Reply With Quote
BR is fuming tonight sons
Please explain how I'm an ignorant bigot, tbh...
you made an ignorant assumption referring to me as a "butthurt Republican". that is ignorant and offensive.
BR is fuming tonight sons
You're a deeply partisan Republican, and you're throwing out people's votes (CLEARLY butthurt)... you're behaving like your boy Willard at the RNC, tbh....
son how so?
son again with an extremely ignorant assumption. so the fact that I have preached out against Obama means that I am a "partisan Republican"? son I have also disregarded votes for those who have been voting Republican straight ticket. you know not what you speak of.
Binders full of women, FTW TBH
Both candidates acted like macho -bags.
this. pretty ty debate overall TBH
You're disenfranchising other votes based on YOUR bias.
Who do think won son? And why? Let's see if we can get a "biased" answer out of you.
Son, you disregarded one vote for a straight-ticket Repug and that was only after someone called you on it, tbh....
Butthurt Republican
son I removed both Democrat and Republican straight ticket votes. get your facts straight before spewing ignorance.
who do you think won? or should I even bother to ask considering your bias? personally I feel this debate could have gone either way. I don't think that it was Obama's "best debate of his presidency" as one fool on MSNBC mentioned an hour ago. I think they both came across pretty ty and both of them dodged several questions. this one was a draw for me.
Kinda hard to pick one here...learned nothing new, each candidate kept saying the same old (which was to be expected).
Can't imagine undecideds have been swayed by this debate much.
Although I believe Romney (like Biden in his "victory" over Ryan) came off like a major at some points.
son again you know not what you speak. oh and LOL at you going to the coward way excuse of "well someone else called you out" ... when? where? and about what? you mean maybe someone who votes straight Democratic called me out? what the are you talking about?Son, you disregarded one vote for a straight-ticket Repug and that was only after someone called you on it, tbh....
I think Obama won on several fronts. He looked more comfortable without the podium and settled into the town-hall style well, whereas Romney seemed ill at ease toward the beginning. Obama brought some substance on policy achievements and then swung to attack Romney more effectively, like the math on Romney's tax plan. And Romney had a a couple of superficial gaffes that will get replayed over and over ("binders full of women," "acts of terror"). I don't think Obama came near to undoing the progress Mitt made on the first debate, so it will still be close.
son your republican bias is obvious by default of your posting on this site. you're the one being ignorant. Why do you lie to yourself son?
now for who won, it's a matter of perspective. I think Obama won by default of Romney ing up. That's just me though.
So far, the won-loss ratio for Dems is 2-1 (w/l) and vice versa for the Republican party.
so hating on Obama means Republican bias? son are you truly that ignorant and close minded?
son if that is truly how you feel then you're a perfect example of what is wrong with the mindsets of people voting. if there wasn't a "D" and a "R" next to the candidates names then you wouldn't have a clue who to vote for.
lol sure you are son. nice try though
Son, you disregarded one vote for a straight-ticket Repug and that was only after someone called you on it, tbh....
Tie. They pretty much tried to sell the same amount of bull . And I want a dollar for every time that Romney and Obama say the word "folks". Obama says it a lot more.
And for the record, Obama did not end the war in Iraq. Iraq ended the war in Iraq because they got tired of America and would no longer offer immunity to U.S. Armed Forces so America got the out of Iraq.
What a stupid ing post from a stupid ing poster.
Who let all this garbage in? Isn't there a sneaker trading forum these guys can hang out in somewhere?
Here is what the huffpost said about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-a...b_1972404.html
Mitt Romney's comment about "binders full of women" comment by Mitt Romney that got a lot of snark during the debate last night (and instantly spawned a contemptuous tumblr, Twitter and Facebook page). Here's exactly what he said in reply to a question about the pay gap for women:
ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.
And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?"
ROMNEY: And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.
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.
There are a lot of things about Romney I don't like, but what he did to address sexism was excellent, and I'm frustrated it's being treated as a laugh line by other liberals. What he did was (sadly) pretty remarkable:
Romney noticed they weren't thinking of hiring women
He assumed this indicated a problem with his team's process instead of evidence that no qualified women existed
He realized he and his team didn't know how to find well-qualified women
So he turned to womens' groups for guidance
And then he hired women!
Most organizations don't make it very far past step one. They assume the dearth of qualified women is a fact about the world, not evidence of their own bias or problems in the pipeline. Even though, just this month, another study came out showing that men and women rate a sample resume as less qualified if there's a woman's name at the top of the page.
But even the good groups can derail at Step 4. Where Romney turned to women for data (in binders), plenty of HR people just throw up their hands and decide, since they don't know how to solve the problem, it must not be their responsibility.
I would be thrilled if more individuals showed the kind of initiative and leadership on gender issues that Romney did when he was staffing his cabinet in Massachusetts. But it's because a lot of people fall short of his example that I support Barack Obama and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
If companies are being systematically sexist (whether though negligence or deliberately), they're hurting women and they're hurting themselves. But market incentives aren't strong enough to make people work through the problem the way that Romney did. Government action can help put the pressure on solve the pay gap and hiring gap problems.
It's great that Romney did such a good job reaching out to women, and he deserves praise, not snark for his efforts. But if he wants to win the votes of women and other feminists, he needs to show that he's willing to lead by more than example.
except, allegedly, that's not really the way it went down
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...et_Another_LieWhat actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.
They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.
Obama won be default because he looked so poorly in the first debate. Romney was the same so he did not get a bounce this time because it was expected. In the end its not about winnig the debate, but rather did they move the needle on undecided voters. For example one could say Obama won the debate, but Romney scored big on the economy. If an undecided voter felt the economy was the key issue then the might vote for Romney.
When a debate is close like this in politics it is important to remember what key issues are supported by the undecided voters and who did best on that issue. If this were chess Obama may have taken Romney's pawns and knights, but Romney took Obama's queen and a bishop. Obama is ahead on pieces taken, but is he really ahead?
So son did you even catch on to what I did right there? ...
I immediately fired back accusing you of voting for Obama right after you accused me of voting Republican (or having a bias for hating on Obama). You throw a stone I throw one back. You're one of the biggest Obama fan boys on this board. I am surprised to hear you're voting against your boy and for a third party candidate. If true then props
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions