Who's going to watch the debate tonight?

@golguin said:

@DeShawn2ks said:

Why does it feel the media cycle is so predictable. I am gonna guess how this goes. Obama up in the polls, after first debate Obama loses, Romney gets a lead until 2nd debate, Obama wins 2nd debate and it is now a close call and there is no telling who is going to win the election. I wonder why the president didn't hit him with anything really. No mention of the 47% comment at all.

We may not have heard the 47% comment in the debate, but the Obama campaign has been running ads about the 47% in the various swing states and he's got a huge lead in those states.

I've had time to think about the debate without reading or listening to any analysis and I came out of it hearing nothing new. Romney had a chance to talk specifics and he didn't. It all came out neutral in the end.

You didn't miss anything good. It was actually kind of boring. The moderator really sucked in my opinion. I also wished the moderator got a big red buzzer so whenever one of them lied or were just talking about nothing he could hit it and call them out on the bs. It would make things more interesting.

@BoG said:

Romney did surprisingly well. Good to see him actually say something with substance. This election is interesting again.

What did he say with substance? There were several moments of 30 second increments where my connection cut off, but I didn't hear anything specific about how he's going to accomplish the things he says he's going to do. How do you make massive tax cuts and not increase the deficit by 5 trillion? You do it either by increasing taxes (he says he wont do) or eliminating spending. If he's going to eliminate spending where is he going to do it?

@BoG said:

@Animasta said:

@BoG said:

Romney did surprisingly well. Good to see him actually say something with substance. This election is interesting again.

what did he say that had substance? only reason romney did well because he was hyper aggressive and obama didn't call him on his bullshit enough

In the context of the Romney campaign, substance means going further than merely saying "I'm going to fix _______."

oh, well, even if he still didn't do much of that, hooray for exceeding low expectations!

@BoG: yes, if he was telling the truth.

The debates do not matter. Almost everybody has made their choice- one way or the another. The debates only serve for Mittens to convince undecided voters that they should pick him. I think like there to be an end to political attack ads on tv because I'm sick of them.

GG Romney wins.

@Castermhief117 said:

You're only using the term "mafia" because it implies a bad connotation. But if you provide enough of these "if the mafia did this" and "enough of that", the mafia would be something totally different. But in some ways, you're right - it's how America came to be. A group of people illegally fought and victimized people for their beliefs and ideals.

But no matter how you frame it, society depends on governments to function.

Ok, so we seem to agree that the government is just a group of people claiming the monopoly to initiate force in a given geographical area.

Don't you think that people should be able to voluntarily trade in order to obtain all of the services you mentioned? Don't you think that it would be better if we recognized that forcing anybody to pay for anything is wrong, and that people should be able to choose themselves who they want to support?

"Tom Brokaw declares "substance" as winner in the first debate with both candidates long on facts and short on rhetoric."

@BoG said:

@Animasta said:

@BoG said:

Romney did surprisingly well. Good to see him actually say something with substance. This election is interesting again.

what did he say that had substance? only reason romney did well because he was hyper aggressive and obama didn't call him on his bullshit enough

In the context of the Romney campaign, substance means going further than merely saying "I'm going to fix _______."

I'm pretty sure there was more substance in this debate than there was in the entire 2008 campaign.

If anyone is complaining about Romney's substance, they should remember that his opponent is President Obama of "Change We Can Believe In". All we got in his 2008 campaign against McCain was "Honor America" v "Hope and Change".

@imsh_pl said:

@Castermhief117 said:

You're only using the term "mafia" because it implies a bad connotation. But if you provide enough of these "if the mafia did this" and "enough of that", the mafia would be something totally different. But in some ways, you're right - it's how America came to be. A group of people illegally fought and victimized people for their beliefs and ideals.

But no matter how you frame it, society depends on governments to function.

Ok, so we seem to agree that the government is just a group of people claiming the monopoly to initiate force in a given geographical area.

Don't you think that people should be able to voluntarily trade in order to obtain all of the services you mentioned? Don't you think that it would be better if we recognized that forcing anybody to pay for anything is wrong, and that people should be able to choose themselves who they want to support?

No because there are a ton of things that aren't possible without major communal support. Do you really think NASA could exist without governments?

@Castermhief117 said:

No because there are a ton of things that aren't possible without major communal support. Do you really think NASA could exist without governments?

Better yet, you yourself think that way. If you believe in democracy, that is.

In a democracy the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, correct? So, if the will of the people is to pay for organizations providing scientific research then we don't need the government to do it.

If you were to claim that the will of the people is not to pay for such organizations then, clearly, the existence of NASA is against democracy.

It's a logical fallacy to say that 'Because the government does it, it won't get done without government".

@TruthTellah said:

@BoG said:

@Animasta said:

@BoG said:

Romney did surprisingly well. Good to see him actually say something with substance. This election is interesting again.

what did he say that had substance? only reason romney did well because he was hyper aggressive and obama didn't call him on his bullshit enough

In the context of the Romney campaign, substance means going further than merely saying "I'm going to fix _______."

I'm pretty sure there was more substance in this debate than there was in the entire 2008 campaign.

If anyone is complaining about Romney's substance, they should remember that his opponent is President Obama of "Change We Can Believe In". All we got in his 2008 campaign against McCain was "Honor America" v "Hope and Change".

Why do people ignore that? I almost voted for Obama in 2008 until I realized all he was really saying was that he was going to unite the parties and change America. It was also known that he had absolutely 0 experience in foreign policy because he was a campaign organizer or something.

@imsh_pl said:

@Castermhief117 said:

No because there are a ton of things that aren't possible without major communal support. Do you really think NASA could exist without governments?

Better yet, you yourself think that way. If you believe in democracy, that is.

In a democracy the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, correct? So, if the will of the people is to pay for organizations providing scientific research then we don't need the government to do it.

If you were to claim that the will of the people is not to pay for such organizations then, clearly, the existence of NASA is against democracy.

It's a logical fallacy to say that 'Because the government does it, it won't get done without government".

I think this is my last post to contribute to this thread... I think It's kind of pointless. You don't make sense at all.

Yes, democracy is supposed to reflect the will of others and the people. But people will always disagree with each other, then it's up to the will of the majority to dictate how things are (without imposing in the rights of the minority of course). Government isn't a single organization or figure that makes all of the decisions, rather it's the representation of the majority of Americans. It's the will of the people.

Democracy is doing something that you don't want to do, even though your neighbors want to do it. Your own definition of democracy ruins your whole "mafia" argument.

I never said "because government does it, it can't get done without government".

For example, just because government has schools doesn't mean there can't be good/better private schools. It's wrong in so many ways.

What I meant by my NASA example is simply this, because of Government's power to tax - we are able to have absolutely incredible things that could never be achieved without tax. If all the 20th century scientific advancements from the biology, physics, engineering, chemistry, and space all hinged on the "will of the people to pay for organizations providing scientific research" - we'd be still living in last century. People don't donate their money to the sciences - they have much better things to buy. But when people form a government to ensure both their short term and long term safety/benefits, and this government requires a tax to ensure this - people are much more willing to fund the sciences.

Funding NASA would only amount to 0.4% of the entire tax revenue, why not do it?

You make it seem that our American government somehow isn't "democratic", but let me assure you - it is relatively the most democratic nation in the world.

As much as I'm going to watch the FOX footage of the man shooting himself,

So a lot.

@Castermhief117 said:

Yes, democracy is supposed to reflect the will of others and the people. But people will always disagree with each other, then it's up to the will of the majority to dictate how things are (without imposing in the rights of the minority of course).

But every government is bound to impose in the rights of the minority. That's the whole point of democracy: the majority of people agree to steal money from the minority and use it to fund services it deems necessary.

If a government didn't impose in the rights of the minority then the minority would not be forced to pay for the whims of the majority.

Government isn't a single organization or figure that makes all of the decisions, rather it's the representation of the majority of Americans. It's the will of the people.

Actually it's not what the government is.

Government is a group of people in a given geographical area who have the legal and moral monopoly to initiate force: they can tax you, you can't tax each other, you sure as hell can't tax them back; they can kidnap you for not paying them, trying to do so to them would propably lead to death. It's also the sole arbiter in any disputes, even those involving itself.

Democracy is doing something that you don't want to do, even though your neighbors want to do it. Your own definition of democracy ruins your whole "mafia" argument.

I never defined democracy in this thread but let me do it right now.

Democracy is the belief that whether people should murder, steal, extort and incarcerate or not should be decided via a popularity contest.

I never said "because government does it, it can't get done without government".

And yet two sentences below you write

What I meant by my NASA example is simply this, because of Government's power to tax - we are able to have absolutely incredible things that could never be achieved without tax.

If all the 20th century scientific advancements from the biology, physics, engineering, chemistry, and space all hinged on the "will of the people to pay for organizations providing scientific research" - we'd be still living in last century.

So you're saying that people would not voluntarily pay/trade/invest in scientific research... but they would vote for the government to EXTORT the money from them via taxation and do those things for them?

I'm sorry if I don't grasp your logic.

People don't donate their money to the sciences - they have much better things to buy.

So again... if people don't want to pay for the sciences... and the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people... shouldn't the government also not be paying for the sciences?

But when people form a government to ensure both their short term and long term safety/benefits, and this government requires a tax to ensure this - people are much more willing to fund the sciences.

People do not 'form' a government. Government has always been enforced on the people; there has never been a single case in history in which those who did not want the government were free to live in voluntary societies, the state always forced them to fund itself.

Funding NASA would only amount to 0.4% of the entire tax revenue, why not do it?

Because people should be free to decide where to invest their money?

You make it seem that our American government somehow isn't "democratic", but let me assure you - it is relatively the most democratic nation in the world.

Again, never mentioned anything about democracy before. Besides, striving for a society in which the majority can decide how much to steal from the minority is not really a goal I would consider noble.