View Full Version : Presidential debatee, round two.
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 20:44
Thoughts on the second debat.
Thus far, half way in, Mitt is very confident, maybe a little pushy, but is beating the snot out of Obama that he won't be able to claim a sinus infection for bad decisions.
Too bad its 2 vs 1, i wish they would pick a neutral moderator every now and then.
It's hard to win when you don't have substance or a track record.
GeorgiaBoy
10-16-12, 20:52
I don't see this one as being near as clear of a clear win as the first round.
I hate that little "fact checker" or whatever thing at the bottom. Virtually never says much positive about Romney, usually just exposing "lies" or "miss-steps", and Obama's is just nothing but positive stuff.
Clearly biased.
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 20:57
Go to FOX. They are just keeping up with twitter counts.
Obama is all over the map. IMHO Romney is clearly the adult in the room. Mod is definitely giving Obama the breaks. I don't think its helping him.
Too bad its 2 vs 1, i wish they would pick a neutral moderator every now and then.
This.
C4
won't be able to claim a sinus infection for bad decisions.
Can't blame it on altitude either.
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 21:11
Too bad its 2 vs 1, i wish they would pick a neutral moderator every now and then.
Eveyone has an agenda; everyone has a price.
I wonder if on the next go around if we can nominate JSantoro as the mod, then it would be an interesting debate!
And holy shit gun control is going to be an issue...
GeorgiaBoy
10-16-12, 21:18
The big question just got asked...
montanadave
10-16-12, 21:19
Here's the gun control conversation.
E.T.A. And I think Obama just said he wants to reinstate the AWB.
"AK 47" assault weapons questions came up.
Obama says:
"Weapons that were designed for soldiers don't belong on our streets. "
Also wants to re-instate the AWB.
Romney says instead that culture and 2 parents are the solution to violence, not a new AWB.
Too bad its 2 vs 1, i wish they would pick a neutral moderator every now and then.
I couldn't agree more, the women is as awful as anything I've yet seen, and that includes the spectacular rudeness of Biden a few nights previous! Jesus H. Christ, she is starting fights with him!!!
Barry stuttered as he said that guns kill people.....
GeorgiaBoy
10-16-12, 21:22
Obama tried really hard to answer that question as best as he could..
He was doing EXTREMELY well surprisingly until he reluctantly let out "I think we need to reinstate the assault weapons ban".
He actually sounded really pro-gun before that.
Here's the gun control conversation.
E.T.A. And I think Obama just said he wants to reinstate the AWB.
And the Cheap saturday night specials. Just great but go figure.
Dan
montanadave
10-16-12, 21:24
And Romney pivots to Fast & Furious while claiming the Massachusetts AWB was supported by pro-gunners.
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 21:24
Let the great gun buy up begin.
vicious_cb
10-16-12, 21:25
Yep, flat out said "I will reinstate a AWB". **** that guy. Not to mention that anti-gun cunt sounded like a retarded mouth breather, probably hasnt even seen an AK variant in real life.
I couldn't agree more, the women is as awful as anything I've yet seen, and that includes the spectacular rudeness of Biden a few nights previous! Jesus H. Christ, she is starting fights with him!!!
Absolutely, Romney is debating the mod. Someone needs to call foul and pull the plug.
Neither of them is our ally as far as our gun rights. A socialist and a liberal calling themselves a moderate and a republican.
Let the great gun buy up begin.
Gun sales will be frickin crazy tomorrow, you wont be able to find a dpms, delton, rra, or bushy anywhere in the country. Grant its going to be a busy busy week for you methinks.
O is talking about teachers in response to the AWB question.
Talk about avoiding the question.
That was a hot button topic that both candidates were glad to get away from.
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 21:29
Shopping list tomorrow: 2 striped receivers.
Shopping list tomorrow: 2 striped receivers.
lol.. just got one yesterday
JR TACTICAL
10-16-12, 21:32
Well as we all know Obama wants to instute another AWB. I really think that Dem's feel like "assault weapons" are walking around by themselves offing people and another AWB will stop mass shootings:confused:
This is ignorance to me at its best!!!
Here in AZ when Giffords was shot along with others it was with a handgun or as the Dum's...I mean Dem's call it an assault weapon?
This "weapon's ban" shit drives me insane, like to the point it messes with my sleep. I'm I alone here???
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 21:36
lol.. just got one yesterday
Just put a mid-length lw bcm together on a PSA lower, and put a BCM 20" upper on an old post ban bushmaster a2 lower. I know want a lower as a spare and get a matching lower and upper for a mk18 dmr. I better do it now after tonight.
Btw:ive if past issues and hiatory is accurate, Obama and the awb comment just made him loose by default.
This just in.... obama says that he doesn't believe government creates jobs... Did I miss something in the last 4??
This just in.... obama says that he doesn't believe government creates jobs... Did I miss something in the last 4??
He should've realized that before how many billions invested into the 'stimulus plan' ?
Damn i'm getting fired up about this.
nineteenkilo
10-16-12, 21:43
I'm gonna chime in with 'worst moderator ever' as well. You simply cannot, as a supposed unbiased center, tell someone else what they said or thought. She is a disgrace to journalists everywhere (and there are good ones) and should never be asked to do anything like this again.
On a nastier note, I sincerely hope that her obviously biased performance leads to her being asked to inhabit a cramped and dusty workspace in a do-nothing news agency somewhere very cold.
Hume's in for obama.. go figure.
I'm gonna chime in with 'worst moderator ever' as well. You simply cannot, as a supposed unbiased center, tell someone else what they said or thought. She is a disgrace to journalists everywhere (and there are good ones) and should never be asked to do anything like this again.
On a nastier note, I sincerely hope that her obviously biased performance leads to her being asked to inhabit a cramped and dusty workspace in a do-nothing news agency somewhere very cold.
Couldn't agree more.. This really pissed me off.
And Romney pivots to Fast & Furious while claiming the Massachusetts AWB was supported by pro-gunners.
Pretty sure I also heard Romney say that automatic weapons are "already illegal" in this country.
Someone better let all those guys with registered lowers know... :rolleyes:
I missed the debate completely....I was at my CCW class. Sounds like it got pretty tense at Hofstra, Romney and B.O. got kind of close together when speaking to each other. Me thinks that the particular venue style....aka town hall meeting, contributed to this. Well...WHO won?? I don't like the sound of some of the previous posts about people hearing about a new and improved AWB. Please gawd NO.....
I'm gonna chime in with 'worst moderator ever' as well. You simply cannot, as a supposed unbiased center, tell someone else what they said or thought. She is a disgrace to journalists everywhere (and there are good ones) and should never be asked to do anything like this again.
On a nastier note, I sincerely hope that her obviously biased performance leads to her being asked to inhabit a cramped and dusty workspace in a do-nothing news agency somewhere very cold.
did you notice that when she did that the crowd also kicked in a bit. It's almost like that whole comment was a setup. It's still a lie. they were blaming that on the YT video as fast and hard as they could but I swear that looked like a setup to me. But you are right, she was disgraceful.
Mauser KAR98K
10-16-12, 22:06
did you notice that when she did that the crowd also kicked in a bit. It's almost like that whole comment was a setup. It's still a lie. they were blaming that on the YT video as fast and hard as they could but I swear that looked like a setup to me. But you are right, she was disgraceful.
Fox showed Michelle clapping the loudest.
I think Romney stuck his foot in his mouth talking about Obomo's Lybia rosegarden speech, As far as the two talking about a AWB...That's like the pot calling the kettle black..at least Obomo slipped up and spit out a nugget of truth..he wants another ban.. Hate to say it folks, but this time, It was at best a draw...more likely, Obomo won... But, in the big scheme of things, these debates don't mean alot..If anything, they just demonstrate how skilled they both are at lying.. If I were undecided, I'd probably be even more confused tonight...Because neither one of them said a Goddamn thing.Those of us who have decided,We all know what we have to do as voters..I'm voting for Romney, only because it's a vote against Obama....
I agree with Mr Hume that Romney booted the greatest opportunity to knockout Obama, he left him virtually untouched on his own complicity in the Lybia fiasco, not even mentioning the reprobates speech at the UN, where he used the bully pulpit to rail against the evil "video" that prompted innocent islamofascists to kill people!
An inexcusable missed shot by Romney, whom I thought stumbled & stuttered his way through his response, when all he had to do was look that reprobate dead in the eye, and ask him how many people do you think died due to islamofascist rage stoked by your's, and your administrations repeated efforts to hide behind it(video)?
montanadave
10-16-12, 22:30
Hard for me to compare these first two debates head-to-head as I listened to the first on the radio and watched tonight's on the tube. Not having been able to watch the two candidates in the first debate, thus being unable to observe their body language, eye contact, etc., I felt Romney won the night, though perhaps not as strongly as those that watched it on TV.
Tonight, I felt Obama had the edge. Not as clear a win as Romney in the previous debate, but a win nonetheless.
Yep... at 10:00 Hillary never mentioned the word terror. She did mention the movie though.
Then at 10:45 Obama mentioned the word terror once but not in the context of an anniversary attack, but simply a generalized comment to catching those responsible.
But... whatever... if Obama showed up with his eyes open tonight he was going to be declared the winner.
I agree with Mr Hume that Romney booted the greatest opportunity to knockout Obama, he left him virtually untouched on his own complicity in the Lybia fiasco, not even mentioning the reprobates speech at the UN, where he used the bully pulpit to rail against the evil "video" that prompted innocent islamofascists to kill people!
An inexcusable missed shot by Romney, whom I thought stumbled & stuttered his way through his response, when all he had to do was look that reprobate dead in the eye, and ask him how many people do you think died due to islamofascist rage stoked by your's, and your administrations repeated efforts to hide behind it(video)?
He handled it as best as he could under the circumstances. First, he clarified that Obama was actually claiming that he label it a terrorist action in the rose garden. The dramatic pause with a cold glance back at Obama was classic as caught on the FNC camera. Then, he attempted to disassemble Obama with the lead-in about 12-days of blaming the attack on the tape. However, he was unable to complete the thought when Jaba intervened on Obama's behalf. She (or It) literally cut him off as he was making the point.
Romney dropped the ball big time on Libya. Huge opportunity missed. Instead of asking Obama multiple times if that's really what he said in the Rose Garden, hit him hard on the Administration statements (Obama, Clinton, Rice) over the 9/12 +2 week time period in support of the BS spontaneous demonstration narrative.
Obama is now apparently a pro-coal, pro 2nd amendment, free market individualist. I had to rewind a few times to make sure I really heard him say what he said.
He handled it as best as he could under the circumstances. First, he clarified that Obama was actually claiming that he label it a terrorist action in the rose garden. The dramatic pause with a cold glance back at Obama was classic as caught on the FNC camera. Then, he attempted to disassemble Obama with the lead-in about 12-days of blaming the attack on the tape. However, he was unable to complete the thought when Jaba intervened on Obama's behalf. She (or It) literally cut him off as he was making the point.
True, but there's about 47% who will see it the other way...This is Mitten's wake up call... If he (Mitt) want to win this election, he'd better quit stumbling, stuttering, fumble-****ing abound like he did during the rest of the debate....He needs to go for the juggular,with crisp, clear ,consise answers, straight to the point..It's all or nothing now...
Obama is now apparently a pro-coal, pro 2nd amendment, free market individualist. I had to rewind a few times to make sure I really heard him say what he said.
I thought the same thing.
It makes me wonder something, though? How does his mealy mouth, moderate talk rally his base? It has to drive hard core leftists CRAZY to hear him pander on those issues. I would think fundraising would suffer with his activist base without solid commitments to attack energy & guns.:confused:
However, he was unable to complete the thought when Jaba intervened on Obama's behalf. She (or It) literally cut him off as he was making the point.
She was far more awful a presence, then anyone predicted, literally shutting Romney up, then falsely asserting that the reprobate had indeed, called it terror in his shout out to his press secretaries before flying off to sin city to cash in...
I thought the same thing.
It makes me wonder something, though? How does his mealy mouth, moderate talk rally his base? It has to drive hard core leftists CRAZY to hear him pander on those issues. I would think fundraising would suffer with his activist base without solid commitments to attack energy & guns.:confused:
It easy, he just tells them the same thing he told the Russians over the open mike, that wasn't supposed to be open, "just wait until after the elections, then I'll have more room" or something like that....
montanadave
10-16-12, 22:59
She was far more awful a presence, then anyone predicted, literally shutting Romney up, then falsely asserting that the reprobate had indeed, called it terror in his shout out to his press secretaries before flying off to sin city to cash in...
You need to do your homework. Crowley was correct.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/12/transcript-read-president-obamas-remarks-on-american-deaths-in-libya-attack/
Straight Shooter
10-16-12, 22:59
No Harm...No Foul.
I think Romney did a GREAT job..and Obama had a return to self.
I still believe Romney's performance tonight will allow him to maintain, if not slightly increase, his 5 point lead in the coming days.
The next debate is the Big Kahuna, the one people will remember most going into the booth. If Romney does as good or better as tonight and the last debate, he WILL win.
It easy, he just tells them the same thing he told the Russians "just wait until after the elections, then I'll have more room"
True enough.
That also brings up another opportunity that Romney needs to hammer this dirtbag on. It should creep the hell out of every citizen of this country when an American President says something like that to the Russians, particularly when he believed it was "off the record".
Romney needs to bring that up, repeatedly.
True, but there's about 47% who will see it the other way...This is Mitten's wake up call... If he (Mitt) want to win this election, he'd better quit stumbling, stuttering, fumble-****ing abound like he did during the rest of the debate....He needs to go for the juggular,with crisp, clear ,consise answers, straight to the point..It's all or nothing now...
Perhaps it is my bias, but I did not see much stumbling or stuttering. In fact, he went for the jugular on oil, taxes, and unemployment. Granted, Obama lied through his teeth on oil and Lybia. Perhaps Romney's best moment was his line-by-line indictment of the failed promises in response to the black man's question to Obama about why he should vote for him for a second time.
Belmont31R
10-16-12, 23:08
You need to do your homework. Crowley was correct.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/12/transcript-read-president-obamas-remarks-on-american-deaths-in-libya-attack/
He wasn't referring to the Benghazi attack, and if you do read what he said that ONE instance of his use of the word terror, in a general obtuse way, was the ONLY mention of the word terror. He was OBVIOUSLY not referring to Benghazi in his single use of the word terror because the tense changed between that sentence and the net one, where he said, "Today, we lost four more Americans..." He never said "terrorist attack", and on the 25th he was asked point blank by Joy Behar on the View if it was a terrorist attack and he said they were still investigating.
I must be biased also, as I thought Romney did a fine job.
For crying out loud it was two against one.
Belmont31R
10-16-12, 23:14
Another awful liberal biased moderation. Republicans, I guess, are debating both the moderator and their counterpart in the election.
All 3 debates so far the democrat has been given minutes of more speaking time.
All 3 debates the moderator starts cutting off the Republican, and arguing with them. More so in the last 2. In fact this cow was heard on her mic at least twice agreeing with what Obama said. Why do republicans have to walk into an ambush just to debate someone?
Again, don't know why Republicans set themselves up like this. Why don't they insist on more unbiased moderators. I'm surprised she didn't ask ask Romney which son of his he molested the most when they were younger. Every question expect ONE was geared to DNC/Obama talking points. Obama...heres a softball to talk about how good you are. Romney...why do you hate illegal aliens? :rolleyes:
montanadave
10-16-12, 23:17
He wasn't referring to the Benghazi attack, and if you do read what he said that ONE instance of his use of the word terror, in a general obtuse way, was the ONLY mention of the word terror. He was OBVIOUSLY not referring to Benghazi in his single use of the word terror because the tense changed between that sentence and the net one, where he said, "Today, we lost four more Americans..." He never said "terrorist attack", and on the 25th he was asked point blank by Joy Behar on the View if it was a terrorist attack and he said they were still investigating.
It was a statement to the press the day after the Benghazi attack with Secretary of State Clinton standing by his side. What the hell do you think he was talking about?
There's no doubt the subsequent comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Press Secretary Jay Carney implicating the YouTube video muddled the issue, but the president's comments are there for all to see.
You need to do your homework. Crowley was correct.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/12/transcript-read-president-obamas-remarks-on-american-deaths-in-libya-attack/
"Ahh" he wasn't even referring to Benghazi in that remark! She falsely asserted that he had! Bye....
He wasn't referring to the Benghazi attack, and if you do read what he said that ONE instance of his use of the word terror, in a general obtuse way, was the ONLY mention of the word terror. He was OBVIOUSLY not referring to Benghazi in his single use of the word terror because the tense changed between that sentence and the net one, where he said, "Today, we lost four more Americans..." He never said "terrorist attack", and on the 25th he was asked point blank by Joy Behar on the View if it was a terrorist attack and he said they were still investigating.
Further, he went before the UN and stoked the proto-human islamofascist rage, by continually referencing the stupid video, which led to many people being killed....
Belmont31R
10-16-12, 23:30
It was a statement to the press the day after the Benghazi attack with Secretary of State Clinton standing by his side. What the hell do you think he was talking about?
There's no doubt the subsequent comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Press Secretary Jay Carney implicating the YouTube video muddled the issue, but the president's comments are there for all to see.
If he thought it was a terrorist attack why did he not reference it as such at any other point in that speech, and why was that single reference to the word "terror" in a different tense than the next sentence, in which he says, "Today, we lost for more Americans". The "more" part means the previous sentence was a separate statement. The term "terrorist attack" was never made in that speech.
Again, before the UN sometime he later he blamed the video.
On the 25th, 13 days after his "Rose Garden speech", he was asked on the View if it was a terrorist attack and he said they were still investigating.
Jay Carney made the specific point he speaks for Obama AFTER the attack in specific response to this topic.
Why was Susan Rice allowed to go on FIVE talk shows that Sunday if Obama thought it was terrorism from day 1? They don't watch the news or have staffers watching the news? Wouldn't you be shitting your pants if you thought it was terrorism, and order her to not go on any more shows then issue a statement saying she isn't speaking for the President?
When 99% of the evidence points one way you're taking some twist of words, ignoring everything else they said and have done, and buying into up to your chin. It's obvious to anyone Obama did not refer to the attack at terrorism until just recently.
It was a statement to the press the day after the Benghazi attack with Secretary of State Clinton standing by his side. What the hell do you think he was talking about?
There's no doubt the subsequent comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Press Secretary Jay Carney implicating the YouTube video muddled the issue, but the president's comments are there for all to see.
FNC is now reporting that Crowley has walked-back her support of Obama's Libya answer.
Does anyone really think that the administration has been forthcoming in terms of releasing information about this attack? Do you really think that Obama's debate answer was an accurate portrayal of his administrations handling of the attack?
My suspicion is that Obama's answer will haunt him over the next several days.
Belmont31R
10-16-12, 23:46
Crowley was terrible. She cut Romney off multiple times and changed the subject when he was making a point. Case in point:
CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
ROMNEY: Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.
And you ask how -- how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state. And I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll -- we'll give people the -- the hope and opportunity they deserve and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the -- the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that's a great idea.
Because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will -- will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity, and bring them in the American system. 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.
They used those weapons against -- against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a -- this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it's been investigated to a degree, but -- but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.
I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.
OBAMA: Candy?
CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.
I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?
Yeah don't talk about Obama admin through Holder sending off thousands of guns they knew were going to be trafficked to cartels, and which were used to murder BP Agent Brian Terry. She was continuously interrupting and changing the subject away from sensitive arguments Romney was making about Obama. Who cares Obama just said he wants another AWB when his own admin was running thousands of "assault rifles" to drug cartels.
I couldn't give less of a shit about Obamas handling of Lybia if I wanted to.
•Fast and Furious
•NDAA
•Stimulus going to unions
• $ Trillions if debt
• Take over of Health Insurance industry
• ________ ?? Anything I forgot
Any of these by itself would be reason to vote him out.
iPhone/Tapatalk
Anybody else notice how quickly the moderator redirected the whole Fast and Furious thing when Romney started hammering on it?
Mauser KAR98K
10-17-12, 00:01
Anybody else notice how quickly the moderator redirected the whole Fast and Furious thing when Romney started hammering on it?
Oh, yes. The talk of the town tomorrow needs to be how blatantly obvious the bias Crowley had for Obama. Berry had more time then Mitt, kept interrupting, had the easier questions (the assault weapons question was an absolute gotch-ya), and the clear siding in regards to the Libya question.
The debate was a draw, with maybe Romney actually winning just with his passion and conviction that he carried over from the last debate. The big reason why Obama had a good showing was because he actually showed up this time.
What hurt Romney was not hitting hard enough with Libya, or being in the middle of the road with the 2A question. What really hurt him was the Moderator. When it appeared he was getting right on track, or was hitting hard at Obama, Candy-gram would shut him down, or would not give him a turn to respond. This also have Obama questions and fodder to push his arguments more than Romney could to hit back with. This debate was completely one sided.
After all, the lead up to this debate had a controversy with Crawly looking to ask Mitt more follow up questions to hammer his record...which she wasn't allowed to do.
FNC is now reporting that Crowley has walked-back her support of Obama's Libya answer.
Yes, after 80 million heard her shut down Romney as a "you guessed it" liar! If you are one of the majority of Amerikans that tune in to these things almost totally ignorant of current events, her intervention on Obama's behalf served its purpose just as she intended! She was prepared to do exactly what she did, you could see it in her, at one point she was literally double teaming Romney with Obama, which is what caused Romney to lose focus, then stutter his way through the rest of his opportunity to end Obama for America....In my estimation, a clearly deliberate act by Crowley to aid Obama....
Berry had more time then Mitt,
Over three minutes! A huge gap....
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 00:14
Crowley acknowledged the ambiguity in one of her many post-debate CNN interviews.
