Predictions on the second debate by kpo

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I predict that no matter what happens, Republicans will claim that Romney won.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm with Mike; beyond that, I'm uncomfortable making any more predictions. I was CONVINCED Dubya couldn't possibly get a second term, so what the hell do I know?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:28 AM

HKCAVALIER

Mitt's momentum is already flagging, and it will continue. Romney will be off his game, the slightest hint of fear returning to in his eyes, because honestly he's terrified of losing. Obama will risk the "angry black man" thing for once. But overall he will be "Mr. Congeniality." Of course it will be ruled a Romney win by the ditto heads because it is simply impossible for Obama to be good at anything in their eyes. Obama win.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

LOL, Mike.

Good prediction HK, very specific. I don't know if it will be a clear 'win' for Obama like Romney had; probably another one of those where both sides claim victory. Actually that doesn't preclude a clear Obama win... Haha. Anyway I hope Obama convincingly wins, but I think it will be closer than that. I don't think we'll see any Biden-style aggressiveness from the President, but we may see some attacks, and more importantly parrying of Romney's attacks, this time.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:13 PM

HKCAVALIER

Also, much higher viewership than the first will further hurt Romney in the polls.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:38 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:

I predict that no matter what happens, Democrats will claim that Obama won.

Obama has said he was too civil in the first debate, which is laughable. He's all but vowed to be a dick to Romney, but it's an empty threat. Coming off aggressive, and rude, as Biden was to Ryan in the VP debate will backfire in a Town Hall like forum. His team is clearly ( and crudely ) trying to bait Romney, into some sort of pissing match, and there by trying to make Romney end up looking like the bad guy. Shouldn't work, as Romney isn't a bad guy, at all.

Most likely outcome will be a draw, where either side will claim victory. If there's a repeat of the 1st debate, this race is over. Some ( like Neal Boortz ) go so far as to claim that, if Romney wipes the floor w/ Obama again, there won't even BE a 3rd debate.

Quote:
I was CONVINCED Dubya couldn't possibly get a second term, so what the hell do I know?

Kerry / Edwards. 'nuff said.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:02 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Also, much higher viewership than the first will further hurt Romney in the polls.
.

Traditionally the 2nd Debate is the least watched, but after the worst debate in history last time I think you may be right about a larger then normal audience. It's like tuning in for game six of the World Series, if Obama gets trounced again, it could be all over but the shouting.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:53 PM

MAL4PREZ

OK, I don't think it was intentional, but this is how it's worked out:

When Obama fucked up the first debate, it gave the Romney-side hope and kept money flowing to the R-presidential ticket. It robbed support from the Congressional races for several critical days.

Now O is back, and the momentum will shift to where it was before the first debate: Romney near dead in the water. But now it's less useful for the superPACs to shift to the down-ticket races. Time is limited.

O is kicking ass tonight. No doubt. It does make me wonder: where was he last time? I don't think he did it on purpose, but it's worked out just fine. Maybe he knew that it didn't matter so much.

Until the third debate, of course. Nate Silver covered it well this morning on fivethirtyeight: there's a natural tendency for momentum to shift back and forth each debate. I do wonder how the last one will go.

Based on policies, I think that this election is a goner, and it's been gone for a while now. Romney is just so damned weak. Why the hell would a party run a 1%-er, when the 1%-ers are the prime scapegoats of the day? Stupid. Just really stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:24 AM

HKCAVALIER

At least twice in the debate Romney quite vividly lost on body language alone. The two would be confronting each other at center stage, then Obama would very rhetorically display his back to the former Governor of Massachusetts and step away as he continued talking and Romney actually took a few steps following the President. Those few steps were doom to Romney. You'll notice that Romney turned his back on Obama frequently, they both did that, but Obama always stood his ground and let Romney walk away. All the primates watching around the world could see in no uncertain terms: Obama = leader; Romney = follower. Defining moments.

