Just Wow

[stebo0728]

http://news.investors.com/editorials/on ... rialsRight

Ok, first off, yes this is old news. Doesn't matter, it shows the character of the despot we have in the oval office.

Synopsis:

In 2007 Obama gives a speech to a crowd in New Orleans. In it he claimed that Washington had waived the Stafford Act for the 9/11 incident, and Floridas hurricanes, but had failed to waive the act for Katrina. The Stafford Act requires that when federal money is spent on disaster relief, for every 10 dollars, 1 dollar must be spent by local authorities.

Facts:

Just 2 weeks prior to his speech, the Stafford Act was in fact waived by a vote of 80-14, and resulted in a record amount of federal funds being spent on Katrina relief.
Furthermore, just take one wild guess as to who one of the opponents of waiving the Staffard Act was. Yes, Obama himself opposed the measure.

I'm sorry, I know Mittens has his own trouble with facts sometimes, but compared to this, this outright purposeful bold face lie. Give me Mittens any day.

[Marenta]

Kettle, here's Pot. Pot, meet Kettle.

These past 10 or so years have given rise to a new job, fact checking.

[WDRacing]

Kettle, here's Pot. Pot, meet Kettle.

These past 10 or so years have given rise to a new job, fact checking.

What does that even mean? He's obviously talking straight BS and doing it in a racially motivated manner.

[themadscientist]

Both of them are full of s***. Any attempt to claim who is less full of s*** is just partisan apologistic smoke and mirrors. Don't worry, though; the average American will sit quietly and wait to be told what to think. They want to be lied to so the election should proceed without much trouble from us pesky types that demand facts and consistency.

[WDRacing]

Your POV is YOURS. You don't speak for America bro. The "average" American isn't waiting to be told what to do at all and no one wants to be lied to. That's just crap to the 10th f*** power right there. If people are kept in the dark it's because the mainstream media is 100% biased towards electing Obama and simply doesn't cover anything negative. They paint Romney as the devil, that's THE ONLY reason this is even a race right now.

Pointing out something negative isn't partisan dude, that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. Because I'm anti Obama all of the sudden nothing I say matters because it's just a partisan lie? GFY When you're done, repeat

No one is perfect Mike. But Romney isn't even close to the person you paint him to be, you're acting as bad as MSNBC FFS.

The above link points directly to Obama's character and how utterly full of crap he is. Yet no one but Fox and a few blogs will even cover it.

[Marenta]

Here's a simple break-down:

The only person you can trust to know what is true or false, is yourself. You know what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Do I trust Obama? No.
Do I trust Romney? No.

The only reason why I am voting for Obama is because I know how he captains a ship, that's it. I don't like it, personally. But, to me, it beats the unknown from the Repub camp.

And, who gives two damn rat's a** pyrites about the media? If you're smart enough, you'll do your own research and come to your own conclusion. Just know that you're going to vote, so at least you will have your say. That's all we can hope for.

[AppleBonker]

Don't worry, though; the average American will sit quietly and wait to be told what to think. They want to be lied to[...]

That's just crap to the 10th f**king power right there. If people are kept in the dark it's because the mainstream media is 100% biased towards electing Obama and simply doesn't cover anything negative

Do you realize you called his comment crap and then basically agreed with it? I would say the average American gets their news from the scary mainstream media (FNC may have the cable edge, but when you factor in local channels that goes away). And these people have the choice to watch Fox. So, they CHOOSE to follow the MSM (which feeds them "bias" and "keeps them in the dark"). Wouldn't that mean they're choosing to be lied to?

Both of them are full of s***.

I would agree with this, but go one step further: all politicians are full of sh*t.

[WDRacing]

You're trusting a source of media regardless, even if you're collecting your own intel. My statement about media coverage isn't aimed at people that have the time to sit down on the computer and research because they are the few, not the example. It's aimed at the majority of the population that watches the news. What the media portrays is entirely relevant to an election because they have the power to reach billions of people a day every day and the message they send becomes fact. Just like someone that reads anything on the internet, your intel is only as good as it's source.

