In your honest, non-biased opinion ... who won the debate tonight? [Archive]

View Full Version : In your honest, non-biased opinion ... who won the debate tonight?

BRHornet45

10-03-2012, 11:03 PM

sons who won the debate tonight?

- Votes will be made public due to the likes of MannyIsGod (who will vote Democratic straight ticket) and Wild Cobra (who will vote Republican straight ticket)

try to give an honest vote on what you saw tonight. do not base it on your political views.

BRHornet45

10-03-2012, 11:10 PM

Also for both MannyIsGod and Wild Cobra who I mentioned above ... if you feel as if your candidate won then of course feel free to vote for them, but please explain why you feel they won. thanks

Stringer_Bell

10-03-2012, 11:11 PM

Great thread, glad to participate. I vote for Romney - he showed up to get a point across and he accomplished his goal of not looking like a total fucking robot.

Obama looked confused, it is possible he over-prepared. Then again, if he did prepare at all he would have been able to hit Romney with a few clean hits. He never threw anything more than a jab - he did a lot of turtling and in effect, praire-dogged himself into submission.

God bless!

lakerhaterade

10-03-2012, 11:14 PM

Romney should get Obama's ticket to anniversary sex for det dere Barry underperformance.

Juggity

10-03-2012, 11:23 PM

Winning involves answering questions correctly. On that score, Obama walks away with a victory.

Romney was more enthusiastic, though.

Clipper Nation

10-03-2012, 11:40 PM

We need a "neither" option... both are party-line crooks, and the American people automatically lost, tbh....

scott

10-04-2012, 12:03 AM

z0sa

10-04-2012, 12:05 AM

We need a "neither" option... both are party-line crooks, and the American people automatically lost, tbh....

this tbh

but Romney clearly won this one

Nbadan

10-04-2012, 12:06 AM

I think Romney won the debate hands down.

I also think he lied through his teeth in doing so.

Wake me up when either of these clowns has even a cursory understanding of basic math (let alone economics).

Mitt's angry white guy routine will connect well with angry white guys, but mark my words...tonight, with his duck and weave, he might as well have been doing an ad for the Obama campaign...

BRHornet45

10-04-2012, 12:06 AM

http://i55.tinypic.com/29ftoaf.jpg

http://mystery756.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/hope-solos-gold-metal-save-gif.gif

ElNono

10-04-2012, 12:31 AM

DMX7

10-04-2012, 12:38 AM

Obama won on substance and lost on style. The media clearly declared Romney the winner though because it really only cares about the latter.

SA210

10-04-2012, 01:24 AM

Future illegal wars won, NDAA won, Patriot Act won, future internet regulation won, Federal Reserve won, Banksters won, a corrupt 2 party system won.

Innocent people in the Middle East living and dead, the American people, their civil liberties, and the Constitution lost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PGIUBIaTUs

Jacob1983

10-04-2012, 01:43 AM

Nbadan

10-04-2012, 01:46 AM

Obama has expanded the fight against a tactic far more than Bush ever. Obama has increased the government's power and authority too. I mean seriously, why can't people wake the fuck up and realize that Obama is a lot like Bush especially on the war mongering, nation building, and the war on terror? Obama has done much more on violating civil liberties as president than Bush ever did.

Get off of it already....what nation build has Obama done specifically? Does torture still exists at GITMO and are people being tortured in prisons in Poland and other countries? ...dude...I know you have a hard one for Obama, but your lies are redundant...

Jacob1983

10-04-2012, 01:49 AM

Nbadan

10-04-2012, 01:53 AM

How many drone attacks have there been under Obama? How many under Bush? Who signed the NDAA into law? Who supports the Patriot Act as president but bashed Bush for supporting it? Drone attacks on innocent civilians and American citizens. You keep drink the Obama koolaid all you want but your guy is a fake and just like Bush. I feel sorry for people that can't see it.

Are you actively campaigning against all the Congressional members, Republican or Democrat who voted for the NDAA despite Obama's reservations to the language governing the detainment of domestic terrorists? Yes or No?

Do drone attacks save lives of American service-men by not having to put them in harms way? Yes or No?

Did the President state that the Patriot act should be repealed eventually? Yes or no?

SA210

10-04-2012, 01:57 AM

Wild Cobra

10-04-2012, 02:05 AM

Also for both MannyIsGod and Wild Cobra who I mentioned above ... if you feel as if your candidate won then of course feel free to vote for them, but please explain why you feel they won. thanks
You haven't a clue do you?

I hate Obama and I don't exactly like Romney. I never vote a strait republican ticket. There are 3rd party candidates you know.

I didn't watch the debate. I don't care about it. I will very likely vote 3rd party this years, or write in Ron Paul.

Wild Cobra

10-04-2012, 02:08 AM

We need a "neither" option... both are party-line crooks, and the American people automatically lost, tbh....
Like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above)?

Didn't you just love Monty Brewster's campaign?

Kidd K

10-04-2012, 03:19 AM

Obama won the debate. A debate is about proving your point with facts, and making the other guy's position look bad with facts.

Obama destroyed Romney in this category. So he won the debate.

Thing is, winning the debate and winning votes isn't the same thing. If you look happy and confident while lying and saying nothing relevant, while the other guy is serious and always deflecting, then the confident guy (Romney) might appear to win. . .unless you understand what they're talking about. In which case he just comes off like a terrible debator who has no points worth talking about.

Case in point: at one point in the debate, Obama points out that Romney doesn't actually specifiy his plans (which he doesn't) when asked to lay out his plans. The old guy asks Romney to specify his plan. Romney starts up by talking about how important the issue is (blah blah blah), just revving up to get to the point, then literally says just TWO quick sentences about his plan (and it sounded like shit), then he quickly changes gears and starts talking about how great it'll be, no longer specifying. Once he finishes revving down from his amazing two sentence layout of his plan (might've only been one sentence now that I think about it, but it had a comma in it!), then he spends 30-40 seconds talking about something completely irrelevant to make it seem like he loves america. Then he sits back with a shit eating grin on his face, completely not even answering the question.

So when I look at those two dipshits, Obama at least tells you what he's doing. Romney hides what he plans to do because he worries it'll be used against him (and it would be). Obama literally gave more details of Romney's plans than Romney did. The republican party should be embarrassed. Anybody with half a brain should realize what they plan to do isn't going to be popular. That's why they aren't talking about it. Instead they just talk about how shitty Obama is and how great america is.

Obama won the "debate", but I can see why the dumber populous would think Romney won. He looked more content towards the end of the debate and got to close last.

lakerhaterade

10-04-2012, 03:40 AM

There should be a word limit on Kidd K's posts tbh imo

symple19

10-04-2012, 03:43 AM

symple19

10-04-2012, 03:44 AM

typical red team/blue team idiocy going on in here from the usual suspects

Winehole23

10-04-2012, 03:57 AM

I was at work. Consensus there -- all second hand, right? -- was that Obama looked rattled early on. Points for poise to Romney.

Didn't hear much about the substance of it though. From what I read here, I'm not sorry I missed it.

BRHornet45

10-04-2012, 04:11 AM

Kidd K

sons the above posters vote has been removed due to pure ignorance

lakerhaterade

10-04-2012, 04:32 AM

hey son congrats on 15K

Twisted_Dawg

10-04-2012, 04:41 AM

Romney clearly won. It didn't appear to me Obama was all that prepared and he should have been. CNN this morning ran a flash poll and Romney won with 67%. A CNN poll and Romney won 67%??? That clearly tells you who won.

TheCultOfPersonality

10-04-2012, 05:00 AM

We need a "neither" option... both are party-line crooks, and the American people automatically lost, tbh....

smh --- Both candidates flubbed the facts, per par. LOL at saying Obama was better on facts than Romney. They're both scumbags

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRESIDENTIAL_CAMPAIGN_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-04-03-00-20

Smartest posts in this thread.

AussieFanKurt

10-04-2012, 05:42 AM

Ron Bless

Drachen

10-04-2012, 08:49 AM

I will admit that I am at work so I got interrupted once or twice, but my initial reaction was that each candidate did what we thought they would, that it was a tie. Nothing jumped out at me from either guy. Now, after hearing the analysis, I started thinking "maybe obama was too laid back", etc. but my initial, untainted reaction to both candidates' performences was "meh."

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 08:59 AM

I think Romney won the debate hands down.

I also think he lied through his teeth in doing so.

Wake me up when either of these clowns has even a cursory understanding of basic math (let alone economics).
Given his success in business and personal wealth, I think Mitt Romney could probably put a bit hole in your assertion he doesn't understand economics.

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 09:00 AM

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 09:13 AM

Given his success in business and personal wealth, I think Mitt Romney could probably put a bit hole in your assertion he doesn't understand economics.

This is true. I think Romney has a much better handle on economics than Scott. WTF does Scott know on the subject anyhow?

DUNCANownsKOBE

10-04-2012, 09:24 AM

Given his success in business and personal wealth, I think Mitt Romney could probably put a bit hole in your assertion he doesn't understand economics.

Anyone who thinks lower taxes sparks job growth certainly doesn't have the slightest understanding of America's tax code.

