is less important than winning the war. I'm not saying it's not a good thing, I actually support it and think Obama did good. But make a comprehensive foreign/military policy, it does not.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 00:23:28

At 10/5/12 12:11 AM, TheMason wrote:
....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.
Yes it does.

I was running out of space, so I thought I'd finish and come back to this point.

When the government loses control of the military, if it is a true military and not a militia, the Generals or Colonels or Sergeants that take over realize that they cannot take on the US or any outside power for that matter. So they may bluster about attacking US interests...but let US interests 'get away'. They are smart enough to know that they have to consolidate power, and just by taking over the US will probably pull out any way.

Now, in the case of militias you do have a point that there is increased threats and the situation is incredibly unstable. Which actually works AGAINST your argument that Obama was taken by surprise. If you're going to open up an embassy in the middle of Benghazi where rebels are consolidating their power base...and politics are based upon balancing the very delicate and complex nuances of competing Northern African and/or Arabian tribal governments...you may not want to treat security like you would in London, Paris, Seoul or even Moscow or Beijing.

You want to harden the facilities to keep mobs out, and as far from the compound's buildings as possible. You want, not just a small security team, but a full-on Marine Corps security detachment...as big as the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) will allow. Furthermore, you make sure the SOFA either excludes the USMC Embassy Detachment as counting against it...or allows for a huge Marine presence.

These are not some 'hindsight' lessons learned...or armchair Generaling from a Republican...these are Standard Operating Procedures. That the embassy/consulate was such a soft target with weak security should be a national scandal.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 01:28:42

At 10/5/12 12:23 AM, TheMason wrote: Now, in the case of militias you do have a point that there is increased threats and the situation is incredibly unstable. Which actually works AGAINST your argument that Obama was taken by surprise.

To a point, yes, but you're not going far enough. When the threats have gone from many to extreme and the percentage of them that get carried out is almost 0, the surprise factor returns amidst the spike in threats. This is because the spike is of threats, not actions. 10,000 threats with no action presents a more surprise prone situation than 100 threats and 3 actions. Somebody going from the latter to the former over a period of time would likely lower their readiness in correlation to the massive drop in credibility of the threats.

If you're going to open up an embassy in the middle of Benghazi where rebels are consolidating their power base...and politics are based upon balancing the very delicate and complex nuances of competing Northern African and/or Arabian tribal governments...you may not want to treat security like you would in London, Paris, Seoul or even Moscow or Beijing.

True, but in such a volatile nation with an infant government, the last you want to do is overtly show a massive military presence. If peaceful relations are the goal, sending a garrison in to protect an embassy would end up doing more harm to a much higher degree of certainty than leaving the embassy slightly under-protected in an attempt to appear as an embassy instead of an occupation force.

Obama played the long term stability game and got dinged a little in the short term, but (almost ironically) has ended up with a better relationship with Libya and the Libyan people because of the attack. If I were an ambassador in a country with an icy to mediocre view of the US, I would gladly die to bring the people and countries together. The "Mistake" you so harp on may actually end up being the mortar that holds the US-Libya relationship together. I would also highly caution against your "military is everything" cold war diplomacy when it comes to the Middle East. The mess over there is largely a result of such diplomacy, and the only actions that have dampened the mess have been soft touch and cereberal.

BUTANE
BUTANE
  • Member since: May. 9, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 11:30:56

At 10/3/12 11:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 10/3/12 11:12 PM, TheKlown wrote: The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwIr_dsuyCs&feature=plcp

This video is essentially saying that it doesn't matter who wins, both major parties are run by corporate overlords. Ok, if thats's the way you see it, then there is a clear difference in this election, because the idea of corporate money running the country comes to to campaign finance laws. Obama was a supporter of the McCain-Feingold act, he wants to regulate money in politics. By not voting, you think are saying that you don't like corporate money in politics and how it causes the entire system to be corrupt, but mostly....you just don't know anything about the candidates, and are too lazy to read the news or even check out the wikipedia page seeing what their stances are.

And even if I'm wrong. Not voting because it is simply a "lesser of two evils" election. Why would that stop you from voting? It is still better to have the lesser of two evils than it is to have the greater of two evils. If in ever election you vote for the lesser of the two evils, as candidates run for re-election and lose to the new lesser of the two evils, eventially the "lesser evil" candidates will just be good candidates and the system will be purged of the problem.

