Obama/Romney Town Hall: Who won?

[DMC]

I give this one to the President.

[Trainwreck2100]

Yep Romney shot himself just as much as obama unloaded on him

[ElNono]

didn't watch enough, tbh... only caught the last 15 mins which were pretty much a snorefest up until Barry's closing answer...

[HI-FI]

didn't watch enough, tbh... only caught the last 15 mins which were pretty much a snorefest up until Barry's closing answer...

i only caught the first 30 minutes and then turned off as well. I was happy to see Romney get into Fast and the Furious, which still makes no fucking sense. Obama's answer was something about education stopping violence...or something...I can't honestly say who won. Based on reactions, I don't think it was a home run for anyone.

[DMC]

Romney knows what happened.

Also, Romney had no defense for his flip/flop on coal. I don't trust Mormons. They should not have to have an ad campaign to get people to like them. Other than Steve Young, nothing good ever came out of that religion.


Romney came across as desperate. I thought the secret service was going to gang tackle his ass for a moment when they got face to face. Man they both want the power to give money to their friends.

Funny that they talk so much about the middle class yet everyone invited to their Whitehouse parties are the upper class.

[purplengold]

Mitt ain't had an answer ta how he gonna do his cuts n where he gon makeup da deficit it create in tax income

Was somtin that hurt mitt bad n he gonna lose mo undecideds

[InRareForm]

Obama clearly won.

Romney's douche stint tonight backfired and he probably lost some voters in that regard.

[ploto]

Obama no contest.

[GB20]

Obama

[DMC]

Mitt ain't had an answer ta how he gonna do his cuts n where he gon makeup da deficit it create in tax income

Was somtin that hurt mitt bad n he gonna lose mo undecideds

Can you type in plain english? Reading that shit makes me nauseous.

[Warlord23]

Pretty boring debate filled with vacuous talking points ... Romney shot himself in the foot towards the end though so I give this one to Obama

[baseline bum]

They both looked pretty shitty from what I saw, but I didn't tune in until the question about the hoes.

[purplengold]

Can you type in plain english? Reading that shit makes me nauseous.

yeh I cud but if you ain't able to understand that you ain't gon understand either way. I type it in in hexadecimal or English ya jus gon scratch yo head like the monkey under yo handle

[Nbadan]

Lets just skip these two and appoint Hillary...

[Nbadan]

Low information voters will decide the future of this country.....that's some scary shit...

[mavs>spurs]

Obama no contest.

people who stay stuff like this are biased..even hardcore democrats who actually watched say it was at least somewhat even. media/obama supporters needed an obama win to keep the campaign alive and they are prematurely declaring it.

[howbouthemspurs]

Obama won hands down

[Spurminator]

I'm seeing more complaints about the moderator from Republicans so I'm assuming Obama won.

[Koolaid_Man]

didn't watch enough, tbh... only caught the last 15 mins which were pretty much a snorefest up until Barry's closing answer...

^ are u fat fuck with sleep apnea

[Clipper Nation]

people who stay stuff like this are biased..even hardcore democrats who actually watched say it was at least somewhat even. media/obama supporters needed an obama win to keep the campaign alive and they are prematurely declaring it.

Sounds exactly like Willard's "victory" last debate, tbh.....

[Spurminator]

Did anyone ask about pizza?

[Koolaid_Man]

I'm seeing more complaints about the moderator from Republicans so I'm assuming Obama won.

republicans are some complaining ass muthafuckers...I bet if Sean Hannity came out with grand dragon wizard sheet on and skewered Obama they'd still complain....

[Clipper Nation]

^ are u fat fuck with sleep apnea
Oops... looks like K:lol:loll forgot to switch back to his purplenpiss account... :lmao

[Nbadan]

Transcript of debate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-at-hofstra-university-on-oct-16-running-transcript/2012/10/16/be8bfb9a-17dd-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html?hpid=z2

In case you have trouble sleeping

[ElNono]

^ are u fat fuck with sleep apnea

lol wrong alt :lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

Obama clearly won.

Romney's douche stint tonight backfired and he probably lost some voters in that regard.

yeah he was rude to the Prez and I know for a fact it turned off independents

[ploto]

In a CBS News Instant Poll of uncommitted voters, 37 percent say President Obama won the second presidential debate, 30 percent say Romney won, and 33 percent called it a tie.


The CNN/ORC International survey indicates 46% of debate watches say Obama won the debate, while 39% say Romney fared better. This poll has a stated +8% Republican over the general population.

[ploto]

even hardcore democrats who actually watched say it was at least somewhat even.

No, it was not somewhat even. I am guessing you did not even watch it.

[ColinB]

Obama.

[mavs>spurs]

No, it was not somewhat even. I am guessing you did not even watch it.

i watched every single minute and even heavily liberal biased CNN said it was 46% to 39%. that's not "obama in a landslide."

[Clipper Nation]

:lol "liberal biased CNN"

Every cable news network is the same, tbh... they're all heavily STATISM-biased...

[Clipper Nation]

Lets just skip these two and appoint Hillary...

Hell no, she's a warmongering shill, tbh....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol "liberal biased CNN"

Every cable news network is the same, tbh... they're all heavily STATISM-biased...

In fairness, of the three CNN is the most moderate. I don't watch pop news anyway.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i watched every single minute and even heavily liberal biased CNN said it was 46% to 39%. that's not "obama in a landslide."

Umm 7 points is huge, dude.

[Clipper Nation]

In fairness, of the three CNN is the most moderate. I don't watch pop news anyway.

Neither do I tbh....

[SnakeBoy]

Lets just skip these two and appoint Hillary...

You libs killed the chance for her to be president that to happen when you drank the koolaide.

[ElNono]

i watched every single minute and even heavily liberal biased CNN said it was 46% to 39%. that's not "obama in a landslide."

You look at the margin of error and it was closer to a tie, tbh...