“I did turn around and say, ‘But you’re totally correct that they did spend two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t,” Crowley said. “So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82512_Page2.html
"Just think he picked the wrong word."???!!! GTFO! You interrupt an important point in the debate, are wrong, and then say 'think he picked the wrong word'?
Terrible moderator. She should be ashamed and never moderate a debate again. Instance after instance of interupting Romney, insinuating he supports mass shootings for not supporting an AWB like Obama just had done, even despite Romney saying he wasn't getting the same amount of time and her being bitchy about it Obama did get a few minutes more which is basically an entire response to a question. **** her.
I guess Romney just has to accept the fact to beat Obama in a debate he has to demolish him and the moderator since they want to take a 2 on 1 approach.
You need to do your homework. Crowley was correct.
And here's the final nail being hammered home on your epic fail,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/17/cnns-crowley-backtracks-romney-right-in-the-main-on-benghazi/
Obama says:
"Weapons that were designed for soldiers don't belong on our streets. "
Also wants to re-instate the AWB.
Not surprised. At least he just came out and said it- now there can be no quibbling among gun owners about what he has planned in this area, unless you're an absolute sand-sucking moron.
And Romney pivots to Fast & Furious while claiming the Massachusetts AWB was supported by pro-gunners.
I laughed at that one.
I'm not sure which would be worse- an obvious anti-gunner or a "common sense" flip-flopper who may very well stab you in the back.:rolleyes:
...This "weapon's ban" shit drives me insane, like to the point it messes with my sleep. I'm I alone here???
No.
Although in all fairness not the only issue causing a lack of sleep lately.
As far as the overall debate- I do not think Romney did as well as it would seem to some. Of course there's the 2:1 thing, but I felt he was a little weak at times. Generally innoportune times...
I'd call it a draw.
Am I the only one that thinks these debates are nothing but live-action commercials?
I swear- in the three that have aired so far I have listened to both sides on multiple occasions quote word for word what was said in the various commercials, pamphlets and phone calls I have been ceaselessly bombarded with for the past months.
Nothing but the same talking points over and over. :rolleyes:
Third debate idea- duel at ten paces Hamilton/Burr style.
With flintlock pistols of course- got to keep it legit.
In the event of both clean misses, VP candidates will rotate in.
Signal to turn will be when the moderator gets dropped into the Rancor pit.
(and yes, I do mean that in a humorous manner, just for the record)
To hell with that... UFC match between them. They look like they'd be in the same weight class. Of course, Ryan would smoke all of them.
You need to do your homework. Crowley was correct.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/12/transcript-read-president-obamas-remarks-on-american-deaths-in-libya-attack/
Just because he used the word "terror" does not mean he wasn't still calling the evil film demonstration responsible for the terror act. This is called reading more into a word like Clinton's legalese "the" word challenge. Crowley was indeed not correct, we all heard the administration (State Dept & White House) pander to the insult of Mo in the film. It wasn't until they wanted to reshape history that they found the wonder word "terror" in his rose garden speech. Come on liberal Montana Dave, even you can't buy into this newspeak!
montanadave
10-17-12, 07:53
And here's the final nail being hammered home on your epic fail,
Denali, in your post #47 you made a specific assertion. And you were incorrect.
I think we can all agree these politicians and their surrogates parse their own and words of others like surgeons. If you watch the debate tape and see Romney's reaction to Obama's statement when he said "act of terror" with respect to the attack in Benghazi, it is evident that Romney thought he had him nailed dead to rights. Romney jumped on it and he got played, because the tapes/transcripts (which I linked previously) clearly show the President referenced acts of terror in his Rose Garden remarks the day after the attacks.
Were the Rose Garden remarks carefully scripted and ambiguous in part? Undoubtedly. Such statements generally are, particularly in the "fog of war" which accompanies such incidents. And did the administration contribute to that "fog" by conflating the YouTube video with the Benghazi attack in subsequent days? Obviously they did. And now they're being pummeled from pillar to post for doing it.
But the simple fact is Romney blew a huge opportunity in the Libya exchange. Twice.
First, he (and the moderator) let Obama dodge the question. The guy asked why the administration had failed to beef up security for the ambassador in the face of repeated threats and specific requests from State Department personnel on the ground in Libya. And the president never addressed the issue. Had Romney pursued that angle, he could have inflicted some real damage as I have yet to hear a solid defensible answer from the administration on this issue.
He baited Romney by saying he referred to the attack as an "act of terror" and Romney went for it hook, line, and sinker. Romney obviously had not read the transcript of the president's Rose Garden remarks, believed he had caught the president cold in a lie, and came up short.
And to top it off, the president was given the opportunity to turn around, look directly at Romney, and chide him for insinuating Obama and his administration had played politics with "four of our own." Whether you think the president was totally full of shit or not, the exchange took place before a national television office.
Romney fumbled this exchange badly.
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 08:52
Refrencing acts of terror, in a past tense, is not the same as calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror.
So Obama mentioned terror once, and now all the sudden Obama knew it was terrorism from day 1? Gotta love how liberals stampede around constantly shifting their narrative to line up with whatever some politician says. Now even Alan Colmes is insisting Obama said it was a terror attack from day one. So we get a MONTH of conflicting explanations, Obama at least of the 25th refusing to call it terrorism, and now its terrorism from day 1? You guys have no shame and now its going to be a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Just shift the narrative one minute to the next so you guys are all in lock step, and don't look bad.
Every debate we have gotten a different answer from Obama or Biden about what their position is.
CROWLEY: Because we're -- we're closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly.
Your secretary of state, as I'm sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.
The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.
And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief.
CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to...
ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I...
CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.
ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the -- your secretary --
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how --
OBAMA: Candy, I'm --
ROMNEY: -- this was a spontaneous --
CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me --
OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation --
Obama did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. He never once said "terrorist attack" in that speech. His ONE referral to the word terror was past tense talking about separate incidents that have happened because the next sentence he says, "Today, we lost for more Americans..." referring to a separate set of events, and in that same next paragraph he called it a "terrible act" NOT terrorism.
It's also interesting Obama say "get the transcript" like he knows she had it.
Crowley interjected herself where she didn't belong, and repeated the lie as a truth. I don't think Romney would have done himself any good to start bickering with both Crowley and Obama since they were tag teaming him based on a lie.
In the VP debate Ryan said it took them 2 weeks to say it was a terror attack, and Biden didn't challenge that assertion even though he had the last segment and has several paragraphs of transcript where he could have challenged it.
Now Obama says he called it a terrorist attack, and all the liberals are jumping on that line of thought. Amazing. :rolleyes:
montanadave
10-17-12, 09:07
Belmont, I'm not jumping on anything. Read my previous post.
I'm simply scoring "style points," which seems to be how these debates are evaluated by most folks, and noting that, on this particular issue, Romney pounced on the wrong thing (i.e. the president's use of the words "act of terror" rather than his evasion of the original question) and, in doing so, missed an easy opportunity to inflict some real damage on foreign policy, an area where Romney has consistently shown weakness.
Interesting debate. To get Obama to admit that there needs to be another gun ban was HUGE win for us as many people think that he has no interest (while WE know that just isn't true).
I thought Romney nailed him on Fast N Furious (which he had no reply). When Romney was asked the question about how he was different from Bush, I thought he did an excellent job of tying Obama's comments on the debt that Bush accumulated with our current debt (that Obama accumulated).
The Libya question got ZERO answer from Obama. He just stated what he did AFTER the fact with no details. This should be red flag to people that they want nothing to do with this issue and really don't have a truthful answer.
The moderator of course sucked. Can we get a conservative or at least ONE Republican to run one of these things??????? Oh and better time keeping. Giving opposition nearly 4 minutes extra is 100% unfair.
C4
Belmont, I'm not jumping on anything. Read my previous post.
I'm simply scoring "style points," which seems to be how these debates are evaluated by most folks, and noting that, on this particular issue, Romney pounced on the wrong thing (i.e. the president's use of the words "act of terror" rather than his evasion of the original question) and, in doing so, missed an easy opportunity to inflict some real damage on foreign policy, an area where Romney has consistently shown weakness.
I think that he was in the middle of pouncing on precisely the right thing. However, he was cut off by a poorly informed moderator in the middle of his statement. It was obvious that Romney was not finished with his indictment when Crowley stopped play and awarded the point to Obama.
BTW, most of us do not award style points over substance and veracity. Did you hear one specific plan from Obama on how to address Medicare, Social Security, etc? Did you notice that he could not truthfully answer Romney's questions on federal drilling permits or the pipeline? How about Obama's answer to reduce the deficit? Does he even have a budget plan for next year? Did you notice that Biden called for a tax raise on only those earning more than $1M, while Obama says $250K? All of these questions remained unanswered, but he won because he looked better on stage on this occasion?
It's implausible that Obama won the debate and there is still no clarity on how he would answer these questions.
Doc Safari
10-17-12, 09:38
I loved Luntz's focus group on FOX after the debate. One guy actually called some of what Obama said "bullshit" and they couldn't bleep it because it was live.
Another lady's comments were very telling: Supposedly she was an undecided voter. She made it a point to state that it's not that she was undecided between Romney and Obama, it's that she was undecided between Romney and staying home.
Gun sales will be frickin crazy tomorrow, you wont be able to find a dpms, delton, rra, or bushy anywhere in the country. Grant its going to be a busy busy week for you methinks.
People need to just chill the f out and not create a self-fulfilling panic situation.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I think that he was in the middle of pouncing on precisely the right thing. However, he was cut off by a poorly informed moderator in the middle of his statement. It was obvious that Romney was not finished with his indictment when Crowley stopped play and awarded the point to Obama.
He was cut off but in my opinion he tried to bait Obama for too long by asking the question repeatedly instead of just directly getting to the point of the two weeks of BS and lies from the administration.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 09:45
Belmont, I'm not jumping on anything. Read my previous post.
I'm simply scoring "style points," which seems to be how these debates are evaluated by most folks, and noting that, on this particular issue, Romney pounced on the wrong thing (i.e. the president's use of the words "act of terror" rather than his evasion of the original question) and, in doing so, missed an easy opportunity to inflict some real damage on foreign policy, an area where Romney has consistently shown weakness.
Read the section of transcript I posted. The only reason it went south for him on that point is because the moderator jumped in and started tag teaming Romney. If she would have allowed Romney's line of attack to continue on that whole segment would have turned out differently. The way things went down, and even the audience clapping Romney probably thought better of the situation, and Crowley back tracked after the debate after already snubbing out where Romney was going with it.
It was like Obama had a "phone a friend" whenever he was getting grilled. Read the segment on gun control, and Obama says "Candy!", and the next part of the transcript is her cutting Romney off insinuating him not supporting an AWB is Romney supporting mass shootings like there is a cause/correlation between mass shootings and an AWB. She even rejected the Fast and Furious attack when it clearly fit in with the question on reducing gun violence.
Terrible one sided moderation and as I said these debates is the Republican debating the Democrat and the moderator. With a complicit media, for a Republican to 'win', its basically 3 against 1. They have to soundly beat the Democrat, the moderator, and do so badly enough the media can't spin it as a win anyways.
You are most likely right about this being about style because Democrats can't win on substance. I will say Romney really needs an answer about the whole deductions thing, but as a whole Romney has a lot more substance to his entire campaign than Obama ever will. Obama cannot run on his record, and they had to turn it into a debate over social issues.
Look at the questions asked. It was like going through the DNC party platform and allowing Obama to tee off on more feel good BS and say how much Republicans hate women and minorities. They hit the gammut of target DNC voters...Mexicans on immigration, the token black dude, the college student, the women not getting paid the same, gun control, you're a Republican so aren't you the same as Bush. Obama got one semi-tough question on Libya, and the moderator managed to torpedo Romney's response. They hit on zero questions which line up with the RNC's platform like the burden ObamaCare is going to put on businesses when hiring is already sluggish.
I honestly busted out laughing at the Republican/Bush comparison question. If that doesn't say it all to you I don't know what to tell you. Independent undecided voters my ass.
QUESTION: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter, because I'm disappointed with the lack of progress I've seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America's economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration.
Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?
This question starts off with the premise everything is Bush's fault, and Obama has nothing to do with the issues domestically and internationally.
The question is not framed in a way than a "independent" voter would frame it.
Doc Safari
10-17-12, 09:51
Interesting debate. To get Obama to admit that there needs to be another gun ban was HUGE win for us as many people think that he has no interest (while WE know that just isn't true).
C4
Some people are swearing that Romney agreed with him. I didn't come away with that impression, but then again I had to fend of a couple of phone calls in the middle of the debate so I might have missed it.
If you're still watching this thread: please tell us whether your sales go nuts over the next few days. That will indicate whether Romney scared some gun owners too.
People need to just chill the f out and not create a self-fulfilling panic situation.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Yes Please, do this exactly.
I loved Luntz's focus group on FOX after the debate. One guy actually called some of what Obama said "bullshit" and they couldn't bleep it because it was live.
Another lady's comments were very telling: Supposedly she was an undecided voter. She made it a point to state that it's not that she was undecided between Romney and Obama, it's that she was undecided between Romney and staying home.
It is interesting that the focus groups are calling it for Romney while talking heads see it as a draw or slight Obama win (because he showed up with a pulse). Even the more conservative pundants say Obama might have edged out a win due to style. However, there seems to be a real disconnect between the pros and the joes - especially when the focus group on MSNBC was leaning Romney.
Some people are swearing that Romney agreed with him. I didn't come away with that impression, but then again I had to fend of a couple of phone calls in the middle of the debate so I might have missed it.
I don't know how they got that impression. Romney specifically said that he is against any type of ban. This was even in the beginning of his answer.
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 10:07
It is interesting that the focus groups are calling it for Romney while talking heads see it as a draw or slight Obama win (because he showed up with a pulse). Even the more conservative pundants say Obama might have edged out a win due to style. However, there seems to be a real disconnect between the pros and the joes - especially when the focus group on MSNBC was leaning Romney.
Noticed that, too.
montanadave
10-17-12, 10:15
I think that he was in the middle of pouncing on precisely the right thing. However, he was cut off by a poorly informed moderator in the middle of his statement. It was obvious that Romney was not finished with his indictment when Crowley stopped play and awarded the point to Obama.
BTW, most of us do not award style points over substance and veracity. Did you hear one specific plan from Obama on how to address Medicare, Social Security, etc? Did you notice that he could not truthfully answer Romney's questions on federal drilling permits or the pipeline? How about Obama's answer to reduce the deficit? Does he even have a budget plan for next year? Did you notice that Biden called for a tax raise on only those earning more than $1M, while Obama says $250K? All of these questions remained unanswered, but he won because he looked better on stage on this occasion?
It's implausible that Obama won the debate and there is still no clarity on how he would answer these questions.
Most of "us," it you are referring to members here who regularly contribute to political threads, follow the ebb and flow of political campaigns, public and foreign policy, economic policy, etc., much more closely than the average American voter. The unfortunate truth is most folks vote for a particular candidate based solely on party affiliation or as a popularity contest. So, effectively, "style points" do matter as they can energize a campaign and motivate some folks to actually get out and vote or generate enough media "buzz" to influence others.
As for substance, I'm dismayed at the dearth of specifics offered by both candidates. With the fiscal issues facing this country, it is absolutely obscene that either candidate is being allowed to offer nothing more than platitudes and "sound bite" slogans in lieu of actual, specific policy positions.
With all the bitching about moderators, how about one who just steps in and says to both of 'em, "Hey! How about you actually answer the ****ing question instead of regurgitating the same old talking points?"
28 to 9!
That is the number of times that Crowley interrupted each candidate. You can guess which guy got each number...:rolleyes:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Crowley-interrupts-28-times-Romney
Most of "us," it you are referring to members here who regularly contribute to political threads, follow the ebb and flow of political campaigns, public and foreign policy, economic policy, etc., much more closely than the average American voter. The unfortunate truth is most folks vote for a particular candidate based solely on party affiliation or as a popularity contest. So, effectively, "style points" do matter as they can energize a campaign and motivate some folks to actually get out and vote or generate enough media "buzz" to influence others.
As for substance, I'm dismayed at the dearth of specifics offered by both candidates. With the fiscal issues facing this country, it is absolutely obscene that either candidate is being allowed to offer nothing more than platitudes and "sound bite" slogans in lieu of actual, specific policy positions.
With all the bitching about moderators, how about one who just steps in and says to both of 'em, "Hey! How about you actually answer the ****ing question instead of regurgitating the same old talking points?"
I'd say the "us" includes a lot of the focus group independents since most of them on MSNBC and FNC gave it to Romney.
BTW, which Romney answers left you wanting? Perhaps it was the one about how Romney is going to lower tuition rates? Maybe he did a poor job distinguishing himself from George Bush (I was waiting for someone to ask Obama to distinguish himself from Jimmy Carter)? Was your kilt not lifted by how he would equalize the discrepancy in pay between men and women?
I can see how the average voter that needs more style from Romney would be left wanting more in terms of these burning issues for the nation.
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 10:32
Most of "us," it you are referring to members here who regularly contribute to political threads, follow the ebb and flow of political campaigns, public and foreign policy, economic policy, etc., much more closely than the average American voter. The unfortunate truth is most folks vote for a particular candidate based solely on party affiliation or as a popularity contest. So, effectively, "style points" do matter as they can energize a campaign and motivate some folks to actually get out and vote or generate enough media "buzz" to influence others.
As for substance, I'm dismayed at the dearth of specifics offered by both candidates. With the fiscal issues facing this country, it is absolutely obscene that either candidate is being allowed to offer nothing more than platitudes and "sound bite" slogans in lieu of actual, specific policy positions.
With all the bitching about moderators, how about one who just steps in and says to both of 'em, "Hey! How about you actually answer the ****ing question instead of regurgitating the same old talking points?"
The debates in this format are a poor venue to explain a detailed policy in the 2 minutes especially when the Republicans get less time to talk and constantly interrupted by the moderator.
But I do agree...just saying a debate isn't where you want to offer details when all you get is 2 minutes, and hope you don't get interrupted. Then you make one mistake or flub and the media will call you a flip flopper.
I don't know how they got that impression. Romney specifically said that he is against any type of ban. This was even in the beginning of his answer.
Yet, as he went on he talked about how he worked with "both sides" to inititute the current Mass. gun laws....
In other news; Today's Yahoo headline (I check email there)-
"Obama takes charge, wins debate"
:rolleyes:
You guys have more patience than I do. I skipped the debate and went to my son's pack meeting.
--
I somehow ended up on Gary Bauer's daily email missive list. I never subscribed but have not gotten off as I often find it interesting and he often links to current news articles.
He sent out his recap of the debate this morning. This is from the tail end:
"A Telling Moment
Perhaps one of the most edifying moments last night took place off the stage and out of view for most Americans. Responding to Obama's attacks on his investments, Romney asked Obama if he had looked at his own pension account because it too has investments outside of the United States. Obama retorted, "You know, I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long."
There was some laughter in the room. But eyewitnesses said that the press room, where reporters were watching the debate, "erupted into applause after President Obama ridiculed the size of Mitt Romney's personal wealth." The liberal reporters just couldn't restrain themselves when it came to Obama's class warfare putdown.
Conclusion
Governor Romney clearly won the first debate. This one appears to be a draw with a number of missed opportunities. But I think both events will end up winners for Mitt Romney. Here's why.
Governor Romney has been subjected to a $700 million smear campaign meant to convince Americans that Mitt Romney is an extremist, out-of-touch and mean man who doesn't care about us. But in two debates they have seen someone who is compassionate and capable -- in a word: presidential.
These two 90-minute events essentially neutralized Obama's year-long negative ad barrage. And they have given "permission" to millions of Americans to vote for Mitt Romney.
"
Was your kilt not lifted by how he would equalize the discrepancy in pay between men and women?
Just what we need, more meddling in the free market. If we didn't have a weak economy from, you guessed it government intervention, people could negotiate to what they think they are worth.
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 12:18
Just what we need, more meddling in the free market. If we didn't have a weak economy from, you guessed it government intervention, people could negotiate to what they think they are worth.
Most of the discrepancy is because of the difference in career paths women take vs. men and that women take off more time from work for family than men. Women also spend less time, overall, in the work force than men. Less experience = less pay even for the same job. Women are more likely to go into liberal arts type fields where men are more likely to go into hard sciences/engineering type fields. Women are more likely to quit their jobs when kids come along than men.
In order for women, as gender, to make the same amount of money as men as a whole women would have to get paid significantly more than men to make up for the types of jobs and less time spent in the work force.
Just what we need, more meddling in the free market. If we didn't have a weak economy from, you guessed it government intervention, people could negotiate to what they think they are worth.
That was my exact point as I was mixing sarcasm and irony. Each of those questions that were asked of Romney, and that I echoed to MontanaDave, had no place in a presidential debate. A few such as tuition rates in state schools may have been appropriate for a gubernatorial debate, but most of those issues are best left to the private sector. None of those issues were pertinent to this presidential election yet they are the primary determiners of style.
Denali, in your post #47 you made a specific assertion. And you were incorrect.
I think we can all agree these politicians and their surrogates parse their own and words of others like surgeons. If you watch the debate tape and see Romney's reaction to Obama's statement when he said "act of terror" with respect to the attack in Benghazi, it is evident that Romney thought he had him nailed dead to rights. Romney jumped on it and he got played
He did have him dead to rights, as I have you dead to rights, in an epic fail! ;)
I posted you, as have others, a linlk verifying the context of Obamas remarks, in which the "ahh" moderator(some might call her teammate)attempts to walk back her "ahh" assertions, and states that in fact Romney was right....
Get a second mortgage on the house and everything you don't need and start buying assault weapons. When Barry gets reelected sell them and you'll be a millionaire.