Not voting is fucking stupid no matter how you look at it. It is basically giving up your own voice and empowering the voice of your political opponents.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 15:00:29

At 10/4/12 12:32 AM, Korriken wrote: yeah but you can't use a teleprompter in a debate.

You're right, you can't, but using a teleprompter doesn't magically make you charismatic or a good orator. TheMason seemed to be implying using a teleprompter somehow gives you the gift of gab. It doesn't.

in fact, he's made some pretty massive gaffes. one that stands out, perhaps above all others, one, that if not by ANYONE else would have caused them to be laughed off the stage of politics. Just imagine of Bush or McCain said that. it would have been front page news for a week. of course ,the media tried its damnedest to not show off his gaffes as they did with Bush's gaffes.

Here's a fun assignment for you. Think of any politician ever. Type his or her name into google. Then type 'gaffe' after it. Every politician makes gaffes, even Obama. I don't think any rational person would make the claim that their candidate of choice is perfect and insusceptible to making mistakes on the campaign trail. It's not so much the gaffes that count (making the assumption they're minor disasters only in the news cycle for a few days at the most), it's how many you make. Nobody honestly believes Obama thinks there are 57 states (he likely confused states with states + territories + DC) but consistency is important. Romney has consistently appeared out of touch, stiff, awkward and robotic during his campaign. Bush consistently spoke like an idiot. Romney's problem is that he has repeatedly since day one made otherwise minor miscalculations and mistakes if they were to be isolated incidents, but it seems to never end (Big Bird?). It's death by a thousand cuts. And that's why "The Media(TM)" isn't reporting on Obama's gaffes in proportion of Bush's or Romney's: he didn't make as many as them.

there's a difference between a speech and a debate. in a speech, no one talks back.

Okay, but that's besides my point. Being charismatic and a good orator doesn't necessarily make you a good debater. It certainly helps, but you're right, giving a good speech and giving a good debate are two different games completely and are run by different rules with a different way of approach.

Given the amount of stuttering Obama did, I'd say he misses being able to use his teleprompter. not to mention, even Huffington Post grudgingly gives Romney the victory (and then slams the living shit out of him for what he didn't mention, while making no mention of what Obama didn't mention). fun night.

Romney winning the debate (which he did), again, doesn't disprove the fact that Obama is incapable of functioning without a teleprompter. How would you even use a teleprompter at a debate? Really, think about that for a second. If anything it would make your performance worse.

not as much of a myth as you want it to be.

Well, it's certainly your right to believe that.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 15:28:21

At 10/4/12 10:01 PM, TheMason wrote: * In the past when Obama has had to give impromptu speeches or deal with events that were not heavily controlled he has shown himself to be very prone to gaffes and verbal missteps.

Yes, people in general are prone to make mistake in unscripted territory, but can you demonstrate to me in no uncertain terms that Obama is a bumbling jackass during campaign stops at a supermarket or whatever? Because there's plenty of footage of Romney being incredibly awkward seemingly everywhere he goes. Yes, Obama has made gaffes, and he likely will make many more in the future, but there's certainly a false equivalency here.

* Last night he went into a situation where things were unscripted. He did not know the questions in advance, much less Romney's arguments and rebuttals. That he is not good at impromptu speaking was evident last night in the debates, he withered under fire from Romney.

Again, you think the fact that Obama lost the debate is somehow evidence that he misses his teleprompter and it's a really stupid argument. Debating and giving speeches are two different things completely.

* Jefferson Jackson Dinner...irrelevent. It is still a prepared speech that he can rehearse ahead of time...and there is not someone who wants your job actively refuting what you have to say.

You're right, in the context of debating, it's completely irrelevant, so why do you keep drawing connections between the two? Giving good speeches != being good at debating.

* LBJ, Reagan, other presidents, notes, etc...all a strawman argument. Those presidents and speaking techniques are not what I was talking about. I'm talking about Obama's ability as a orator. I was making the point that he is not the great communicator that other presidents were: Clinton, Reagan, JFK, FDR...three of the last four great communicators we had as presidents were Democrats. Obama has had his moments...like all presidents do...but he is not one of the greats with or without a teleprompter.

