Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

[monkeybarry]

The debate irritated me slightly, mainly because of Jon Stewart. In general he was a comedian first and a debater second. He said easy things to get a round of applause or a big laugh but I think O'Reilly generally made the more informed comments.

do you that may have been in reference to politicians using soundbites irrespective of the actual question? or am i giving JS too much credit?
(i havnt watched it yet btw!)

 

[papaspur]

The debate irritated me slightly, mainly because of Jon Stewart. In general he was a comedian first and a debater second. He said easy things to get a round of applause or a big laugh but I think O'Reilly generally made the more informed comments.

And which comments were those?

 

[NW5pur]

do you that may have been in reference to politicians using soundbites irrespective of the actual question? or am i giving JS too much credit?
(i havnt watched it yet btw!)

probably said things to make people laugh because the debate was for light-hearted entertainment maybe? o'reilly also cracked a few jokes, they just weren't as funny

 

[papaspur]

do you that may have been in reference to politicians using soundbites irrespective of the actual question? or am i giving JS too much credit?
(i havnt watched it yet btw!)

During the course of the debate, both O'Reilly and Stewart said things that would be popular with the audience.
O'Reilly isn't a journalist. He's a fudging pundit with very strong, conservative opinions. He and his network are basically the only reason Stewart even has a job, who I might add doesn't totally go easy on Obama. The amount of fact-checking that The Daily Show conducts is rather impressive for a "comedy" program, but Stewart was honest when he expressed concern over the administration's handling of the recent death of Stevens in Libya.

I'm honestly very curious to hear Richie's arguments, and I understand it's a hostile environment for him in this thread, but I want to understand where he's coming from. However, to generalize any argument I've had with conservatives, what it seems to come down to at the very end is that they just don't like Obama. What option am I left with than to think that maybe... maybe someone's being a little racist/bigoted/xenophobic (not saying this is what any conservative here thinks, just in general).
They will literally MAKE brick UP that they don't like about him, like how they tried to take their guns away and how he raised the deficit. Meanwhile, after swatting all the lies they've been fed in the right-wing echo chamber and their argument is barely standing on its own spindly, quivering legs, it comes down to "I just don't like the guy".

What's going on here? Since when did reason become abandoned? I WANT a genuine conservative party in politics because that will at least keep the other side honest. I will then HAVE a choice. In this election, it's not really a choice when it's between the incumbent president who's had his job made even more difficult by partisan politics, and the lying douchebag on the other side who will discard his own platform in order to gain mass appeal.
Do we Americans really just like to have our backs stroked and be told things we want to hear? People in this country need a fudging reality check, especially when it comes to the side that won't be beholden to fact-checkers (this is basically what Romney's campaign said, verbatim).

 

[jts1882]

watched this last night, brilliant hour and a half of entertainment - john stewart is the best political commentator / comedian around by a country mile! although o'reilly gets taken to the cleaners on every issue i did actually surprise myself by warming to him slightly towards the end, clearly not the frothing at the mouth right wing lunatic his fox news persona portrays, at least not all the time!

I used to watch O'Reilly's show every night a while back. His no spin zone was fairly named and he allowed his guests the last word. But his success got to his head, notably lecturing an antiwar campaigner on what his dad (who died in the Iraq/Afghan war) would really be thinking. Despicable. And it made his comment on the Iraq war being wrong being very ironic. This debate showed that he does have a brain and some independent thought (he just generally stopped using it).

The one area O'Reilly definitely won was when Stewart confused the deficit and debt. Stewart's basic point was right, Bush converted a surplus to a deficit and ramped up the debt, but he said the whole debt when Bush left office was his doing. Stewart can probably make some trend claims but he got the facts wrong. Also Stewart's blurring of the lines on the state and private health care provided to O'Reilly's father was misleading. The most annoying bit was O'Reilly on the health plan where he parroted the usual misinformation about the private sector being more efficient and less effective despite evidence to the contrary (too much time on BS mountain).

