• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

OT - Politics as a Sport - Last night's debate

to me the biggest political hypocrisy is those who want more taxes...

Governments are NOT short on money - they have plenty - trillions of $$ more than plenty - they are just wasteful and overspend!
............ nothing prohibits anyone from voluntarily..sending more $$ anytime they want -

..then isn't it hypocrisy to say you want more taxes but you decline to willingly pay more yourself?
If you like what the government does with the hard earned $$ they take from you then please....by all means....send them more and more --
Personally I don't like all my tax dollars paying for the smut some call art, for politicians' wild parties/orgies, and on imbecilic wasteful programs...
Just like everyone else - I take as much advantage as I can of every legal way to do my taxes to keep as much as I can...every deduction, every exemption, save every receipt, etc...
..so I am not giving even one cent more to them than at all possible....and I am very happy to see that smart earners like Mitt Romney likewise take advantage of EVERY tax rule that might benefit them...even tho in doing so LEGALLY there are still those who whine about how successful he's been.
 
T we can agree on one subject that less government is preferable to more and that our tax dollars are being wasted. I believe a lot of our tax dollars are being wasted on Corporate welfare and Special Interest from both the right and the left with very little concern for the middle class and the working poor.

Da Coach said:
I have listened and watched a lot of Bill Moyers for over 30 years on CBS and PBS. And he is extremely liberal in his ideas and politics. He describes himself as progressive, has provided millions of dollars of support to liberal organizations, and is constantly bashing and vilifying conservatives.
Click to expand...

Bill Moyer provided PBS with millions of dollars and does not take a dime from them. His funding comes from private donations that fundamentally agree with his platform. You can see who donates to his show in the beginning and end of his show.

Da Coach said:
Michelangelo worked under commissions for a lot of different private individuals and institutions (many different churches), as did most of the well known artists of the Renaissance era. The commissions were for specific work that was assigned and done, and not at all like subsidies with no strings attached that are given out today by the government.
Click to expand...

The Vatican was and is a governmental institution with an agenda to paint themselves as divine. I'd rather have our Art Endowments (which really is not much at all) go to groups that try to expose our society to subjects outside of the mainstream. Sometimes it does go overboard but art is about culture and at one point Mozart was considered scandalous.
 
SFP said:
...our tax dollars are being wasted on Corporate welfare and Special Interest from both the right and the left...
Click to expand...

hmmm.....can you say what special interests on the right get tax dollars??
Our local "Pregnancy Center" right here in Peoria performs and/or refers for ALL of the EXACT same services as Planned Parenthood does...(except abortion)
and yet Planned Parenthood received billions government handouts ($400M per year!), and our local Pregnancy Center gets precisely ZERO.

Rush Limbaugh provides precisely the same service (broadcast news and commentary) as Bill Moyers or Charlie Rose...
each has their slants and biases, but then so do we all.....
and yet Limbaugh gets no government handouts while those other guys do.

...and of all the people who have received funding and grants for "arts"...it has been estimated that close to 100% are either liberal or we don't know where they stand...



...so I am waiting to hear the lengthy list of conservative "special interest groups" who get funded by the government - because if there are any at all (and there might be a few who have fooled the feds and have cashed in) but there sure aren't many.


NOTE - nobody proposes eliminating art or artists - just let them do as they wish and not arbitrarily give them tax dollars!



then... define "Corporate welfare" - because most successful corporations do NOT get government money unless they rightfully and legally bid & win on contracts like Caterpillar does.
CAT does not get anything close to resembling "welfare"...
I know some industries do like the dairy industry and tobacco but I don't think they should either.

but...oddly - the big corporations run by or owned by people who are BIG contributors to the administration - such as SOLYNDA - well, bingo - they do get enormous loans that they end up never paying back....interesting...



Lastly - nobody I have ever heard wants corporations to fail - all many wanted with General Motors is the same as Chrysler did a few years ago --
and what American Motors did a few years before that....
...go thru re-organization and come out way more successful in the end - and NOT cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars in the process!!!!
 
Corporate Welfare pays taxes? So the billions in dollar tax breaks given to large wealthy corporations in right offs is a fair system for you, then we have very little to discuss. I believe in breaks for small businesses, especially for those family owned farms. that have been screwed the last 3 decades. Who do you think is profiting from this? Big agro is one!

On Planned Parenthood, I see your point but as a humanist it is the only place in a vast amount of markets that the under served and poor can get those services. Would you rather have us revert to the back alley operations?

On Bill Moyer last I checked I could not find any documentation that his production receives federal funds to produce his show. I also believe Charlie Rose Production gets the vast majority of his revenues from Bloomberg. If anything these shows help fund PBS. Neither one of them work for PBS or PBR. I'm sure if Rush wanted to he could find corporate donors to put his show on PBS but I doubt he would make as much. :-o

I'm not a liberal but a centrist with a libertarian bent. I really do not believe in either Republicans or Democrats because otherwise Special Interest would be playing a lesser role to this election cycle. As a matter of fact the amount of money flowing into this election is at an all time high. How do you explain this? These are smart business men and women who know how to invest their fund wisely. The system is broke!
 
