Halfway through, they should have stopped the fight.

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by xbook

I have to say President Obama was not at his best during that debate. His performance could have been much better.

That being said, Rmoney did a rather amazing job with his lies and mistruths again. Like shabadoo said, 27 lies in 38 minutes. And the balls on the guy to go after PBS while a host from PBS is moderating the debate. Yeah because it's the funding for PBS that is just killing our budget. Sure.

I am not surprised that the right-wing crowd here is positively foaming at the mouth at the prospects of Rmoney doing well in the debate. It's a pretty good display of the integrity of Rmoney supporters when you champion a guy who just simply can't give the truth.

EDIT: PBS issues a statement about the debates. In it they say that PBS costs each taxpayer $1.35. Personally, I am fine with paying $1.35 for public broadcasting over the year. I'll spend $2.45 on a starbucks later this morning, so forkin' over a buck fifty for Big Bird is fine with me.

Let the cons have their fun. They don't understand the long game Obama is playing here. And with today's jobs numbers, the debate will be long forgotten by most of the low information voters in the USA. We'll see if the debate has any influence on the polls in the swing vote states because that's all that matters.

Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning over 87% now and Intrade has Obama at 86%. The cons are going to be in a world of hurt come Nov. 7th.

[Team Plutonium]

Personally I don't really care who wins... I have a green card and can't vote anyway, and if Mitt wins I get another sweet tax break - yes please.

But what I find laughable is that the republicans start 2 wars, basically put it on a credit card (never paid for it), but try to fix the deficit by cutting funding to PBS that doesn't even show up on the pie chart of government spending.

So they are the fiscally conservative party? I love this country, but man does it crack me up on a regular basis.

[shabadoo25]

PBS' share of the federal budget: .00012%

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Personally I don't really care who wins... I have a green card and can't vote anyway, and if Mitt wins I get another sweet tax break - yes please.

But what I find laughable is that the republicans start 2 wars, basically put it on a credit card (never paid for it), but try to fix the deficit by cutting funding to PBS that doesn't even show up on the pie chart of government spending.

So they are the fiscally conservative party? I love this country, but man does it crack me up on a regular basis.

is troll?

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by bolinp78

is troll?

Why? Because I have an opinion?

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Why? Because I have an opinion?

Re-read what you wrote, recognize why what you wrote was dumb and come back and we'll all sit by the campfire and make s'mores.

hint: it has nothing to do with your comment about wars

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by bolinp78

Re-read what you wrote, recognize why what you wrote was dumb and come back and we'll all sit by the campfire and make s'mores.

hint: it has nothing to do with your comment about wars

If you took offense regrading my "cracking up" comment I apologize. To be fair, Europe cracks me up on a regular basis as well.

But you have to admit, taking away funding from PBS or NPR in order to fix the deficit is just silly.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

If you took offense regrading my "cracking up" comment I apologize. To be fair, Europe cracks me up on a regular basis as well.

But you have to admit, taking away funding from PBS or NPR in order to fix the deficit is just silly.

What is silly is that you have literally boxed in an entire political parties deficit reduction plan into comments made about cutting the funding of two news sources, and then make a sarcastic remark about how the party is not fiscally conservative like that is all they plan to do.

That is exactly how your original post reads, and it sounds pretty ignorant.

The dems will come in and say "Well what else has he proposed besides that", just wait.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by xbook

I have to say President Obama was not at his best during that debate. His performance could have been much better.

That being said, Rmoney did a rather amazing job with his lies and mistruths again. Like shabadoo said, 27 lies in 38 minutes. And the balls on the guy to go after PBS while a host from PBS is moderating the debate. Yeah because it's the funding for PBS that is just killing our budget. Sure.

I am not surprised that the right-wing crowd here is positively foaming at the mouth at the prospects of Rmoney doing well in the debate. It's a pretty good display of the integrity of Rmoney supporters when you champion a guy who just simply can't give the truth.

EDIT: PBS issues a statement about the debates. In it they say that PBS costs each taxpayer $1.35. Personally, I am fine with paying $1.35 for public broadcasting over the year. I'll spend $2.45 on a starbucks later this morning, so forkin' over a buck fifty for Big Bird is fine with me.

If you'd be kind enough to skip the Starbucks and pony up the $1.35 for me I'd appreciate it. Thanks

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by bolinp78

What is silly is that you have literally boxed in an entire political parties deficit reduction plan into comments made about cutting the funding of two news sources, and then make a sarcastic remark about how the party is not fiscally conservative like that is all they plan to do.

That is exactly how your original post reads, and it sounds pretty ignorant.

The dems will come in and say "Well what else has he proposed besides that", just wait.

What's silly to me is that the republican party even brings it up in the first place - hence my sarcastic comment. Mitt Romney even made it a point during the debate, which is crazy since it is such a minuscule budget.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by xbook

And the balls on the guy to go after PBS while a host from PBS is moderating the debate. Yeah because it's the funding for PBS that is just killing our budget. Sure.

