Vice Presidential Debate Discussion Thread

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by watchman13
Biden and Obama lie so much. Pretty much anything they say the opposite is true. i think it is a propaganda tactic.

yet they still lie less than the opposing side...

scary huh?

well, that can be debated....but still, most of the stuff coming out other either is crap, which means the people lose.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
yet they still lie less than the opposing side...

scary huh?

A lie would be an intentionally false statement about something that is factual, and so yes Obama/Biden are lying through their teeth just to get past Nov. Remember the key word here is factual as in they are lying or misrepresenting factual events.

Romney/Ryan economic plans are not factual, and so just because you disagree does not make them a lie, which would be more like Obama saying many things to get elected but never planned on doing in the first place. Kind of like Biden lying about his college records that he went to law school and was in the top of his class...he never went to law school and was in the bottom of his class for the degree he got. That there is a lie, so now you got examples of lies that you can use as a litmus test in the future...

I didn't watch the Presidential debate -- basically because I think I've already decided and what people "say" is not nearly as important as what they actually do. But I watched the Veep debate, because, well there was nothing on.

I do admit to being a bit of a Biden fan -- he gets the reputation for being "loony" and not bright, because he actually speaks his mind without censure on occasion, and he's much more of a policy wonk than a politician. He doesn't where it on his sleeve to have the bona-fides with the Religions Right, but he's one of the few REAL Christians in Washington -- and I say that as a devout agnostic, but he's one of the Christians who make you think they might not all be bad.

In the debate, Ryan did seem to stay in command and have his wits about him -- as long as he wasn't telling the truth. Which fortunately for him, wasn't often.

It was nice to see a Democrat (for once) standing up and blasting a bluffer when he was pulling nonsense out of his rear. I don't know what to do with these debates when someone says; "I've got this bi-partisan proposal" and the record is that the Democrat who worked on it with him, left when it turned into a bitter pill and it's clear that absolutely no Democrats support it. I wasn't shocked that he tried to make up blatantly false statements, I was just shocked that for the first time in ten years, I saw a Democrat stand up on his hind paws and directly point it out.

Republicans keep "winning" because there is no referee. You make up your own facts and "anecdotes about what some little old lady citizen just told you" and everybody is supposed to pretend you haven't been trying to destroy all the social programs that you want to "help" for the last decade. Ryan can only exist in a society that doesn't care anymore about the truth.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by watchman13
Biden and Obama lie so much. Pretty much anything they say the opposite is true. i think it is a propaganda tactic.

yet they still lie less than the opposing side...

scary huh?

Well, Obama doesn't seem to say THAT MUCH, other than act as Conservative Lite. Biden does however, make direct statements that could be tested. I didn't catch him making any factually incorrect LIES, but I think he was stretching it when talking about who voted for the invasion of Iraq -- at the time, Congress was actually voting to give Bush a PROVISION to follow the UN mandate IF HE FOUND WDMs, it was a cowardly weasel way to do it - but it basically came down to the war was on Bush, and he had no mandate to be there because there were no WMDs.

But water under the bridge and all that. People still sound more upset over Monica's sexcapades than killing over 100,000 people (but they manage to be outraged and relieved that Saddam is gone -- as if we didn't kill more people than he did).

Whatever. Obama is a huge disappointment for a Progressive like me. Honestly, after spending time listening to Libertarian, Austrian economics, and American exceptionalism theories, I think I'm more of a Socialist now because I understand that wealth, power and religion always get corrupted and that these "small government" theories only work if there is no corruption -- kind of how Communism works if everyone is honest, right?

I'm just so ready for the election to be over, so we can get on to the Republicans trying to impeach Obama for SOMETHING that is slightly less bad than what they endorse. Obama sucks, but Romney has no agenda other than pleasing the psychopathic billionaires, APAC and PNAC which have attached themselves to him.

