"The Debate"

didn't it gain like 80 points?

I get what you're doing, but an 80 point gain isn't really a significant gain nor worth [green]using as a joke[/green]

 

Are you saying S2 is a joke!?

 

When I deal with people with your attitude, this comic comes to mind:



Your tired rehashed ideas have failed over and over. The more you push on that door that says pull (spend more money on it), surely the door will eventually open.

Your first sentence is just utter bullshit. There has been TV provided by the private sector long before there was PBS. What does that have to do with your cardboard box?

You asked me what my view of public education is. The first public school in america is now known as the Boston Latin School. It is the kind of school the Kennedys and other rich northeastern liberals pay to send their kids to. I know your narrow definition of "public" doesn't fit what "public" really means when it comes to schools. You don't have to be so angry about it.

You didn't ask about K-12, you just said education. When I think of "public" education, I think of all of education, and how Thomas Jefferson founded the PUBLIC University of Virginia. As I said, the question you asked wasn't so simple.

When I talk of the "finest" schools, it is the schools that graduate near 100% of their student body that can read and virtually all go on to college and then go on to become leaders of industry or government or similar stature. Like the Latin School of Boston.

Blah blah blah, romney this, romney that. It's tired and a caricature. You don't have to be a Romney to go to Harvard Law, Columbia University, or even Occidental College. They are PUBLIC schools and even a Barak Obama can get in.

Fuck Scandinavian countries and the grass you think is greener there. We stopped the nazis and imperial japanese, developed the atom bomb, and put men on the moon. We cured polio, invented color TV, invented the transistor and microprocessor, discovered the nature of the expanding universe, the structure of DNA, and so on. All of that was at least a decade before we had a federal Dept. of Education. I am not such a fool to believe that bigger and more government means good government, good for society, or is good at anything.

I said what I mean about national highways. You asked, I answered. Don't like my answer? Tough.

As for health care, I am not suggesting the govt. set rates for anything. I am not setting any rates. I am not playing philosopher king. I am looking at what we're doing and I see smart people pushing on the door that says pull. Insisting on doing the same thing that failed last time because surely it will work this time. Where on earth do you get the idea that I am setting rates? I am making an educated guess at what the market will set the rates for govt. provided health care.

And yeah, socialism outright sucks.

You think I should found a country on mars? I think I have a country that's been pretty good but going down the tubes. You're the one who wants to be Scandinavia.

EDIT: regarding roads.

I'm a fan of the constitution, pretty much as-is. If we want to change it, amend it or call a constitutional convention. Otherwise, it is the by laws by which our government rules itself. Like it or not.

The constitution defines and enumerates a very limited set of powers for the federal government. The need for a Bill of Rights was seriously questioned because the federal government wouldn't have the power to violate those rights.

The 10th amendment (in that bill of rights) is quite simple in its expression:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The powers to build roads, not delegated to the Feds by the Constitution, are reserved to the States, respectively. If the states don't want to build roads, it's up to the people.

Similarly, the constitution specifically denied the FEDERAL government the power to directly tax the people, except in proportion to the census. It does not forbid state governments from imposing income taxes or any other sort of tax they choose. The way the federal government was to raise revenue from the people is by taxing the states (that's in proportion to the census), or through other means like tariffs.

Of course, once my state is trying to tax me, I should have my fair say in how that goes down.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...-media-this-is-why-republicans-nominated-him/

Romney's debate victory spooked the mainstream media. This is why Republicans nominated him

Mitt Romney didn’t just beat Obama on Wednesday night. He also beat the liberal media. So great was his performance that liberal journalists simply had to concede the President’s defeat – a humiliation for an industry that has spent several years setting Obama up as the wisest, most eloquent, most popular politician since FDR. No longer can Romney be dismissed with a gag about a dog strapped to the roof of his car. This uptight rich guy could be the next President of the United States.

Evidence of liberal panic is everywhere. In the hours after the debate, the mood in the MSNBC bunker was near-suicidal – and it’s in tortured moments like these that all pretence of objectivity disappears. Chris Matthews (a former Democrat staffer turned TV motor mouth who undoubtedly talks in his sleep) ranted that Obama ought to watch MSNBC to learn how to fight conservatives. Ed Schultz was “stunned” and Rachel Maddow thought it might be sort of a draw (in the same way that the Titanic's encounter with an iceberg was “sort of a draw”). The New York Times ran with the vague headline, “Obama and Romney, in First Debate, Spar Over Fixing Economy” and called the evening “unhelpful.” Why? Because their guy lost.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html?hpid=z7

Obama pays price for ducking the questions

Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king.

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

 

Wow.

Unless it was a new-age, 1%er Mind Control Device, then I don't know how this (even if true) excuses the President's showing. He should've just done this:

 

I didn't see him debating himself at all.

First one, for example. He's lowering the tax rates on everyone by 20%. A flatter tax. He's eliminating loopholes for the rich so they'll pay a higher effective rate than they do now.

The last one, pre-existing conditions. Today, if you lose your insurance or let it lapse, you can't get new insurance with a pre-existing condition. He's saying that if you've had insurance all along, the next company would have to take you. Obviously, you don't want people to not buy insurance, then when they get sick and are facing big bills go out and try to buy insurance.

You think DailyKOS is a good place to get your news?