Stewart's strongest point was on answering the wrong question. He is right about the acceptance of a social democracy and just determining the balance. O'Reilly couldn't admit this without self-combusting but implicitly agreed with it with some of his more thoughtful comments (e.g. capitalism promoting the hate merchants). Unlike many Republican he does believe in limited government and isn't trying to make it fail for ideological reasons (e.g. Paul Ryan)

 

[Richie]

The one area O'Reilly definitely won was when Stewart confused the deficit and debt. Stewart's basic point was right, Bush converted a surplus to a deficit and ramped up the debt, but he said the whole debt when Bush left office was his doing. Stewart can probably make some trend claims but he got the facts wrong. Also Stewart's blurring of the lines on the state and private health care provided to O'Reilly's father was misleading. The most annoying bit was O'Reilly on the health plan where he parroted the usual misinformation about the private sector being more efficient and less effective despite evidence to the contrary (too much time on BS mountain).

Stewart's strongest point was on answering the wrong question. He is right about the acceptance of a social democracy and just determining the balance. O'Reilly couldn't admit this without self-combusting but implicitly agreed with it with some of his more thoughtful comments (e.g. capitalism promoting the hate merchants). Unlike many Republican he does believe in limited government and isn't trying to make it fail for ideological reasons (e.g. Paul Ryan)

I agree with most of this. I thought O'Rielly made himself look like an idiot with his explanation for why the military should stay in the public sector as 'tradition'. There's clearly more to it that that, the main one being that it the military needs to be accountable to the entire electorate and it being controlled by politicians is the best way to do that. Also I don't see where the profit incentive is for running a military so I can't see how the private sector could do it.

I just felt O'Reilly was better prepared coming in to the debate. I understand it was intended for entertainment but it irritates me in debates when people constantly turn to cracking jokes or sarcasm instead of arguing the point head on which I felt Stewart was guilty of.

An example of something he did that irritated me was when O'Reilly made the point about small government and disbanding NPR and Stewart said 'well if you want your money back for NPR, I want my money back for the Iraq war' which got a big round of applause. The reality is that the Iraq war has cost the US $800bn in 9 years, an admittedly hefty amount, but in that time debt has gone from $7tn to $16tn. Iraq war was part of the problem, but hardly the sole cause.

Also it annoyed me that Stewart kept attacking Bush when O'Reilly wasn't even defending him. The previous republican government is in a large part to blame for the crisis, but O'Reilly was arguing about what Obama has done (or rather, has not done) in his full term and Stewart kept blaming Bush.

By contrast the conservatives in this country are still blaming Labour for the mess, and rightly so. Just as the Democrats should be blaming the Republicans. But at least the conservatives have been trying to tackle the deficit whereas Obama inherited a $1tn deficit and four years later it's still there. O'Reilly also made the great point that further tax increases on the rich would raise $90bn, a start perhaps but you'd still have to make $900bn worth of cuts, something which Obama hasn't been willing to do.

If Obama wins another term, I'd be shocked if the deficit goes down. I believe he may not add to it, but a Democrat isn't going to cut things like welfare which a right wing government would.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

But at least the conservatives have been trying to tackle the deficit whereas Obama inherited a $1tn deficit and four years later it's still there. O'Reilly also made the great point that further tax increases on the rich would raise $90bn, a start perhaps but you'd still have to make $900bn worth of cuts, something which Obama hasn't been willing to do.

Did Obama not offer the Republicans a 10:1 costs reduction-to-tax increase deal as part of the Simpson-Bowles Commission a year or so ago which they rejected? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just don't honestly remember if this was the case or not.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Great video from the only Independent Senator currently in office...

[video=youtube;KYPvaC831xY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPvaC831xY&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[thfcsteff]

I agree with most of this. I thought O'Rielly made himself look like an idiot with his explanation for why the military should stay in the public sector as 'tradition'. There's clearly more to it that that, the main one being that it the military needs to be accountable to the entire electorate and it being controlled by politicians is the best way to do that. Also I don't see where the profit incentive is for running a military so I can't see how the private sector could do it.

I just felt O'Reilly was better prepared coming in to the debate. I understand it was intended for entertainment but it irritates me in debates when people constantly turn to cracking jokes or sarcasm instead of arguing the point head on which I felt Stewart was guilty of.

An example of something he did that irritated me was when O'Reilly made the point about small government and disbanding NPR and Stewart said 'well if you want your money back for NPR, I want my money back for the Iraq war' which got a big round of applause. The reality is that the Iraq war has cost the US $800bn in 9 years, an admittedly hefty amount, but in that time debt has gone from $7tn to $16tn. Iraq war was part of the problem, but hardly the sole cause.

