Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 27, 2012, 12:00:11 PM



Title: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on July 27, 2012, 12:00:11 PM
Dates are set:  October 3, 16, 27.  VP:  October 11.  I think this is where Romney separates himself from Obama. 

Romney-Obama debate formats set: But they matter less this time
By ANDREW MALCOLMANDREW MALCOLM
07/26/2012

For the next few days, the news focus will be on two unfolding events: the London Summer Olympics with the athletic events we're able to glimpse in between $1 billion-plus worth of NBC ads and on Gov. Mitt Romney's overseas trip. Does he appear presidential? Bow? Or apologize to anyone in Britain, Israel or Poland?

Then come the July fundraising totals and the inevitably over-hyped build-up to Romney picking Tim Pawlenty for his VP slot. (You read it here first.) The conventions follow, first the Republicans in Tampa Aug. 27-30 and then the Dems in Charlotte Sept. 3-6.

Largely overlooked on the political calendar was Wednesday's announcement by the Commission on Presidential Debates of the four debate formats for October -- three presidential and one vice presidential.

The first comes Oct. 3 at the University of Denver on domestic issue questions chosen by the moderator, like all the moderators to be named next month. The next is the lone VP talk-off on foreign and domestic affairs Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.

Next is presidential Oct. 16 at Long Island's Hofstra University, a townhall-type meeting with questions from "undecided" voters selected by the Gallup polling organization.

The final presidential confrontation comes Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, another 90-minute Q&A by a moderator, this time on foreign affairs.

Count on saturation coverage of debate preps and tensions, especially the first. Casual spectators will imagine the awful pressures on each combatant. The fact is, however, spouses are usually the most nervous. At this level of politics, these guys usually relish such events, like pro athletes eagerly anticipating a big game. The spotlight. The high-wire walk. The chance to score points and make their case to the largest audiences of the excruciatingly long campaigns that Americans allow.

And don't forget, a big debate night can prompt big donor dollars within hours.

The political reality though is that debates, like college mid-terms, seem important at the time but end up mattering less at the end. Arguably, in hindsight only two presidential debates over their 52 years have been decisive:

The first in 1960 when Richard Nixon's make-up and shaver failed him on black-and-white TV while the country discovered a young, well-spoken senator in John F. Kennedy.

The other occurred in the final days of the 1980 campaign when two former governors faced off. President Jimmy Carter actually led Ronald Reagan going into that set-to, as incumbents tend to do, even those burdened by a terrible economy.

http://news.investors.com/article/619799/201207261008/presidential-debate-formats-set-for-obama-and-mitt-romney.htm


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: whork on July 27, 2012, 03:25:41 PM
Dates are set:  October 3, 16, 27.  VP:  October 11.  I think this is where Romney separates himself from Obama. 

Romney-Obama debate formats set: But they matter less this time
By ANDREW MALCOLMANDREW MALCOLM
07/26/2012

For the next few days, the news focus will be on two unfolding events: the London Summer Olympics with the athletic events we're able to glimpse in between $1 billion-plus worth of NBC ads and on Gov. Mitt Romney's overseas trip. Does he appear presidential? Bow? Or apologize to anyone in Britain, Israel or Poland?

Then come the July fundraising totals and the inevitably over-hyped build-up to Romney picking Tim Pawlenty for his VP slot. (You read it here first.) The conventions follow, first the Republicans in Tampa Aug. 27-30 and then the Dems in Charlotte Sept. 3-6.

Largely overlooked on the political calendar was Wednesday's announcement by the Commission on Presidential Debates of the four debate formats for October -- three presidential and one vice presidential.

The first comes Oct. 3 at the University of Denver on domestic issue questions chosen by the moderator, like all the moderators to be named next month. The next is the lone VP talk-off on foreign and domestic affairs Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.

Next is presidential Oct. 16 at Long Island's Hofstra University, a townhall-type meeting with questions from "undecided" voters selected by the Gallup polling organization.

The final presidential confrontation comes Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, another 90-minute Q&A by a moderator, this time on foreign affairs.

Count on saturation coverage of debate preps and tensions, especially the first. Casual spectators will imagine the awful pressures on each combatant. The fact is, however, spouses are usually the most nervous. At this level of politics, these guys usually relish such events, like pro athletes eagerly anticipating a big game. The spotlight. The high-wire walk. The chance to score points and make their case to the largest audiences of the excruciatingly long campaigns that Americans allow.

And don't forget, a big debate night can prompt big donor dollars within hours.

The political reality though is that debates, like college mid-terms, seem important at the time but end up mattering less at the end. Arguably, in hindsight only two presidential debates over their 52 years have been decisive:

The first in 1960 when Richard Nixon's make-up and shaver failed him on black-and-white TV while the country discovered a young, well-spoken senator in John F. Kennedy.

The other occurred in the final days of the 1980 campaign when two former governors faced off. President Jimmy Carter actually led Ronald Reagan going into that set-to, as incumbents tend to do, even those burdened by a terrible economy.

http://news.investors.com/article/619799/201207261008/presidential-debate-formats-set-for-obama-and-mitt-romney.htm

Will be interesting


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 27, 2012, 11:54:19 PM
romney was stellar against lesser candidates in the GOP debates, never getting upstaged or pwned or just plain disappearing.

Against a stronger Obama (which he is, ask hilary and mccain...), he should do every better.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Straw Man on July 28, 2012, 09:53:44 AM
romney was stellar against lesser candidates in the GOP debates, never getting upstaged or pwned or just plain disappearing.

Against a stronger Obama (which he is, ask hilary and mccain...), he should do every better.

so you think a better opponent will make Romney better too

does that ever happen in real life

Romney is so flat footed and tone deaf that if he wander off script he will be lost

I predict that Romney will just recite his canned answers no matter what the question is


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 10:10:56 AM
so you think a better opponent will make Romney better too

does that ever happen in real life

Romney is so flat footed and tone deaf that if he wander off script he will be lost

I predict that Romney will just recite his canned answers no matter what the question is

my whole post was facetious.  Romney got pwnt by morons like perry and cain.  Romney is going to be a stiff, uncomfortable, annoyed a-hole in the debates.

obama haters will call it awesome, moderate voters will just get a reminder what they're getting with romney - a very weak alternative to obama.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: tonymctones on July 28, 2012, 10:13:46 AM
so you think a better opponent will make Romney better too

does that ever happen in real life

Romney is so flat footed and tone deaf that if he wander off script he will be lost

I predict that Romney will just recite his canned answers no matter what the question is
LOL yes b/c obama is great off the cuff

"the private sector is doing fine"

"we tried our plan and it worked"

"ugh, ugghhh, uhhhhhhh"


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2012, 10:17:48 AM
LOL yes b/c obama is great off the cuff

"the private sector is doing fine"

"we tried our plan and it worked"

"ugh, ugghhh, uhhhhhhh"

they are still madly in love w Obama and refuse to see the reality of the situation.   Obama can't get away w his lies this time around and has to defend his failed presidency.   



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Straw Man on July 28, 2012, 10:19:31 AM
LOL yes b/c obama is great off the cuff

"the private sector is doing fine"

"we tried our plan and it worked"

"ugh, ugghhh, uhhhhhhh"

if you're pinning your hopes on quotes taken out of context where the vast majority of the audience knows exactly what he is saying then good luck to you





Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Straw Man on July 28, 2012, 10:20:39 AM
my whole post was facetious.  Romney got pwnt by morons like perry and cain.  Romney is going to be a stiff, uncomfortable, annoyed a-hole in the debates.

obama haters will call it awesome, moderate voters will just get a reminder what they're getting with romney - a very weak alternative to obama.

ok - I didn't catch the sarcasm

how many f'ng debates did the Repubs have - something like 15

I didn't watch most of them


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2012, 10:21:10 AM
LOL yes b/c obama is great off the cuff

"the private sector is doing fine"

"we tried our plan and it worked"

"ugh, ugghhh, uhhhhhhh"

He is terrible without his teleprompter.  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 10:21:19 AM
LOL yes b/c obama is great off he cuff
"the private sector is doing fine"
"we tried our plan and it worked"
"ugh, ugghhh, uhhhhhhh"

Obama has some gaffes in speeches, as does every president we've ever had.

THe thing is, the debates were a great chance for hilary and mccain to pwn him and they didn't.

NOW he is a cocky MFer - you can't deny that - Obama was cautious and idealistic in 2008.  today he's a cocky prick who will bring up all the bad guys he's sent to 72 virgins every chance he gets.  He's tougher now.  Romney needs to be tough too.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Straw Man on July 28, 2012, 10:26:42 AM
they are still madly in love w Obama and refuse to see the reality of the situation.   Obama can't get away w his lies this time around and has to defend his failed presidency.   

again, utterly tone deaf or just stupid, I can never tell with you

how many times have I told you he will run on his record and that's exactly what he is doing

why do you think Romney is wasting time insulting his smarter constituents by flogging this "you didn't build it" lie

the reason is because he has nothing else to talk about and other than abortion he won't take a stand on anything


Don't worry though - you're the genius who thinks Obama is going to drop out before the election so you won't even have to sweat the debates


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 10:33:28 AM
the reason is because he has nothing else to talk about and other than abortion he won't take a stand on anything

precisely.   

His gov record?  He's not bringing up romneycare.
Immigration?  He won't risk alienative tea partiers who want to lock the border, or hispanic vote.
Obamacare?  he's silent now that SCOTUS has made it law
his biz experience?  After being caught in lie about workign there from 99-02, he's not "going there".


So yeah, what the heck else can he talk about?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2012, 10:35:29 AM
precisely.   

His gov record?  He's not bringing up romneycare.
Immigration?  He won't risk alienative tea partiers who want to lock the border, or hispanic vote.
Obamacare?  he's silent now that SCOTUS has made it law
his biz experience?  After being caught in lie about workign there from 99-02, he's not "going there".


So yeah, what the heck else can he talk about?


Lol.  You Obama cultists are really too much.   All he has to say is "if you think the private sector is doing fine and his plan worked . . . . Vote for him". 


Case closed.  Good night. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Grape Ape on July 28, 2012, 10:36:58 AM

Against a stronger Obama (which he is, ask hilary and mccain...), he should do every better.

This ignores context.

How would Hilary do against him, now that he's had a first term and can't campaign on just an idea/slogan?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Straw Man on July 28, 2012, 10:39:12 AM

Lol.  You Obama cultists are really too much.   All he has to say is "if you think the private sector is doing fine and his plan worked . . . . Vote for him". 