To discount the effect the main stream media has on something is absolutely naive.

The only reason why I am voting for Obama is because I know how he captains a ship, that's it. I don't like it, personally. But, to me, it beats the unknown from the Repub camp.

You don't like the direction the country is going, but you're staying the course. To me that doesn't make any sense. You're doing it because you don't like the "unknown" in Romney? Can I ask what the unknown part is? How did he do in Massachusetts? He did a pretty damn good job. How did he handle the Olympics? Again, pretty damn good job. How successful was his business? Pretty damn successful. What are the unknowns you're worried about? Maybe we can discuss them like civilized people.

Obama doesn't have a plan to create more jobs Maranta, his plan is to spend more money and raise taxes. The taxes he's raising are on the companies that employ 50% of the Nation. This doesn't create jobs it eliminates them. He doesn't have a plan to create small business either. So we're taxing big bizz and ignoring small bizz. How is that going to work out? Where is his plan to cut spending in order to simply balance the already upside down budget? I'm not even talking about cutting into the deficit, I'm talking about a simple balance so as not to add to it. He's throwing Romney under the bus for not giving details about his tax plan, well at least he HAS a plan. The biggest question in Romney's plan is can he implement it without adding to the debt. That's it...not that it won't work, but will it add to the debt. Obama has capitulated that it will work, he's just assaulting the lack of details. The attack on his tax plan doesn't take into account economic growth contributing to revenue and it doesn't account for Gov programs being cut.

My theory behind the lack of details is a simple one. They are going to be unpopular. They have to be in order to work. No one wants to lay out an unpopular plan before he's elected because it costs votes. There are programs that will have to be cut. Also an unpopular thing to itemize. If he laid out a bunch of details, Obama and his main stream tag team would portray them in a vastly negative manner. Again, this may not effect you, but it will effect billions of others every day.

Obama was elected on his ability to read a really good speech and talk to a country that was entirely disenfranchised about the current direction it was heading. He spoke to us about hope. He spoke to us about restoring of Gov to something that worked for the people instead of against them. He gave us hope that things would get better. He said everything we wanted to hear...everything we were crying out for. What we got was a Gov that grew in size and stuck it's fingers into everything right down to how many calories my children are allowed to have at lunch time. We didn't get a balanced budget like promised, we got increased spending with no cuts at all, unless you count cuts to how much oil and coal we were allowed to produce. He ran on our hope and want for change. Now he's running on your fears of change by demonizing them. He's promulgating fear and driving a wedge between those that have and those that don't.

He doesn't even have a foreign policy. Hiding and apologizing isn't a policy.

Why would you want to stay the course?

[WDRacing]

So, they CHOOSE to follow the MSM (which feeds them "bias" and "keeps them in the dark"). Wouldn't that mean they're choosing to be lied to?

I said they don't want to be lied to. People are creatures of habit, the stations they watch probably play their favorite shows, so they watch the news from the same station. Also, there are how many stations with news compared to Fox? My point was that if asked, a person isn't going to choose to be lied to. They're unwittingly being lied to because they're watching their favorite channel. They aren't doing it on purpose was my point...nice spin though.

[Bubba1]

What does that even mean? He's obviously talking straight BS and doing it in a racially motivated manner.

I think Philadelphia Phillie great Mike Schmidt summed it up best when he said "there's nothing like the thrill of victory and the agony of reading about it the next day..."

[themadscientist]

Your POV is YOURS. You don't speak for America bro. The "average" American isn't waiting to be told what to do at all and no one wants to be lied to. That's just crap to the 10th f**king power right there.

The f*** they aren't. Look around at popular culture. Sit down in a public area for an afternoon and just listen to the conversations stewing around you. See how wrapped up people are in s*** that means nothing and how the actively avoid confronting real issues. You are too engaged to truly believe what you just said; you KNOW that's a bunch of crap.

If people are kept in the dark it's because the mainstream media is 100% biased towards electing Obama and simply doesn't cover anything negative. They paint Romney as the devil, that's THE ONLY reason this is even a race right now.