We've got Goldman Sacks on the Left, and Goldman Sacks + Fascists on the Right. The choices is clear if not even more Repugnant than it was 4 years ago.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Too bad the etch a sketch comment wasn't your original idea. I heard it being bandied by some liberal media personality.

reply to post by campanionator

It is too bad that Obama is not willing to tailor his answer based upon which audience he is standing in front

In fact he routinely says whatever he thinks the crowd wants to hear.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Too bad the etch a sketch comment wasn't your original idea. I heard it being bandied by some liberal media personality.

And for good reason






What a clown!!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by campanionator

 

It is too bad that Obama is not willing to tailor his answer based upon which audience he is standing in front

In fact he routinely says whatever he thinks the crowd wants to hear.

You're talking about Romney right???

It's true and I'm glad you are not stupid enough to let that slip past you.

He governed like an East Coast liberal, yet he claims to be "severely conservative".

He tailored his persona to get through the Far far far far right nomination process, now he
is as liberal as Barack.

You are gonna vote for him though, that makes you very silly considering all the hours you spend on
here

Just so I can keep up, we've shifted from the Biden - Ryan debate to criticism of Romney, right? It's hard for me to keep track of the topic sometimes.

Originally posted by charles1952
Just so I can keep up, we've shifted from the Biden - Ryan debate to criticism of Romney, right? It's hard for me to keep track of the topic sometimes.

Given that Ryan echoes Romney's hogwash...nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Too bad the etch a sketch comment wasn't your original idea. I heard it being bandied by some liberal media personality.

Erm..the etch-a-sketch thing is from the lips of Romney's campaign senior advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom...pretty sure he isn't a liberal media personality (well, guess it depends on which campaign we are discussing)
It sort of went viral. You been living under a rock?

You know...like Obama's "you didn't build that" comment..but without the requirement to remove context.

I can give you some links if this is new to you.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Too bad the etch a sketch comment wasn't your original idea. I heard it being bandied by some liberal media personality.

And for good reason

What a clown!!

I think those two videos (and tons more) need to be just looped over and over to show just what a empty shell this guy is.
There is no depth, All politicians play the game, twist words to make people think they heard what they wanted to hear, but always giving a out.
This guy doesn't even attempt spin, he simply says whatever the crowd wants to hear, even if it is diametrically opposed to what he said 3 minutes earlier.

reply to post by MrXYZ


You missed the point apparently.

But way to support the MSM viewpoint.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Shows ya how much I listen to Romney campaign people eh? But I believe Chris Matthews also mentioned it. Everything always sounds bad coming from him. And even worse from Ed Schultz

There is no depth,

Cmon, every politician in America knows that if he speaks too plainly, he will turn off roughly half of voters(the half from the opposing party and also people in the center who could go etiher way).

Imagine if Barack had walked around telling everyone,"Yes yes I am Marxist and I am going to socialize medicine, nationalize the auto and finance sectors, rip the private sector to shreds, and yes yes I am really a muslim Black Liberation theologist and I believe in James Cone's Marxist ideology, as well as that of Saul Alinksky, and oh by the way I am also a member of the illuminatio Masonic temple of such and such and am a neophypte of the Rothschilds and in their service, and yes, Bill Ayers is a good friend of mine and Valerie Jarrett's father in law was in fact a communist and a friend of my Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, and I plan to bring Marxism to this country."

Imagine if he said all that on the stage? At present people know about it, but can dispute it because someone in a book said it.

Ideology is only the driving part of the plan. Anything can be done in secret by these people which you will never see evidence of or understand the reasoning till it's too late. Nothing that happens on the world stage is obvious. That is how the Illuminati works.

Sometimes they do let the cat out of the bag, just a bit, with remarks lilke "spread the weatlh", and Maxine's famous, "This liberal would be all about socia.,....uh uh basically we would take over all your companies"....of course that's code for nationalizing the entire oil industry and running from the central government, which is what this entire band of socialists and communists are working hard on.