The Republican party would have a REAL problem on their hands if the average American understood that employee compensation is a tax deductible expense :lol

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 09:25 AM

This is true. I think Romney has a much better handle on economics than Scott. WTF does Scott know on the subject anyhow?
I didn't accuse scott of being ignorant on economics -- he's probably got a better grasp than Obama but, if he thinks the Obama plan of piling up debt, flooding the country with devalued dollars, and giving handouts to cronies that then fold up shop is the way to turn around this economy, I'd say scott doesn't know much.

Romney has turned just about everything he's touched to gold. When scott quits trolling obscure internet forums and gets his first hundred million under his belt, I'll might change my tune. And, I hasten to add, scott stands a better chance of doing so under a Romney economic plan than one designed by Obama -- or whoever is crafting his idiotic policies these days.

DUNCANownsKOBE

10-04-2012, 09:26 AM

if he thinks the Obama plan of piling up debt, flooding the country with devalued dollars, and giving handouts to cronies that then fold up shop is the way to turn around this economy
Your party thought this was a recipe for success when it was Bush's economic plan :lol

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 09:37 AM

Your party thought this was a recipe for success when it was Bush's economic plan :lol
Uh, no.

Latarian Milton

10-04-2012, 09:39 AM

romney performed better than the kenyan dumbass but still not enough to turn around the momentum imho, the mormon won the battle but obama will win the war eventually

Latarian Milton

10-04-2012, 09:52 AM

shit was never a cruise walk for the incumbent president in the first place, given the government debt and unemployment rate both of which are record high now. people would always tend to attribute the whole mess of shit to the president, rather than blame a senator or a former state governor imho. obama was scorched and it was a natural disadvantage than even obama couldn't overcome, despite his worldclass oratory

CuckingFunt

10-04-2012, 10:04 AM

It's impossible to win a debate if you fail to actually answer a single question, no matter how much confidence and charisma you may show in your aversion. That said, Obama's refusal/reluctance to challenge either the lack of truth or the lack of substance in so many of Romney's answers is, in my opinion, easily as big a failing.

All this debate did for me was confirm our continued discursive devolution.

DUNCANownsKOBE

10-04-2012, 10:05 AM

Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

Clipper Nation

10-04-2012, 10:32 AM

Uh, no.
So you didn't vote for Dubya while he was creating a massive deficit, inflating our currency, and rewarding his cronies in the defense industry? :lol

scott

10-04-2012, 10:48 AM

Given his success in business and personal wealth, I think Mitt Romney could probably put a bit hole in your assertion he doesn't understand economics.

If you equate business success with knowledge of macroeconomics, then you're a bigger fool than I previously thought. And that is saying a lot.

scott

10-04-2012, 10:49 AM

LnGrrrR

10-04-2012, 10:58 AM

smh --- Both candidates flubbed the facts, per par. LOL at saying Obama was better on facts than Romney. They're both scumbags

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRESIDENTIAL_CAMPAIGN_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-04-03-00-20

That's a pretty shitty fact checker. Look at this one.

THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.

Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.

However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.

The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay for the lower rates.

How exactly is Obama lying here? Until Romney actually says how he plans on compensating for the cuts, I think it's fair to assume it will cut revenue.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:06 AM

Given his success in business and personal wealth, I think Mitt Romney could probably put a bit hole in your assertion he doesn't understand economics.

Running a country isn't anything like running a business. This is a terrible argument.

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 11:08 AM

If you equate business success with knowledge of macroeconomics, then you're a bigger fool than I previously thought. And that is saying a lot.
What in Obama's background or his performance as President gives you the idea he understands personal economics, much less macroeconomics.

And, I am equating Romney's success in business and politics to him having a better understanding of economics than does Barack Obama.

scott

10-04-2012, 11:10 AM

What in Obama's background or his performance as President gives you the idea he understands personal economics, much less macroeconomics.

And, I am equating Romney's success in business and politics to him having a better understanding of economics than does Barack Obama.

Reading is fundamental.

Wake me up when either of these clowns has even a cursory understanding of basic math (let alone economics).

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 11:13 AM

Running a country isn't anything like running a business. This is a terrible argument.
And, if that all Romney were, you might have a point -- after all, I think George Soros would be a horrible president. But, we're not just referring to Romney's business experience. Being executive of a state and running an international event like the Olympics certainly gives you more executive and diplomatic experience than being a community organizer and Senator.

Last night, that showed. Barack Obama is a manufactured politician that wilted without the benefit of someone else's words and a teleprompter.

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 11:14 AM

Reading is fundamental.
Consider yourself awakened...Romney has that.

LnGrrrR

10-04-2012, 11:19 AM

And, if that all Romney were, you might have a point -- after all, I think George Soros would be a horrible president. But, we're not just referring to Romney's business experience. Being executive of a state and running an international event like the Olympics certainly gives you more executive and diplomatic experience than being a community organizer and Senator.

Last night, that showed. Barack Obama is a manufactured politician that wilted without the benefit of someone else's words and a teleprompter.

Does being executive of a state and running the Olympics give you more experience than being the President for four years?

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:20 AM

And, if that all Romney were, you might have a point -- after all, I think George Soros would be a horrible president. But, we're not just referring to Romney's business experience.

Who's we? And this is what I replied to:

Given his success in business and personal wealth, I think Mitt Romney could probably put a bit hole in your assertion he doesn't understand economics.

Looks like you're indeed referring to his business experience as a plus when it comes to running a country's economy.

He was still selling "trickle down" last night. Then he was explaining how he was going to increase spending and cut taxes at the same time and make everything deficit neutral.

Dude is desperate and lying like there's no tomorrow. Obviously, looking at the race right now, I don't blame him.

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 11:30 AM

Does being executive of a state and running the Olympics give you more experience than being the President for four years?
Again, if Obama had been President for the last four years, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, he's done everything BUT lead this country as its chief executive. He can't even defend his own policies...and, well, he kind of shot himself in the foot, back in 2008, by vilifying George W. Bush over every policy he eventually adopted and built on; from the war on terror to the Patriot Act to Executive Orders to the debt -- Barack Obama has exceeded the levels at which he was willing to go on national television and call George Bush unpatriotic.

It just makes him look disingenuous (at best) and incompetent (at worst).

Fast & Furious is creeping up to bite him. The Middle East -- you know, that part of the world Barack Obama jetted off to for his first major foreign policy speech to "repair" the damage Bush had done between us and the Muslims -- is about to explode, literally. Our embassies and consulates are under attack and our diplomats are being murdered...and the best Obama can do is blame a stupid video when, we're finding out, he knew all along it was a planned attack by al Qaeda -- of which the administration was warned and for which the Benghazi consulate had requested increased security (which was denied).

Obama has screwed up just about every aspect of the job and you want to point to that as the experience that lifts him above Romney? :lmao

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 11:33 AM

Looks like you're indeed referring to his business experience as a plus when it comes to running a country's economy.
It's certainly not a minus.

He was still selling "trickle down" last night. Then he was explaining how he was going to increase spending and cut taxes at the same time and make everything deficit neutral.
He was selling pro-growth government policies that will allow the private sector to increase employment by about 12 million jobs. That's not "trickle down" (a term never used by a conservative or any respectable economist with an understanding of supply-side economics).

Dude is desperate and lying like there's no tomorrow. Obviously, looking at the race right now, I don't blame him.
Not even "Tingles" Matthews or "Million Dollar" Maher agrees with this assessment. Obama got his ass handed to him by Romney last night.

JoeChalupa

10-04-2012, 11:37 AM

Romney was clearly better prepared and brought his "A" game. Obama looked tired and out without a clear strategy on how to handle Romney's responses. This could very well be the moment Romney was waiting for and he took full advantage of it. Unless Obama comes back strong in the 2nd debate it could be the game changer of all debates. I could sense it from the start.

Yonivore

10-04-2012, 11:39 AM

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:42 AM

It's certainly not a minus.

That's different from "put a bit hole"... keep spinning...

He was selling pro-growth government policies that will allow the private sector to increase employment by about 12 million jobs.

:lol Based on what? Anybody can pull numbers out of thin air. Heck, both did last night.
Last time this country was running "trickle down" was not long ago and put us in this mess. Not sure how he thinks pushing that is a winning combination, tbh.

Not even "Tingles" Matthews or "Million Dollar" Maher agrees with this assessment. Obama got his ass handed to him by Romney last night.

That's a different topic. Already stated I thought Romney did better, IMO.

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 11:45 AM

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:49 AM

I'm sure Obama will get a make-up next time. It will be a town hall format where "questions are submitted by the audience" and the moderator gets to decide which questions to ask. Want to bet the questions chosen will be slanted against Romney?

Not so sure about that. Mitt basically can promise the world, since he doesn't have to defend the last 4 years... but that was known since the get go.

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 11:52 AM

Spurminator

10-04-2012, 11:53 AM

Romney has turned just about everything he's touched to gold.

