This is a running conversation of debate while we watch!

_

Obama has a bad habit of saying "yeah" when he's acknowledging what someone is saying but not agreeing with it.

Also, this is a pretty lame running conversation thread.

_

The guy asked about events before the embassy attacks & Obama answered by talking about the events afterward, no?

He's right, though, that Romney shouldn't have used it as an opportunity for his own gain.

catefrances

_ wrote:

Obama has a bad habit of saying "yeah" when he's acknowledging what someone is saying but not agreeing with it.

Also, this is a pretty lame running conversation thread.

i have that habit too.. but i dont consider it a bad habit. i consider it an acknowledgement of what was said... whether people see that as agreeance of what is being said or not, is not my concern. but if i am askeddirectly if it is agreeance, then i will answer.

catefrances

oh come on romney.. were all 4 years closer to a nuclear bomb.. if only thats what we were aiming for. :roll:

_

Or did he say he took responsibility for it, like Romney just said he did.

Romney's out of line, though, for criticizing anyone for taking the time to be sure what happened.

_

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Obama has a bad habit of saying "yeah" when he's acknowledging what someone is saying but not agreeing with it.

Also, this is a pretty lame running conversation thread.

i have that habit too.. but i dont consider it a bad habit. i consider it an acknowledgement of what was said... whether people see that as agreeance of what is being said or not, is not my concern. but if i am askeddirectly if it is agreeance, then i will answer.

I think it's bad for public debates because I think people do misunderstand.

_

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Obama has a bad habit of saying "yeah" when he's acknowledging what someone is saying but not agreeing with it.

Also, this is a pretty lame running conversation thread.

i have that habit too.. but i dont consider it a bad habit. i consider it an acknowledgement of what was said... whether people see that as agreeance of what is being said or not, is not my concern. but if i am askeddirectly if it is agreeance, then i will answer.

I think it's bad for public debates because I think people do misunderstand.

catefrances

_ wrote:

Or did he say he took responsibility for it, like Romney just said he did.

Romney's out of line, though, for criticizing anyone for taking the time to be sure what happened.

i agree. whats the point of blurting out it is an terrorist attack when you dont know for sure???

_

Oh fer fuck's sake. Are they really going to waste time on the semantics of the uses of the word terror? :roll:

catefrances

_ wrote:

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Obama has a bad habit of saying "yeah" when he's acknowledging what someone is saying but not agreeing with it.

Also, this is a pretty lame running conversation thread.

i have that habit too.. but i dont consider it a bad habit. i consider it an acknowledgement of what was said... whether people see that as agreeance of what is being said or not, is not my concern. but if i am askeddirectly if it is agreeance, then i will answer.

I think it's bad for public debates because I think people do misunderstand.

i didnt misunderstand. and if thats what people have a problem with then that is the problem, not that obama says yeah in acknowledgement.

_

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i have that habit too.. but i dont consider it a bad habit. i consider it an acknowledgement of what was said... whether people see that as agreeance of what is being said or not, is not my concern. but if i am askeddirectly if it is agreeance, then i will answer.

I think it's bad for public debates because I think people do misunderstand.

i didnt misunderstand. and if thats what people have a problem with then that is the problem, not that obama says yeah in acknowledgement.

Not all voters have the great fortune of being as astute as you are, Cate.

catefrances

_ wrote:

Oh fer fuck's sake. Are they really going to waste time on the semantics of the uses of the word terror? :roll:

its important... we dont want the people mistaking random acts of violence for concerted terrorist actions.

catefrances

_ wrote:

Not all voters have the great fortune of being as astute as you are, Cate.

well this is true.

_

Are automatic weapons really illegal here??

Holy fuck did he really just give a little lecture about not having kids (i.e. not having sex) outside of marriage?! As a response to a question about gun control? :fp:

I'm glad he said he agreed with Obama on something - though I already forgot what it was.

Did she just say that automatic weapons are no longer banned?

"So if you could get people to agree to it, you'd be for it?" GREAT question. Too bad he didn't even acknowledge it.

