Official G & O Debate Rematch Thread

[240 is Back]

That's why I said, call girl (CNN) vs. hooker (MSNBC). The job's the same. The difference: One tries to be discrete; the other is an in-your-face ho.

in that case, excellent point!  lol

[Roger Bacon]

That's why I said, call girl (CNN) vs. hooker (MSNBC). The job's the same. The difference: One tries to be discrete; the other is an in-your-face ho.

haha...

It cracks me up because Fox News absolutely disgusted me when Bush was in office.  Now it's just about all I can stand as far as cable news goes.

[Primemuscle]

I know most GB's don't care about Medicare, but it's a HUGE issue to a HUGE segment of the voting population and Obama has them scared shitless with the BS he's been spewing about it.  It should've been discussed tonight.

Medicare and Social Security are exactly what needs to be discussed in these debates. If GB's don't care about these things, they should. Romney and Ryan's plan to distroy these programs will hurt them more then it will hurt those of us who are over 55 years old.

[Roger Bacon]

Medicare and Social Security are exactly what needs to be discussed in these debates. If GB's don't care about these things, they should. Romney and Ryan's plan to distroy these programs will hurt them more then it will hurt those of us who are over 55 years old.

Yes, I hope they keep raping young people like myself to support older people who had an opportunity to save their own money for themselves.

[The True Adonis]

Fox News is for morons and Rupert Murdoch knows his audience is a bunch of dumbasses and plays to them well.  A very smart man.

[Wiggs]

Fox News is for morons and Rupert Murdoch knows his audience is a bunch of dumbasses and plays to them well.  A very smart man.

x2

It's not news, it's propaganda.

The Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated.

[Primemuscle]

The facts are starting to come out against Obama, regardless whether you this he won or not, he didn't do enough to make up for meltdown he had I'm the previous debate. Either was , Obama loses. Screw what you think the polls indicate. Romney wins.

Why....because you say so Coach? Sorry, but it isn't that easy. We will all have to wait until Tuesday, November 6th to find out who wins the Presidency.

For those of you fools who talk a lot of shit, but don't vote, you will get what you deserve come election day.

[MCWAY]

x2

It's not news, it's propaganda.

The Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated.

No, it doesn't. Liberals only want the "Fairness Doctrine", because they no longer have a monopoly on the media (coupled with the fact that Fox has been killing both these networks for over a decade and conservative talk radio CRUSHES liberal talk radio).

[Primemuscle]

That happens with EVERY INCUMBENT PRESIDENT. He has to defend his record. You're acting as if Obama's the only one that had to go through this. Poor baby!!  

Plus, your statement is even more bizarre. When is the last time you saw a president, running for a second term against a former president?

Obama has to defend his record, no matter how much he or his liberal supporters try to make this a so-called "choice" election. Every re-election campaign is a referendum on the incumbent. Obama will be no exception to this rule.

There is nothing bizarre about stating the facts. It is what it is. I didn't say this was something new or unique. The fact remains we should all know a lot more about Obama then we do about Romney. What did the average person know about Romney in 2009, 2010 or 2011? A lot less then we knew about Obama if we were paying attention. And if you think you know Romney now....see below.

Barney Frank Offers Lawrence O’Donnell A 2012 Democrat Slogan: ‘We’re Not Perfect, But They’re Nuts’

[MCWAY]

There is nothing bizarre about stating the facts. It is what it is. I didn't say this was something new or unique. The fact remains we should all know a lot more about Obama then we do about Romney. What did the average person know about Romney in 2009, 2010 or 2011? A lot less then we knew about Obama if we were paying attention. And if you think you know Romney now....see below.

Barney Frank Offers Lawrence O’Donnell A 2012 Democrat Slogan: ‘We’re Not Perfect, But They’re Nuts’

Romney's been around for years. You will recall he ran for president in 2008.

Barney Frank can chirp all he wants. At the end of the day, Obama's record will be judged in three weeks. We already know the Dems aren't perfect; nor are the Republicans. But, even by Obama's own standards, he's been a miserable failure as president, especially on the jobs and economy front.

