Check out how Obama is standing:
There were several shots at this angle at different times during the debate, he was standing like this in most of them.
meaning what? he has to piss?
Anyone watching the debates tonight?
- Thread starter jfizzle
- Start date
meaning what? he has to piss?
It's a defensive posture, similar to when someone folds his/her arms in front. it signals either a lack of confidence, or no fucks given.
You must like car wrecks because Ryan is going to destroy Biden.
Another populist bullshitter going up against someone who actually knows numbers n stuff.
If you've looked into Ryan's record, you'd know he is a bullshitter too. He's just smarter than Biden.
I'll never understand the fascination Americans have in this horserace between two teams of two retards, but it's sort of scary and funny to watch at the same time.
Despite the fact these guys are going to fuck you and your businesses, everyone tunes in and cheers for one or the other regardless. Every minor detail, from how Obama stands, to how Romney parts his hair is critically scrutinized by hundreds of millions of people, who don't apply 1/100th as much interest to understanding the issues.
It's truly tres bizarre.
I was going to make some witty remark about Stephen Harper but decided not to as you do raise a very valid point.
What infuriates me the most are people who publicly advocate their political stance on Facebook, Twitter or in person with descriptive words. Its is so utterly vacuous that I sometimes feel like asking them to explain themselves. Because I know, that if we dig deeper into why they like so and so, they really don't have an explanation. Let us say someone said, “I like Obama last night, I thought he was strong” then you ask, “Why”, some may have an answer but if you ask “why” again, they most definitely have no fucking clue. For example, let us look at Mary on Facebook who writes "Romney, wipe that smirk of your face #DemocraticWin" I literally want to grab Mary and fucking yell at her, stating that, “it doesn't make you any smarter proclaiming which side you are on. If anything, you look more like a fucking moron, because the truth is, your statement justifies you know shit all. When you mention something like that to the world of Facebook, you are proving to us, that for the entire time during the debate, the only fucking thought that ran through your mind was “look at that smirk.”
Another example would be some ladies talking about "Well Obama had a hard time but he spoke well but I didn't like how he nodded his head all the time" Like what the fuck does nodding of the head have to do with the fucking debate?
Back to your point, I never take a side in politics because I know I don't know enough of each side to make a valid point and hence, I keep my mouth closed. However, for the fucktards that feel like advocating your point of view on the elections will prove you to be somewhat smarter , more cultured or intellectual, you are completely fucking wrong. That's it.
I always find these debates incredibly pointless.
You're spending 2 hours watching two guys lie through their teeth on every question thrown at them, and then give you a smile as they tie up the sentence.
You're spending 2 hours watching two guys lie through their teeth on every question thrown at them, and then give you a smile as they tie up the sentence.
People realize things are not going well, and yet they insist on doubling down on the problem rather than chart a solution. You can't alter the nature of politics. Once you understand what it is, trying to control it as a voter is a pointless endeavor.
In two years, all of the pro-Romney moderates will be swinging to another candidate. They are looking for something which doesn't exist. A good man who wants to hold supreme power.
There is no good man who can fix everything. There is no Rawn Pall messiah
politician who can heal the world.
Indeed, the politician doesn't matter, it's the system which is the problem. Any system which controls money, life and and death, is power no man should hold over others, democratic or otherwise.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In two years, all of the pro-Romney moderates will be swinging to another candidate. They are looking for something which doesn't exist. A good man who wants to hold supreme power.
There is no good man who can fix everything. There is no Rawn Pall messiah
politician who can heal the world.
Indeed, the politician doesn't matter, it's the system which is the problem. Any system which controls money, life and and death, is power no man should hold over others, democratic or otherwise.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don't like any politician or current political system, so Harper stuff doesn't phase me. The one thing about politics almost everywhere else in the world (outside the US) is that it doesn't have the football game atmosphere.
Indeed, in most countries, people don't even bother to vote, like Canada, where voter turnout has been falling precipitously each federal election, to the point they won't have a "democratic mandate" within another decade.
Outside the US, many people realize politics is a big time sink and full of liars. They won't change it, but they really want nothing to do with it.
In the US, everyone gets caught up in the dream of presidential aspiration. Again, to someone from outside, it seems bizarre.
Here's what I came away with:
When Obama came in, he came in with the burgeoning economic crisis. His entire job as he saw it came down to pumping the breaks and trying to end the spiral.
This debate made it seem like he had trouble transition out of that mindset, and towards pushing forwards. Obama's points could be summarized as "There's a lot of people who are unemployed and may be for awhile so we are going to try to make it as easy as possible on them".
Romney's points were more "We'd like you to not be unemployed, and we'd like you to have salaries high enough that this is all a bit unnecessary" - a perspective hedging strongly on recovery instead of limiting the damage.
The contrast of those points characterized the whole debate for me. That said, I'll be voting for neither of them. Gary Johnson 2012.
When Obama came in, he came in with the burgeoning economic crisis. His entire job as he saw it came down to pumping the breaks and trying to end the spiral.
This debate made it seem like he had trouble transition out of that mindset, and towards pushing forwards. Obama's points could be summarized as "There's a lot of people who are unemployed and may be for awhile so we are going to try to make it as easy as possible on them".
Romney's points were more "We'd like you to not be unemployed, and we'd like you to have salaries high enough that this is all a bit unnecessary" - a perspective hedging strongly on recovery instead of limiting the damage.
The contrast of those points characterized the whole debate for me. That said, I'll be voting for neither of them. Gary Johnson 2012.
^^^ Watches candidates he won't vote for, will take time to register meaningless protest vote.
That's the state of American libertarianism. Protest votes for candidates who have zero chance of being elected, or passionately rooting for some sort of Ron Paul miracle.
It's like most Americans can't (regardless of whether they claim to be libertarian or not) imagine any other way to improve society than voting.
That's sort of the trap of democracy. It gives you hope you can change how bad things are the next cycle, and so keeps you from making meaningful incremental changes daily.
That's the state of American libertarianism. Protest votes for candidates who have zero chance of being elected, or passionately rooting for some sort of Ron Paul miracle.
It's like most Americans can't (regardless of whether they claim to be libertarian or not) imagine any other way to improve society than voting.
That's sort of the trap of democracy. It gives you hope you can change how bad things are the next cycle, and so keeps you from making meaningful incremental changes daily.
No one thinks he's going to win. But making the Libertarian candidates have some visible level of support at least makes it slightly easier to get their message out. There is no slam dunk victory. If it just means that next time a Libertarian candidate gets in the main debate, that's a victory. If it means they get enough funding to put some commercials on the air, that's a victory. If it means that they can afford to do a college campus tour that brings new people into the fold, that's a victory. It's all about incremental improvement and getting the perspective more and more into the open.
I don't think it keeps you from doing anything. It's just adding another item to the list.