If you watched it, what are your impressions?
It was like 2 women fighting lol
The only real score of the debate was Obama getting caught in a lie on Libya. The rest was a lot of bickering, insults and calling the other "liar".
Printable View
If you watched it, what are your impressions?
It was like 2 women fighting lol
The only real score of the debate was Obama getting caught in a lie on Libya. The rest was a lot of bickering, insults and calling the other "liar".
They did bicker with each other a lot. I don't care for the town hall style.....Obama never has impressed me so perhaps I'm biased to a degree but no matter what he said, Romney simply came back with fact after fact.
Watching Frank Luntz focus group is very interesting. Many undecided in the group were swayed to vote for Romney based on his performance tonight.
Obama pulled out quite a few lies tonight.
tony, my wife asked who I thought won, and i told her there were so many lies by Obama that he probably won.
Libya
Coal industry
China
what he has done on immigration, neglecting to tell people the AZ law is basically the US law.
The fact he says he stands for the law when he and his attn general repeatedly ignore the law.
He took the democrat party approach, lie early and lie often.
I thought Romney started after him on the Amb to the UN and what she said on that Sunday by Candy cut him off quickly just as she said Obama did say terror attack on the day after when he clearly did not say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyRay
Obama is more likely to support elimination of income tax than he is the coal industry. That's a whopper, but at this point in the election, the last week or so, his campaign has pumped out any claim they think will get traction.
Hopefully this is a sign their internal polling shows they may be losing some ground.
This is why I'm not a debate fan. Yeah, I watched a little of it, but I'm flabbergasted that people would base election decisions based on a modified debate anyway. I'd bet 99% of the populace that watches won't bother to check anything said by anybody, and just rely on how smooth they said it, or how confident they looked, or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
I really don't get the debate thing. Obviously, it's just me.
I love a good debate of course, but these aren't debates. Debates by definition don't have moderators.
its why Iliked the first one, Jim L let them go at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Let me clarify--
I don't like PRESIDENTIAL debates. It's not the format that bothers me, it's the idea. I run counter to everything everybody else believes; I just don't think that gives people the information they NEED. Instead, it gives people information they WANT. Those aren't the same thing.
Why? did they kiss when it was over (LOL)Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
Double Ditto. I refuse to watch them as I get angry enough to hurt someone when I do, and that is not a state of mind I cultivate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
But Darrell, every speech they give, every ad they run do the same thing. Unless people have the gumption to go and find the truth for themselves, they will only get what they hear from ads, debates, the biased media, or debates.
I guess one reason I watch is to see who can lie the most, obama wins hands down.
If people paid attention last night, Romney laid out the last 4 years of the Obama presidency and what the next 4 will be like because Obama isn't saying anything different, tax and spend. What I would like to hear Romney say is how he knows what to do by saying with his mgt experience in running various companies this is what is needed, why it is needed, and how to accomplish it. He kinda says it, but doesn't do it in a way that imo resonates with people. I know he balaced the books for Ma, rescued the Olympics, but how did he do it.
I would have also liked, if the moderator would have let him, say it was offensive to him as an American citizen to have their commander in chief not go to a intelligence briefing the day after an attack, to spend $70,000 in tax dollars to do an ad apologizing for some dumb video, for rushing off to a fund raiser, to keep apologizing to the UN, and neglecting his duty while we lost 4 Americans who were murdered and were denied extra security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
The Libya thing will bite the president in the next debate I do believe.
For this format, they should have put boxing gloves on them...
Binders full of women? Not as good as canning Big Bird, but this one didn't have much material for the late night comics.
According to everything I'm seeing, the Libya soundbite will be a disadvantage for Romney, not Obama. It seemed to rattle and briefly throw Romney off track that Obama shot down the criticism so adeptly. Hillary Clinton's falling on her sword set the Romney camp up for trying to exploit the attack in the debate, and he took the bait when the audience member brought it up. The media won't focus on the fact that there was an intelligence failure, but they will focus on Romney seeming to be rattled by an unexpected response.
Pinning it on a YouTube video, knowing it was a terrorist act bites the President, not Romney.
And the fact it came up keeps it newsworthy longer than necessary. Not sure that is a benefit to the administration.
Correct me if Im wrong...but did Romney say that bankruptcy is a GOOD THING? I know they talked about his Detroit comment, but I seem to hearing him say it last night...saw several tweets about it that I cant seem to find now but I did see this
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Deco...nitor+|+USA%29
Bankruptcy is not a good thing for those involved, but if the business is failing due to poor management, then bankruptcy is a good thing for the competitors that will likely buy the assets at a discount and re-empoly a lot of the people that depended on the failed business for jobs. Government bailout of failing businesses that are failing due to poor management is pouring good money after bad.
jmho
Romney was for letting GM & Chrysler to fail, rather than bail them out. The FED still owns a large chunk of GM currently, roughly 500,000,000 shares.
If I'm Ford, I'm pissed. That market share should largely theirs. Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda in effect are being penalized for running their house more effectively than GM or Chrysler.
Darrell, I know you hate debate and debaters, so don't deny it. :p
The only format I'd like is where we borrow the cross-examination part but let me ask the questions. These guys could almost all be shredded if you got them off their prepped remarks.
Re bankruptcy, it's an argument I've made since Bush II. They said we have not structure for dealing with GM sized failures. Of course we do, we have an entire area of law to address it. You go into bankruptcy, you go before a judge and they appoint someone who oversees the mess. They work with the creditors and maybe it's restructured and maybe it's sold off, but we have a perfectly good mechanism.
Other companies don't get federal intervention, they're forced through the process to either get righted or get gone. Bush/Obama allowed GM and the big Wall Street firms to survive and not fix themselves, the worst possible outcome for everyone. Not to mention they p***ed away tax money to do it.
I'm sure Obama felt like Exxon's CEO was blameless and shouldn't be answerable to anyone when the Valdez poisoned the Puget Sound. Wait, he probably does hold CEOs accountable for the actions of their companies? Then the colossal failure in Libya is consistent with the standards he holds other to in what way exactly?
Everything up to and including burned toast is Bush's fault and no matter how removed from it within his administration he's to be held accountable, yet he's not answerable for a debacle in Libya, 1,000s of guns being handed to drug cartels, any number of things.
He gets credit for Bin Laden though, despite a near decade long process before he ever got in office.
Claims credit for everything good, denies blame for every bad. Classic, pure fake politician. Is Romney better? Doesn't matter, we need to vote out every single one of these BS artists until they get into office and stop doing that.
I'm the same way Dan! I don't watch them, because I get fighting mad and I don't care for that state of mind either.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Skip in checking facts Obama did say terror attacks right after it happened (what he ment by this another thing, however his staff played it off because for the movie/film for about 2 weeks before calling it a terrist action). A gray area there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelSteve
Steve do you not understand that there are different kinds of bankruptcy? Chapetr 11, chapter 7? Because you go bankrupt does not mean you are going out of business. Get your facts straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Dan let's not forget bankruptcy to reorganize, debt is not cleared, just reorganized. A lot of difference there and Romney was right IMO.
In the most common corporate bankruptcy you declare then the court appointed officer determines the state of the company and whether it's restructured or liquidated. Had GM gone into bankruptcy there's a very good chance they'd still be a company today, just without having cost the US taxpayers 100s of millions of dollars.
I think what he said was ' no terrorist attacks will hurt the resolve of this country' but never said that particular attack was a terrorist attack and the fact he continued for 14 days calling it a protest based on a video shows he never felt it was a terror attack. Or he knew the next day it was, let it slip in on that speech,a nd then went against it for 14 days knowing no media picked up on his slight of hand. Even Carney kept denying it was a terror attack. What Romney might have messed up on was using the word 'terror' versus saying Obama didn't use the phrase terror attack
And Romney did try to go to the UN Amb using the video for 5 appearances in one day by Crowley cut him off quickly to keep that out. She even admitted the next day she was wrong on how obama used the word.
Nor will it bite Romney in the butt as Obamas words, speeches and timelines are all out there. Plus Cutter trying to blame the whole mess on Romney. I have to wonder who she is screwing because she certainly isn't the brightest bulb out there, she is caught lying so often she makes Obama look like a person who only needs confession once a month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cattails
I think we all, well all but maybe one or two, knows why Obama bailed out the two auto companies...union payback. Screw the creditors but take care of the unions. It wasn't about saving jobs, it was about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ taking ours and giving it to the unions, who in turn make sure the bosses get the biggest chunk. I wonder how many more golf resorts they bought or built with our tax dollars. :mad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Politicians are like a small child's dirty diapers...........they need to be changed often and liberally, even if it' not dirty. It's the only correct and proper way to insure that the Constitution works like the Founding Father's designed it to.
Attachment 763Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
And if changing them out doesn't work like it should, then I would certainly be in favor of implementing my idea of building a gallows on the county courthouse lawn and administering some hemp based justice just so the rotten bastards know they're going to be held accountable, one way or another.
We are just not holding these lying, tap dancing, two-faced pieces of $&*# accountable for their follies of public service, and we need to!
But that's just me thinking out loud. Your opinion may differ just a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelSteve
In some cases bankruptcy is a good thing but even if its not, the governments function isn't to save industries or determine who wins and who doesn't. They should not have rescued the banks either IMO (which was a bipartisan decision) because it did not hold them responsible for their poor decisions (of course the gov't forced them into making some of those decisions). In the auto industry, Ford and others were penalized for having some business sense. Bankruptcy would have forced and allowed GM to restructure. If they failed to do so some other company with better business sense would have bought them out. It a falsehood that GM was going to fold. There would have been a line of business people waiting to get a piece of that action.
Also:
Correct me if I'm wrong but did Barach say that gas was $1.80 to $1.89 when he took office because we were on the verge financial collapse and the economy sucked? Does this make any sense at all? If that is accurate, why is gas nearly $4.00 a gallon and the economy still sucks? This is perhaps the dumbest and most illogical thing I have ever heard a candidate mutter. It makes zero sense on many levels.
Correct me if I'm wrong but did Barach say he called the terrorist attack in Libya a terrorist attack on the following day or did he say something about how "acts of terror will never deter this country"? Sorry but "acts of terror" does not equal "terrorist attack". Its double talk akin to it depends on what your definition of is is. Anything that strikes fear into people can be seen as an act of terror but not a terrorist attack. Obama and his administration spent weeks feeding America a line of bullshit because one of his main points in the campaign is how tough he has been on terrorism and how his policy of complacency has worked. The terrorist murdering our Ambassador does not fall into that narrative so it had to be something other than a terrorist attack. Instead it was an act of terror as a result of some dumb movie according to him. It was a bold face lie told to the Americans. One of three things happened. Either intelligence told him it was a terrorist attack and he didn't believe them, intelligence told him it was a terrorist attack and he decided to mislead the nation or intelligence misread the situation. I find number three hard to believe however if so, then intelligence department has SERIOUSLY slipped under the current administration. If either excuse one or two then a huge mistake on Obama's part. If he didn't know, he should have and if he did know his decisions were horrible.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Obama's plan to deal with the deficit is more ridiculous than Romneys. Romney plan says cut taxes for all and close the loopholes so that the bottom line of the "rich" stays the same. His plan has some holes in it but actually this makes some sense because it means business owners keep a larger share meaning more profits makes them more money..as well as the gov't because there is incentive to grow the business. Contrasted to Obama's plan where the Middle Class gets a tax cut and the "rich pay a little bit more". This is really a laugher. I actually ran the numbers a while back. In order to solve the 16 trillion dollar deficit each and every millionaire would have to contribute an ADDITIONAL $500,000. Yep, a half million extra per millionaire and that does not cover the loss of revenue from cutting the taxes on "97% of Americans". So while the left can bitch about the lack of details in Romneys plan to address the deficits, their plan is woefully short as well but then I don't expect anybody to question his approach.
Of course, if I'm wrong somebody will correct me.
Skip like I said it was a gray area, just saying the word terror kind of puts him in a position where he can later state what he said and its meaning. I understand what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
QFMFT. These "debates" are nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. Then again so are the campaigns (every 4 years, not just this one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
On another note, you have to give Romney credit. Not many men would be so upfront in public about their binders full of women. Just hope his wife doesn't mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SalsaKat
Could have been worse. He could have admitted he has astroturf in the bed of his el camino