[ElNono]

Umm 7 points is huge, dude.

According to CNN, it was within the margin of error... which I guess speaks more about the poll itself...

[Jacob1983]

This sums up the debate for me.

http://stc.obolog.net/photos/502d/502d081eaaa7as37820_p.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

The Crowley/Obama tag team had a very slight edge IMHO. Certainly wasn't a game changer. That slow pitch at the end so Obama could end on that 47% bullshit with no rebuttal was a classic setup.

[ploto]

According to CNN, it was within the margin of error... which I guess speaks more about the poll itself...

A sample that was +8% more Republican than polls of the general population conducted in 2012.

[ploto]

i watched every single minute and even heavily liberal biased CNN said it was 46% to 39%. that's not "obama in a landslide."

Republicans will never admit that Obama won anything and that poll was 33% Republican. I bet every one of them said Romney won.

[CosmicCowboy]

Even if it is a 10% margin on a silly poll about who "won" what difference does it make?

[Winehole23]

Obama might've stanched the bleeding in the polls. Public perceptions about the relative strength of the candidates matter. The horse race matters.

[Winehole23]

if it didn't, you'd not be gaming the refs.

[gameFACE]

Obama won. He scored on how he operates as CIC directly addressing Romney after the "act of terror" issue. I also thought he scored hits during his closing statement talking about his belief in the free enterprise system (dispelling the big government myth) and the way he used the 47% issue on Romney. It was very effective and will come back to haunt Romney.

Obama also avoided a possible catastrophic hit with Romney pointing out Chinese investments in the presidents pension plan. Obama had a good comeback but it could resurface later on.

Romney wasn't terrible. But he can't bring anymore A-game whereas the President can.

[xrayzebra]

Well, U of Colo has their own idea of who WILL win. And they have never been wrong.

[EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study

The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus Reform has learned.

The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.

Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.

“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

[DarrinS]

Obama won. He scored on how he operates as CIC directly addressing Romney after the "act of terror" issue.


This is where Candy Crowley really contaminated the debate. When Obama said that in the Rose Garden, he was speaking about 9/11.

Candy admits that Romney was correct (post debate), but the damage had already been done.


athcyCTnTTs

[Winehole23]

Well, U of Colo has their own idea of who WILL win. And they have never been wrong.winning the popular vote ain't a win in our system.

[TeyshaBlue]

Low information voters will decide the future of this country.....that's some scary shit...

You continue with this talking point, yet I never see any data that proclaim independent voters as "low information", what ever the fuck that means.

[Winehole23]

It means red/blue partisans can't see the sense of not being able to pick between the two main candidates. Inferentially, anyone who hasn't made his/her mind up must be an ignoramus.

[xrayzebra]

Well, obviously you didn't read the article very well. But I am not surprised.

"An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win."

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

A link embedded within the article takes you to the above.

Romney in a landslide.

[gameFACE]

This is where Candy Crowley really contaminated the debate. When Obama said that in the Rose Garden, he was speaking about 9/11.

Candy admits that Romney was correct (post debate), but the damage had already been done.


athcyCTnTTs

Where Obama scored there on that whole issue is not whether he called it "an act of terror" or not. It's where he looked directly at Romney and calling it offensive at the suggestion that any of the presidential team would politicize the issue.

[Winehole23]

I didn't click the embedded link, true.

[Winehole23]

dubious about a landslide either way. wishful thinking, tbh.

[CosmicCowboy]

Where Obama scored there on that whole issue is not whether he called it "an act of terror" or not. It's where he looked directly at Romney and calling it offensive at the suggestion that any of the presidential team would politicize the issue.

Yeah, the intentional misdirection by the White House for 10 days against overwhelming evidence to the contrary was pretty damn offensive. The fake outrage last night was pretty funny.

[DarrinS]

Where Obama scored there on that whole issue is not whether he called it "an act of terror" or not. It's where he looked directly at Romney and calling it offensive at the suggestion that any of the presidential team would politicize the issue.

What is "it" in that statement. He was referring to 9/11.


Or, is it a matter of interpretation? He said "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" before saying anything about acts of terror.


Full transcript.




THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America

[Winehole23]

so, what's your gloss of that, Darrin? use your own words if you can. you do have an interpretation, right?

[Winehole23]

if it's a matter of interpretation, please go ahead and tell us your interpretation.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, the intentional misdirection by the White House for 10 days against overwhelming evidence to the contrary was pretty damn offensive. The fake outrage last night was pretty funny.Your fake outrage is always funny, as is your flip-flopping on the importance of debates.

[DarrinS]

if it's a matter of interpretation, please go ahead and tell us your interpretation.

Read my post. Clearly, I think he is referring to "acts of terror" as it relates to 9/11.

The statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." is just some boilerplate shit that he has probably said on numerous occasions.

[Winehole23]

Obama mentions the four dead Americans in the very next sentence. That's much closer in time than the passage you highlighted.

[kamikazi_player]

I like that no one gives a shit about BR's thread and just focuses on this one. :lol

Obama won and clearly gave his points across. He had better responses to the issues, especially issues dealing with women equality regarding to pay, libya, and immigration. Romney acts like a tired old bitch who just whines a lot. However, this was not a knockout punch just yet. Obama needs to do marginally well in the next debate in order to gain a big lead.

[CosmicCowboy]

If the goal was to sway undecided voters MSNBC focus group says Romney won...

JDanNdzAUn0

[rjv]

another loss for the voters. a so called town forum with pre-screened questions and no allowance for follow ups. another dog and pony show under the guise of community involvement.

[Mitt Romney]

I pwned Obama.

[djohn2oo8]

If the goal was to sway undecided voters MSNBC focus group says Romney won...

JDanNdzAUn0

LOL anybody who is undecided is a fucking idiot at this point.

[Clipper Nation]

Anybody who's undecided certainly isn't giving a shit about the debates, tbh.... since no actual non-pandering questions are allowed, debates these days are basically fap sessions for Team Blue and Team Red homers, tbh.....

[rjv]

did anyone catch that the green party candidate and her VP candidate were arrested last night when trying to gain entrance into the debate ?

[johnsmith]

I thought Obama won. Not because of any content, but rather because he seemed to control the conversation. I found it amazing how few of the questions either of these clowns actually answered and was extremely impressed with just how far away they could change the subject on any given answer.

I still stand by my previous opinion as well that regardless of how these debates turn out, regardless of how the polls now show, Obama wins this election by the usual narrow percentage that we are all accustomed to at this point.

And once again, I will still be sad.....not Boutons sad, but sad nonetheless.

[johnsmith]

Anybody who's undecided certainly isn't giving a shit about the debates, tbh.... since no actual non-pandering questions are allowed, debates these days are basically fap sessions for Team Blue and Team Red homers, tbh.....

Agreed.

[johnsmith]

I also thought it was a mistake to allow a woman to moderate. Women shouldn't even be allowed to vote much less serve as the "voice of reason" in a Presidential debate.

[johnsmith]

Or drive either, who the fuck lets them drive?

[djohn2oo8]

Or drive either, who the fuck lets them drive?

Avante

[rjv]

and i love that crowley said she tried to get a question in about the environment but ran out of time (oddly enough CNN was running nothing but oil company adds -actually referred to as 'energy' companies)

[DarrinS]

Hmmm

I guess she wasn't Johnny-on-the-spot with the "acts of terror" Rose Garden quote back on Sept. 30.

3vq-MyXs_IA

[ElNono]

lol landslide
lol youtube analysis

[djohn2oo8]

lol undecided voters

[elbamba]

If you wanted Obama to come out aggressive and stop the bleeding from the last debate then Obama certainly won. If you wanted to see Mitt follow up with an identical performance and look presidential, then Romney won. These debates are not about substance and detail. I cannot tell you anything new about Romney's 5 point plan. I still could not begin to tell you anything Obama has planned for the next four years. The debates are essentially about seeing what the candidate looks like on TV and how they can hold their own.

After reading through the comments on here it looks like everyone who was leaning in one direction will continue to lean in that direction and say that their candidate won. Then there is the group of posters who seem to hate the limited nature of our two-party voting system who will continue to mock both candidates for failing to give substantive answers in their two minute responses.

Are there any posters here who intend to vote for Romeny or Obama who had previously said they would vote 3rd party or abstain? If so,why?

[Clipper Nation]

I also thought it was a mistake to allow a woman to moderate. Women shouldn't even be allowed to vote much less serve as the "voice of reason" in a Presidential debate.
Ironically, the debates became shitty after the League of Women Voters stopped bankrolling them, tbh.... :lol

[boutons_deux]

Romney Told 31 Myths In 41 Minutes During Last Night's Debate


1) “I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing. We’re also going to have our loan program, so that people are able to afford school.” Paul Ryan’s budget could cut Pell Grants for nearly 1 million college students and even Romney’s white paper on education, “A Chance for Every Child,” suggests that he “wouldreverse (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/16/the-fact-check-a-second-look-at-claims-on-jobs-education/1637861/) [4] the growth in Pell Grant funding.” It says: “A Romney Administration will refocus Pell Grant dollars on the students that need them most and place the program on a responsible long-term path that avoids future funding cliffs and last-minute funding patches.”

2) “I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-new-math-for-jobs-plan-doesnt-add-up/2012/10/15/fd1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html%E2%80%9D) [5] that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

3) “And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.” 14 percent is a one-year number. “Overall, oil production on federal land under Obama is up (http://live.boston.com/Event/Live_blog_Second_debate_between_President_Obama_an d_Mitt_Romney/52082094) [6] from 566 million barrels in 2008 to 626 million barrels in 2011, a 10.6 percent increase.” Compared to the last three years of President Bush, there have been 241 million more barrels (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm) [7] of oil produced from public lands in the first three years of Obama.

4) “Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.” There are slightly fewer permits in 2009 and 2010, from between 8,000-9,000 permits to over 5,000, and they have not been cut by half. The oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits (https://bl2prd0511.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=qDs1ZKsyzEe3y6nVLOMPXcy_FqW1f88I8ZftS z1uWOmMLs5GlE9G6c8pYDX3m3SIUAew5FRe1Pk.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.doi.gov%2fnews%2fpressrelease s%2fupload%2fFinal-Report.pdf) [8] to drill, where it hasn’t begun exploring or developing. Two-thirds (https://bl2prd0511.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=qDs1ZKsyzEe3y6nVLOMPXcy_FqW1f88I8ZftS z1uWOmMLs5GlE9G6c8pYDX3m3SIUAew5FRe1Pk.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.doi.gov%2fnews%2fpressrelease s%2fDOI-Releases-Update-on-Unused-Oil-and-Gas-Leases.cfm) [9] of “acreage leased by [oil] industry lies idle” on public lands, according to the Department of the Interior.

5) “I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.” Romney is actually against (http://energy.gov/articles/banner-year-us-wind-industry) [10] a one-year renewal of the wind production tax credit. The wind production tax credit has led to $14 billion of investment in 2011 and tens of thousands of American jobs.

6) “And coal, coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up.” 1,500 coal jobs have been created (http://blog.wvpolicy.org/2012/05/12/1500-coal-mining-jobs-created-since-obama-took-office-2.aspx) [11] under Obama.

7) “And if we do that, if we do what I’m planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years.”Romney would actually eliminate (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/28/744811/romney-opposes-fuel-efficiency-standards-actually-moving-us-toward-energy-independence/) [12] the fuel efficiency standards that are moving the United States towards energy independence, even though his campaign plan relies on these rules to meet his goals.

8) “I will fight to create more energy in this country, to get America energy secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada.” Even with generous assumptions, the impact of the pipeline on oil prices is unclear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/will-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-lower-gasoline-prices/2012/03/01/gIQAtWkXlR_blog.html) [13] and may raise prices (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-22/keystone-xl-pipeline-will-raise-u-s-gasoline-prices-group-says.html) [14] in midwest states. After all, a lot of that refined tar sands crude will be sold on the international market.

9) “The proof of whether a [energy] strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you’re paying more.” Gas prices are certainly high, but oil is a global commodity, and the president has virtually no control (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/09/110901gasolinepricereport.pdf) [15]over them. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, Romney’s proposal to increase domestic oil production would not have much impact (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43012) [16] on volatility.

10) “And I will not — I will not under any circumstances, reduce the share that’s being paid by the highest income taxpayers. And I will not, under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle-class.” As the Tax Policy Centerconcluded (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/01/620561/tpc-romney-study-taxes/) [17], Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/mitt-romney-floats-17000-limit-on-tax-deductions.php) [18].

11) “But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.” This would actually help very few Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/14/343560/romney-middle-class-tax-cut-no-benefit/) [19]. Nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney’s tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income. To be exact, 73.9 percent of the households upon which Romney “focused” his tax cut will see zero benefit from it.

12) “A recent study has shown the people in the middle-class will see $4,000.00 per year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration.” Romney is pointing to this study (http://www.aei.org/files/2012/10/01/-a-simple-measure-of-the-distributional-burden-of-debt-accumulation_210316287852.pdf) [20] from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — wouldreduce the share of taxes (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/03/953041/romney-debunk-middle-class/) [21] that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

13) “Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.” Far less than half (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/10/514032/speaker-boehner-small-business-lies/) [22] of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/03/636501/boushey-small-business-tax-cuts/) [23] who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

14) “I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.” Romney did not ask (http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx) [24]women groups for candidates. Instead, prior to his election, a “bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government.” They “put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions” and presented it to Romney after he was elected. A UMass-Boston study found that “the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006.”

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/romney-told-31-myths-41-minutes-during-last-nights-debate?akid=9541.187590.rl8awD&rd=1&src=newsletter728744&t=5

[boutons_deux]

15) “I’m going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.” Romney has beenuncomfortably silent (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/11/mitt_romney_and_lilly_ledbetter_equal_pay_act_we_l l_have_to_get_back_to_you_on_that_.html) [25] on the issue of pay equity. He has refused to say (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/11/462517/romney-paycheck-fairness-act/) [26] whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would allow women to sue for equal pay, and named four (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/04/361587/romney-scotus-corporations-are-people/) [27] of the justices who voted to roll back equal pay in that Supreme Court decision as his models for any of his appointments to the federal bench.

16) “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” But back in March, Romney expressed strong support (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/01/435290/romney-says-he-would-oppose-blunt-bill-if-it-prevented-people-from-getting-contraception/) [28] for the so-called Blunt amendment, which that would allow employers to deny contraception coverage to women. Romney also wants to defund Planned Parenthood, where 76 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/16/1025531/thinkprogress-liveblogs-the-second-presidential-debate/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm%E2%80%9D) [29] of the patients seek low-cost birth control options. Defunding the organization would make it much harder for those women to obtain contraceptives.

17) “So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And — and I think it’s important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommend and ultimately what happened.” This is false (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/romney-s-auto-bankruptcy-advice-wasn-t-followed-reality-check) [30]. As Buisnessweek explains: Romney “opposed any use of taxpayer dollars to bail out the automakers, advice that President George W. Bush and Obama ignored. GM and Chrysler went through managed bankruptcies after Bush, at the end of his presidency, and later Obama provided federal funds.” “Without federal funds, GM and Chyrsler would not have survived. As former Bush aide Tony Fratto explained, “It wasn’t just that there wasn’t credit available; a lot of private equity had cash, they just weren’t giving it away.”



18) “He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year.”Premiums have increased, though at a lower rate than before. And while the Affordable Care Act’s most important cost contentment strategies have yet to be implemented, the law is already lowering costs. 16 million seniors (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/healthcare/report/2012/08/24/33915/increased-costs-during-retirement-under-the-romney-ryan-medicare-plan/%E2%80%9D) [31] have received preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving at least $3.9 billion on prescription drugs. Millions of young adults now have insurance coverage and are staying on their parent’s health care plan, insurers that spend too many premium dollars on administrative spending have refunded consumers, and states have successfully rejected dramatic premium increases.

19) “He keeps saying, ‘Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.’ That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country.” Job creation is net positive (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/27/920781/new-data-obama-net-positive/) [32] since Obama took office in the middle of the worst recession (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/11/497642/median-wealth-1992/) [33] since the great depression. Economists estimate that up to 3 million jobs (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm?ref=FRANconomics.com) [34] were created by the stimulus alone.

20) “The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids, I think, should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States and military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident.” But Romney has promised to end President Obama’s deferred action directive, which saves some young undocumented immigrants from deportation, though he would not take away visas from people who had already received them. He has also promised to veto the DREAM Act.

21) “Now, when the president ran for office, he said that he’d put in place, in his first year, a piece of legislation — he’d file a bill in his first year that would reform our — our immigration system… He didn’t do it. He had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate, supermajority in both houses.” Senate Republicans repeatedly prevented (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/12/19/135786/sunday-republicans-dream/) [35] Obama’s immigration reform efforts. The GOP actually blocked (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_immigration_students) [36] the DREAM Act from securing 60 votes to pass cloture, denying hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants a path to legal status if they enrolled in college or joined the military. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) even said on the Senate floor that young people lobbying his office had wasted their time (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/18/dream-act-republicans-graham/) [37].

22) “Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in — in Chinese companies.” Romney’s blind trust is not very blind (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/27/413423/romneys-blind-trust-was-not-very-blind/) [38], and includes investments in a company owned by Romney’s son (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/03/510246/romney-financial-tactics/) [39].

