US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kimmielittle said:
Dear Whoopi and Company.

I know you are distressed with Big Bird being thrown out of the nest.

By my calculations Big Bird is over 18 years old.

He has received, from his adoptive parents ( US Taxpayers ), ALL the tools, in fact, more tools then the average teen, to be successful out in the free market - of real American society.

Indeed, he will not be thrown out on his ear, as he benefits handsomely now from corporate sponsorship and retail sales.

As he is geared to an age restricted clientèle ( 3-4 years of viewing ), might I suggest, if this is so distressing and the most important message you took out of the Presidential debates, you could, with your wealth, privately sponsor 10 years of reruns.

Thank you for your concerns of, what you feel, are most pressing issues debated.

I however, think Big Bird having to get a job - is not as pressing as say, Americans trying to find one.

kimmie
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl:
 
LisaA said:
Luigi,

OPIUM is addictive as in OPM…other people’s money. The Left always seems to want to use this drug to keep its self feeding programs moving. So much easier to play Lord or Lady Bountiful if you don’t have to actually dig into your own pocket.

Apparently the marketing of stuff from Sesame Street which has been around how many years…40 or something like that, makes gazillions. This product/concept could easily finds sponsors. Other Leftist ideas like the funding of questionable art are similar. There is no role IMO for government in funding artists or art. Funding museums via tax deductions for charities, OK that’s fine because it’s our own money we are using. But dont’ take MY tax dollars to put a Crucifix in urine or spread dung on the Mother of God.

Maybe someone on the Left can tell me why the Federal Government should support an adult cartoon character or the P*** Christ.

I thought Romney’s standard…it better be so important we need to borrow money from China was superb. We need to apply it to the bloated pig in Washington DC

Lisa
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
kimmielittle said:
My big brother would like to play cards with you - If you think that is “disappointment” she’s expressing.🙂 AND who she’s directing it to.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to be diplomatic. I’m sure she feels personal pain and disappointment in her husband’s performance. Michelle is his wife of twenty years. No doubt she feels anger towards Romney for daring to challenge her fair knight before millions of American viewers. How can Obama continue with his plans to make the skies bluer and the oceans recede if he is knocked off his presidential throne?
 
kimmielittle said:
It’s hatred and disdain…How dare you point out my emperor is naked.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t so much that he merely lost the debate. Obama was severely humiliated by suffering the worst debate loss in history. And I am not exaggerating.
 
iloveangels said:
I won’t dispute that. It’s been hatred and disdain since the beginning of all this.
Click to expand...
Michelle Obama looked mildly upset compared to Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow. Talk about hatred and disdain!
 
Tampa_Dave said:
I’m trying to be diplomatic. I’m sure she feels personal pain and disappointment in her husband’s performance. Michelle is his wife of twenty years. No doubt she feels anger towards Romney for daring to challenge her fair knight before millions of American viewers. How can Obama continue with his plans to make the skies bluer and the oceans recede if he is knocked off his presidential throne?
Click to expand...
Ohhhh Diplomatic… Is that like snubbing Israel but pandering The Brotherhood?

J/K I knew :)🙂
 
Imagine the looks on the Obama couple’s faces on election night if Mitt pulls off the victory. It will be eclipsed only by the horror on the faces of MSNBC reporters and commentators. :eek: They will have to wrap up Chris Matthews with a straitjacket.
 
SuperLuigi said:
So why can’t Whoopi and all of other left-wingers get together and give enough to PBS to keep it going?

Why do they always, always need other people’s money?
Click to expand...
👍👍

My grand-pa says they used to have fund raiser drives on PBS TV…I dono if they do now.
 
Pat Buchanan just wrote an excellent article on Romney’s debate performance, titled “Folks, We Have a Brand New Ballgame.” He writes, "Mitt Romney on Wednesday night turned in the finest debate performance of any candidate of either party in the 52 years since Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980. But where Reagan won with style and quips “There you go again” and his closing line, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Romney crushed Obama on both substance and style…

You can read the rest here: buchanan.org/blog/folks-we-have-a-brand-new-ballgame-5266

I on the fence with Romney, but Buchanan seems to be warming to him which is even more remarkable given the fact that Buchanan’s foreign policy is closer to Ron Paul’s than to Romney’s.