You know it was Obama's keynote speech in 2004 that propelled him into the spotlight of national politics, right? And Obama actually dislikes teleprompters?

"Obama, who prefers speaking extemporaneously, had no experience working with a teleprompter or addressing a group this loud and lively."

All in all...you claim that this is a myth created by Karl Rove. Judging by last night's debate performance this myth is: CONFIRMED.

Just like Korriken, you're more than welcome to believe that.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 17:18:07

At 10/5/12 01:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote: To a point, yes, but you're not going far enough. When the threats have gone from many to extreme and the percentage of them that get carried out is almost 0, the surprise factor returns amidst the spike in threats. This is because the spike is of threats, not actions. 10,000 threats with no action presents a more surprise prone situation than 100 threats and 3 actions. Somebody going from the latter to the former over a period of time would likely lower their readiness in correlation to the massive drop in credibility of the threats.

True, however the situation in Libya is still in a state of flux and unstable. Therefore, you do not put down your guard. Also, the timeline and number of events have yet to reach a point that one can be reasonably complacent. If this were 2016 or 2020...maybe. But so soon after the end of hostilities? Not even a year had passed when the attack occurred.

So while I agree with what you're saying, it does not apply in this instance.


True, but in such a volatile nation with an infant government, the last you want to do is overtly show a massive military presence. If peaceful relations are the goal, sending a garrison in to protect an embassy would end up doing more harm to a much higher degree of certainty than leaving the embassy slightly under-protected in an attempt to appear as an embassy instead of an occupation force.

... I would also highly caution against your "military is everything" cold war diplomacy when it comes to the Middle East. The mess over there is largely a result of such diplomacy, and the only actions that have dampened the mess have been soft touch and cereberal.

A few things to point out that you are in error on:

* Having one or two Marine Embassy Security detachments does NOT constitute an overt or massive military presence. We're talking about each detachment being 5 Marines. In such a situation as this you can boost it to 3 or 4 because of the security threat...and you're only talking about 20 Marines.

* This does NOT constitute a "military is everything" cold war diplomacy. This is Standard Operating Procedure for US Embassies. The tradition of Marines acting as security, couriers and other duties related to aiding diplomacy goes back to when Jefferson dealt with the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. Now I see where you may be confused when I talked about a SOFA; this does not necessarily have to do with establishing a military base in a country and moving thousands of troops in. Anytime you send military personnel into a country to advise or provide security you want an agreement in place whether it is 1 or 10,000 troops.

* There are many reasons the ME is so broken right now. Part of it is US military adventurism post-Cold War. Another part is the Cold War kept divisions alive over there. Another part is that France and Britian carved up the ME post-WWI into the map we know today with a Colonial worldview and paid no attention to tribal, religious and sociological divisions that only served to highlight tribal division and animosity. And yet another problem is the emotions surrounding Israel. The only one that may be most helpful, instructive and produce positive results is figuring out a way to keep the various tribes from killing each other over eons old blood fueds.

A soft touches and cereberal approaches have not helped the mess over there. And Obama playing long ball is a convient cover for him not knowing what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. It's utter bullshit. Libya is a country of competing tribes with divisions that are far deeper than typical ethnic ones. The government is unified at the moment, but that does not mean it will be for long. So there is a high risk to operating in country.

I favor the Chinese way of doing business. Leave the country to its internal affairs and figure out what it needs to stabilize. But, let them know that our embassies and citizens working there are off-limits and we will handle our own security. This is a not a "military" or "gunboat" diplomacy; I'm not advocating for shows of force or establishing a military presence in terms of garrisoning troops in country for military means (ie: infantry, air force, artillery, naval presence). But our traditional Marine Embassy guards who fall under the civilian Security Officer of the Embassy/Consulate. It is a reasonable, common and accepted way of doing business.

Also two things to consider:

1) We are dealing with a culture that on a fundamental level respects strength. If you show weakness they will walk all over you, with a smile and hand you a cup of tea so you feel he's doing you a favor. They are very much looking primarily after their own self-interest and if they think playing up to your cereberal worldview they will. They will also view you as a push-over. By not have some show of security you're opening yourself to being walked all over.