Case closed.  Good night. 

have you checked the stock market recently or corporate profits or the real estate market

much of the private sector is doing fine

My business is doing great as are many others I know

The global economy is definitely slowing down but the US is doing much better than alot of the world

Obviosuly we still have problem but you woudl have to be a world class moron (and of course you are) to pretend that things havne't gotten better since he took office


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2012, 10:45:49 AM
have you checked the stock market recently or corporate profits or the real estate market

much of the private sector is doing fine

My business is doing great as are many others I know

The global economy is definitely slowing down but the US is doing much better than alot of the world

Obviosuly we still have problem but you woudl have to be a world class moron (and of course you are) to pretend that things havne't gotten better since he took office


Lol.    Did you even see the GDP number yesterday and downward revisions for 2010? 

Moron.    Record numbers on food stamps, record number unemployed, record number on disability, record debts and deficit, etc


yeah, doing fine alright. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 10:48:07 AM
This ignores context.

How would Hilary do against him, now that he's had a first term and can't campaign on just an idea/slogan?

obama is going to be stronger in 12 than he was in 08.  



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Straw Man on July 28, 2012, 10:50:31 AM

Lol.    Did you even see the GDP number yesterday and downward revisions for 2010? 

Moron.    Record numbers on food stamps, record number unemployed, record number on disability, record debts and deficit, etc


yeah, doing fine alright. 

and what was the GDP when he took office

obviously you ignored this part of my post:

Quote
Obviosuly we still have problem but you woudl have to be a world class moron (and of course you are) to pretend that things havne't gotten better since he took office


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
obama is going to be stronger in 12 than he was in 08.  




Lol!!!!!!   Come on now. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 11:15:54 AM

Lol!!!!!!   Come on now. 

his record is shitty, ,but he has some brass fcking balls.  Even an obama hater like you has to admit that.  he's not lookiing at romney with fear.  He's cocky and arrogant.  He's had the ability to blow up any person on the planet from 5000 miles away for 4 years now.

If you deny obama is stronger, sharper, more experienced, and shrewder now, than candidate obama was in 2008.... then youre just LYING to yourself.

it is okay to say he sucks, but he will be much tougher for romney now due to his 4 years of running shit.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 11:18:04 AM
compare bush in 04 vs bush in 2000.

In 04, he was shrewd and confident MFer against kerry.
in 00, he was gentle, theory-based, lovey dovey against Gore.

Four years at such a stressful job will grow some balls on a president, no denying that.

Clinton too - he was a 'i wanna please everyone' dude in 92.  in 96, he was all swagger, all 'fuck you if you dont like it', etc.

Obama will be like them - weaker records to be attacked on, BUT balls that hang down to his fcking knees.


You dont have to admit it, if your ego won't let you.  it's like this with all presidents.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2012, 11:21:49 AM
his record is shitty, ,but he has some brass fcking balls.  Even an obama hater like you has to admit that.  he's not lookiing at romney with fear.  He's cocky and arrogant.  He's had the ability to blow up any person on the planet from 5000 miles away for 4 years now.

If you deny obama is stronger, sharper, more experienced, and shrewder now, than candidate obama was in 2008.... then youre just LYING to yourself.

it is okay to say he sucks, but he will be much tougher for romney now due to his 4 years of running shit.
Ha ha hah !!!!! 

yeah, every time off his trusted TelePrompTer a new ad is created due to his bullshit.   


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 11:28:15 AM
Ha ha hah !!!!! 

yeah, every time off his trusted TelePrompTer a new ad is created due to his bullshit.   

ya better run on his speeches.  cause ya sure can't run on anything romney stands for.  We don't even konw what that is from week to week.

at least obama sucks and does so consitently.  You can't tell me what romney will do on Dream.  You can't tell me what he intends to do on romneycare.  You can't defend his assertion he didn't work at bain from 99-02 (paychecks, board meetings, press releases, his own claim of 25 years up to 2002)...

Romney is a joke you can't defend - so yes, please attack obama's pronouns use in a speech.  that's all the GOP has right now :(


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2012, 11:41:47 AM
ya better run on his speeches.  cause ya sure can't run on anything romney stands for.  We don't even konw what that is from week to week.

at least obama sucks and does so consitently.  You can't tell me what romney will do on Dream.  You can't tell me what he intends to do on romneycare.  You can't defend his assertion he didn't work at bain from 99-02 (paychecks, board meetings, press releases, his own claim of 25 years up to 2002)...

Romney is a joke you can't defend - so yes, please attack obama's pronouns use in a speech.  that's all the GOP has right now :(


Ha a ha.    Obamas record speaks for itself.   


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2012, 02:56:26 PM
33, you can't tell me what romney will do about DREAM exec order.  Nor obamacare.  Nor libya.  nor the economy, outside of "I'll let you know when I get there".

What specific programs will romney cut?  That' a secret.  He can only sit on the fence for so many issues until we realize we don't konw what the hell he will do.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: whork on July 29, 2012, 05:27:09 AM

Ha a ha.    Obamas record speaks for itself.   

Much better economy than when he took office
30 million americans now have health care insurance
Killed OBL along x number of AQ
His opponent has limited choices

Looks alright to me


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on August 14, 2012, 09:00:09 AM
Not surprised.  I'm sure the president is happy he'll get a bunch of softball questions.
 
Liberal Dream Team to Host Presidential Debates
Monday, 13 Aug 2012
By David A. Patten

Conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell slammed the choice of only mainstream-media correspondents to moderate this year’s presidential debates, which could determine the outcome of the election. And he blames the Republican establishment for letting it happen.

“I scratch my head and ask myself the same question: How are they so dense?” Bozell says. “Here you’ve got Bob Schieffer, who’s been just slamming Paul Ryan all weekend long, and he’s going to moderate a debate.

“And all you’ve got to is look at the footage of his past debates,” said Bozell. “He’s terrible.”

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the schedule for this year’s all-important presidential debates on Monday. No conservative journalists were named.

The first debate will be held in Denver on Oct. 3. It will be moderated by longtime newsman Jim Lehrer of PBS.

“He’s pretty middle-of-the-road as a newsman,” says Bozell. “But watch him on the debates, he tilts strongly to the left.”

The second debate with be moderated by Martha Raddatz, senior foreign affairs correspondent of ABC News. To be held Oct. 11 in Danville, Ky., it will feature the vice presidential candidates: Incumbent Joe Biden of Pennsylvania against GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Because Biden’s strength is foreign affairs, having Raddatz as moderator could work to his advantage. That debate will cover both domestic and international topics, however.

The third debate will be held Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and will feature Candy Crowley, anchor of CNN’s State of the Union program.

“Candy Crowley isn’t that bad, in fact she’s had some positive moments,” Bozell tells Newsmax. “But she’s going to be drinking from the CNN Kool-Aid, and they’re the ones who are going to prepare the questions for her. So it’s going to be predictable.”

The final debate will feature Schieffer, the longtime CBS correspondent and moderator of Face the Nation, on Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla. Schieffer is well respected in mainstream-media circles, but has a habit of asking questions on Face the Nation that suggest a point of view.

"Has the Tea Party made compromise a dirty word, and is that why Congress can't seem to get anything done?" he asked Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., earlier this year, for example.

Bozell says he is “rather surprised” that no one from Fox News will moderate a debate. In November 2010, Fox’s election night coverage drew more viewers in the 10 p.m. slot than any broadcast network.

“They’re no longer step-children,” Bozell said of Fox. “They’re major players in this. Why don’t I see Bret Baier, why don’t I see Shephard Smith, and a number of people who are not doctrinaire conservatives by any step of the imagination -- why don’t we see them?

“What about Britt Hume?” he added. “…Where’s somebody from the Washington Examiner, the Washington Times, or Newsmax? It’s not like the left has a monopoly of talent.”

The Romney campaign on Monday referred inquiries about the selection of moderators to the Commission on Presidential Debates, the organization that makes those appointments. Some conservatives have accused that organization of showing a progressive tilt. The Daily Caller reported Monday that its nine-member board includes a past president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund; as well as Howard Buffett, the son of Berkshire-Hathaway’s No. 1 Obama backer, Warren Buffett.

The debates are drawing extra scrutiny in part because the election is so tight.
In April, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly predicted on CBS this Morning: "What's going to be decisive are the debates -- the three debates," he said. "Whoever does better in the three will win. That's how close it's going to be."

Debates always play an important role in the run-up to the election. But in some years they appear to be decisive.

In 1980, for example, Ronald Reagan’s famous “there you go again” remark, when he felt incumbent President Jimmy Carter was distorting his positions, was considered a key reason why voters handed him the keys to the Oval Office.
Bozell urges the RNC to make it clear that it will expose any bias from the moderators.

“I wish they would make a very public statement that they’re not going to put up with any shenanigans,” says Bozell. “Now if it’s the same-old, same old, where the questions come from left field for Republicans … where it’s hard-balls to one and softballs to another, then I think the Republicans should make it a point to say they’re going to make a big issue of this.”

But he laments that Republicans committed to the panel of debate moderators without insisting on more ideological balance. And he blames GOP leaders for not standing firm.

“Unfortunately, nothing’s changed,” he says of the tenor of the debates. “This has been going on for decades.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/liberal-media-moderate-debate/2012/08/13/id/448439


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on August 14, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
sounds like a lot of victimhood to me.  Romeny will have plenty of chances to speak his piece.  He's depending upon the moderators to disassemble obama?  Will he have moderators when he's staring down putin?

Man up mitt.  Reagan wouldn't need a moderator on his side - he's own that fcking room.  Then again. Reagan would take positions on issue.  Mitt will not.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on August 14, 2012, 12:08:28 PM
sounds like a lot of victimhood to me.  Romeny will have plenty of chances to speak his piece.  He's depending upon the moderators to disassemble obama?  Will he have moderators when he's staring down putin?

Man up mitt.  Reagan wouldn't need a moderator on his side - he's own that fcking room.  Then again. Reagan would take positions on issue.  Mitt will not.

 ::)

"The Romney campaign on Monday referred inquiries about the selection of moderators to the Commission on Presidential Debates, the organization that makes those appointments."


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on August 14, 2012, 02:11:49 PM
::)

"The Romney campaign on Monday referred inquiries about the selection of moderators to the Commission on Presidential Debates, the organization that makes those appointments."

I wasn't referring to Romney ;)


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 14, 2012, 02:25:40 PM
Dems want debate question barred (Simpson-Bowles)
 Politico ^ | 8/14/12 4:01 PM EDT | Tomer Ovaida

Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:07:34 PM by Olog-hai

Some Democratic lawmakers want to make sure that one question does not get asked at the upcoming first presidential debate—about Simpson-Bowles.

