2012 Presidential Election

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I get questioned to why I think a Ron Paul is a decent dude (THATS A FIRST) through opinionated accusations which are unrelated to the thread therefore pointless for me to even continue further. Its old. Then you say this is my response, "LOL WHY SO SERIOUS?!" as if i'm desparately trying to escape such a crucial debate of so much meaning.

Dont you see how stupid you're acting whilst on my nuts?

Nice use of 'whilst'. That totally makes you sound well-read and classy.

Damn you'll reach for anything to stay on my nuts lol. I like the word whilst, why would I think that makes me classy? haermm Thought it was funny.

Oh okay, so you're judging my debate skills off of something that wasnt even a debate. Gotcha 😉 Whatever makes you feel better brah. You trying to elevate yourself isnt going to help you get off my nuts.

Say 'on my nuts' a few more times. Maybe you'll start to make sense.

stoned

I'll keep them clean just for you buddy. 😉

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'll keep them clean just for you buddy. 😉

Maybe you can help me out. You know a lot about me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
DJ: are you suggesting the government of a nation should be, by nature, oppositional to a certain percentage of its population? (the rich)

I am a realist in the conflict theory sense. I suggest that people who fear nothing and are beholden to no one do nothing out of the goodness of their heart. I suggest that collusion between political and economic interests is fascism and that the government needs to be a check on organized money since as FDR suggested, it is no better than organized crime. So yeah, abso****inglutely I suggest that the government must be an opposing force against a portion of society that is capable of corrupting it.

Assuming that said government is not also corrupt.

re: war in afghanistan

does ron paul think that if we didn't invade afghanistan after 9/11 that al-qaeda would no longer want to attack us?

all this shit about whether our intervention in the mid-est from the 1950's on initially caused the this opposition seems irrelevant to the strategic question of how the president should have responded to 9/11.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
offtopicness continues

Letters of marque? So . . . uh apparently Ron Paul wanted us to flood Afghanistan with mercenaries and bounty hunters. At least he's consistent in his double think.

Maybe he believes that no mercenaries would go to Afghanistan cuz dem Mujas be crazy.

So, how was the debate?

It was fascinating. Obama showed up to this one and by most accounts won it, though not by the margins that Romney won the first debate.

The big moment that is getting a lot of attention is the moment when Romney attempted to attack Obama on the notion that Obama hadn't called the attack in Libya an act of terror in his initial speech when in fact he did, and the moderator called Romney on this error/lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIMnWGrh60M

Yeah, that's something I'm seeing a lot of buzz on (that and the women in binder's, which is becoming a meme), too.

Backlash from the last debate, I suppose. It's nice to see a moderator with some balls... ironically.

Here's he transcript from that particular section:

"ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror."

So why is that exchange such a big deal? What am I missing?

Obviously, I'm getting my information from Fox News but I could not find much on it:

"Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/?intcmp=trending#ixzz29YOhx96O"

So how did Obama "win" that exchange, again? I just don't see a clear "winner" in that exchange. More like Romney asking for clarification and it was given...with Romney being right that there was a delayed response from the Obama camp.

It wasn't a big thing. People in the audience were just such idiots that they clap and cheer at inappropriate moments

Originally posted by Lestov16
It wasn't a big thing. People in the audience were just such idiots that they clap and cheer at inappropriate moments

😆 😆 😆

Probably true. I need to watch it. It feels like I'm missing something.

The most telling sign was when Romney's supporters started clapping just to one-up the idiot Obama supporters 😂

Originally posted by dadudemon

So why is that exchange such a big deal? What am I missing?

its a big deal because the moderater also served as third party fact checker who called out a bald faced lie rather than give a free pass.
if im not mistaken this is unprecedented.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I'm getting my information from Fox News but I could not find much on it:

"Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/?intcmp=trending#ixzz29YOhx96O"

mitt said obama didnt call it "an act of terror" when he used those exact words. it was a pure fabrication used to pander to the "OBUMMERS GOIN EASY ON TEH TERRS'TS" crowd.

now the foxnews outrage manufacturing department is hard at work trying to spin it into "evil crowley lies for obama".

Originally posted by dadudemon
So how did Obama "win" that exchange, again? I just don't see a clear "winner" in that exchange. More like Romney asking for clarification and it was given...with Romney being right that there was a delayed response from the Obama camp.

he declared that "i wanna make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in benghazi an act of terror". this was in fact a complete fabrication and he looked like an ass because of it.

so you see, its no credit to obama. a bag of rocks could have won that particular exchange against romney.

I didn't see it as frabricated attempt to expose Obamas weakness to terrorist. I saw it as Romney simply trying to expose the incompetence of the administration because they didnt realize (so they say) it was a planned act of terror until weeks after, but instead they thought it was a spontaneous act of terror due to a youtube video.

Either way, they would have both been acts of terror. Romney just used the wrong wording.

The Obama Administration is a total fail. I don't see Romney being any better either. Swann exposes Clinton in this video.

YouTube video