2) The Marines are not there just to protect the Ambassador, but classified information as well. In this case no one was taking care of securing the classified info and now it's out.

This was a failure. Furthermore, I think it shows a naivete on the part of the administration on how to conduct foreign policy.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
NeverHundred
NeverHundred
  • Member since: Apr. 26, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 18:16:43

The debate lacked all forms of sexual intrigue, due to this I failed to pay attention.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-05 21:10:39

At 10/5/12 06:16 PM, NeverHundred wrote: The debate lacked all forms of sexual intrigue, due to this I failed to pay attention.

Guess what? Voting is even more devoid of sedual intrigue...so you may want to skip it.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-06 13:14:52

At 10/4/12 09:18 AM, HiryuGouki wrote:
- the 47% remarks

Romney is right. While I can't cite an exact number, there are a large number of americans who are just fine letting the government decide things for them. Being it education, medical care, whatever. Look at how many people are willing to give up thier choice in healthcare just because the government says they can handle it. Look at how many people don't want to invest in their future because they're counting on the government to handle it. That is what the 47% comment was about. Some people in America want to control their own damn lives, and want the government to leave them alone. 47% of the people trust/want the government to care for them.

- women's rights

Which women's rights does he wanna take away? The right to vote? The right to serve in the military? The right to earn equal wages as a man? As I understand, he'd leave abortion "rights" to be decided by the state, as protected by the Tenth Amendment. That's hardly the same as banning it outright. Here's a clue. Historically, it was democrats who were the violators of human rights. Women's rights, and racial rights were championed by republicans?

- gay rights

This is an issue, but again, I don't see him saying anything about a federal ban on gay marriage.

- The Affordable Care Act of 2012

The Affordable Care act isn't affordable, and takes away the right to choose your healthcare. That's why he wants it gone. For someone who complains about rights, you sure seem to be okay with the govenrment infringing on a person's rights to choose their own doctor, or the right of old people to have help in their medical care.

- RomneyCare

What about it? I don't agree with it, but what about it?

- supporting China's cheating

Where has Romney supported that? If you watched the debate, he openly stated he would reduce our economic involvemnt with China.

- Romney's "Just let it die" comments regarding the auto industry in Detroit

How is that bad? They should have died. They made the mistake, and should pay for it. Not me, and not you.

- the amount of companies Bain Capital has destroyed, and the amount of jobs Bain has destroyed as well

Actually Bain Capital hasn't destroyed any business. If you disagree, can you show which ones?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-06 13:53:09

At 10/6/12 01:14 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Romney is right. 47% of the people trust/want the government to care for them.

No. Romney was NOT right. There are some who fit the bill, but not even close to 47%. The most liberal (is number, not politics) estimates would put these folks at 10%. Chances are, it's much more likely at 1-2%. Heck, for a year a couple of years ago my wife and I just so happened to match up enough deductions and credits to make where we paid no Federal income tax that year. And that was BEFORE I took any government assistance. Also, don't forget those die hard conservative families who scratch out a living but wouldn't be caught dead on programs, or those families who are only on programs to directly avoid being caught dead. Romney's statement was 100% elitist cluelessness.

Historically, it was democrats who were the violators of human rights. Women's rights, and racial rights were championed by republicans?

First off, don't ever bring this argument up again. It wastes my mind space when Mason does it, and he's a million times better at debating than you. Second, you're wrong. Indiana was a Republican State when it was run by the KKK. Third, who cares? How things were in the parties before you were born is of no concern to today's election.

This is an issue, but again, I don't see him saying anything about a federal ban on gay marriage.

That's right. Romney plays the typical conservative bullshit game. "We want it to be a state issue. That is until states start going against our views and then it was a Federal issue all along." Also, don't forget the power of a President to place SCOTUS judges who will be deciding such issues in the near future.

The Affordable Care act isn't affordable, and takes away the right to choose your healthcare.

Who told you this bullshit? NOTHING in the ACA restricts what healthcare you can get and where. The ACA takes away your right to choose to free ride off the premium payments of others while you're healthy and then jump on the insurance boat when you're sick.

What about it? I don't agree with it, but what about it?

It's Obamacare. He essentially created Obamacare and now he thinks it's the devil. I wonder what he will say next debate after he's been turned upside down and shaken.