Gold for a few at the expense of jobs for many.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:55 AM

Man, msnbc is butthurt. They are spinning big time. Our st political forum posters generally leans left or pull a Scott el nono and pretend to go down the middle but at the end of the day they bleed blue. With that said I am proud of all of you that participated in BRs poll and voted for the OBVIOUS winner. God bless

I gotta say that seeing you with hope is always entertaining jack. I still remember when you were sure the mandate was unconstitutional. Good times.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:56 AM

Gold for a few at the expense of jobs for many.

Heck, he pretty much fired Jim Lehrer last night. :lol

JoeChalupa

10-04-2012, 12:10 PM

Chris Mathews on MSNBC called it right. Obama lost it and he didn't pull any punches.

z0sa

10-04-2012, 12:12 PM

Heck, he pretty much fired Jim Lehrer last night. :lol

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Trill Clinton

10-04-2012, 12:21 PM

President was smart enough to know that Romney would say anything and did not want to go in the lying mad with him. anyone who is willing to say anything and lie to get there can not be debated with. if Obama came out swinging, he would of been label as the "angry black man" .that's exactly what they wanted but didn't get it. it was easier for mitt to win because the bar was set SO low.. Why harm yourself against a fool who can talk himself into his own grave? Common sense.. you can see why Obama was so uninterested and say only what needed to be said...

ElNono

10-04-2012, 12:25 PM

If you think Mitt can win, this might be a good time to put some money on him...

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 12:34 PM

Trill Clinton

10-04-2012, 12:38 PM

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your partisan hackery never ceases to amaze me.

huh? i voted for mitt in the poll, he clearly won this "debate". i'm not into politics like that anyways. just gave my 2 cents.

DMX7

10-04-2012, 12:47 PM

Heck, he pretty much fired Jim Lehrer last night. :lol

He does like firing people! :lol

...And right to his face "Trump" style! :nutkick:

JoeChalupa

10-04-2012, 12:53 PM

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 01:00 PM

I gotta say that seeing you with hope is always entertaining jack. I still remember when you were sure the mandate was unconstitutional. Good times.

Brother, I'm not hoping that romney won the debate, he won it. It's over. It was entertaining to watch Obama go into the fetal position. Obama has zero chance in these debates. He has 4 years now. He can't escape it. Plus he can't talk without a script.

Considering you're butthurt cuz your boy lost last night I will entertain you a bit longer. My stance on the "mandate" had very little to do with the constitution. There were courts that said it was unconstutional, brother. And the Supreme Court was 5-4. My problem I had/have with it is the same most Americans do is we don't want it, we can't afford it but obama rammed it though anyways. God bless

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 01:03 PM

I actually think that Obama is such a narcissist that he never dreamed that Romney would come after him that hard. He thought he would handle him like he handled McCain. I expect Cancy Crowley to throw him some soft pitches next debate and he will hit back at Romney harder.

boutons_deux

10-04-2012, 01:15 PM

"Obama is such a narcissist"

and Gecko is such humble, sympathetic, altruistic St Theresa in predatory asset stripper clothes. :lol

ElNono

10-04-2012, 01:22 PM

Brother, I'm not hoping that romney won the debate, he won it.

Brother, you must have problems reading, I never said otherwise. Mitt might not win the election, but he can definitely claim to be the debate victor.

Considering you're butthurt cuz your boy lost last night

Wrong again, brother. Neither Barry or Mitt are "my boy".
That's the big difference between us two. For you everything has to be black or white (preferably the later), right or wrong, us vs them.For me it's not like that at all.

I can say Barry has been a horrible president and also say Mitt is a terrible candidate. There's nothing wrong with not backing either and not being a team playa...

My stance on the "mandate" had very little to do with the constitution.

Come one jack, don't change your tune now. You were riding that Florida judge jockstrap like your god didn't care.

Ron bless.

gameFACE

10-04-2012, 01:27 PM

This probably the best Romney can do. He won. But Obama wasn't anywhere near his A-game. He needs scoreboard next debate and I think he'll do it. Anytime Romney is put on the defensive he loses. But strike back. Especially if foreign policy is discussed.

Wild Cobra

10-04-2012, 01:28 PM

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 01:30 PM

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 01:39 PM

http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/700/10/700_1349374481.jpg

BRHornet45

10-04-2012, 01:42 PM

Smartest posts in this thread.

http://signavatar.com/20209_s.gif

son who is this?

Juggity

10-04-2012, 01:42 PM

Foreign policy is the last thing Obama wants to talk about.

http://citycynic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/osamadead-newsday.jpg

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 01:44 PM

http://citycynic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/osamadead-newsday.jpg

And so is Ambassador Stevens.

Juggity

10-04-2012, 01:48 PM

And so is Ambassador Stevens.

What percentage of Americans even still remember who ambassador Stevens was?

I'd guess less than 15%.

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 01:49 PM

What percentage of Americans even still remember who ambassador Stevens was?

I'd guess less than 15%.

This is relative, why? 'cause Stevens wasn't a notorious terrorist? http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 01:51 PM

What percentage of Americans even still remember who ambassador Stevens was?

I'd guess less than 15%.

If Obama tries to spike that football Romney will REMIND them who ambassador Stevens is. That would be like pitching underhand to Miguel Cabrera.

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 01:51 PM

btw...I didn't get to watch the debate. I was too busy manning the phones for the Texas Ranger Suicide Hotline.:depressed

SnakeBoy

10-04-2012, 01:58 PM

Man, msnbc is butthurt.

It is pretty hilarious to see. Blaming the moderator is funny but to watch some of them try and reenact the debate with what Obama should have said is really funny.

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 02:02 PM

Elnono, my brother, what are you speaking of when you say it's entertaining to you that I still have hope? This is a thread about who won the debate along with my opinion on that. You are talking about hope, entertainment and mandates. Are you confused? God bless

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 02:05 PM

It is pretty hilarious to see. Blaming the moderator is funny but to watch some of them try and reenact the debate with what Obama should have said is really funny.

It reminds me of some Dallas Cowboy fans. They get all geeked up, excited and talking smack and when they get their butts handed to them they act all shocked and start making excuses for them then of course tell them how they should have played and how everything will be different next time. God bless

boutons_deux

10-04-2012, 02:07 PM

We'll see in the next debates if Barry was playing Rope-a-Dope in the first. :lol

SA210

10-04-2012, 02:25 PM

http://citycynic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/osamadead-newsday.jpg

Pics?

boutons_deux

10-04-2012, 02:28 PM

And so is Ambassador Stevens.

Repugs have repeatedly denied something $300M to the State Dept for increased security.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 02:32 PM

Elnono, my brother, what are you speaking of when you say it's entertaining to you that I still have hope?

It's not that complicated jack. When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine.

I think it's pretty entertaining, tbh.

This is a thread about who won the debate along with my opinion on that. You are talking about hope, entertainment and mandates. Are you confused? God bless

What are these debates if not entertainment? :lol

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 02:33 PM

Repugs have repeatedly denied something $300M to the State Dept for increased security.

...which has nothing to do with Steven's death.

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 02:33 PM

Repugs have repeatedly denied something $300M to the State Dept for increased security.

LOL

Only Boutox could spin this as the Republicans fault. The State Department has a 20 BILLION dollar budget. Don't tell me they couldn't find any money to protect their ambassadors.

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 02:34 PM

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 02:36 PM

This is relative, why? 'cause Stevens wasn't a notorious terrorist? http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

Com'on, really? Do you know everyone who died yesterday? Of course they're relative. And of course that's why. How many ambassadors can you name?

The more important question here is why does either death mean Obama's foreign policy is good or bad.

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 02:37 PM

Com'on, really? Do you know everyone who died yesterday? Of course they're relative. And of course that's why. How many ambassadors can you name?

How many ambassadors were killed recently in a terrorist attack in Libya? I can name one.

Don't be ridiculous.

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 02:39 PM

LOL

Only Boutox could spin this as the Republicans fault. The State Department has a 20 BILLION dollar budget. Don't tell me they couldn't find any money to protect their ambassadors.

They also have a whole hell of a lot of responsibilities. I don't get how a security budget is foreign policy, though.

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 02:40 PM

How many ambassadors were killed recently in a terrorist attack in Libya? I can name one.

Don't be ridiculous.

You only learned of him after he was killed. Did you know about Osama before or after he was killed? You asked why it was relative as if it was a ridiculous notion that they be relative. Did you know about Stevens before his death?

rjv

10-04-2012, 02:46 PM

both parties. voters lose. with the league of women voters no longer in the picture since '88, the debates have been purely vetted, corporate run dog and pony shows.

SnakeBoy

10-04-2012, 02:51 PM

:lmao

Al Gore Blames Altitude For Obama’s Debate Skills

“I’m going to say something controversial here,” Gore said. “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 pm today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don’t know.”

http://www.webpronews.com/al-gore-blames-altitude-for-obamas-debate-skills-2012-10

boutons_deux

10-04-2012, 02:51 PM

Another HUGE LIE by Gecko

Romney's Obscene Posturing As A Wall Street Critic (http://www.thenation.com/blog/170359/romneys-obscene-posturing-wall-street-critic)

Among the many obfuscations of Mitt Romney last night (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/transcript-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-denver.html?pagewanted=print), this was perhaps the biggest laugher of them all:

ROMNEY: Dodd-Frank was passed, and it includes within it a number of provisions that I think have some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they’re effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that’s been given to—to New York banks I’ve ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There’s been—22 community and small banks have closed since Dodd-Frank. So there’s one example I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn’t thought through properly.
Romney—the private equity veteran running a presidential campaign funded (http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/06/13/romney_crushing_obama_in_donations_from_wall_stree t.html) by Wall Street, on a platform that contains a full repeal (http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-02/nation/31520527_1_dodd-frank-bill-financial-crisis-senator-christopher-dodd) of every financial regulation over the past four years—positioning himself as an opponent of those big “New York banks” was a historic moment in presidential debate cravenness. (And a real missed opportunity for Obama to wallop his opponent).

So what exactly was Romney talking about? It’s a complicated answer, but understanding it reveals the true perversity of Romney’s posturing.

Dodd-Frank has two provisions regarding too-big-to-fail that Romney is talking about here. The first is the ability of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, created by the legislation, to name financial institutions “systemically significant.” This means they are so big that their failure could threaten the health of the financial sector, and that designation subjects them (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2011/04/05/9385/paying-the-piper/) to heightened regulation and higher capital requirements.

The big banks hate this requirement, for obvious reasons—they come under increased scrutiny and restrictions. So Republicans have been dutifully attacking it. (Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, repeatedly blasted it (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/21/173907/ryan-tbtf-banks-video/) before joining the ticket). The GOP argument, as you heard Romney deliver it, is that by giving them the “systemically significant label, the government is officially “designating” banks as too-big-to-fail—a very bad-sounding thing indeed!

But this is nonsense—these firms are too big to fail. The FSOC designation doesn’t make them so, and is in no way a “kiss” to the big banks—again, it subjects them to higher regulation. Romney and his party would prefer to repeal this provision, full stop, and thus effectively stick their heads in the sand about too-big-to-fail institutions. It’s like saying a doctor who diagnoses someone with cancer has given it to him.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170359/romneys-obscene-posturing-wall-street-critic?rel=emailNation

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 03:00 PM

You only learned of him after he was killed. Did you know about Osama before or after he was killed? You asked why it was relative as if it was a ridiculous notion that they be relative. Did you know about Stevens before his death?

Irrelevant. He's notorious as hell now.

Drachen

10-04-2012, 03:04 PM

:lmao

in response to your al gore quote... Yes, that is pretty ridiculous. LOL!

SA210

10-04-2012, 03:06 PM

I posted this in the other debate thread..

Let's be honest, nobody really won. Romney was basically able to "win" by convincing America that his lies are better for them last night than Obama's lies, and that's the truth.

Through all that, he aggressively manhandled Obama the way John Edwards said the Republicans and special interests would.

Juggity

10-04-2012, 03:27 PM

This is relative, why? 'cause Stevens wasn't a notorious terrorist? http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

The point is that Obama is not blamed for an international scuffle that resulted in a man's death, partially because most Americans don't know who Ambassador Stevens was, and partially because Obama was not at fault for his death.

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 03:29 PM

The point is that Obama is not blamed for an international scuffle that resulted in a man's death, partially because most Americans don't know who Ambassador Stevens was, and partially because Obama was not at fault for his death.

So, you're on the "Buck Stops NoWhere" bandwagon. Ok.

And the smart money is on "Americans know who the hell Ambassador Stevens is now" marker.

Juggity

10-04-2012, 03:34 PM

So, you're on the "Buck Stops NoWhere" bandwagon. Ok.

And the smart money is on "Americans know who the hell Ambassador Stevens is now" marker.

I'd bet against the idea that most Americans still know who ambassador stevens is. And the buck, in this case, stops with the killers alone.

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 03:37 PM

Irrelevant. He's notorious as hell now.

Yeah probably not. You have a whole hell of a lot more faith in the people who are going out to vote than I do if you think that a lot of them know who Stevens is.

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 03:40 PM

rjv

10-04-2012, 03:43 PM

Another HUGE LIE by Gecko

Romney's Obscene Posturing As A Wall Street Critic (http://www.thenation.com/blog/170359/romneys-obscene-posturing-wall-street-critic)

Among the many obfuscations of Mitt Romney last night (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/transcript-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-denver.html?pagewanted=print), this was perhaps the biggest laugher of them all:
ROMNEY: Dodd-Frank was passed, and it includes within it a number of provisions that I think have some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they’re effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that’s been given to—to New York banks I’ve ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them. There’s been—22 community and small banks have closed since Dodd-Frank. So there’s one example I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn’t thought through properly.

Romney—the private equity veteran running a presidential campaign funded (http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/06/13/romney_crushing_obama_in_donations_from_wall_stree t.html) by Wall Street, on a platform that contains a full repeal (http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-02/nation/31520527_1_dodd-frank-bill-financial-crisis-senator-christopher-dodd) of every financial regulation over the past four years—positioning himself as an opponent of those big “New York banks” was a historic moment in presidential debate cravenness. (And a real missed opportunity for Obama to wallop his opponent).

So what exactly was Romney talking about? It’s a complicated answer, but understanding it reveals the true perversity of Romney’s posturing.

Dodd-Frank has two provisions regarding too-big-to-fail that Romney is talking about here. The first is the ability of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, created by the legislation, to name financial institutions “systemically significant.” This means they are so big that their failure could threaten the health of the financial sector, and that designation subjects them (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2011/04/05/9385/paying-the-piper/) to heightened regulation and higher capital requirements.

The big banks hate this requirement, for obvious reasons—they come under increased scrutiny and restrictions. So Republicans have been dutifully attacking it. (Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, repeatedly blasted it (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/21/173907/ryan-tbtf-banks-video/) before joining the ticket). The GOP argument, as you heard Romney deliver it, is that by giving them the “systemically significant label, the government is officially “designating” banks as too-big-to-fail—a very bad-sounding thing indeed!

But this is nonsense—these firms are too big to fail. The FSOC designation doesn’t make them so, and is in no way a “kiss” to the big banks—again, it subjects them to higher regulation. Romney and his party would prefer to repeal this provision, full stop, and thus effectively stick their heads in the sand about too-big-to-fail institutions. It’s like saying a doctor who diagnoses someone with cancer has given it to him.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170359/romneys-obscene-posturing-wall-street-critic?rel=emailNation

maybe romney was referring to the copenhagen interpretation

TeyshaBlue

10-04-2012, 03:46 PM

I'd bet against the idea that most Americans still know who ambassador stevens is. And the buck, in this case, stops with the killers alone.

I wish there was a way to place a bet on that. Six pack of your fave.:p:

MannyIsGod

10-04-2012, 04:14 PM

Obamas selective support for dissidents of various different countries in the middle east and north africa over the last few years is a bigger foreign policy hickey, but again, what percentage of the populace knows about it?

More importantly, Romney isn't going to campaign on a different method of action. Well, considering how often he lies maybe he will.

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 04:20 PM

More importantly, Romney isn't going to campaign on a different method of action. Well, considering how often he lies maybe he will.

Oh, I think a case could be made that Obama should have given verbal support to the Iranian dissidents, but yeah, when it comes to turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain R's and D's are equally hypoctitical.

CosmicCowboy

10-04-2012, 04:22 PM

I wish there was a way to place a bet on that. Six pack of your fave.:p:

I'd be careful with betting on the knowledge of the average American. Hell, half the people probably don't even know who the vice president is.

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 05:00 PM

It's not that complicated jack. When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine.

I think it's pretty entertaining, tbh.

What are these debates if not entertainment? :lol

You're projecting, brother. Romney won the debate. My thoughts on the elections, mandates, laws, bunny rabbits are not the issues here, brother but you wish to move the goal post so to speak, change the subject. I ask myself "why" and the answer is obvious. You dont like the fact your boy lost the debate. Leave it at that, brother. I See the polls, brother. I see Romney is in trouble. If he loses I will be here the day after to take my medicines from all the blue bloods such as yourself for my prediction. Until then try to accept my post and dont read into them. Romney killed it last night and Obama looked shell shocked. God bless

HI-FI

10-04-2012, 05:04 PM

There should be a word limit on Kidd K's posts tbh imo
the dude once got pissy at me for asking BRHornet what current chick was in his signature. I suppose Kidd K prefers fapping to Walls of Text.

to BRHornet, I definitely voted for Romney in this one. I'm not a big fan of the Kenyan and tbh, not sold on the Mormon either. But I actually felt sorry for Obama in this debate. Obama is a great pontificator/lecturer type, but debating may not be his strong suit. I have a feeling if he gets flustered it brings out his Angry Black Man side, and that may not be good for voters.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 05:22 PM

You're projecting, brother. Romney won the debate. My thoughts on the elections, mandates, laws, bunny rabbits are not the issues here, brother but you wish to move the goal post so to speak, change the subject. I ask myself "why" and the answer is obvious. You dont like the fact your boy lost the debate. Leave it at that, brother. I See the polls, brother. I see Romney is in trouble. If he loses I will be here the day after to take my medicines from all the blue bloods such as yourself for my prediction. Until then try to accept my post and dont read into them. Romney killed it last night and Obama looked shell shocked. God bless

Projecting what jack? :lol

Look at the poll. I voted Mitt won the debate.

