Debate #3, the Final Chapter

They need to come up with a new name that merges the Libertarians and the Greens somehow.

This could never happen. At the core of libertarian idology- we believe that government should be very limited. That individual rights trump those of the masses, that what we earn belongs to us first- that the government - in every instance should defer to the people for solutions first, and government solutions are the last resort.

Greenies hold out hope that the government will regulate away every possible source of pollution, every molecule of carbon- and force every person to live a green lifestyle regardless of the costs. Their entire platform rests on bigger government for environmental causes- to save the air, the water- hell- the world. These people would need a world government to accomplish their goals- so they would bow down to the UN.

Polar opposites- a merger is not possible. Divorce would be inevitable, probably the morning after the honeymoon night.

While libertarianism can be approached from the left or the right- both angles must agree on removing power from government- not giving government more power.

Both quotes from the same debate:

Conservatives have made an admirable attempt thus far to turn President Obama's "horses and bayonets" zinger in their favor. Mostly, they have been doing this by lying.

What Obama said was that the military uses "fewer horses and bayonets" than it used to, because technology changes over time. Obama was making the point that comparing the number of ships our Navy had in 1916 to the number it has now, as Mitt Romney was doing, is a ridiculous way to gauge military strength, since the ships we do have are vastly more powerful than they used to be.

But some conservatives (even in this discussion) are pretending that Obama actually claimed that the military uses no horses or bayonets anymore. And the military does use them sometimes (here's video of Marines with bayonets!), so Obama is a moron! Even Paul Ryan couldn't get the analogy.

Is it really that complicated? Let's break down this analogy SAT-style: Outdated ships are to modern ships as outdated weaponry (such as bayonets) are to ____. Now, Ryan might guess something like "horses" or "the ocean," but the answer is "modern weaponry." This is a form of logical reasoning that most Americans master around the age of 17.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/ba ... -ryan.html

"As president, I will create 12 million new jobs," - Mitt Romney, October 16 debate.

Becky wrote: Romney isn't going to create those jobs. Hopefully he will get the government out of the way so that we can create our own.
You just will never get it.

Oh, so what he said was a lie? He has some magic plan to get government "out of the way" and 12 million jobs will just magically happen? And he knows the exact number, of jobs that will be created in the future, how?

Raees wrote: Conservatives have made an admirable attempt thus far to turn President Obama's "horses and bayonets" zinger in their favor. Mostly, they have been doing this by lying.

What Obama said was that the military uses "fewer horses and bayonets" than it used to, because technology changes over time. Obama was making the point that comparing the number of ships our Navy had in 1916 to the number it has now, as Mitt Romney was doing, is a ridiculous way to gauge military strength, since the ships we do have are vastly more powerful than they used to be.

But some conservatives (even in this discussion) are pretending that Obama actually claimed that the military uses no horses or bayonets anymore. And the military does use them sometimes (here's video of Marines with bayonets!), so Obama is a moron! Even Paul Ryan couldn't get the analogy.

Is it really that complicated? Let's break down this analogy SAT-style: Outdated ships are to modern ships as outdated weaponry (such as bayonets) are to ____. Now, Ryan might guess something like "horses" or "the ocean," but the answer is "modern weaponry." This is a form of logical reasoning that most Americans master around the age of 17.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/ba ... -ryan.html

You can tell them over and over again that it's not what he said...But "they don' need no steenkin' facts...." But as I have pointed out to them, (at least twice now), that's not what he said, and they are free to post as many stupid, irrelevant videos as they like. Facts have never been their strong suit.

I now understand why Obama was so well received by the base last night. His base is made up of arrogant, condescending, drones who can't understand more than repeated one-liner insults.

Looks to me like "his base" aren't the ones who didn't under the words of the English language when he said: (and I quote):

"We also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. "

What part of "FEWER" did they not understand?

Of course, they are free to post as many videos as they like showing that, indeed, the military still has a use for some bayonets...(Hell, I'll bet they even have some horses on the payroll...) And what does that have to do with: "We also have fewer horses and bayonets"

towermonkey wrote: I now understand why Obama was so well received by the base last night. His base is made up of arrogant, condescending, drones who can't understand more than repeated one-liner insults.

Wait, I thought his base was people on welfare who are too dumb to get a job?

Just really tired of your bullshit posts which all end with an insult. I don't give a damnable who said what in the debate. (Response was to LJ)

Raees wrote:

towermonkey wrote: I now understand why Obama was so well received by the base last night. His base is made up of arrogant, condescending, drones who can't understand more than repeated one-liner insults.

Wait, I thought his base was people on welfare who are too dumb to get a job?

Wasn't that the 47% that are veterans, retirees, disabled, and working-poor (that in some cases work 2-3 jobs, but still end up with a zero federal income tax liability after all of the tax-credits...that the GOTP passed under that OTHER president?)

Drat... I thought this post was about: "Debate #3, the Final Chapter"... Did it get changed somewhere along the way? I didn't get the memo.