Is there a reason to have the debates?

Jason P

goingtoverona wrote:

personally my vote goes to the candidate with the best ass. i've made up my mind visually, but the question is, how do i get in for a squeeze?

I take it you will write-in for Newt?

Jason P

FattyFatCat wrote:

Give the businessman a chance...

What other choice do I have when the other guy's campaign is based on actively raising taxes? At least Mitt is lying about not doing it.

Truth is, I think I already cast my vote for president back in the primaries.

Jason P

AP Fact Check on both liars ... I mean politicians.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps-015421565.html

FattyFatCat

Jason P wrote:

OK, funding for PBS was $445M in 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting)

We can almost buy two F-35 fighter jets which cost $238M each .... even though fighter jets don't play a real role in the wars we are currently fighting .... and even though the jets are grounded over safety concerns that the pilots are passing out for reasons unknown .... and the US is planning to buy 2,443 of them.

:fp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Id take two F-35s over Jim Lehrer any day.

But Im into cool toys...

Jason P

FattyFatCat wrote:

Id take two F-35s over Jim Lehrer any day.

But Im into cool toys...

You like toys that don't work properly? And cost twice as much as the dealer told you?

Can I broker the sale of an Audi R8 to you? They usually go for $200K but I can get you one for $400K. Oh, and the engine is missing some parts.

BinauralJam

There Not Long Enough.

Godfather.

from yahoo news......
Yes, it was as bad as it seemed.
No, it wasn’t Jim Lehrer’s fault for letting Romney expound; Obama got more time (four minutes more) than Romney. Besides, it’s not the moderator’s job to call a debater out on questionable assertions. It’s the opponent’s job.
Yes, it wasn’t the best atmospherics for Obama to look down, purse his lips, appear distracted, while Romney was attentive, engaged, relaxed. But this was much more than atmospherics. This was about one candidate who came with a frame for the evening, and who was prepared to engage on every question; and another who, perhaps because of his documented faith in his own abilities, felt he could wing it with snatches of familiar verbiage.
Most surprising, the whole evening felt as if Obama thought he was back in 2008, needing only to demonstrate a sense of cool, calm collectedness to persuade the voters that they could do what they desperately wanted to do: change course.
There was barely a moment when Obama offered any sense that he was prepared to challenge Romney on his weakest point: who does the Republican presidential nominee speak for? How much (or little) does he understand where the country is, how it got here?
Even on the most basic political points, Obama seemed clueless. When you argue as a Democrat that you and your Republican opponent share wide areas of agreement on Social Security—especially when recipients make up a chunk of Romney’s “47 percent” of indolent spongers—you have thrown in a fistful of high cards.
What remains is one key question that the next 48 to 72 hours will answer: Did this debate change the minds of significant numbers of voters? Assuming that the flash polls are right—that most viewers thought Romney won the debate—did they regard that as a loss for “their” team, or did it persuade some of them to change their minds about whom they are supporting,
One of the enduring myths of campaign analysis is that you can actually count the number of “undecided” voters by asking voters if they are undecided or not. Sometimes, significant numbers of voters actually change their minds. That’s how Reagan turned a small lead into a landslide in 1980. It’s how Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and how Kerry got back into the race in 2004.
If this debate—as one-sided as any I have ever seen—does not change the landscape, if Obama retains a small but measurable lead, it means that the election is more or less over (barring some overwhelmingly consequential event), that voters have decided they are going to stick with the President. That is thin gruel on which the Obama campaign must dine for the next few days; but after this debacle, it’s the only sustenance on the menu.

Jason P

FattyFatCat wrote:

$90 Billion to Solyndra = 2,000,000,000 teachers that couldve been hired.

$90 Billion to Solyndra = 50 years of oil subsidies

From what I have gather, the Solyndra loan was $535 million. It's still a boatload of money that was wasted, but nowhere close to $90 billion.

$90 billion refers to the overall clean energy stimulus that Obama enacted. If anything, the money should be used to build massive solar fields in the southwest. But technically, the money doesn't even exist as we are $1.5 trillion in debt each year.

mydogmookieblaylock

Obama appeared to have not taken this debate very seriously - he really didn't come out and compete - he sat back - to 20 seconds to start talking - and then didn't have much to say -- clearly he feels he has this in the bag and is asking the same question as OP on this thread

whygohome

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

Obama appeared to have not taken this debate very seriously - he really didn't come out and compete - he sat back - to 20 seconds to start talking - and then didn't have much to say -- clearly he feels he has this in the bag and is asking the same question as OP on this thread

A terrible attitude to have.
He had so many chances to call Romney out on blatant lies and didn't do it.
Is there another plan that we don't know about?
very strange performance

FattyFatCat

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

Obama appeared to have not taken this debate very seriously - he really didn't come out and compete - he sat back - to 20 seconds to start talking - and then didn't have much to say -- clearly he feels he has this in the bag and is asking the same question as OP on this thread

Obama is not that smart. He's a professional bullshitter whose fancy words fooled a lot of people.

Last night he was exposed for what he is: A bad student. Lazy. Arrogant. Petulant. Overwhelmed.


If he had done one thing right in 4 years, Im sure he would have mentioned it. But....

whygohome

FattyFatCat wrote:

Obama is not that smart. He's a professional bullshitter whose fancy words fooled a lot of people.

Last night he was exposed for what he is: A bad student. Lazy. Arrogant. Petulant. Overwhelmed.

If he had done one thing right in 4 years, Im sure he would have mentioned it. But....

I love comments like this.......

riotgrl

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

Obama appeared to have not taken this debate very seriously - he really didn't come out and compete - he sat back - to 20 seconds to start talking - and then didn't have much to say -- clearly he feels he has this in the bag and is asking the same question as OP on this thread

This was my thought. I wondered if he thought it was Romney's debate and Romney's election to lose and that if he played it safe that he wouldn't "lose" even if he didn't "win" the debate. The comment has been made here several times but do the debates really change your mind about who you are voting for in November? It didn't change mine at all