The Debates!

[Rex Kickass]

Of those three, only the 88 one fits in the pattern of what we got this year. I don't see how Binders compares to either experience, or are you better than foru years ago. Those are real election issues. Bayonets are not.

 

Making a joke about Walter Mondale, a 56 year old former Vice President, being young and inexperienced was a real election issue?

 

I can get with you on the binders point, I guess... but it was just such an odd moment and just kinda puts an exclamation point on an idea that Romney is out of touch. But you can make the argument that bayonets and horses has to do with illustrating someone's fundamental understanding of how means of national defense changes over time. Just like firing Big Bird is supposed to be a symbol of not paying for things we can't afford, they do play to a larger point about the election.

 

I'll admit, I'm totally biased in this election - but the thing that I have not seen from Romney is any sense about what he would actually do, because he's been very good - in the debates at least - of taking three sides on every issue. Obama has done this too, at times, but at least he has a record to run on.

[Y2HH]

I guess you can't vote for local and state politicians in Bridgeport? Weird!

 

edit: or run for elected position yourself!

 

Without that D next to your name, there is no point. If I was rich, I'd do exactly this, because I'd have the money/time to burn to do this.

 

I'm not.

[StrangeSox]

I live in Clearing, so no, I can't.

 

And not to spoil the ending for you...but the democrat will win, regardless if they even campaign or not. Hell, if a dead body could get a D next to his name on that ticket, they'd win.

 

So work within the system to get candidates more to your liking instead of talking about how hopeless it is to start a third party. That's the whole idea behind conservatives primarying people like Dick Lugar.

[Y2HH]

Making a joke about Walter Mondale, a 56 year old former Vice President, being young and inexperienced was a real election issue?

 

I can get with you on the binders point, I guess... but it was just such an odd moment and just kinda puts an exclamation point on an idea that Romney is out of touch. But you can make the argument that bayonets and horses has to do with illustrating someone's fundamental understanding of how means of national defense changes over time. Just like firing Big Bird is supposed to be a symbol of not paying for things we can't afford, they do play to a larger point about the election.

 

I'll admit, I'm totally biased in this election - but the thing that I have not seen from Romney is any sense about what he would actually do, because he's been very good - in the debates at least - of taking three sides on every issue. Obama has done this too, at times, but at least he has a record to run on.

 

What I don't get about you is why you're in the bag for Obama.

 

Who was against gay marriage until it suited him to be for it.

 

How does that fact NOT annoy you?

 

He's an opportunist...and you let him be.

[StrangeSox]

Letting perfect be the enemy of good etc.

 

Obama isn't perfect on gay rights, but he was miles better than Republican alternatives. He stopped enforcing DOMA and forced an end to DADT.

[StrangeSox]

Without that D next to your name, there is no point. If I was rich, I'd do exactly this, because I'd have the money/time to burn to do this.

 

I'm not.

 

You do not need to be rich to run for local elections. My FIL has held local elected office for most of his adult life (and now has a full-time position). They were minor positions, but they can still have an impact if you want them to.

 

However, if you're a staunchly conservative person and live in a strongly democratic area, well, that's democracy. I wouldn't expect my politics to be very successful in Alabama.

[Y2HH]

You do not need to be rich to run for local elections. My FIL has held local elected office for most of his adult life (and now has a full-time position). They were minor positions, but they can still have an impact if you want them to.

 

However, if you're a staunchly conservative person and live in a strongly democratic area, well, that's democracy. I wouldn't expect my politics to be very successful in Alabama.

 

No, but you do need to get on on the democratic ticket, which you cannot, it's already taken.

[StrangeSox]

Secondly, I’d take on diplomatic isolation efforts. I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it. I would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. The same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa

 

Does Mitt want to indict Ahmadinejad over speech?

[Jenksismyhero]

Does Mitt want to indict Ahmadinejad over speech?

 

It's been done before:

 

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007839

 

 

INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE IN RWANDA

 

The incitement provision of the Genocide Convention took on new importance in the wake of genocide in the Central African nation of Rwanda. Between April and July 1994, members of the Hutu majority, wielding machetes, firearms, and other weapons, killed at least 500,000 people. The vast majority of the victims were members of the Tutsi minority. In 1997, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) indicted three Rwandans for “incitement to genocide”: Hassan Ngeze who founded, published, and edited Kangura (Wake Others Up!), a Hutu-owned tabloid that in the months preceding the genocide published vitriolic articles dehumanizing the Tutsi as inyenzi (cockroaches) though never called directly for killing them; and Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, founders of a radio station called Radio Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM) that indirectly and directly called for murder, even at times to the point of providing the names and locations of people to be killed. In the days leading to and during the massacres, RTLM received help from Radio Rwanda, the government-owned station, and programs were relayed to villages and towns throughout the country by a network of transmitters operated by Radio Rwanda. At the heart of the Rwanda “Media Trial” that opened on October 23, 2000, was the issue of free speech rights. “A key question is what kind of speech is protected and where the limits lie,” said American lawyer Stephen Rapp, the case's senior prosecutor for the Tribunal. “It is important to draw that line. We hope the judgment will give the world some guidance.”

