Presidential debate

Romney was definitely caught off guard in the second debate when the Libya thing came up. Obama takes game 2.

Strider Zero wrote:

Obama takes game 2.

Then why is the mainstream media so bent out of shape over the economy discussions and the Administration's lies about Libya?

Prince Doebler wrote:

Strider Zero wrote:

Obama takes game 2.

Then why is the mainstream media so bent out of shape over the economy discussions and the Administration's lies about Libya?

My opinion is based on what I saw, not what the media has to say about it. The media has skewed a lot about these debates already.



That's so contextually off it's not even funny.

That ad was completely by the RNC. However, the mainstream media leans so far left that it's not even funny. If they're still worried about Libya and the economy, then Obama didn't do as well as people think he did.

IMO, the debate was dead-even overall. Romney had his time having the upper hand, and so did Obama. However, Romney could have done even more damage than what he did, especially in regards to Libya, calling them out on their blatant lies.

And if you want to talk about out of context...

Prince Doebler wrote:

And if you want to talk about out of context...

That's exactly my point. The media for both Republicans and Democrats are out of control when it comes to the other party.

Strider Zero wrote:

That's exactly my point. The media for both Republicans and Democrats are out of control when it comes to the other party.

Thing is, most of the mainstream media leans in favor for Bammy. Therefore, if CNN and CBS are abuzz about the two topics I mentioned earlier, then they're obviously afraid of something, because they are in the tank for Obama.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Strider Zero wrote:

That's exactly my point. The media for both Republicans and Democrats are out of control when it comes to the other party.

Thing is, most of the mainstream media leans in favor for Bammy. Therefore, if CNN and CBS are abuzz about the two topics I mentioned earlier, then they're obviously afraid of something, because they are in the tank for Obama.

Last night CNN was pretty brutal as far as criticizing Romney and saying that Obama had a solid victory. I guess that must have changed today.

A lot of you guys reveal your biases way too quickly, just saying.

Prince, are you always for the republicans?

If and only if the Republican is a conservative. If the candidate is a moderate (read: radical liberal), hell no. On the other hand, if another JFK comes out of the Democrat party, they'll definitely have my attention.

You don't know what a "radical liberal" is. America has never had a left wing person in charge.

Thank you for continuing to prove that you know jack-shit about America.

Obama is a left-wing socialist who tries to redistribute wealth, and is in favor of punishing the successful. His policies have run our country into the ground.

Aside from Bammy, we also have Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi. All of these people are left-wing socialist thugs.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is obviously trying to turn America into a communist dictatorship, he needs to be removed.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Thank you for continuing to prove that you know jack-shit about America.

Obama is a left-wing socialist who tries to redistribute wealth, and is in favor of punishing the successful. His policies have run our country into the ground.

Aside from Bammy, we also have Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi. All of these people are left-wing socialist thugs.

No they are not.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Thank you for continuing to prove that you know jack-shit about America.

Obama is a left-wing socialist who tries to redistribute wealth, and is in favor of punishing the successful. His policies have run our country into the ground.

Aside from Bammy, we also have Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi. All of these people are left-wing socialist thugs.

No sorry, Obama may be more left wing than the majority of American politicians, but he's nowhere near a socialist. To say that is purely ignorant of socialist agenda.

According to Peter Lamb and J.C. Docherty, there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. At its heart, however, a socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital. That is precisely what Obama's economic policies are centered around. He and his Democrat cronies have pushed these policies into place since he took office.

You're right, there are many, but what most people can agree on, is that the broadest definition is the raising and development of the lowest class of people.

What you are describing isn't inherently socialist, or even limited to socialism. It's simply not letting the economy destroy itself, changing its primary goal from making money to benefiting society. It's not socialist because its goal isn't specifically to assist the poor people, it's to help everyone but the people who would otherwise control the market completely.

Obama isn't on the same list as Lenin, Marx, Engles and Trotsky.

How in blue hell do you think the economy makes money in the first place? It does that by developing products and services that benefit society. Take away the incentive, and there's no benefits for the companies that produce. At the same time, there's also no repercussions from not succeeding. The economy will remain stagnant and cease to grow.

Also, have a read of this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/26/president-obamas-marxist-leninist-economics-fact-and-fiction/

This article outlines Marx's 10-step program of conversion and how Obama's actions are a direct parallel to them. I'll concede that his social policies aren't Communist, but his economic policies are dangerously close to what Marx had in mind. It makes sense when you know that Obama eagerly studied these policies.

Marx's 10 step program is outdated. It was written 200 years ago in a time of incredible conservatism and that shows. Most sophisticated countries have already implemented many things on that list, and at best they're liberal policies, not socialist.

Secondly I see your argument for the need of incentive for a market to work, but I disagree that government intervention takes away more than it provides. Sure, you can't get as much money out of it potentially, but you aren't taking as big a risk with your investment, so it balances out.

I think both schools of thought regarding Government Regulations are good for certain points on an economy's life cycle. There are times and places for both. For instance, we needed a lot of regulations when the stock market tanked in 08. But in other spots when things have stabilized and the economy is ready to grow again, the regulations should ease up.

Strider Zero wrote:

No but really, fair enough, but won't that just result in an endless cycle of booms and busts rather than a steady reliable economy? Which might be fine for an isolated country with an isolated economy, but it does a bit of damage in a world where the economies of many countries are inter-dependent.

Raz wrote:

Strider Zero wrote:

No but really, fair enough, but won't that just result in an endless cycle of booms and busts rather than a steady reliable economy? Which might be fine for an isolated country with an isolated economy, but it does a bit of damage in a world where the economies of many countries are inter-dependent.

Hahaha, nice. Yes, I'm an Independent. I tend to side with Liberals on some subjects and Conservatives on others. The most healthy state of an economy is a little up and a little down once you hit a nice spot in the black, which requires a healthy mix of both sides of the argument. Something the U.S has a hard time doing for a number of reasons.

Did you guise watch the third debate? It was definitely pretty close. I don't think I even have an opinion on who I think did better.

Yeah, I agree. It was close. Romney kept pulling out the "attacking me will get us nowhere" card though. He's one to talk.