TBD

The concert analogy was pretty spot on. Precisely why I called it a performance.

azaghal1981 wrote:
The concert analogy was pretty spot on. Precisely why I called it a performance.

yeah yeah… we know you're in fantasyland over there where Obama and Romney are the same etc etc… go back to the Chomsky board or something!

:D

of course it was a performance! the democratic party is like a giant corporation and bill clinton is a major shareholder. So what? I like the democratic corporation.

I mean the other corporation is a disgrace.

kosmo wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

kosmo wrote:
Don't knock Twitter, where else can you watch a bunch of wingnuts argue with a fake twitter account for a fictional TV character.  Yup people were arguing with a fake Will McAvoy account last night…

Where else? Why, Facebook! Happens all the time.

Nah Facebook is for Birthday's, Babies, Weather and complaining…

Obviously, we have a very different circle of 'friends', for lack of a better word. I stopped using it a long time ago but I do miss some very, very good info that I would get on a daily basis, often from the horses mouths… or fingers. Sure, some birthdays, babies, weather and complaining but often an incredible wealth of info, especially music related. Occasionally I'll stop in for a peak but not thrilled with the guts of either Facebook or Twitter and decided to scale back a bit. For either, it's all who you connect up with.

hutch wrote:

azaghal1981 wrote:
The concert analogy was pretty spot on. Precisely why I called it a performance.

yeah yeah… we know you're in fantasyland over there where Obama and Romney are the same etc etc… go back to the Chomsky board or something!

:D

of course it was a performance! the democratic party is like a giant corporation and bill clinton is a major shareholder. So what? I like the democratic corporation.

I mean the other corporation is a disgrace.

Yeah your political party is winning too bad they are exactly like the other political party.  5 trillion additional debt during obama administraton and how much of that borrowed money went to helping the hungry, people with mortgages upside down,  job creation,  national parks?  Obama could be the republican candidate and you would hate him.  People are so niave.

Expect your Ron Paul 2016 bumpersticker to arrive any day now… and there is a difference unless you have a strong desire to return to a fictionalized 50s mindset

What I greatly fear is the OweMalley 2016 bumper stickers!

Regarding 2012, I don't know who will win but I do know that I certainly won't be constipated because both of our limited choices completely scare the crap out of me!!!

kosmo wrote:
Expect your Ron Paul 2016 bumpersticker to arrive any day now… and there is a difference unless you have a strong desire to return to a fictionalized 50s mindset

Tell me their differences.  I mean not what they say about certain issues becuase we know neither one will do anything about gay marriage or abortion.  I am sure both plan to borrow the country into bankruptcy.  I am sure neither will put money into the national park system.  I am sure neither is going to have a war on poverty.  Neither will stop our war mongering and giving billions away to foreign governments.  None will lower the costs of a college education.  None will actually provide money to help people in trouble with upside down mortgages.   Neither will legalize drugs which would actually cut down on crime.  None would care about our inner cities.  Neither cares about polution.  Obama was going to have them drilling for oil off the coast of maryand.   Neither is going to change the bankruptcy laws back to what they were before Biden let the credit card companies re-write them.  Neither is going to do anything about guns. 

Why support either one?  Unless you are a billionaire they aren't your candidates.

atomicfront wrote:

kosmo wrote:
Expect your Ron Paul 2016 bumpersticker to arrive any day now… and there is a difference unless you have a strong desire to return to a fictionalized 50s mindset

Tell me their differences.  I mean not what they say about certain issues becuase we know neither one will do anything about gay marriage or abortion.  I am sure both plan to borrow the country into bankruptcy.  I am sure neither will put money into the national park system.  I am sure neither is going to have a war on poverty.  Neither will stop our war mongering and giving billions away to foreign governments.  None will lower the costs of a college education.  None will actually provide money to help people in trouble with upside down mortgages.   Neither will legalize drugs which would actually cut down on crime.  None would care about our inner cities.  Neither cares about polution.  Obama was going to have them drilling for oil off the coast of maryand.   Neither is going to change the bankruptcy laws back to what they were before Biden let the credit card companies re-write them.


Why support either one?  Unless you are a billionaire they aren't your candidates.

Why support either one? Well presumably because one believes that one candidate reflects their own personal views more than the other. It is not that complicated really…

Well that is certainly some twisted logic going on there, sorry I said anything…. 

hutch wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

kosmo wrote:
Expect your Ron Paul 2016 bumpersticker to arrive any day now… and there is a difference unless you have a strong desire to return to a fictionalized 50s mindset

Tell me their differences.  I mean not what they say about certain issues becuase we know neither one will do anything about gay marriage or abortion.  I am sure both plan to borrow the country into bankruptcy.  I am sure neither will put money into the national park system.  I am sure neither is going to have a war on poverty.  Neither will stop our war mongering and giving billions away to foreign governments.  None will lower the costs of a college education.  None will actually provide money to help people in trouble with upside down mortgages.   Neither will legalize drugs which would actually cut down on crime.  None would care about our inner cities.  Neither cares about polution.  Obama was going to have them drilling for oil off the coast of maryand.   Neither is going to change the bankruptcy laws back to what they were before Biden let the credit card companies re-write them.


Why support either one?  Unless you are a billionaire they aren't your candidates.

Why support either one? Well presumably because one believes that one candidate reflects their own personal views more than the other. It is not that complicated really…

well tlel me  how htey are actually supportig your views?  So you are fothe violent american cities with guns everywhere and the a vast population that iis in deep poverty?  The borrowing money to give to foreign countries? 