 

In December 2003, the ICTR handed down its verdict. The three judges (a South African, a Sri Lankan, and a Norwegian) convicted Ngeze, Nahimana, and Barayagwiza for direct and public incitement to genocide. The judges declared: “Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.” In framing their verdict, the judges noted: “This case raises important principles concerning the role of the media, which have not been addressed at the level of international criminal justice since Nuremberg. The power of the media to create and destroy fundamental human values comes with great responsibility. Those who control the media are accountable for its consequences.” The prosecutors’ burden involved the interpretation of euphemisms (in order to prove the “direct” nature of the incitement), such as the phrase “go to work” as a call to kill the Tutsi and the Hutu who opposed the Rwandan regime. That an individual or group killed someone in response to the radio broadcasts or newspaper articles was not required to prove the incitement to genocide charge.

 

In January 2007, the lawyers for the defendants in the Rwanda “Media Trial” appealed the tribunal’s decisions on numerous grounds. Issuing a decision on November 28, 2007, the Tribunal affirmed the charge of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” for Ngeze and Nahimana. The judges reversed the finding of guilt on this charge against Barayagwiza, ruling that only RTLM broadcasts made after April 6, 1994 (when the genocide began), constituted “direct and public incitement to commit genocide,” and that Barayagwiza no longer exercised control over the employees of the radio station at that time. (The Tribunal did affirm the findings of guilt against Barayagwiza on different grounds, for instigating the perpetration of acts of genocide and crimes against humanity.) Because of the reversal of some charges against the three defendants, the judges lowered the defendants’ sentences: Nahimana’s from life to 30 years, Negeze’s from life to 35 years, and Barayagwiza’s from 35 to 32 years.

 

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

It seems odd for someone who wants to be the POTUS to want to hold international speech to a markedly different standard than what we hold at home. The US really is an outlier on speech, and that's a good thing imo.

[Rex Kickass]

What I don't get about you is why you're in the bag for Obama.

 

Who was against gay marriage until it suited him to be for it.

 

How does that fact NOT annoy you?

 

He's an opportunist...and you let him be.

 

I'm in the bag for Obama because I am not a one-issue voter. But even if I was, do I take the candidate who didn't support marriage equality in 2008 but does today, or do I take the candidate who supported it in 1994 but doesn't support it today?

 

I support Obama because I think that he would make better choices for the Supreme Court over the next four years. I also support Obama because I feel that he has a good solid sense of foreign policy and has gone a long way to achieve US interests without isolating itself from its allies across the world - even if his personal relationships with leaders aren't terribly warm. I also support Obama because I don't feel that the Republican party has been interested in anything but seizing power for the last four years, and the policies they support are pretty extreme.

 

As much of a liberal as I am personally, I'd be pretty OK with a moderate President. I feel Romney owes so many people so much if he gets elected, that Moderate Mitt just won't be the President we get with Mitt Romney.

[southsider2k5]

Making a joke about Walter Mondale, a 56 year old former Vice President, being young and inexperienced was a real election issue?

 

I can get with you on the binders point, I guess... but it was just such an odd moment and just kinda puts an exclamation point on an idea that Romney is out of touch. But you can make the argument that bayonets and horses has to do with illustrating someone's fundamental understanding of how means of national defense changes over time. Just like firing Big Bird is supposed to be a symbol of not paying for things we can't afford, they do play to a larger point about the election.

I'll admit, I'm totally biased in this election - but the thing that I have not seen from Romney is any sense about what he would actually do, because he's been very good - in the debates at least - of taking three sides on every issue. Obama has done this too, at times, but at least he has a record to run on.

 

Me too. I hate both of them, and won't vote for either.

[southsider2k5]

You do not need to be rich to run for local elections. My FIL has held local elected office for most of his adult life (and now has a full-time position). They were minor positions, but they can still have an impact if you want them to.

 

However, if you're a staunchly conservative person and live in a strongly democratic area, well, that's democracy. I wouldn't expect my politics to be very successful in Alabama.

 

Been there, done that.

[Jenksismyhero]

It seems odd for someone who wants to be the POTUS to want to hold international speech to a markedly different standard than what we hold at home. The US really is an outlier on speech, and that's a good thing imo.

 

Well, our free speech laws aren't "markedly different" than that. Free speech rights are not infinite. You can be arrested for inciting violence, but the hurlde is pretty tough to get over (intentional, imminent and high likelihood of action)

[BigSqwert]

I love how Romney wants to improve education in the middle east but wants to make cuts at home. Sounds like a great idea for my tax dollars.

[StrangeSox]

Well, our free speech laws aren't "markedly different" than that. Free speech rights are not infinite. You can be arrested for inciting violence, but the hurlde is pretty tough to get over (intentional, imminent and high likelihood of action)

 

I don't see how Ahmadinejad's statements would come close to passing Brandenburg. Our speech laws and the values underlying them really are much more radical, for lack of a better word, than most of the rest of the Western world.

 

edit: this paper covers this

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000263

Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't see how Ahmadinejad's statements would come close to passing Brandenburg. Our speech laws and the values underlying them really are much more radical, for lack of a better word, than most of the rest of the Western world.

 

edit: this paper covers this

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000263

 

It wouldn't, but that's not the standard the world court could hold him to. And I think there's a reason for the difference in standards - an international court would be dealing with rogue "terrorists" (for lack of a better word), people with the means to influence followers to act violently. In the US you're going after citizens talking to other citizens.

[Jenksismyhero]

This a pointless debate though because even if Romney wanted to indict him, the international community wouldn't want to touch him with a 10 foot pole. It was difficult for Russia/China to agree to some of the sanctions we wanted, there's no way they'd go along with indicting him and bringing him before a court.

[StrangeSox]

It wouldn't, but that's not the standard the world court could hold him to. And I think there's a reason for the difference in standards - an international court would be dealing with rogue "terrorists" (for lack of a better word), people with the means to influence followers to act violently. In the US you're going after citizens talking to other citizens.

 

The Rwandan cases weren't rogue terrorists but people at the state-run media calling for violence against fellow citizens. Ahmadinejad would be a littler different because he's 'inciting' violence against another country, I guess, but it's still an interesting statement for Romney to have made.

[Jake]

Romney can shove fiscal conservatism up his ass as long as he wants to increase military budget and our presence abroad while cutting dollars at home. I'm happy to entertain ideas about budget slashing, etc. but he is not one I'm going to support. Increase military budget, cut healthcare reform and education spending. Okay. Well will the budget at least be balanced? No, we're actually going to cut our revenue. Don't harp on balancing the budget if your idea is essentially the same as Obama's -- I'm going to bridge the gap with increased revenue from a recovered economy. The only difference is one person will retain tax rates and much of current services while one will cut both, leaving largely the same deficit. Asinine. His buddy Paul Ryan is a sham as a fiscal conservative as well, it's disappointing. Will a decent conservative please stand up? And then sit down when it comes to legislating social issues?

[Jake]

@AnnCoulter: I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard

[CrimsonWeltall]

@AnnCoulter: I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard

 

Gettin kind desperate with the trolling there. I guess she hasn't had any headlines recently. Does she have a new book coming out she needs some spotlight for?

[Jenksismyhero]

Romney can shove fiscal conservatism up his ass as long as he wants to increase military budget and our presence abroad while cutting dollars at home. I'm happy to entertain ideas about budget slashing, etc. but he is not one I'm going to support. Increase military budget, cut healthcare reform and education spending. Okay. Well will the budget at least be balanced? No, we're actually going to cut our revenue. Don't harp on balancing the budget if your idea is essentially the same as Obama's -- I'm going to bridge the gap with increased revenue from a recovered economy. The only difference is one person will retain tax rates and much of current services while one will cut both, leaving largely the same deficit. Asinine. His buddy Paul Ryan is a sham as a fiscal conservative as well, it's disappointing. Will a decent conservative please stand up? And then sit down when it comes to legislating social issues?

 

By cutting the revenue you're kicking the economy into gear and increasing your revenues over time. Obama's plan is basically nothing at this point. Wait it out. We've been waiting 4 years and not much has improved.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

By cutting the revenue you're kicking the economy into gear and increasing your revenues over time. Obama's plan is basically nothing at this point. Wait it out. We've been waiting 4 years and not much has improved.

 

Europe has shown pretty clearly that austerity will only make things worse, as well as our own experience with the Bush tax cuts. Obama has also offered up various jobs plans that have been rejected by Republicans in Congress.

Edited October 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Europe has shown pretty clearly that austerity will only make things worse, as well as our own experience with the Bush tax cuts.

 

Europe hasn't cut the revenue they've enacted higher taxes and less gov't spending.

 

Romney's plan is stimulus, it's just republican stimulus. Tax cuts and military spending. Spending on military doesn't count against deficit IYAR.

 

It would work though.

 

If Obama is elected, Republicans will demand austerity. If Romney is elected, they will allow huge tax cuts and increased spending. Vote republican! They won't hold the economy hostage if you do!