People are 15 minutes of critical thinking away from any truth they wish to run down. Oooo, the mean old mainstream media is locking up the truth and fighting off the hungry masses thirsty for knowledge. Bull f*** ing s***! That they are a shill for Obama, absolutely, I agree 100%. CNN, MSNBC etc, totally in the tank for him with legs aflutter. I will need you to admit that Fox is doing the same blocking work for the GOP, though.

Again, the MSM has a very easy job of distracting the aforementioned people who are invested in plausable deniability of how they are complicit in their own f*** ing over. What you cast as some NSA-level black op is more like jingling keys in front of an infant.

Pointing out something negative isn't partisan dude, that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense. Because I'm anti Obama all of the sudden nothing I say matters because it's just a partisan lie? GFY When you're done, repeat

No one is perfect Mike. But Romney isn't even close to the person you paint him to be, you're acting as bad as MSNBC FFS.

The above link points directly to Obama's character and how utterly full of crap he is. Yet no one but Fox and a few blogs will even cover it.

If you apply the same level of scrutiny to "your guy" as you do to the "other guy" no problem. Where are your threads calling out Romney on his budget math? Any 5th grader with a pocket calculator can see he is as math challenged as Obama.

I don't see you taking him to task for supporting the Patriot act and NDAA, JUST LIKE OBAMA; you must be ok with that in which case Obama should satisfy you.

So you like how he wants to keep us involved in wars around the world? I don't hear you complaining about that so it must be ok. Obama agrees by the way.

What I suggest is, actually you are acting like MSNBC, not me. You see, they pick and choose what they report. They pass their outrage through a litmus test "does this help or hurt our guy?" Unless I am missing some things you have written critical of the obvious failings of Romney that is exactly what you are doing. That your guy is Romney and theirs is Obama is irrelevant; the behavior is the same.

You want Romney. I get that. That's your choice. Other people want Obama, and they are similarly within their rights to choose that option. I expect some consistency, however. I expect intellectual honesty. I will not let a cardboard cutout of a cadidate suffice for a representation and if, IF, you or anyone else tries to slide that by I'm going to call you on it. If you don't like that, you have options.

1. Ignore me. I win by default. That may bother you, it may not; it's up to you.

2. Correct your damned self. Be honest about your candidate and confront the things that give you pause and be ready to speak to them in an objective and honest manner. My guy has some things like this and I am quite public about my feelings on that. i win and so do you because we can really hash out the issue and both come away better for the discussion.

3. Stay silent. I win again, but so do you because you never had to back off since the discussion was never opened. The ole "don't start nothin, won't be nothin" methodology.

If me being critical of Romney causes you mental anguish you should try to really explore why. If I am wrong, please correct me with fact and logical rhetoric. If I'm not wrong, ask yourself where you manage to muster outrage over truth. That sort of means you are part of a problem. Are you ok with that? Probably not if it's getting you huffy. See previous plausable deniability assertion.

If you just can't deal with any which way then just drop in on a thread where I'm slamming Obama and subscribe to the enemy of my enemy is my freind thing.

[themadscientist]

A great example of what I mean. I can't tear down her argument for her choice; it's bulletproof within its context.

Here's a simple break-down:

The only person you can trust to know what is true or false, is yourself. You know what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Do I trust Obama? No.
Do I trust Romney? No.

The only reason why I am voting for Obama is because I know how he captains a ship, that's it. I don't like it, personally. But, to me, it beats the unknown from the Repub camp.

And, who gives two damn rat's a** pyrites about the media? If you're smart enough, you'll do your own research and come to your own conclusion. Just know that you're going to vote, so at least you will have your say. That's all we can hope for.

[themadscientist]

Obama was elected on his ability to read a really good speech and talk to a country that was entirely disenfranchised about the current direction it was heading. He spoke to us about hope. He spoke to us about restoring of Gov to something that worked for the people instead of against them. He gave us hope that things would get better. He said everything we wanted to hear...everything we were crying out for.

