"The Debate" (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
didn't it gain like 80 points?

I get what you're doing, but an 80 point gain isn't really a significant gain nor worth [green]using as a joke[/green]
 
julius said:
didn't it gain like 80 points?

I get what you're doing, but an 80 point gain isn't really a significant gain nor worth [green]using as a joke[/green]
Click to expand...

Sure, it is. After all, this is S2.
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney gained ground on Democratic President Barack Obama after a strong performance in their first debate heading into the November 6 election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after their prime-time face-off.
Romney is now viewed positively by 51 percent of voters, the first time he has enjoyed a net positive in the U.S. presidential race, the poll found. Obama's favorability rating remained unchanged at 56 percent, according to the poll.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gains-ground-obama-strong-debate-185645909--business.html
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Yes. How well I remember cutting a hole in a cardboard box and pretending I was an announcer. And my news report was actually more accurate than Fox News.



You're shitting me.



First of all, I'm talking about SCHOOL not university.
Second, what do you mean "finest"? I bet Beverley Hills High is pretty fucking awesome.
Third, that's like saying caviar is the finest food. That's all very well, but it's useless to 99.9% of the world's population.



That reminds me: Romney likes to say that he did it all on his own because (I think) his rich father didn't give him money to set up his own business. But neglects to mention that his father paid for him to go to one of the most exclusive schools in the country (Cranbrook).



Again: I can only assume you are being facetious. Do you know who has the best education in the world? Finland. Do you know who has an incredibly stupid system for funding their schools whereby kids in rich neighborhoods have way better schools because of the narrow tax base? The US.



You really are shitting me, aren't you? And Buckingham Palace is public housing because the public is allowed to look at it.



That's nice of you. With your tax dollars? Don't you feel your sacred freedom being infringed? Think of all those moochers who don't pay taxes using them for free!



And public education. And public healthcare. Or do you have a definition of INFRASTRUCTURE that's different from mine?



You're so sweet. So, essentially you're saying that THE GOVERNMENT shouldn't ever set rates for anything, because that's SOCIALISM. But YOU get to set those rates, because you are PHILOSOPHER KING.



You've never heard of Scandinavia, have you?

Denny, you really need to strike out on your own and found your own country on Mars. It's the only way to avoid all that GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...

When I deal with people with your attitude, this comic comes to mind:

far-side-school-for-gifted.jpg


Your tired rehashed ideas have failed over and over. The more you push on that door that says pull (spend more money on it), surely the door will eventually open.

Your first sentence is just utter bullshit. There has been TV provided by the private sector long before there was PBS. What does that have to do with your cardboard box?

You asked me what my view of public education is. The first public school in america is now known as the Boston Latin School. It is the kind of school the Kennedys and other rich northeastern liberals pay to send their kids to. I know your narrow definition of "public" doesn't fit what "public" really means when it comes to schools. You don't have to be so angry about it.

You didn't ask about K-12, you just said education. When I think of "public" education, I think of all of education, and how Thomas Jefferson founded the PUBLIC University of Virginia. As I said, the question you asked wasn't so simple.

When I talk of the "finest" schools, it is the schools that graduate near 100% of their student body that can read and virtually all go on to college and then go on to become leaders of industry or government or similar stature. Like the Latin School of Boston.

Blah blah blah, romney this, romney that. It's tired and a caricature. You don't have to be a Romney to go to Harvard Law, Columbia University, or even Occidental College. They are PUBLIC schools and even a Barak Obama can get in.

Fuck Scandinavian countries and the grass you think is greener there. We stopped the nazis and imperial japanese, developed the atom bomb, and put men on the moon. We cured polio, invented color TV, invented the transistor and microprocessor, discovered the nature of the expanding universe, the structure of DNA, and so on. All of that was at least a decade before we had a federal Dept. of Education. I am not such a fool to believe that bigger and more government means good government, good for society, or is good at anything.

I said what I mean about national highways. You asked, I answered. Don't like my answer? Tough.

As for health care, I am not suggesting the govt. set rates for anything. I am not setting any rates. I am not playing philosopher king. I am looking at what we're doing and I see smart people pushing on the door that says pull. Insisting on doing the same thing that failed last time because surely it will work this time. Where on earth do you get the idea that I am setting rates? I am making an educated guess at what the market will set the rates for govt. provided health care.

And yeah, socialism outright sucks.

You think I should found a country on mars? I think I have a country that's been pretty good but going down the tubes. You're the one who wants to be Scandinavia.

EDIT: regarding roads.

I'm a fan of the constitution, pretty much as-is. If we want to change it, amend it or call a constitutional convention. Otherwise, it is the by laws by which our government rules itself. Like it or not.

The constitution defines and enumerates a very limited set of powers for the federal government. The need for a Bill of Rights was seriously questioned because the federal government wouldn't have the power to violate those rights.

