The Debates

[The Thriller]

I say we deport them both and choose a person randomly from the public at large.

Jon Hunstman.

The "other" Mormon (he's inactive, unlike Mitters) that no one is talking about.

I'd love to see him in this thing sometime.

Is moderate, has some courageous ideas (he was the only repub who talked about breaking up the big banks), actually has a personality, and is just basically awesome in every way possible.

 

[Scat]

 

[SaltyDawg]

What struck me is that after listing his [Obama] accomplishments over the past 4 years is that the economy is just as bad, if not worse, than the day he took office and there is no end in sight.

What are you basing that on? We were on the verge of another great depression when Obama took office, with Bush begging congress for an emergency near trillion dollar bailout of the banks just to keep the nation afloat.

Obama walked in to millions of jobs lost, a housing crisis, a credit freeze, a dead auto industry, and a historic stock market crash.

We have now had 30 something straight months of positive job numbers, stock market is doing much better than it was when Obama took office, and even the housing market is showing signs of recovery.

If your post wasn't in satire, then you really need to get out of that bubble. The economy is much better than when Obama took office.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

What are you basing that on? We were on the verge of another great depression when Obama took office, with Bush begging congress for an emergency near trillion dollar bailout of the banks just to keep the nation afloat.

Obama walked in to millions of jobs lost, a housing crisis, a credit freeze, a dead auto industry, and a historic stock market crash.

We have now had 30 something straight months of positive job numbers, stock market is doing much better than it was when Obama took office, and even the housing market is showing signs of recovery.

If your post wasn't in satire, then you really need to get out of that bubble. The economy is much better than when Obama took office.

Are we talking about Ben Bernanke or Obama? Because I keep seeing liberals attributing things to Obama that have nothing to do with him.

 

[Scat]

What are you basing that on? We were on the verge of another great depression when Obama took office, with Bush begging congress for an emergency near trillion dollar bailout of the banks just to keep the nation afloat.

Obama walked in to millions of jobs lost, a housing crisis, a credit freeze, a dead auto industry, and a historic stock market crash.

We have now had 30 something straight months of positive job numbers, stock market is doing much better than it was when Obama took office, and even the housing market is showing signs of recovery.

If your post wasn't in satire, then you really need to get out of that bubble. The economy is much better than when Obama took office.

From The Chicago Tribune

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...ign-fact-check-20121016,0,440046.story?page=1

OBAMA: "And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we've created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone."

THE FACTS: As he has done before, Obama is cherry-picking his numbers to make them sound better than they really are. He ignores the fact that public-sector job losses have dragged down overall job creation. Also, he chooses just to mention the past 30 months. That ignores job losses during his presidency up until that point. According to the Labor Department, about 4.5 million total jobs have been created over the past 30 months. But some 4.3 million jobs were lost during the earlier months of his administration. At this point, Obama is a net job creator, but only marginally.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Are we talking about Ben Bernanke or Obama? Because I keep seeing liberals attributing things to Obama that have nothing to do with him.

I'm not attributing anything to him. I'm just pointing out that the economy is much better today than the day Obama took office (because scat said it's just as bad if not worse).

 

[franklin]

There's a Jazz game on.

 

[Stoked]

There's a Jazz game on.

People are busy in here hating on each other because they dare have a difference of opinion.

 

[Zombie]

Jon Hunstman.

The "other" Mormon (he's inactive, unlike Mitters) that no one is talking about.

I'd love to see him in this thing sometime.

Is moderate, has some courageous ideas (he was the only repub who talked about breaking up the big banks), actually has a personality, and is just basically awesome in every way possible.

If he would have made it through the primary he would have made it much more difficult for me to decide who to vote for.

 

[Zombie]

What struck me is that after listing his [Obama] accomplishments over the past 4 years is that the economy is just as bad, if not worse, than the day he took office and there is no end in sight.

As much as I hate to pile on...********. I don't get how people can have such short memories. I was all of 22 years old in 2008 and i recognized how **** the economy was at the time. This insistence that we are somehow worse off than we were four years ago is ridiculous.

 

[candrew]

Obama did not call the attack on Libya a terror attack. He did indeed take 2 weeks to admit this. Romney right. Obama wrong.

Scat wrong.

 

[Zombie]

Scat wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time...

Scat is, perhaps, the most aptly named poster on this site.

 

[trigg3r]

Scat wrong.

He is actually right in this instance. The President was referring to 9/11 2001 when he was talking about an "act of terror." Even the moderator came out post debate with a correction of her statement saying that Romney was right and she was wrong.

As for debate.

1. I thought we saw both candidates being aggressive.

2. Along with many, I think Romney could have done a better job on Libya when criticizing the President. He could have asked why the President had people blaming a youtube video 5 days after the attack as well as why 2 weeks later he couldn't say it was a terrorist attack. I assume he will do a better job of this in debate 3 which is centered around foreign policy.