The day either of these two clowns win an election is going to be a sad day, tbh.

Clipper Nation

10-04-2012, 06:02 PM

Let's be honest, nobody really won. Romney was basically able to "win" by convincing America that his lies are better for them last night than Obama's lies, and that's the truth.

Actually, no... Willard convinced nobody of anything, because everyone watching these things already had their minds made up long before now..... the media is pronouncing a Willard victory because he's been getting shat on for months now and they need to create drama to get the partisan sheeple to keep watching these lame debates, tbh....

SA210

10-04-2012, 06:08 PM

Actually, no... Willard convinced nobody of anything, because everyone watching these things already had their minds made up long before now..... the media is pronouncing a Willard victory because he's been getting shat on for months now and they need to create drama to get the partisan sheeple to keep watching these lame debates, tbh....

I agree with this, I guess my point is that they both lied, but Romney was successful in fooling people more last night. Which really does nothing for anyone other than to just keeping sinking the country deeper and deeper.

Ron Paul would rip both these bastards to shreds if he were in these debates. And that wouldn't be fake.

LnGrrrR

10-04-2012, 07:27 PM

Irrelevant. He's notorious as hell now.

Disagree. Killing Osama Bin Laden outweighed the death of our ambassador. Sorry to put it frankly, but its the truth. People won't remember Ambassador Stevens two years from now.

cheguevara

10-04-2012, 08:30 PM

this is what I took from the debate:
- Obama is a bum and definitely handed the election lead to Romney
- both candidates agreed on more things than disagreed. what a pathetic pair of losers. this is proof that they are both esentially the same candidate
- Romney "the libertarian" persona, worked. no shit. libertarian talk, keep it simple, talk about power to the states, freedom, recite constitution. boom slam dunk

but let's be honest, anyone that actually bought anything Romney was talking is a mental midget

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 08:31 PM

Projecting what jack? :lol

Look at the poll. I voted Mitt won the debate.

The day either of these two clowns win an election is going to be a sad day, tbh.

When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine.

Brother, this is projecting. I simply said Romney won the debate and your projected your silliness all over me. I'm proud of you for voting for Romney. Giving your insecurities I should have singled you out when I originally posted in this thread as how proud I was for this forum to give the Romney the credit he deserved. I will now.

Elnono, I am proud of you for agreeing that Romney won the debate especially because you lean heavily left. Good job! God bless

cheguevara

10-04-2012, 08:32 PM

but let's face it. Dr. Ron Paul would have handed both The Fake and The Bum their asses

Clipper Nation

10-04-2012, 08:40 PM

ElNono

10-04-2012, 09:03 PM

Brother, this is projecting. I simply said Romney won the debate and your projected your silliness all over me. I'm proud of you for voting for Romney. Giving your insecurities I should have singled you out when I originally posted in this thread as how proud I was for this forum to give the Romney the credit he deserved. I will now.

You did single me out, jack. Did you forget this post?

Man, msnbc is butthurt. They are spinning big time. Our st political forum posters generally leans left or pull a Scott el nono and pretend to go down the middle but at the end of the day they bleed blue. With that said I am proud of all of you that participated in BRs poll and voted for the OBVIOUS winner. God bless

Looks like you've been insecure and projecting way before I was :lol

Elnono, I am proud of you for agreeing that Romney won the debate especially because you lean heavily left. Good job! God bless

In your black and white world, I'm sure I do. In that world you probably don't have sexual fantasies with little children either.

Ron Bless.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 09:04 PM

but let's face it. Dr. Ron Paul would have handed both The Fake and The Bum their asses

True that... Barry would be reduced to tears on the economy and Willard would be completely ethered on healthcare, tbh....

tbh, as soon as Ron says he's killing Medicare and everyone should fend for themselves, he lost the election right there.

cheguevara

10-04-2012, 09:21 PM

:lol thinking Paul had a chance. The whole show has been prearranged Obamney were selected months ago. he was just allowed to speak the truth which is a big step in the right direction.

and :lol at "Ron killing Medicare". what a pathetic conclusion

newsflash, Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian. It's not in the Constitution its not supposed to be there. You want it there, amend the Constitution through the proper channels.

ElNono

10-04-2012, 09:53 PM

newsflash, Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian. It's not in the Constitution its not supposed to be there. You want it there, amend the Constitution through the proper channels.

Uh? The Constitution delegates law making to Congress. Medicare/Medicaid are government programs created by law.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul himself would have a a good laugh after reading that.

cheguevara

10-04-2012, 10:01 PM

the same Congress that also passed the NDAA and many, many other unconstitutional laws? And the soon coming SOPA clone :rolleyes wake up

Ron Paul after reading your assumption that everything Congress passes is Constitutional: :rollin

ElNono

10-04-2012, 10:05 PM

ElNono

10-04-2012, 10:07 PM

And if Ron Paul thinks a lot of these laws are unconstitutional, he could get down from the soapbox and challenge them in court.

It's not like no law has ever been found unconstitutional.

jack sommerset

10-04-2012, 10:30 PM

You did single me out, jack. Did you forget this post?

Looks like you've been insecure and projecting way before I was :lol

In your black and white world, I'm sure I do. In that world you probably don't have sexual fantasies with little children either.

Ron Bless.

Son of a gun, I did single you out and still your insecurities came flowing out. I dont think you understand what projecting means. I will give you the definition. To ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others. Again, I said Romney won this debate and you projected your silliness by saying "When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine." I expect chump to say and do anything to troll anyone he disagrees with on this site because of the pain he holds on to throughout his life, which in a few months I will continue my quest to help him but you I held to a higher standard for some reason. The fact is that last comment you made is classless. That's about you, brother. That's another projection you made or I should say you stole from someone else. Brother, I'll pray for you. God bless

Clipper Nation

10-04-2012, 11:04 PM

tbh, as soon as Ron says he's killing Medicare and everyone should fend for themselves, he lost the election right there.
And when he mentions pro bono care, more patient choice, and the fact that he himself was a fucking doctor who ran a successful medical practice, he wins it right back, tbh....

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:10 PM

Son of a gun, I did single you out and still your insecurities came flowing out.

That makes no sense :lol

When you call somebody out and that person comes right back at you, it's the exact opposite of insecurity.

Insecure is having somebody so far up your ass you can't stop thinking about them. :lmao

I dont think you understand what projecting means. I will give you the definition. To ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others. Again, I said Romney won this debate and you projected your silliness by saying "When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine."

Projecting would be me trying to convince other people that Romney won the debate since that's how I voted. Swing and miss again, jack.

Me saying "When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine." is simply my opinion developed by the actual events described between parenthesis. Feel free to disagree.

The fact is that last comment you made is classless.

Well, that's true. I take that back.

Ron bless.

Nbadan

10-04-2012, 11:12 PM

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/36333_434886209882414_486102477_n.jpg

ElNono

10-04-2012, 11:12 PM

And when he mentions pro bono care, more patient choice, and the fact that he himself was a fucking doctor who ran a successful medical practice, he wins it right back, tbh....

:lol no way. Who's paying for those MRI machines? Pro bono? Heck, back in the last century when he was a doctor Medicare nor Medicaid even exist.

Jacob1983

10-05-2012, 12:33 AM

Ron Paul would have destroyed Obamney in the first 10 minutes of the debate by pointing out the obvious which is Obama and Romney are the same.

SA210

10-05-2012, 02:53 AM

Ron Paul would have destroyed Obamney in the first 10 minutes of the debate by pointing out the obvious which is Obama and Romney are the same.

cheguevara

10-05-2012, 03:43 AM

I give you 2 hints: individual mandate

"ron paul wants to kill medicare cause he's mean and hates old ppl" :rolleyes

boutons_deux

10-05-2012, 04:43 AM

"Obama is a bum and definitely handed the election lead to Romney"

typical fantasy from Randian Paul sucker

boutons_deux

10-05-2012, 04:58 AM

jack sommerset

10-05-2012, 08:02 AM

That makes no sense :lol

When you call somebody out and that person comes right back at you, it's the exact opposite of insecurity.

Insecure is having somebody so far up your ass you can't stop thinking about them. :lmao

Projecting would be me trying to convince other people that Romney won the debate since that's how I voted. Swing and miss again, jack.

Me saying "When certain small events (ie: Florida ruling, last night debate) give you a glimmer of hope to turn the main event (mandate, election) around, it really makes your partisan side shine." is simply my opinion developed by the actual events described between parenthesis. Feel free to disagree.

Well, that's true. I take that back.

Ron bless.

Brother, i can't continue to go back and forth like this. Its unproductive and childish. God bless

DUNCANownsKOBE

10-05-2012, 08:20 AM

And when he mentions pro bono care, more patient choice, and the fact that he himself was a fucking doctor who ran a successful medical practice, he wins it right back, tbh....

I'm sorry but :lol pro bono care. That's a pipe dream.

