awepittance Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Hate to say it but...Obama still looks like a shell of a man. Clint Eastwood must have done some voodoo to suck the soul out of him, he had trouble stringing together sentences, and sat down on his stool the whole time Romney was pacing the floor. Romney's on fire. Shit. i don't think Romney's momentum after the first debate has ceased at all, but Obama tried his best to be aggressive and i don't think it worked to his advantage. I think what you were hearing in his trouble to string together sentences is normal for him, he was probably just training for the past 2 weeks not to say 'uh' which if you watch both debates back to back you can see that in those silences and halting he would have normally be saying 'and... uh' over and over again. Something inside Obama has changed drastically, he seems less happy, tired, defeated and psychologically damaged from 4 years of being the american president. Maybe he really was this idealistic 'hope and changey' guy originally who just got the mental shit kicked out of him when he realized how futile it was. My rationalization is edging on being just as abysmally sad as the 'impotent president' excuse many liberals use, but i can't help it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's a really good point. People said Occupy was worthless... look how much it has affected the rhetoric. I didn't say it was worthless, I said it was a failure. I would be happy to admit I am wrong in the coming years, believe me. So success is a complete revolution/change of government institutions and their structure (two party system)... hundreds of years of tradition... and you expected Occupy to do this all within one year? Lol Im surprised you expect Occupy to do it at all. I am not surprised, unfortunately, that members of the Occupy movement somehow believe they are the arbiters of such complete and total change. If there is a revolution, Occupy will not bear sole responsibility for it. I hate to disappoint you. Everyone seems to believe that Occupy is this monolithic game-changing strategy of political and social protest never before seen on earth. I'm glad people are paying credence to it, but I've dealt with enough of the nuts telling me that unless I join their tent village in Baltimore that I'm "part of problem", and that they and only they have the ability to really change things. It's a disturbing hive-mind us and them mentality thinly veiled by spurious ideas of thirteen year olds spouting shit out of an anarcho-collectivist pamphlet they picked up at Red Emma's, convinced that they alone have stumbled onto the guiding light of perfect and objective knowledge. Your post is a great example of this mindset, you mock my response instead of understanding the frustration at unnecessary extremism overriding a genuine ability to convince people to the cause. I'd venture a guess and say you are much more akin to the Baltimore occupy'ers than whatever more reasonable group Awe was a part of. I mock your response because Noam Chomsky has said similar stuff about protest movements dealing with these topics and how anyone expecting real change over night, in a year, in a couple years, maybe more is delusional. You seem so quick to want to label something that is still evolving. That's my main problem with YOUR attitude. You act as if you know the future, all I am suggesting is that you don't. I am in complete agreement with most of what Chomsky has written about (indeed, it would be ludicrous not to agree when faced with overwhelming amounts of evidence and research). But you will even notice that almost all of the major reformer/reform groups Chomsky holds in high regard are those with a centralized process of protest; the archbishoprics in South America, agrarian rights movements in Central America, etc. etc. These movements also had an incredibly clear idea of the opposition, usually representatives of foreign interference. With the Occupy movement you are dealing with a far, far different beast, and that is globalized commerce. Saying we need regulation and better monitoring systems over the banking cartels is a good start, but you can't run a self-proclaimed decentralized protest movement on something as vague as that. To put it simply, shit needs to get more complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 good Oh, OK, you're not trying to convince anyone, just yelling at windmills. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 good Oh, OK, you're not trying to convince anyone, just yelling at windmills. Good to know. you are a little late to the game. feel free to pick apart my comments above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Agreed@RutherIVlongerpost, but perhaps there needed to be a first stage of collectivism, however disorganized it was. I think awareness was key, if they can keep a momentum going and organize better as it evolves then it won't be a failure. I believe in optimism with these very complex and large problems because It is better to stand for your values and morals with a positive outlook if you want to encourage others to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Agreed@RutherIVlongerpost, but perhaps there needed to be a first stage of collectivism, however disorganized it was. I think awareness was key, if they can keep a momentum going and organize better as it evolves then