On the other side, Romny and Ryan have been very plain about wanting to keep the private sector(oh that horrid "privatizing" of stuff) the free market, trade, prviate sector jobs, less govt control, and rolling back Obamacare, because that represents the single most important thing the liberals have done in office which eats away at the free market and the private sector and freedom and liberty in this country.

Obama represents the Marxist solution and Romney represents free enterprise.

All the details are beside the point in the end.
.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Given that Ryan echoes Romney's hogwash

Exactly what is hogwash, I would like to know. I want you to be more specific because all I hear in your statement is you believe the MSM viewpoint, and the MSM other than Fox is for Obama's Marxism and more centralized govt.

People who support Obama are going around saying that Romney and Ryan are lying, and yet I do not hear the specifics, except in one or two rare cases, like the medicare thing, which is the one thing I am pretty sure Ryan and Romney are not lying about, and while the Obama camp may not be expressly lying about it, they are in a way by misrepresenting what Obamacare is going to do, and they most assuredly lying about what the Ryan proposal would do. They have to do this to get people on board with the plan of Obamacare.

Did Biden or OBama come out on the platform and say, "Well, we already passed part of Obamacare in the Stimulus with the HITECH ACT, which was needed to create our electronic health records database and get people on board with Big Brother having access to everyone's private health records in one nice big database and everyone's databases all linking together, just like in Admiral Poindexter's TIA plan which even Congress shot down because there were privacy issues, but we went ahead and passed this under the radar so no one would really get the connection." ????

Did Obama come out on the platform and say, "Well we are going to bring chaos to the ME and N Africa by sending in our flunkies Code Pink and Bill Ayers and stir up the hornets nest and give money to our friends in the Muslim Brotherhood so they can set up camp and we are going to use the union leaders to help unionize workers in those places to help bring in the Marxist one world proletariat Big Union and force all pro Capitalist pro Western leaders in the region and turn them all against Isreal so we can start a war with Iran and Syria"....

oh wait wasn't that part of the PNAC plan?

reply to post by campanionator

He governed like an East Coast liberal, yet he claims to be "severely conservative".

Let me be clear about this. I supported Ron Paul in the primaries, and I am on record with NPR as saying so. So now, let us turn to the fact that Romney is now the Republican candidate, and there is no way in tarnation I would ever vote for the obvious Marxist(I said that about Hillary too by the way) so Romney gets my vote. Romney still represents the least amount of Marxism and so that is how it goes. It would be useless for me to write in another candidate now or vote for Gary Johnson because I am primarily concerned about the programs the Obama camp is putting in place which is the complete destruction of all liberty in the US and replaced with Marxist change. Anyone who has been truly watching knows this is what is going on. I think a lot of people even here are denying reality when they say Obama is further right than other Democrat Presidents, or that he is more centrist, or that he is not a Marxist.
True, some things the admin is doing is straight out of the playbook of PNAC or some other Illuminati plan, but some things are just plain left Hegelian.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You missed the point apparently.

But way to support the MSM viewpoint.

Romney flipflopping dozens of times within days of saying stuff isn't the MSM viewpoint...it's a FACT

And you're defence "but Obama's bad too" is laughable, is that the best you can come up with?

PS: You don't seem to understand what "marxism" means...watched too much Glenn Beck I guess

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Shows ya how much I listen to Romney campaign people eh? But I believe Chris Matthews also mentioned it. Everything always sounds bad coming from him. And even worse from Ed Schultz

Don't know. I refuse to watch either of those two. I simply cannot stand their personality. Especially Ed.

I only watch (in regards to liberal commentators) Maddow. Mostly because she is pleasant to listen to, funny, and not so in your face..using facts and studies over any emotional moaning. I do occasionally borrow stuff from her show. If your going to borrow stuff from others, make sure your borrowing from the brightest, not the loudest.

