Slashdot Mirror
US Presidential Debate #2 Tonight: Discuss Here
The second U.S. Presidential debate kicks off in about a half-hour (9PM ET, 6PM PT, 0100 UTC) from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney will take questions from an audience of allegedly undecided voters. A live stream of the event will be available from a number of sources (C-SPAN, CNN, ABC, and PBS), and it will be broadcast nationally on the major networks. The flash-less and television-less can use rtmpdump to catch the debate from C-SPAN. It won't preempt the more important telecasts, like playoff baseball. Candidates from smaller parties again went uninvited (e.g. Gary Johnson from the Libertarians, Jill Stein from the Greens, Virgil Goode from the Constitution Party, and Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party). In fact, Jill Stein was arrested for attempting to enter without credentials (her side of the story). Assuming she's out of jail by Thursday, she and Gary Johnson will be participating in an online debate hosted by IVN.us. While tonight's debate is in progress, Politifact will be fact-checking the candidates in real-time (while CNN has demonstrated their journalistic capabilities with a debate drinking game). Feel free to weigh in with your commentary on the debate below — it would be helpful to provide timestamps or other context when referring to particular statements. As before, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight. If either of the candidates spontaneously concedes the election or catches fire, we'll do our best to update you.
Found it, here is the entire interview, with Schiff's comments after it (it's in the second hour).
You are as wrong as Hanauer, consumers do not have any such thing as 'disposable income' without working for companies. ALL wealth is created by companies, every productive job is created by businesses, not by consumers.
Consumers only can consume what businesses produce and businesses do not know, nobody knows that if they make another chair or another computer that it will be bought. But that's not even the point. The point is that it is businesses that come first or more precisely, it is production that comes first.
Hanauer actually made a very specific metaphor, he said: there are Zebras and Lions and Grass, and he said: Lions don't make Zebras and Zebras don't make Grass.
Yeah, but Grass IS production, grass has to be produced before Zebras can eat it. Hanauer doesn't understand that.
Zebras have to be produced before Lions eat them. Hanauer doesn't understand that.
If he understands that, he definitely made sure to cover up that fact. Grass has to be produced and it has to exist before Zebras can eat Grass, it doesn't even matter how grass is produced, but what does matter is that Mit has to be grass and not paper money.
It's about production, it's not about paper money. Another stupid point by Hanauer was constantly pointing at places like Somalia, saying that it is just like USA was in 19th century, which is pure nonsense.
In fact many people confuse these, but those people are totally ignorant and turned off their brains long ago (if they ever had brains). Somalia does not have a Federal government in the first place, it doesn't have a Constitution. Somalians fought a bloody civil war to get rid of their Communist government that was destroying the country (and before Communists it was a British colony).
Somalia doesn't have any freedoms that USA used to have in 19 century (certainly before 1913), so comparing these is ludicrous. Modern day Hong-Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and mainland China are much closer to what USA used to be like in 19th century than any place without a Constitution and freedoms guaranteed by Constitution, like Somalia, which was raped by various governments of the world for ages.
I don't care about your quotes of bastards and things, what I do care about is the actual truth and you should listen to that interview that I linked in totality and including the post interview review of what Hanauer said by Schiff.
What I am telling you that after listening to that interview, I bought a premium subscription to Schiffs radio show, because if even people like Hanauer, who made plenty of money are such economic morons, then Schiff's radio show must be supported and stay on the air, because we are surrounded by ignorant and stupid people.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Well, Obama did start the thing off saying "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
It wasn't until he started talking about the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that he mentioned the terror. It's clear to me that he was speaking about 9/11 when he said it.
Well, the context is there in plain english. Perhaps you can point out where I'm wrong. Here is even a biased link that I think you might enjoy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
Actually, no. Terrorism as US law defines it needs a deliberate act or an intentional component. Some speculate that this is the reason why Obama didn't call it terrorism and why they went around apologizing for the first amendment for 2 weeks after the attacks. The fact of the matter is that even if Obama called it terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, they did it once then went around for several weeks claiming it was about a damn movie trailer. So it appears they changed their minds directly after it then changed them back when it became politically advantageous or something. My guess is that Obama was afraid of being called weak on terrorism if a terrorist act happened under his watch, something similar to the McCain campain's statements about being better suited to protecting America from terrorism.
But what we know now is that there was an act of terrorism. It was allowed to happen because of oversights and general misfeasance by government organizations with senior members of the administration saying they didn't know requests for extra security had been made under the administration, the administration appeared in public to blame it on our first amendment's protection of free speech, and eventually called it what it was.
If this isn't a sign of incompetence, I'm not sure what is.
Romney believes in a completely discredited world view on economics and the role of government.
Nonsense. The discredited, outdated approaches are those espoused by 0bama. He deeply believes in the same type of socialistic approach that's led the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) to the brink of bankruptcy. Spain and Greece both currently have unemployment over 20%!
Romney's economic ideas are a proven formula for turning around the economy. He will win, and America will prosper again.
Barrack Obama is terrible at actually playing politics, so even if he knows what he should do he's usually incapable of doing it. He managed to win his previous elections by having stuck to reasonably credible policy proposals, and failing to really deliver, Romney is a compulsive liar, who is used to talking to people who drink the same intellectual kool-aid he does, so he panders to whomever is in front of him with whatever they want to hear, but nothing he says is based in reality.
LOL! 0bama is one of the most mendacious politicians I've ever seen. He spouted several outright lies during the debate last night, and will be called out on them today. Romney wasn't my first choice, and at times he gets things wrong, but compared to 0bama he's a paragon of virtue. Heck, he even gives a substantial contribution to charity - not only does 0bama NOT do that, but he doesn't even help family members living in abject poverty. He's a disgrace on many levels.
Given the choice - and given the '3rd party' choices are basically in the romney camp of completely discredited or impractical world views your best bet is Obama.
0bama is the "best bet" if you want to see America continue to whither for another four years. Luckily, everything is lining up for a Romney landslide come November 6.
And before you, or anyone else thinks that's somehow a sad statement about democracy, that is democracy, everywhere. In canada and the UK we have baby republicans Harper and Cameron, Cameron has been caught in a double dip recession precisely because he bought into the same nonsense the republicans have been spewing, while canada is saved by the price of oil.
No politician wants to preside over hard times, but sometimes it takes some hard times to return to the good times. "Spending your way out of poverty" was a bad idea for the US when the national debt was staggering to begin with. It didn't help that the money was spent exceptionally stupidly, and that increased regulation held the economy back as well. Romney's energy plans alone will boost the US economy substantially by the end of his first term.
In France Sarkozy and Hollande were both looking at ways to radically cut the budget deficit, which in the first place is bad economic policy and hollande wants to do so with a 75% tax on the ultrarich, who can just move to switzerland or monaco.
Exactly! What was your point again? 0bama essentially wants to make the same mistakes as Hollande, perhaps on a smaller scale. Meanwhile, the French are about ready to throw Hollande out.
Angela merkel in germany is pushing for european federalism - which might be good policy- a completely untenable prospect politically in europe, and so on and so on.
The situation in Europe is yet to be resolved, and there will seismic shifts before it's done. The Eurozone may very well fall apart. We'll see over the next year or so.
On the rare occasions politicians are actually capable of looking at and understanding evidence they usually don't know how translate that into actual action.
I think you'll find that Romney and Ryan will be very effective. I'm sure you'll enjoy a more prosperous, powerful and influential America going forward. Right? ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait