Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Second Presidential Debate

   
What do you still disagree with? Those who had human intelligence networks released teh correct information ahead of the US, which relied on signals intelligence. You are saying you don't agree with Romney's assertio that Obama witheld information from teh American public, so far the only other theory being floated is that the signals based intelligence didn't have as good of intel on this situation as the human intelligence networks. if you want to offer another theory I can debate it but when you disaviw the only other theory currently put forth that sounds to me like a concession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by namloh View Post
If Romney wins I am going to move to Canada.....jk
People said that for Bush's second term.
Some even followed through with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
What do you still disagree with? Those who had human intelligence networks released teh correct information ahead of the US, which relied on signals intelligence. You are saying you don't agree with Romney's assertio that Obama witheld information from teh American public, so far the only other theory being floated is that the signals based intelligence didn't have as good of intel on this situation as the human intelligence networks. if you want to offer another theory I can debate it but when you disaviw the only other theory currently put forth that sounds to me like a concession.
Yes. You're absolutely right. You have battered me into submission with your intellectual prowess and amazing ability to ignore anything the opposing sides have to say. Bravo. I could not possibly have reached the conclusion that it was an islamist attack using the video-spawned mobs as a convenient cover that killed Ambassador Stevens because Romney something something something Obama is the bad guy.
Dude, you don't even know what you're debating. You're evidently looking for someone to pretend at being Romney's role so you can debate him. I'm not doing that. I'm defending my position. If you'll be so kind as to look back, you'll note where I've stated my position. Given how little you've addressed my position, clearly you are not trying to debate me. You can post a reply to this or not, I don't care - but I'm not going to go round and round with you on this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthbound View Post
President Obama in Fairfax, Virginia: "Romnesia"
Best part of the campaign yet.

I must say it was well delivered, haha.

Your position, so far as I can tell, is that signal intel is inherantly superior to human intel. I have pointed out that those relying on human intel in this instance had better and faster results. My initial point was that this was a distinction being left out by Romney's criticism, and in fact I was very openly attacking Romney's position when you offered your opinion. You have offered nothing to support your position other than to say it is not what I am primarilly arguing about, which is true, in that it was a side note at best if it did not relate specifically to the intelligence in question. You however decided tha you had to get personal about it by asking if I had any signal intel. I did not have either signal intel nor human intel, but I did watch the news and the results of the two in this instance are pretty clear. Personally I think signal intel is nice but human intel is vital, in that anyone can avoid signal detection by simply communicating without the use of technology. Semaphores and smoke signals can beat signal intel.
Now if you do want to debate your position, kindly present an actual defense of it. Otherwise let it go and your opinion is duly noted but not relevant to the point I was making because apparently despite whatever inherant superiority you may believe signal intel has over human intel it did not prevail *in this instance*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
Don't run a green candidate for president. They. Won't. Win. Simple. They will take votes away from whichever part is closest to them. If you want them to have power, start at the city level. Elect me to the city council or mayor or something. Then county. Maybe even a few state positions. You may even be able to get them a few in the senate and house. And then, after you've given them a powerful name in the senate, prepare for them to either replace the Democratic Party, or evenly split the vote, ensuring neither party can get a president.
They won't win not because people disagree with their views, but because most people don't even know what their views are. There are plenty of Green office holders. The issue isn't that they can't take local offices, the issue is that the offices aren't enough.

If you're on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes, and thus, the presidency, why should you be excluded from political discourse? Why is the average voter only exposed to the parties with corporate interests behind them?

Saying that third parties will never win is part of the problem. People don't want to vote for someone who can't win. Meanwhile, if you don't live in a swing state, a vote for either large party is entirely wasted. So yes, I do think people should vote for third parties, and try to get them fair political funding. Granted, they still won't have SPACs to just pump entirely absurd amounts of money into them, but it's a start.

Corporatism isn't going to get us out of this economic crisis.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status