DUNCANownsKOBE

10-05-2012, 08:21 AM

Gecko now has even LESS probability of winning electoral college.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

MSM pimping the election by and pandering for political ad $$$ by talking only about the "close" popular vote, as if the popular vote counted.
boutons, the first article on the page is Silver making it clear we can't gauge the debate impact yet. I don't think the debate made much of an impact because they never do, but one thing the debate DIDN'T do was help Obama.

boutons_deux

10-05-2012, 08:30 AM

boutons, the first article on the page is Silver making it clear we can't gauge the debate impact yet. I don't think the debate made much of an impact because they never do, but one thing the debate DIDN'T do was help Obama.

One thing it didn't do was win Gecko any electoral votes.

As many commented before the debate, the debates very rarely have any effect the voting, AND most incumbents usually lose the first debate, as Maddow showed going back to 1976.

Barry was clearly flummoxed by Gecko flip-flopping, aka lying, towards the center on nearly everything he and Ryan have been pushing for years. Now Gecko says he's was WRONG (for being caught) in his 47% speech.

Yonivore

10-09-2012, 08:58 AM

Gold for a few at the expense of jobs for many.
Sports Authority = JOBS; Dominoes Pizza = JOBS; Staples = JOBS; Steel Dynamics, Inc. = JOBS; Burger King = JOBS; Sealy Corporation = JOBS; The Weather Channel = JOBS; Brookstone = JOBS; Burlington Coat Factory = JOBS; Dunkin' Donuts = JOBS; D&M Holdings = JOBS; Houghton Mifflin = JOBS; Clear Channel Communications = JOBS; Gymboree = JOBS; Hospital Corporation of America = JOBS; Guitar Center = JOBS; and on and on and on. Bain Capital has a better record on wealth generation and job creation than the Obama administration.

Did some of the Bain ventures fail? Yep. It happens. But the fact remains, if Bain Capital were costing more jobs than it was creating, it wouldn't be as successful a venture capitalist company as it is.

boutons_deux

10-09-2012, 09:09 AM

Sports Authority = JOBS; Dominoes Pizza = JOBS; Staples = JOBS; Steel Dynamics, Inc. = JOBS; Burger King = JOBS; Sealy Corporation = JOBS; The Weather Channel = JOBS; Brookstone = JOBS; Burlington Coat Factory = JOBS; Dunkin' Donuts = JOBS; D&M Holdings = JOBS; Houghton Mifflin = JOBS; Clear Channel Communications = JOBS; Gymboree = JOBS; Hospital Corporation of America = JOBS; Guitar Center = JOBS; and on and on and on. Bain Capital has a better record on wealth generation and job creation than the Obama administration.

Did some of the Bain ventures fail? Yep. It happens. But the fact remains, if Bain Capital were costing more jobs than it was creating, it wouldn't be as successful a venture capitalist company as it is.

Bain sucks wealth out of takeover victims. Creating jobs is not Bain's priority, never was, never will. The priority is making money for Bain's investors.

House Repugs have blocked the Dem job creation/stimulus bills.

GFY

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BUSHvOBAMA_jobsREV.png

and severe tax cuts under dubya didn't create jobs, NEVER do, but dubya
PUBLIC JOB CREATION did work :lol

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 09:32 AM

Yet, somehow Bain managed to create jobs.

lol thinkprogress deflection.

boutons_deux

10-09-2012, 10:59 AM

Sports Authority = JOBS; Dominoes Pizza = JOBS; Staples = JOBS; Steel Dynamics, Inc. = JOBS; Burger King = JOBS; Sealy Corporation = JOBS; The Weather Channel = JOBS; Brookstone = JOBS; Burlington Coat Factory = JOBS; Dunkin' Donuts = JOBS; D&M Holdings = JOBS; Houghton Mifflin = JOBS; Clear Channel Communications = JOBS; Gymboree = JOBS; Hospital Corporation of America = JOBS; Guitar Center = JOBS; and on and on and on. Bain Capital has a better record on wealth generation and job creation than the Obama administration.

Did some of the Bain ventures fail? Yep. It happens. But the fact remains, if Bain Capital were costing more jobs than it was creating, it wouldn't be as successful a venture capitalist company as it is.

show us the JOBS at each of those companies when Bain bought it, and then the JOBS when Bain sold out.

:lol PussyEater pimping Gecko as a "businessman" WHO BUILT SOMETHING. :lol

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 11:22 AM

I'll pick a couple that are easy hits.

Staples Pre Bain = <200 jobs.
Staples Post-Bain = 42,000 jobs.

Sports Authority Pre-Bain = Figures not availble, but SA only had 10 stores.
Sports Authority Post -Bain = 14,000 jobs

Of course, you won't find this on thinkprogress.borg.

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 11:23 AM

A chunk of Bain's business was venture capital. Of course, it's convenient to forget this.

boutons_deux

10-09-2012, 11:27 AM

Bain's business isn't venture capitalism, it's takeover capitalism.

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 11:49 AM

Bain's business isn't venture capitalism, it's takeover capitalism.

And once again, http://www.baincapitalventures.com/

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 11:50 AM

Also, I see you've got nothing about the jobs created. Run away like a little bitch...again.:lol

RandomGuy

10-09-2012, 12:01 PM

Romney’s Clean Energy Whoppers
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/

That was a bunch of hooey. Glad I didn't bother watching the debate. I didn't have my waders on.

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 12:02 PM

Bain is a bad combo of what's good and what's bad in business. Their venture arm was pretty successful and is mostly what you would want to see in VC. Their investment arm (buy in, apply methodolgy, sell) is what trashes their rep.

boutons_deux

10-09-2012, 12:27 PM

Also, I see you've got nothing about the jobs created. Run away like a little bitch...again.:lol

cherry picking Bain's ventures, give us a jobs tally for ALL Bain's takeover victims, AND how many $100Ms Bain pocketed even when victim companies failed.

Winehole23

10-09-2012, 12:32 PM

why don't you, since that's your hobby horse?

Winehole23

10-09-2012, 12:33 PM

your penchant for shifting the burden of your own claims is showing, lazybones

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 01:12 PM

cherry picking Bain's ventures, give us a jobs tally for ALL Bain's takeover victims, AND how many $100Ms Bain pocketed even when victim companies failed.

lol @ goalpost move. Keep re-framing the argument, bot.

I literally picked the first two I came across. I gave more data in that one post than you give up in a year with your mindless prattle and parade of blog posts. Grow the fuck up.

boutons_deux

10-09-2012, 01:37 PM

TB :lol

no better that Gecko sucker Yoni, give us ALL the data, not just one you happened to come across and that just happened to support your bogus case

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 01:40 PM

TB :lol

no better that Gecko sucker Yoni, give us ALL the data, not just one you happened to come across and that just happened to support your bogus case

Look, idiot. I've already proven Bain created jobs. My case was not bogus. But yours certainly is...again. End of story. Enjoy your bitch slap.:lol

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 01:41 PM

You're one intellectually lazy, blind motherfucker.

Ginobilly

10-09-2012, 01:50 PM

So you'll still believe that Obama won?? You'll still believe he's a real US citizen?? :lol Typical liberal americans who get brainwashed by the mainstream politically correct media.
What if I tell you'll that's it's possible(or was) to buy a birth certificate that claims you were born here??? Mexico and other countries do it. I know and heard of some people's parents who have done that.

ElNono

10-09-2012, 01:54 PM

layers!

Ginobilly

10-09-2012, 02:03 PM

You'll don't see the red flags everywhere??? "The future must not belong to those who insult the prophet" inviting The Musloretards and putting them in high positions in the country. You know those dudes believe in a sick ideology(Islam is not religion). It's an excuse to bring forward a totalitarian gov. Another red flag: Obama making hit lists of people who badmouth him. I wouldn't mind if he makes the United States into an Islamic state cause the laws of the US are not fair towards men.

Men have no say on circumcision
Men really have no say on their kids
First option to go get sent to get killed in the ME
double standards
feminism has destroyed the moral and social fabric of the American family
The majority of people going to college is women
The majority of people in prison are men(70,80percent is due to bs drug cases)

all the liberal women who vote for him have no idea whats coming to America:lol Obama is going to make Islam more popular(esp with guys) Just watch

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 02:08 PM

Trollfest.

Ginobilly

10-09-2012, 02:16 PM

Trollfest.

whatever.

Obama honoring Cesar Chavez:lol I'm Mexican American and I know that dude was a fraud. Mexican-American Gandhi:lol
That dude and his possy would beat up poor Mexican Migrants at the california/Arizona border. So much for being a suppose humanist.:lol

I'm going to throw away my vote and vote indy! Both republicans and demos are crooks that are only looking out for the 1%.

Watch that Doc called "Heist".

Ginobilly

10-09-2012, 02:21 PM

http://youtu.be/l-HqHSkYG-Y

TeyshaBlue

10-09-2012, 02:23 PM

youtubes! Dude, you're on a roll!