it won't be a failure. I believe in optimism with these very complex and large problems because It is better to stand for your values and morals with a positive outlook if you want to encourage others to do the same. True. You can always turn a failure into success. Reform the reformists, I say. If this talk of a constitution or whatnot is true, I am very eager to see what the next few years bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Something inside Obama has changed drastically, he seems less happy, tired, defeated and psychologically damaged from 4 years of being the american president. Maybe he really was this idealistic 'hope and changey' guy originally who just got the mental shit kicked out of him when he realized how futile it was. My rationalization is edging on being just as abysmally sad as the 'impotent president' excuse many liberals use, but i can't help it If Obama actually had any belief in the hope/change platform before becoming elected, I would say that he would necessarily be a broken human being at this point. How quickly is your average politician Tommy Carcettied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 lol good reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Hate to say it but...Obama still looks like a shell of a man. Clint Eastwood must have done some voodoo to suck the soul out of him, he had trouble stringing together sentences, and sat down on his stool the whole time Romney was pacing the floor. Romney's on fire. Shit. i don't think Romney's momentum after the first debate has ceased at all, but Obama tried his best to be aggressive and i don't think it worked to his advantage. I think what you were hearing in his trouble to string together sentences is normal for him, he was probably just training for the past 2 weeks not to say 'uh' which if you watch both debates back to back you can see that in those silences and halting he would have normally be saying 'and... uh' over and over again. Something inside Obama has changed drastically, he seems less happy, tired, defeated and psychologically damaged from 4 years of being the american president. Maybe he really was this idealistic 'hope and changey' guy originally who just got the mental shit kicked out of him when he realized how futile it was. My rationalization is edging on being just as abysmally sad as the 'impotent president' excuse many liberals use, but i can't help it Yeah, I finally finished watching the whole second debate, Obama got marginally stronger as it went on, but if I'm being completely honest with myself Romney came across as much snappier, much more relatable and plainspoken, more to the point, and *gasp* even gave the impression of being more honest. And yeah, regarding Obama's newfound "aggressiveness" working against him, he just seemed really childish - for example, his constantly appealing to the moderator to save his butt (looked like a kid going to his parents). I'm trying not to overreact but I have to say I agree with Republicans, that without a teleprompter Obama comes across as a bit of a...callow dummy. I also thought it was funny when he got raped by Romney over the issue of investments in China, when Romney asked "have you looked at your pension?" and Obama lamely tried to change the subject. I dunno, maybe Obama is having a rough patch with Michelle. Or maybe it really is "just the real him". I just don't see why he would be so depleted after 4 years. I know it's a tough job, but it seems he's been pretty good at pacing himself, taking vacations, hangin' with Jay Z, etc. Sad thing is I agree with most of his policies, and also feel Romney is a snake. But in the debate, I even found myself doing a lot of head nodding for Romney's points. Both guys were talking about stimulating small business, but when Obama talks about it, he seems to be thinking primarily of new industries like clean energy. When Romney talks about it, he's very plainspoken - "the average global tax rate for small businesses is X. The average in America is Y." And it's true, as a small business owner myself, that's really all we think about - how can we get more govt. costs off our back, so that we can actually be competitive. I think Romney understands that better than Obama, or is just better at articulating it. In fact, he's probably just paying the concept lip service, when what he really wants to do is get less regulations for *big* business...but at least he knows how to speak on the topic better than Obama. When he says "a company with less taxes creates more jobs"...um, yeah, I'm sure that's true. I certainly hire more people and try to expand, when we have more money in the bank. Anyhoo, I'll never vote for Romney, but dude looks to have twice the vigor of Obama, who is acting like a zombie. A slightly petty and childish zombie, at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Hate to say it but...Obama still looks like a shell of a man. Clint Eastwood must have done some voodoo to suck the soul out of him, he had trouble stringing together sentences, and sat down on his stool the whole time Romney was pacing the floor. Romney's on fire. Shit. i don't think Romney's momentum after the first debate has ceased at all, but Obama tried his best to be aggressive and i don't think it worked to his advantage. I think what you were hearing in his trouble to string together sentences is normal for him, he was probably