Three Democratic House members objected Tuesday to a request by four senators that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney be asked which of the commission’s proposals to address the debt they support. The Democrats said such a question would force “candidates to choose solutions from one menu of options.” …

The Democrats also criticized the Simpson-Bowles commission in their letter, saying that while it seeks to address the debt, it doesn’t address priorities in infrastructure, education, research and other investments, and that the plan “asks seniors, the middle class, and military personnel to sacrifice more, while those with the most are asked to do even less to help in our recovery.” …


(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on August 14, 2012, 03:16:23 PM
I wasn't referring to Romney ;)

 ::) ::)

Quote

Man up mitt.  Reagan wouldn't need a moderator on his side - he's own that fcking room.  Then again. Reagan would take positions on issue.  Mitt will not.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Correct. 

Robert Reich: Romney Will Beat 'Wooden' Obama in Presidential Debates
Friday, 24 Aug 2012

Mitt Romney has turned into such a skilled debater that he could trounce President Barack Obama in their three head-to-head encounters in the run-up to the election,  former Democratic Labor Secretary Robert Reich believes.

Romney “is going to be debating somebody who is not nearly as good a debater as his reputation,” Reich tells Atlantic Magazine in its September issue. He says that under live questioning, Obama “can seem kind of wooden” and “at a loss for words.”

“Even if Romney is scripted and not spontaneous, he will come across as ‘on his game,’ ” Reich tells the Atlantic. “The danger for Obama is that Romney can still look better than Obama, if Obama does not have the same degree of discipline about the debates.”

Reich, now Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was quoted in an extensive article in the Atlantic by its longtime national correspondent, James Fallows. The magazine’s report was based on an examination of tapes of Romney’s debates throughout his political career.

That first began with three contests against Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and continued with Romney’s successful 2002 quest for the statehouse, his failed 2008 presidential bid and finally with the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.

Reich ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts governor in 2002. Romney defeated Shannon O’Brien in the general election.

“He will have done a huge amount of homework,” Reich says of Romney. “He will have moot debates with debating partners, as they all do. But he truly will have internalized a lot of the questions and the most-effective responses.

“He will have the zingers ready, and he knows the importance of those zinger lines. He will have it down — even the humor. He will know that self-deprecating humor is enormously useful, and will have rehearsed it.”

Generally, debate watchers will see a comfortable, confident Republican presidential candidate with a style that embodies “faultless preparation, crisp and precise expression, a readiness both to attack and to defend, and an ability to stay purely on message,” the Atlantic reports.

The magazine says Romney’s weaknesses are “thin factual knowledge on many policy issues, a preference to talk in generalities and a palpable awkwardness when caught unprepared and forced to improvise.”

He will face an incumbent president who is a seasoned debater, having sparred with Hillary Clinton, and who has had four years’ experience in setting policy. But Obama’s theme from 2008 — “Change you can believe in” — has now become “Things could be worse” and “I need more time.”

Thus, “the Romney team has the impossible challenge of trying to imagine every question or attack line that might come up in debates with Obama, while the Obama team tries to imagine what Romney’s might have missed.”

Still, the Atlantic continues: “Debates are and have been his strength. The Romney who took on Teddy Kennedy 18 years ago remains a highly useful guide to the candidate who will stand next to Barack Obama in the three debates scheduled this fall.”

This Mitt Romney solidified his strategy within minutes of his first debate with Kennedy in 1994, two weeks before the election. It came in a response to why the six-term Kennedy, 62 at the time, was not trouncing the younger upstart.

“People in Massachusetts have been watching, for 32 years, Sen. Kennedy,” Romney said in his response. “They appreciate what he has done, but they recognize that our world has changed and that the answers of the 1960s aren’t working anymore.”

With that, Romney’s basic tact was set: “That it was possible to love Teddy Kennedy but recognize that his time had passed, and that the ‘real’ answers weren’t the ones Kennedy could present,” the Atlantic reports.

“This is instantly recognizable as his frame for the 2012 presidential race as well: his opponent is likable but not up to the job.”

Romney then added: “People recognize that government jobs just can’t do it for Massachusetts. We need private-sector jobs. And so they are looking for people who have skill and experience in the private sector, who know how to help create jobs, who will do the work of traveling from state to state and around the country to bring jobs to Massachusetts.”

The Atlantic report concludes, “Through the rest of that evening and in the follow-up debate two days later, Romney did not succeed in breaking Teddy Kennedy’s connection with the people who had voted for him six times before. But he did his level best, with a variety of tools and tactics he has relied on ever since.”

They are: attack your opponent, defend your record, anticipate the opposition’s arguments and be ready to counter, show “a flash of sly wit’ — and stay “unwaveringly on message,” bringing “every question on every topic back to his main theme.”

It was, in this case, “Sen. Kennedy was great for his time; that time has passed; I know about business, which is what we need.”

Kennedy won, but Romney got 41 percent of the vote.

During the 2012 presidential primaries, Romney, in none of the nearly 50 televised hours, was “judged the big loser; in many, he was the clear winner, and as the campaign wore on, the dominant image from the debates was of a confident Romney, standing with a slight smile on his face and his hands resting easily in his pockets, looking on with calm amusement as the lesser figures squabbled among themselves and sometimes lashed out at him,” the Atlantic reports.

A few gaffes occurred — most notably, the “$10,000 bet,” offered to Texas Gov. Rick Perry during an Iowa debate — but, overall, “As his rivals were felled, or destroyed themselves, Romney kept moving ahead,” the Atlantic reports. “His mistakes were few, and his focus was steady, on whichever of the sequential challengers was most threatening week by week.”

Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, tells the Atlantic: “Romney is a seriously under¬rated debater. The truth is, he under¬stood what his job in all those debates was. When it was to go out and finish Rick Perry, he did it. When it was to hold the lead in New Hampshire, he did it.”
Even David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist who prepared the president for his debates with Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008, praised Romney.

“As a debater, he is remarkably disciplined,” Axelrod tells the Atlantic. “It is very unlikely that he is going to come in there without knowing much of what he is going to say, or without having practiced it relentlessly or delivered it over and over.

“He is very good at internalizing the one-liners and knowing when to fire. And he can run off large set pieces from memory pretty effectively.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Reich-wooden-Obama-debates/2012/08/24/id/449726


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: pro nitrousADRL on August 24, 2012, 06:19:25 PM
I cant wait to see ryan and biden debate!


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Roger Bacon on August 24, 2012, 06:27:54 PM
This thread is hilarious!!! There aren't and "DEBATES", there haven't been for a decade or so.



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2012, 07:08:32 PM
Robert Reich: Romney Will Beat 'Wooden' Obama in Presidential Debates
Newsmax ^ | August 25, 2012 | Newsmax Wires
Posted on August 24, 2012 9:11:26 PM EDT by RobinMasters

Mitt Romney has turned into such a skilled debater that he could trounce President Barack Obama in their three head-to-head encounters in the run-up to the election, former Democratic Labor Secretary Robert Reich believes.

Romney “is going to be debating somebody who is not nearly as good a debater as his reputation,” Reich tells Atlantic Magazine in its September issue. He says that under live questioning, Obama “can seem kind of wooden” and “at a loss for words.”

“Even if Romney is scripted and not spontaneous, he will come across as ‘on his game,’ ” Reich tells the Atlantic. “The danger for Obama is that Romney can still look better than Obama, if Obama does not have the same degree of discipline about the debates.”

Reich, now Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was quoted in an extensive article in the Atlantic by its longtime national correspondent, James Fallows. The magazine’s report was based on an examination of tapes of Romney’s debates throughout his political career.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: George Whorewell on August 24, 2012, 09:54:20 PM
Romney-Obama will be a snoozefest-- unless Romney pulls a page out of Newt's playbook and bashes the shit out of the obviously pro Obama moderators. Romney needs to maintain his composure while relentlessly abusing Obama and the pro Obama moderators.

To be honest, I don't think I could do it-- I would lose it and just start throwing around the N word. I am after all, a Republican who hates blacks, women, gays, poor people and the elderly.

The Ryan- Biden debate will be highly entertaining. For god's sake, Palin wiped the floor with Biden 4 years ago. Imagine what Ryan will do to him. I'm thinking of "intentional rape" having a positive connotation for once.

In any event-- Barry without a teleprompter= disaster
                     Biden with an open microphone= comedy


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2012, 03:50:53 AM

 ;D


Romney-Obama will be a snoozefest-- unless Romney pulls a page out of Newt's playbook and bashes the shit out of the obviously pro Obama moderators. Romney needs to maintain his composure while relentlessly abusing Obama and the pro Obama moderators.

To be honest, I don't think I could do it-- I would lose it and just start throwing around the N word. I am after all, a Republican who hates blacks, women, gays, poor people and the elderly.

The Ryan- Biden debate will be highly entertaining. For god's sake, Palin wiped the floor with Biden 4 years ago. Imagine what Ryan will do to him. I'm thinking of "intentional rape" having a positive connotation for once.

In any event-- Barry without a teleprompter= disaster
                     Biden with an open microphone= comedy



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2012, 12:43:22 PM
Open Thread: Questions You Won’t Hear at Presidential Debates But Should
By Matthew Sheffield | October 02, 2012

Even if an elite journalist is actually committed to being fair, unless he actively fights to overcome the worldview of the vast majority of his colleagues, bias is going to creep into coverage. It’s only natural since reporters are humans.

But what if we had a news media where you actually had questions which were contrary to the liberal Democrat worldview? Hard to imagine, granted, but our friends at Investor’s Business Daily have done just that. Here are just a few that they would like to see asked of President Obama:

•Most economists agree this is the worst recovery since the Depression. In 2009, you said that if you couldn't turn the economy around by now your presidency would be a "one-term proposition." Why shouldn't voters take you up on that? [...]

•Biographer David Maraniss documents 38 fabrications in your memoir, "Dreams From My Father." If readers can't trust you to be honest in your autobiography, why should voters trust you with another term? [...]

•On several occasions you've led voters to believe your cancer-stricken mother was denied "treatment" for a "pre-existing condition" and had to fight her insurer for payment on her death bed. But a reporter found that Cigna in fact paid all her medical bills. Did you tell a story about your own mother to help sell ObamaCare?

What questions would you like debate moderator Jim Lehrer ask at tomorrow night’s presidential debate?

Also, don’t forget to join us for a live chat and continuous coverage of the bias during the debate and the media spin after the fact.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/02/open-thread-questions-you-won-t-hear-presidential-debates-should


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on October 02, 2012, 04:41:42 PM
Open Thread: Questions You Won’t Hear at Presidential Debates But Should
By Matthew Sheffield | October 02, 2012

Even if an elite journalist is actually committed to being fair, unless he actively fights to overcome the worldview of the vast majority of his colleagues, bias is going to creep into coverage. It’s only natural since reporters are humans.