I don't think Romney should try to take credit for the good education system in his state when it's a lot easier to have good education in a state with money.

catefrances

we have to make sure that other countries play by the rules.

_

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Oh fer fuck's sake. Are they really going to waste time on the semantics of the uses of the word terror? :roll:

its important... we dont want the people mistaking random acts of violence for concerted terrorist actions.

Yeah, but the issue wasn't what happened, but just whether Obama said it was an "act of terror" on a certain day in the rose garden.

_

So Romney wants to compete to have the lowest tax rates for big businesses?? Isn't that what he said? How far would he take that idea - until big business doesn't have to even pay taxes any more??

catefrances

_ wrote:

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Oh fer fuck's sake. Are they really going to waste time on the semantics of the uses of the word terror? :roll:

its important... we dont want the people mistaking random acts of violence for concerted terrorist actions.

Yeah, but the issue wasn't what happened, but just whether Obama said it was an "act of terror" on a certain day in the rose garden.

i said it first. wah wah wah :P

_

Romney totally didn't answer her excellent question about how to compete with third-world wages.

catefrances

_ wrote:

Romney totally didn't answer her excellent question about how to compete with third-world wages.

thats cause he cant answer it.

catefrances

my sense of responsibility comes from me being human, not from God.

_

Great question about misperceptions. I'd like to hear Romney explain about the dog on his roof.

I don't have TV, but I haven't heard Obama say Romney doesn't care about people - just that his policies would be harmful to them.

I don't think spending your life in the private instead of public sector is proof that you care about people, as he said. Quite the contrary, actually. I care about people. That's why I work in the public sector to help people despite the fact that it means I'll never make good money.

_

Well Obama was certainly a lot more lively this time!

Wait - there's another debate? Presidential or VP?

_

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Romney totally didn't answer her excellent question about how to compete with third-world wages.

thats cause he cant answer it.

I think Obama did a pretty good job of answering it. Much better than I would have done!

aerial

_ wrote:

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

Oh fer fuck's sake. Are they really going to waste time on the semantics of the uses of the word terror? :roll:

its important... we dont want the people mistaking random acts of violence for concerted terrorist actions.

Yeah, but the issue wasn't what happened, but just whether Obama said it was an "act of terror" on a certain day in the rose garden.

Who's was Romney debating..Candy or Obama, as she tells Romney Obama called it a terrorist attack ...the liberalism came out at that moment...

fear4freedom

OBAMA STRATEGICALLY INTERRUPTED ROMNEY 3 TIMES TONIGHT....AND FOR GOOD REASONS....YOU SHOULD STUDY AS TO WHY HE DID SO! GOOD LUCK

hedonist

Just to chime in - I was anticipating them pulling an Ali/Frazier dealio when they were circling eachother :P

Been a fun night taking it in and I'm (almost, almost!) officially sick of politics.

Music is my go-to tasty dessert after a meal like this

gimmesometruth27

fear4freedom wrote:

OBAMA STRATEGICALLY INTERRUPTED ROMNEY 3 TIMES TONIGHT....AND FOR GOOD REASONS....YOU SHOULD STUDY AS TO WHY HE DID SO! GOOD LUCK

wow, looked like a one person conversation the first few pages...

so am i to believe that you are saying that romney did not interrupt the president at all tonight?

you know you are lying your ass off when the MODERATOR calls you on an outright lie, and the crowd, who was supposed to remain silent and not react at all, applauds...

gimmesometruth27

"Get the transcripts."

damn....

aerial

_ wrote:

Wait wait - Did he just say I shouldn't worry about paying taxes on my income from interest, dividends, & capital gains?? I don't make enough money to have income from those things! How could he be that out of touch? :fp:

You don't have to be wealthy to have these Just have to know how to invest. These tax cut will encourage investment which will grow jobs. I depend on
my dividend check every year...seems it always come when the car needs work or auto insurance comes around. It is a part of my income. I am far from wealthy just hoping I invest well enough to retire one day as many other citizens in this country.