23) “It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.” Obama called the Libya incident an act of “terror” the very next day (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/16/1029921/romney-act-of-terror/) [40]. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” he said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya) [41]. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

24) “Consider the distance between ourselves and — and Israel, the president said that — that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel.” The Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, told CNN, “President Obama is doing … more than anything (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/ehud-barak-sings-praises-of-obama-administration/) [42] that I can remember in the past [in regard to our security].”

25) “The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and — and — and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.” Obama never embarked (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/) [43] on an “apology tour.”

26) “We, of course, don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.” Automatic weapons are legal (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-illegal-automatic-weapons-20121016,0,5158983.story) [44] in this country.

27) “The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords.” The Justice Department’s inspector general “issued a scathing critique of federal officials for their handling of the botched gun-trafficking case,” but “exonerated (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/report-places-blame-in-operation-fast-and-furious.html?pagewanted=all) [45] Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., whom many Republicans have blamed for the scandal.”

28) “What I will do as president is make sure it’s more attractive to come to America again.” Romney’s plan to move the country to a territorial tax system would let corporations do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the U.S. This would encourage American companies to invest abroad, potentially costing the country up to 800,000 jobs (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/report/2012/07/16/11935/romneys-new-tax-incentive-for-outsourcing-u-s-jobs/) [46].

29) “Canada’s tax rate on companies is now 15 percent. Ours is 35 percent. So if you’re starting a business, where would you rather start it? We have to be competitive if we’re going to create more jobs here.” The U.S. is raisinghistorically low (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418171/corporate-taxes-40-year-low/) [47] amounts of revenue from the corporate income tax, and it already has the second lowest (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/05/260535/graph-corporate-tax-second-lowest/) [48] effective corporate tax rate in the world. U.S. corporations aretaxed less (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/12/1002021/at-the-vice-presidential-debate-ryan-told-24-myths-in-40-minutes/%E2%80%9Dhttp://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/22/429997/5-facts-corporate-tax-obama/%E2%80%9D) [49] than their foreign rivals, and the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is low compared to other developed economies.

30) “And there’s no question but that Obamacare has been an extraordinary deterrent to enterprises of all kinds hiring people.” Under the law, only companies with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine — that’s just 2.6 percent of businesses. If anything, expanding health care coverage to more Americans will actually create hundreds of thousands of new jobs (http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/104791/gruber-care-act-job-killing#) [50].

31) “He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy.” The possibility of Medicare going bankrupt is — and historically has been — greatly exaggerated. In fact, if no changes are made, Medicare would still be able to meet 88 percent of its obligations in 2085 (http://thkpr.gs/kOxhYw) [51]. Social Security is fully funded for another two decades (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/05/31/231003/schumer-medicare-choice/) [52] and could pay 75 percent of its benefits thereafter. There is also an easy way (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/24/469911/media-social-security-bankrupt/) [53]to ensure the program’s long-term solvency without large changes or cuts to benefits.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boutons:lol

[JoeChalupa]

Obama did what he had to do as did Romney but Obama wins, IMHO, simply because he was so much better this time around. Which really wasn't hard to do but I was glad to see him fight back and as much as many say America is worse off with Obama, he is still has a very good chance at winning re-election.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons:lol

yep, CC makes his typical non-response when his boy is bitch-slapped.

[johnsmith]

yep, CC makes his typical non-response when his boy is bitch-slapped.

Isn't your new schtick in here just to LOL (insert posters name)?

[boutons_deux]

Isn't your new schtick in here just to LOL (insert posters name)?

johnsmith :lol

johnsmith, CC, etc can't or won't refute any claim to Gecko's LIES.

[johnsmith]

johnsmith :lol

johnsmith, CC, etc can't or won't refute any claim to Gecko's LIES.

I never said I could....or would....but even had I attempted to, it wouldn't be with you because frankly, I refuse to carry on a conversation with such a miserable human being as yourself. You make DC politicians seem like kick ass guys.

[Fpoonsie]

While I tend to give the slight edge to Obama w/ regards to last night's debate, I love how many people insist Barry had an overwhelming victory simply because he was less listless/shitty than last time.

That, and no moderator should ever step in for either opponent to refute or concur a claim made. Ridiculously out of line.

[JoeChalupa]

While I tend to give the slight edge to Obama w/ regards to last night's debate, I love how many people insist Barry had an overwhelming victory simply because he was less listless/shitty than last time.

That, and no moderator should ever step in for either opponent to refute or concur a claim made. Ridiculously out of line.

I disagree. If the moderator clearly knows the statement is wrong then they should call them out on it and get the facts straight.

[CosmicCowboy]

yep, CC makes his typical non-response when his boy is bitch-slapped.

Your computer seems to be connected to an alternate universe. Those "rebuttals" are so full of shit they aren't worh itemizing...where do you find these whacko blogs to cut and paste?

[Fpoonsie]

I disagree. If the moderator clearly knows the statement is wrong then they should call them out on it and get the facts straight.

Crowley didn't "clearly" know shit. A matter of interpretation /= "clear evidence."

[Fpoonsie]

Regardless, there're lies told throughout these debates, from both parties. Fact-checking is consistently done after the debate, as well as multiple other resources for the curious voter to find out just what's what.

[boutons_deux]

Your computer seems to be connected to an alternate universe. Those "rebuttals" are so full of shit they aren't worh itemizing...where do you find these whacko blogs to cut and paste?

"full of shit" Excellent work, you have refuted all 31 claims of Gecko lies. You're the best!

[CosmicCowboy]

I disagree. If the moderator clearly knows the statement is wrong then they should call them out on it and get the facts straight.

:lmao

The moderator DAMN sure shouldn't jump in when they are WRONG like Crowley was! Her bad call out altered the debate.

[johnsmith]

Joe Chalupa is the average American voter......also the reason Obama will win.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Joe Chalupa is the average American voter......also the reason Obama will win.

Another reason why America is fucked too.

[ElNono]

When Mitt was talking all over Jim Lehrer moderation was fine... now that barry got the last word on the last debate, :cry moderation was rigged :cry

lol red team

[JoeChalupa]

:lmao

The moderator DAMN sure shouldn't jump in when they are WRONG like Crowley was! Her bad call out altered the debate.

No, it was Romney's unknowing of the facts that altered the debate.

[CosmicCowboy]

When Mitt was talking all over Jim Lehrer moderation was fine... now that barry got the last word on the last debate, :cry moderation was rigged :cry

lol red team

lol blue team

Obama got three minutes and fourteen more seconds of talking time than Romney did in the first debate and you say Romney bulldozed Lehrer...:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

No, it was Romney's unknowing of the facts that altered the debate.

What facts are those, Joe?

[DMC]

Republicans will never admit that Obama won anything and that poll was 33% Republican. I bet every one of them said Romney won.

Wait, but you said you're not a democrat. Are you actually a dem disguised as a Libertarian to give the appearance of neutrality? It's not working.

[JoeChalupa]

Joe Chalupa is the average American voter......also the reason Obama will win.

So then if Romney wins it was because of non-average voters? Now I know CC considers himself above average like Romney and not part of the 47% but I guess I am your average Joe.

[JoeChalupa]

What facts are those, Joe?

The fact that Obama did not say "terror" after the Libya attack.
Don't get so upset about it. Your man did fine it was just that a different Obama showed up this time. You know, like how a different Mitt will show up depending on who is listening.

[elbamba]

I disagree. If the moderator clearly knows the statement is wrong then they should call them out on it and get the facts straight.

The moderator needs to know the facts with 100% certainty before speaking up. Her correction was out of line and easily debatable, according to her own network post-debate forum. She has essentially re-walked her steps here but too little too late.

[DMC]

The incumbent will get more time because his last 4 years are being questioned. Romney has what he did in Massachusetts as a guide, and then he speaks about being a businessman but it's obvious he's a salesman. He never once addressed the question about wages being unequal for equal jobs between men and women. Instead he talked bout hiring women. Romney knew he wasn't answering the question. Obama did the same thing with that question. Neither wanted to tell the truth, that most women in those comparative positions are not as good at what they do, they are not in demand thus their wages are lower. It's not because they are female. Romney even went back 40 years talking about how women need to be home to cook for the kids. Why can't the dad get the same consideration? Why can't a man say "I need the flexible schedule so I can cook for my kids"? Is that only a woman's job? According to Mitt Osmond Romney it is. Obama didn't have an issue with it, but the dyke lesbian who asked the question probably broke an incisor grinding it's teeth after that response.

[elbamba]

The fact that Obama did not say "terror" after the Libya attack.
Don't get so upset about it. Your man did fine it was just that a different Obama showed up this time. You know, like how a different Mitt will show up depending on who is listening.

Parsing words. I believe his intent in his Rose Garden speech is 100% clear to both sides. If you like Obama, he was specific. If you don'the was not. 100% clarity.

[elbamba]

When Mitt was talking all over Jim Lehrer moderation was fine... now that barry got the last word on the last debate, :cry moderation was rigged :cry

lol red team

It looks bad when they both do it. Watching CNN with the viewer study going on, both candidates were in the negative whenever they interrupted or spoke over the moderator. My bigger issue with the moderator was the questions she picked. Not so much that they were unfair, they just were not great questions.

[CosmicCowboy]

Parsing words. I believe his intent in his Rose Garden speech is 100% clear to both sides. If you like Obama, he was specific. If you don'the was not. 100% clarity.

If he was specific, then why did all White House statements for the next 10 days specifically contradict him? you would think that someone as allegedly bright as he is would have noticed and corrected them.

[DMC]

The fact that Obama did not say "terror" after the Libya attack.
Don't get so upset about it. Your man did fine it was just that a different Obama showed up this time. You know, like how a different Mitt will show up depending on who is listening.

There was misdirection on that mostly by the host who had no reason to respond to that at all as she wasn't part of the debate itself. Mitt claimed that Obama did not call the attack a terrorist attack, and even after he said "act of terror" the next day, he went on later to say it was a riot over the anti-Muslim film. So, Mitt just didn't latch on to the right term and Obama escaped on a technicality. Also, the facade of being offended for not protecting American lives was laughable. Had he taken their security as seriously as he took that accusation, they might still be alive today. At the same time however, Mitt is fishing for anything and it was apparent that he was out of material about half way through the debate when he began to improvise halfway through his answers as he meandered off into other topics that he felt he was bested on.

Eventually though, you have to take their records into account. Sure Obama's admin has a deficit, but they had to spend money to recover. I don't think Mitt Romney would have done any better and in fact, if he catered to big business which a big business man likely would, then we would probably be in a depression for sure in 4 more years as he relaxed rules on Wall Street and the banking industry. Neither will make it so we can build more coal power plants. If we could, our energy bills would be lower and that could offset gas prices. The only reason gas prices are so high is so the oil industry can post trillion dollar profits. Who else could post billions of dollars as a profit one year from the time they blew up their own rig, kill their workers and poured millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf?

[ElNono]

lol blue team

Obama got three minutes and fourteen more seconds of talking time than Romney did in the first debate and you say Romney bulldozed Lehrer...:lol

:lol he pretty much fired him on the spot...

But you keep making my point for me... ":cry not one, not two, not three.... three minutes and 14 seconds more! :cry"... give me a break, it's 90 minutes...

[dbestpro]

AlterNet, a project of the non-profit Independent Media Institute, is a progressive/liberal[2] activist news service. Yep, that seems like a reliable source to quote for a fair and unbias opinion..............

