Kanakori Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 i like Matt Tabbi better when he's not trying to be funny, for some reason i find his sense of humor extremely unfunny. I appreciate the information he writes about most of the time, but humorist he is not Troon is better than you, he keeps us updated on new releases that happen to be always be featured on the front page of Boomkat.com back to the presidential debate instead of high-school level existentialism thought this was amusing, i havent talked to anybody yet who didn't think Romney won the debate. yeah i saw that and thought "BURN" for a while....Romney is a fucking disgusting human being but in the purist terms of looking at a debate, Romney had the energy, Obama did not....Hence, anyone that is willing to listen will hear Romney's energetic illogical tax jargon over Obama's seemingly bumbling and tired statements. I REPEAT: THIS DOES NOT MEAN ROMNEY IS "RIGHT" I AM JUST SAYING HE WON THE DEBATE DUE TO DEMEANOR AND MANNERISMS IE. PUBLIC IMAGE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 How retards like this get to run for president just blows my mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 to make the record clear, although i enjoy boomkat and do indulge in many of their same tastes (who doesn't), i am in no way formally affiliated with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest abusivegeorge Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I don't have a plaque on the wall... I must be one of the good ones. I do like to cock-jerk and be infinitely complex though. Who doesn't? BTW troon I think you should read some books about the subject of Power amongst humans and in the larger natural world; it's a very interesting subject. The way I've come to see it, power is an emotional and social force that transcends human activity and cuts deep into the reality of nature. Even plant life deals with incredible shifts of power, and the changes do not come without huge amounts of effort. It is always easy to say the current way of doing things is wrong; it is much harder to suggest a viable alternative. The watmm user Bread attempts to provide these alternatives, and as you may have noticed from his posts, it is a difficult endeavor, and people are not willing to subscribe to new ideas without much scrutiny. I admire Bread for his steadfastness in his message, though I don't fully believe the answers he provides. At any rate, until some viable alternatives really show up and have their kinks worked out, all the hand-waving dismissal of human activity cannot do us any good. I'm surrounded daily by friends and intelligent classmates who subscribe to the idea that humanity is doomed. Guess what? None of them do shit about it, they just accept this most gloomy of worldviews like that's the way it's supposed to be. Maybe they're right, but I don't see that view doing much good, so why bother? The truth will out itself eventually whether I subscribe to the gloom or not. So I try to remain optimistic and to avoid casually dooming my entire species because we've goofed hard in the past. Revolutions, even mental ones, need an outline or they will never fully form and have a chance to influence the world. Ever had an acid trip where you keep having important revelations, but forgetting them seconds later? A revolution without a clear, understandable path to achievement is the same thing, only instead of the hyper-revelations of the acid trip, the unclear revolution will fizz out over months or years in people's minds, because they do not know what to do with the compelling ideas in their head, except to keep talking about it and spinning in - yes - intellectual circles. Back to politics: Mitt Romney is the worst kind of dinosaur. Obama is a yes-man, that much was clear in 2008. Neither one of them can significantly change the political realm in a way I'd like to see, so I'm not paying a damn bit of attention to the national donkey and elephant show. I am voting for some decent people and ideas in my own town, though. Fantastic post. You said what I was trying to say but far far more effectively and without resorting to enmity. Well done. A+ would, and did, read again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 to make the record clear, although i enjoy boomkat and do indulge in many of their same tastes (who doesn't), i am in no way formally affiliated with them the redruth doth protest too much, me thinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 so let's back track a little bit, remember when people were scoffing at complaints about the NDAA as being paranoid? Well guess what guys, the law that Obama signed while everyone was literally drunk on new years eve might now be in Romney's hands if he wins the election. Pretty cool right? You remember that one, that says any American citizen can be indefinitely detained and even executed without a trial, charges or evidence? I for one can't wait for a mormon mexican in denial son of a polygamist cult member neoconservative administration to utilize those new powers, its gonna be pretty awesome. I'm also pretty excited none of the scary sand nigs will be let out of club gitmo (thats what my buddy Rush calls it) David Axelrod is usually a pretty calm and collected guy, this is basically his equivalent of blowing a gasket http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhvPX58wsxU it's really fascinating to see networks besides Fox News actually being 'hard' on the president, i don't think Obama has dealt with that in a while, especially not the last 4 years. You can just see how caught off guard even Axelrod is to being challenged. Man i didn't think i was going to be sucked in to the circus of the 2012 election but i'm already hooked, and it all started within the first 5 minutes of the debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 to make the record clear, although i enjoy boomkat and do indulge in many of their same tastes (who doesn't), i am in no way formally affiliated with them the redruth doth protest too much, me thinks i see what you have attempted to do here. now.. will my reaction be to stop protest because it now implies guilt, as you have so thriftily suggested, or shall i continue to explain myself when presented with false accusation? oop, there was a wet-fart, my undies are leaking for u awepittance. my undies leak for u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 to make the record clear, although i enjoy boomkat and do indulge in many of their same tastes (who doesn't), i am in no