1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

The debates on the Debates

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    ace...once again, you blithely assert thing contrary to what we'll politely call consensus reality. the tea party was a fox news astroturf movement. the rationale for it was filled in later--but it's primary function was to make a separation within the neo-fascist right from the bush period. the key to the mobilization was to create the impression that the mobilization already existed. it was very triumph of the will that way. this is simply a short indication of what actually happened. your view, which is apparently shaped by a sense of affinity with the results of that mobilization, obviously cannot account for how the mobilization itself took shape.

    one consequence of the way the tea party happened is the right's campaign to obfuscate polling results--to do the nonsense that you do above in short---by acting as though you are some kind of expert on the methodological problems with polls in general, an expertise that stops with polls that support the illusion that romney could win mysteriously enough. the political function is transparent. because the political functions are transparent, the critique, such as it is, of polling is obviously nothing more than yet another dimension of conservative horseshit. as is your rather pathetic attempts to separate the obama administration from the disaster created under george w bush that greeted the administration and to pretend that the tea party congress hasn't acted as it has over the past two years so that you can pin the problems of coherence in economic recovery on the administration when the fact is that most of these problems can be put at the feet of congressional republicans.

    what the right has done via its cesspool of a media apparatus is to create a kind of 1984 group hate of the obama administration as the center of its politics. assuming that is operative, the right apparently feels that it can say anything at all---and i mean anything at all---and it's all good because the central "argument" is a top-down campaign centered on the orwellian group hate. it's a remarkably negative orientation, and fundamentally anti-democratic when combined with the attempts to undermine any common ground that might enable debate about conservative orientations--presumably because the right organizationally understands they can't win any debates.
  2. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Foggy Bottom
    The non-partisan CBO as well as cconomists across the spectrum are of the opinion that the stimulus prevented further recession, jump started the economy and has contributed to 3+ years of steady economic growth, albeit not as high as anyone would like but at higher rate than most other economies in the world.

    I would also add that manufacturing jobs are at the highest level since 09.

    You are confused because you are clouded by rigid ideology...a supply side ideology that even the the Reagan architects of which have since suggested did not produce the desired results at the time or for the lost decade of the 200s and would be even worse in the current economy.

    You did not base your professional life choice on Gayle Sayers. Unless you are secretly a Carolina Panther.

    Or perhaps your mind is clouded by one too many head shots in your youth football days.
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
  3. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    I voted - my debate is over. :cool:
  4. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    If I hear one more "talking head"...

    Personally, I think the pundits made more out of the debates than what they actually were.

    It was the hype before & after and the declaration of a "winner" that skewed the trends.
    Otherwise, the candidates were mostly just positioning and being wonkish within them.

    I fully agree with the article below.