Then, of course, there was the "Please, proceed Governor" moment on Lybia when Romney laid a trap and proceeded to walk right into it. Obama allowed himself to express anger, even contempt (never has the word "governor" sounded more derogatory), but for the most part played it cool and walked away with the debate.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:24 AM

Romney's "binders full of women" didn't help him any, either.

http://www.facebook.com/romneybindersfullofwomen?fref=ts

It almost instantly became a facebook sensation, with more than 20,000 "likes" before the debate was over, and well over 275,000 as of this morning.

Obama did some damage to Romney with his closing statement about Romney's 47%, too, and it creates a lasting impression, since Romney never got to rebut it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I saw some of it the second time around (too chicken to watch until I'd heard some of the after-diagnosis), and was amused to watch Romney walk into the Libya trap. I wish they'd made more of a deal of it; Crowley did point out that Obama HAD said "terrorist" the first day afterwards, but that kinda got drowned in crosstalk and then she admitted the ADMINISTRATION didn't say flatly terrorism until two weeks later. I'd have enjoyed seeing Romney's lie being pointed out more clearly. Fun, tho'.

Will be interesting to see how it's spun today; I know the righties would die rather than admit Romney lost on even one point, but I'll get a pretty good critique from the left; THEY don't mind pointing out realities on both sides at least!

All in all, from what I saw and heard, I'm satisfied.

Got a kick out of a poll which had Obama winning by some ten points, which they were careful to point out was 33% Repub, 33% Dem, but which "oversampled Republicans" compared to the national percentages. I think Romney is on his way to being toast.

As to Kerry/Edwards, little man, my DOGS could have done a better job than what Bush did in his second term, and after having seen what he did to us the first, I was amazed the American people would buy in for a second. But then I've long accepted how dumb our citizenry can be sometimes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mal4, I think you're right on, and thank you. I'd been concerned about those down-ticket races getting the funding, and hadn't thought about it that way, but I think you nailed it and that's comforting.

You know, folks, responding to what Rap writes at this point is REALLY a waste of time; he'll never say anything even slightly sensible about the debates or the race from here on out (not that he ever did), so what comes from him will be even more bullshitty than before, and nothing anyone points out will do more than encourage him to spout even MORE bullshit. But be my guests, you seem to get something out of it, so enjoy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:34 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Romney's "binders full of women" didn't help him any, either.

http://www.facebook.com/romneybindersfullofwomen?fref=ts

It almost instantly became a facebook sensation, with more than 20,000 "likes" before the debate was over, and well over 275,000 as of this morning.

I don't know that the phrase binders full of women is particularly offensive. What I find much more offensive is the fact that the story was a lie: http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mi
nd-the-binder.aspx

I guess now that the charge of being liars has been levelled at the Romney campaign so much, they've nothing to lose by keeping on lying.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:45 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I predict that no matter what happens, Republicans will claim that Romney won.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

Well maybe they are, but our righties are not being very vocal about it... Maybe they're muttering it to themselves, as they rock back and forth: "Romney won the debate... Romney won the debate..."

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I predict that no matter what happens, Republicans will claim that Romney won.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

Well maybe they are, but our righties are not being very vocal about it... Maybe they're muttering it to themselves, as they rock back and forth: "Romney won the debate... Romney won the debate..."

It's not personal. It's just war.

Yeah, that is interesting. After the first debate, Dems were the first to say Obama blew it. Now that the shoe's on the other foot.... crickets...

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:24 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Good pick up on the body language HK. Romney kept repeating his montra - 5 Point Plan to Nowhere. At one point he said "pick a number" trying to explain part of his budget plan. Not very convincing.

Obama stood tall and answered Romney's attacks sharply and critically, especially when he tried to say the president did not say "terrorist attack"
regarding the Libyan Embassy.