I don’t know though. I still need some convincing to get on board. It’s not just that Romney and Obama have the same interventionist foreign policy strategy, but I also feel that this type of strategy not only makes us less safe in the long run but actually hurts the overall economy to the benefit of a few companies in the military-industrial complex, thus cancelling out any gains made by Romney’s domestic economic policies.

And then you have Romney’s exceptions on rape and incest. I would have thought that by now Paul Ryan would have pointed out to Romney the glaring inconsistency and fallacy here. I mean, if you are pro-life and understand the “science of life” you could not possible have an exception for rape and incest where there is direct, intentional killing going on.

Like I said, I am on the fence with this election. It seems to be another Catch 22.
 
LisaA said:
Sad but true. Read The Economist and see how much of the world lives. While we clearly have poor in this country the difference between our poor and those of Subsaharan Africa or Afghanistan, Haiti or NoKo for that matter is that our poor are not victims of natural disasters (droughts, earthquakes) or tin pot dictators, but are generally there due to lifestyle choices. Sadly too these choices have become generational and ingrained. I suspect many poor in this country do not understand how their choices and their parents’ choices have put them in their situation.
Click to expand...
Certainly the super-poor (above) which you refer to are partly products, yes, of natural disasters. In that respect, though, they are also products of poor infrastructure, crude coordination systems for natural disasters, and less sophisticated communication apparati vs. The First World (emergency preparedness, coordination of rescue efforts, etc.)

sln.org.uk/geography/schools/blythebridge/GCSERevisionEarthquakes.htm

And all that, in turn, results from poor economies and sometimes corrupt government as well. Comparatively speaking, whatever one thinks of our economy and our government, those cannot be compared seriously to the locales above. (I know you weren’t doing that.) 🙂

I.m.o. we have a tsunami in waiting, which epan may have somewhat overstated earlier, but not entirely. Since we do have good communication systems, since we do have a more reliable government (for example, locally) to which people can turn for information & guidance, it is unconscionable that a culture of First World education, and the realities of a First World economy in an interconnected world are not being aggressively promoted as a local, state, and national coordinated project.

Macroeconomics and microeconomics (finance) should be a compulsory course in every high school in this country. I will also argue that such education does not assume necessarily that there is nothing wrong with our economic system (nothing treacherous about it), but rather that it is crucial to understand economics, as well as personal finance, if one is going to survive in the 21st century. Cash assistance may or may not continue, and a large population “below the poverty line” is bad news for any country. It means less economic productivity for the country as a whole, and it means social changes which are negative and expensive in several ways.

People shouldn’t be learning about the brutal side of capitalism by becoming a victim of it. Nor should they be learning about the limits of government assistance in the same way. (Counties becoming bankrupt, ending assistance, has already happened.)

There has been zero leadership shown in the area of national consumer education (which is most urgently needed for the underclasses in this country). It should have been started at a minimum, 20 years ago. We’re now in emergency mode in that regard, i.m.o. There has been additional zero leadership in transitioning certain immigrant groups (particularly those from Latin America) into the reality of Life in the Contemporary United States. Not the U.S. of the 1950’s-1970’s. There has already been a tsunami change in the myth of “making it in the U.S.” versus the misconceptions under which both legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America continue to come here. We have limited use for manual labor, limited use for low-level skills, a finite use for restaurant and hospitality workers. Most importantly, the workers who will be phased out the fastest in the 21st century are those workers who continue a family tradition of insufficient education. That fact is not obvious to most immigrants from Latin America; it simply is not.

So, as a country, we need to Man Up and Woman Up. Democrats, if you’re going to continue to enable illegal immigration by providing absorption programs, amnesty programs, and traditional assistance programs, you are killing the economy, not to mention jeopardizing the futures of those immigrants, by not also demanding Tough Education into the reality of modern America. “DREAM” Acts only go so far, because they do not address a majority of illegal immigrants.

