Reply With Quote
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.
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?
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.
Al Gore Blames Al ude 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-bl...skills-2012-10
Another HUGE LIE by Gecko
Romney's Obscene Posturing As A Wall Street Critic
Among the many obfuscations of Mitt Romney last night, 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 by Wall Street, on a platform that contains a full repeal 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 ins utions “systemically significant.” This means they are so big that their failure could threaten the health of the financial sector, and that designation subjects them 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 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 ins utions. It’s like saying a doctor who diagnoses someone with cancer has given it to him.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170359...el=emailNation
Irrelevant. He's notorious as now.
in response to your al gore quote... Yes, that is pretty ridiculous. LOL!
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.
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.This is relative, why? 'cause Stevens wasn't a notorious terrorist?
So, you're on the "Buck Stops NoWhere" bandwagon. Ok.
And the smart money is on "Americans know who the 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.
Yeah probably not. You have a whole 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.
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?
maybe romney was referring to the copenhagen interpretation
I wish there was a way to place a bet on that. Six pack of your fave.
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 hypoc ical.
I'd be careful with betting on the knowledge of the average American. , half the people probably don't even know who the vice president is.I wish there was a way to place a bet on that. Six pack of your fave.
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 s shocked. God blessIt'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?
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.
Projecting what jack?
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.
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 bas s to shreds if he were in these debates. And that wouldn't be fake.
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.
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 . libertarian talk, keep it simple, talk about power to the states, freedom, recite cons ution. boom slam dunk
but let's be honest, anyone that actually bought anything Romney was talking is a mental midget
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.Projecting what jack?
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.
Elnono, I am proud of you for agreeing that Romney won the debate especially because you lean heavily left. Good job! God bless
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