Where has Romney supported that? If you watched the debate, he openly stated he would reduce our economic involvemnt with China.

Supporting the practice of outsourcing to China is the OPPOSITE of reducing involvement with China.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-06 14:05:46

At 10/6/12 01:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 10/6/12 01:14 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
No. Romney was NOT right. There are some who fit the bill, but not even close to 47%. The most liberal (is number, not politics) estimates would put these folks at 10%. Chances are, it's much more likely at 1-2%. Heck, for a year a couple of years ago my wife and I just so happened to match up enough deductions and credits to make where we paid no Federal income tax that year. And that was BEFORE I took any government assistance. Also, don't forget those die hard conservative families who scratch out a living but wouldn't be caught dead on programs, or those families who are only on programs to directly avoid being caught dead. Romney's statement was 100% elitist cluelessness.

Okay, so his percentage was off. Does that mean the enitre point of his statement (some people don't want to take personal responsibility) was incorrect. There's a reason why Obama didn't bring it up.

That's right. Romney plays the typical conservative bullshit game. "We want it to be a state issue. That is until states start going against our views and then it was a Federal issue all along." Also, don't forget the power of a President to place SCOTUS judges who will be deciding such issues in the near future.

Except that doesn't really happen. Modern day conservatives are the exact opposite of state's rights, so I really don't know how you can draw this conclusion.

Who told you this bullshit? NOTHING in the ACA restricts what healthcare you can get and where. The ACA takes away your right to choose to free ride off the premium payments of others while you're healthy and then jump on the insurance boat when you're sick.

Except it does, because the government becomes the decider of where you can go. They become exactly like the insurance companies they're bitching about. ACA encourages a free ride on others' dime.

It's Obamacare. He essentially created Obamacare and now he thinks it's the devil. I wonder what he will say next debate after he's been turned upside down and shaken.

He never said it was the devil, or even that it was bad. He's stating that the federal government has a history of financially sucking (medicare, social security, even the damn post office is bankrupt) so there's no reason to add another inefficient bureaucracy to the amount of shit taxpayers are funding. And that it's wrong to take billions from Medicare to fund it.

Supporting the practice of outsourcing to China is the OPPOSITE of reducing involvement with China.

Except he doesn't support that. In fact, I believe he stated the exact opposite in the first 15 minutes of the debate.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-06 18:46:19

At 10/6/12 02:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Okay, so his percentage was off.

Yeah, WAAAAAY off. He made the vast generalization that poor=leech. Just because he's right about a tiny percent of them doesn't mean his comment should be vindicated and forgotten. There is NO way that statement can be painted in a positive light.

Does that mean the enitre point of his statement (some people don't want to take personal responsibility) was incorrect. There's a reason why Obama didn't bring it up.

Obama didn't bring it up because Obama was trying to not come out as the bad guy and ended up overdoing the 'good guy' to the point of losing the initiative and looking flustered and weak.


Except that doesn't really happen. Modern day conservatives are the exact opposite of state's rights, so I really don't know how you can draw this conclusion.

Modern Day conservatives are very pro states rights when it suits them, but will about face at the drop of a hat if it does not. See their stance of gay marriage if you want a perfect example of this.

Except it does, because the government becomes the decider of where you can go.

No it doesn't. For Medicaid and Medicare, maybe, but these are being expanded so that those who would be subject to such restrictions would go from nothing to restrictions, not freedom to restrictions. Essentially, for those who purchase health insurance now, very little will change. What does change will not involve where a patient can go and who they can see.

They become exactly like the insurance companies they're bitching about.

No they don't. The government isn't entering the insurance market outside of Medicaid and Medicare.

ACA encourages a free ride on others' dime.

No it doesn't. It's actually an attempt to lessen free riding on others' dimes through increasing access to cheaper preventative care and by forcing those who would game the system by not purchasing health insurance to either purchase it or pay a tax to support the services they will one day far more likely that not use.

And that it's wrong to take billions from Medicare to fund it.

I've heard this claim from the Right,but, as usual, none of them have even attempted to back it up.

Except he doesn't support that. In fact, I believe he stated the exact opposite in the first 15 minutes of the debate.