Republicans, you need to show how things can be different than a cycle of welfare by being aggressive: alliances with high schools and businesses, which mirror the Co-op College model (combining academic education simultaneously with technical education + job training) is the most concrete way to show the younger generation that the only way to surpass their parents’ poverty, and to keep from reproducing it, is to become prepared. Representatives from businesses need to go into the schools on a regular, programmed basis, within the mandated curriculum, to show students that only the candidates who can write a resume will even be considered. I’m hoping that the next charter school efforts are those which fall in the definition of Co-op Charter Schools, combining the rigorous requirements which many charter schools already have, with mandatory experience (internships and paid) with employers. That’s my own version of Tough Love. We need the economic equivalent of a Scared Straight movie which accurately predicts the result of a personal economic future without the tools for individual prosperity. I think anything less is highly irresponsible and the opposite of charity.

(end of rant, Lisa. ;))
 
HansTrappist said:
Pat Buchanan just wrote an excellent article on Romney’s debate performance, titled “Folks, We Have a Brand New Ballgame.” He writes, "Mitt Romney on Wednesday night turned in the finest debate performance of any candidate of either party in the 52 years since Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980. But where Reagan won with style and quips “There you go again” and his closing line, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Romney crushed Obama on both substance and style…

You can read the rest here: buchanan.org/blog/folks-we-have-a-brand-new-ballgame-5266

I on the fence with Romney, but Buchanan seems to be warming to him which is even more remarkable given the fact that Buchanan’s foreign policy is closer to Ron Paul’s than to Romney’s.

I don’t know though. I still need some convincing to get on board. It’s not just that Romney and Obama have the same interventionist foreign policy strategy, but I also feel that this type of strategy not only makes us less safe in the long run but actually hurts the overall economy to the benefit of a few companies in the military-industrial complex, thus cancelling out any gains made by Romney’s domestic economic policies.

And then you have Romney’s exceptions on rape and incest. I would have thought that by now Paul Ryan would have pointed out to Romney the glaring inconsistency and fallacy here. I mean, if you are pro-life and understand the “science of life” you could not possible have an exception for rape and incest where there is direct, intentional killing going on.

Like I said, I am on the fence with this election. It seems to be another Catch 22.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul’s not running. We’ve established this.
 
HansTrappist said:
Pat Buchanan just wrote an excellent article on Romney’s debate performance, titled “Folks, We Have a Brand New Ballgame.” He writes, "Mitt Romney on Wednesday night turned in the finest debate performance of any candidate of either party in the 52 years since Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980. But where Reagan won with style and quips “There you go again” and his closing line, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Romney crushed Obama on both substance and style…

You can read the rest here: buchanan.org/blog/folks-we-have-a-brand-new-ballgame-5266

I on the fence with Romney, but Buchanan seems to be warming to him which is even more remarkable given the fact that Buchanan’s foreign policy is closer to Ron Paul’s than to Romney’s.

I don’t know though. I still need some convincing to get on board. It’s not just that Romney and Obama have the same interventionist foreign policy strategy, but I also feel that this type of strategy not only makes us less safe in the long run but actually hurts the overall economy to the benefit of a few companies in the military-industrial complex, thus cancelling out any gains made by Romney’s domestic economic policies.

And then you have Romney’s exceptions on rape and incest. I would have thought that by now Paul Ryan would have pointed out to Romney the glaring inconsistency and fallacy here. I mean, if you are pro-life and understand the “science of life” you could not possible have an exception for rape and incest where there is direct, intentional killing going on.

Like I said, I am on the fence with this election. It seems to be another Catch 22.
Click to expand...
Of course Pat is warming to Romney. Despite his fallings out, Pat still follows “The Buckley rule”.

At this point, Paul is not electable for POTUS, while Romney is. His failings aside, he’s light years better than President Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top