I am not surprised that the right-wing crowd here is positively foaming at the mouth at the prospects of Rmoney doing well in the debate. It's a pretty good display of the integrity of Rmoney supporters when you champion a guy who just simply can't give the truth.

EDIT: PBS issues a statement about the debates. In it they say that PBS costs each taxpayer $1.35. Personally, I am fine with paying $1.35 for public broadcasting over the year. I'll spend $2.45 on a starbucks later this morning, so forkin' over a buck fifty for Big Bird is fine with me.

When was the last time you watched PBS, it is crap. Sesame Street sucks (I have a two year old we have watched an episode) none of the programming would survive is there was any competition.

If you are trying to balance your personal budget the first thing you do is cut out unnecessary spending, like Starbucks for example. PBS is the governments Starbucks, it can go and after a week nobody will miss it.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

What's silly to me is that the republican party even brings it up in the first place - hence my sarcastic comment. Mitt Romney even made it a point during the debate, which is crazy since it is such a minuscule budget.

If you watch the clip, he clearly brought it up as an example because Jim Lehrer worked for PBS. If he had all day perhaps he could create a list of 200 other things he'd cut.

You are taking his comment so literally and out of context that it is really hard for me to even go back and forth with you about it.

[Mr Tonka]

When people find it laughable to cut $445 million dollars out of our ever growing budget, you know we are destine to failure.

[Fox128i]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

When people find it laughable to cut $445 million dollars out of our ever growing budget, you know we are destine to failure.

I agree.


We need some serious spending cuts in this nation folks. Actually passing a damned budget might be a good idea too.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

The cons are going to be in a world of hurt come Nov. 7th.

Assuming you mean because Obama is gonna win, then I got news for you.... it's not just conservatives who are gonna be in a world of hurt after the 7th... it's going to be anyone (yes, even card-carrying Democrats) who are in the 53% who pays income taxes. With his policies, that world of hurt will just slowly get worse.

If you are a net consumer of the entitlement pot, then you'll be happy, if you are a net contributor, not so much. Like I said before, any initiative that calls for taking from Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. If there are more "Pauls" than "Peters" in raw numbers, and their votes count the same, guess what happens...

I do understand that the liberals may not realize it at first, their joy upon learning their "idol" has got another 4 years will mask anything else at first. If it's anything like 2008, I expect to see people literally weeping with joy. Hopefully it does not cause them to drop their taxpayer-funded cellphones, it would just be adding insult to injury if I have to buy them another one.

Probably sometime during Q1 of Calendar 2013, when people see that gridlock has continued, then the honeymoon will start to wear off and the hangover sets in. I wonder how many more budget proposals that fail unanimously will occur before the lightbulb goes on?

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Assuming you mean because Obama is gonna win, then I got news for you.... it's not just conservatives who are gonna be in a world of hurt after the 7th... it's going to be anyone (yes, even card-carrying Democrats) who is in the 53% who pays income taxes. With his policies, that world of hurt will just slowly get worse.

If you are a net consumer of the entitlement pot, then you'll be happy, if you are a net contributor, not so much. Like I said before, any initiative that calls for taking from Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. If there are more "Pauls" than "Peters" in raw numbers, and their votes count the same, guess what happens...

I do understand that the liberals may not realize it at first, their joy upon learning their "idol" has got another 4 years will mask anything else at first. If it's anything like 2008, I expect to see people literally weeping with joy. Hopefully it does not cause them to drop their taxpayer-funded cellphones, it would just be adding insult to injury if I have to buy them another one.

Probably sometime during Q1 of Calendar 2013, when people see that gridlock has continued, then the honeymoon will start to wear off and the hangover sets in. I wonder how many more budget proposals that fail unanimously will occur before the lightbulb goes on?

I'm a net contributor and I'll proudly pay more taxes once Obama is re-elected. It is the patriotic thing to do to get our country on the right fiscal track.

Rmoney is proposing NOTHING new. He's doubling down on the failed con "trickle down" policies. Sorry been there, done that, and look at the mess we're in based on the con policies under W. Does Rmoney really think we're all that stupid not to remember a mere 4 years ago????

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Assuming you mean because Obama is gonna win, then I got news for you.... it's not just conservatives who are gonna be in a world of hurt after the 7th... it's going to be anyone (yes, even card-carrying Democrats) who are in the 53% who pays income taxes. With his policies, that world of hurt will just slowly get worse.

If you are a net consumer of the entitlement pot, then you'll be happy, if you are a net contributor, not so much. Like I said before, any initiative that calls for taking from Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. If there are more "Pauls" than "Peters" in raw numbers, and their votes count the same, guess what happens...

I do understand that the liberals may not realize it at first, their joy upon learning their "idol" has got another 4 years will mask anything else at first. If it's anything like 2008, I expect to see people literally weeping with joy. Hopefully it does not cause them to drop their taxpayer-funded cellphones, it would just be adding insult to injury if I have to buy them another one.