He doesn't support it, he just does it and make hundreds of millions off of it. Seems legit.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-10-07 02:27:08

At 10/5/12 03:28 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 10/4/12 10:01 PM, TheMason wrote: All in all...you claim that this is a myth created by Karl Rove. Judging by last night's debate performance this myth is: CONFIRMED.
Just like Korriken, you're more than welcome to believe that.

I will give you that the teleprompter focus may fall a little short of accurate. That Obama can indeed deliver a speech without a teleprompter. Here's the thing, in order to become president, and this is a change that occurred last century...you have to be able to give good speech. Or at least better than the average.

I think the core of the "Teleprompter" critique of Obama's oratory skills is NOT that he is a bumbling jackass. But that he is average...not the great communicator everyone thinks he is. In 2004 I watched him give his DNC speech and I was on the phone to my dad as I watched it. I predicted that he would run in 2012 or 2016 after Hillary took her run at the White House. I was impressed. Then I was impressed by his speech on race he gave in his 2008 run, and for awhile that year I was leaning to voting for him.

But watching him since then...he's nothing special in the oration department when compared to other presidents. Presidents who are poor to average debators can have their moments (ie: Bush after 9/11), while great communicators can flop (Clinton at the 1988 DNC). So two great speeches does not a great orator make.

The real test comes when the person is challenged by another person, especially when that person has another viewpoint. In 2008 Obama was probably at his sharpest on this point, however I think after 4 years of being the prez I think this edge has dulled considerably and it's all by his and his administration's design. Any president is surrounded by sychophants. However, many often embrace the challenge of tough questions by reporters and even people they knew did not like him. For example there is a story about Clinton and a conservative radio host (I believe it was Neal Boortz). The host was a retreat where Clinton was. He and two friends were golfing at the same as the president and the two friends went to talk to president. Clinton noticed that Boortz stayed by their golf cart, not wanting to speak to him. Once Clinton found out, he went over to Boortz and introduced himself and said he wanted to say hi. Totally disarmed the conservative talk show host.

Obama doesn't do that. If you look at the numbers, Obama lives in a world in which he is fed info by yes men.

SOLO NEWS CONFERENCES UP TO THE LAST SEPT OF FIRST TERM
Reagan: 26
Bush 1: 59
Clinton: 31
Bush 2: 13
Obama: 19

INFORMAL Q&A SESSIONS WITH REPORTERS
Reagan: 135
Bush 1: 309
Clinton: 585
Bush 2: 340
Obama: 105

Most of Obama's media appearances are with entertainers who are not known, with the exception of Robert Frost, to tackle tough issues when they interveiw the president.

Now you may bring-up his performance in the '08 presidential primaries debates against other Democrats. This would be a red-herring.
1) The target audience in a primary is made up of a vast majority of your party's base.
2) In 2008 there were many candidates running trying to take down Hillary, so Obama was not debating alone until the very end.
3) The issues were tilted towards you...regardless of who you were.

But his participation in them did help sharpen him for the debates against McCain...just as Romney's primary debates prepared him for these debates.

Source

So in a very meaningful sense, Obama lacks the background in give-and-take political discourse. He cut his teeth in Chicago politics...which is heavily Democratic. What's more, Axelrod is connected to the Daley political machine which is the most powerful political machines not only in Illinois, but arguably the country (rivaling only New York). So his time in the State Senate was in a state legislature composed of Democrats with a strong hold on power. Furthermore, he wasn't much of a leader in the State Senate so he didn't get involved in the give-and-take of inter- (much less intra-) party politics. His time in the US Senate was carefully managed by elder Democratic statesmen (and women) to protect him for a future bid for the presidency (Sen Daschle's staff was given to him when the Democratic Senate Leader left...unusual for a Junior Senator in his first term). Then as president he has been incredibly aloof from even his own party's congressional politics...much less leading the way in working with Republicans. Obama lives in a bigger, more protected bubble than any of his presidential predecessors.

He is only suited to the prepared speeches/statements in front of friendly audiences. And that showed in the most important debate of his life. His body language was that of a man who's getting a poor job review...and knows it's deserved (btw...this isn't just me, nor is it from the Right...but his supporters on the Left). He made efforts to defend himself, but rarely could he bring himself to articulate why he should be re-hired. Then he left the stage early after the debate, conceeding the victory (nonverbally) to Romney.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature