Presidential Debates

[frank13]

I am not saying you don't deserve it and I would understand why a good employee would be frustrated by not having it.

This is not a matter of "being nice" to employees. This is a matter of reality. I have emptied a $100k savings account keeping the doors open and employing people when I couldn't afford them because I was nice and I care.

I don't want to get caught up in a labor/management debate where everyone thinks they are the key to a successful business. This is about economics and the bottom line. I have cut every expense I can (including selling my larger house and downsizing). I have still given raises to show appreciation. My employees make more money than I do at this point because being a business owner (or a good one, anyway) is oftentimes about sacrifice.

When one of my guys had lazic (sp?) I covered some of his expenses even though it was elective surgery. Don't think anyone that owns a business is a selfish dick that is just out to get rich on the backs of others...and I am not saying you DO think that, just giving perspective to anyone reading.

You seem like a good guy it sounds like any team would be lucky to have you. On the flip side, I assure you that there are good business owners out there too.

Sorry if there are typos and such...I am on my phone. Worst keyboard ever.

i hear u man i hope things look up for u and your business

[JohnnyVegas]

i hear u man i hope things look up for u and your business

Thanks.

And I realize now one of the reasons we were seeing things differently - your experience comes from your situation and your boss...and I am not that guy. Every person and every situation is different. There are good and bad employees and employers. I just wanted to speak up for the employers that had successful businesses and now are just trying to make it through these tough times.

The political partisanship has become so bad that everyone is will to fight to the death over issues...but I think we all need to pull together to make things better. The "us versus them" shouldn't be Republicans versus Democrats, it should be the citizens versus the politicians. We should demand that they stop their selfish win-at-all-costs behavior and focus on us, the citizens that need things fixed.

[LevMyshkin]

The "us versus them" shouldn't be Republicans versus Democrats, it should be the citizens versus the politicians. We should demand that they stop their selfish win-at-all-costs behavior and focus on us, the citizens that need things fixed.

Very true. When the government fears the citizens, there is liberty. When the citizens fear the government, there is tyranny.

[gixxerboy1]

Thanks.

And I realize now one of the reasons we were seeing things differently - your experience comes from your situation and your boss...and I am not that guy. Every person and every situation is different. There are good and bad employees and employers. I just wanted to speak up for the employers that had successful businesses and now are just trying to make it through these tough times.

The political partisanship has become so bad that everyone is will to fight to the death over issues...but I think we all need to pull together to make things better. The "us versus them" shouldn't be Republicans versus Democrats, it should be the citizens versus the politicians. We should demand that they stop their selfish win-at-all-costs behavior and focus on us, the citizens that need things fixed.

but its not going to stop. They have a monopoly. Yes we have elections and a "choice" But we have to pick someone. So really not much of a choice. So unless the make it possible to cast a vote for neither. Or they have to win a certain number of votes to win things wont change.

[ironbeck]

but its not going to stop. They have a monopoly. Yes we have elections and a "choice" But we have to pick someone. So really not much of a choice. So unless the make it possible to cast a vote for neither. Or they have to win a certain number of votes to win things wont change.

Bingo!!!! we have a winner....all other posts are void, wake the **** up and smell the truth.

[JohnnyVegas]

but its not going to stop. They have a monopoly. Yes we have elections and a "choice" But we have to pick someone. So really not much of a choice. So unless the make it possible to cast a vote for neither. Or they have to win a certain number of votes to win things wont change.

I was just dreaming of a better world. I don't think things will change either. Not any time soon.

[thegodfather]

Precisely. (Btw, I'm a J.D. as well, Godfather.) I tend to describe myself as a philosophical libertarian and vote according my views on economic and fiscal policy. This is because I think that the genesis of our personal liberties are so strongly tied to our individual economic freedoms. It would be deceptive for me to say that I'm socially liberal. I'm more, "Socially Don't Care". In other words, so long as what you're doing in the privacy of your home affects no one else, especially children, and I am not required to pay for such, then I don't care. I don't care if two lesbians get married, or if my neighbor lives his life as a pre-op female named Matilda Deecup, or even if you want to inject superphysiological doses of synthetic hormones into your body.

Thus, when Jim Demint says that conservative fiscal policy cannot be divorced from conservative social policy, the Senator from South Carolina might as well have the vocal cadence of Charlie Brown's teacher.

I'm no great fan of Mitt Romney, but from an objective vantage point, it seems rather unassailable to me that he's better versed in the machinations of economics and economic policy than President Obama.

Also, I can't wait for the Ryan/Biden debate. That carnage will be delicious.

Lev, glad to see your participation in the debate here.

I agree with your first point, and there is evidence to back it up. One of the things we've learned when dealing with HIPC's (Highly Indebted Poor Countries), is that simply loaning them money does not work if there is rampant corruption, and the inability to manage such funds. It's quite akin to someone from a lower socioeconomic class who has a windfall of money, or wins the lottery, they often are broke within a couple of years because they are unfamiliar with how to manage finances. Additionally, if we wish to 'spread Democracy' as many in our government indicate is our foreign policy (one of the plethora of excuses used to justify our invasion&occupation of Iraq), doing so by force has proved futile. Rather, what we see when we look at the numbers and the studies about countries around the world, is a STRONG CORRELATION between free trade/free markets/capitolistic policies and a move towards personal freedoms & liberty. The idea of spreading democracy by force, by killing thousands of innocent civilians I mean, 'collateral damage', has been proven an abject failure at democratizing countries.

Encouraging free trade and capitolism is the most effective means to bring 'democracy' to those countries who have it not. I put democracy in quotes, because democracy in its pure form is actually a bad system, as its often described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The vast majority of people in the United States are ignorant to the fact that our country is not a 'democracy.' Many do not understand the principles of representative Republic, whereby there is a written Constitution, and certain things are simply off the table to be voted on. In a pure democracy, there might be a vote to eliminate freedom of speech. Rather, in a representative Republic (I am addressing the forum, not you, as that'd be preaching to the choir), there are unalienable rights which no men can take away with votes. We are forbade from voting to kill all redheads, to hang all Muslims from stop lights in the town center. Additionally, attempting to bring 'freedom and democracy' to countries via deadly force, violence, oppression, and occupation is the antithesis to freedom. Another point to consider is that a country who is not ready for freedom&democracy will not democratize just because we say so, point in case is the elections in Iraq which we were so displeased with when they elected Muslim fundamentalists to office. A countries people must arrive at the conclusion of freedom&democracy on their own, it cannot be an artifical influence. I believe that in the next 10 years we will see Iraq and Afghanistan revert in part or in whole to their pre-American invasion status, less a strong contingent of US armed forces is left behind in those countries, and then that country is really not sovereign now is it.

We are really on the same page with social issues. I cant say that I particularly care one way or the other what people do in their privacy of their own homes, or even in public who they decide to show public displays of affection with. It does not effect anyone but themselves. Unfortunately, many people do not know the difference between Malum In Se, and Malum Prohibitum, and often bifercate the two, believing that because something like the drug war is Malum Prohibitum, that it is an evil in and of itself, no thanks to the massive PR campaign by the US government drug czar which obfuscates statistical data and demonizes plants that have existed for thousands of years. Even the Democrats who claim to be more enlightened on these issues seldom have the fortitude to stand up for what they believe in, if they in fact believe in it, or if it just plays well to the masses.

Mitt Romney is by all measures a flip-flopper, and a moderate Republican (what else would one expect from any elected representative from the state of Mass., not unlike Chris Christie who is a moderate in an overwhelmingly blue state, the realities are that the only way to get elected in such states is to placate the moderates and liberals). I often times say that candidates religious preclivites should not be game in a political race, but it is the reality of American politics, and my own opinion is that I tend to be somewhat skeptical of a person who belongs to a religion which believes God lives on the planet Kolob, that his undergarments make him bulletproof and enchant him with superhuman powers.

Aside from that, I do agree that Mitt Romney does have a strong grasp on economics, although he is likely a student of the Keynesian school of economics, one which we know is a failure. What most Americans fail to also understand with regards to economics, is that the medicine is often worse than the disease, so the medicine becomes a poisin which further exacerbates the symptoms. Thus, if we had allowed the companies who behaved badly and practiced poor business to fail, and liquidate the toxic debt, the initial blowback would have been much much worse, however the correction would happen in a short period of time. Instead, the recession is being drawn out going on 5 years now. Artificial manipulation of the markets, particularly the interest rates, will always lead to distortions in how financial products are allocated, as the interest rates should be set by the market, and not by a privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve).

[OdinsOtherSon]

Precisely. (Btw, I'm a J.D. as well, Godfather.) I tend to describe myself as a philosophical libertarian and vote according my views on economic and fiscal policy. This is because I think that the genesis of our personal liberties are so strongly tied to our individual economic freedoms. It would be deceptive for me to say that I'm socially liberal. I'm more, "Socially Don't Care". In other words, so long as what you're doing in the privacy of your home affects no one else, especially children, and I am not required to pay for such, then I don't care. I don't care if two lesbians get married, or if my neighbor lives his life as a pre-op female named Matilda Deecup, or even if you want to inject superphysiological doses of synthetic hormones into your body.

Thus, when Jim Demint says that conservative fiscal policy cannot be divorced from conservative social policy, the Senator from South Carolina might as well have the vocal cadence of Charlie Brown's teacher.

I'm no great fan of Mitt Romney, but from an objective vantage point, it seems rather unassailable to me that he's better versed in the machinations of economics and economic policy than President Obama.

Also, I can't wait for the Ryan/Biden debate. That carnage will be delicious.

Liberty vs Freedom....not according to Webster's Dictionary, but IMHO there is a vast difference between these two words/concepts. Freedom is the word in common play today and also IMHO, is generally misused. I believe that the philosophical difference in meaning between this two concepts is one of the issues which lies at the heart of the general misunderstanding of our nation, as founded. Just my ramblings.

[gearbox]

What do you agree with about mitten's plans

Basically Obama still wants to tax that last 3% of small business who hold 1/4 of the jobs here in us.
You bring down taxes it helps ppl hire and grow which means they will pay more taxes cause there earning more money.
You don't tax more cause the economy is slow. You do the opposite. Mitt place until will not work over night but two years it will definitely show progress.

Don't get me started on Obama care. Are.rates will be double for health care soon it Obama wins

[gearbox]

Lev, glad to see your participation in the debate here.

I agree with your first point, and there is evidence to back it up. One of the things we've learned when dealing with HIPC's (Highly Indebted Poor Countries), is that simply loaning them money does not work if there is rampant corruption, and the inability to manage such funds. It's quite akin to someone from a lower socioeconomic class who has a windfall of money, or wins the lottery, they often are broke within a couple of years because they are unfamiliar with how to manage finances. Additionally, if we wish to 'spread Democracy' as many in our government indicate is our foreign policy (one of the plethora of excuses used to justify our invasion&occupation of Iraq), doing so by force has proved futile. Rather, what we see when we look at the numbers and the studies about countries around the world, is a STRONG CORRELATION between free trade/free markets/capitolistic policies and a move towards personal freedoms & liberty. The idea of spreading democracy by force, by killing thousands of innocent civilians I mean, 'collateral damage', has been proven an abject failure at democratizing countries.

Encouraging free trade and capitolism is the most effective means to bring 'democracy' to those countries who have it not. I put democracy in quotes, because democracy in its pure form is actually a bad system, as its often described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The vast majority of people in the United States are ignorant to the fact that our country is not a 'democracy.' Many do not understand the principles of representative Republic, whereby there is a written Constitution, and certain things are simply off the table to be voted on. In a pure democracy, there might be a vote to eliminate freedom of speech. Rather, in a representative Republic (I am addressing the forum, not you, as that'd be preaching to the choir), there are unalienable rights which no men can take away with votes. We are forbade from voting to kill all redheads, to hang all Muslims from stop lights in the town center. Additionally, attempting to bring 'freedom and democracy' to countries via deadly force, violence, oppression, and occupation is the antithesis to freedom. Another point to consider is that a country who is not ready for freedom&democracy will not democratize just because we say so, point in case is the elections in Iraq which we were so displeased with when they elected Muslim fundamentalists to office. A countries people must arrive at the conclusion of freedom&democracy on their own, it cannot be an artifical influence. I believe that in the next 10 years we will see Iraq and Afghanistan revert in part or in whole to their pre-American invasion status, less a strong contingent of US armed forces is left behind in those countries, and then that country is really not sovereign now is it.

We are really on the same page with social issues. I cant say that I particularly care one way or the other what people do in their privacy of their own homes, or even in public who they decide to show public displays of affection with. It does not effect anyone but themselves. Unfortunately, many people do not know the difference between Malum In Se, and Malum Prohibitum, and often bifercate the two, believing that because something like the drug war is Malum Prohibitum, that it is an evil in and of itself, no thanks to the massive PR campaign by the US government drug czar which obfuscates statistical data and demonizes plants that have existed for thousands of years. Even the Democrats who claim to be more enlightened on these issues seldom have the fortitude to stand up for what they believe in, if they in fact believe in it, or if it just plays well to the masses.

Mitt Romney is by all measures a flip-flopper, and a moderate Republican (what else would one expect from any elected representative from the state of Mass., not unlike Chris Christie who is a moderate in an overwhelmingly blue state, the realities are that the only way to get elected in such states is to placate the moderates and liberals). I often times say that candidates religious preclivites should not be game in a political race, but it is the reality of American politics, and my own opinion is that I tend to be somewhat skeptical of a person who belongs to a religion which believes God lives on the planet Kolob, that his undergarments make him bulletproof and enchant him with superhuman powers.