Probably sometime during Q1 of Calendar 2013, when people see that gridlock has continued, then the honeymoon will start to wear off and the hangover sets in. I wonder how many more budget proposals that fail unanimously will occur before the lightbulb goes on?

vertinoho is the most over the top ridiculous of the bunch, you're speaking to a brick wall

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

I'm a net contributor and I'll proudly pay more taxes once Obama is re-elected. It is the patriotic thing to do to get our country on the right fiscal track. :

Patriotic thing to do ? By Patriotic, do you mean acting in a way that is best for the LONG TERM health of the country?

I suppose if you visit a place like Yellowstone park, and you see wildlife who look really cute and hungry, you think the right thing to do for them is to feed them ? After all, it would be just plain cruel to watch them walk away hungry, something only mean Republicans would do. What harm could feeding them cause ?

I mean, it's not as if all biologists all agree that feeding wild animals, and making them dependant on humans could posssibly be bad, or that some might even advocate that it's better for the overall health of the species overall to let 1 bear go hungry, than to feed it and thus cause it to not teach it's young how to fend for themselves either, thus disrupting the chain of the food cycle and upsetting the delicate balance in nature, causing huge, hard to fix problems down the road.

Oh wait.......


Well, I'm sure that NONE of that has even the slightest relevance whatsoever to human society...

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

Does Rmoney really think we're all that stupid not to remember a mere 4 years ago????

Apparently, the Democrats are counting on people not remembering Obama's ability to get congress to collaborate effectively from 4 MONTHS ago, let alone 4 years ago....

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Patriotic thing to do ? By Patriotic, do you mean acting in a way that is best for the LONG TERM health of the country?

I suppose if you visit a place like Yellowstone park, and you see wildlife who look really cute and hungry, you think the right thing to do for them is to feed them ? After all, it would be just plain cruel to watch them walk away hungry, something only mean Republicans would do. What harm could feeding them cause ?

I mean, it's not as if all biologists all agree that feeding wild animals, and making them dependant on humans could posssibly be bad, or that some might even advocate that it's better for the overall health of the species overall to let 1 bear go hungry, than to feed it and thus cause it to not teach it's young how to fend for themselves either, thus disrupting the chain of the food cycle and upsetting the delicate balance in nature, causing huge, hard to fix problems down the road.

Oh wait.......


Well, I'm sure that NONE of that has even the slightest relevance whatsoever to human society...

In b4 someone comes in and claims what you are saying is wrong and inapplicable because you are a horrible person for comparing people to wild animals.

[Gamoto]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

I'm a net contributor and I'll proudly pay more taxes once Obama is re-elected. It is the patriotic thing to do to get our country on the right fiscal track.

Rmoney is proposing NOTHING new. He's doubling down on the failed con "trickle down" policies. Sorry been there, done that, and look at the mess we're in based on the con policies under W. Does Rmoney really think we're all that stupid not to remember a mere 4 years ago????

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by bolinp78

In b4 someone comes in and claims what you are saying is wrong and inapplicable because you are a horrible person for comparing people to wild animals.

Full points to you sir !

Yes, it's horrible to say. There is no useful lesson or correlation at all one could possibly extrude from ANY of that.

I'm sure if you tried, you could find no data at all that even remotely suggests that people who rely on entitlements are more likely to have children who then also rely on entitlements, and they have more children, and so on, as the cycle continues and is really hard to break out of. As they have more children, the group of affected people get larger and larger.

Of course, there's no data at all to suggest that those who do contribute most are choosing to have less children than ever before, wheras the birth rate for the other group isnt really going down at all. Hell, that would just make matters worse, so the ratio of contributors to consumers of "society's well" would become more lopsided in an exponential way, thus accelerating the rate at which the well will become empty, to the disadvantage of everyone.

The harsh way animals are left to fend for themselves cannot be applied to people. I mean, it's not as if there are any sort of animal rescue or rehabilitation organizations which take wild creatures out of their natural habitat and care for them when they are physically injured and genuinely unable to feed themselves, thus leaving only the healthy wild animals to stand on their own 2 feet in a cruel darwinian way.

Yes, the biologists are a mean and crazy lot..... thank God none of that is applied to people, that would only bring misery to the world.

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

I'm a net contributor and I'll proudly pay more taxes once Obama is re-elected. It is the patriotic thing to do to get our country on the right fiscal track.

Rmoney is proposing NOTHING new. He's doubling down on the failed con "trickle down" policies. Sorry been there, done that, and look at the mess we're in based on the con policies under W. Does Rmoney really think we're all that stupid not to remember a mere 4 years ago????

When's the last time you wrote a check to the IRS beyond your tax obligation??? I smell a hypocrite.

You can send them a check any day of the week, 365 days a year and explicitly tell them to use it to pay down the deficit. I'm betting you've done no such thing or are to cowardly with your own money to even pretend to do so because you know it will go straight to waste.

Liberals just love to spend other people's money.