Presidential debate #2.

[AZRedhawk44]

That's why I'm voting for the communist.

Which one is that?

[HankB]

This argument smells like FAIL.

Well, when your only choices are ebola or flu . . . and making a third choice GUARANTEES ebola . . . 

[ArfinGreebly]

Which one is that?

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  Shorthand is unacceptable.

Communist == "post-communist, post-fascist, Marxism-inspired, radical-mentored, command-and-control government aspiring socialism advocate."

Better?

[Strings]

ummm... can you be more specific?

Oh, wait... "radical-mentored". So you're voting Obama?

[TommyGunn]

Yeah.

I'm tired of all these wussy, mediocre, wishy-washy, in-name-only, wanna-be "conservatives."

I wanna vote for someone who has some stinkin' convictions.

That's why I'm voting for the communist.

[ArfinGreebly]

Depressing, isn't it?

And yet I deal with that logic every day.

Romney isn't [favorite guy here], so I'm [not voting/voting for (obscure/fringe) candidate/voting communist] instead.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

A man whom I respect a great deal recently responded to my characterization of Obama as essentially communist/fascist/socialist with a request for a concise list of references proving my claim.  What??  From a continuous stream of evidence and clues over a three-year period, you expect me to reach into my pocket and produce a CONCISE summary?  In my spare time?

Truly I despair.

[Perd Hapley]

The RINO is the enemy of ever getting anything good out of the GOP ever again.

[ArfinGreebly]

Yes.

And therefore I'm going to make my vote a STATEMENT!!

That'll show 'em.  That'll send a message.

[AZRedhawk44]

Yes.

And therefore I'm going to make my vote a STATEMENT!!

That'll show 'em.  That'll send a message.

I mock the legitimacy of the vote.

The notion that the majority of you can sit down and choose to take anything from me, by proxy of force by hired mercenaries, is preposterous.  And until there's someone worth voting FOR that understands that the only role of government is to compel behavior by threat of mercenary theft (and wants to truncate every opportunity government currently makes for itself to plunder its serfs) I will not be voting and instead be doing something more rewarding with my time, than giving my approval to being raped by Obama or raped by Romney.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes.

And therefore I'm going to make my vote a STATEMENT!!

That'll show 'em.  That'll send a message.

Well, yes. That's what a vote is, right? 

[ArfinGreebly]

I mock the legitimacy of the vote.

The notion that the majority of you can sit down and choose to take anything from me, by proxy of force by hired mercenaries, is preposterous.  And until there's someone worth voting FOR that understands that the only role of government is to compel behavior by threat of mercenary theft (and wants to truncate every opportunity government currently makes for itself to plunder its serfs) I will not be voting and instead be doing something more rewarding with my time, than giving my approval to being raped by Obama or raped by Romney.

Presuming that you, during the non-voting seasons, invest effective efforts to remedy the state of things, I find no fault with this.

[ArfinGreebly]

Well, yes. That's what a vote is, right? 

I suppose.

Much in the same way a sandbag is a "message" to the flood.

[Perd Hapley]

In the same way that failing to fall in line with the Tea Party vanguard is a message that the GOP does not want Americans' votes.

[gunsmith]

I think Mitt will be one of the best Presidents we have had in a long time, G.W also had a lot of faults and way to liberal for my taste. Yet he made great choices for scotus if your main issue is guns.
My main issue is gun rights, if we can shoot back we have a chance of improving things.
At least with Mitt there is a chance I may be able to afford to buy guns again, as well as carry them if he picks a good scotus like GW did.

[Jim147]

I think Mitt will be one of the best Presidents we have had in a long time, G.W also had a lot of faults and way to liberal for my taste. Yet he made great choices for scotus if your main issue is guns.
My main issue is gun rights, if we can shoot back we have a chance of improving things.
At least with Mitt there is a chance I may be able to afford to buy guns again, as well as carry them if he picks a good scotus like GW did.

Did you miss the part in the debate where he said automatic weapons are already illegal here?

He doesn't have a clue what our gun laws are and will just go with whatever he is handed by congress. The same as the other choice.

Lucky for us the gun control group in congress is still a small group. That could change here in a few weeks.

jim

[kgbsquirrel]

Depressing, isn't it?

And yet I deal with that logic every day.

Romney isn't [favorite guy here], so I'm [not voting/voting for (obscure/fringe) candidate/voting communist] instead.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

A man whom I respect a great deal recently responded to my characterization of Obama as essentially communist/fascist/socialist with a request for a concise list of references proving my claim.  What??  From a continuous stream of evidence and clues over a three-year period, you expect me to reach into my pocket and produce a CONCISE summary?  In my spare time?

Truly I despair.

You're welcome to use my previous explanation of why he is a fascist dictator. 

[Scout26]

Want to know who the perfect candidate for president is that exactly represents my views?



Me.  But I ain't running (Too many skeletons and the job looks like a big ball of suck.)


So I have to choose the guy closest to me.  (Ron Paul on most issues, but he misses the mark on a few others, so he tain't perfect neither.)

Now, I can vote for the fringe candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected dogcatcher (If the L's would not make drug legalization their #1 issue they might do better with the general public), much less President.  But that only help the Socialist/Communist/Nazi (yes, they are all right around the same section of the bell curve) win another 4 years.  At which point, The Who's "Won't Get Fool Again" might seem rather prophetic.  Or I can take the other guy at face value.  I served with a couple of Mormons and found that they meant what they said and did what they meant.   I trusted them 100%.  So I take him at face value.  I'm not worried about him trying to ban guns.  If we keep a pro-gun Congress then that crap won't happen and I highly doubt he'd do anything to piss off his base.  He knows that he could do a live partial birth abortion on steps of Congress broadcast on C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC (Fox would beg off), and still the 47% wouldn't vote for him.  

I do think he can get the economy turned around.  I do think he can bring back American exceptionalism.  I do think that he and Ryan can start to dismantle the over bloated Fed.gov.  Maybe not all in 1 or even 4 years, but at least start the process.  We didn't get here in one term and we won't get out in one term.  


And if you don't think so, think about this (and it has gotten "Bluer" and "Greener" since 2006):

[lupinus]

^ what he said

[drewtam]

No President or Congress can "turn this economy around". It doesn't work that way. There is too much private debt that is slowly being worked off.

The only thing that Fed gov't and Fed Res can do is either make the process fast and painful or slow and really painful.

[makattak]

Did you miss the part in the debate where he said automatic weapons are already illegal here?

He doesn't have a clue what our gun laws are and will just go with whatever he is handed by congress. The same as the other choice.

Lucky for us the gun control group in congress is still a small group. That could change here in a few weeks.

jim

I don't trust Romney on guns (or many other things), either.

However, what he said is a quick distillation of the truth. Yes, TECHNICALLY, automatic weapons are legal.

Practically, they might as well be illegal. Owned by very few people, unavailable to purchase any modern versions (I'd LOVE a real P-90, for instance).

So, if you were trying to explain to someone what the state of automatic weapons is in this country, wouldn't saying they are already pretty much illegal?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I don't trust Romney on guns (or many other things), either.

However, what he said is a quick distillation of the truth. Yes, TECHNICALLY, automatic weapons are legal.

Practically, they might as well be illegal. Owned by very few people, unavailable to purchase any modern versions (I'd LOVE a real P-90, for instance).

So, if you were trying to explain to someone what the state of automatic weapons is in this country, wouldn't saying they are already pretty much illegal?

realist!   statist!

[HankB]

. . . Yes, TECHNICALLY, SOME automatic weapons are legal IN SOME PLACES.

FIFY

Various states will not allow legal ownership of NFA hardware by an individual.

And just try to buy, as an individual, a new (post '86) full auto anything, in any of the 50 states.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html?ICO=most_read_module


i could not make it up    because he talks slower

[makattak]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html?ICO=most_read_module


i could not make it up    because he talks slower

They have a rationalization for giving the president more time, how surprising. I'd be interested in knowing how they rationalize why he got the last word 73% of the time.

[MechAg94]

They have a rationalization for giving the president more time, how surprising. I'd be interested in knowing how they rationalize why he got the last word 73% of the time.

Because he is slow.........................I mean slower. 

Come on, he was likely a C student at best.  I know that because I must assume the worst if he want release his records.  Looking at some of the stuff he has gotten in hot water over, even most idiots would realize it was a bad idea.