[ElNono]

It looks bad when they both do it. Watching CNN with the viewer study going on, both candidates were in the negative whenever they interrupted or spoke over the moderator. My bigger issue with the moderator was the questions she picked. Not so much that they were unfair, they just were not great questions.

I only watched the end and I have to agree with that.

[CosmicCowboy]

There was misdirection on that mostly by the host who had no reason to respond to that at all as she wasn't part of the debate itself. Mitt claimed that Obama did not call the attack a terrorist attack, and even after he said "act of terror" the next day, he went on later to say it was a riot over the anti-Muslim film. So, Mitt just didn't latch on to the right term and Obama escaped on a technicality. Also, the facade of being offended for not protecting American lives was laughable. Had he taken their security as seriously as he took that accusation, they might still be alive today. At the same time however, Mitt is fishing for anything and it was apparent that he was out of material about half way through the debate when he began to improvise halfway through his answers as he meandered off into other topics that he felt he was bested on.

Eventually though, you have to take their records into account. Sure Obama's admin has a deficit, but they had to spend money to recover. I don't think Mitt Romney would have done any better and in fact, if he catered to big business which a big business man likely would, then we would probably be in a depression for sure in 4 more years as he relaxed rules on Wall Street and the banking industry. Neither will make it so we can build more coal power plants. If we could, our energy bills would be lower and that could offset gas prices. The only reason gas prices are so high is so the oil industry can post trillion dollar profits. Who else could post billions of dollars as a profit one year from the time they blew up their own rig, kill their workers and poured millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf?


???? Oil companies post big dollar profits because they invest HUGE dollars. Average oil company return on investment is about 7-8%.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

???? Oil companies post big dollar profits because they invest HUGE dollars. Average oil company return on investment is about 7-8%.

Yeah it has nothing to do with all the various subsidies and ED claims that have built up the infrastructure that they have proprietorship over over the last--oh I don't know-- 100 years.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah it has nothing to do with all the various subsidies and ED claims that have built up the infrastructure that they have proprietorship over over the last--oh I don't know-- 100 years.

I start up a oil surveying firm i don't get shit. TransCanada gets to take people's land without a court order when they start a new project.

[TeyshaBlue]

Your computer seems to be connected to an alternate universe. Those "rebuttals" are so full of shit they aren't worh itemizing...where do you find these whacko blogs to cut and paste?

Its a moonbat RSS feed. Except for bou....I think it's more of a mainline than a feed.

[cantthinkofanything]

Yeah it has nothing to do with all the various subsidies and ED claims that have built up the infrastructure that they have proprietorship over over the last--oh I don't know-- 100 years.

I'd be too embarrassed to claim ED. I'd probably say I just was too drunk.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yeah it has nothing to do with all the various subsidies and ED claims that have built up the infrastructure that they have proprietorship over over the last--oh I don't know-- 100 years.

I'd have to look at the ED claims vs Royalty payments before I'd be comfortable with that viewpoint.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd have to look at the ED claims vs Royalty payments before I'd be comfortable with that viewpoint.

In eminent domain, royalties are not legally required, at least not across the country, and certainly not when the Rockefeller's of the world were consolidating their hold. Even if they have to pay a reasonable percentage of profits that is besides the point because the control they are granted is a huge competitive advantage.

If you are talking about royalties for use of mineral rights then do you expect for them to get that for free too?

[DMC]

???? Oil companies post big dollar profits because they invest HUGE dollars. Average oil company return on investment is about 7-8%.

That begs the question. You have huge dollars because you invested huge dollars. Where did you get the huge dollars? Oh that's right, by price gouging the fuck out of Americans. Then they pay 2 percent in taxes.

[TeyshaBlue]

In eminent domain, royalties are not legally required, at least not across the country, and certainly not when the Rockefeller's of the world were consolidating their hold. Even if they have to pay a reasonable percentage of profits that is besides the point because the control they are granted is a huge competitive advantage.

If you are talking about royalties for use of mineral rights then do you expect for them to get that for free too?

No. I was mainly referring to your statement that seemed to imply that infrastructure was built by dint of various subsidies and ED claims. I rather suspect, but have no real data on hand, that the split between ED acquisitions and outright purchases/leasing leans heavily towards the later.

[Latarian Milton]

bipartisanship wins imho

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. I was mainly referring to your statement that seemed to imply that infrastructure was built by dint of various subsidies and ED claims. I rather suspect, but have no real data on hand, that the split between ED acquisitions and outright purchases/leasing leans heavily towards the later.

Fair enough. I do know that in the early 20th century there was a huge backlash against the oil and RR monopolies for these types of practices. Following WW2 the pendulum swung back in their favor.

Swing pendulum swing:


Kelo v. New London

In a close ruling announced on June 23, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that state and local governments could use eminent domain to take private property against the owners' will for use in private development. The decision is expected to have major ramifications for redevelopment and property rights cases around the country.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

Swing pendulum swing.

[Latarian Milton]

That begs the question. You have huge dollars because you invested huge dollars. Where did you get the huge dollars? Oh that's right, by price gouging the fuck out of Americans. Then they pay 2 percent in taxes.
government owned oligarchs or those who own the asses of the politicians in DC will always get the first/biggest bite at the birthday cake imho. they're the ones who can always make profits despite the health of economy cuz the government will always ensure they're making profits, government is the puppet of those billionaire assholes which's a plain fact that a well-educated mid aged immigrant is supposed to know imho

[TeyshaBlue]

Fair enough. I do know that in the early 20th century there was a huge backlash against the oil and RR monopolies for these types of practices. Following WW2 the pendulum swung back in their favor.

Swing pendulum swing:



http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

Swing pendulum swing.

Yeah, I agree with your characterization here. And it certainly was an outright abuse of powers in the early 20th.

[DMC]

Fair enough. I do know that in the early 20th century there was a huge backlash against the oil and RR monopolies for these types of practices. Following WW2 the pendulum swung back in their favor.