[Primemuscle]

Washington and Jefferson were plantation owners... Those are businesses.

Yes, you are right in that George and Thomas were plantation owners and these were businesses which were successful because of slavery. Think about that for awhile.

None of the great or near-great presidents—Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Woodrow Wilson—was a businessman. Truman was a failed businessman (a haberdasher) before entering politics, but that hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Romney's claim for private sector ascendency.
 
For that matter, none of the better-than-average presidents was a businessman either. In this category think of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.
 
Probably the most successful president with real business experience (and success) was George H.W. Bush. Before going into politics he founded Zapata Petroleum, which ultimately became Pennzoil. Bush 41 ended up a one-term president unable to kick-start an economy in a recession and seemingly out of touch with the problems of the common man. Sound familiar?
 
It gets worse from here. Jimmy Carter, another one-term president beset with economic woes, was a success in agribusiness (peanut farming) before getting into politics. He generally falls into the lower half of the historians' rankings.
 
And then we get the big three—the men widely considered by historians to be the worst presidents of the modern era: Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. One left the country on the verge of a depression, one left the country in a depression, and one presided over such corruption and ineptitude that despite the failings of the other two he still manages to get the lowest ranking of them all. And yet all three made millions of dollars in the private sector before entering politics. All three were successful businessmen (a newspaper publisher, a mining tycoon, and the owner of a professional baseball team). Bush 43 even went to Harvard business school, like Romney, and like Romney promised to bring business principles to the Oval Office.

[MCWAY]

Yes, you are right in that George and Thomas were plantation owners and these were businesses which were successful because of slavery. Think about that for awhile.

Then what are we to make of Obama? Right now, he's LOSING to the survivor of the so-called worst GOP field in history, with less than three weeks to go.

[tu_holmes]

Yes, you are right in that George and Thomas were plantation owners and these were businesses which were successful because of slavery. Think about that for awhile.

You did not quantify that slavery was or was not a criteria... you simply said "successful business".

[cephissus]

[Primemuscle]

Yes, I hope they keep raping young people like myself to support older people who had an opportunity to save their own money for themselves.

Do you have any idea how much I and most other "old folks" paid into Medicare and Social Security in over 50 years of employment? If I had been able to take that money and invest it, not only would I be set for life, I could leave a nice nest egg for my kids and grandkids. The financial problems these programs face is not because old people are finally getting a little of that money back, it is because the Federal government has borrowed from these funds to pay for other things which was never the original intention when Social Security was implemented in 1940 and Medicare in 1965.

How many of you younger folks would be willing to take care of their parents when they get too old and sick to work and pay for their own food and housing? Instead, a lot of younger folks are still sponging off their parents and living in their parents homes long after they should have started taking care of themselves.

When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.

[tu_holmes]

Do you have any idea how much I and most other "old folks" paid into Medicare and Social Security in over 50 years of employment? If I had been able to take that money and invest it, not only would I be set for life, I could leave a nice nest egg for my kids and grandkids. The financial problems these programs face is not because old people are finally getting a little of that money back, it is because the Federal government has borrowed from these funds to pay for other things which was never the original intention when Social Security was implemented in 1940 and Medicare in 1965.

How many of you younger folks would be willing to take care of their parents when they get too old and sick to work and pay for their own food and housing? Instead, a lot of younger folks are still sponging off their parents and living in their parents homes long after they should have started taking care of themselves.

No you wouldn't... You would have lost it all when the market crashed.

[Primemuscle]

You did not quantify that slavery was or was not a criteria... you simply said "successful business".

Yup. You were the one who brought up ancient history. Now lets talk about the other Presidents mentioned in the quote I included. Which of those guys (who apparently did not keep slaves) was both a successful businessman and a great President? None!

Hey if you like taking a long shot, vote for Romney. Sometimes the long shot bet pays off and sometimes you lose big, it's your choice. Me, I'd stick with a sure thing or at least a somewhat known quantity.