Sounds like this don't it?



If I am so wrong about the intellectual shortcomings of our electorate, why did it work? Why does it always work?

My theory behind the lack of details is a simple one. They are going to be unpopular. They have to be in order to work. No one wants to lay out an unpopular plan before he's elected because it costs votes. There are programs that will have to be cut. Also an unpopular thing to itemize. If he laid out a bunch of details, Obama and his main stream tag team would portray them in a vastly negative manner. Again, this may not effect you, but it will effect billions of others every day.

So what you're saying is American can't handle the truth? That sounds suspiciously like what I said that you say is BS. Wait, do you actually agree and are just saying you don't agree because you think that will make me vote for you and after the election you will then admit you agreed the whole time? It's so confusing!

[stebo0728]

Both candidates have their misgivings. By posting this, I was not seeking to absolve Romney of his issues. But this issue in the OP really, in my mind, speaks to the character of our current POTUS. Why, when we are still a nation struggling to close a festering wound like racial tension, does it behoove this man to go out and purposely, knowingly, with all intent and presence of mind, completely and utterly lie to a group of already hurting and emotionally charged people. This one act did far more damage than any amount of good it could have done his campaign at the time. He already had the black vote just by being alive, so what did he have to gain from this?

Romney and Obama are debating some pretty complex stuff, and they both have misrepresented each other's positions and plans. Its one thing to have mathematical figures wrong, to cite one study over another to draw a certain conclusion, and then its an entirely different thing to do what Mr. Obama did to these people in New Orleans. And what adds insult to injury, not once has he ever recanted, has he ever addressed these people to say, hey I was wrong we did help you guys out after all. Its because he knew he was wrong, he meant to be wrong, I don't know for what end, and that's really what sort of unknown I can't put up with. We talk about Romney's unknown, but Obama has, in my estimation, a looming unknown of his own. He's already beckoned the world's second strongest world leader to give him some "wiggle room" to get this election out of the way. I dont think an Obama win is just four more years of the same, I'm afraid it will be four more WORSE, more fundamentally troubling years. THAT is why I support Romney. His unknown is far more appealing to me.

[themadscientist]

I think logic would suggest that four more years would be a better representation of what the prisident really wants to do since the spector or reelection no longer looms over him. Exactly what that will look like will have to wait until he wins, and he will win. The GOP cast that die when they picked Romney. They wanted to lose so they could have another four years to goof off and line their own pockets while blaming Obama for everything. They will get their wish and we shall all suffer for it.

[stebo0728]

You may be right, but I have not conceded just yet. I read somewhere in passing, one polling agency is giving up and leaving FL, VA, NC, and IA and marking them for Romney.

There is definitely still a fight, even if Romney is fighting IN SPITE of the GoP, he's still got a good fight going. Between his PWN'ing of Obama last week, and the trouble brewing over Libya now for POTUS, this thing isn't decided yet, at least not in my estimation.

And apparently, now there's some more trouble brewing over possible donation abuse on Obama's website. Apparently, through either implicit allowance, or some oversight in design, will allow donations from ANY source, including foreign. This is a breech of donation policy. Further more, there's at least some reason to believe that China has been abusing this loophole to contribute to the campaign.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -campaign/

[themadscientist]

In spite of the GOP? They are the very reason he is not preparing his resume to run another olympics. He owes them everything, they contorted the primaries to M.C. Escheresque proportions to craft his "win."

he doesn't have this Virginian's vote. They are giving up because he is on the bubble in those tossup states and getting back to my earlier assertion, the truth don't sell and the GOP is following plan C, insert fingers in ears, close eyes, begin saying "lalalalala, I'm not listening."

[stebo0728]

What I meant by "in spite of" was a response to your assertion that the GOP intends to lose. Yes Romney wouldn't be where he is without the GOP, but if they placed him there as a straw man, he's fighting to win "in spite of" this.

[themadscientist]

Oh I agree, Romney thinks he can win. I don't think he would try if he thought he had no chance. I kind of feel bad for what they set him up for, but not so much I would want him to be my president.