Swing pendulum swing:


http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

Swing pendulum swing.

It's conservative thinking that giving big oil a free pass benefits Americans through trickle down of jobs and lower prices but a hundred billion in profit tells me they aren't playing by our rules.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's conservative thinking that giving big oil a free pass benefits Americans through trickle down of jobs and lower prices but a hundred billion in profit tells me they aren't playing by our rules.

Not really...at least this conservative certainly doesn't share that view in toto.

[TeyshaBlue]

And your characterization of profits is a bit off as well.

Big Oil built entire school systems in my neck of the woods.

[TeyshaBlue]

Big Wind is now doing much the same, tbh.

[DMC]

government owned oligarchs or those who own the asses of the politicians in DC will always get the first/biggest bite at the birthday cake imho. they're the ones who can always make profits despite the health of economy cuz the government will always ensure they're making profits, government is the puppet of those billionaire assholes which's a plain fact that a well-educated mid aged immigrant is supposed to know imho

The term "begs the question" isn't me asking a question, fyi. I know you just reached our shores not long ago (thanks for collecting the syringes and medical waste from the beach for your family's use btw but be careful with used syringes, we don't want to infect our HIV with Chinese H1N1.) but a brief search on the WC owned Google site will quickly show you the ins and outs of logical fallacies and that one is in there as "circular reasoning". Just an FYI from gwai lo.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.texastribune.org/library/multimedia/wind-farm-money-spending-schools/

[DMC]

Big Wind is now doing much the same, tbh.

I was waiting for someone to confuse "wind jobs" with "blow jobs". Just wait.

[TeyshaBlue]

I was waiting for someone to confuse "wind jobs" with "blow jobs". Just wait.

WC will be along shortly.

[DMC]

And your characterization of profits is a bit off as well.

Big Oil built entire school systems in my neck of the woods.

lol, no. Big profit built those schools and you pay for it at the pump on a weekly basis.

I'm just taking the top players into consideration.

[Latarian Milton]

The term "begs the question" isn't me asking a question, fyi. I know you just reached our shores not long ago (thanks for collecting the syringes and medical waste from the beach for your family's use btw but be careful with used syringes, we don't want to infect our HIV with Chinese H1N1.) but a brief search on the WC owned Google site will quickly show you the ins and outs of logical fallacies and that one is in there as "circular reasoning". Just an FYI from gwai lo.
be careful with quoting my post too tbh, don't you know that H1N1 can be transmitted via posts? i'd haste to a doctor for a thorough health check right now if i were you tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And your characterization of profits is a bit off as well.

Big Oil built entire school systems in my neck of the woods.

This comes back to the ethics of the individuals involved. Post WW2 America was great --for whitey at least-- because the ethics of the people involved. I don't know when your schools were built but the modern American corporation is not too giving nowadays whereas you used to hear about corporate towns and the like. Instead they lobby for stuff like Kelo v New London so they get shit for free and put all their money into buying into SuperPACs.

Now I understand that is too broad of a characterization and not each and every one is like that. I am not boutox but from the history that I have read and talking to people that lived as adults in that era, things were quite different.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol, no. Big profit built those schools and you pay for it at the pump on a weekly basis.

I'm just taking the top players into consideration.

@ .18 a gallon (which is what it was when most of these schools were being built)? Not likely.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Big Wind is now doing much the same, tbh.

Which I am fine with because it's an emerging market. Just like the internet and telecom in the late 20th and even into today I get why investment makes sense.

Oil not so much. Allowing them to circumvent demand by just claiming ED is fucked up.

[TeyshaBlue]

This comes back to the ethics of the individuals involved. Post WW2 America was great --for whitey at least-- because the ethics of the people involved. I don't know when your schools were built but the modern American corporation is not too giving nowadays whereas you used to hear about corporate towns and the like. Instead they lobby for stuff like Kelo v New London so they get shit for free and put all their money into buying into SuperPACs.

Now I understand that is too broad of a characterization and not each and every one is like that. I am not boutox but from the history that I have read and talking to people that lived as adults in that era, things were quite different.

I think it's fairly regional, tbh. I doubt the rust belt was very enamored of oil companies during that time while we were getting schools and teacher housing built down here.
And your contrast between corporate stewardship (such a lame term) is spot on. I don't really have a bone to pick there. It truly is a different world on some respects.

[TeyshaBlue]

Which I am fine with because it's an emerging market. Just like the internet and telecom in the late 20th and even into today I get why investment makes sense.

Oil not so much. Allowing them to circumvent demand by just claiming ED is fucked up.

agreed.

[DMC]

@ .18 a gallon (which is what it was when most of these schools were being built)? Not likely.

So they weren't making a comparative profit then? How did they become so fucking huge if they weren't raking in profit?

The school is paid for, but you're still paying them interest every week.

[TeyshaBlue]

agreed.

And I was speaking more to the tax rewards local communities were reaping from the windfall. *rimshot*

[TeyshaBlue]

So they weren't making a comparative profit then? How did they become so fucking huge if they weren't raking in profit?

The school is paid for, but you're still paying them interest every week.

No, they were not making a comparative profit back then. But, they were making a profit in the end. It's the area between production and profit that oil companies used to spend more then than now.

And the answer to your question is spectacularly simple. They became fucking huge because they have been profitable for 50-60-70 years.

[DMC]

be careful with quoting my post too tbh, don't you know that H1N1 can be transmitted via posts? i'd haste to a doctor for a thorough health check right now if i were you tbh

I ran Norton disk doctor. You're ok. It did detect a very high level of MSG however.

[LnGrrrR]

Regardless, there're lies told throughout these debates, from both parties. Fact-checking is consistently done after the debate, as well as multiple other resources for the curious voter to find out just what's what.

Eh, I have no problem with moderators playing referee. A lot of people won't stick around to watch the fact-checking after the fact.