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 12:49
That was my exact point as I was mixing sarcasm and irony. Each of those questions that were asked of Romney, and that I echoed to MontanaDave, had no place in a presidential debate. A few such as tuition rates in state schools may have been appropriate for a gubernatorial debate, but most of those issues are best left to the private sector. None of those issues were pertinent to this presidential election yet they are the primary determiners of style.
Like I said these questions were geared to social issues and DNC talking points than pertinent issues at the Federal level.
I've been talking to a friend about these types of issues, and the creep of more and more 'issues' into Federal elections when they should be state or private sector matters. This translates into creep of bigger and bigger government, more regulation, and ends up ultimately harming our economy and way of life as we deal with every increasing difficulty of daily life. There's been a long term shift of these issues onto the national stage, and candidates making an issue out of them. Now we're to the point in having a president who thinks government spending and regulation is the key factor to job growth, and creating an centrally controlled economy. As people get more and more used to this type of narrative and talking points it makes it harder and harder to get away from that. I've said in other threads there has been a long term shift even on the Republican side to further left candidates each time we nominate one. I don't see this turning around anytime soon, and prob going to get worse as time goes on.
Even look at things like debt levels and this creep to higher and higher deficits. As much as Democrats lambasted Bush for the debt he signed off on they more than doubled down on new debt since Obama took office, and now with a Republican House we're still running over a trillion a year in new debt. I guess these trillion dollar plus yearly new debt levels are the new baseline, and Romney's proposed deficit reduction numbers hardly make a dent in the 5 and 10 year projections. I'd really like to have seen the Republican nominee propose something like a 5-10% a year reduction in the big 3 (Medicare, SS, and DOD) while telling people he will do all he can to make sure the first thing to cut is the waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency of these expenditures but the hard line is 5-10% even if it means SS checks will be reduced or the DOD has to be smarter with its money. Then take a fine tooth comb through the rest of the budget and cut the BS out. We spend tens of billions a year on some of the stupidest things you can come up with. A few hundred thousand for robotic squirrels. 300k is minuscule but we have tens of thousands of minuscule expenditures that add up to tens of billions every year we don't need, and American's wouldn't even notice them cut.
These debates are to sway independents and women. The rest have their minds mostly made up. Just going to the poll is another matter.
If you take ONLY that into account and not what WE feel (I don't think many of us are either independents or women)...Obama lost - Romney called him out on several promises he made and hasn't kept (while having a Democratic majority for two years)
Romney hit hard with far more specifics...his 5 point plan (how the **** do you expect him to go into exacting detail in two minutes?) Just slowing us from the economic cliff we are facing is an improvement over 4 more years of the same.
Obama said government doesn't create jobs. WTF? Where does he feel his '5 million jobs created' sit?
Domestic energy production down 50% on govt. land (apparently mostly correct as indicated by a fact checker)
Unfortunately, Romney's statement that coal plants "kill people" is also true but we have domestic oil and natural gas exploration, harvesting, and refining that could offset those jobs. He needs to hit harder on clean domestic energy production which can satisfy the majority of people by creating jobs and not harming the environment.
Romney missed the mark by not pointing to Obama propping up the green energy companies with federal money that have folded. WTF?
Romney was mostly correct on Libya and the Rose Garden speech ambiguity, denial, UN agreement, and Obama/Carnival-Karney finally admitting it was a coordinated terrorist attack on Sept. 11th.
Obama pandering by mentioning twice that he was there to greet coffins. WOW! You were a warm body who was there!!! Romney couldn't possibly have done such a fan-****ing-tastic job :rolleyes:
The questions were obviously biased toward Obama even though he was forced to pander to the middle some. I thought Romney did a fairly good job of not pandering to the middle while appearing more in touch with people and not coming off as a jerk. Everybody knows he won't force the gun control issue. Obama clearly will. Healthcare is Romney's Achilles heel. He may have felt healthcare was the right/popular issue to tackle at the time in MA but he realizes now that the economy is in the shitter, it isn't going to help business growth but in fact hinder employment and growth.
Crowley is just a fat drooling liberal disguised not so cleverly as a moderator but revealed to be an Obama supporter by the quick quid pro quo "Uh, Candy, grab that transcript for me." A little too fast on the draw, bitch. Now backpedal your way out of it like the MSM is good for doing. Even the lefty pundits are only saying Obama left with a slight edge, which really means he lost.
Face it, there isn't going to be a fair or impartial moderator. Romney just has to do the best he can with what he has without offending too many people. What is it with people getting turned off by Romney having the balls to walk over to Obama and call him out?
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 13:14
In case you guys haven't seen this on the news, since I haven't, and it wasn't brought up in the debate Obama put out an ad claiming the coal miners featured during a Romney campaign stop were forced to be there and threatened with termination if they didn't attend.
You can see the ad here: http://youtu.be/-GBGIFdahSo
Well seems the coal miners took issue with the ad, and the Obama campaign making up things about them. They did a mini-press conference, and have collected pages of signatures from workers at the mine to refute the Obama ad. Can be seen here: http://youtu.be/SzU3oZLV8Hw
Doesn't seem like the type of guys you want to piss off...:D
RancidSumo
10-17-12, 13:34
Speaking of biased moderation, I understand that it is supposed to be a discussion do there isn't a lot of formal structure as to who speaks first or last but this is how it breaks down:
Obama: 8
Romney: 2
And one where Crowley "fact checked" Romney and the question ended with everybody speaking at once.
Allowing Obama the last word on eight out of the eleven questions and interrupting/arguing with Romney to close out another hardly seems like fair moderation.
Speaking of biased moderation, I understand that it is supposed to be a discussion do there isn't a lot of formal structure as to who speaks first or last but this is how it breaks down:
Obama: 8
Romney: 2
And one where Crowley "fact checked" Romney and the question ended with everybody speaking at once.
Allowing Obama the last word on eight out of the eleven questions and interrupting/arguing with Romney to close out another hardly seems like fair moderation.
If you look at Crowley's body language as she interferes with Romney at precisely the moment he was opening up on Obama on Lybia, it becomes plainly evident that it was scripted, that she was prepared to intercede on Obama's behalf!
Further, on CNN's post debate coverage, John King taking advantage of the large audience, immediately went about fact checking Romney on federal oil contracts, after a minute of total obfuscation in which he continually minimized Romney's position on Obama's record, he grudgingly acknowledged that Romney was "more right then wrong!" Good one that, a 62% reduction in drilling contracts was just, "more right then wrong!" :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 15:12
These debates are to sway independents and women. The rest have their minds mostly made up. Just going to the poll is another matter.
If you take ONLY that into account and not what WE feel (I don't think many of us are either independents or women)...Obama lost - Romney called him out on several promises he made and hasn't kept (while having a Democratic majority for two years)
Romney hit hard with far more specifics...his 5 point plan (how the **** do you expect him to go into exacting detail in two minutes?) Just slowing us from the economic cliff we are facing is an improvement over 4 more years of the same.
Obama said government doesn't create jobs. WTF? Where does he feel his '5 million jobs created' sit?
Domestic energy production down 50% on govt. land (apparently mostly correct as indicated by a fact checker)
Unfortunately, Romney's statement that coal plants "kill people" is also true but we have domestic oil and natural gas exploration, harvesting, and refining that could offset those jobs. He needs to hit harder on clean domestic energy production which can satisfy the majority of people by creating jobs and not harming the environment.
Romney missed the mark by not pointing to Obama propping up the green energy companies with federal money that have folded. WTF?
Romney was mostly correct on Libya and the Rose Garden speech ambiguity, denial, UN agreement, and Obama/Carnival-Karney finally admitting it was a coordinated terrorist attack on Sept. 11th.
Obama pandering by mentioning twice that he was there to greet coffins. WOW! You were a warm body who was there!!! Romney couldn't possibly have done such a fan-****ing-tastic job :rolleyes:
The questions were obviously biased toward Obama even though he was forced to pander to the middle some. I thought Romney did a fairly good job of not pandering to the middle while appearing more in touch with people and not coming off as a jerk. Everybody knows he won't force the gun control issue. Obama clearly will. Healthcare is Romney's Achilles heel. He may have felt healthcare was the right/popular issue to tackle at the time in MA but he realizes now that the economy is in the shitter, it isn't going to help business growth but in fact hinder employment and growth.
Crowley is just a fat drooling liberal disguised not so cleverly as a moderator but revealed to be an Obama supporter by the quick quid pro quo "Uh, Candy, grab that transcript for me." A little too fast on the draw, bitch. Now backpedal your way out of it like the MSM is good for doing. Even the lefty pundits are only saying Obama left with a slight edge, which really means he lost.
Face it, there isn't going to be a fair or impartial moderator. Romney just has to do the best he can with what he has without offending too many people. What is it with people getting turned off by Romney having the balls to walk over to Obama and call him out?
Obama's statement about Romney saying "coal plants kill" is another Obama attempt to leave vital, and context changing details to his statements. Romney was not anti-coal.
When he said what he did (where Obama got his snippet) was while Romney was governor there was a coal plant outside of Boston which was fighting the state over it's new emissions standards they didn't want to comply with, and a Harvard study concluded dozens of people were dying PER YEAR while this ONE plant was in operation. He faught against the unions who wanted to protect their jobs while sticking to the timeline for compliance with the emissions laws which were enacted before he became governor. He had a press conference outside the plant, and said he doesn't support coal plants that kill, and this plant kills (paraphrasing).
Frankly as free market as I am free market doesn't include killing a few dozen people per year who happen to live around you. Your rights end where another's begin, and taking other people's lives so you can run a plant isn't kosher.
But that doesn't make Romney anti-coal. He correctly enforced the state's emission laws, and that plant was dirty enough it was killing people who lived nearby and were forced to breath in its emissions.
Obama's statement about Romney saying "coal plants kill" is another Obama attempt to leave vital, and context changing details to his statements. Romney was not anti-coal.
When he said what he did (where Obama got his snippet) was while Romney was governor there was a coal plant outside of Boston which was fighting the state over it's new emissions standards they didn't want to comply with, and a Harvard study concluded dozens of people were dying PER YEAR while this ONE plant was in operation. He faught against the unions who wanted to protect their jobs while sticking to the timeline for compliance with the emissions laws which were enacted before he became governor. He had a press conference outside the plant, and said he doesn't support coal plants that kill, and this plant kills (paraphrasing).
Frankly as free market as I am free market doesn't include killing a few dozen people per year who happen to live around you. Your rights end where another's begin, and taking other people's lives so you can run a plant isn't kosher.
But that doesn't make Romney anti-coal. He correctly enforced the state's emission laws, and that plant was dirty enough it was killing people who lived nearby and were forced to breath in its emissions.
I know.
I just meant it was unfortunate in the sense that Obama's word will be taken at face value. Romney is always damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Obama attempted to cast Romney in a liberal light while all Romney was doing (as you pointed out) was enforcing federal EPA law. Three of the most dirty words that could be used by a Republican.