The 10th amendment (in that bill of rights) is quite simple in its expression:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The powers to build roads, not delegated to the Feds by the Constitution, are reserved to the States, respectively. If the states don't want to build roads, it's up to the people.

Similarly, the constitution specifically denied the FEDERAL government the power to directly tax the people, except in proportion to the census. It does not forbid state governments from imposing income taxes or any other sort of tax they choose. The way the federal government was to raise revenue from the people is by taxing the states (that's in proportion to the census), or through other means like tariffs.

Of course, once my state is trying to tax me, I should have my fair say in how that goes down.
 
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...-media-this-is-why-republicans-nominated-him/

Romney's debate victory spooked the mainstream media. This is why Republicans nominated him

Mitt Romney didn’t just beat Obama on Wednesday night. He also beat the liberal media. So great was his performance that liberal journalists simply had to concede the President’s defeat – a humiliation for an industry that has spent several years setting Obama up as the wisest, most eloquent, most popular politician since FDR. No longer can Romney be dismissed with a gag about a dog strapped to the roof of his car. This uptight rich guy could be the next President of the United States.

Evidence of liberal panic is everywhere. In the hours after the debate, the mood in the MSNBC bunker was near-suicidal – and it’s in tortured moments like these that all pretence of objectivity disappears. Chris Matthews (a former Democrat staffer turned TV motor mouth who undoubtedly talks in his sleep) ranted that Obama ought to watch MSNBC to learn how to fight conservatives. Ed Schultz was “stunned” and Rachel Maddow thought it might be sort of a draw (in the same way that the Titanic's encounter with an iceberg was “sort of a draw”). The New York Times ran with the vague headline, “Obama and Romney, in First Debate, Spar Over Fixing Economy” and called the evening “unhelpful.” Why? Because their guy lost.

:lol:
 
Rastapopoulos said:
So are we worshiping a false god, then? I'd like to know before I sacrifice any more small animals. People in my neighborhood are starting to complain about the burning smell.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html?hpid=z7

Obama pays price for ducking the questions

Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king.

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html?hpid=z7

Obama pays price for ducking the questions

Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king.

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about, but Obama clearly had a wonderful suit on!
 
Findings: Romney is now up by 3 percentage points in Virginia, according to We Ask America, or by 1 point, according to Rasmussen. Pollster: We Ask America, Rasmussen Methodology: For We Ask America: Automated poll of over 1,200 likely voters last night with a margin of error of 3 percent. For Rasmussen: Automated poll of 500 likely voters October 4 with a margin of error of +/-4.5 percentage points. Why it matters: The debates clearly went well for Romney and now we're seeing some movement in the polls. At one point Obama had been polling ahead in the state — remember when he was up by eight there? — but these polls show him sinking behind. Caveat: Rasmussen leans conservative, and We Ask America, has also been said to do so. Rasmussen does not contact cell phone-only users.
 
Romney could hardly fail, he was able to recite some gibberish and not fall over or faint (more than I expected). He comes off as a retarded robot though. So what if he spent the last 48 hours memorizing his "poems."

This nation may be insane, but it's not insane enough to elect some freak who thinks he gets his own planet in the afterlife. I say, Honey, since you're leaving, don't you think it's time to go? This guy is Reagan without the acting and well-timed rejoinders, which is nothing but a wealthy nutball.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
i studied for a semester abroad, in the brutal training grounds of quan xi xu, man my fixie was tired that year
Click to expand...
I studied a broad for a semester, then she got a restraining order...
 
Wow.

A video of Mitt Romney casually pulling something out of his pocket and placing it on his podium at the presidential debate on Wednesday is raising a few eyebrows.
Skeptics think Romney pulled out a cheat sheet before the start of the debate, which may have been against the rules. In past debates, it was prohibited to use notes, charts or other writings, however the Commission on Presidential Debates has not releasUnlesed the 2012 debate rules.
Romney's spokeswoman Andrea Saul denies this charge and claims that the item in Romney's hand was a handkerchief.
Click to expand...

Unless it was a new-age, 1%er Mind Control Device, then I don't know how this (even if true) excuses the President's showing. He should've just done this:

images
 
Funny thing though, I read yesterday on CNN, that their "new" charts and polls declare Barry to be the "winner" of the debate. Talk about spin..
 
didnt obama have notes too? whats the problem with notes?
 
BrianFromWA said:
Wow.



Unless it was a new-age, 1%er Mind Control Device, then I don't know how this (even if true) excuses the President's showing. He should've just done this:

images
Click to expand...

Mitt's secret weapon ... the all-knowing handkerchief! :MARIS61:

cheatsheet6n-1-web.jpg
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;jWgYEkArxos]

It's difficult to prepare for debate when you have no idea what your opponent thinks this week.
 
Last edited:
Baracuda said:
[video=youtube;jWgYEkArxos]

It's difficult to prepare for debate when you have no idea what your opponent thinks this week.
Click to expand...


I didn't see him debating himself at all.

First one, for example. He's lowering the tax rates on everyone by 20%. A flatter tax. He's eliminating loopholes for the rich so they'll pay a higher effective rate than they do now.

The last one, pre-existing conditions. Today, if you lose your insurance or let it lapse, you can't get new insurance with a pre-existing condition. He's saying that if you've had insurance all along, the next company would have to take you. Obviously, you don't want people to not buy insurance, then when they get sick and are facing big bills go out and try to buy insurance.

You think DailyKOS is a good place to get your news?
 
Mitt Romney is a filthy liar

He didn't win any debate. Obama "lost" based on body language and facial expressions. Big whoop.
 
3634flim.jpg


That guy will say anything to get elected. He stands for nothing at all. He'll hire a bunch of incompetent cronies just like Bush did and people will die because of it. He'll lie, flip flop, lie here, flip flop there, lie again, then flip flop. Rinse and repeat. He just wants to be King. I heard it's good to be the King. Give him any planet but this one though.
 
Denny Crane said:
I didn't see him debating himself at all.

First one, for example. He's lowering the tax rates on everyone by 20%. A flatter tax. He's eliminating loopholes for the rich so they'll pay a higher effective rate than they do now.

The last one, pre-existing conditions. Today, if you lose your insurance or let it lapse, you can't get new insurance with a pre-existing condition. He's saying that if you've had insurance all along, the next company would have to take you. Obviously, you don't want people to not buy insurance, then when they get sick and are facing big bills go out and try to buy insurance.

You think DailyKOS is a good place to get your news?
Click to expand...

I read your links far more often than I check out Daily Kos :) Next time I'll seek out Janeane Garofalo's articles on Huffington Post if that's better.
 
Last edited:
Michael Barone has a nice article on RealClearPolitics.com about how the electoral math works. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...in_opens_cracks_in_obama_firewall_115694.html

Basically, Obama can win if he loses Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. The debate performance by Romney has brought those three states into serious play for Romney.

Florida's last two polls have Romney up 2 and up 3.
Romney's up 3, up 1, and Obama up 3 in the last 3 Virginia polls.
Obama was up 8 in recent Ohio polls, but the last two polls have Romney up 1 and Obama up 1.

So using Barone's math, working backward from the states Obama won last time and subtracting the ones he's going to lose this time (Indiana, etc.), and if Obama loses Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, Obama would have 272 electoral votes. Still enough to win.

The RCP poll average for Colorado is Obama +0.2.
 
Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate

DENVER—Following last night’s nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama’s 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was “acting like such a goddamned pussy up there.” “Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?” asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was “genuinely worried” that maybe somebody had “cut Daddy’s balls off” right before he took the stage. “What happened, Dad? Were you on your period or something? Maybe the next time you’re in front of the entire country for an hour and a half you should try not letting another man spank you on the ass like that.” Sources added that Obama’s youngest daughter then offered to help the president go “look for [his] dick, because apparently it’s gone missing.”

Link
 
Denny Crane said:
Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate

DENVER—Following last night’s nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama’s 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was “acting like such a goddamned pussy up there.” “Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?” asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was “genuinely worried” that maybe somebody had “cut Daddy’s balls off” right before he took the stage. “What happened, Dad? Were you on your period or something? Maybe the next time you’re in front of the entire country for an hour and a half you should try not letting another man spank you on the ass like that.” Sources added that Obama’s youngest daughter then offered to help the president go “look for [his] dick, because apparently it’s gone missing.”

Link
Click to expand...

crandc . . . what say you? :)
 
blazerboy30 said:
Has Obama lied?
Click to expand...

Not when characterizing what Mitt would do on his proposal of 2 Tril in NEW Military spending:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/

Our ruling

The president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadn’t asked for.
Independent analysts confirm that number, and Romney did not deny it.
Military leaders have testified in support of the president’s spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes.

We rate the statement True.

How are we going to pay for this spending that isn't needed in the 1st place?
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in this one, for obvious reasons. The military has already signed up to half a billion in cuts, which don't include the OCO drawdowns. Where's the $2T number coming from, and what is it for?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm interested in this one, for obvious reasons. The military has already signed up to half a billion in cuts, which don't include the OCO drawdowns. Where's the $2T number coming from, and what is it for?
Click to expand...

I think he was lied to about the $2T figure.

BTW, is Gitmo still open?

[video=youtube;UQXZoM__vU0]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
New Pew Research Poll Shows Romney Lead
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
MickZagger
MickZagger
Further
What do expect from the first debate?
Replies
28
Views
1K
huevonkiller
huevonkiller
Eastoff
Obama compared to Romney on "policies towards science"
Replies
1
Views
249
BLAZER PROPHET
B
T
Strange Strategy
Replies
16
Views
753
The_Lillard_King
T
MARIS61
THIRD PARTY(S) 2012 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE - OCT. 23
Replies
24
Views
2K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top