Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) Obama would have liked to end a significant portion of the tax cuts but could not thanks to Republican opposition. However, you are still missing Biden's point. Ryan (and the rest of the Republicans) didn't become so concerned about the deficit until 1/20/09. Before that, they were happy to spend heavily while cutting revenues. They are being dishonest when they ignore their role in creating such huge deficit holes. Ryan was directly involved in those budgets and now wants to pretend like he's some deficit-hawk budget genius. Bulls***. He caved and I was pissed at him for it. He had national support but probably cut some backroom deal in order to drop it. Edit: And you'll notice the campaign unceremoniously dropped the hint that they're now willing to raise the threshold to a person making a million bucks instead of $250k

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) The spending enacted under Bush when Ryan was lead budget guy is their responsibility. The tax cuts, the unfunded wars, and Medicare are the largest sources of the deficit. That was Biden's point and he was absolutely correct. So 2 of the 3 that Obama and his admin have continued while in office, and half the war costs (and expanded roles of new agencies like Homeland security) - totally not his doing! GMAFB.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Fannie and Freddie had their part in the housing crisis. But a lot of things had their part in the housing crisis. The issue wasn't sub-prime themselves, it was the belief that there was no national housing market, and that wallstreet was safe as long as they diversified s***ty loans in florida with s***ty loans in arizona. But Fannie and Freddie bought up those terrible sub-prime mortgages and were allowed to continue to do so by the congressional Dems. All i'm saying is it's not exactly honest of Biden to point to Ryan and say "this is all on you guys." This was a problem that took decades to develop, even if the wars became a substantial cost later on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) You mean Bush and his "ownership society?" Clinton does deserve blame for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, though. Or Barney Frank, Obama and other congressional Dems allowing the sub-prime crisis to happen: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) lol no, Democrats are not to blame for Bush's unfunded tax cuts and Medicare Advantage and lying us into the Iraq war. No, but their "owning a home is a right" mantra directly contributed to the housing bubble bursting in the midst of those wars. I don't recall the Dems exactly fighting Bush on the prescription drug plan either. And both parties have failed miserably in keeping Wall Street in check so.... yes, both are to blame for the recession.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) I agree, there have been plenty of struggles for the Obama Administration...but my issue with the way the Republicans have been framing the state of things is just that they act as if they had no part in how we all got here..when in fact they are a very large part in how we got here...but the Obama camp seemed hesitant to point this out at the last debate, largely because they did not want to have to answer for their own struggles...so instead, they chose to just take it and put their head down... I posted after the first debate that this is the response that was needed...Biden does a very good job of saying some of the things that Barack just can't say, or puts himself at much greater risk of saying. First, this is the case with just about every administration - you inherit certain problems and by timing alone you get credit for fixing certain problems. Second, Obama and the Dems act as if they had no role in it either. Both are to blame for the policies of the last 15 years.

More fuel! http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/raddat...rch_654296.html

And really, even if the pomp and circumstance is bulls***, it's still not a smart thing to do because the majority of the country votes on who they like more, not what they actually stand for. So it was dumb of Biden to act like that, and it's being shown in the debate polls that he wasn't very relate-able/like-able.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 10:35 AM) There is no reason to be respectful of someone who is lying to your face. As I said with that Australian PM video I posted yesterday, we need less of this fake decorum bulls***, not more. I love how thisis only the case when it's a democat being the asshole. Bush bringing his "texas gunslinger" style = terrible. Biden being a condescending, disrespectful career politician = no more fake decorum bulls***!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) btw I don't think that's completely accurate. link? http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20...nghazi_security And your line about Dems/Repubs looking different is bulls***. Biden could have been aggressive but respectful and it would have been fine. Instead he was smirking, smiling, laughing, throwing his hands in the air, i.e. being an asshole. This is a near universal criticism of his performance last night.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) The second-best part was the sweet, sweet tears of sadness from the Fox commentators afterwards. Hannity still couldn't let it go that Obama attended the moderator's wedding 21 years ago. She had them talk more about Afghanistan's economy than our own. I get that she's a foreign policy expert, so that's going to be the majority of her base of questions, but that was such a secondary topic. Other than that I thought she did a pretty good job with the specific questions. She did seem to follow up with Ryan a little more, pressing him for more concrete answers, while Biden was allowed to get away with some just 100% false statements, especially regarding the embassy attack and the administration never knowing that he was requesting more security. That's something she knows and she should called him on it. But whatever, she was fine. CNN's coverage btw was fairly pro-Ryan. Most of their panel save the one black democrat (who proudly pronounced his affiliation.....nice neutral political pundit on a roundtable) argued that on points it was probably a draw or a slight edge to Biden, but everyone agreed Biden came off like a jerk with the smiling and interrupting. But as I said last night, I think both sides got what they wanted - Biden calmed his base down, Ryan held his own and looked very competent. Win/Win.

Ugh, the absolute worst part of campaign coverage is the spin room. So much bulls*** thrown around in that room it's almost disrespectful to the audience.

Sounds like the reaction so far is everyone is happy, mostly a draw, maybe Ryan with a slight win just because Biden came off as less "presidential" with the disrespectful responses. But that sorta was expected I think since that's Biden.

Biden smiling throughout everthing Ryan says just makes him look like a smug prick. And he can continue to say "Ryan is lying and i'll tell you why" but at some point you have to, ya know, say why. I agree with Soxbadger. Ryan is basically Obama here. Lots of rah-rah, not much substance. Honestly at this point it's a wash. Biden looks like an ass, Ryan looks a little overwhelmed.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) The reason Im smarmy is because Im so sick of the gun argument. I dont care about guns, have them dont have them, it really isnt going to change my life. I just get annoyed with the hypocritical stances that many pro-gun people have, whether it be small govt, anti-drug, it just annoys me. Right or wrong, Chicago citizens should have the freedom to restrict guns on the streets of Chicago. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people in Chicago want less restrictions, if the rest of the entire country is any indication (seeing as Chicago/Illinois is still the lone holdout in this stupid less guns=less crime argument). The problem is the 2 people in power the last 30 years don't agree with the masses. Also, if you don't want to have a debate, don't participate. You can't interject your opinion and then say "yeah i'm tired of talking about it."

SS, how does this fit into the ceo/union argument from yesterday? https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html Seems to me a union telling someone how to vote, or whether to attend a rally, with the threat of a fine, is pretty s***ty. https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Japan has no gangs. Yakuza are a myth created by the liberal media. And if its gangs that are the issue, then I assume in areas without gangs innocent civilians shouldnt get to carry guns? Seems kind of like a red herring to me. Not sure why you're all smarmy today, i'm just responding to your comparison to the UK. The myth is that we're an over-crazed, gun toting, violent society, when in reality the vast majority of violent crime with guns is gang related. Our gang numbers (nearly a million members) dwarfs the rest of the world. And when gangs represent a majority of the crime, well, there's your myth. Yes, you have your occasional pyschopath or the heat of passion killing, but every country has that. I just find it fascinating that people buy the bulls*** argument Chicago politicians have been spewing for years - we have a violence problem because there are too many guns so let's restrict them. It's assbackwards thinking that removing the availability of guns will curb crime. As others have already pointed out here, see: Prohibition, The War on Drugs, etc. None of that crap EVER works, yet stupid people buy that argument every decade. And before you get your panties in a bunch, i'm not specifically saying that you have this view.

Where's Balta? When did SS replace him as SS2k5's arch-nemesis?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) Further point, United Kingdom. Compare, United Kingdom gun violence to US gun violence. Compare, UK gun ownership to US gun ownership. Its to simplistic to use the blanket statement that "gun restriction doesnt work" but thats why we are now back in JR High arguing, because we are going to make very broad over-generalized statements and then name call when the other person makes a much more sophisticated and nuanced response. Now to Jr High debate: Guns kill people. Youre a murderer if you want people to have guns. Arent you sad about the people who died. Youre a bad bad person. Feel free to respond to whichever argument is more your speed. No other country has the gang culture problem the US has, so those comparisons are meaningless.

Sounds like someone needs some penis. Hi-ooooooooooooooooooooo! I kid! That was a good burn. Wonder what he said in response, if anything. Also, what's with the old-timey chests on the table? Kind of odd.

Who wants to bet Biden brings up this figure without telling the whole story at the debate? http://www.cnbc.com/id/49372827

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) Lehrer should have started cutting their mics. Or, alternatively, not asked dumb questions like "what are your differences on government?" And that's why these debates are so worthless. They never get into any detail ("if given intel that Iran had a nuclear weapon, what would you do, and be specific") so the answers are never in detail. Then it just becomes who can praise policeman/fireman/teachers, criticize wall street/rich people, and promise better education, health and defense against terrorism with the best catch phrase. Edit: Oh, and who can thank and ask God to bless America without seeming too religious (or not religious enough).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) I love how restricting guns on the street is an outright ban on guns. Its a disingenuous argument. Farmteam, I agree on legalizing most things. But unlike Y2hh, even if I think marijuana, LSD, mushrooms should be legal, I would be willing to agree to some restrictions to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Things like, its illegal to use heavy machinery and take acid, would seem reasonable to me. Its illegal to fly a plane while on mushrooms, seems reasonable to me. Its only the Y2hh's of the world who want to make the fake argument that restriction is banning. He quoted me, so I have to assume that he is disagreeing with my position which is simply: Its well established that gun ownership can be restricted. I believe that it should be up to the local govt to decide what type of restrictions they want on gun ownership. As y2hh said that makes me part of the "disconnected anti-gun crowd." Even though my position would support towns who want to allow c&c while supporting towns who didnt want c&c. Unlike y2hh I am not so bold as to believe that I know what is best for everyone in the US. I am very willing to let them make their own rules, even if it means allowing more gun ownership. Because its their choice. I just dont understand why he cant allow others to have their choice. From this thread it seems the only people who understand guns, are the ones who want 0 restrictions. See my point about rocket launcher tank and how not 1 pro-gun person would even admit that reasonable restrictions make sense. Out of curiosity, replace everything in that paragraph with gay marriage instead of guns. Would you still agree with it? Also, I guess I don't get why it needs to be decided on a town by town basis especially if you're so concerned about being shot by someone carrying a gun. I mean, in a metro area you go through 10 towns in a 15 minute drive. Wouldn't that bother you since you're still at risk?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) Ryan v Biden tonight. Anyone going to watch? I plan to record it and watch it in bits and pieces when I can. I'm going to do the same. It's going to be like a Nascar race. I'm waiting for one of them to crash and say something incredibly stupid.

They need to bring back paddles. That'll fix education.