LastPommerFan

2008 was a Palin inspired circus

independents aren't watching the VP debate and the president's performance last week totally demoralized the base. This is exactly what they need.

he's firing up the base again He's not talking to you, or independents for that matter. I agree about the moderator.

That is completely intentional. I'm convinced his orders were to interrupt Ryan every time he makes a "stretched" fact (by that I mean a fact interpreted by dems as a stretch). I think this is a set up for what Obama will be doing.

I think this is what TBPHD was after when he said Libertarian. So is the Drinking Game for the VP Debate just "have as many drinks as Biden"?

Correct, the other guy didn't say ANYTHING with authority nor conviction!

It's the muck that's so much fun though!

It's not about this election. It's about once and for all eliminating the GOP as a viable electoral threat. Our philosophy and values are more in line with the American people. If we embark on a relentless campaign to explain our vision rather than belittle those who don't see it, we can put the GOP with the Whigs and Anti-Federalists as "Former American Political Parties". We will be so much better off if we can accept what Americans actually value as a nation, and instead debate the best way to protect those values. Right now we've got a situation where one party says Americans want to be on their own economically, while reducing immorality through federal law, while the other says Americans do best when they work together economically, while respecting each other's individual life choices. If we do a better job of explaining ourselves, with less belittling, we can end this. /liberalpeptalk

Yes. Productivity is the first option to meet demand. It is only when you fail at that, and still cannot meet customer demand, that you suffer the burden of hiring additional labor. Hiring people is cost. Cost is bad. To put this in context for where I'm coming from, I LOVE business, especially manufacturing. you'd be hard pressed to find a person more committed to the american manufacturing sector. I love the idea of profits. They are such a spectacularly simple way to measure the success of a business, and they are a supreme motivator. The purpose of business is to make profits, and I would never alter that. But business and profits are not a core value to the American people. The free market is not a core value of the American people. The free market is a tool, a spectacular tool, but it is not the thing Americans value. What Americans value is their freedom (both from the government and each other) and the ability to provide for their families. The Market allows us to do that with a strength not seen in humanity's 10,000 years of civilization. But I think in cases where symptoms or features of the free market end up hurting those two values, it is appropriate for us to modify the market's freedom in order to protect what we value. Edited to fix typos.

Seriously, it's not necessary to make veiled references to racism. It's not necessary to refer to the Former Governor as "Mittens". Democratic liberal philosophy will win the debate without these things. I mean, Gov. Romney made the most significant move in the polls by taking a large step to the left! It's also arrogant to believe that our ideals won't be better served when we steal some policy proposals from the right (individual mandates). Every time a fellow liberal calls a conservative a stupid racist redneck, an angel loses it's wings. (also it's a huge turnoff to independent people who may be reading through the debate) So please, PA, for the love of GOD (and FDR's ghost) ease up a bit.

1 Hiring more people is bad for business, it's only done as a last resort. 2 Agreed 3 Agreed 4 These incentives are the same ones that helped lead to the financial collapse, bonuses based on short-sighted goals allowing undue risk 5 Having a career in business would indicate you have been surround by a more monolithic environment with a more similar agenda than those who've spent a career in politics and public service 6 Agreed, and this has been a HUGE stumbling block for Obama. By far the thing I wish he would do better. 7 Similar to the above, but less relevant in government. 8 And this one is a big one. Businesses routinely take out debt to promote growth. That he can balance a 10k income statement is not equivalent to ability to control US debt in the next 10 years. Especially since he is apparently not going to take anything out of the 3 largest expenses over that time (Medicare, SS, and DOD) and not going to increase revenue. I brought up Ryan because his experience is nearly IDENTICAL to Barack's. If the President was Wildly unqualified to hold the office, as you are contending, then so is Ryan. I think it's relevant. Also, I think being the president for 4 years provides a solid background to be fit to be president. If I grant he was less than qualified in 2008, surely by now he's got it down. Organizing in his words, published in 1990: http://communitylearningpartnership.org/share/docs/Obama.Why%20Organize.pdf

Ok, I withdraw the argument. Do you accept Paul Ryan is unfit for the presidency? Edit: This is what he ran in Chicago: http://www.dcpchicago.org/site/epage/86644_868.htm

He tracked around the mean until he was running for president. His absenteeism is close (slightly better) than McCain's was at the same time. Paul Ryan has missed 27% of the votes in the last 3 months. It's the nature of the beast. You cannot contend that Paul Ryan is good to be on the ticket and that Barack Obama is somehow unqualified. Again, I grant that Romney's record is impressive. I think having a CEO/Governor father facilitates that greatly.

"community organizing" has become a euphemism for non-profit work to make it sound less noble. His work history is very parallel to that of Paul Ryan. Public Service. It's not a bad thing. His focus has been helping level the playing field for the middle class and the poor. I won't argue that Romney's work isn't impressive, even more impressive. I don't object to that contention. I object to trivializing public service.

Barack Obama does not have a business career. His work has been in public service since leaving BIC in the early 80s. Are business pursuits the only way to be successful? Is money the only measure? His work has been focused, but the nature of the work does not lend itself to a linear career. You may think this work is not of value to the president, that's fine, but they way you write these comments, indicates that you have little respect for the men and women who dedicate themselves to non-profit work. I'm not saying you can't make an argument that Romney's experience would serve better in the Oval Office, but i'd like to think you can do that without devaluing the efforts of an entire group of people out their in communities around the nation working to try and make various aspects of life better.

Not any more so than Barry Soetoro's college transcripts/records ....... The key difference here is that few presidents have released their transcripts in recent years. 100% presidents have released their taxes. The key distinction being that the tax returns are recent and shine light on events immediately prior to running for office, the transcripts would be more than 20 years old. That said, I'd like both.

It actually all fits almost perfectly into your post about the filters through which people, especially highly informed people, receive information. Tep's worldview is shaped by experiences and beliefs that I cannot comprehend, just as I'm sure it is hard for some to understand why I believe the things I believe. That we, as such a diverse nation, somehow manage to pull all this together and peacefully agree that we are one nation is impressive.

First, I apologize for the typo. I am terrible at spelling and rely heavily on spell check, not sure why I missed the squiggly red line under that one. If Israel were attacked, or even threatened by troop movements, any US President would proceed to lower the boom on the aggressors. I don't think it's realistic to propose otherwise, they are our single most important ally in the region. On Iran, I think the argument lies more in the best way to stop the Nuke program, not whether or not it should be stopped. I tend to be more of an international relations realist (Just for clarity, I mean that as a technical term, not that I see international relations in a more real way, or that others don't see reality). I don't want Iran to develop the Bomb, but I think the dangers, should they succeed, are largely overstated. Pakistan has the bomb and their military is largely controlled by extremists, I see Iran as becoming much the same, only with louder and more heated rhetoric when it's their turn at the podium. Nuclear Powers don't sell their weapons and they don't use them because they are aware of the consequences. MAD works. It is the ultimate deterrent. Your critiques of my description of the President's foreign policy philosophy are exactly to the core of the difference between the to policies. I would disagree that we have declared we have no enemies, several hundred people who's last play-date was with a CIA Drone would likely agree with me. I would completely agree that the success rate of this policy has been very mixed so far, but I would argue the mix leans slightly toward success. I would never argue that the strategy has been an unmitigated success (or failure). Finally, yes, we have no equals as far as economy, military, and as a result of those two, global reach. But that does not put the rest of the world beneath us in value. People are people. I'd rather convince them to join us than force them to. I think there is enough evidence over the past 67 years that forcing unwilling nations to toe the line backfires more often than is worth it.

There is very little difference on the primary foreign policy events currently. Both candidates will defend Isreal, stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, encourage the Syrian rebellion, attempt to level the trade field with China without causing a harmful trade war, etc. There is, however, a much more striking difference in the over arching philosophies. Gov. Romney believes in the idea that America needs to be leading the world from a dominant position. That our interests are best served when we reach out and take advantage of our strength, economic and military, to achieve our objectives. The President believes that we should lead, but not dominate. That other nations may make decisions that are not the ones we would like. He believes that our interests are best served by containing our existing enemies, while trying to limit the creation of new ones, by engaging the rest of the world as equals. If it weren't for the continued economic issues, this difference could have been the #1 issue for the election (same thing for 08 as well).

I can't even read slate. nor Mother Jones for that matter. For every 1 piece of actually revealing information, they offer 99 pieces of irrelevant partisan rhetoric.

Two have been arrested and are awaiting trial.

:doh: D'oh!

According to that Pew Poll, not only did the Debate cost President Obama significantly, it Decimated the Democratic party. In the last Pew poll (mid-September), they had 39% Democratic Party ID (29% GOP, 30% Ind.). In the most recent poll, that dropped to 31% (GOP up to 36%, ind. steady at 30%). That means, after the debate, nearly a quarter of the Democratic party decided that they weren't Democrats any more. That seems odd to me.

Probably not for a while...

Yes, I go every Sunday. Occasionally I miss if my kids are sick. I am using conservative in the religious context. She is clearly not a conservative in the legal sense. But both of President Obama's nominees received support from Republicans (Sotomayor 9, Kegan 5). Not that they liked them much, but they weren't so far left that they were filibuster worthy. I completely agree with your stance on terrorists and Due Process. I think the president is doing the right thing, as best he can, with these programs. Protecting America is Job #1 of the government, and I don't see the Civil Rights vanishing act that my further left peers see.