3. I think the debate was pretty close. Obama probably inched it out due to the fact that he was so horrible in the first debate and expectations going into this one had been lowered.

4. I think Romney provided some more information on his tax proposal. Not an enormous amount of course.

5. Throughout the night I didn't hear what the President was actually going to do to improve the situation. I didn't hear any ideas put forth by him for the next 4 years.

 

[Zombie]

He is actually right in this instance. The President was referring to 9/11 2001 when he was talking about an "act of terror." Even the moderator came out post debate with a correction of her statement saying that Romney was right and she was wrong.

As for debate.

1. I thought we saw both candidates being aggressive.

2. Along with many, I think Romney could have done a better job on Libya when criticizing the President. He could have asked why the President had people blaming a youtube video 5 days after the attack as well as why 2 weeks later he couldn't say it was a terrorist attack. I assume he will do a better job of this in debate 3 which is centered around foreign policy.

3. I think the debate was pretty close. Obama probably inched it out due to the fact that he was so horrible in the first debate and expectations going into this one had been lowered.

4. I think Romney provided some more information on his tax proposal. Not an enormous amount of course.

5. Throughout the night I didn't hear what the President was actually going to do to improve the situation. I didn't hear any ideas put forth by him for the next 4 years.

While Obama did not utter the words "this was an act of terrorism," and I honestly don't understand why this matters at all anyway, in the context of the speech I think it was pretty clear what Obama thought of the attack. Here is the relevant quote:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Now, he was referencing 9-11 in the beginning, but in the very next sentence he talks about the Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi. I know context is hard and some people need things spelled out for them, but come on...

 

[candrew]

Thanks Zombie - beat me to it.

In the end it doesn't really matter - the sound byte was a direct hit. That's what will play in the media. And Romney nailed his own coffin when he started studdering and stammering after Crowley said Obama was correct.

And binders of women? Yikes.

Prepare for the inevitable barrage of polygamy jokes in 3,2,1.....

 

[trigg3r]

While Obama did not utter the words this was an act of terrorism, and I honestly don't understand why this matters at all anyway, in the context of the speech I think it was pretty clear what Obama thought of the attack. Here is the relevant quote:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Now he was referencing 9-11 in the beginning, but in the very next sentence he talks about the americans who lost their lives in bengazi. I know context is hard and some people need things spelled out for them but come on...

You are right. His first reference was about 9/11 2001 and he goes on to say we mourn the loss of these 4 Americans......... So why is this an issue? Because they spun a story about a protest that turned violent rather than what it actually was which was an act of terror. When people see things like this they immediately think either the administration is lying in order to help themselves in regards to foreign policy in an election year. Or they are incompetent for not knowing and saying from day one it was a terrorist attack. We already had someone testify in front of a committee that they watched the attack take place in real time and that there was never a protest to begin with. So it is looking more and more like the administration lied. This is a growing issue and will be a huge topic in debate number 3. I will give credit to the President for finally taking blame for this rather than throwing Hillary under the bus(even though she was willing to fall on her own sword).

 

[trigg3r]

Thanks Zombie - beat me to it.

In the end it doesn't really matter - the sound byte was a direct hit. That's what will play in the media. And Romney nailed his own coffin when he started studdering and stammering after Crowley said Obama was correct.

And binders of women? Yikes.

Prepare for the inevitable barrage of polygamy jokes in 3,2,1.....

And Crowley came out post debate and said that Romney was right..... I am sorry, but there was no nail in the coffin for either side. Both sides had good moments and ultimately this might have stopped the bleeding for Obama, but it certainly didn't guarantee him a victory.

 

[Scat]

Scat wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time...

Scat is, perhaps, the most aptly named poster on this site.

I was simply passing on what ABC News said. Scat wrong? Take it up with ABC News.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Wait, it's "SCAT?" All this time I liked him because I thought it was CATS. Damn dyslexia.

Now, can we end this debate on the Libyan issue and all agree both sides stretched?

 

[Zombie]

You are right. His first reference was about 9/11 2001 and he goes on to say we mourn the loss of these 4 Americans......... So why is this an issue? Because they spun a story about a protest that turned violent rather than what it actually was which was an act of terror. When people see things like this they immediately think either the administration is lying in order to help themselves in regards to foreign policy in an election year. Or they are incompetent for not knowing and saying from day one it was a terrorist attack. We already had someone testify in front of a committee that they watched the attack take place in real time and that there was never a protest to begin with. So it is looking more and more like the administration lied. This is a growing issue and will be a huge topic in debate number 3. I will give credit to the President for finally taking blame for this rather than throwing Hillary under the bus(even though she was willing to fall on her own sword).

Did you even read my post? Context. It is really not. that. difficult.
Not to mention, when it comes to national security I tend to lean towards those who actually get intelligence and are in a position to make decisions. It is far easier to play armchair commander in chief than it is to actually hold the position. I stand by my original assessment of the entire situation. This kind of thing should never be used as a political football and the more the right tries to use it as such the more disgusted I become.