But what if we had a news media where you actually had questions which were contrary to the liberal Democrat worldview? Hard to imagine, granted, but our friends at Investor’s Business Daily have done just that. Here are just a few that they would like to see asked of President Obama:

•Most economists agree this is the worst recovery since the Depression. In 2009, you said that if you couldn't turn the economy around by now your presidency would be a "one-term proposition." Why shouldn't voters take you up on that? [...]

•Biographer David Maraniss documents 38 fabrications in your memoir, "Dreams From My Father." If readers can't trust you to be honest in your autobiography, why should voters trust you with another term? [...]

•On several occasions you've led voters to believe your cancer-stricken mother was denied "treatment" for a "pre-existing condition" and had to fight her insurer for payment on her death bed. But a reporter found that Cigna in fact paid all her medical bills. Did you tell a story about your own mother to help sell ObamaCare?

What questions would you like debate moderator Jim Lehrer ask at tomorrow night’s presidential debate?

Also, don’t forget to join us for a live chat and continuous coverage of the bias during the debate and the media spin after the fact.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/02/open-thread-questions-you-won-t-hear-presidential-debates-should


http://www.usdebtclock.org/


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 02, 2012, 07:26:07 PM
Sorry but Obama is going to rip Romney's jawbone out.  If anyone thinks that Obama cannot debate is pretty retarded. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 02, 2012, 07:28:37 PM
Sorry but Obama is going to rip Romney's jawbone out.  If anyone thinks that Obama cannot debate is pretty retarded. 

LOL!!!   Obama has a record of disgrace now, big differenee.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on October 02, 2012, 11:09:23 PM
LOL!!!   Obama has a record of disgrace now, big differenee.

in that case... if obama is a terrible debater who didn't beat hilary and mccain...

then tomorrow's debate means NOTHING.  A man who loses all his debates (obama) can still win election.

Either it matters and he won enough of them to win... or it doesn't matter because he won the job while losing them.



Which is it, 33?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Shockwave on October 02, 2012, 11:11:08 PM
in that case... if obama is a terrible debater who didn't beat hilary and mccain...

then tomorrow's debate means NOTHING.  A man who loses all his debates (obama) can still win election.

Either it matters and he won enough of them to win... or it doesn't matter because he won the job while losing them.



Which is it, 33?
Well. when he debated Hilary and Mccain, he didn't have a record of utter failure... In fact he had no record, no one knew who he was... so they took him at face value.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on October 02, 2012, 11:13:43 PM
Well. when he debated Hilary and Mccain, he didn't have a record of utter failure... In fact he had no record, no one knew who he was... so they took him at face value.

I see.  So if obama loses the debates this time, he will lose the election?  Is that what you're saying?  And if he wins tomrorow, he still loses election?

I'm just trying to keep 33 from playing both side.   I like this addition you brought in, including the record with it... but Obama's congressional record was voted 100% MOST liberal in senate, and voters didnt care.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: whork on October 03, 2012, 02:49:14 AM
Romney-Obama will be a snoozefest-- unless Romney pulls a page out of Newt's playbook and bashes the shit out of the obviously pro Obama moderators. Romney needs to maintain his composure while relentlessly abusing Obama and the pro Obama moderators.

To be honest, I don't think I could do it-- I would lose it and just start throwing around the N word. I am after all, a Republican who hates blacks, women, gays, poor people and the elderly.

The Ryan- Biden debate will be highly entertaining. For god's sake, Palin wiped the floor with Biden 4 years ago. Imagine what Ryan will do to him. I'm thinking of "intentional rape" having a positive connotation for once.

In any event-- Barry without a teleprompter= disaster
                     Biden with an open microphone= comedy



"Biden with an open microphone= comedy"

I bet you could tune in and mistake it for a stand up comedy show ;D


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:35:31 AM
Editorial: What we would ask Obama at the debate
The Editorial BoardShare


 The Editorial Board's 5 questions on the economy for the president.

9:16PM EST October 2. 2012 -

President Obama, you said soon after taking office in 2009 that if you didn't turn around the economy within three years, your presidency would be a "one-term proposition." Well, here we are in 2012. Economic growth is extremely sluggish, 12.5 million Americans are unemployed and a record 46.7 million are on food stamps. When is it time to stop blaming Republicans for this problem, and why would four more years of your policies make it better?

EDITORIAL: What we'd ask Romney

•Shortly before you took office, your economic advisers projected that if Congress passed a major stimulus bill, the unemployment rate would stay below 8%. The bill passed, but the jobless rate quickly topped 8% and peaked at 10%. In fact, it hasn't been below 8% during your presidency. Did you underestimate the problem, or did you oversell the stimulus?

•You've repeatedly proposed to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year while leaving the Bush tax cuts in place for everyone else. Soaking the rich might be good politics, but non-partisan tax and budget experts agree it won't come close to producing the revenue the nation needs. That will require far more people to share the burden, including some of the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax. Where do you plan to get the rest of the money? And how will you convince the public that sacrifice is necessary?

•You promised early in your presidency to cut the federal deficit in half, but your latest budget, the one for fiscal 2013, misses by about $200 billion. The deficit for the fiscal year that ended on Sunday topped $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row. You also gave the cold shoulder to your own deficit-reduction commission, the Simpson-Bowles panel. What evidence can you offer that you take deficit reduction seriously?

•You have said that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit now. But Congressional Budget Office numbers show the program has been in the red since 2010 and is on track to borrow half a trillion dollars over the next decade. According to the Social Security Administration statement being sent to workers across America, the system "is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound." Why do you deny there's a problem, and what specific changes will you support to fix Social Security for the long term?

•Ballooning health care costs are threatening to bankrupt the nation. Medicare spending alone is forecast to rise from $560 billion this year to $987 billion in 2021. Though the Affordable Care Act sets up numerous cost-saving measures, health experts say it's unclear any of that will be enough. The independent board that's supposed to limit Medicare growth doesn't have the tools to do it. You don't like the Republicans' voucher proposal for Medicare, but how will you contain costs if your experiments don't work out as planned?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2012, 04:07:02 PM
Sorry but Obama is going to rip Romney's jawbone out.  If anyone thinks that Obama cannot debate is pretty retarded. 

Seriously?  I've watched numerous debates involving Obama and Romney.  Obama is average.  Romney is above average. 

Obama doesn't think well on his feet.  He is very inarticulate without his teleprompter. 

Romney sometimes makes dumb comments in debates, but overall, he's head and shoulders better than Obama. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2012, 04:09:06 PM
Ralph Reed: Romney Must Bypass Obama, Speak to Voters at Debate
Wednesday, 03 Oct 2012
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter

Republican strategist Ralph Reed, founder and president of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, tells Newsmax that his organization’s massive get-out-the-vote effort will produce the biggest turnout of “conservative people of faith” ever in a presidential election.

He also predicts that three-quarters of evangelical will overlook differences with Romney’s Mormon faith and vote for the Republican candidate.

And he says Romney should focus on “communicating directly” with undecided voters in Wednesday night’s critical debate.

Reed is the former head of the Christian Coalition. He founded the Faith and Freedom Coalition in 2009.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Reed explains how his organization is working tirelessly to help Mitt Romney win in November.

“We have built a file, working with third-party organizations, with voter registration information as well as church membership and conservative and Christian book buyer data and other consumer data, a voter file of faithful Catholics and evangelical Christians that has 17.1 million voters in the roughly 15 or 20 states that will decide the outcome of this election,” he says.

“We’re going to be contacting every one of those households a minimum of seven times, including three pieces of mail, two phone calls. We have over 13 million cellphone numbers for these voters.

“In Ohio yesterday when early voting began, hundreds of thousands of conservative voters of faith received a text message from us that was an Ohio voter alert, letting them know that early voting began, sending them a link to a voter guide so they knew where the candidates stood, and providing them with a link to the early voting location nearest them.

“We’re going to be knocking on about 2 million doors. I think we’re going to see the biggest turnout of conservative people of faith that we’ve seen in a presidential election, and when they come I think there may be some surprises.”

Reed’s appeal to evangelical voters helped George W. Bush win the White House in 2000. Asked if he thinks his efforts will prove successful this year, Reed responds: “I couldn’t begin to tell you what will happen on Nov. 6 other than the fact that I think it’s basically a jump ball.

“If you look at the Washington Post/ABC News poll that came out on Monday, they’ve got it at 49 percent Obama, 47 Romney nationally. That’s roughly within the margin of error.

“You look at the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that came out last night, they’ve got it at 49 to 46 [for Obama]. And their state polls show Romney gaining and closing in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Iowa and in other battleground states. So my sense is, if the race is a two-point race, it’s basically tied.

“And the same is true in a lot of these Senate races. In Virginia, [Democrat Tim] Kaine and [Republican George] Allen are basically tied. In Ohio, [Republican Josh] Mandel and [Democrat] Sherrod Brown are within the margin of error. [Republican] Todd Akin has closed and in some polls is even ahead of Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

“I can tell you this, we’re going to do everything we can to insure that people of faith who hold to the time-honored principles of faith and freedom that made this country great, we’re going to make sure that every one of them that we can is registered to vote, informed and educated, and goes to the polls.”

Discussing Wednesday night’s first presidential debate, Reed observes: “The debate’s going to be critical. My unsolicited advice to Mitt Romney is that he needs to be less focused on beating Obama as a debater, because that would be falling into the trap of playing to Obama’s greatest strength, which is his eloquence and his ability to articulate a message even if the message isn’t accurate.

“Instead he should focus on communicating directly to the voters who are yet undecided and are going to be watching this debate. He needs to lay out what his prescription is for the country, what his values and beliefs are, who he is, and what his plan is to restart this economy, to create jobs, and to restore America once again to a position of strength in the world.”

Romney is pro-life and for traditional marriage, yet he is avoiding these issues in the general election. But Reed points out: “Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have made it abundantly clear that when it comes to the issues that give meaning to the souls of millions of Americans, issues like the sanctity of life and marriage, religious liberty — the Obama administration has promulgated a mandate on religious charities including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, colleges and universities, and hospitals, that they have to cover healthcare services that violate their religious teaching and assault their conscience — Romney and Ryan have made their position very clear.

“So that’s out there. I think it’s been fully litigated and I think a lot of voters are going to cast their ballot not just on the economy and jobs, although clearly the election is largely about the poor economic performance of this administration, but I think a lot of voters are concerned about these issues and they will cast their ballots accordingly.”

Asked if Romney can overcome evangelicals’ distrust of his Mormonism in the election, Reed responds: “I certainly don’t want to diminish the significance of the theological differences between orthodox evangelical Christians and the Mormon Church. Those differences have deep historic roots and those differences will remain regardless of what happens on Nov. 6.

“But I think if you look at the polling, for instance the Pew Research Center Poll, they found that Mitt Romney was getting about 71 percent of the evangelical vote. Others show it at about 65 percent of the evangelical vote. I think it’s going to be at least what George W. Bush got in 2000, which was 68 percent. I think it’s more likely to be closer to what McCain got four years ago, which was 73 percent.

“So I think this vote is coming. I think it’s going to be big numerically and in terms of the share of the electorate.

“Remember this is about one out of every four voters in America, and if you add in faithful Catholics who are another 12 percent of the electorate, it’s about 38 to 40 percent of the entire vote. And the polling shows that they’re going to be voting two to one or three to one for Mitt Romney.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/2012-presidential-debates-ralph/2012/10/03/id/458541


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2012, 05:23:19 PM
You can watch the debate online here:  http://www.c-span.org/Debates/


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:18:29 PM
obama looks like shit tonight so far. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 06:23:52 PM
obama looks like shit tonight so far.

I agree. And Romney is doing very well so far (although I don't much care for his attempts at humor).


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: garebear on October 03, 2012, 06:24:29 PM
More wars, less taxes!

War is just like the movies anyway.



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
I didn't expect this.  Romney is destroying Obama so far.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:24:56 PM
I agree. And Romney is doing very well so far (although I don't much care for his attempts at humor).

Obama barely said one word about his record  


Title: Romney is eating Obama alive tonight.
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
Obama is suffering a disastrous defeat so far.   

KTFO 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: OzmO on October 03, 2012, 06:28:39 PM
OB getting spanked so far, looks like hell


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 06:28:46 PM
I didn't expect this.  Romney is destroying Obama so far.

He is. But this nonsense about "I'll cut tax rates and deductions so that same amount of money comes in and magically things will be better!" is... well... nonsense. You cut rates, saving people X. You cut deductions, making people pay more by Y. You say that the amount you will collect will remain the same. So then, by definition, X + Y = 0. In other words, you're doing what exactly?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: OzmO on October 03, 2012, 06:32:50 PM
He's getting destroyed. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 06:32:51 PM
He is. But this nonsense about "I'll cut tax rates and deductions so that same amount of money comes in and magically things will be better!" is... well... nonsense. You cut rates, saving people X. You cut deductions, making people pay more by Y. You say that the amount you will collect will remain the same. So then, by definition, X + Y = 0. In other words, you're doing what exactly?
Agree, Romney is getting away with owning the debate so far with statements that are not and or might not be realistic while Obama is looking bad for spending time defending.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 06:33:30 PM
Wow. Romney is REALLY killing it. Obama seems to be getting a bit better, but Romney doing just flat out great.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 06:33:45 PM
Romney looks like he has done his homework while Obama is standing there talking a lot but not saying much. Romney is ripping off numbers left and right and they sound believable (which they are).


More wars, less taxes!

War is just like the movies anyway.



Fuck off, TEFL boy.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:35:47 PM
obama looks like shit tonight so far.  


Romney is coming out very aggressive.  Should have done it a very long ago.  Problem is that Obama is hogging those 2 minutes and getting in a lot of jabs....sort of like holding the fence in an MMA bout and throwing 12-6 elbows


Gonna be an very ugly debate


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 06:36:30 PM

Romney is coming out very aggressive.  Should have done it a very long ago.  Problem is that Obama is hogging those 2 minutes and getting in a lot of jabs.  


Gonna be an very ugly debate

Obama's not getting in much of anything. He's just rambling.

I liked where he tried to claim that he didn't completely ignore the Simpson-Bowles commission.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 06:37:58 PM
This "no new revenue" Romney bit that Obama used could be quite effective, but I don't think Obama leveraged it as much as he could have.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: garebear on October 03, 2012, 06:38:39 PM
Romney looks like he has done his homework while Obama is standing there talking a lot but not saying much. Romney is ripping off numbers left and right and they sound believable (which they are).


Fuck off, TEFL boy.

You should have more respect for defenders of your freedom.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:39:56 PM
Romney to Obama - "You only pick losers"      LOL!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
Obama's not getting in much of anything. He's just rambling.

I liked where he tried to claim that he didn't completely ignore the Simpson-Bowles commission.


Both of them are rambling and throwing hand grenades....moderator is getting bullied pretty bad.  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 06:40:32 PM
Obama's not getting in much of anything. He's just rambling.

I liked where he tried to claim that he didn't completely ignore the Simpson-Bowles commission.
Obama is picking it up a bit but overall I'm most impressed with Romney.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 06:41:18 PM
You should have more respect for defenders of your freedom.

Your leftist buddies tell me that you're nothing more than a baby killer.

Great job defending my freedoms teaching rich Chinese fascists the tools to better enslave their tired, weak and poor.


Both of them are rambling and throwing hand grenades....moderator is getting bullied pretty bad. 

No, "both of them" aren't really rambling but if that helps you sleep at night, VVV, so be it.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: garebear on October 03, 2012, 06:41:30 PM
Cardinals are still tied, y'all.



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:41:32 PM
Romney to Obama - "You only pick losers"        LOL!!!!!!


OUCH!!!!


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:42:14 PM
Obama is picking it up a bit but overall I'm most impressed with Romney.


I agree....finally he has a damn pulse and is acting like he wants to win the election.  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 06:43:27 PM
Romney to Obama - "You only pick losers"        LOL!!!!!!


OUCH!!!!

Haha, 180 must be on suicide watch.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:44:52 PM
This is not even fair.   Obama is getting destroyed


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:44:55 PM
Your leftist buddies tell me that you're nothing more than a baby killer.

Great job defending my freedoms teaching rich Chinese fascists the tools to better enslave their tired, weak and poor.

No, "both of them" aren't really rambling but if that helps you sleep at night, VVV, so be it.


They are rambling and bullying around the moderator.....they are pretty much ignoring him for the most part and going in for early knockout blows.....very nasty debate


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 06:45:27 PM

They are rambling and bullying around the moderator.....they are pretty much ignoring him for the most part and going in for early knockout blows.....very nasty debate

I think the moderator is doing a good job. His job is to present the questions and get out of the way.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:46:53 PM

They are rambling and bullying around the moderator.....they are pretty much ignoring him for the most part and going in for early knockout blows.....very nasty debate

Obama was not prepared for this.  He needs to fire Kerry asap 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:48:32 PM
I think the moderator is doing a good job. His job is to present the questions and get out of the way.


Well, he certainly is getting pushed out of the way.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 06:50:24 PM
Obama is picking it up a bit but overall I'm most impressed with Romney.

Yeah, he warmed up a bit and is doing better. But Romney is just doing better still. From the tone and smoothness of his delivery, he's doing much much better than I expected he would against Obama. At the beginning it felt almost like Romney vs. Perry.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 06:50:41 PM
A part of it is that Romney is sounding more positive in his answers than Obama.  He's really doing a great job debating.  His head twitches and movements while Obama is talking is annoying as hell but when he's talking, he's coming out really well.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:50:46 PM

Well, he certainly is getting pushed out of the way.

Agreed - Lehrer is getting steam rolled


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: garebear on October 03, 2012, 06:52:15 PM
"Every free economy has good regulation." Mitt Romney, communist.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:52:30 PM
Obama was not prepared for this.  He needs to fire Kerry asap 


They are both prepared.....I think Obama was caught off guard with Romney coming out being aggressive.....but its not going to win Romney any points.  He needs to win every debate...not just bits and pieces


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:56:04 PM
Romney is absolutely killing it tonight 


Obama looks awful   


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 06:56:17 PM
Agreed - Lehrer is getting steam rolled
Those moments are not high points for Romney.  people don't appreciate that especially when he's doing a pretty good job moderating.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 06:57:03 PM
Romney is absolutely killing it tonight 


Obama looks awful   
stop posting like a bot, you've said the same thing several times lol


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: avxo on October 03, 2012, 06:57:20 PM
A part of it is that Romney is sounding more positive in his answers than Obama.  He's really doing a great job debating.  His head twitches and movements while Obama is talking is annoying as hell but when he's talking, he's coming out really well.

True.


They are both prepared.....I think Obama was caught off guard with Romney coming out being aggressive.....but its not going to win Romney any points.  He needs to win every debate...not just bits and pieces

I don't think Obama is unprepared, generally. But he was like a deer in the headlights of Romney at the opening of the debate, and he's still trying to get away. Romney isn't rude, disrespectful or anything. He's coming through as someone competent and steadfast, who knows what must be done. Whether he is or not is another question. But that's how he's coming through right now.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 06:58:27 PM
A part of it is that Romney is sounding more positive in his answers than Obama.  He's really doing a great job debating.  His head twitches and movements while Obama is talking is annoying as hell but when he's talking, he's coming out really well.

Romney shook him pretty good at the beginning....I'll be the first to admit that he caught Obama off guard.  But he needs to be careful not to sound too desparate and not let Obama go unanswered....Obama is good at indirect shots and acting like a moderator and teacher


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 06:59:18 PM
stop posting like a bot, you've said the same thing several times lol

This is not even fair.   Obama looks like a child going against a jedi master.   


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:00:09 PM
Those moments are not high points for Romney.  people don't appreciate that especially when he's doing a pretty good job moderating.


I don't think the people care.  People love to see a good fight with little to no refereeing.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:02:21 PM
Obama just smacked down the moderator when he called time to throw a quick jab at Romneycare.....  Like I said, Obama will play dirty when he needs too ;D


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:02:54 PM
Obama is getting picked apart.   Wow he is getting mauled 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:03:43 PM

I don't think the people care.  People love to see a good fight with little to no refereeing.
Watching CNN, the viewer response went negative each time Romney pushed to have the last word.  Just saying.  A good fight, yes, pushy, no.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:04:46 PM
Obama is getting picked apart.   Wow he is getting mauled 
Do you have anything real to say or are you just going to keep rewording the same fucking post through the whole debate?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:05:10 PM
Watching CNN, the viewer response went negative each time Romney pushed to have the last word.  Just saying.  A good fight, yes, pushy, no.


Fuck CNN.....Romney needed to get pushy.  Good for him.  Took Chris Christie's advice obviously.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:07:47 PM
And now....Obama is seriously ball-hogging the debate time.   Pretty much what I expected him to do. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:08:08 PM
Do you have anything real to say or are you just going to keep rewording the same fucking post through the whole debate?