Something republicans around here should learn. Rush Limbaugh, bad...Joe Scarborough, good (or whomever the clever commentator at the moment is)


Anyhow, Politicians generally toss some red meat to their base, but they know how absurdly crazy their base is..so once they win the party nomination, they drop the crazy talk and start catering towards the non crazy center. This was a unspoken truth between both. Romney's campaign advisor just made the mistake of stating this on a interview..the etch-a-sketch...what I said doesn't count because now we have to court the people that matter sort of thing...
A inside thought and truth coming out...
Sucky thing about words...once their out, you can't just grab em and shove em back into your mouth

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You missed the point apparently.

But way to support the MSM viewpoint.

Romney flipflopping dozens of times within days of saying stuff isn't the MSM viewpoint...it's a FACT

And you're defence "but Obama's bad too" is laughable, is that the best you can come up with?

PS: You don't seem to understand what "marxism" means...watched too much Glenn Beck I guess

edit on 15-10-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

It isn't that Obama is bad. It is that he is a tool for the Marxist takeover of our govt, and standing behind him are various communists. These are the people who have been running things in the WH...Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod. I said it many times before yesterday when I heard Fox News finally say it.
What can be more simple than that? Why do you want Marxism? I want to know what you find attractive about it? Perhaps it's that they have made socializeid medicine sound so great, with several million people gaining access to health insurance(this does not do anything to improve actual health care or it's costs) and keeps ins companies from denying people with pre existing conditions. But what they didn't tell you is that they already passed portions of Obamacare with the HITECH ACT, which was part of the Stimulus spending. I already explaineed this once, but you didn't get it. This is for upgrading IT systems in doctor's offices and hospitals to allow for electronic medical records so that the govt can have access to everyone's private health records. I know you don't want to see that, but it is part of the Orwellian plan of control.
Why do you want that? Do you love your imprisonment?

Why would you say that I don't know what Marxism is? That is one of the most overused arguments I've seen in this forum. Perhaps it is because you yourself do not understand the roots of Marxism, and how it is being implemented. Perhaps you do not realized the methodology being used. It is not like the original Russian Bolshevik Revolution where everyone took up the cause all at once. No, it is much slower. It is being taught in the Universities by Marxist professors. It is being promoted in programs over decades. It is being promoted in the culture. You've heard of cultural Marxism haven't you?

reply to post by MrXYZ


wikipedia on cultural Marxism

Post-World War II, conservatives remained opposed to socialism and notions of social engineering, and have argued that "Cultural Marxists" and the Frankfurt School helped spark the counterculture social movements of the 1960s as part of a continuing plan of transferring Marxist subversion into cultural terms in the form of Freudo-Marxism.
Since the early 1990s, paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan and William S. Lind have argued that "Cultural Marxism" is a dominant strain of thought within the American left, and associate it with a philosophy to destroy Western civilization. Buchanan has asserted that the Frankfurt School commandeered the American mass media, and used this cartel to infect the minds of Americans.[8]

Lind argues that,


"Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."[9]
Lind argues that "Political Correctness" has resulted in American citizens, particularly in academia, being "afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic" and that such changes can be attributed to the influence of cultural Marxists.[9] Conservative Paul Gottfried's book, The Strange Death of Marxism argues that Marxism survived and evolved since the fall of the Soviet Union in the form of "cultural Marxism":

en.wikipedia.org...


But make no mistake, the Obama admin is involved in the economic brand of Marxism with redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation(soak the wealthy with higher taxes, make them pay their "fair share"--that is totally marxian economic thought...the socialists use this in their quest for social and economic justice), in their taking over of the healthcare, auto, and finance sectors, promoting more govt involvement in our lives, Nanny Statism.
Do you really want to pursue this line of argument with me? Because I do know what Marxism is, and I know what it does.

Maybe this technique will work with some people. Perhaps you feel if you just throw out the accusation that other people will discount my posts because someone has disputed it.