Interesting pre-debate back & forth from the political camps...dissatisfaction over the rules, the format, the moderator, etc...and..

suspicions that although the people in the town hall setting are supposed to be sincere, fair audience members who will ask questions politely - yet some think there will be "plants" and "operatives" among the questioners who will attempt to ask embarrassing or attack-style questions to score points or make mock of the issues.
I am anxious to see and hear....

better yet - bring back that pony-tailed mellow-yellow guy from the 1992 town hall debate
that asked what the motherland was going to do for him...
 
I would suspect this would not be Romney's best format but one never knows. I expect Obama to be a bit more confrontational but I'd have to believe that will only hold water for true Democrats. According to most major polls this race is a dead heat. I'm voting for the candidate that I believe will help the hardworking middle class person the most. I also feel Obama had his chance and side stepped real opportunities because of Special Interest and appeasing the far left.
 
personally I prefer for the government to stay out of my day-to-day life unless I need help - which is pretty darned infrequently....
but if you want the feds knocking on your door more and more and getting involved in every area of life from work to school to healthcare to even what light bulbs you want to use in your house...then you probably already know who to vote for.
 
If you listen to the pundits you would have thought Obama won this last debate by a wide margin. I thought Romney held his own and if anything looked more presidential. I'm getting sick of the liberal media. All I want is unbias reporting and we are not getting that.
 
SFP said:
If you listen to the pundits you would have thought Obama won this last debate by a wide margin. I thought Romney held his own and if anything looked more presidential. I'm getting sick of the liberal media. All I want is unbiased reporting and we are not getting that.
Click to expand...

What matters is how the debate influenced independent and uncommitted voters. And the few studies of uncommitted or independent voters actually suggest they swung toward Romney after last night's debate- Here is one survey of former Obama voters in Nevada and the great majority say they are leaning toward Romney based on last night's debate.-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...tly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html

What bothered me was the supposedly "independent" moderator sided with Obama over the issue of the 4 murders at the Libyan compound, and was totally wrong when she said Obama called the event a terrorist act the next day and that Obama took 2 weeks before he blamed the video (just the opposite of the facts). After the debate, Candy Crowley admitted she was wrong, but she had no business interjecting herself and her opinions into the debate.
http://www.dfwcatholic.org/candy-crowley-grudgingly-admits-that-romney-was-right-56585/.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ryan-r...rself-debate-say-otherwise-candy-crowley-sort

Video of Candy Crowley's gaffe-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rydUk0YjIeI

The moderator also cut Romney off much sooner, and allowed Obama to talk on much farther past his time limit resulting in Obama getting significant more talk time in the debate.
http://cp.opinion.brevardtimes.com/2012/10/crowley-loses-debate.html (10% more talk time- 5th paragraph- 44 minutes for Obama to 40 minutes for Romney)
 
"A CBS News/Knowledge networks poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 37 percent giving an advantage to Mr. Obama, 30 percent favoring Mitt Romney and 33 percent calling the debate a tie. That represents a narrower lead for Mr. Obama than Mr. Romney had after the first debate in Denver, when a similar poll gave Mr. Romney a 46-22 edge."

I'll believe a New York Times link over anything cited above!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...show-narrow-obama-advantage-in-second-debate/

I thought that Crowley did an excellent job moderating last night! Much better than Jim Lehrer. What I would like to see is for the microphones to be turned off after the candidates allotted time.

Last but not least, whenever you have #womeninabinder as a leading Twitter topic and for that matter a humorous conversation item the next day, it can not be good for your campaign!
 
I agree - What the President & moderator said simply is NOT TRUE!!!

I found and read a transcript of President Obama's "Rose Garden" speech where he and Candy Crowley both claimed, in what appeared to be a rehearsed and orchestrated plan, to argue that Obama called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack right from the start...

BUT if you read what the President said in the Rose Garden - it didn't happen that way at all...
He made a single reference in his Rose Garden speech to "terror" but NEVER used the word "terrorist", never connected "terrorist attack" and was talking about "acts of terror" in general ..

read it for yourself - but in my mind - clearly he did NOT call the attack a terrorist attack and he proved & BACKED THAT UP decisively by continuing his efforts for the next TWO WEEKS thereafter to FLATLY and STRONGLY deny it was a terrorist attack in every speech and comment he or ANY OF HIS STAFF made!
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-s...e-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack
 
I have to agree with T here. The Rose Garden speech said acts of terror. Acts being plural refers to terrorist attacks in general and the statement is not connected to Libya.

