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.
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...
Come one jack, don't change your tune now. You were riding that Florida judge jockstrap like your god didn't care.
Ron bless.
Last edited by ElNono; 10-04-2012 at 01:38 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.
It's clearly no better than electing a class president in school...
Foreign policy is the last thing Obama wants to talk about.
son who is this?
And so is Ambassador Stevens.
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?
If Obama tries to e that football Romney will REMIND them who ambassador Stevens is. That would be like pitching underhand to Miguel Cabrera.
btw...I didn't get to watch the debate. I was too busy manning the phones for the Texas Ranger Suicide Hotline.
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.
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
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
We'll see in the next debates if Barry was playing Rope-a-Dope in the first.
Repugs have repeatedly denied something $300M to the State Dept for increased security.
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?
...which has nothing to do with Steven's death.
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.
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?This is relative, why? 'cause Stevens wasn't a notorious terrorist?
The more important question here is why does either death mean Obama's foreign policy is good or bad.
How many ambassadors were killed recently in a terrorist attack in Libya? I can name one.
Don't be ridiculous.
They also have a whole of a lot of responsibilities. I don't get how a security budget is foreign policy, though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
