Debate tonight.... #2

[Survivalcookie]

Both WTHR and WRTV both just reported Romney's "mistake" on the Libya discussion. No reporting of Candy's retraction. No showing of Obama's rose garden statement.

Did you really think there would be.

 

[Kutnupe14]

WTH debate were you watching???

I truly feel sorry for you, if your ability to discern between these two men, is actually that clouded.

They are the SAME? Get serious man!

What government have YOU been paying attention to the past how many years??? Did you LISTEN to the debate? I mean concerning the stuff that matters? Here we are talking about whether or not Obama call the Libya event terror or not. Why? What does that change? Nothing.

However, for the stuff we should be paying attention to, they are more alike than not. The economy, the were bickering over who said what, but at the end of the day, both have NO intelligible plan for saving money from a lemonade stand, let alone a nation.

National Security, I thought Obama wanted to end wars; so much for Afghanistan. And Romney, if elected, wants to INCREASE defense spending??? Helloooo, Military-Industrial Complex.

2nd Amendment rights. They're both dumfoundly ignorant.

Free Trade, that Romney was spouting off about with Latin America. Or about how he planned on making China "play fair." How exactly does govt make another country change its trade habits, and still maintain "free" trade? Sounds suspiciously like NAFTA (introduced by a guy in the other party).

The list goes on, and on, and on...

It saddens me that people take sound bytes, and fail to listen to the whole message. We have dealt with this "two sides of the same coin" nonsense for the past 50 years. Only when people start paying attention to words and actions of our elected officials, rather than the "R" or "D" following their names will we finally be able to get this thing in check. Until then, we may as well pick our candidates blindfolded.

 

[88GT]

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.

I wasn't trying to be a ***** in the correction. Facts are verifiable and immutable. Truth is the interpretation of those facts and depends heavily on context and connotation.

The same fact can be explained in different ways depending on additional information. Remember when they were talking about drilling on public lands. Romney accused Obama of decreasing the number of leases (or something like that) on public lands. Obama retorted with the argument that .gov told them to poo or get off the pot, and rescinded the leases for their inactivity.

Both could be fact. But what's the truth? Perhaps Obama's administration really was trying to get to the highest and best use of the land. We'd have to know what was done with it after the leases were terminated. Perhaps it was his way of eliminating possible drilling.

Even if you got your wish of 100% factual material, you still likely wouldn't be happy with the spin.

 

[sepe]

Well, my 32" analog tv is still intact, mainly because the wife took me out for dinner last night and we went to the bedroom to read our books immediately we had gotten home.

From the conservative commentators I've been listening to, IMO, Romney did okay considering the debate was what I thought it would be: a 2-against-1 against him.

As for "facts" during a debate: C'mon. Without notes, NO candidate is going to have all the "facts" at his disposal; what they do have are carefully crafted talking points laden with their versions of the issues. They memorize those stats and items that they expect to have to react to, or to emphasize the points they want to make.

Unless a candidate outright lies - the Benghazi Consulate attack reaction springs to mind - the "facts" are always going to be subject to spin and interpretation based on the biases of the commentators, so I don't really see any point in getting exercised about them.

Of course, I had made up my mind who I was NOT going to vote for in early 2009, so these debates are simply an exercise in frustration and a temptation to take high blood pressure meds for me. Not interested.

Romney opened very, very weak with his non-plan job plan. He got slightly better as it went on but both stayed pretty weak. As Kutnupe mentioned, it was mostly a pissing match with not much of value said.

 

[JetGirl]

I thought the audience was supposed to refrain from noise...? Guess they aren't so "undecided" after all...
Hmmm. That's a shocker.

I guess it was determined who initially started the applause when the moderator wrongfully backed up Obama in front of all those undecided voters...

Hint:

I think they're getting Michelle to moderate.

She's too busy clapping.

 

[Willie]

The gent who asked the question - "Who turned down the request for additional security in Libya" never did get an answer did he? Obama danced around it and then Candy bailed him out..

 

[sepe]

It would look really bad if Michelle didn't support Barry even if she thought he was wrong or doing a bad job. It is part of her job to wear fancy dresses and support him. We've seen other presidents look like complete fools (from both parties) with loving wives that supported them.

 

[JetGirl]

It would look really bad if Michelle didn't support Barry even if she thought he was wrong or doing a bad job. It is part of her job to wear fancy dresses and support him. We've seen other presidents look like complete fools (from both parties) with loving wives that supported them.

I don't think you understand.
The rules of attendance stated "No noise". No applause, no booing, no outbursts of any sort.
The fact that the "FIRST LADY" started it is reprehensible...and says a lot.

 

[GREEN607]

It saddens me that people take sound bytes, and fail to listen to the whole message. We have dealt with this "two sides of the same coin" nonsense for the past 50 years. Only when people start paying attention to words and actions of our elected officials, rather than the "R" or "D" following their names will we finally be able to get this thing in check. Until then, we may as well pick our candidates blindfolded.

And as far as I can tell, from your own posts, you are just another self-decorated keyboard intellectual..... who wants to automatically 'categorize' people that you know NOTHING about.

Don't pretend to know how involved I am in politics, or to know what I listen to, read or know. And don't sit behind your keyboard veil and put an (R) behind my name..... based on YOUR lack of knowledge.

FYI, if I had been old enough to vote back then, I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy (had he not been murdered). And I DID vote for Ron Reagan, but certainly not for a "straight Republican ticket", then or since.

I am voting for Mitt Romney.... because of the man he is and because of the leader he is, and will be. Not because he is a Republican.

So please, take your infantile generalizations, and kindly stuff them in the ballot box.... like you will on Nov 6 (if you have enough balls to even vote).

 

[churchmouse]

The gent who asked the question - "Who turned down the request for additional security in Libya" never did get an answer did he? Obama danced around it and then Candy bailed him out..

And this is a surprise to anyone. The media is in the tank with the big "O"

AS to GREEN607, I have never and probably will never vote a straight ticket.

 

[sepe]

I don't think you understand.
The rules of attendance stated "No noise". No applause, no booing, no outbursts of any sort.
The fact that the "FIRST LADY" started it is reprehensible...and says a lot.

I understand the rules. I also understand that rules in other areas were bent a bit. They should have the debate audience separated from the debaters so people can act a fool if they want. Have their questions and reactions fed via video or put them in a sound proof room with a mic feed and speakers. Turn the mic on for questions. They should also just the cut mics when one of the debaters goes over their time limit and keep it cut off when it isn't their turn to speak. The noise from the audience was less of a distraction for me then the constant talking over each other.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I understand the rules. I also understand that rules in other areas were bent a bit. They should have the debate audience separated from the debaters so people can act a fool if they want. Have their questions and reactions fed via video or put them in a sound proof room with a mic feed and speakers. Turn the mic on for questions. They should also just the cut mics when one of the debaters goes over their time limit and keep it cut off when it isn't their turn to speak. The noise from the audience was less of a distraction for me then the constant talking over each other.

Go one further, have the candidates in separate rooms as well with mics

 

[sepe]

I almost went there but I got a good laugh out of them getting in each other's personal space and trying to seem intimidating.

 

[bwframe]

Both WTHR and WRTV both just reported Romney's "mistake" on the Libya discussion. No reporting of Candy's retraction. No showing of Obama's rose garden statement.

Did you really think there would be.

Again, pointing out room for action here. Local stations can only stay alive if they are supported with $. Don't support them and they'll straighten up or GTFO.

 

[hornadylnl]

Again, pointing out room for action here. Local stations can only stay alive if they are supported with $. Don't support them and they'll straighten up or GTFO.

But my favorite show is on that channel.

 

[loudpedal]

I was undecided before the debate, but now I see the clear choice. I'm gonna vote for the "The rent is too damn high" guy.

Did ya notice? NO PURPLE

 

[Kutnupe14]

And as far as I can tell, from your own posts, you are just another self-decorated keyboard intellectual..... who wants to automatically 'categorize' people that you know NOTHING about.

Don't pretend to know how involved I am in politics, or to know what I listen to, read or know. And don't sit behind your keyboard veil and put an (R) behind my name..... based on YOUR lack of knowledge.

FYI, if I had been old enough to vote back then, I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy (had he not been murdered). And I DID vote for Ron Reagan, but certainly not for a "straight Republican ticket", then or since.

I am voting for Mitt Romney.... because of the man he is and because of the leader he is, and will be. Not because he is a Republican.

So please, take your infantile generalizations, and kindly stuff them in the ballot box.... like you will on Nov 6 (if you have enough balls to even vote).

If you wish to strengthen you stance, how about you address the points I made in my rebuttal posts, explaining "why" and "how" they are different rather than trying to pad your zinger count.

The post, I made was in reference to voters, taken generally, who are traditionally poorly educated as to the policies and stances of their preferred candiates. If you can refute that statement, I would be sincerely impressed.

As for Bobby Kennedy, I wonder if you fell in love with the "idea" of the man, or you actually knew his positions (harkening back to my earlier statements).

Bobby Kennedy signed off on wiretaps that J Edgar used to harass multitudes of Americans...

He opposed the death penalty...

He advocated taxing "priviledged" Americans (all of us), to help people in nations abroad....

He believed in govt should influence the selling prices of private businesses (steel)...

Kennedy, campaigned on expanding Johnson's Great Society....

And we won't even talk about the lil "cloak and dagger" ops, against Cuba, RFK directed....


And YOU would have voted for Bobby? Reconcile that with what you believe Romney stands for.

 

[bwframe]

But my favorite show is on that channel.

I know, I know. But that's where we have to make a choice. Support your self-interest while supporting a station biased to the enemy? Or not?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I know, I know. But that's where we have to make a choice. Support your self-interest while supporting a station biased to the enemy? Or not?

Don't bother trying to make an argument to respond to that. Hornadylnl doesn't use purple much.

 

[GREEN607]

If you wish to strengthen you stance, how about you address the points I made in my rebuttal posts, explaining "why" and "how" they are different rather than trying to pad your zinger count.

The post, I made was in reference to voters, taken generally, who are traditionally poorly educated as to the policies and stances of their preferred candiates. If you can refute that statement, I would be sincerely impressed.

NO. You are not being honest here.

IF the post you made "...was in reference to voters, taken generally."...Why then, in your post #322 (which is what I responded to), why did you quote ME and MY post?
It was clearly directed at me.... as you THINK I have an (R) behind my name.

You're pretty good at talking out both sides of your mouth (and really saying nothing but the same old "I hate the 2 -party system" crap).