No  - just that the guy you voted for in 2008 is getting eaten alive  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:08:51 PM

Fuck CNN.....Romney needed to get pushy.  Good for him.  Took Chris Christie's advice obviously.
Look, Romney is doing a good Job. I've pointed that out already several times and before you did.  I just noted that I thought being pushy with the moderator for the last word is not his high point in this debate and it's not.  period, end of story.  It's not even that important.  It was a minor comment on an otherwise great debate showing for Romney.  Don't make more out of my comment than there is.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:11:04 PM
No  - just that the guy you voted for in 2008 is getting eaten alive  
Oh cool, you gotta be a bot... you're so predictable... anytime I bitch you point out I voted for Obama lol...

Come on dude, you posted the same exact post slightly reworded several times in a row and it's my fault?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:12:13 PM
Oh cool, you gotta be a bot... you're so predictable... anytime I bitch you point out I voted for Obama lol...

Come on dude, you posted the same exact post slightly reworded several times in a row and it's my fault?

Im a prick.   


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:12:53 PM
Im a prick.   
me too, but at least I say something new in my next post ;D


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 07:14:35 PM
Oh cool, you gotta be a bot... you're so predictable... anytime I bitch you point out I voted for Obama lol...

Come on dude, you posted the same exact post slightly reworded several times in a row and it's my fault?

So what? Obama is getting owned tonight and it deserves to be pointed out.

I mean really, this douche is referencing Lincoln to try to make some stupid fucking point.  ::)


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:16:10 PM
LOL - This is the best beat down of the messiah I have seen in some time! 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:16:56 PM
Look, Romney is doing a good Job. I've pointed that out already several times and before you did.  I just noted that I thought being pushy with the moderator for the last word is not his high point in this debate and it's not.  period, end of story.  It's not even that important.  It was a minor comment on an otherwise great debate showing for Romney.  Don't make more out of my comment than there is.


I'm not and I'm seeing the same thing you are.  Romney is being agressive and its a good thing.  Audience may be polling negative but I think he needs to get his electoral base fired up to vote for him which he's doing.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:21:33 PM
Damn it...Romney is letting Obama get away with mocking him.  Obama is just hogging that microphone hard.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:21:57 PM
So what? Obama is getting owned tonight and it deserves to be pointed out.

I mean really, this douche is referencing Lincoln to try to make some stupid fucking point.  ::)
Now that's a conversation. You even added something to talk about.  Repeating over and over that Obama is getting owned with no comment come on  ::)  We had great conversations here with the primary debates that talked about what was being said.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:23:25 PM
LOL - This is the best beat down of the messiah I have seen in some time! 
I bet I can guess what your next post will say lol


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:25:44 PM
Damn!!!! Obama just rode the microphone and hogged up the time....nothing left but closing statements. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 07:27:57 PM
Now that's a conversation. You even added something to talk about.  Repeating over and over that Obama is getting owned with no comment come on  ::)  We had great conversations here with the primary debates that talked about what was being said.

I think the Repub debates were much more structured and thus they were easier to talk about. These guys are bouncing all over the place.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:28:52 PM
I bet I can guess what your next post will say lol

Yes - One and done for the communist usurper.  He looked TERRIBLE 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:30:08 PM
Romney sounded much more confident with each answer and Obama's "uh's" and "um's" didn't look good.  Obama needed to come out sounding very strong and he didn't.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 07:31:19 PM
I think the Repub debates were much more structured and thus they were easier to talk about. These guys are bouncing all over the place.
What?  This was pretty issue focused!


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 07:31:40 PM
What?  This was pretty issue fouced!

I meant that they're bouncing between 30 issues with every response. That's the way it's coming off to me, at least.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:31:46 PM
Romney sounded much more confident with each answer and Obama's "uh's" and "um's" didn't look good.  Obama needed to come out sounding very strong and he didn't.


He does that a lot actually.....quitting smoking has that effect....lol ;D


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:32:04 PM
Romney sounded much more confident with each answer and Obama's "uh's" and "um's" didn't look good.  Obama needed to come out sounding very strong and he didn't.

Obama now has a record remember? 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 07:32:50 PM
VP debate next? Haha, that's going to be an even worse beating.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:36:37 PM
Well, it over.....I rate the debate pretty even.....possible slight edge to Romney.  Romney came out agressive and Obama hogged the debate time pretty badly.


Overall, its not going to change the polls much 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:38:10 PM
Well, it over.....I rate the debate pretty even.....possible slight edge to Romney.  Romney came out agressive and Obama hogged the debate time pretty badly.


Overall, its not going to change the polls much 

Obama got destroyed.   Deal w it 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:40:30 PM
Next debate....Biden vs Ryan.  Ryan needs to not get too agressive at Biden because he's been doing this shit for way too long and he has a lot more meaner streak than Obama.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:41:59 PM
Obama got destroyed.   Deal w it 


You're too predictable.  Everyone up here knew exactly what you were going to say regardless...... ::)


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 03, 2012, 07:47:01 PM
Obama lost that one if it was just based on the words and presence up there.
But i havent looked at facts and numbers (im probably not going to fact check either.. well not probably....i wont)
Whatever numbers add up is the winner to me.

The part where obama said romney wanted 5 tril in cuts and Romney said he didnt should be researched...

but all in all... i think Obama lost this one based on words on stage.



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: MCWAY on October 03, 2012, 07:52:23 PM
All that's left is for Obama to ask, "Can't we all just get along?

And if you don't want to take my word for it (and for some slapstick comedy), take a look at the absolute wailing and teeth-gnashing of BSNBC's crew.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 07:53:58 PM

You're too predictable.  Everyone up here knew exactly what you were going to say regardless...... ::)

And we knew exactly what you'd say. You're the only dipshit saying it was an even split.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:54:40 PM
Fox News called it a draw......no knockout blows delivered
CNN.....no comment
MSNBC....Draw




Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 03, 2012, 07:55:07 PM
Fox News called it a draw......no knockout blows delivered
CNN.....no comment
MSNBC....Draw




hahahahahah!!!

You're a fucking moron!!  :D


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 07:55:15 PM
Fox News called it a draw......no knockout blows delivered
CNN.....no comment
MSNBC....Draw




LOL - Viewers know the deal.  Obama got destroyed  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 07:57:16 PM
And we knew exactly what you'd say. You're the only dipshit saying it was an even split.


So has FOX and MSNBC.  Guess I'm in the right corner but I actually gave a slight edge to Romney if you had took time to read what I wrote, jackass.  However, he was the one that needed to come out swinging.

There were a lot of jabs but no one got knocked out, no one gotted pawned, it was just an ugly brawl that didn't change a lot of people's minds about the candidates


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 03, 2012, 08:02:59 PM
Did Fox really call this debate even?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 08:05:58 PM
Did Fox really call this debate even?


Front Page Headline of Fox News.com

No Knockout Punches. But Plenty of Jabs In The First Presidential Debate



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Shockwave on October 03, 2012, 08:23:40 PM
Next debate....Biden vs Ryan.  Ryan needs to not get too agressive at Biden because he's been doing this shit for way too long and he has a lot more meaner streak than Obama.
Really? Biden is a fucking moron, and says some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard of. I'd say Biden is the one that needs to be careful.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 08:25:19 PM

Front Page Headline of Fox News.com

No Knockout Punches. But Plenty of Jabs In The First Presidential Debate



Seeing twitter and facebook tonight Romney got sa massive KTFO


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: MCWAY on October 03, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
Next debate....Biden vs Ryan.  Ryan needs to not get too agressive at Biden because he's been doing this shit for way too long and he has a lot more meaner streak than Obama.

Sarah Palin, who was a green as a cucumber, slapped Biden silly in the VP debates in 2008. What Ryan will do to Biden would get him the chair in some states.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Fury on October 03, 2012, 08:37:28 PM
From Twitter:

Results of CNN-ORC Post-Debate flash poll. Who won the debate: Romney 67%, Obama 25%. +_ 4%. #CNNDebate



#CRUSHED


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 03, 2012, 08:38:25 PM
From Twitter:

Results of CNN-ORC Post-Debate flash poll. Who won the debate: Romney 67%, Obama 25%. +_ 4%. #CNNDebate



#CRUSHED

BOOMMM!!!!


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on October 03, 2012, 09:12:29 PM
From Twitter:

Results of CNN-ORC Post-Debate flash poll. Who won the debate: Romney 67%, Obama 25%. +_ 4%. #CNNDebate



#CRUSHED


Those polls are useless because those voters have already made up their minds on who they are going to vote for anyway.  A person can say that Romney won but still vote for Obama and vice versa. 


Bill Mahr said that Romney won as well and joked that Obama needed a teleprompter....but he's still going to vote for Obama....like I said, it doesn't really matter.  No one is going to change their vote because of a debate


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: MCWAY on October 03, 2012, 09:38:30 PM

Those polls are useless because those voters have already made up their minds on who they are going to vote for anyway.  A person can say that Romney won but still vote for Obama and vice versa. 


Bill Mahr said that Romney won as well and joked that Obama needed a teleprompter....but he's still going to vote for Obama....like I said, it doesn't really matter.  No one is going to change their vote because of a debate

That's where you're wrong. And that's where that so-called "47%" comment that the left thinks will sink Romney is actually a political reality.

Unemployment could be 40% for black people; yet, most of our people will still go for Obama. Heck, most black folk would vote for Satan himself, if he had a "D" by his name, because they foolishly think that voting GOP will put them one step away from going back to the field to pick cotton and sing spirituals.

Single women will constantly wail about their precious "reproductive rights", even though the mantra really should be "my body, my choice....MY DIME!!". The taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize their fornicating nor the killing/indefinite care of the babies that result from such.

It's those undecided voters for which Romney is aiming. And, if he gets enough of those (which tends to happen, since he's the challenger and Obama is the incumbent), it could be another trip to the woodshed, when it matters most (Nov. 6), for Obama.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on October 03, 2012, 11:24:26 PM
I'm just watching the debate now.  Looks like Romney's been eatin greens and doing cardio all week.  Lean and cocky, maybe a little botox.   Obama looks like shit run over twice - tired.  I know he has a much more difficult job than romney, but he looks 10 years older than he did 4 years ago.

I spent the evening with some seriously poor, seriously depressed people tonight instead of watching the debate.   very sobering.  Whatever POLICY obama is doing isn't giving people CONFIDENCE.  People that I knew 2-3 years ago looks terrible.  Economy has flattened them.  Very sobering. 

I dont know that romney's policy will change anything, and I know he wants to cut entitlements to these very poor folks I was with tonight.  But I'm really hoping the confidence a President Romney will bring will get the billionaires and 250k earners to create some new jobs.

Cause the people I was with tonight had jobs - mostly shitty ones - and it opened my eyes a lot more than some debate i missed.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Hugo Chavez on October 04, 2012, 12:32:15 AM
I'm just watching the debate now.  Looks like Romney's been eatin greens and doing cardio all week.  Lean and cocky, maybe a little botox.   Obama looks like shit run over twice - tired.  I know he has a much more difficult job than romney, but he looks 10 years older than he did 4 years ago.