Obama in typical fashion used a dirty smear tactic. While I sometimes go to politifact.com to do some fact checking, even they dropped the ball on this one. They rated Obama's statement as True.
While technically true, they didn't go into the in depth analysis of what he was implying or really meant like they ALWAYS do with Romney's statements which most times end in a Half-True verdict.
Obama said Romney has changed his tune about coal, claiming that in Massachusetts he "stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, ‘This plant kills.’"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-once-said-coal-burning-plant-kil/
ETA:
How does shutting down one of the dirtiest coal plants amount to "changing ones tune?"
That should be at least mostly False by their typical standards. Oh wait, Obama gets a pass.
But I totally agree with everything you said. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be breathing in Mercury filled smoke.
The big bomb drop in my mind was the "I am working to re institute an AWB" assault weapons are bad, boo freakin hoo. Great! That has been my biggest worry, that the Pres was waiting on a second term to drop the heavy hitting un-popular legislation when he does not have to worry about re-election.
Please VOTE! Make sure your friends vote, our 2nd amendment rights ARE in danger if the President is re-elected!
The big bomb drop in my mind was the "I am working to re institute an AWB" assault weapons are bad, boo freakin hoo. Great! That has been my biggest worry, that the Pres was waiting on a second term to drop the heavy hitting un-popular legislation when he does not have to worry about re-election.
Please VOTE! Make sure your friends vote, our 2nd amendment rights ARE in danger if the President is re-elected!
THIS!
If no other reason is the best reason to vote for Romney even if you can't stand the guy personally.
Let's not assume the Senate is going to get packed with enough Republicans and the House retain enough to stall a new bill...or depend on the SCOTUS to strike it down otherwise.
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 15:57
The big bomb drop in my mind was the "I am working to re institute an AWB" assault weapons are bad, boo freakin hoo. Great! That has been my biggest worry, that the Pres was waiting on a second term to drop the heavy hitting un-popular legislation when he does not have to worry about re-election.
Please VOTE! Make sure your friends vote, our 2nd amendment rights ARE in danger if the President is re-elected!
It said on his website in 2008 he supported the AWB.
It said on his website in 2008 he supported the AWB.
Of course...but we found out early he was full of shit and threats until he's eyeing a lame duck term.
The big bomb drop in my mind was the "I am working to re institute an AWB" assault weapons are bad,
He has actually been saying that for some time now. the problem is it's never reported on the news. He says these things on talk shows and interviews.
I think he began to ramp it up after the Aurora shooting, and in fact last night he referenced that incident.
The Gallup poll actually shows Romney up 51% to 45% which is actually up a point from yesterday.
America is not as stupid as Obama wants everyone to believe.
Obama
Holder
Clinton
Crowley
They can't all get on TV and lie and expect to continue to fool people. It's too easy to catch them. I was really happy to hear Romney expose Obama's pension and also Fast and Furious. Every little bit helps.
I honestly don't think Romney will do anything with 2A. I do think Obama will stack the SCOTUS the same way they did last night with that debate and Crowley having the "facts" right at hand to bail him out.
That is one sinister group of people that's for sure.
Of course...but we found out early he was full of shit and threats until he's eyeing a lame duck term.
Hell, he said last night he supported the 2nd. Right before he said he wanted to re-introduce an AWB. The man is simply a comfortable liar.
The big bomb drop in my mind was the "I am working to re institute an AWB" assault weapons are bad, boo freakin hoo. Great! That has been my biggest worry, that the Pres was waiting on a second term to drop the heavy hitting un-popular legislation when he does not have to worry about re-election.
Please VOTE! Make sure your friends vote, our 2nd amendment rights ARE in danger if the President is re-elected!
Well, then you missed the greatest infringement on your 2nd amendment rights in our brief history, Obamacare was rehabilitated by the chief justice to be a tax, further, he expanded the known tax code in doing so, in such fashion that no tax is unconstitutional!
Do you understand? The socialist party can now enact sweeping gun & ammo bans, simply by attaching a tax stamp to all existing firearms and ammo in circulation! I've watched as the majority of gun owners gripe about a 2nd term agenda, which is an oxymoron, considering what all powerful new Obama anti-gun tool already resides in the congress ability to levy tax! Think about...;)
Belmont31R
10-17-12, 16:11
Of course...but we found out early he was full of shit and threats until he's eyeing a lame duck term.
If it would have gotten to his desk he would have signed it. Bigger fish to fry in the 2 years they had the super majority like Stimulus, Frank-Dodd, and ObamaCare.
Meh.
Lousy questions, lousy answers (from both), lousy moderation, and overall bad form (from both). I expected better.
By the end, I was simply staying tuned to see if there would be a fistfight.
Doc Safari
10-17-12, 17:39
You've got to treat every issue with Obama as if he were talking to Medvedev: "I'll have more flexibility after the election."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Romney missed his chance to end the gun law debate once and for all when Omao acknowledged most of the guns used in Chicago are cheap handguns.
Romney should blasted back with Chicago has had a gun ban for how long? Right there that prove that gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey the law.
I would've looked like a 6 years doing the pee dance waiting to respond.
Romney missed his chance to end the gun law debate once and for all when Omao acknowledged most of the guns used in Chicago are cheap handguns.
Romney should blasted back with Chicago has had a gun ban for how long? Right there that prove that gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey the law.
I would've looked like a 6 years doing the pee dance waiting to respond.
Absolutely! He was clearly distracted, and flustered by the "ahh" moderator's interference on behalf of Obama by that point...
Magic_Salad0892
10-17-12, 19:12
I'm so tempted to vote for Gary Johnson. But I'll probably vote for Mittens...
I'm so tempted to vote for Gary Johnson. But I'll probably vote for Mittens...
Im sure he would do a great job, but as many have said a vote for Johnson is a vote for obama. Same goes for the Ron Paul fans.
Is anyone else getting really scared about the ramificiations of this election? I dont think we've had such a crucial election in history.
Im sure he would do a great job, but as many have said a vote for Johnson is a vote for obama. Same goes for the Ron Paul fans.
Probably not in Oregon.
Im sure he would do a great job, but as many have said a vote for Johnson is a vote for obama. Same goes for the Ron Paul fans.
Is anyone else getting really scared about the ramificiations of this election? I dont think we've had such a crucial election in history.
There's not going to be a 2nd chance after this, if Obama gets re-elected, its checkmate! The odds of genuine civil unrest exponentiate, I assure you that he will end the 2nd amendment, and he already has the tools courtesy of the chief justices treachery on Obamacare, in place to do so with very little fanfare, or warning. He's going to have at least one of the houses of congress firmly in his camp, and he's going to get at least two other commies on the high court, not to mention, dozens and dozens of radicalized lunatic fringers appointed to federal judgeships...
If you thought the first go-round was cancer, just wait until he gets a 2nd nod, with no restraints on him and the real agenda. We won't recognize whats left of the nation....
Probably not in Oregon.
Yeah very good point.
The AWB issue will cost Obama the election, and the dems lose the Senate because of it.
I view FL, NC and NV as pro-gun states. He just wrote them off.
I am willing to bet OH has a few democrat/moderate gun owners who now know their god is a liar.
What about PA? It is a big deer hunting state. I have been surprised by Obama's lead in PA, but maybe they only poll Philadelphia.
Everyone knew what he was about before and they voted for him. His call for a new AWB isn't going to hurt his chances because too many Anericans are stupid.
The AWB issue will cost Obama the election, and the dems lose the Senate because of it.
I view FL, NC and NV as pro-gun states. He just wrote them off.
I am willing to bet OH has a few democrat/moderate gun owners who now know their god is a liar.
Assuming gun control is the most important issue to everyone. Sure, it probably is very important to us... But this is a gun forum.
Doc Safari
10-17-12, 23:22
Everyone knew what he was about before and they voted for him. His call for a new AWB isn't going to hurt his chances because too many Anericans are stupid.
The general public could care less about assault weapons. Despite the fact that the AR is supposedly the best selling rifle in the US right now, it appeals to people who are already gun people.
Everyone else just thinks they're ugly guns you're not supposed to hunt with or some such horseshit.
We know that Barry wants a new AWB, and even though I believe Mittens is soft on one also, I think the NRA and gun owners will reign him in. As I've said before: Romney keeps moving more and more to the right. He's no idiot. He knows he needs to be Reagan to win not only one but two terms.
I think we are "safe" with Romney unless another shooting causes his knees to go all watery and the libtards convince him that another AWB is "for the children."
Two things:
1) The only women named Candy are strippers/pornstars and big fat bitches.
2) I've decided I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, and I suggest that anyone living in CA, MA, NJ, MD, or DC do the same. And here's why:
NY, and those aforementioned states, will go to Obama. Winner takes all 122 electoral college votes. So the only number we can effect is the popular vote tally. Here's why that's important:
The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing "3rd party". And if they get more than 5% of the popular vote this time around, they'll be eligible for federal matching funds in 2016. It'll help establish a beachhead for a real constitutionalist conservative choice in the future.
So I feel that if my states' electors are going to Obama anyway, I might as well use my popular vote for a good cause.
*Note. If I lived in a contested (battleground) state, I would NOT do this or recommend this. I'd be 100% in for Romney.
iPhone/Tapatalk
2) I've decided I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, and I suggest that anyone living in CA, MA, NJ, MD, or DC do the same. And here's why:
NY, and those aforementioned states, will go to Obama. Winner takes all 122 electoral college votes. So the only number we can effect is the popular vote tally. Here's why that's important:
The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing "3rd party". And if they get more than 5% of the popular vote this time around, they'll be eligible for federal matching funds in 2016. It'll help establish a beachhead for a real constitutionalist conservative choice in the future.
So I feel that if my states' electors are going to Obama anyway, I might as well use my popular vote for a good cause.
*Note. If I lived in a contested (battleground) state, I would NOT do this or recommend this. I'd be 100% in for Romney.
I sometimes do that the other way around. Romney, for example, won't lose Utah. No friggin' way. I've voted LP in the past with that knowledge. However, this time around I won't be doing that, and wouldn't be if I lived in MA/NY/other hell-hole. For one simple reason (actually two):
1. The LP won't get near 5%. The LP has gotten the following percentages in the last 5 Presidential elections, working backwards from 2008 to 1992, with a high water mark of 1996 and Harry Browne. 0.40%, 0.32%, 0.36%, 0.50%, 0.28% . They won't increase this 11x. We had high hopes with Harry Browne in 1996 and he got to just 1/2%. And he was a far superior candidate than Johnson. May Harry Brown RIP.
2. If Romney wins, he has to win with as much popular vote as possible. No controversy. No winning electoral without popular. As big as possible to shut the critics up and to have some sort of mandate. (And you never know what will happen even in the Democratic hell holes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ElectoralCollege1980.svg&page=1
----
Magic_Salad0892
10-18-12, 02:06
Im sure he would do a great job, but as many have said a vote for Johnson is a vote for obama. Same goes for the Ron Paul fans.
What do you mean?
