Post: #26

Romney got in that ass last night. Obama looked like a man who got out of the limo expecting a quiet anniversary dinner with his wife, and walked into a DC beatdown. He was completely unprepared and it showed. Romney was sharp, and was able to convincingly lie about everything to make him look way more moderate than the platform he is actually promising to implement. He was actually kind of charming and looked presidential. Obama looked bored and like he would have given his left arm to walk off that stage to a waiting tumbler of scotch and the playoffs. He didn't call Romney out--even gently--didn't make any real effort to counterpunch.

Part of this is that the guy hasn't debated in four years and isn't used to people getting in his face, on stage with him. And I've read that he really holds Romney in contempt---he sees him as a major-league bullshitter who will saying anything to win. Wouldn't be surprised if that disrespect led him to under-prepare for Romney.

Not sure how much this will actually move the polls---there aren't that many undecided voters left, at this point. And I think Obama still pulls it out in November. But Obama needs to wake the fuck up---he can't have a repeat of this. And I don't think he will---he's not the type to just rollover.

But last night was ugly.

Post: #27

(10-04-2012 10:30 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 10:08 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  Romney won. Obama looked tired

Yes, of course Obama looked tired. He is running the country AND running a presidential campaign. He is doing double the amount Romney is doing on a daily basis. Other than campaign, and prepare for debates, and attend fundraisers what does Romney do all day long? He is retired. Running for president is his full time job. He has been doing it for years.

Obama has a country to run as well. Yes, he is tired.

Yes, agreed. It takes an immense amount of energy to run a country directly into the ground.

Post: #28

(10-04-2012 11:13 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Yes, agreed. It takes an immense amount of energy to run a country directly into the ground.

If a soaring stock market and hundreds of thousands of monthly job losses reversed is your definition of "running a country directly into the ground", then yes, I guess you are right.

Post: #29

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contra...tId=743474

Apparently this site predicated 48 out of 50 states in 2008 correctly. Obama was up 75% before debate, now 66%

Post: #30

The only excuse Obama has is that he is in way over his head. Guy doesn't even roll into the office until 10am and he's on the golf course by 2pm. Not a great work ethic.

Post: #31

(10-04-2012 12:02 PM)painter Wrote:  The only excuse Obama has is that he is in way over his head. Guy doesn't even roll into the office until 10am and he's on the golf course by 2pm. Not a great work ethic.

From where do you people come up with this absolute drivel?

Post: #32

Yeah, but the only reason the stock market is rising is because the Fed is holding down interest rates to such a low degree that people are jumping into the market in order to generate a return. Obama has done nothing to benefit the market. And, if you think Obama's plans to raise capital gains taxes and the tax on dividends will help the market, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Clearly, as far as the economy is concerned, Romney is the superior choice.

Post: #33

This "drivel" comes from the official White House schedule:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/m...edule.html

"President Obama's official day usually starts at 10 a.m. with his daily briefing."

Like I said, not much of a work ethic compared to his predecessors. As a citizen you ought to expect the president to work at least as hard as you do.

Post: #34

(10-04-2012 11:48 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 11:13 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Yes, agreed. It takes an immense amount of energy to run a country directly into the ground.

If a soaring stock market and hundreds of thousands of monthly job losses reversed is your definition of "running a country directly into the ground", then yes, I guess you are right.

The stock market has "soared" because the Fed is driving investors into the markets by creating money (quantitative easing) and driving down bond yields. Investors have no alternatives.

We can view the upside in the stock market as a good thing that happened during Obama's first term (even though it's the Fed's actions, not Obama's) but by creating artificial interest rates, the Fed actually hurts people who rely on interest income (senior citizens, etc) and devalues the dollar. Consumer goods become much more expensive. Look at grocery prices in the store. Doesn't happen overnight; it's a gradual increase. Compare prices now with four years ago.

The only positive side to devaluing the dollar is U.S. debt - which we have accumulated record amounts under Obama - actually becomes cheaper to pay off. But we're accumulating debt at such a high rate that we'll never pay it off anyway.

Under Obama we've had unemployment above 8% for 43 consecutive months, we have 1.1 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than when he took over, and real economic growth has averaged 2.2% (less than half for post-recession rebounds). Those are awful numbers. Obama has failed by every one of his own metrics (stimulus will keep unemployment under 8% etc).

But, we can't blame only Obama for the dismal economy. Congress passes the budget. I personally blame Congress for the state of the economy much more than I blame Obama or his predecessor Bush. Congress has failed the American people on every front.