Romney never answered the question on women's equal pay act, instead he gave some jibberish about obtaining a folder of women candidates for some conference. The president caught him good with the Obamacare, especially when he said that it closely resembles the health care reform in Massachusetts (and last I checked Mass is still part of the Union). Why is the Affordable Care Act good for Mass, but not good for the rest of us?
Romney had no answer.

On foreign policy (especially Romney's classless use of the confusion over the attack on the Embassy), education and women's rights Obama mopped the floor with him. On the economy, not so much. I need to go online and watch the 2d half.

My question would have been: Gov. Romney, you say that with your plan you will create 12 million jobs, revitalize the economy, reduce the deficit and cut taxes across the board - all this in 4 years. If the plan fails to reach any of those goals, would you run for reelection?

But it can be said - Obama came out swinging.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

I don't know that the phrase binders full of women is particularly offensive. What I find much more offensive is the fact that the story was a lie: http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mi
nd-the-binder.aspx

Oh, I wasn't offended; I found it amusing, as did 'most everyone else, I think. The idea that women are just one monolithic group, and you can just put all women in a binder so you can pick and choose from them... It creates a strange image, one that I'm pretty sure Mittens wasn't really going for.

Quote:
I guess now that the charge of being liars has been levelled at the Romney campaign so much, they've nothing to lose by keeping on lying.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Oh, no doubt. And they'll not be called on it by FauxNews, either, unless Chris Wallace slips his leash again. And right-wingers don't get their info from anywhere else except the approved channels, so they'll never hear a bit of the charges of lying, and will be quick to just deny them if they do (counting down to Rappy's denial in... 5... 4... 3... )

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Good pick up on the body language HK. Romney kept repeating his montra - 5 Point Plan to Nowhere. At one point he said "pick a number" trying to explain part of his budget plan. Not very convincing.

Obama stood tall and answered Romney's attacks sharply and critically, especially when he tried to say the president did not say "terrorist attack"
regarding the Libyan Embassy.

Romney never answered the question on women's equal pay act, instead he gave some jibberish about obtaining a folder of women candidates for some conference. The president caught him good with the Obamacare, especially when he said that it closely resembles the health care reform in Massachusetts (and last I checked Mass is still part of the Union). Why is the Affordable Care Act good for Mass, but not good for the rest of us?
Romney had no answer.

On foreign policy (especially Romney's classless use of the confusion over the attack on the Embassy), education and women's rights Obama mopped the floor with him. On the economy, not so much. I need to go online and watch the 2d half.

My question would have been: Gov. Romney, you say that with your plan you will create 12 million jobs, revitalize the economy, reduce the deficit and cut taxes across the board - all this in 4 years. If the plan fails to reach any of those goals, would you run for reelection?

But it can be said - Obama came out swinging.

SGG

And it's funny, because within a minute of Romney claiming that his plan would create 12 million jobs, he reiterated his mantra that "government does not create jobs".

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

On the "binders full of women" thing, oh, HOW I wish that would come out. Not that either Romney OR Ryan are being confronted with their lies by much of anyone, but that, to me, is such an easily-disproven, typically-blatant one, I'd like to see it come out--especially since his remark about "binders full of women" has gone so viral.

Quote:
Not a true story.

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

I will write more about this later, but for tonight let me just make a few quick additional points. First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women.

Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)

Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?

I've already heard the last, but didn't know the rest, and once again, his CHEERFUL willingness to lie outright pisses me off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:00 AM

KPO already posted that above.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:28 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Do you know what make me smile?

The fact that the final debate is on foreign policy.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I know he did, but he only posted the link. I wanted to put up the text for any who didn't bother to check out the link, because I think the BLATANT lie is disgusting.

By the way, beyond that, his "claim" falls flat here:

Quote:
And at Bain Capital, which Romney ran for 15 years until 1999, there are only seven women among the company’s 87 managing directors and senior executives, or 8 percent, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, falling ever-so-slightly below the national average of 8.1 percent.

Just sayin'.