way formally affiliated with them the redruth doth protest too much, me thinks i see what you have attempted to do here. now.. will my reaction be to stop protest because it now implies guilt, as you have so thriftily suggested, or shall i continue to explain myself when presented with false accusation? oop, there was a wet-fart, my undies are leaking for u awepittance. my undies leak for u You haven't explained yourself since October 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teetime Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 http://youtu.be/iVhc0L8hVbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 it's really fascinating to see networks besides Fox News actually being 'hard' on the president, i don't think Obama has dealt with that in a while, especially not the last 4 years. You can just see how caught off guard even Axelrod is to being challenged. Man i didn't think i was going to be sucked in to the circus of the 2012 election but i'm already hooked, and it all started within the first 5 minutes of the debate Ehm, no. Axelrod was caught "off guard" because he had to defend Obama's poor performance. Anyone would be put off guard defending a point which they probably wouldn't agree with themselves (although someone like Romney might actually be an exception to the rule). And I also don't think there has been a lack of criticism towards the Obama administration. There's been plenty criticism from both sides of the political spectrum on numerous issues. Take the healthcare bill for instance. Lots of sides in the media criticised Obama on either the content of the bill (criticism came from both sides of the political spectrum), or the process (he was putting too much effort in trying to do the impossible - try to get some republicans on board - while he had to save the economy). I'm not sure where the notion comes from that Obama can just free-ride through the media. And quite honestly I'm surprised about the amount (=lack) of trust he gets from both sides of the spectrum. How many sides in the media initially understood what the administration was trying to do in Libia by "leading from behind"? That was almost unheard off until that point. The US should be in the lead (either by diplomacy or by going the hawk way) was the consensus until that point. If my memory serves me correct, that 'leading' idea was shared on both sides of the spectrum. Obama consistently goes for some third option which is hardly supported by either the left or the right, imo. I wouldn't be surprised it takes the Obama administration more time and energy to get support from the democrats, than implied in your post. Same holds for the media. imo. But I do think he gets more respect from the media than Bush W. did. Apart from Fox, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 This whole thing is a bullshit cavalcade of epic proportions. Matt Taibbi sums it up pretty well (pre-debate): http://www.rollingst...-close-20120925 He has a $250 million fortune, but he appears to pay well under half the maximum tax rate, thanks to those absurd semantic distinctions that even Ronald Reagan dismissed as meaningless and counterproductive. He has used offshore tax havens for himself and his wife, and his company, Bain Capital, has both eliminated jobs in the name of efficiency (often using these cuts to pay for payments to his own company) and moved American jobs overseas. The point is, Mitt Romney's natural constituency should be about 1% of the population. If you restrict that pool to "likely voters," he might naturally appeal to 2%. Maybe 3%. If the clichés are true and the presidential race always comes down to which candidate the American people "wants to have a beer with," how many Americans will choose to sit at the bar with the coiffed Wall Street multimillionaire who fires your sister, unapologetically pays half your tax rate, keeps his money stashed in Cayman Islands partnerships or Swiss accounts in his wife's name, cheerfully encourages finance-industry bailouts while bashing "entitlements" like Medicare, waves a pom-pom while your kids go fight and die in hell-holes like Afghanistan and Iraq and generally speaking has never even visited the country that most of the rest of us call the United States, except to make sure that it's paying its bills to him on time? Romney is an almost perfect amalgam of all the great out-of-touch douchebags of our national cinema: he's Gregg Marmalaard from Animal House mixed with Billy Zane's sneering, tux-wearing Cal character in Titanic to pussy-ass Prince Humperdinck to Roy Stalin to Gordon Gekko (he's literally Gordon Gekko). He's everything we've been trained to despise, the guy who had everything handed to him, doesn't fight his own battles and insists there's only room in the lifeboat for himself – and yet the Democrats, for some reason, have had terrible trouble beating him in a popularity contest. To me the biggest reason the split isn't bigger is the news media, which wants a close race mainly for selfish commercial reasons – it's better theater and sells more ads. Most people in the news business have been conditioned to believe that national elections should be close. This conditioning leads to all sorts of problems and journalistic mischief, like a tendency of pundits to give equal weight to opposing views in situations where one of those views is actually completely moronic and illegitimate, a similar tendency to overlook or downplay glaring flaws in a candidate just because one of the two major parties has blessed him or her with its support (Sarah Palin is a classic example), and the more subtly dangerous tendency to describe races as "hotly contested" or "neck and neck" in nearly all situations regardless of reality, which not only has the effect of legitimizing both candidates but leaves people with the mistaken impression that the candidates are fierce ideological opposites, when in fact they aren't, or at least aren't always. pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 it's really fascinating to see networks besides Fox News actually being 'hard' on the president, i don't think Obama has dealt with that in a while, especially not the last 4 years. You can just see how caught off guard even Axelrod is to being challenged. Man i didn't think i was going to be sucked in to the circus of the 2012 election but i'm already hooked, and it all started within the first 5 minutes of the debate Ehm, no. Axelrod was caught "off guard" because he had to defend Obama's poor performance. Anyone would be put off guard defending