Post: #35

I stopped watching around the 30 min mark, although I think Romney's economic plan makes a bit more sense than Obama's (as we've all seen how it all worked out), I don't think either one will be serious in making huge cuts, ending wars (drug and foreign), ending foreign intervention/aid, respecting civil liberties, and limiting the government's powers according to the Constitution which I believe are connected things that will make our economy in better health than it is now.

Our country needs an overhaul.

Post: #36

Intrade confirms: Romney is looking better.

Post: #37

I can't believe Obama let Romney walk all over him like that, and used none of the advantages handed to him on a plate - the magic asterisks in Romney's fiscal policy, the 47% comment, Bain Capital etc.

Krugman at the NY(B)T points out that Romney just lied through his teeth about having a plan to cover pre-existing conditions and that half the green companies Obama invested in failed. Obama should use this info to come out all guns blazing in future debates, he was obviously not quick enough to pick up on these in real-time here.

If Romney gets the presidency, America is finished. The US electorate will believe an aggressive politician regardless of whether he's telling the truth. We've been through years of mindless austerity and corporation brown-nosing here in the UK, and the economy has really started to tank in the last year or so after a long period of stagnation.

Post: #38

Romney was ready for everything Obama tried to throw at him. Obama didn't say anything about Bain capital or the 47 percent remark because those are made up liberal narratives that only work in the liberal echo chamber. Had Obama brought them up Romney would have hit those out of the park too.

If Romney was lying why didn't Obama call him out on it? Romney certainly had no trouble calling out Obama on his lies last night.

Post: #39

(10-03-2012 07:16 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  What do you mean by rigged?

Also recommend this book, "You Can't Be President" by John Macarthur. Makes good case on how it's almost impossible to become president unless you're well-connected and deep-pocketed.

Post: #40

Last night was very telling and not at all surprising to some.

Post: #41

(10-04-2012 02:27 PM)painter Wrote:  Romney was ready for everything Obama tried to throw at him. Obama didn't say anything about Bain capital or the 47 percent remark because those are made up liberal narratives that only work in the liberal echo chamber.

Made up narratives? You can't "make up" something that came out of his own mouth. In plain words I might add. And I'm not even a liberal.

Post: #42

(10-04-2012 12:53 PM)painter Wrote:  This "drivel" comes from the official White House schedule:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/m...edule.html

"President Obama's official day usually starts at 10 a.m. with his daily briefing."

Like I said, not much of a work ethic compared to his predecessors. As a citizen you ought to expect the president to work at least as hard as you do.

Bush got to work earlier but was early to sleep as well. Obama usually goes back to work after dinner with his family, often working till 10pm. Anyone can cherry pick a certain week that wasn't so busy and use it to slander.

Post: #43

(10-04-2012 02:46 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 02:27 PM)painter Wrote:  Romney was ready for everything Obama tried to throw at him. Obama didn't say anything about Bain capital or the 47 percent remark because those are made up liberal narratives that only work in the liberal echo chamber.

Made up narratives? You can't "make up" something that came out of his own mouth. In plain words I might add. And I'm not even a liberal.

What exactly is your problem with the 47% comment?

Post: #44

Ummm, is this a serious question?

Post: #45

(10-04-2012 04:21 PM)Tbone Wrote:  Ummm, is this a serious question?

Yes. I'd like to hear what your problem with it is. Why wouldn't it be a serious question? Can you not answer it?

Post: #46

(10-04-2012 02:27 PM)painter Wrote:  Romney was ready for everything Obama tried to throw at him. Obama didn't say anything about Bain capital or the 47 percent remark because those are made up liberal narratives that only work in the liberal echo chamber.

Are you kidding me?

The man came out and said what he said in very plain, factually incorrect words, and you call it a made up "liberal narrative" (as if one must be a liberal to have an issue with it)? Really?

Quote:Had Obama brought them up Romney would have hit those out of the park too.

Sure he would have.

Quote:If Romney was lying why didn't Obama call him out on it? Romney certainly had no trouble calling out Obama on his lies last night.

That lack of preparedness is exactly what many are criticizing Obama for in this thread and across the country. The fact that Obama failed to point out the lies does not mean that they were not lies.

(10-04-2012 12:02 PM)painter Wrote:  The only excuse Obama has is that he is in way over his head. Guy doesn't even roll into the office until 10am and he's on the golf course by 2pm. Not a great work ethic.

Let me just get you straight here.

1. Have you just attempted to establish a direct correlation between how early one's day starts and their work ethic?
Are you sure you have considered the possibility that a) someone who starts late can end later as well (and someone who starts early can be an "early-to-bed" type) and b) someone can start very early and put in a lousy days work (getting up early =/= hard working)? Do you honestly believe that someone who gets up early is automatically a hard worker?