[WDRacing]

I can easily admit that FOX is pro-Romney. There isn't any doubt about that at all. The media thing IS a conspiracy dude. No one is reporting honest facts anymore and the media has the power to control people, especially if people are as stupid as you think they are. Hell, maybe your right. Maybe I don't want to think of America as a bunch of sheeple just going through the paces of life, being herded in whatever direction the current "powers that be" decide. To believe that or even think about it makes me wanna revolt dude. So perhaps I put on my own set of blinders to protect myself from the truth of how f*** up everything is. It helps keep me sane.

When I vomit nothing but negative verbage about Obama it's not because I'm infatuated with Romney, it's because I believe all the negative s*** I say about Obama. I'm not towing any lines, I simply hate Obama and I've never said anything to delude that fact.

The Patriot Act and NDAA are very low on my totem pole of things IGAF about Mike. There are lots of others too. The fact that the two agree or have similar views on some subjects doesn't mean my opinion of them is going to be the same. I base my opinion on the things that matter to me the most and the scale goes down from there. TPA and NDAA don't bother me because they don't effect me on a level that interferes with my life. I'm not a terrorlst and I don't particularly care if other suspected terrorists are detained indefinitely without trial. I also don't care if they're "interrogated" with prejudice while incarcerated. Staying at war in the Middle East isn't so much our choice dude. War has been declared on us. To discuss the Middle East we'd need an entirely separate thread and it can't be on Nico because we're not allowed to involve religion and what I have to say is pretty ugly.

I don't make any threads about either candidate. I simply reply to the ones made by others. If the topic is anti-Obama, well I'm obviously more then happy to attack that mofo because I hate him. That doesn't make everything I say partisan BS. I'll talk about Romney's negative aspects all day bud, just make a thread about them. Me not bringing them up doesn't mean I'm unwilling to concede that he's not perfect. Making negative statements about Romney doesn't benefit me in any way, simple as that.

I'll have a conversation about Romney, I just need specific things to talk about...not "well Romney is a big fat liar" with no facts to follow, or some statement about how his plan doesn't add up without something concrete I can put my hands on, capiche? Maybe I don't scrutinize Romney like I do Obama, I'd say that's a fair assessment. However, Romney hasn't done anything to effect me personally. Obama has. Some of Romney's "plans" go directly towards f*** the wrongs that have been dealt that effect me the most. So yeah, I'm going to be pro-Romney dude. Even if he is a war monger that secretly wants to give more money to the wealthy, I'd still pick him based on the few things that appeal to me the most.

Off the top of my head, I hate that Romney is pro-life. That's one of the negative issues that bothers me the most. I'm sure there are others, I'd just rather bash Obama.

I can't be compared to MSNBC because no one comes onto NICO to read what Brian has to say...lol. I also never claimed to be for anything other then myself.

You want Romney. I get that. That's your choice. Other people want Obama, and they are similarly within their rights to choose that option. I expect some consistency, however. I expect intellectual honesty. I will not let a cardboard cutout of a cadidate suffice for a representation and if, IF, you or anyone else tries to slide that by I'm going to call you on it. If you don't like that, you have options.

If me being critical of Romney causes you mental anguish you should try to really explore why. If I am wrong, please correct me with fact and logical rhetoric. If I'm not wrong, ask yourself where you manage to muster outrage over truth. That sort of means you are part of a problem. Are you ok with that? Probably not if it's getting you huffy. See previous plausable deniability assertion.

Dude, I'm totally consistent with my POV. Intellectual honesty? I'm not making things up at all, I'm offering my totally biased opinion. I never claimed anything else.

You being critical of Romney doesn't cause me anguish. It's your misdirection of the thread where the topic directly pertains to Obama. Why? Because I enjoy kicking that prick as often as I can. If you want to have a thread that compares the candidates then more power to you. I'll be more then happy to offer my obviously biased opinion in there as well. I can be totally biased and still educate myself.