I said from day one that there was a serious security breech for this to happen. This could have been white washed if the Obama people would have had him say it as such and tell the public the buck stops here. Now with Secretary of State Clinton taking full responsibility it made President Obama look not very presidential. This is blowing up in his face and that little cat and mouse was not the way to defuse this.

This race right now for the undecided has nothing to do with policies. They will vote for the person they believe is more presidential. Romney is looking the part right now like it or not IMO.

BTW my vote means very little because the electorate college takes that away from me. California will vote Obama. Something has to change IMO. Why should someones vote in Ohio mean more then mine or yours for that matter?
 
SFP said:
BTW my vote means very little because the electorate college takes that away from me. California will vote Obama. Something has to change IMO. Why should someones vote in Ohio mean more then mine or yours for that matter?
Click to expand...

Yes, we are in the same situation here in Illinois. The only elections that matter here are local ones. The outcome of the state's presidential vote is predetermined.

My son who lives in Ohio gets to see millions of dollars of ads bought by both campaigns attacking each other. We see very little of that, except on national broadcasts, because the candidates are not going to waste money on buying ads in a state like CA or IL where the outcome is secure already.
 
but then you have to wonder why Crowley - the moderator - not only let the President get away with a lie - but she actually jumped in and took over as his agent arguing the lie for him!
..and I did like the reference to the President's retirement plan that was similarly cut off by Crowley - but it is well known that Barack Obama's own personal finances are tied up in investments in foreign nations including China & Cayman Islands...
 
ABC News fact-checked this and indeed, Obama does have pension investments from his time served as an Illinois State Senator that included "holdings in Chinese companies among the pension fund's numerous investments", and that "the Obama Illinois Pension fund has numerous private equity investments, including one domiciled in the Cayman Islands, the Advent International Group VI-A".

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...dential-debate/story?id=17496703#.UH7wRm871WI

So for all the attack ads that the Obama campaign has leveled at Romney over his foreign investments, and investments stashed in the Cayman Islands, it appears Obama is a bit hypocritical here and has similar investments.
 
tornado said:
but then you have to wonder why Crowley - the moderator - not only let the President get away with a lie - but she actually jumped in and took over as his agent arguing the lie for him!
..and I did like the reference to the President's retirement plan that was similarly cut off by Crowley - but it is well known that Barack Obama's own personal finances are tied up in investments in foreign nations including China & Cayman Islands...
Click to expand...

I have to believe that last night debate was slanted towards Obama's camp on a few fronts as you have pointed out. As an independent voter I will look beyond the obvious bias from the media (btw FOX is bias the other way). I like to look at the facts. Romney has made a great case about Obama's failure to get this economy in the right direction. Frankly I do not see it headed in the right direction still. Can Romney right this ship is the question? If Romney was a bit more of a social libertarian I would not hesitate to vote for him.

So in short Romney is winning the economic battle for the presidency and Obama is not making a strong enough social call because in reality he's been all talk and very little action in that regards. Case in point is Citizen United v FEC which he said was a bad decision but since then he is taking complete advantage of this decision with all the money coming in from his PACs and other special interest groups.
 
Again, Crowley did a very good job last night. Here is the text of the debate. All that is getting noticed by conservatives is the fact check remark. Look at her remarks in their entirety.



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. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...-oct-16/story?id=17493848&page=8#.UH8TSbR9nzI

Factcheck.org has a very good summary and it pretty much backs what Crowley stated.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/
 
but President Obama did not call the act in Benghazi "an act of terror"..

He is playing games and hoping the press & public just don't bother to look at the abundant facts which prove he's lying...

he did say ...according to the speech in question...

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation" ..a statement that I agree with - but I have read the transcript of his speech many times and I do NOT see where he links the words terror, terrorist, or "act(s) of terror" to what happened in Benghazi.

He talked in that speech about the Sept, 11 attacks in 2001, and clearly did NOT connect the Benghazi attack to the 9/11/2001 attacks except to say they shared the same date...so that his reference in the very next paragraph to "No acts of terror" does NOT appear to be in reference to Benghazi but instead are in reference to the obvious attack on 9/11/2001!

Then - every successive day - the President clearly indicated he thought this attack in Benghazi was a reaction - a spontaneous act in response to the "video"....so had he really defined the Benghazi attack as terrorism, then his actions the next two weeks are inexplicably perplexing...

It's a nice try and it's tricky how he coordinated the whole thing, clearly in advance, with Crowley to help him out, but it is a lie to say he called the attack properly as a terrorist attack.
 
Nice try by the Pres. He isn't fooling most Americans. Even 2 weeks after the killings, he was still blaming the YouTube video excuse in his talk at the UN, and for many days after the event he, his press secretary, his UN ambassador, and his Secretary of State all did the same.

It will continue to be scrutinized, and it will be an embarrassment for the President in next week's debate, and because of Candy Crowley's screwup, now even the mainstream media cannot pretend to ignore or cover it up any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top