2. Furthermore, did you actually attempt to base these conclusions on merely a single day's worth of evidence?
The president's schedule for the 18th of May, 2012 had him working from 7:30AM to 8:00PM (really later than that, since the event/obligation he had merely began at 8:00PM). I also don't see golf anywhere on his schedule.
Going further with this, I see similarly extensive work days throughout the next few weeks, with some days extending beyond midnight.

Is he a "hard worker" now?
You can cherry pick data points to support your claim, but so can everyone else.

(10-04-2012 03:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 12:53 PM)painter Wrote:  This "drivel" comes from the official White House schedule:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/m...edule.html

"President Obama's official day usually starts at 10 a.m. with his daily briefing."

Like I said, not much of a work ethic compared to his predecessors. As a citizen you ought to expect the president to work at least as hard as you do.

Bush got to work earlier but was early to sleep as well. Obama usually goes back to work after dinner with his family, often working till 10pm. Anyone can cherry pick a certain week that wasn't so busy and use it to slander.

Bingo.
Seriously, what do people not understand about this?

Post: #47

(10-04-2012 03:56 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 02:46 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 02:27 PM)painter Wrote:  Romney was ready for everything Obama tried to throw at him. Obama didn't say anything about Bain capital or the 47 percent remark because those are made up liberal narratives that only work in the liberal echo chamber.

Made up narratives? You can't "make up" something that came out of his own mouth. In plain words I might add. And I'm not even a liberal.

What exactly is your problem with the 47% comment?

I won't speak for TBone, but here is my take on it (post one, post two). Here are a couple of fact checks on it too.

I'm not sure why people continue to excuse those comments given how blatantly off-base they actually were. I guess I can see the self interest, but the dude was hypocritical, insulting and wrong to boot. I don't see a way around this reality.

Post: #48

(10-04-2012 04:23 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 04:21 PM)Tbone Wrote:  Ummm, is this a serious question?

Yes. I'd like to hear what your problem with it is. Why wouldn't it be a serious question? Can you not answer it?

The majority of households that don’t pay federal income taxes are either elderly or paying payroll taxes.

Here's the break down (if I remember correctly):

60 percent of those who don’t pay income tax are still working and paying taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Their tax liability is too low to qualify for the income tax.

22 percent of non-payers are retirees.

7.9 percent of households are not paying any federal taxes at all. That’s usually because they’re unemployed, they're on disability, they're students, or are very poor.

Many low-income workers don’t pay federal income taxes. This is in large part because of a series of tax cuts that were endorsed by Republicans over the years.

Now, this dude said that the "47%" were "victims." They're dependent on the government, etc etc.

But if you look at the breakdown of the 47% that he was speaking of, ummm, it's clear to see that his comments were pretty stupid.

Another point... He said that the 47% would never vote for him. Well Mitt, about 8 of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability are Republican-leaning states. So many of them are voting for you.

Post: #49

delete

Post: #50

(10-04-2012 04:41 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 04:23 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 04:21 PM)Tbone Wrote:  Ummm, is this a serious question?

Yes. I'd like to hear what your problem with it is. Why wouldn't it be a serious question? Can you not answer it?

The majority of households that don’t pay federal income taxes are either elderly or paying payroll taxes.

Here's the break down (if I remember correctly):

60 percent of those who don’t pay income tax are still working and paying taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Their tax liability is too low to qualify for the income tax.

22 percent of non-payers are retirees.

7.9 percent of households are not paying any federal taxes at all. That’s usually because they’re unemployed, they're on disability, they're students, or are very poor.

Many low-income workers don’t pay federal income taxes. This is in large part because of a series of tax cuts that were endorsed by Republicans over the years.

Now, this dude said that the "47%" were "victims." They're dependent on the government, etc etc.

But if you look at the breakdown of the 47% that he was speaking of, ummm, it's clear to see that his comments were pretty stupid.

Another point... He said that the 47% would never vote for him. Well Mitt, about 8 of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability are Republican-leaning states. So many of them are voting for you.

I get that you don't like the generalization or the inaccuracy of the numbers involved. But don't you think there's credibility in the theme of his comment? "Most poor people are poor because of poor decisions and when they're dependent on gov't entitlements they're not going to vote for the guy that makes it hard for them to get"

That's what I took away from the comment anyway. Also, Athlone, I wish you would use the same amount of scrutiny you put towards Romney on Obama.