Also it annoyed me that Stewart kept attacking Bush when O'Reilly wasn't even defending him. The previous republican government is in a large part to blame for the crisis, but O'Reilly was arguing about what Obama has done (or rather, has not done) in his full term and Stewart kept blaming Bush.

By contrast the conservatives in this country are still blaming Labour for the mess, and rightly so. Just as the Democrats should be blaming the Republicans. But at least the conservatives have been trying to tackle the deficit whereas Obama inherited a $1tn deficit and four years later it's still there. O'Reilly also made the great point that further tax increases on the rich would raise $90bn, a start perhaps but you'd still have to make $900bn worth of cuts, something which Obama hasn't been willing to do.

If Obama wins another term, I'd be shocked if the deficit goes down. I believe he may not add to it, but a Democrat isn't going to cut things like welfare which a right wing government would.

A war which never needed to happen. A war which fought 'terrorism' based on 9-11 in a country from which the terrorists didn't come. A war against terrorism, which in and of itself is not a sovereign state and as such not an entity you can actually go to 'official' war with. If you can honestly tell me that some of the billions upon billions spent on outfitting a war of this nature with the products provided by the likes of Halliburton and Kellog was NOT born of some type of self-interest, then I feel sorry for you. IF the objective had been to target, and take out, the people behind 9-11, a focussed intelligence effort-and-strike on Bin Laden would've satisfied the blood lust (and created a martyr of course) but that might've been a small price to pay for instead making sure the region remains destabilized and under enough attack from within and outside to allow fundamentalist nutters to get a greater foothold amongst the publics of certain nations. BTW, before anyone tells me that this sort of thing has been 'outlawed' by international law, I'd like to point out that regime change certainly has not been, and I consider regime change to be the single biggest clown shoe-move of the 20th century, especially as the west never ever seems to back the right horse when they meddle in the affairs of others... Look, Bliar is as responsible as anyone, but the fact remains, those people set the template for this mess and if anyone GENUINELY expected Obama to be able to undo 9 years of associated and referred federal budgetary flimflam as a result, I can only conclude they leave cookies out for Santa and earnestly believe in the toothfairy.

On other thing...anyone who believes that inter-state competition in health care would be good for the consumer simply does not understand the nature of true capitalism! If this is a discussion/debate anyone would like to have, I'd be happy...

All in the spirit of debate incidentally...

 

[papaspur]

I agree with most of this. I thought O'Rielly made himself look like an idiot with his explanation for why the military should stay in the public sector as 'tradition'. There's clearly more to it that that, the main one being that it the military needs to be accountable to the entire electorate and it being controlled by politicians is the best way to do that. Also I don't see where the profit incentive is for running a military so I can't see how the private sector could do it.

The military is probably the second oldest employer in history, if prostitution is the oldest profession in history. Why congress decided to give MORE money to defense (meanwhile, the right is claiming that Obama reduced the military's budget, which is 100% certified flimflam).

Military industrial complex. Eisenhower warned against it, yet we have a giant private economy dedicated to researching and developing new weapons and technologies for our military.

I just felt O'Reilly was better prepared coming in to the debate. I understand it was intended for entertainment but it irritates me in debates when people constantly turn to cracking jokes or sarcasm instead of arguing the point head on which I felt Stewart was guilty of.

Stewart is a comedian, he's good at making people laugh. You say he was a comedian first, debater second. Of course, I think O'Reilly is a comedian, just not a funny one at all. Not really going to change your mind on this one...

An example of something he did that irritated me was when O'Reilly made the point about small government and disbanding NPR and Stewart said 'well if you want your money back for NPR, I want my money back for the Iraq war' which got a big round of applause. The reality is that the Iraq war has cost the US $800bn in 9 years, an admittedly hefty amount, but in that time debt has gone from $7tn to $16tn. Iraq war was part of the problem, but hardly the sole cause.

:ross:
So let's cut NPR's millions received annually to chip away at that?

Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. That's basically 2/3 of our spending right there. Cutting funding to PBS and NPR won't do brick. I'd rather we focus on making the bigger programs more efficient, or simply scaling down our defense spending.