I don't believe in the idea of a mandate. If a candidate wins by a large margin, that should not weigh at all on his opinions or policies. He's there to preside over the union, sign laws (or veto), and carry out his constitutional job description in general. The fact that 57% of voters went for him over the other guy does not mean that he can feel good about screwing the other 43% in their hind regions. The idea of a mandate, IMO, gives politicians the idea that they can do whatever they want. That's called a Democracy
http://youtu.be/rl_NpdAy3WY Puhleez
iPhone/Tapatalk
Binders full of women. I'm in the wrong profession. FML.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/190291_10151335173125802_731959692_n.jpg
Mauser KAR98K
10-18-12, 08:54
Binders full of women. I'm in the wrong profession. FML.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/190291_10151335173125802_731959692_n.jpg
That picture reminds me an absolute hammer job Romney has not been undertaking: "If Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, why did he push for the Bush Taxs cuts to continue, and had BILL CLINTON take his place on the podium to help him out. That isn't real leadership, you were trying to court you 47% by having some one else, a much better leader than you, as you pointed out when you asked him to speak to the press corp, to pitch what your base never wanted to happen."
And Romney pivots to Fast & Furious while claiming the Massachusetts AWB was supported by pro-gunners.
And being there at the time myself, I can say is 100% BS claim.
That picture reminds me an absolute hammer job Romney has not been undertaking: "If Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, why did he push for the Bush Taxs cuts to continue, and had BILL CLINTON take his place on the podium to help him out.
I believe that he made that point in the first debate. Paul Ryan also made that point against Biden.
Two things:
1) The only women named Candy are strippers/pornstars and big fat bitches.
2) I've decided I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, and I suggest that anyone living in CA, MA, NJ, MD, or DC do the same. And here's why:
NY, and those aforementioned states, will go to Obama. Winner takes all 122 electoral college votes. So the only number we can effect is the popular vote tally. Here's why that's important:
The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing "3rd party". And if they get more than 5% of the popular vote this time around, they'll be eligible for federal matching funds in 2016. It'll help establish a beachhead for a real constitutionalist conservative choice in the future.
So I feel that if my states' electors are going to Obama anyway, I might as well use my popular vote for a good cause.
*Note. If I lived in a contested (battleground) state, I would NOT do this or recommend this. I'd be 100% in for Romney.
iPhone/Tapatalk
I am a constitutionalists, live in NM, had Gary as a Governor for 8 years.
We need your vote for Romney no matter what you think the state outcome is. Do not waste your vote on Gary. Trust me, I know his record. He is weak.
CarlosDJackal
10-18-12, 10:43
A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for a guaranteed second AWB. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/obamas-big-gun-slip/)
I don't believe in the idea of a mandate. If a candidate wins by a large margin, that should not weigh at all on his opinions or policies. He's there to preside over the union, sign laws (or veto), and carry out his constitutional job description in general. The fact that 57% of voters went for him over the other guy does not mean that he can feel good about screwing the other 43% in their hind regions. The idea of a mandate, IMO, gives politicians the idea that they can do whatever they want. That's called a Democracy
I think you are misunderstanding my point. Politics is messy and to just do what you said (constitutional job description) would require a "mandate" to try and put things through and steer the agenda to what you and I would consider a Constitutional role of government.
Repealing Obamacare. Substituting a market friendly healthcare program. Attacking the tax system. All of that will face huge back pressure from the Democrats in Congress, and probably some Republicans.
I don't claim to know what Romney has in store for when he is President, but in order to get any of it done, including good stuff which we would agree would put us more in line with Constitutional job descriptions than Obama has been, will require lots of political pressure, which is where "mandate" comes in.
While it can be used that way, it does not mean "screw over the losers". It means "political pressure to steer the agenda"
If Romney wins 51-49, it will be much harder to repeal Obamacare and all that stuff in terms of back pressure from Congress, than if he wins 55-45.
-
-
caelumatra
10-18-12, 12:15
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but its Ollie North in afghan talking about Marines reactions to the second debate
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1907141849001/us-troops-in-afghanistan-react-to-presidential-debate/?intcmp=obnetwork
I think you are misunderstanding my point. Politics is messy and to just do what you said (constitutional job description) would require a "mandate" to try and put things through and steer the agenda to what you and I would consider a Constitutional role of government.
Repealing Obamacare. Substituting a market friendly healthcare program. Attacking the tax system. All of that will face huge back pressure from the Democrats in Congress, and probably some Republicans.
I don't claim to know what Romney has in store for when he is President, but in order to get any of it done, including good stuff which we would agree would put us more in line with Constitutional job descriptions than Obama has been, will require lots of political pressure, which is where "mandate" comes in.
While it can be used that way, it does not mean "screw over the losers". It means "political pressure to steer the agenda"
If Romney wins 51-49, it will be much harder to repeal Obamacare and all that stuff in terms of back pressure from Congress, than if he wins 55-45.
-
-
Depends on the makeup of Congress. If a Republican majority of any significance is maintained in the House, there is no problem. The problem really is the Senate...and it will be a problem regardless of Romney's theoretical margin of victory.
A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for a guaranteed second AWB. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/obamas-big-gun-slip/)
You didn't read what I said.
Obama will win NY. It's a certainty. 27 electoral college votes.
So I'm going to use my vote to help out the Libertarian Party for 2016, seeing as how this butthole state is going to Obama.
If I was in a "too close to call" state, no friggin way would I do this.
iPhone/Tapatalk
Depends on the makeup of Congress. If a Republican majority of any significance is maintained in the House, there is no problem. The problem really is the Senate...and it will be a problem regardless of Romney's theoretical margin of victory.
But it will be easier with a larger Romney margin of victory. If you look at history I think you see an easier time for a new President to set his agenda if he wins "big" versus squeak by. Reagan got his stuff passed early even with a D Congress as an example. Will it make it a cake walk? no, but it will make it easier. Politicians blink when they think they are going against popular opinion.
-
Bob Beckel (fat liberal) says the election is over. He says there is no way Obama can recover from Romnoid's current lead.
Belmont31R
10-18-12, 22:43
Lawrence Odonnell game completely unglued tonight, and wants to go find Tag Romney (Romneys oldest son, 42), and fight him. No joke.
He also accused Romney of being a Vietnam War draft dodger, and accused his 5 sons of being war dodgers for not enlisting to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just blind hate for them being the sons of a wealthy person, and basically said they are priviledged white kids going off on a rant.
Keep in mind he was gritting his teeth and pumping his chest out. You just have to see it. Ill try to find a link asap.
I looked his age up, and Odonnell was 18 in 1969. Why didn't HE go fight in Vietnam? And speaking of "privilege" he went to a private Catholic Prep school which today cost 37k dollars a year, and then went to Harvard while the Vietnam War was still going on.
Previously he has accused Herman Cain of being a draft dodger. This guy was going to uber expensive prep schools and Harvard during the war...what stopped him from signing up. What a pompous hypocrite, and the guy is deranged. I can't believe MSNBC, as low as they are, has hosts who want to go find sons of presidential candidates and fight them. He is also a self described socialist. These people are mental, and I don't think a single one of them on that channel can wait much longer to start getting violent.
Lawrence Odonnell game completely unglued tonight, and wants to go find Tag Romney (Romneys oldest son, 42), and fight him. No joke.
He also accused Romney of being a Vietnam War draft dodger, and accused his 5 sons of being war dodgers for not enlisting to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just blind hate for them being the sons of a wealthy person, and basically said they are priviledged white kids going off on a rant.
Keep in mind he was gritting his teeth and pumping his chest out. You just have to see it. Ill try to find a link asap.
I looked his age up, and Odonnell was 18 in 1969. Why didn't HE go fight in Vietnam? And speaking of "privilege" he went to a private Catholic Prep school which today cost 37k dollars a year, and then went to Harvard while the Vietnam War was still going on.
Previously he has accused Herman Cain of being a draft dodger. This guy was going to uber expensive prep schools and Harvard during the war...what stopped him from signing up. What a pompous hypocrite, and the guy is deranged. I can't believe MSNBC, as low as they are, has hosts who want to go find sons of presidential candidates and fight them. He is also a self described socialist. These people are mental, and I don't think a single one of them on that channel can wait much longer to start getting violent.
Ah...the stink of desperation. Ed Schulz had a similar demeanor the very short time I was flipping through the channels. He looked like he was about to blow a gasket. The veins were throbbing in his fat ass head and I could almost hear his tie and collar button crying to escape his fat, sweaty neck.
Whatever qualms I've had with Romney I now couldn't give a shit less about. Not necessarily because of his debate performances but for the sheer fact of seeing these spoiled tit babies lose it when he wins!
Belmont31R
10-19-12, 08:33
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lawrence-odonnell-challenges-mitt-romneys-son-to-a-fist-fight-on-msnbc-anytime-anywhere/
More MSNBC Liberal Unhinging...this time from Tingles the Clown:
"Yesterday on Hardball, Chris Matthews played a clip from the second presidential debate during which Mitt Romney accused Barack Obama of cutting the number of oil and gas permits on federal land. Obama tried to interject and Romney said “you’ll get your chance in a moment, I’m still speaking.”
Constitutional crisis!
At that point, Professor Legthrill proceeded with a civics lesson:
After the clip ended, Matthews seemed appalled. “I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States,” Matthews said. “He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘You’ll get your chance.’”
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/18/matthews-romney-obama-unconstitutional/
Belmont31R
10-19-12, 09:22
More MSNBC Liberal Unhinging...this time from Tingles the Clown:
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/18/matthews-romney-obama-unconstitutional/
These are the same people, who for every day Bush was in office, ran a 24hr a day smear campaign against his Administration. They routinely called for Bush to be put on trial for 'war crimes'.
Chris Matthews says Bush has limited mental ability: http://youtu.be/IxlawQL1vV4
This is the way they work. When their guy is in office its unconstitutional to talk 'mean' to the President...but when a Republican is in office they have 24hr a day smear campaign calling him a war criminal, mentally challenged, and every other insult they can come up with.
It's funny, too, because when Bush was in office Mathews was saying democracy doesn't work in the middle east and we need to work with dictators, kings, and rich oil guys there saying its the Arab people who are radical and hate Israel. He said when they elect leaders they are radical. Obama comes along, and suddenly you're a freedom/democracy hater for not supporting the Arab spring and what Obama did in Egypt & Libya.
Both sides do tend to be hypocritical but I don't see any Fox news anchors trying to fight the offspring of presidential candidates or rants talking to the camera where it looks like a vein is going to pop any second. These people are just mental, and can't handle losing. The arguments they come up with are pathetic. They are making a big deal about "binders" yet hold Clinton in high regard who cheated on his wife and was doing it in the Oval Office....then lied about it under oath. You can't get much worse as far as a lack of respect to the office. Just more hypocrisy and double standards.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lawrence-odonnell-challenges-mitt-romneys-son-to-a-fist-fight-on-msnbc-anytime-anywhere/
As an aside, this is FUNNY:
I clicked on the link above for The Blaze. Right smack dab in the article is an ad with a smiling Michelle Obama and
---
Obama Biden
Join
Michelle
and
Tell Barack
you're IN
are you in?
paid for by the obama victory fund 2012
---
http://www.eguns.com/obama-biden-theblaze.tiff
That Glenn Beck guy is a pretty smart businessman -- getting Obama to pay for ads on a site that mocks him.