Homeland Security

10-09-2012, 04:17 PM

ElNono

10-09-2012, 08:33 PM

http://youtu.be/l-HqHSkYG-Y

lol Cosmobirther

Nbadan

10-10-2012, 11:14 PM

I challenge anyone who voted for a Romney win to define exactly how Romney won? Based on what?

rascal

10-11-2012, 08:50 AM

I challenge anyone who voted for a Romney win to define exactly how Romney won? Based on what?

Style over substance. Romney said nothing but looked better doing it. Obama often looked down too passively, and with his hesitations and long pauses right in the middle of his sentenses gives the appearance he is unsure of himself. Also Romney was more aggressive brushing off Lehrer and making sure he always got in the last word on every topic. Romney disagreed with Obama and Obama not calling him out on it made Obama look weak.

Style over substance wins these debates with the average voter. If you really look into what they said Romney did not win.

Yonivore

10-11-2012, 09:57 AM

Yet, somehow Bain managed to create jobs.

lol thinkprogress deflection.
Because wealth creation for investors translates to job creation for the entities in which Bain invests. It's a natural byproduct.

Yonivore

10-11-2012, 09:59 AM

I challenge anyone who voted for a Romney win to define exactly how Romney won? Based on what?
Based on his handing Obama his own ass at the end of the debate.

Yonivore

10-11-2012, 10:01 AM

People are acting like Obama wiped shit all over himself during the debate. Whatever. Yeah, Romney whipped him pretty good, but he was the same Obama he's always been. His performance, while maybe not as good as his 2008 debates, was far better than anything McCain, Bush, Kerry, or Gore ever offered up in a debate. If you think he sucked, either you were comparing him to the image of him you had put up on a pedestal, or you're just looking for an excuse not to vote for him.
Unfortunately, he wasn't debating McCain, Bush, Kerry (his debate coach), or Algore.

I do believe that's the first time in presidential debate history a candidate has asked the moderator to move to the next topic because he couldn't answer or respond. :lmao

rascal

10-11-2012, 11:10 AM

Why was Romney allowed the final word on every topic?

boutons_deux

10-11-2012, 11:17 AM

Because wealth creation for investors translates to job creation for the entities in which Bain invests. It's a natural byproduct.

:lol

PussyEater has no clue how PE LBOs work. The ONLY PRIORITY is sucking wealth for investors out of the buyout victim, NOT creating jobs or saving the victim company, both of which are distantly secondary side-effects.

Wild Cobra

10-11-2012, 11:25 AM

Maybe people need to learn how to create wealth instead of thinking it's a zero sum game, and sponging off of others.

Yonivore

10-11-2012, 11:30 AM

Why was Romney allowed the final word on every topic?
Most of the time Obama had no response and just wanted Jim Lehrer to go to the next topic.

Yonivore

10-11-2012, 11:32 AM

:lol

PussyEater has no clue how PE LBOs work. The ONLY PRIORITY is sucking wealth for investors out of the buyout victim, NOT creating jobs or saving the victim company, both of which are distantly secondary side-effects.
I think the hundreds of thousands of employees working for successful Bain ventures would both disagree with you and tell you to go fuck yourself.

boutons_deux

10-11-2012, 12:02 PM

I think the hundreds of thousands of employees working for successful Bain ventures would both disagree with you and tell you to go fuck yourself.

For those companies that survived Bain's wealth-sucking, they grew AFTER Bain sold them off and/or was no longer the controlling investor. GFY

boutons_deux

10-11-2012, 12:07 PM

So Romney Lies—So What? Who Cares?

For at least the last couple of decades, the Republican Party has been anti-modern, but Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president, is modern, even post-modern. I don’t mean that as a compliment. The man is a serial liar in a society that increasingly tolerates lying and cheating.

Maybe Romney and his lying-mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, are on to something about the American character these days. One example of that is the ludicrous belief held by many that President Obama is "the other," not born in the United States and a secret Muslim.

"Factual truth is no longer as relevant as it used to be," says modern communications wizard Henry Jenkins of the University of Southern California. "Modern media consumers will buy anything that ‘rings true’ to them."
So without going through the whole list of Romney-Ryan whoppers, I will quote Joe Conason, an Obama-lover writing on Truthdig.com. He sees a "deep well of dishonesty" in the Romney campaign. Conason’s most interesting thought after he shows Obamacare and Romneycare in Massachusetts are the same thing, verified by various fact-checkers, is this:

"He ... knows that when he claims economic growth alone will erase the deficit, without raising taxes, he is inventing impossible numbers. As The National Memo’s Howard Hill demonstrated, the assumptions behind his claims are ridiculous. For the numbers to work, he would have to create not 12 million jobs, as he promised to do by 2016, but 162 million—more than the total current U.S. workforce. Or else the jobs created would have to pay more than $443,000 per year on average."

So who cares? Not the increasing number of Americans who are lying and cheating—or are just plain stupid. One of the more disturbing stories of this last summer was one by Richard Perez-Pena of The New York Times about cheating in the country’s best high schools and colleges, including Stuyvesant High School, Harvard University and the Air Force Academy."There have always been struggling students who cheat to survive," Donald McCabe, a professor at Rutgers University Business School, told Perez-Pena. "But more and more there are students at the top who cheat to thrive."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/so_romney_lies_--_so_what_who_cares_20121011/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig+Truthdig%3A+Drilling +Beneath+the+Headlines&utm_content=Google+Reader

America the Beautiful, on its unstoppable decline into rampant corruption of all life, just like all the empires before it.

TeyshaBlue

10-11-2012, 01:33 PM

For those companies that survived Bain's wealth-sucking, they grew AFTER Bain sold them off and/or was no longer the controlling investor. GFY

VC. lolz

SA210

10-11-2012, 04:34 PM

:rollin

Obama has a history of getting manhandled and having his ass handed to him in debates..

"uh.uh..uh.."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavrQ-fLkho

Nbadan

10-11-2012, 07:55 PM

Style over substance. Romney said nothing but looked better doing it. Obama often looked down too passively, and with his hesitations and long pauses right in the middle of his sentenses gives the appearance he is unsure of himself. Also Romney was more aggressive brushing off Lehrer and making sure he always got in the last word on every topic. Romney disagreed with Obama and Obama not calling him out on it made Obama look weak.

Style over substance wins these debates with the average voter. If you really look into what they said Romney did not win.

Plus, the incumbent doesn't have the luxury to just pull things out of his ass and flat out lie about 5 trillion in new middle class taxes...

Nbadan

10-11-2012, 07:55 PM

So, Obama lying is OK too....why all the blow up over Bengazi?

boutons_deux

10-12-2012, 04:10 PM

Romney Tests the Limits on Lying
Mitt Romney might be the most brazen political liar since James Polk, who served as the 11th U.S. president (1845-1849) and lied through his teeth – to Congress, to his cabinet, to the newspapers – to get the country into a war with Mexico.
Of course, other presidents have lied to a similar end, for instance President Lyndon Johnson on the Vietnam War and President George W. Bush on the Iraq War. But Polk operated with the same audacious “lying is part of what I do” disposition that Mitt Romney does.

http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/jamespolk-300x169.jpg (http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/jamespolk.jpg)James Polk, the 11th President of the United States.

If one has any doubt about Mitt Romney’s mendacious temperament, the first presidential debate (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=nc) should have put it to rest. According to one analyst, Romney let loose with “27 myths in 38 minutes,” finishing with a big grin after most of these prevarications. He produced trumped-up assertions, false statistics and wild exaggerations about taxes, energy independence, job creation, the deficit, Medicare, “Obamacare,” and military spending.

If the great Italian poet Dante Alighieri came back to life today and produced an updated list of lost souls for the “Inferno” section of his Divine Comedy, Romney would certainly earn a spot in the 8th rung of hell (http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8b.html). That is where Dante placed, among others, the “falsifiers, those who attempted to alter things through lies or alchemy.” Their punishment was “based on horrible … diseases such as rashes, dropsy, leprosy and consumption.”

By the way, there seems to be a suspicion that Romney also cheated (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/10/did-mitt-cheat-sure-looks-like-it.html) during the first debate. The debate rules say that the candidates cannot use “prepared notes.” However, a video of the debate shows that he had put what looks like a white piece of paper down on his podium, or maybe it was just his handkerchief. But who could believe that Romney might cheat?

Some Specifics

The second presidential debate, scheduled for Oct. 16, will be partially about foreign policy. As a run-up to the moment, Romney gave a speech on foreign affairs. It should be kept in mind that between Oct. 8th and Oct. 16 he might completely change his positions. The man has such a flip-flop record (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/08/all-of-mitt-romneys-flip-flops-in-one.html) that this is quite possible.

However, assuming he doesn’t do that, let’s take a look at just how truthful are his foreign policy statements:

As Robert Parry points out in Consortium News (http://consortiumnews.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-lies-to-the-world/), Romney lied when he said Obama “has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years.” Obama has in fact signed three (South Korea, Panama and Columbia). Romney also lied when he said that Obama was “silent” during the suppression of demonstrations in Iran after the reelection of President Amadinejad. Obama spoke out on multiple occasions.

By the way, one might not approve of NAFTA-style trade agreements. I certainly don’t. But that does not make Romney’s lies about Obama’s actions acceptable.

Parry goes on to detail how Romney’s accusation that Obama’s foreign policy is “weak” is groundless. After all, he is talking about the man who wages war in Afghanistan, helped bring down the dictatorship in Libya, and took down Osama bin Laden. Parry explains that Romney credits a lot of this to the U.S. military as if Obama had nothing to do with it.

Once more, Obama’s foreign policy has much about it that can be criticized. So, why do it through sheer falsehoods? Perhaps because Romney actually has no problem with Obama’s actions, but does not want the public to associate them with the president.

Then there is Romney’s sudden embracing of a Palestinian state when just a few months ago he described such a goal as “almost unthinkable to accomplish. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/mitt-romneys-no-state-solution/)” At that time the reason he gave for his position was that Palestinians are not interested in peace.

That was an outrageous lie.

It is hard to believe that he has now changed his mind. More likely he is attempting to preclude any charge that he has abandoned the search for peace, even as he asserts that Obama has not displayed leadership toward that same end.
When it comes to the Arab Spring, Obama allegedly missed “an historic opportunity to win new friends and share our values in the Middle East.” Who would these friends be? Those fighting against “evil tyrants and angry mobs who seek to harm us.”

This is so much gobbledygook. Most of the evil tyrants are our longstanding old friends and the angry mobs are the only hope for any governmental improvement.

Parry points out that the real difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney is much more the militarist. He has embraced neocon advisers, given carte blanche to Israel and verbally attacked Russia as “without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

All of this suggests that between Obama (who is certainly no saint and has plenty of blood on his own hands) and Romney, it is the latter who is more likely to get the nation into yet another war. As Juan Cole has observed (http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/romneys-five-wars.html), “wars and lots of other conflicts are not a foreign policy vision, they are a nightmare.”

Does Lying Work?

So, does this serial falsification work? Can it actually help get a mythomanic elected president? It seems that the answer is yes.

According to a Pew Research Center poll (http://www.policymic.com/articles/16102/latest-presidential-polls-romney-now-beats-obama-in-favorability-according-to-pew-poll) taken after the first Obama-Romney debate, “It’s official. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney…erased President Barack Obama’s lead.” According to a graph of the poll results Romney’s picked up five percentage points to come even with Obama. Sixty-four percent of voters “thought that Romney was more informative than President Obama.”

The liar is more informative!? How is that possible? Well, you start with a lot of ignorance. The ignorance is not a function of lack of intelligence, but a function of lack of accurate contextual knowledge.
As a consequence the level of understanding of the average American about government policy on national issues such as health care, energy independence, job creation, the deficit, military spending and even taxes is considerably lower than their average IQ. It is even worse when we get to foreign policy (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dont_know_much_about_foreign_policy/) and its formulation.

Into the resulting knowledge vacuum come the misleading statements and assertions of politicians, so-called experts, and media spokesman of all descriptions. Fox News has made millions of dollars selling advertising that accompanies biased opinion passed off as fact.

In the end what the majority of Americans think they know about both domestic and foreign policy is based on media hear-say. Romney’s assertive and stylized lying fits well into this scenario. And his style also passes for strength and self-confidence.

Is it Pathological?

Romney’s lying is so pervasive, so ever-present, that one starts to wonder if it is pathological. There is a mental illness characterized by habitual lying. It goes by the name of Pseudologia Fantastica. Here are some of the characteristics of this ailment:

a. The lies told “are not entirely improbable” and “upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly.” In other words, the liar is aware that he or she is lying.

b. The lies told cast the teller in a favorable light.

c. The tendency to lie is a long-lasting one and not the product of the moment. It reflects an innate trait of the personality.

Well, Romney fits this pattern when it comes to the first two traits. It is hard to tell about the third. We will have to await the in-depth biographies that are certain to hit the market in short order. However, there is no doubt that the man has an easy facility for lying. One doubts if it keeps him up at night.

When the powerful lie it is a problem for all of us. That is because we do not usually act on the basis of what is true. Rather we act on the basis of what we think is true. When it comes to foreign policy, what the powerful and the media tell us is what most of us accept as true.

This distinction between what is true and what we think is true is critically important. If what we believe is true approximates the reality outside of us, then our plans and actions usually work out. If, however, what we think is true is off the mark, we can end up walking right off a cliff.

In the last 50 years Americans have been walking off cliffs quite regularly, with the result that millions have been killed and maimed. They have done so in large part because they have a hard time knowing when they are being lied to, especially about foreign policy.

If the Pew poll cited above is any predictor, nothing is going to change any time soon. Elect Mitt Romney and that walk toward the cliff might turn into a run. Reelect Obama, and the cliff will probably remain our self-destructive destination, but perhaps the
pace will be more measured.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/10/11/romney-tests-the-limits-on-lying/

jack sommerset

10-13-2012, 06:12 PM

This "bounce" in the debate still has some spring. God bless

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican challenger Mitt Romney has extended his lead over President Barack Obama to 3 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll released on Thursday, ahead of a high-stakes debate between the two candidates' running mates.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-extends-lead-over-obama-reuters-ipsos-poll-070151573.html

ElNono

10-13-2012, 06:36 PM

This "bounce" in the debate still has some spring. God bless

Not gonna lie, jack, Mitt sure capitalizing on it. Another good read here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/oct-12-romney-debate-gains-show-staying-power/

Clipper Nation

10-13-2012, 07:19 PM

:rollin

Obama has a history of getting manhandled and having his ass handed to him in debates..
As does Willard...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJfK1XfY8w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOq3O8g1xw4

jack sommerset

10-15-2012, 04:40 PM

Not gonna lie, jack, Mitt sure capitalizing on it. Another good read here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/oct-12-romney-debate-gains-show-staying-power/

I can't see Obama doing much in the debates. He can mudd sling about the 47 percent comment, make some math jokes, talk about possible flip flopping but at some point Romney, the moderators are going to make this guys talk about his record. Those undecided voters prolly will make up their minds this week so IMO, this next debate is freaken HUGE for the dems. Especially considering all those polls going the other direction this close to election time. God bless

boutons_deux

10-15-2012, 06:40 PM

"I can't see Obama doing much in the debates"

If St Ronnie can say "Mr Gorbachev, take down that wall", Barry can say "Slimeball Gecko, show The American People 10 years of tax returns".

It's perfectly reasonable to conclude with great confidence that Gecko has something horrible to hide, something he AND he handlers know would be fatal to his campaign.

My guess is he evaded taxes via Switzerland and took up the IRS' offer of amnesty in 2009 to avoid prison for false declaration (ask Wesley Snipes how that works).

ElNono

10-15-2012, 06:48 PM

I can't see Obama doing much in the debates. He can mudd sling about the 47 percent comment, make some math jokes, talk about possible flip flopping but at some point Romney, the moderators are going to make this guys talk about his record. Those undecided voters prolly will make up their minds this week so IMO, this next debate is freaken HUGE for the dems. Especially considering all those polls going the other direction this close to election time. God bless

As I said on the actual debate thread, Barry gonna have a hard time spinning the 4 year shitfest. The good news for him is that Mitt is full of shit too, so he has something to work with. IMO, undecided voters don't watch the circus unless there's some major gaffe...

boutons_deux

10-21-2012, 05:50 PM

lol @ goalpost move. Keep re-framing the argument, bot.

I literally picked the first two I came across. I gave more data in that one post than you give up in a year with your mindless prattle and parade of blog posts. Grow the fuck up.

Inside Bain's Chinese Sensata Factories, Where Workers Put in 12-Hour Days for $.99-$1.35 an Hour

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/mitt_china.jpeg

Sensata enjoyed record revenues last year – this isn't about making the “hard choices” necessary to save a failing enterprise. The workers in Freeport have been working 24 hours a day, in three shifts. They make $14-17 per hour, with benefits.

According to a report (http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports?id=0653) by the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, one of Bain's first actions after buying Sensata was to set up “12 Sensata/Bain capital funds 'organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands' so as to avoid paying taxes.” They'll get a small tax break for relocating the plant – the one Mitt Romney insisted did not exist during the first debate – and then use those offshore funds to defer taxes on some of the income the company generates.

American tax-payers, on the other hand, have paid $780,000 to retrain some of Sensata's laid off workers in Illinois, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/politics/retirement-deal-keeps-bain-money-flowing-to-romney.html?pagewanted=all#p[STaMot]). One would be hard pressed to come up with a clearer example of capturing private gains while socializing the costs.

Mitt Romney is not directly involved in Bain Capital, but he did build its business model. In 1998, when he was actively running Bain, he personally visited the Global-Tech Appliances plant in Dongguan, China. He witnessed, personally, the horrific conditions the plant's workers were toiling in for .24 cents an hour, and didn't hesitate to invest millions in the firm.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/inside-bains-chinese-sensata-factories-where-workers-put-12-hour-days-99-135-hour

If TB :lol claims Gecko is responsible for ALL of Staples jobs today, then it's completely the same to claim that Gecko is personally responsible for destroy profitable Sensata's jobs in USA.