Aside from that, I do agree that Mitt Romney does have a strong grasp on economics, although he is likely a student of the Keynesian school of economics, one which we know is a failure. What most Americans fail to also understand with regards to economics, is that the medicine is often worse than the disease, so the medicine becomes a poisin which further exacerbates the symptoms. Thus, if we had allowed the companies who behaved badly and practiced poor business to fail, and liquidate the toxic debt, the initial blowback would have been much much worse, however the correction would happen in a short period of time. Instead, the recession is being drawn out going on 5 years now. Artificial manipulation of the markets, particularly the interest rates, will always lead to distortions in how financial products are allocated, as the interest rates should be set by the market, and not by a privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve).

A lot of good points bro, but your facts of his religious beliefs are way off.

[LevMyshkin]

Lev, glad to see your participation in the debate here.

Aside from that, I do agree that Mitt Romney does have a strong grasp on economics, although he is likely a student of the Keynesian school of economics, one which we know is a failure. What most Americans fail to also understand with regards to economics, is that the medicine is often worse than the disease, so the medicine becomes a poisin which further exacerbates the symptoms. Thus, if we had allowed the companies who behaved badly and practiced poor business to fail, and liquidate the toxic debt, the initial blowback would have been much much worse, however the correction would happen in a short period of time. Instead, the recession is being drawn out going on 5 years now. Artificial manipulation of the markets, particularly the interest rates, will always lead to distortions in how financial products are allocated, as the interest rates should be set by the market, and not by a privately owned central bank (Federal Reserve).

Thanks, Godfather.

I'm not convinced that Romney is a Keynesian on economics. I'll give you that I don't believe he's a pure student of the Hayekian school, but I do think he's more so than his opponent. And as to the potential second in command, Mr. Ryan does seem to be more squarely placed in the objectivist credo of economics. I wasn't completely happy with Ryan's proposed budget as it only slowed the rate of government spending rather than halting it at its current rates or even (gasp!) lowering it, but it was still far better than the proposal as put forth by the current administration.

I'll also give Romney a bit of a pass on his shifting social views as he was a GOP governor trying to lead in one of the bluest of blue states. For instance, a Republican the likes of Mike Huckabee (who I actually argue is a member of the religious Left - a rarely thought of group) could never govern in The People's Republic of Massachusetts.

As to Romney's religious beliefs, these are of no consequence to me. What does matter to me is that he be a decent, moral, intelligent leader. If some or all of those are informed by faith, then so be it. If, instead, they were seeded by secular humanism - well, so be that as well. I don't have any particular take on his religious beliefs nor would I if he had none a'tall.

[Times Roman]

but its not going to stop. They have a monopoly. Yes we have elections and a "choice" But we have to pick someone. So really not much of a choice. So unless the make it possible to cast a vote for neither. Or they have to win a certain number of votes to win things wont change.

they do have this ability right now. it's called registered and voting for the Libertarian party!

[JohnnyVegas]

they do have this ability right now. it's called registered and voting for the Libertarian party!

I noticed non of the other parties are invited to the debates. Does anyone know the criteria regarding who is invited? Yeah, I know I could look it up, but then nobody but me would know. Or, maybe I am just being lazy.

EDIT: I looked it up.

From an NPR story:

To this day, getting a third-party candidate into a presidential debate is practically impossible. The Commission on Presidential Debates says to be included, you have to poll 15 percent with voters. That's why George Farah, founder of Open Debates, a group that wants the system reformed, thinks the commission is the main problem.

"This commission exists for the principle purpose of protecting and strengthening the two parties," Farah says. "And every four years they allow the major party candidates to negotiate agreements that dictate many of the terms of the debates — including the exclusion of popular third-party voices."

[Paul_Mc1989]

Have just finished watching the documentry Obama 2016 and as a member from ireland i just wanna get some of your views on it.Has anybody else seen it.
With regards to its release time i can only speculate this is gonna affect his relection campain in a a very drastic way he will need to put a rabbit out of the hat tonight if he is to have any hope. The debate is not on till two in the morning over here but ill definatly be staying up to see how it plays out

[Shol'va]

Well one thing about Romney is that he is a Mormon. So if he is elected you can marry many women at the same time and have a bunch of kids and let the government take care of them all for you. So there are benefits to him as well. Imagine marrying 5 women and have them all fight over who gets you on what night. Now that's not so bad is it? lol So we have pros and cons on both candidates. With Obama gays get to marry and with Romney straight men get to marry many at one time. I've got a feeling Romney is gonna win this one. Damned straight men wanting their cake and Edith too and Shirley and Roxane and Rita and.