just training for the past 2 weeks not to say 'uh' which if you watch both debates back to back you can see that in those silences and halting he would have normally be saying 'and... uh' over and over again. Something inside Obama has changed drastically, he seems less happy, tired, defeated and psychologically damaged from 4 years of being the american president. Maybe he really was this idealistic 'hope and changey' guy originally who just got the mental shit kicked out of him when he realized how futile it was. My rationalization is edging on being just as abysmally sad as the 'impotent president' excuse many liberals use, but i can't help it Yeah, I finally finished watching the whole second debate, Obama got marginally stronger as it went on, but if I'm being completely honest with myself Romney came across as much snappier, much more relatable and plainspoken, more to the point, and *gasp* even gave the impression of being more honest. And yeah, regarding Obama's newfound "aggressiveness" working against him, he just seemed really childish - for example, his constantly appealing to the moderator to save his butt (looked like a kid going to his parents). I'm trying not to overreact but I have to say I agree with Republicans, that without a teleprompter Obama comes across as a bit of a...callow dummy. I also thought it was funny when he got raped by Romney over the issue of investments in China, when Romney asked "have you looked at your pension?" and Obama lamely tried to change the subject. I dunno, maybe Obama is having a rough patch with Michelle. Or maybe it really is "just the real him". I just don't see why he would be so depleted after 4 years. I know it's a tough job, but it seems he's been pretty good at pacing himself, taking vacations, hangin' with Jay Z, etc. Sad thing is I agree with most of his policies, and also feel Romney is a snake. But in the debate, I even found myself doing a lot of head nodding for Romney's points. Both guys were talking about stimulating small business, but when Obama talks about it, he seems to be thinking primarily of new industries like clean energy. When Romney talks about it, he's very plainspoken - "the average global tax rate for small businesses is X. The average in America is Y." And it's true, as a small business owner myself, that's really all we think about - how can we get more govt. costs off our back, so that we can actually be competitive. I think Romney understands that better than Obama, or is just better at articulating it. In fact, he's probably just paying the concept lip service, when what he really wants to do is get less regulations for *big* business...but at least he knows how to speak on the topic better than Obama. When he says "a company with less taxes creates more jobs"...um, yeah, I'm sure that's true. I certainly hire more people and try to expand, when we have more money in the bank. Anyhoo, I'll never vote for Romney, but dude looks to have twice the vigor of Obama, who is acting like a zombie. A slightly petty and childish zombie, at that. This may change your outlook, but usually when these guys refer to small business, a "small business" is something that generates a few million a year at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Interesting summary, but I think Obama pretty much killed Romney in that one by reducing Romney to repetitive talking points that eventually became tiresome to listen to. Romney seemed tied up on political semantics, to win points for himself than concentrating on what he specifically plans to do. Essentially his big thing is cutting the deficit and lower taxes... and that Obama promised to cut the deficit in half while campaigning (which is a tremendous complaint considering this was prior to the recession). Romney's bullshit fell flat and simplistic and Obama seemed to revel in it. And yeah the whole small business wording is a crock of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 LOL Mitt Romney has the audacity to say this kind of shit: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/itsy-bitsy-bain/ http://krugman.blogs...mall-time-mitt/ Yeah maybe you want to get government costs off your ledger books - but think about it, what does government offer you in return for those taxes? Infrastructure? Legal institutions? Edumacation (for your work force)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I will agree that *if* Obama won (and I think it's really hard to get an overall opinion, carefully weighing both substance and personality), then he won purely on substance. At the end of the day, Romney is the big business, old-fashioned anti-feminist guy. And I think it's fairly transparent. I certainly hope people can see past Obama's *fucking retarded delivery* and concentrate on the meat of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I will agree that *if* Obama won (and I think it's really hard to get an overall opinion, carefully weighing both substance and personality), then he won purely on substance. At the end of the day, Romney is the big business, old-fashioned anti-feminist guy. And I think it's fairly transparent. I certainly hope people can see past Obama's *fucking retarded delivery* and concentrate on the meat of the matter. see id consider myself rather objective in watching these things and looking at them on the shallowest level possible, and i still see no way how Romney came out on top of this debate. He looked good in terms of performance, but that's really about it. He practically said nothing in the 40 minutes he was speaking. Obama said next to nothing, but he actually had numbers and stats to throw out to support (supposedly) his evidence. Plus Romney just straight out failed on the Benghazi part, thats about as close of a "zinger" that this election is going to get. a lot of people also fail to realize that the incumbent is sort of expected to "act presidential"....which certainly backfired for Obama, as he interrupted anyway but remained silent and polite on matters that he would have been able to land on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 in response to Chen: I'm not some extreme Libertarian saying "fuck interstate highways" or something, I'm well aware of the benefits of centralized govt. But I'd really like one of the candidates to say, just once, the plain truth: that the "global marketplace" and "global capitalism" is fucking ruthless as hell. In fact, I think Obama did better on those points, he said "some jobs aren't coming back". And that's the truth, because American workers really do compete now with Chinese workers and Indian workers. But I really hope Obama understands that, apart from making sure there are good child labor laws, environmental laws, and banking regulations(!) (I'm sure there are some others) the govt's job in regard to business stimulation is to get the hell out of the way, at the very least. Keep biz taxes low, cut out the red tape for permits and whatnot, just try to make it easier and simpler for people to run their businesses. Both candidates were good on the subject of tariffs against those who "don't play by the rules", and trying to get China to stop artificially depressing their currency. In fact I think Obama was probably right, that in some part due to his efforts China's decided to let the RMB float more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 a lot of people also fail to realize that the incumbent is sort of expected to "act presidential"....which certainly backfired for Obama, as he interrupted anyway but remained silent and polite on matters that he would have been able to land on. totally agree on that, there was one surreal "I'm getting my ass whipped moment" when Romney pressed Obama on something and Obama, being not quick on his feet, couldn't think of anything else to say but "please go on." And Romney was like "um...you're not disagreeing with what I'm saying?" Was pretty facepalm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Obama most of all seemed to suggest that being President is bigger than politics. I think that was the strongest theme I objectively took from the debate. Romney came across as more power hungry. Obama while definitely a bit defeated compared to his 2008 run, seems more genuinely focused on the country rather than politics. Romney is hanging everything on the notion that because the last 4 years haven't been good economically, its all due to Obama... if Romney would be more honest about how Bush contributed to the 2008 crash and more respectably critiqued Obama's policies as understandable but logically inaccurate he would emerge as a true moderate, not a power hungry politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 And yeah, Romney's biggest weakness, apart from his position on women (seems he has no idea how to speak to that very influential voting bloc), is that his numbers don't add up. It's funny he seems so weak on that point, and hasn't come up with a better lie to conceal it. very good points compson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 in response to Chen: I'm not some extreme Libertarian saying "fuck interstate highways" or something, I'm well aware of the benefits of centralized govt. But I'd really like one of the candidates to say, just once, the plain truth: that the "global marketplace" and "global capitalism" is fucking ruthless as hell. In fact, I think Obama did better on those points, he said "some jobs aren't coming back". And that's the truth, because American workers really do compete now with Chinese workers and Indian workers. But I really hope Obama understands that, apart from making sure there are good child labor laws, environmental laws, and banking regulations(!) (I'm sure there are some others) the govt's job in regard to business stimulation is to get the hell out of the way, at the very least. Keep biz taxes low, cut out the red tape for permits and whatnot, just try to make it easier and simpler for people to run their businesses. Is that what China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore did? markets and government are complements, not substitutes. edit: I'm not accusing you of being a libertarian btw lumpy. ;) just to clear that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 can't speak to the others, but in China, that seems to be the case. For quite a long stretch it has been more "unfettered" in many ways than US capitalism...this has been both good and bad, bad when it comes to environmental and food safety, but otherwise I'd argue quite beneficial for the rapid development of businesses. Not talking about the banking sector, don't know much about that but my guess is China's controls on banking have probably left them in a better spot than the US. I don't think they're without stupidity, their social welfare