[Roger Bacon]

Do you have any idea how much I and most other "old folks" paid into Medicare and Social Security in over 50 years of employment? If I had been able to take that money and invest it, not only would I be set for life, I could leave a nice nest egg for my kids and grandkids. The financial problems these programs face is not because old people are finally getting a little of that money back, it is because the Federal government has borrowed from these funds to pay for other things which was never the original intention when Social Security was implemented in 1940 and Medicare in 1965.

How many of you younger folks would be willing to take care of their parents when they get too old and sick to work and pay for their own food and housing? Instead, a lot of younger folks are still sponging off their parents and living in their parents homes long after they should have started taking care of themselves.

Yes, same case with my parents and grand parents.  It's absolutely insane.

My generation didn't do anything wrong though, why must we support a system that's going to fuck us over in the end?  

[tu_holmes]

Yup. You were the one who brought up ancient history. Now lets talk about the other Presidents mentioned in the quote I included. Which of those guys (who apparently did not keep slaves) was both a successful businessman and a great President? None!

Hey if you like taking a long shot, vote for Romney. Sometimes the long shot bet pays off and sometimes you lose big, it's your choice. Me, I'd stick with a sure thing or at least a somewhat known quantity.

You didn't quantify recent history either... You just said "No successful well thought of Past Presidents came from a successful business background."

That does not appear to have a historical timeframe.

[Primemuscle]

No you wouldn't... You would have lost it all when the market crashed.

Not necessarily. I am a fairly wise investor. The oil royalties are doing fine, thanks. I lost almost nothing since 2007, just a little in stock dividends which are slowing coming back. The most I lost was in real estate and that is less then $150,000 at this point and recovering. Incidentally, I am not among the 47% in that I pay a fair amount in income taxes every year....more than 14% like Romney does. Of course, I am conservative when it comes to spending. My car is a 2004 model with a little over 100,000 miles. I have no plans to replace it anytime soon since it runs well. Our home is nice but no mansion and certainly not with an underwater mortgage. Nope....I think you are wrong; I would not have lost it all and I did not lose it at all.

[tu_holmes]

Not necessarily. I am a fairly wise investor. The oil royalties are doing fine, thanks. I lost almost nothing since 2007, just a little in stock dividends which are slowing coming back. The most I lost was in real estate and that is less then $150,000 at this point and recovering. Incidentally, I am not among the 47% in that I pay a fair amount in income taxes every year....more than 14% like Romney. Of course, I am conservative when it comes to spending. My car is a 2004 model with a little over 100,000 miles. I have no plans to replace it anytime soon since it runs well. Our home is nice but no mansion and certainly not with an underwater mortgage. Nope....I think you are wrong; I would not have lost it all and I did not lose it at all.

Okee dokee....

[Primemuscle]

You didn't quantify recent history either... You just said "No successful well thought of Past Presidents came from a successful business background."

That does not appear to have a historical timeframe.

So when are you going to discuss the facts and quit with the irrelevant nonsense. If you have you nothing of value to contribute to this conversation, you should simply keep quiet.

[The True Adonis]

You did not quantify that slavery was or was not a criteria... you simply said "successful business".

I have to say that both, Jefferson and Washington were failed endeavors as far as business goes and in the case of Jefferson, it was precisely due to slavery.  He was so deep in debt by the time he died, after he willed his estate, it had to be sold shortly thereafter to cover the losses.  The problem with Jefferson`s plantation is that his slave population grew too large and he went to great lengths to see that they were well taken care of.  They bankrupted him in a sense.

Washington`s problem was that his wealth was tied up solely in land and had no liquidity to turn a profit.  He was also operating at a great loss.

[tu_holmes]

So when are you going to discuss the facts and quit with the irrelevant nonsense. If you have you nothing of value to contribute to this conversation, you should simply keep quiet.

Yes, because this board is all about facts and relevance.

It's politics... politics are all about "facts" huh?

[The True Adonis]

As for successful Businessmen as President, Herbert Hoover and LBJ immediately come to mind.