I spent the evening with some seriously poor, seriously depressed people tonight instead of watching the debate.   very sobering.  Whatever POLICY obama is doing isn't giving people CONFIDENCE.  People that I knew 2-3 years ago looks terrible.  Economy has flattened them.  Very sobering. 

I dont know that romney's policy will change anything, and I know he wants to cut entitlements to these very poor folks I was with tonight.  But I'm really hoping the confidence a President Romney will bring will get the billionaires and 250k earners to create some new jobs.

Cause the people I was with tonight had jobs - mostly shitty ones - and it opened my eyes a lot more than some debate i missed.
well look at it this way, Bush looked 15 years older 4 years after being elected and showed up to the debates with a box strapped to his back and wire to his ear and still won :D


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: James28 on October 04, 2012, 02:20:55 AM
The BBC calls it for Romney.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: whork on October 04, 2012, 02:36:29 AM
Romney won the debate hands down.

Obama needs to get going.

Romney looked good.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on October 04, 2012, 07:43:13 AM
When MSNBC declares romney the winner of debate #1, we all agree. 

When MSNBC declares Obama the winner of debate #2 or 3 we will all call them shitbag liars.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: James on October 04, 2012, 07:45:15 AM
When MSNBC declares romney the winner of debate #1, we all agree.  

When MSNBC declares Obama the winner of debate #2 or 3 we will all call them shitbag liars.


Obama looks angry and negative in debates, same can be said for Hillary Clinton and John McCain, so when he debated against those 2 it was not a problem, but against Romney it is.  No amount of practice is going to hide that, just like no amount of practice is going to hide his record (failure) of the last 4 years.  Obama wont win any of the debates.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 07:45:24 AM
When MSNBC declares romney the winner of debate #1, we all agree. 

When MSNBC declares Obama the winner of debate #2 or 3 we will all call them shitbag liars.

Let the viewers decide.  


Bro - Obama said the other day prep was a drag.  He is LAZY!!!!   He does not work or do anything.  all he wants to do is get worshipped by delusional morons.  


Mittens came battle ready last night.  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: andreisdaman on October 04, 2012, 07:53:04 AM
That's where you're wrong. And that's where that so-called "47%" comment that the left thinks will sink Romney is actually a political reality.

Unemployment could be 40% for black people; yet, most of our people will still go for Obama. Heck, most black folk would vote for Satan himself, if he had a "D" by his name, because they foolishly think that voting GOP will put them one step away from going back to the field to pick cotton and sing spirituals.

Single women will constantly wail about their precious "reproductive rights", even though the mantra really should be "my body, my choice....MY DIME!!". The taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize their fornicating nor the killing/indefinite care of the babies that result from such.

It's those undecided voters for which Romney is aiming. And, if he gets enough of those (which tends to happen, since he's the challenger and Obama is the incumbent), it could be another trip to the woodshed, when it matters most (Nov. 6), for Obama.

very disappointed in your post....you're smarter than this..

black people vote democratic because basically the republicans and conservatives do not want the black vote....they don't mention black people at all in their speeches...they don't address any black issues....so blacks vote democratic by default


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 07:56:53 AM
very disappointed in your post....you're smarter than this..

black people vote democratic because basically the republicans and conservatives do not want the black vote....they don't mention black people at all in their speeches...they don't address any black issues....so blacks vote democratic by default


And get treated like tampons and diapers. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 07:57:33 AM
very disappointed in your post....you're smarter than this..

black people vote democratic because basically the republicans and conservatives do not want the black vote....they don't mention black people at all in their speeches...they don't address any black issues....so blacks vote democratic by default

Republicans dont cort the black vote... they dont care about it.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 07:59:47 AM
Republicans dont cort the black vote... they dont care about it.

Why should they? 

Every time they do they still get treated like shit.   All pain no gain. 

Obama does not court the black vote either.  He treats blacks like shit and hopeless morons and they still worship him. 



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Grape Ape on October 04, 2012, 08:01:32 AM
Republicans dont cort the black vote... they dont care about it.

The LA Dodgers took on almost half a billion dollars in contracts in addition to giving up prospects just to acquire Adrian Gonzalez.  Then they promptly missed the playoffs, and have Carl Crawford next year returning from Tommy John surgery.  This is a problem, Mal.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:07:05 AM
The LA Dodgers took on almost half a billion dollars in contracts in addition to giving up prospects just to acquire Adrian Gonzalez.  Then they promptly missed the playoffs, and have Carl Crawford next year returning from Tommy John surgery.  This is a problem, Mal.

Dont get me started on them...

But In all Seriousness, we lost are Ace (Chad had emerged as our ace over Kershaw) and we missed Kemp for a 1/4 of the season... We just couldnt over come injuried to our best hitter and our best hitter.

 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Kazan on October 04, 2012, 08:12:02 AM
Republicans dont cort the black vote... they dont care about it.

This is never understood, why is their a "black vote"? I'm pretty sure we are all Americans - everybody always talking about bringing the country together, then this.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 08:13:07 AM
This is never understood, why is their a "black vote"? I'm pretty sure we are all Americans - everybody always talking about bringing the country together, then this.


Exactly.   Who gies a rats ass about "the black vote"?  how about the "taxpayer vote" ? ? ?  ?


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Grape Ape on October 04, 2012, 08:14:03 AM
Dont get me started on them...

But In all Seriousness, we lost are Ace (Chad had emerged as our ace over Kershaw) and we missed Kemp for a 1/4 of the season... We just couldnt over come injuried to our best hitter and our best hitter.

 

Not a good excuse.  Use the Yankees as an example.  Their injuries were worse.  I would worry about this ownership group.  I get acquiring Gonzalez, and maybe Beckett.  No excuse on taking on Crawford too.  If you have 20M to spend on an OF, there are about a billion better choices.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Kazan on October 04, 2012, 08:15:03 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that it appears that blacks are intentionally trying to separate themselves from all other Americans by asking for their vote to be cort'd, simply because they are black.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
This is never understood, why is their a "black vote"? I'm pretty sure we are all Americans - everybody always talking about bringing the country together, then this.
I got you.. and i wish it were like this.. but its a lot of "our side, your side" stuff..
I really hate it when we have soliders of all races dying for this country, but its still this "our country shit"


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 08:16:13 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that it appears that blacks are intentionally trying to separate themselves from all other Americans by asking for their vote to be cort'd, simply because they are black.

Unless the GOP promises more free stuff and goodies they are accused of racism.  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:17:06 AM

Exactly.   Who gies a rats ass about "the black vote"?  how about the "taxpayer vote" ? ? ?  ?

Shut up bitch.. youre the biggest race baiter on the board.. you have no imput on this conversation... shut the fuck up chump


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 08:18:42 AM
Shut up bitch.. youre the biggest race baiter on the board.. you have no imput on this conversation... shut the fuck up chump

LOL

You think a slob like obama phone lady, peggy or julio are ever going to vote for a Republican? 



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:21:32 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that it appears that blacks are intentionally trying to separate themselves from all other Americans by asking for their vote to be cort'd, simply because they are black.

I think America has throughout the years tried to separate America from Blacks. I understand you have a different view point. It isnt "get our vote because were black" its more of. Blacks are concentrated in this particular area and what policies have you put in place to assist this area be it education, economy and otherwise. Thats what blacks say by cort the vote. What policies would you have for people in this area.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 08:23:32 AM
I think America has throughout the years tried to separate America from Blacks. I understand you have a different view point. It isnt "get our vote because were black" its more of. Blacks are concentrated in this particular area and what policies have you put in place to assist this area be it education, economy and otherwise. Thats what blacks say by cort the vote. What policies would you have for people in this area.

WTF are you talking about?   

how about free market capitalism and freedom? 

How about no more liberal slave plantation programs that make things disastrously worse? 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: 240 is Back on October 04, 2012, 08:23:44 AM
LOL

You think a slob like obama phone lady, peggy or julio are ever going to vote for a Republican?  

Yes.  I talked politics with some sad, poor folks last night and they just want change.  They dont love obama, they just want better jobs than killing themselves til 3 am for $75.   So it's just 'voting for something else' without knowing the details.  


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Kazan on October 04, 2012, 08:25:41 AM
I think America has throughout the years tried to separate America from Blacks. I understand you have a different view point. It isnt "get our vote because were black" its more of. Blacks are concentrated in this particular area and what policies have you put in place to assist this area be it education, economy and otherwise. Thats what blacks say by cort the vote. What policies would you have for people in this area.

That I can understand, but there is more than enough blame to go around on this issue.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:25:51 AM
Yes.  I talked politics with some sad, poor folks last night and they just want change.  They dont love obama, they just want better jobs than killing themselves til 3 am for $75.   So it's just 'voting for something else' without knowing the details.  

Same pulse thoughout the country i think.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:28:00 AM
That I can understand, but there is more than enough blame to go around on this issue.

Oh yeah.. for sure.. a level 1 thinker says its all the presidents fault. The leve 2 thinkers know its federal, state, local, Unions, school board etc (just talking about education right now) that all factor in on how decisions are made.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 04, 2012, 08:35:04 AM
Oh yeah.. for sure.. a level 1 thinker says its all the presidents fault. The leve 2 thinkers know its federal, state, local, Unions, school board etc (just talking about education right now) that all factor in on how decisions are made.


Right - and a level 3 thinker somehow believe re-electing a failed admn who broke all its promises and has directly made things worse for blacks and cant work a deal w the congress and bases said vote due to racial solidarity makes sense.   :-*  :-*



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Option D on October 04, 2012, 08:39:47 AM
The LA Dodgers took on almost half a billion dollars in contracts in addition to giving up prospects just to acquire Adrian Gonzalez.  Then they promptly missed the playoffs, and have Carl Crawford next year returning from Tommy John surgery.  This is a problem, Mal.

I wouldnt worry about this ownership group.. We might need a tougher GM tho.. But an ownership group with a bunch of money to spend... its just a matter of time before we get it right and win a WS


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2012, 12:19:11 PM
Very solid performance by Romney.  Obama was, as expected, not very good when having to think on his feet.  At times he had the deer in headlights look.  Spent much of the time pretending to take notes.  Romney was all over him. 

I think they both need to spend more time looking at the camera when they speak. 

Best line of the debate for me was Romney responding to Obama's claim that companies get a tax break for sending jobs overseas.  Romney said he has been in business 25 years and doesn't know what Obama is talking about, and maybe Romney needs a new accountant.