costs are way too high (44% of an employee's salary *again* for social welfare every month...so when I consider adding someone to payroll, I have to think of their salary as 144% of the actual number). But, to give a point of comparison, as a foreigner setting up a company in China was fairly straightforward (if involving a lot of paperwork). China is efficient. In contrast, I recently set up another studio in Indonesia, which is I believe SE Asia's biggest democracy (har har). The process was byzantine and corrupt. Edit: and someone once told me that about China, when I asked why the average person doesn't give a shit about politics, the reply was "historically in China, the average people don't care about the govt, as long as the govt doesn't get in the way of them doing their daily life and business." And that's clearly a time-honored Chinese habit. It's technically "illegal" to sell goods and fruit and barbecue on streetcorners, but people do it everywhere. Cop cars don't give moving violations (though they've started to do drunk driving stops). You can park wherever you please on the sidewalk (though this is changing too). Just lots of little signs that the govt. mostly wants to stay out of the way of people's lives. Yes, believe it or not. Plus they have all sorts of incentives promoting business growth, innumerable (too many) business parks with rent and tax breaks to stimulate business, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Obama I think played this as well as he could have. First debate be completely defensive, focus on his plan and don't play political games of "flip flopping" etc... everyone knows this about Romney by now anyway. Media reaction of course describes the debate as a huge lose for Obama mainly because he was "asleep", not that he was wrong. But that he wouldn't take part in the political theater which the media feeds on for ratings. This communicated a kind of principled but defeated President, so sort of empathetic. Second debate he continued this general strategy by letting Romney initiate the political games but by bouncing back with more factual content, and slowly throwing in more jabs. Overtime and finally when Obama was getting seemingly "played" by Romney over whether he said "act of terror"... he basically conceded to Romney's point by saying "please go on..." But when Candy revealed Obama as in the factual position, it showed that he doesn't mind being thrown around in political fight because it's less about him and more about focusing on the country's future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 can't speak to the others, but in China, that seems to be the case. For quite a long stretch it has been more "unfettered" in many ways than US capitalism...this has been both good and bad, bad when it comes to environmental and food safety, but otherwise I'd argue quite beneficial for the rapid development of businesses. Not talking about the banking sector, don't know much about that but my guess is China's controls on banking have probably left them in a better spot than the US. I don't think they're without stupidity, their social welfare costs are way too high (44% of an employee's salary *again* for social welfare every month...so when I consider adding someone to payroll, I have to think of their salary as 144% of the actual number). But, to give a point of comparison, as a foreigner setting up a company in China was fairly straightforward (if involving a lot of paperwork). China is efficient. In contrast, I recently set up another studio in Indonesia, which is I believe SE Asia's biggest democracy (har har). The process was byzantine and corrupt. Err I hate to burst your bubble, but the Chinese government has its hand firmly entangled in the markets in China. I suppose maybe not so much for small businesses but all of the others I mentioned achieved their growth through government policy and intervention. Indonesia is a corrupt shithole, so that's no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 hehe. Yeah you've got the academic overview that I lack, though I would say that the stock market is only one indicator of market freedom. Many (most?) businesses aren't listed/haven't gone public, so they don't encounter that. Also not getting into the concept of guanxi, which I'm sure you're aware of and is pretty unique. My overall point would be this though:economics moves in life cycles just like anything else, and China has been going through (and maybe already finished) a boom period where they came out of Communism with a thirst for unfettered free enterprise (probably not unlike the thirst in the US after the Depression and conclusion of WW2). Of course it doesn't take long for the West to impose more regulations and rules, for foreign conglomerates (mcdonalds, starbucks, etc) to start making inroads, for the new rich to learn how to protect their gains and entrench themselves by skewing the rules in their favor. Just like the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 anyone who doesn't live in america should read this article, it's pretty hard hitting and informative http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/13/Former-Cocaine-User-and-Criminal-Associate-Attacks-Juice-Bar-Guy-in-Miami-for-Hosting-Romney-Event Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 were you being sarcastic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.