Iraq & Afghanistan will cost us $2.4 trillion, $1.9 trillion being attributed to Iraq (according to CBO estimates, cost in 2017 when it's paid off). This is including the interest paid on the war due to the fact that it was financed and not paid for up front.

Meanwhile...

We can have a conversation about cutting programs, but we can't mention raising revenue? How can we expect to reduce our deficit just by cutting spending alone? Skinhead alluded to this already, but the answer here is Grover fudging Norquist and his no-new-taxes pledge.
Despite the corporate tax rate being so high, why are corporate taxes received so low? If the Supreme Court is going to decide that they're people, they should pay taxes like fudging people too. Whoever is president needs to close all the loopholes that only large corporations can afford to use. Read up on Bain's tax dodging. I'm not suggesting they're the only ones to do it, but it's indicative of the larger problem at hand.

Also it annoyed me that Stewart kept attacking Bush when O'Reilly wasn't even defending him. The previous republican government is in a large part to blame for the crisis, but O'Reilly was arguing about what Obama has done (or rather, has not done) in his full term and Stewart kept blaming Bush.

Here is where I thought O'Reilly was very clever. He used that statement to remove Obama from context and to criticize him despite the argument that Stewart was trying to make, which was that Obama started off in a deep hole and his presidency is essentially one of someone trying to fix a badly burnt house while someone throws buckets of gasoline into it. Also, you need to factor in the Republican-controlled house, which has tried to repeal Obamacare no less than 34 times. You want to cut our spending? Fire those fudging clowns. They get better vacations, pensions, healthcare etc. etc. than the rest of the citizens.

By contrast the conservatives in this country are still blaming Labour for the mess, and rightly so. Just as the Democrats should be blaming the Republicans. But at least the conservatives have been trying to tackle the deficit whereas Obama inherited a $1tn deficit and four years later it's still there. O'Reilly also made the great point that further tax increases on the rich would raise $90bn, a start perhaps but you'd still have to make $900bn worth of cuts, something which Obama hasn't been willing to do.

Conservatives are self-proclaimed deficit hawks, but in practice, nothing could be further from the truth.
But the notion that Obama should have halved the deficit in 4 years was a mistake on his part. He theoretically could have done that had he had support from Congress, but the partisan gamesmanship has hampered us as a whole, from the economy to the middle-class. $95 billion a year extra revenue isn't exactly a small amount. I won't say that this will create jobs, but at the very least it should help create some government jobs that we do need in our country, namely in teachers and repairing infrastructure. But instead, let's cut little programs that barely dent the budget. 0.0012% of the budget isn't really progress for me. But again, we need to make government more efficient.
The other problem here is that we're facing both an energy crisis and a global climate crisis. The right-wing shunning of climate change science speaks for itself.

If Obama wins another term, I'd be shocked if the deficit goes down. I believe he may not add to it, but a Democrat isn't going to cut things like welfare which a right wing government would.

That is the scary thing, because you might be right there. My opinion here is that we're increasing the burden on future generations. I shouldn't even care since I don't have kids, but I think the moral obligation of a citizen of any country is to ensure not just success in the present, but to take a LONG-TERM view and ensure success in the future. I believe that many citizens are far too selfish and narcissistic (narcissism has been found to be increasing in the past decades), and far too concerned with their own well-being without having to indulge in all the minutiae of governance and policy. We can't expect the politicians to keep their hands clean if the citizens don't show a vested interest in the outcome of their choices/votes.

This is where all the problems basically are, on a single web site. Basically, if this web site were to be fact-checked top to bottom, most of it would simply turn up as glaringly false, yet this is what many Republicans truly believe.

A fudging MAJORITY of Republicans still think Obama was born outside the US, and many Republicans believe that Romney deserves more credit that Obama for taking out Osama. I hate to generalize, but this isn't a party whose main strength is rationalization, or reality for that matter. I have my own theories as to why so many seem to think Obama is a Muslim and other nonsense, but when large swaths of the right believe this tripe, I really see no hope of them ever coming back to reason or reality.

 

[papaspur]

Great video from the only Independent Senator currently in office...