a point which they probably wouldn't agree with themselves (although someone like Romney might actually be an exception to the rule). And I also don't think there has been a lack of criticism towards the Obama administration. There's been plenty criticism from both sides of the political spectrum on numerous issues. Take the healthcare bill for instance. Lots of sides in the media criticised Obama on either the content of the bill (criticism came from both sides of the political spectrum), or the process (he was putting too much effort in trying to do the impossible - try to get some republicans on board - while he had to save the economy). I'm not sure where the notion comes from that Obama can just free-ride through the media. And quite honestly I'm surprised about the amount (=lack) of trust he gets from both sides of the spectrum. How many sides in the media initially understood what the administration was trying to do in Libia by "leading from behind"? That was almost unheard off until that point. The US should be in the lead (either by diplomacy or by going the hawk way) was the consensus until that point. If my memory serves me correct, that 'leading' idea was shared on both sides of the spectrum. Obama consistently goes for some third option which is hardly supported by either the left or the right, imo. I wouldn't be surprised it takes the Obama administration more time and energy to get support from the democrats, than implied in your post. Same holds for the media. imo. But I do think he gets more respect from the media than Bush W. did. Apart from Fox, that is. fair enough, i probably haven't been paying enough attention to mainstream TV news in the last 4 years to notice. I don't think he gets a 'free ride' so to speak but compared to even Bush i don't see Obama subjected to many unfiltered direct interactions with the press that he hinted at (giving him some slack here) in his supposed new era of 'transparency'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Agreed. But Bush was kinda special, I guess. Something to do with spelling "potato" and being verbally "very" smart. Compared to other presidents I don't see much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Great back and forth awepittance and godel, enjoyable reading. I'm in agreement with both of you on two things - awepittance, I personally think Obama's "free ride" was in his actual campaign in 2008 and throughout inauguration in early 2009 and slowly waned over that year and 2010. Ironically I went from being a pissy, quasi-conservative (embarrassing in retrospect really) to something of an Obama apologist more and more gradually as he became less popular. My reasons are the exact things godel cited - his very pragmatic, unpopular moderate decisions. It's the kind of leadership that I respect but completely understand is virtually impossible to get "excited" about or fervently supportive of. And you're dead on about his continued "respect" in the media over Bush. I've always said to people who flippantly scoff at Bush compared to Obama's alleged superior intelligence to take any of their State of The Union address transcripts and find anything remotely different in their phrasing, rhetoric, or one-liners. Many people literally make judgements based on their party affiliations and accents, and the ones who never progress beyond that superficial perspective are the ones I completely avoid "discussing" politics with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 people crave narratives. Once someone came up with the narrative that daddy bush was the smart one but his son was the dummy who got the free ride, it stuck. I'm sure there was more than a little truth to it, but I think Bush knew himself pretty well...which gave him a certain sort of resilience. Intellect isn't everything after all, and the American public seem hyper-sensitive to anyone who comes across as elitist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDobalina Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Some sad clown lols here: Romney Proudly Explains How He's Turned Campaign Around 'I'm Lying More,' He Says Whether it’s a senior citizen, military family, working mother, businessman, or middle-class American, Romney said, he will lie to every single one of them as often as he can if that’s what it takes to win the presidency. “The best part is, it’s really easy to lie,” said Romney, who added that voicing whatever untruths come into his mind at any given moment is an easy thing to do because all it requires is opening his mouth and talking. “For example, if someone accuses me of having a tax plan that makes no discernable sense, I just lie and say that I do have a tax plan that makes sense. I also say there is a study that backs up my plan. See that? Simple. None of it is remotely true, of course, but now we’re moving on to the next topic because people are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president.” Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattern recognition Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 http://youtu.be/QlwilbVYvUg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomAmateur Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 the worst thing about the debates is that i'm the only person i know who didn't watch them. can't believe you supposedly intelligent people still pay even the smallest amount of attention (respect) to this raging tornado of bullshit. well done, the first debate was one of the rare examples of somthing that was THAT BAD, you want to watch the next debate too I nearly died that day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nene multiple assgasms Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 http://youtu.be/QlwilbVYvUg lehrer/ahmed 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosmachine Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Paul Ryan Pumps Iron in Time Mag Photo Shoot lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 paul ryan is male palin??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Paul Ryan Pumps Iron in Time Mag Photo Shoot lol. wtf did he get punk'd? what an idiot, holy shit i can't get over the fact that Paul Ryan looks like he has bath-house aids face, or at least heavy HIV-face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 he looks like a confused skeksis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I really hope all that preparation helps Biden. He destroyed Palin last time, but Ryan is a smooth liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.