Did Barack Obama Throw The Presidential Debate? Could He Know Something We Don't?

reply to post by 35Foxtrot


Sarcasm would be a strong word... joking is more appropriate ( at least that's how it was meant from me ).

And teleprompters are a subject worthy of discussing in an abstract. In a world where ones phone could serve as a much more effective and easily hidden device to serve that purpose... A no teleprompters rule, if one exists ( and I don't know as I am have never researched it ) could be easily sidestepped by an iPhone or a Blackberry.

Just sit ones phone on the podium with a chat type app open and instant cheat on the rule.

( Sorry, just how I'm wired. The whole OCP thing... I tend to automatically assess all information from about 20 different angles at once. )

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


That would mean....Romney was really in control of the liberal media??? hmmmm I think not likely. They are so in the tank for Obama I don't think they would even go for a red herring like that. I think Obama has just lost his lustre. The honeymoon is over and people see through him more, I think even those who were enthralled with him last time don't realize that what has happened is the rose colored glasses are now off.

Anyone want to buy a screenplay about a fictional POTUS whose entire agenda is derailed by Harold and Kumar? I'm wiling to write it and I'll call it "Harold and Kumar 3: Hactivism for the lulz".

Maybe if Romney get's elected, because they are firmly with Obama.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I don't see the correlation. If I were to be signed to fight for the UFC tomorrow and threw a big fight, would that mean my opponent owned the UFC?

Maybe I am misunderstanding. If so, please elaborate.

Thanks,

~Heff

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


As far as I know Obama only got Kumar - Harold may be available for Romney!

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I thought so too and was planning on just putting up Kal Penn vids and originally wrote Kumar is firmly with Obama.

But then I watched the first video in the previous post and was surprised to see both of them in character in an Obama ad.

i got to say though...i am impressed with the way they conducted themselves. they were both clear and concise.
to describe it in one word

civil


i like romney now...hes confident...miles better than bush jnr....he carries himself well when he is being sincere

but his policies alienate....if he learns how to include everyone he could win by over 65% majority

most republicans are lifers, he doent need to cater to them in the election campaign...he needs to steel some of obama voters..its not just about the middle class...holla at the ghetto...fuel prices are a major factor as well

if only the ghettos could love him like wall street does.

peace and love

Originally posted by Hefficide
George W got a bit iffy after the first term....

That's an understatement.

reply to post by thePharaoh


For me, on purely a personal and reactionary level, Romney reminds me of the guy who ran a company I worked for when I was younger. He was a kid born to a father who built the business and he inherited the whole thing. Pretty big operation. He had a Harvard MBA and the weatherman haircut too.. and the same patronizing, fake smile that Romney ( to me ) seems to have.

I worked in management for this company for about 8 years and was only 4 rungs down the corporate ladder from this particular guy. We were in hundreds of meetings together. He and I interacted hundreds upon hundreds of times on a one on one basis. And he always shook my hand, smiled, and spoke to me as an equal. But I always just knew that if I ever were to bump into him at a restaurant or in a mall and were to approach him - he'd simply not recognize me.

I don't know if that makes sense or not - or if you, as a reader, might have met this sort of person before.. But at work he was 100% fake and all persona. I never felt, for a second that "he" was really there. And to this day I am positive that if he and I were to cross paths, he would have NO CLUE of who I was.

That is how I read Mitt Romney on a human level.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Sorry, but after all, this is a conspiracy forum.....I will say, in order to segue to this: Of course, he is throwing it. It doesn't really matter, I think after all these years watching it go down and what happens after the election love affair, flash mob emotion deployment, and promises phase, who gets the gold star and becomes the "leader."

Because they really aren't the leader, anyhow, more like a titular head of state, and that state is determined at a whole other unseen, unreachable, not chooseable nor electable, level.
Does it come from the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, the "illuminati," the coalition of families and ancient bloodlines that "hide the hidden hand?" Who pulls the strings on the puppets. Who knows? But after 9-11
and watching Bush with those schoolchildren, I have not a doubt left that there are puppets, and their masters, and we don't know about the masters unless we die; thus, the origination of, "If I told you, I'd have to kill you."
Much is put in front of us, spelled out for us in supposed fiction and entertainment and advertisement. If you study symbolism, it is spelled out for you while your knowledge and helplessness, in light of it, seems to be a joke. Realizing what is true only gets you laughed at and branded somehow, usually as whatever you object to or fought against most in your life. This is the way of this world and this reality.
The surest way to ensalve a man is to convince him he is free. How often have we all seen and read that?
The "elections" of this puppet leader are the singular con in this quest. We are conned into thinking we live in a free, representative republic because of this total illusion of a choice, both in the leader and the congress, the representatives in the republic. But how often do we all complain and note that what's going on does not, in fact, represent anyone who voted?

Proof in the pudding, methinks.

I think Obama was just another fall guy, for corporate bailouts, for the NDAA, the internet kill switch, which authorizes both publicly and selective personally, for information to be censored and/or cut off completely. Most get their internet server via Apache. Apache can be configured in a total background and remote state on your computer to delete certain information on a website, while looking like a seamless, normal webpage, so you wouldn't know, or deny you access or even knowledge via search engine replies to information.....think about that for a minute. You might not even know you are being censored, or there is different information that exists in the pipeline, because you haven't even the info to ask the right question, or the answer is blocked from you.
As for corporate bailouts and Obamacare: AIG is the corporate umbrella for most major health insurers. Before he tackled a new health care policy, there was a bailout of a broke AIG to the tune of their corporate value. In other words (because it was never paid back, either) the government bought and paid for most of the major health insurors, before tackling a policy that required every American, upheld by the Supreme Court, to buy and maintain health coverage.
Hmmmmm.

Do I question he threw the debate? Not at all. He served his purpose, got his gray hair, and doesn't any longer even resemble the same man that first made us all the hope and change promises. And even while all that went on during his tenure, much that smacked of the opposite of a representative republic and all that was American--just like Bush and his Patriot Act and expansions, continually, of executive privelege, his wife, and a Hispanic mayor that exemplified the power of hard work, achievement, and the American success story (at least from a democratic standpoint) gave incredibly moving speeches that plucked every American idealistic string in your heart, while what really went on had nothing to do with any of that....
Yeah, I'd throw it, too. Cash in for serving my masters and being their fall guy; after all, republican or democrat, they are just manufactured juxtapositions to provide the con of the vote that makes us think and invest in this fake freedom. Doesn't really matter. In the end, the same agenda, no matter how it is presented, goes on, and we, the people, meanwhile are divided and conquered by the juxtapositions and fake arguments and stances of those two parties.

When Romney was exposed for his "private" fundraiser 47% gaffe, he had a perfect opportunity to redefine a classic republican base and ideology: Yes, I am my brother's keeper, but privately, how and when, and deciding who my brother will be, not because government requires me through taxes and donations to subvert deeper taxes, and through guilt that I should and have and obligation to share what my innate talents have earned me, that someone else didn't possess.

reply to post by Hefficide


S&F Im in the same boat with you, i will not be voting for anyone. Like you felt hope once. Now I have learned a lot over these past 4 years since. It's all been predetermined before hand imo. Obama and Romney are actors playing a role. I've seen Obama change his colors and contradict who we thought he was with so many instances the NDAA as of recent to killing americans with drone strikes ect. Its all a big show and actors are subject to change. With Obama in this debate he was way to chummy with Romney. I mean mutual respect is one thing but you could feel the love in the air the sexual tension so thick you could cut with a knife

I think he took a fake dive , he shaved points with all intents and purposes. He will be the new fall guy that will be to blame for all failures for years to come after he is gone. Romney the new prince and savior with a devilish grin. Or Obama knows the SHTF is coming and is not willing to be on board when the ship sinks. I really cant put my head around it when it comes to any other reason why he flopped?

S#!t just got weird , get a room you two!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Maybe the Islamic countries aren't playing nicey nice the way Obama expected in his naive liberal mindset that if we be all nice to them they will be nice back. Maybe it's heating up between Israel and Iran and everyone is feeling nervous. Maybe it's convenient for POTUS to be in Colorado about now.

reply to post by Hefficide


Well, maybe I just misunderstood your meaning when you said that perhaps Romney had lulled Obama in(to sleep I guess you meant) with all the negative press. That to me would imply that Romney was in control of what the media was doing. Or maybe you meant really that the negative media blitz lulled Obama into a nap and Romney played his hand cool. That wouldn't be the first time the narcissistic ego got lulled to sleep....I mean it's what happened in 2010 when Obama thought he had the Tea Party put to sleep with his euthanasia agents on hand.

Originally posted by DarthFazer
S#!t just got weird

From what I've seen, the way Romney won is that he out-manned Obama, and Obama (call him blinky) lost it in relation to Romney's... virility, which by compare might have made Obama feel somewhat uncomfortable with his potentially hidden gayness..?

Either that or it was the sudden change in elevation for Obama, but it's as if Romney did something to Obama's ego which made him appear like a freshman senator instead of a President.

Yeah there is...He knew he couldn't win against this debate....Me personally I dislike both. I like Ron Paul, and I still believe Ron Paul could of shut out this debate in a one liner which ATS frowns upon..... It's over it was a test. However; I am kind of sketchy on these movies where the world ends, and a black president is involved on being the last....

reply to post by tetra50


Now this Ayn Rand, Libertarian point of view I don't really buy into, completely, because there are too many that inherited or stole what they have, and didn't lift a finger, and it had nothing to do with innate talent. But it is an example of the juxtaposition of the parties. Ayn Rand's point was, really, that the democratic viewpoint that you were responsible to give of what was yours to the less fortunate, and religion, among other philosophies, dictated it, was a control mechanism to "level" the "playing field," so that the super talented could never achieve too much and thus become too powerful. Just another way of dividing and concquering the rest of us, and keeping us where whomever pulls the strings wants us to be. If you get too successful, we will sue you over monopoly laws. Which are we playing today, the game of Life or Monopoly; doesn't matter, in the end, you will lose, because you are conned into thinking you have choices and some amount of control, over elections, your personal life, environment, jobs, etc.....

Every time a politician talks about change, it means it may be made to "appear" there is change, but in the end, it's the very same thing with a different party name and a different face.

Sorry to go on so. Your threads seem to inspire me, Hefficide.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I don't know about euthanasia agents but I can clarify what I meant.

My instinct was that maybe the Romney camp generated a bit of negative spin deliberately ( or simply stopped trying to do positive spin even ) for a short time so that Romney would get a LOT of bad press leading up to the debate. This would lead people ( Including the Obama camp ) into thinking that they had the upper hand - false confidence. Then, when Romney showed up, clean, fit, and ready to scrap that would totally take the Obama camp by surprise.

In street fighting the old school term for this is "pulling a drunken sailor". Pretending to be way more drunk than you are, at the beginning of a bar fight, so that your opponent will not expect a deliberate, fast, and effective attack when it's delivered. As others have stated, Mohammed Ali used this tactic and called it "rope a dope"

~Heff

I just feel Obama took a day off. Let's be realistic, the numbers don't lie. The economy sucks no matter whose numbers you are going by. Obama is the leader and will be blamed. It doesn't matter what Congress did or in this case didn't do for him. If he lays the blame on Bush or Congress, Obama gets labeled a crybaby or as someone whose policies have failed. If he tries to defend his record..well..hard to defend that record with all the bad numbers in the news. Furthermore, people don't want to see a President negatively attacking his opponent.

So what does Obama do? Either way he comes out as a loser.

So why not maintain composure in the first round and let Romney ramble. Yes, he loses but he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place. Also, this is the only debate that is mainly about the economy. Second debate is economy and foreign policy and the last one foreign policy. By the time the second one finish and the third one begins, most Americans would have already forgotten about the first debate if

1) Romney puts his foot in his mouth in between the debates as he has the reputation for doing so, or
2) Obama comes alive during the second debate.

Even at looking at the news today, it really wasn't about Romney's big win. It was more about what happened to Obama. Obama still stole Romney's spotlight even after a whooping. Some may think this is bad publicity for Obama, but IMO as long as Romney name isn't in the main headlines, it plays to Obama's advantage.

Now, if Obama gets his butt kicked in foreign policy, then I will join the crowd that says he threw the towel in.

reply to post by Hefficide

For me, on purely a personal and reactionary level, Romney reminds me of the guy who ran a company I worked for when I was younger. He was a kid born to a father who built the business and he inherited the whole thing. Pretty big operation. He had a Harvard MBA and the weatherman haircut too.. and the same patronizing, fake smile that Romney ( to me ) seems to have.

You know, when I was getting my degree and had to do all these Power Point Presentations and be all fakey fake and take classes on how to present oneself in the career, it made me feel like the corporate world removes a certain human side of our character and we have to do stuff we don't like or feel good doing. I am pro business, but I don't like certain aspects of it. So I hear what you are saying, in the corporate world it is like that, and University "prepares" us to go into the fake world and be fake to everybody to get that job, that promotion or whatever.
I think this is the meaning of the idea of the "empty suit".