Speaking of drilling for oil, I have not yet watched all of Obama's speech but one thing I did hear was the portion on energy which I found a bit disturbing. What the fuck is "clean coal?" There is no such thing. Then there was all the "we have so much natural gas under our feet!" nonsense in which he failed to mention how damaging fracking is.

that clinton speech was simply masterful.  obama's was good, apparently it resonated with the missus more than it did with me.

azaghal1981 wrote:
What the fuck is "clean coal?"

it's part technology, and part marketing campaign.  the coal industry has developed ways or reducing the impact of burning coal.  but that reduction is way over-stated, ignores CO2 completely, and doesn't touch the environmental impact of extraction and transportation of such an un-dense energy source.

the dems are clearly trying to recapture certain themes and demographics that have traditionally been republican strongholds until now: security, veterans, family values… and energy independence.  there are a lot of states in the "coal belt" that need to hear the words "clean coal" before they'll give the dems a second look.

sweetcell wrote:
that clinton speech was simply masterful.  obama's was good, apparently it resonated with the missus more than it did with me.

azaghal1981 wrote:
What the fuck is "clean coal?"

it's part technology, and part marketing campaign.  the coal industry has developed ways or reducing the impact of burning coal.  but that reduction is way over-stated, ignores CO2 completely, and doesn't touch the environmental impact of extraction and transportation of such an un-dense energy source.

the dems are clearly trying to recapture certain themes and demographics that have traditionally been republican strongholds until now: security, veterans, family values… and energy independence.  there are a lot of states in the "coal belt" that need to hear the words "clean coal" before they'll give the dems a second look.

Azaghal doesn't care about the political realities, only what he wants.

the President, on purpose, did not want to deliver what would be considered a "masterful" speech. That would just feed into the "this guy delivers good speeches but all they are is good speeches…" narrative.

that was the case last night.. as weird as it seems there was more to gain from a solid speech than a great one.

it all fell apart this morning when the new job numbers came out…  the President- unbelievably- can win reelection but the job numbers are just not good enough. Of course Romney hasn't said one word about how he would create jobs. ( there is very little the President can do about job numbers but people just can't accept that…)

hutch wrote:
the President, on purpose, did not want to deliver what would be considered a "masterful" speech. That would just feed into the "this guy delivers good speeches but all they are is good speeches…" narrative.

that was the case last night.. as weird as it seems there was more to gain from a solid speech than a great one.

it all fell apart this morning when the new job numbers came out…  the President- unbelievably- can win reelection but the job numbers are just not good enough. Of course Romney hasn't said one word about how he would create jobs. ( there is very little the President can do about job numbers but people just can't accept that…)

That's like saying your team really didn't play to win after they just got spanked. Just a poor excuse for a bad performance. I didn't watch the speech (or Romney's) They're scripted recitals written by a paid ghost writer so completely meaningless if you ask me.

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

If  you take away the 'Republican' 'Democrat' and vote as an independent. After all. Romney is a Clinton Democrat and Obama a Socialist so the line is very skewed right now.

Frank wrote:

hutch wrote:
the President, on purpose, did not want to deliver what would be considered a "masterful" speech. That would just feed into the "this guy delivers good speeches but all they are is good speeches…" narrative.

that was the case last night.. as weird as it seems there was more to gain from a solid speech than a great one.

it all fell apart this morning when the new job numbers came out…  the President- unbelievably- can win reelection but the job numbers are just not good enough. Of course Romney hasn't said one word about how he would create jobs. ( there is very little the President can do about job numbers but people just can't accept that…)

That's like saying your team really didn't play to win after they just got spanked. Just a poor excuse for a bad performance. I didn't watch the speech (or Romney's) They're scripted recitals written by a paid ghost writer so completely meaningless if you ask me.

There is no doubt he is playing to win but his chances of winning would lessen with what would be considered a good speech. Soaring oratory, inspiring heights… been there done that.. would not help.. in fact would hurt. I guess one way of putting it is that a competent toned down speech was actually a better speech but that still doesn't make it a great speech.

Frank wrote:

What people should be voting for is action and results, and this President has failed miserably so it's time to give someone else a try. Like him or not, at least Romney has created jobs.

Come on Frank! You're better than parroting talking points peddled by the Republicans.

You say he created jobs? How? He refuses to talk about his time at Bain. Bain was a COMPANY which is not the same thing as a COUNTRY. A COMPANY investing money in other COMPANIES that already existed is not really comparable to how the largest economy in the world operates. As President what is he going to do, invest in companies to create jobs, load them with debt, and walk away  with the money? I mean be serious please.

The only real evidence of Romney's ability to create jobs leading the Executive branch of government is his time as Governor of Massachusetts and we know the state ranked 47th in job creation during his tenure. Of course he won't talk about that either. Myth Romney indeed.

Bottom line: we have not heard one word about HOW he will create jobs.

Think of the case of Spain. They had left wing govt. the economy tanked.. they lost millions of jobs.. they threw the left out and brought in the right. They keep losing jobs just the same.

I guess your argument boils down to: President Obama has failed so give this other guy a chance regardless. The only problem with this is that President Obama hasn't failed as much as he hasn't succeeded to the degree we wish. It will be up to the American people to determine how it feels about the President's track record vs the challenger's promises.

I can not wait until December.

killsaly wrote:
I can not wait until December.

u mean november?

me 2

OK, November right after the election.

I was giving it a few weeks after so that the losing side will chill out a little bit.

Election talk and "my party is so good, yours sucks" talk gets really old.