I also liked Romney talking about how he was able to work with Democrats as governor, and contrasted that to Obama trying to steamroll Republicans when he had a majority, then got stuck in gridlock when Democrats lost the House.  Will be more of the same if Obama gets another term.  Only one of them has a track record of working across party lines.   

One of the things that stood out was Romney's competence and experience.   

It will only get worse for Obama, because when they have to talk about foreign policy, he's not going to have many good things to say. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2012, 12:25:55 PM
Liberals 'freak out' after Obama's poor debate performance
By Dan Gainor
Published October 04, 2012
FoxNews.com

The late Warren Zevon wrote the song “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead” in 1991. After Wednesday’s presidential debate, it could be the new theme for the Obama campaign and even the liberals of MSNBC seemed to know it. Though some major media outlets attempted to limit the collateral damage.

When the Rocky Mountain debate came to an end, a black cloud descended on the liberal off-shoot of NBC. “A CNN/ORC poll of registered voters who watched the debate in Denver showed 67 percent believe Romney won the debate, while just 25 percent said Obama won,” the Hill reported.

For MSNBCers, it was a sign of The End Times. Perennial Obama Fan Club President Chris Matthews lamented the whole ordeal, whining this “wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t.”

Matthews erupted into a vein-throbbing rant about how Obama should be watching MSNBC to learn his debate talking points. “Where was Obama tonight?! He should watch, well not just 'Hardball,' Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O'Donnell]. He would learn something about this debate,” he vented. Perhaps the new soundtrack for “Hardball,” will be “After The Thrill Is Gone.”


Throughout much of the media universe, the Obama faithful were distraught by the president's poor performance.

Fellow MSNBC host Ed Schultz echoed the panic and added Obama “created a problem for himself on Social Security tonight. He agrees with Mitt Romney.” “I was absolutely stunned tonight,” Schultz concluded. In fact, MSNBC’s focus group of “undecideds,” all thought Romney did well.

Throughout much of the media universe, the Obama faithful were equally distraught with Huffington Post giving the night to the GOP candidate under the headline: “ROMNEY WINS THE NIGHT.” Foul comedian and Obama Super PAC million-dollar contributor Bill Maher took to Twitter to express his frustration. “ can't believe I'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter,” he snarked. Movie maker Michael Moore joined in the distress, begging the president to do better. “Obama please be Obama! You sound like a Democrat (wimpy).”

The lefty propaganda site Talking Points Memo couldn’t even spin it in a good way. Instead, it ran the headline: “Obama Camp: Romney Won On ‘Style’” and featured a “Best ‘Zingers’” video that strongly favored Romney.

Washington Post wunderkind Ezra Klein was sarcastic. “If the Obama campaign was worried about Dems being overconfident going into the final stretch, tonight should allay those fears,” Klein commented.

Media entrepreneur and critic Jeff Jarvis asked if Obama had anyone who would “beat him up over tonight?” “Obama didn't just act professorial, as some are calling him. He acted like a prof with tenure,” Jarvis added.

Even Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, auditioning poorly for a national spot, mistakenly referred to Romney as “president” during a live interview.

Despite the math of the evening’s results, some major media outlets downplayed Romney’s big win.

New York Times analysis described the debate “like a seminar by a business consultant and a college professor,” claiming “they talked over each other without connecting their ideas to voters.” Writers Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg gave Romney the mildest of attaboys. “If Mr. Romney’s goal was to show that he could project equal stature to the president, he succeeded, perhaps offering his campaign the lift that Republicans have been seeking,” they wrote.

Liberal Nate Silver, the Times’ FiveThirtyEight blogger, tried to put a good spin on a bad evening. “Mitigating factor: not really a lot of bad Obama soundbytes. He was just flat, throughout,” he claimed. Times Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal was skeptical of a Romney victory. “Ouch. But is it a real sample? Hard to imagine how,” he commented in response to the results showing Romney winning 67-25.

Times columnist economist Paul Krugman first admitted Romney won, before then trying to undermine that victory. “OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well,” he wrote. But then Krugman went on to say it should be about “substance.” “And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.”

On CBS, Time Assistant Managing Editor Rana Foroohar said it all came down to taxes and questioned “whether Romney's math adds up.”

Both NBC and CNN were surprised that Obama never mentioned Romney’s 47-percent comment. NBC’s David Gregory seemed stunned that Obama didn’t use that line, complaining: “He didn’t bring up the 47 percent!” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was similarly surprised that Obama ignored “attack lines” like that one. Even the Post’s after-debate editorial took aim at Romney over that number. “One of the surprises of the evening was the number that remained unmentioned: 47 percent,” the paper wrote.

CNN’s ascot-wearing commentator Roland Martin, shockingly declared there was “no clear cut winner.” “There were moments where both were sharp with zingers & hard hitting lines,” he added. But later amended his positive viewpoint with crowd commentary. “A number of folks coming up to me at this NY debate party, stating they are Obama supporters, NOT happy with his performance,” he explained on Twitter.

Time’s Mark Halperin incredibly graded the “Denver Donnybrook” as close, giving Romney an A- and Obama a B-. This despite Time's senior political analyst claiming that Obama, “surprisingly, seemed more nervous and tentative than his challenger.”

Conservative response to the evening was pretty much universally positive. The best evidence of that came from MSNBC’s Resident RINO, Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe.” Scarborough Tweeted: “Tonight was a big win for Mitt Romney. He dominated the debate in every way. This wasn't even close.” When even Scarborough is backing Romney, it’s a blowout.

But now that the debate is over, the liberal media fact-check machine will shift into high gear. Several outlets attempted to analyze the truthfulness of the debate. ABC news deployed a tome-like fact-checking page, complete with video and red and blue graphics.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/liberals-freak-out-after-obama-poor-debate-performance/


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: andreisdaman on October 07, 2012, 10:19:02 AM

Exactly.   Who gies a rats ass about "the black vote"?  how about the "taxpayer vote" ? ? ?  ?


wow...this coming from the guy who is obsessed with blacks


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2012, 10:22:48 AM

wow...this coming from the guy who is obsessed with blacks
[/quot



I feel bad for how badly blacks were played for fools w Obama.   


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: tonymctones on October 07, 2012, 10:25:35 AM

wow...this coming from the guy who is obsessed with blacks
"black ppl voted for obama b/c he is black but race had nothing to do with it" - Andre


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: andreisdaman on October 07, 2012, 01:15:25 PM
"black ppl voted for obama b/c he is black but race had nothing to do with it" - Andre

still twisting my words I see...another guy obsessed with blacks and the black cock


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: tonymctones on October 07, 2012, 01:20:07 PM
still twisting my words I see...another guy obsessed with blacks and the black cock
there is no twist there buddy, thats what you said....



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 12, 2012, 12:26:54 PM
My two cents on the VP debate:

Overall, neither one performed exceptionally well.  Biden was an absolute punk.  One of the most unprofessional displays I have ever seen in a debate of that magnitude.  He really was trying too hard.  

When you get past the laughing, smirking, and interrupting, we were left with blatant dishonesty by Biden.  He voted against both wars?  Libya personnel didn't ask for security?  The State Department gave them bad intel?  Only millionaires will pay higher taxes under Obama?  All of our troops are leaving Afghanistan in 2014?

Ryan was a little shaky at times, but he came across as more dignified, credible, and presidential than Biden.

Sure helped me understand why Democrats didn't want Biden as president.  The fact he is a heartbeat away from the presidency is scary.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: whork on October 12, 2012, 01:18:38 PM
My two cents on the VP debate:

Overall, neither one performed exceptionally well.  Biden was an absolute punk.  One of the most unprofessional displays I have ever seen in a debate of that magnitude.  He really was trying too hard.  

When you get past the laughing, smirking, and interrupting, we were left with blatant dishonesty by Biden.  He voted against both wars?  Libya personnel didn't ask for security?  The State Department gave them bad intel?  Only millionaires will pay higher taxes under Obama?  All of our troops are leaving Afghanistan in 2014?

Ryan was a little shaky at times, but he came across as more dignified, credible, and presidential than Biden.

Sure helped me understand why Democrats didn't want Biden as president.  The fact he is a heartbeat away from the presidency is scary.


"
The fact he is a heartbeat away from the presidency is scary.

This we can agree on



Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 22, 2012, 03:02:37 PM
So the president showed he can walk and chew gum at the same time and was declared the "winner" of debate no. 2.  I didn't see anything good of substance from him, except for his comments during his closing remarks, which mentioned the 47 percent.  That was well done.  Other than that, he was pretty average.  And dishonest.

Romney was good (not great).  They both pretty much repeated their talking points. 

Did not like Candy Crowly at all.  She talked too much.  Completely undercuts the entire purpose of having a town hall debate.  The people are supposed to ask the questions.  She should have just stayed out of the way.  And her dishonesty about Libya was pretty bad.   

I hope Romney does a better job of addressing Libya in debate no. 3. 


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 22, 2012, 05:41:11 PM
You can watch no. 3 here:  http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Pres-Obama-and-Mitt-Romney-Meet-in-Final-Debate/10737434295/


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: Dos Equis on October 23, 2012, 03:38:17 PM
Glad the debates are over. Not impressed at all with the president's performance yesterday. He was petty, defensive, and disrespectful. Sort of ironic that he would be so condescending to Romney when talking about the military when he has never worn the uniform.

And regarding Iraq, he is not being honest. He wanted to keep troops in Iraq, but couldn't agree on the amount of troops that would stay there. Because they couldn't agree, Iraq asked us to leave. We were in Iraq at the Iraqi government's invitation. So, to criticize Romney for saying we should have troops in Iraq, when that is precisely what the president tried (but failed) to do, is pretty disingenuous.


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: whork on October 24, 2012, 03:03:46 AM
Glad the debates are over. Not impressed at all with the president's performance yesterday. He was petty, defensive, and disrespectful. Sort of ironic that he would be so condescending to Romney when talking about the military when he has never worn the uniform.

And regarding Iraq, he is not being honest. He wanted to keep troops in Iraq, but couldn't agree on the amount of troops that would stay there. Because they couldn't agree, Iraq asked us to leave. We were in Iraq at the Iraqi government's invitation. So, to criticize Romney for saying we should have troops in Iraq, when that is precisely what the president tried (but failed) to do, is pretty disingenuous.


So petty, defensive, and disrespectful is worse than lying?
Sometimes i think you are posting while sitting drinking your tea with your grandmom discussing how to behave.
I bet someone could rape you as long as they asked nicely in a polite tone first. You are weird man..


Title: Re: Presidential Debates
Post by: garebear on October 24, 2012, 03:36:47 AM
I don't think we should be arguing about presidential diabetes, much less making jokes.