-
VooDoo6Actual
10-19-12, 12:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHbe-aO6oI
RogerinTPA
10-19-12, 13:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHbe-aO6oI
I watched that on FoxNews when that went down.That was friggen hilarious! Romney owned O!
Bob Beckel (fat liberal) says the election is over. He says there is no way Obama can recover from Romnoid's current lead.
That is pretty damning. He is always a Republican-bashing stalwart for any Democrat and makes no bones about outright lying to make a point. For Beckel to throw in the towel on Obama is a significant signal.
I feel good, but not good enough. I lost $300 on the last election because I was confident that the American people would never elect a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama with his lack of experience and many liberal records in the US Senate and the IL statehouse.
The stupidity of the American voter is not to be underestimated.
Doc Safari
10-19-12, 15:06
That is pretty damning. He is always a Republican-bashing stalwart for any Democrat and makes no bones about outright lying to make a point. For Beckel to throw in the towel on Obama is a significant signal.
Agreed. These pundits know enough from past experience to realize that they need to start backpeddling on their unwavering belief in Barry's campaign just to preserve their own credibility.
Belmont31R
10-19-12, 18:41
Agreed. These pundits know enough from past experience to realize that they need to start backpeddling on their unwavering belief in Barry's campaign just to preserve their own credibility.
I don't think they are. At least on MSNBC they are going after their base who view Obama as not being far left enough. Ed Shultz and ODonnell rantings where they want to fight Tag Romney and looking like a vein is about to pop on live TV isn't appealing to moderates. This election is coming down to a couple of percentage points in a few states.
... and Biden is asking people if they know soldiers that fought and died in Iran because we owe them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmX6PglWAe4
I honestly think that man has early stage Alzheimer's or some other form of mental deficiency. I'm not a doctor but he seems to have the signs. The covering of inabilities with laughter, the anger he exhibits, the one dimensional thinking coupled with mistakes in that.
... and yet..... the Dems may still win the election if the opposition doesn't band together and vote for Romney. Sitting home, voting 3rd party, is not going to get them out of office.
Belmont31R
10-19-12, 21:02
... and Biden is asking people if they know soldiers that fought and died in Iran because we owe them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmX6PglWAe4
I honestly think that man has early stage Alzheimer's or some other form of mental deficiency. I'm not a doctor but he seems to have the signs. The covering of inabilities with laughter, the anger he exhibits, the one dimensional thinking coupled with mistakes in that.
... and yet..... the Dems may still win the election if the opposition doesn't band together and vote for Romney. Sitting home, voting 3rd party, is not going to get them out of office.
3rd parties have nothing to do with it. The fact the polls are not 80/20 at minimum in favor of Romney tells the real story.
3rd parties have nothing to do with it. The fact the polls are not 80/20 at minimum in favor of Romney tells the real story.
Rationally...yes. this is not a rational matter. The opponent has no rules, need not think or act rationally. One of the comedians did a skit last I think... Who won the debate between Michelle O or Mrs. Romney.
People just went on and on about how Mrs. O won. A debate that never happened.
I think it will take every possible vote for Romney to actually win. I hope I'm wrong but I won't believe it until I see it and even the lawyers have gone home.
I was talking to a friend of mine who I had'nt seen in a while and he's telling me that he's voting of Romney, Then tells me of a conversation with a pollster..The pollster asks who he's supporting and he tells him, and comments I bet you don't hear that too much, to which the pollster tells him, No, But there's one thing I have been hearing, and it kinda scares me...My friend asks What's that?..The pollster says I've talked to alot of people who say they're not voting at all..they don't care for either candidate, so, they're not voting...Mind you, I live in a swing state....this could be a mess the day after election day...
Mind you, I live in a swing state....this could be a mess the day after election day...
I certainly hope not Ralph. I'm praying for a big enough margin that the left won't send in the lawyers to steal the election. They won't go out without exercising every dirty trick up their sleeves.
Lawrence Odonnell game completely unglued tonight, and wants to go find Tag Romney (Romneys oldest son, 42), and fight him. No joke.
Isn't that assault?
I certainly hope not Ralph. I'm praying for a big enough margin that the left won't send in the lawyers to steal the election. They won't go out without exercising every dirty trick up their sleeves.
Isn't that assault?
Well, like you I live in OH, and we all know about the voter fraud that went on in/around the Cleveland area the last time... I'm sure ACORN has been working overtime getting dead people registered, as well as illegals etc,..I am worried that the state's electorial votes are going to be decided in the court room instead of the ballet box...
I was talking to a friend of mine who I had'nt seen in a while and he's telling me that he's voting of Romney, Then tells me of a conversation with a pollster..The pollster asks who he's supporting and he tells him, and comments I bet you don't hear that too much, to which the pollster tells him, No, But there's one thing I have been hearing, and it kinda scares me...My friend asks What's that?..The pollster says I've talked to alot of people who say they're not voting at all..they don't care for either candidate, so, they're not voting...Mind you, I live in a swing state....this could be a mess the day after election day...
Hopefully these are people who would ave tended Obama in reality.
I think turn-out will be obamas problem generally.
Ah...the stink of desperation. Ed Schulz had a similar demeanor the very short time I was flipping through the channels. He looked like he was about to blow a gasket. The veins were throbbing in his fat ass head and I could almost hear his tie and collar button crying to escape his fat, sweaty neck.
Whatever qualms I've had with Romney I now couldn't give a shit less about. Not necessarily because of his debate performances but for the sheer fact of seeing these spoiled tit babies lose it when he wins!
I'm not thrilled with Romney and even contemplated voting 3rd party. Between the scj up for retirement and watching the msnbc pukes lose it, that's enough to make me vote for Romney. Sometimes it's the little things in life :D
I'm not thrilled with Romney and even contemplated voting 3rd party. Between the scj up for retirement and watching the msnbc pukes lose it, that's enough to make me vote for Romney. Sometimes it's the little things in life :D
I understand since I was not all that enamored with the man during the primary. However, his performance in the debates has been inspiring. The guy simply looks like a winner against Obama (granted, not hard to do at this point). That plays into the American psyche that George C. Scott articulated in the movie Patton. Hopefully, we will have a conservative legislature to hold him true to his word should he get elected.
Hopefully, we will have a conservative legislature to hold him true to his word should he get elected.
What does Conservative even mean anymore?
iPhone/Tapatalk
What does Conservative even mean anymore?
Take a look at Jim DeMint (SC) and an example.
Spurholder
10-21-12, 09:05
http://news.yahoo.com/intelligence-shows-no-planning-benghazi-consulate-attack-185343655--abc-news-politics.html;_ylt=Ap0R6C4VVTr1VlccgHOyB7u1qHQA;_ylu=X3oDMTVmdWhkOG9kBGNjb2RlA3VzZXJjb2xkc3RhcnQEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTWl4ZWQgTGlzdCBOZXdzIGZvciBZb3Ugd2l0aCBNb3JlIExpbmsEcGtnAzRlNDg5MWNkLTdmMzItMzZhZC1hNDQxLWMyODg4YjJmYjA5ZARwb3MDOARzZWMDbmV3c19mb3JfeW91BHZlcgNhOGZkM2VjMS0xYWU4LTExZTItOWJiNy02ZDY4ZDYyMjcwNzA-;_ylg=X3oDMTJqMHM3YW9sBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYzgzYWJlZjYtYTM2OC0zMmM5LWI0ZGUtNjhhNGJhNGZhYTVmBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3
Just in time for the next debate. Anyone seen or heard about this yet? I can understand the whole "first SPOTREP is always wrong" thing, but this is all we have more than 30 days later?
Hmmmm.......
Obama For America took out a $15 million loan from Bank of America last month, according to the campaign’s October monthly FEC report. The loan was incurred on September 4 and is due November 14, eight days after the election. OFA received an interest rate of 2.5% plus the current Libor rate.
It is unclear why the first $1 billion campaign needed an extra $15 million for the final two months of the campaign.
And (if you can believe the Chicago Tribune), white males who voted for McCain now support Obama:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-21/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-mccain-pollbre89k021-20121020_1_mitt-romney-mccain-voters-john-mccain
Also,
Since Obama took office, warrantless wiretapping of Americans' domestic communications has skyrocketed.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/10/21/can_a_conscientious_liberal_back_obama
"Obama’s last stand is also the Democratic Party’s last stand. A hundred years of foreign policy and economic failures at the hands of a corrupt mafia is about to come home to roost. The Democratic Party has marginalized itself, abandoning mainstream Americans while openly embracing a trillion dollar welfare state. "
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/10/obamas-last-stand.html
VooDoo6Actual
10-21-12, 14:24
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/10/obamas-last-stand.html
While I fully comprehend this what this OP ED is saying, I would NOT be so smug conceptually w/ some of those statements w/ certitude or paint it w/ that broad of a brushstroke regarding the polarization of two parties. I do not hold those conventional beliefs as such regarding a 2 party system anymore.
The corruption & collusion is deeper & more contagion than this unfortunately. Despite the fact that people FAIL to read copius amounts the relevant solid EEI material presented to them in a mature fashion, it's easier to be non-believers or discount the evidence. There is plenty there. We will be revisiting many threads down the road in the future if we make it that far w/o censorship.
I suspect, many people will be in suspended disbelief & too immature within their own capacity to admit their farsightedness or their failures for not educating themselves.
Unfortunately, the masses have not galvanized or codified regarding this realization so far.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/republican-plus-democrat-equals-sheeple.jpg
More apropos...
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/318928_463721190338353_1373081750_n.jpg
Thomas Sowell predicts race riots if Obama loses:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/thomas-sowell-race-riots-if-obama-loses/
Thomas Sowell predicts race riots if Obama loses:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/thomas-sowell-race-riots-if-obama-loses/
Ive heard the same from many. One of my local PD's has a plan set aside just in case. However i doubt in southern utah we'll have any problems, chicago and/or cali may burn.
Thomas Sowell predicts race riots if Obama loses:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/thomas-sowell-race-riots-if-obama-loses/
Good.
Let everyone see what unapologetic racists look like.
Seriously, everyone knows that 90%+ of black voters supported Obama because of his skin color. And it's just accepted. Excuse me? That's racism and that's not ok. That's something to be ashamed of.
If 90% of Caucasians voted for McCain or Romney because, above all else, he's white like them, that would be deplorable. And rightly so.
**** I hate double standards
iPhone/Tapatalk
Ive heard the same from many. One of my local PD's has a plan set aside just in case. However i doubt in southern utah we'll have any problems, chicago and/or cali may burn.
It would be funny to see 2 people trying to riot in Loa.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.