Debate tonight.... #2

[jrogers]

Wow, they both failed terribly on guns. I didn't realize that legally owned automatic weapons were so commonly used in crimes (Obama) and that it was illegal to own automatic weapons in this country (Romney).

We must have watched diferent debates, because the transcript I'm looking as quotes Obama as saying, "in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns," which is absolutely true. Most intentional shootings are carried out with inexpensive handguns.

And I'm just fine with the public thinking automatic weapons are illegal. They're rare and expensive enough that they might as well be for most people's purposes.

 

[Hotdoger]

We must have watched diferent debates, because the transcript I'm looking as quotes Obama as saying, "in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns," which is absolutely true. Most intentional shootings are carried out with inexpensive handguns.

And I'm just fine with the public thinking automatic weapons are illegal. They're rare and expensive enough that they might as well be for most people's purposes.

Public ignorance is not a virtue.

 

[jrogers]

I agree. Ignorance in any form is no virtue. Nevertheless, I see no compelling reason to get my drawers in a twist over Romney's confusion over the finer points of gun law. Gun control is basically off the table this cycle no matter what the NRA tells us. Neither candidate was really prepared for that question. The middle doesn't seem to care much about gun control these days, and it hasn't been part of the narrative until it showed up out of nowhere during this debate.

 

[JetGirl]

Candy Crowley gave Obama more time,

On the radio this morning, they were discussing her apology for backing up Obama without actually having facts herself. I guess it was last night, but I turned off the debate and crashed right after, so I missed it.
The gist was that in the context of talking about "terror" Obama had switched back and forth mentioning Afghanistan and Iraq and other things...and made the "acts of terror" comment... but when specifically mentioning Libya, it was all about the video.

And I'm just fine with the public thinking automatic weapons are illegal. They're rare and expensive enough that they might as well be for most people's purposes.

They're rare?

 

[rgrimm01]

We must have watched diferent debates, because the transcript I'm looking as quotes Obama as saying, "in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns," which is absolutely true. Most intentional shootings are carried out with inexpensive handguns...

So instead of villiainizing just the evil assault weapons, he takes a swing at the cheap handguns as well. Oh, by the way, what is the cheap handgun of choice used by those who would commit crime?

 

[Mad Macs]

In fact, you don't know what Romney can or will do. But in fact, you do know where we've been the last four years.

Just wait until Obama 'reforms' Medicare and Social Security (you didn't build that, etc.)...

Romney doesn't even know what Romney will do. Why in the hell would I trust that?

 

[Stschil]

We must have watched diferent debates, because the transcript I'm looking as quotes Obama as saying, "in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns," which is absolutely true. Most intentional shootings are carried out with inexpensive handguns.

And I'm just fine with the public thinking automatic weapons are illegal. They're rare and expensive enough that they might as well be for most people's purposes.

You missed the part where he said he wants to see another AWB and where Romney eluded that he's support one too. 'We don't need weapons that were designed for the military in civilian hands' (I paraphrased)

 

[Hotdoger]

I agree. Ignorance in any form is no virtue. Nevertheless, I see no compelling reason to get my drawers in a twist over Romney's confusion over the finer points of gun law. Gun control is basically off the table this cycle no matter what the NRA tells us. Neither candidate was really prepared for that question. The middle doesn't seem to care much about gun control these days, and it hasn't been part of the narrative until it showed up out of nowhere during this debate.

I agree it is off the table for now.

It showed up becuse of an ignorant "undecided" female asked her ignorant question and two ignorant "debaters" responded.

 

[firehawk1]

Romney doesn't even know what Romney will do. Why in the hell would I trust that?

And you are basing that on what..... Obviously personal opinion.

 

[Willie]

Obama wasn't debating Romney.. He was trying to erase his dismal first debate showing. Anything better than that, and how could it not be, then the LSM declares "Obama wins!"

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

And you are basing that on what..... Obviously personal opinion.

I can't speak for Mad Macs, but it wouldn't be hard to guess that the comment was based on the fact that Romney's opinion has evolved on a number of topics. If he were a Senator of Massachusetts and not the former Governor, I believe the term for that would be "Flip flopping" or something like that.

 

[Denny347]

Why can't they use 100% truths in debates? How tiring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/a-closer-look-at-some-disputed-claims.html?_r=1&hp

BBC News - Fact-checking the second presidential debate

 

[downzero]

Have to revive this one from 2004

 

[88GT]

Why can't they use 100% truths in debates? How tiring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/a-closer-look-at-some-disputed-claims.html?_r=1&hp

BBC News - Fact-checking the second presidential debate

I think you mean fact.

 

[GBuck]

We must have watched diferent debates, because the transcript I'm looking as quotes Obama as saying, "in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns," which is absolutely true. Most intentional shootings are carried out with inexpensive handguns.

And I'm just fine with the public thinking automatic weapons are illegal. They're rare and expensive enough that they might as well be for most people's purposes.

Yeah and a couple sentences after that he talked about the "automatic weapons being used in these crimes."

 

[Mad Macs]

And you are basing that on what..... Obviously personal opinion.

I am basing this statement on the fact his official stances have shifted even as of a few weeks ago. How can you stand behind and support somebody who can't even make up his own mind as to what he is going to do?

 

[Survivalcookie]

On the radio this morning, they were discussing her apology for backing up Obama without actually having facts herself. I guess it was last night, but I turned off the debate and crashed right after, so I missed it.
The gist was that in the context of talking about "terror" Obama had switched back and forth mentioning Afghanistan and Iraq and other things...and made the "acts of terror" comment... but when specifically mentioning Libya, it was all about the video.

They're rare?

Yep that's what happened!!

 

[Birds Away]

I am basing this statement on the fact his official stances have shifted even as of a few weeks ago. How can you stand behind and support somebody who can't even make up his own mind as to what he is going to do?

As opposed to your candidate who we know supports-
- redistribution of wealth.
- the killing of innocent children.
- oppression of rights.
- suppression of the military vote.
- unchecked illegal immigration.
- illegally arming Mexican cartels to further the gun banning agenda.
- empowering corrupt unions to hasten the demise of free enterprise.
In no particular order and just to name a few.

 

[printcraft]

obama can't run on his record .


He has to try to demonize Romney.

Romney is giving people a reason to vote for him beyond anybody but obama.

His message of fixing the economy is winning by double digits over obamas failures.

 

[Denny347]

I think you mean fact.

Fact, I guess is less open to interpretation. Fair enough. Regardless, why does one side exagerate the "shortcoming" of the other when the "facts" are enough to stand on their own? It's a rhetorical question. It would be refreshing to see in one of these post debate analyses that the commentator had nothing to correct.