[video=youtube;KYPvaC831xY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPvaC831xY&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Bernie Sanders is the fudging brick. Of course, he sides with the Democrats and is part of their caucus, and I definitely try to model myself after him. I hate our two-party political system, but I do see one as the lesser of two evils (and they are both evil).

 

[jts1882]

I agree with most of this. I thought O'Rielly made himself look like an idiot with his explanation for why the military should stay in the public sector as 'tradition'. There's clearly more to it that that, the main one being that it the military needs to be accountable to the entire electorate and it being controlled by politicians is the best way to do that. Also I don't see where the profit incentive is for running a military so I can't see how the private sector could do it.

I just felt O'Reilly was better prepared coming in to the debate. I understand it was intended for entertainment but it irritates me in debates when people constantly turn to cracking jokes or sarcasm instead of arguing the point head on which I felt Stewart was guilty of.

An example of something he did that irritated me was when O'Reilly made the point about small government and disbanding NPR and Stewart said 'well if you want your money back for NPR, I want my money back for the Iraq war' which got a big round of applause. The reality is that the Iraq war has cost the US $800bn in 9 years, an admittedly hefty amount, but in that time debt has gone from $7tn to $16tn. Iraq war was part of the problem, but hardly the sole cause.

Also it annoyed me that Stewart kept attacking Bush when O'Reilly wasn't even defending him. The previous republican government is in a large part to blame for the crisis, but O'Reilly was arguing about what Obama has done (or rather, has not done) in his full term and Stewart kept blaming Bush.

By contrast the conservatives in this country are still blaming Labour for the mess, and rightly so. Just as the Democrats should be blaming the Republicans. But at least the conservatives have been trying to tackle the deficit whereas Obama inherited a $1tn deficit and four years later it's still there. O'Reilly also made the great point that further tax increases on the rich would raise $90bn, a start perhaps but you'd still have to make $900bn worth of cuts, something which Obama hasn't been willing to do.

If Obama wins another term, I'd be shocked if the deficit goes down. I believe he may not add to it, but a Democrat isn't going to cut things like welfare which a right wing government would.

Agree, that tradition argument was stupid. It does actually highlight the reactionary approach of the American right. There is no progressive right, i.e. ones promoting change using free-market principles and individual rights as the basis for change. With the modern Republican party everything is negative or looking backwards.

I think its fair for both Obama and the British government to blame their predecessors, who had been in power for eight or more years. There were other factors in the financial meltdown, like deregulation under Clinton, Reagan and Thatcher, but the Bush and Labour governments were responsible for the the poor condition of the public finances that made responding more difficult. Governments do need to spend more in recession, but they can only do so if they run surpluses during the good economic times. Both Bush and Blair-Brown ran up the deficit by deliberate policy decisions: variously tax cuts, medicare expansion, NHS expansion, unfunded wars of choice, etc. The result is the need to make cuts when the economy can least afford it. Neither the Republicans nor Labour seem to recognise that their policies were a big part of the problem and neither should be trusted.

Obama's problem is compounded by not controlling Congress. He wasted his first 100 days by trying to be bipartisan. Its the Republicans that have insisted that the Bush tax cuts were extended and blocked any sensible budget reform. And Romney has picked the tooth-fairy of budget reform as his VP candidate. In contrast the UK coalition government do control the budget and rightly have been taking steps to get it under control. However, this is a long-term process.

Back to the debate. Stewart was right to highlight the role of Bush policies in the budget deficit when O'Reilly was trying to blame the whole deficit on Obama. Much of the deficit rise under Obama was dues to Bush policies (see the Washington Post analysis a year or so ago) or bailout policies that wouldn't have been substantially different if McCain had been elected. O'Reilly was right ehen he picked up Stewart for blaming Bush for the whole debt. Obama has been ineffective but I don't see what he can do on the budget when anything he proposes is blocked by the Republicans in Congress.

 

[jts1882]

We can have a conversation about cutting programs, but we can't mention raising revenue? How can we expect to reduce our deficit just by cutting spending alone? Skinhead alluded to this already, but the answer here is Grover fudging Norquist and his no-new-taxes pledge.
Despite the corporate tax rate being so high, why are corporate taxes received so low? If the Supreme Court is going to decide that they're people, they should pay taxes like fudging people too. Whoever is president needs to close all the loopholes that only large corporations can afford to use. Read up on Bain's tax dodging. I'm not suggesting they're the only ones to do it, but it's indicative of the larger problem at hand.