Gawd, that last one is PRICELESS...that's a keeper! How did they DO that, surely there's no tape of that?!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I know he did, but he only posted the link. I wanted to put up the text for any who didn't bother to check out the link, because I think the BLATANT lie is disgusting.

Well, as Ive mentioned before, I consider it theft when you post the entire text of an article.

Journalism is already clinging to life by the fingernails - don't undercut them more.

I, for one, do click through on the links - and I refuse to read when you copy/paste like that.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:13 AM

Well, Romney all but stated that he didn't realize the problems of women in the workplace until he became governor.

For the record, he was 56 when that happened. He became aware of the problems of women in the workplace when he was older than the President is now. Not while he was at Bain for all those years, not when he was using his pirate equity firm to outsource all those jobs and bankrupt all those companies and ravage their retirement funds.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Fair enough, to each his own. I make a point of posting the link, and I don't think the people here would necessarily read stuff I put up if left on their own, so I figure it's kind of widening the audience. I respect your beliefs. Me, I'd rather disseminate information to as many people as possible than worry about internet journalism being undercut, given how ignorant most Americans seem to be about most things, from what I see. But I certainly understand where you're coming from. I would never bootleg music or movies for much the same reason.

A lot of the time, I just cut and past specific things which condense the point or state specific facts to which I'm referring, then add the link so people can go read the rest if they want to. I don't always go to links because it would take too long to read the entire article, and I rarely, if ever, pay attention to who wrote the article or what website it's on (unless it's very obviously a slanted one), so to me it doesn't undercut anyone to offer information. So we can agree to disagree on the issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I know he did, but he only posted the link. I wanted to put up the text for any who didn't bother to check out the link, because I think the BLATANT lie is disgusting.

Well, as Ive mentioned before, I consider it theft when you post the entire text of an article.

Journalism is already clinging to life by the fingernails - don't undercut them more.

I, for one, do click through on the links - and I refuse to read when you copy/paste like that.
=

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

I get where you're coming from; I generally try to post the first few paragraphs of the article, THEN the link, saying "Read full article at..." in order to try to generate traffic for the sites and authors involved.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I get where you're coming from; I generally try to post the first few paragraphs of the article, THEN the link, saying "Read full article at..." in order to try to generate traffic for the sites and authors involved.

Which I am totally cool with, and do myself. I absolutely encourage the sharing of links to articles to further discussion - just not the wholesale copy/paste. I have friends who make their living writing for online sites, and it hits them directly when people do that.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I don't always go to links because it would take too long to read the entire article, and I rarely, if ever, pay attention to who wrote the article or what website it's on (unless it's very obviously a slanted one), so to me it doesn't undercut anyone to offer information. So we can agree to disagree on the issue.

I can agree that you're wrong - sorry.

You may not see how it undercuts people to offer their work for free.... but I don't really understand HOW. Writers online are generally paid for page hits - you post an entire article here, especially without a link - and its no different from stealing a movie or music online.

The only difference is you rationalize one, but not the other.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

I don't always go to links because it would take too long to read the entire article, and I rarely, if ever, pay attention to who wrote the article or what website it's on (unless it's very obviously a slanted one), so to me it doesn't undercut anyone to offer information. So we can agree to disagree on the issue.

I can agree that you're wrong - sorry.

You may not see how it undercuts people to offer their work for free.... but I don't really understand HOW. Writers online are generally paid for page hits - you post an entire article here, especially without a link - and its no different from stealing a movie or music online.

The only difference is you rationalize one, but not the other.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

That's a very valid point.

I know I try, but I will endeavor to try harder. After all, if someone writes a thing that I find worthy of quoting or posting, it should also be worthy of them getting paid for their work.

I've had a few pieces reprinted elsewhere, but always with permission beforehand. Heck, there may still be a couple articles up at Reason.com and a few other places under my real name. (Top Tip: it's not Kwicko; nor is it Brutus or Demosthenes)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:26 AM