Conservatives are self-proclaimed deficit hawks, but in practice, nothing could be further from the truth.

In a nutshell. The Republicans are not serious about deficit reduction. Many of them want government to fail so they have an excuse for removing a lot of things that government does. This contrasts with traditional Republicans (including Reagan and Bush Sr) or the Conservatives who want smaller government but want it to succeed in what it does.

The corporate tax take highlights a huge problem. Why do big corporations making huge profits pay so little tax and actually receive government handouts (see earlier in thread)? Why do rich people like Romney pay so little tax? Who finances the political parties and pay to lobby for tax loopholes. The tax system is actually regressive as the rich and large (job exporting) corporations get a free ride while the middle classes and smaller (job-creating) businesses get a larger share of the tax burden. Welfare for the rich is a bigger problem in the US than welfare for the poor.

 

[papaspur]

In a nutshell. The Republicans are not serious about deficit reduction. Many of them want government to fail so they have an excuse for removing a lot of things that government does. This contrasts with traditional Republicans (including Reagan and Bush Sr) or the Conservatives who want smaller government but want it to succeed in what it does.

The corporate tax take highlights a huge problem. Why do big corporations making huge profits pay so little tax and actually receive government handouts (see earlier in thread)? Why do rich people like Romney pay so little tax? Who finances the political parties and pay to lobby for tax loopholes. The tax system is actually regressive as the rich and large (job exporting) corporations get a free ride while the middle classes and smaller (job-creating) businesses get a larger share of the tax burden. Welfare for the rich is a bigger problem in the US than welfare for the poor.

Bill Maher brought this point up last Friday:
Why is it that when a wealthy individual pays as little as he/she can in taxes by using loopholes and storing money offshores, that person is a smart and savvy businessperson, whereas a person on foodstamps is a leech on society?

 

[thfcsteff]

Bill Maher brought this point up last Friday:
Why is it that when a wealthy individual pays as little as he/she can in taxes by using loopholes and storing money offshores, that person is a smart and savvy businessperson, whereas a person on foodstamps is a leech on society?

Mate...you know why. It's called divide and conquer. Frankly, if more people understood that their economic place in this world is closer to foodstamps than multi-million dollar loopholes, then they would not be able to get away with perpetuating the myth you speak of.

 

[papaspur]

Mate...you know why. It's called divide and conquer. Frankly, if more people understood that their economic place in this world is closer to foodstamps than multi-million dollar loopholes, then they would not be able to get away with perpetuating the myth you speak of.

Blasphemy! I'm just a temporarily broke millionaire. I'm going to get what's coming to me; I deserve it!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/keys-to-the-vice-presidential-debate,29863/
My guess is that Biden will overextend due to Obama's weak-ass performance, hoping he goes for Ryan's jugular.

 

[Gifter]

Blasphemy! I'm just a temporarily broke millionaire. I'm going to get what's coming to me; I deserve it!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/keys-to-the-vice-presidential-debate,29863/
My guess is that Biden will overextend due to Obama's weak-ass performance, hoping he goes for Ryan's jugular.

That's a very important point in the context of wealth, the power of attraction is a real thing IMO = http://thesecret.tv/ though personally I don't believe in messing with such things, it is clear our thoughts of how the world is today, to a large extent, make the world tomorrow.

 

[ArcspacE]

That's a very important point in the context of wealth, the power of attraction is a real thing IMO = http://thesecret.tv/ though personally I don't believe in messing with such things, it is clear our thoughts of how the world is today, to a large extent, make the world tomorrow.

I sincerely hope this is a joke, tbh

Enjoy some of your posting and the fact you always look for alternative solutions - but THAT is one of the biggest scams in the lat 5 years

 

[Notmegov]

Must admit I believe in the power of attraction.

 

[papaspur]

I sincerely hope this is a joke, tbh

Enjoy some of your posting and the fact you always look for alternative solutions - but THAT is one of the biggest scams in the lat 5 years

And I thought the ATM was broken. Stick your Universe™