Presidential Debate (Page 12)

I'm not the one who fact checked him, Politifact did. So I am not going to go rebutting your points. Clearly you don't accept their calls as to what constitutes a mostly false or partly true statement. And I am sure you can go back over years and find things unflattering about Obama. Heck, you can go just to the debate and find statements he made that were judged false. But the consensus is that Romney handed Obama a beating at the debate and my point is that he did so largely through falsehoods, misleading statements, and half-truths.

Being a good debater does not equal being a good president. Being a good speaker doesn't either. I actually thought Sarah Palin was fun to listen to when she would toss out her zingers. And I even liked her as a person on her Alaska reality show - I thought she seemed like a very fun-loving person, who does many of the outdoorsy things I like to do, and even the ones she obviously doesn't do, she took a good stab at, with no whining. I'd love to have her as a neighbor. But I absolutely would not want her as my president (or, frankly, even my governor).

Careful there, you're risking being kicked out of the party for saying something nice about Sarah.

(btw, i kinda feel the same way about her)

And if Obama would have come out the victor he would have done so using the very same falsehoods, misleading statements, and half-truths. At least we agree what to call them. Welcome to politics.

Definition of LIE

 intransitive verb

Yes, they all tell lies, spin truth, etc. It is not the reason to not vote for a candidate. And your comment is exactly what I have a problem with - the idea that because one candidate or another did better in the debate, their comments were either more truth-y or they are better suited to be prez. 

What I care about more is what a given candidate seems to actually believe. Sometimes, the truth will out based on WHAT they are lying about - i.e. what they WANT the truth/reality to be. In this case, I think the difference we face is apparently about what the role of government should be, at a fairly fundamental level. And whether it should be there for 99% or only 53% of people. And even though economically (in the short term) the latter is better for me personally, I agree with the former.

I'm not sure how I implied that.... but to the point, it is hard to draw anything from a debate. Sure, all the talking heads want to declare a winner and looser, but like you say, winning or loosing a debate does not exactly mean they are better suited for the office.

I think what a debate does is finally put two candidates together on the same stage. After all the commercials, super pac lies, inuendows and spin put out by the marketing team.... they actually have to face each other and answer some stuff.

Obviously, contrary to what Obama's team would have you believe.... both are well rehearsed, well prepared, talking points at ready, zingers in line, body language corrected and taught... there is not one single thing spontaneous. Yet at the end of it all, all you have is you. Taken all together, it is possible to see who is spinning what, who is saying what, and how it is defended. After all that you can come away with some sense of where their position stands.

What most seemed to see from the first debate was a weak showing by the Pres and a strong one by Romney... what ever that means to you. And yes, you can come away thinking Romney is too polished and had too much spin. Does it mean Romney "won" my vote... no, actually I do not have any different opinion of either candidate than I did before the debate... but it does mean that to some people. And those people are the ones the campaigns are fighting for and the ones Obama may have lost by his performance. We'll see how it turns out.

The debates may not mean much, but next to slick commercials, polished one liners to adoring crowds, and soft ball questions from press.... it is all we have left.

I'm curious what in your opinion that Obama believe that makes you want to vote for him?

Pardon me while I interrupt momentarily...one of the big differences between these parties is that you really don't see much of this...

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14203607-video-shows-scientist-in-congress-saying-evolution-is-from-pit-of-hell?lite

...from the left side of the aisle.  While I am sure there are plenty of educated representatives on the right side of the aisle, many of them look the other way and chalk it up to "freedom of religion" when it's allowed in schools.  That of course turns into a question of states' rights vs. fed. govt. and another example of why fed. law trumping states' rights can be a good thing in many instances.  just my 2 cents.

That is quite a segue there.

How did you know what I was riding on when I typed that?  

Crusevegas asked a question that pertained to what Obama "believes."  When it comes to science, it's pretty clear where he stands.  It would be interesting to hear what Mitt has to say when questioned on science, evolution, and his stance on what should be allowed in public schools.  

Why? What does that matter? Do you think he is going to pass a law all by himself to change your schools ciriculum?

Seems like you already think you know what he beleives, so why bother?

What does it matter?  It matters a lot.  When one side proclaims the other side is waging a "war on religion" in this country, I think it's worth asking the question.  Perhaps he could mention what he intends to do to counter the alleged "war on religion."

A president can set the tone.  Would Romney support a states' rights approach that would allow federally funded public schools to preach religious messages?  Would/could evolution be banned from science class?

Education is a big deal to me.  These are big issues.  Do I think I know what he believes?  I can't be certain, so I guess that's why I think it's a valid question Powerman.

It's a sound question.   

Are you saying is that even though our nation is 16 trillion dollars in debt and going more than a trillion more each year the most important thing to you is that children in public schools are taught that there is no god?

IMO, I think our education system has gotten more expensive and less effective since the Federal Govt. has involved themselves in it. I would say the Feds should get out of the Education business and leave it to the state/county/city to decide how to fund and manage education on their own.

CD are you in favor in a federally controlled national education system over the local governments having charge of it?

Edited cause i dunt poof reid two goud

Smoke and mirrors. Yes, CD, there are actually people that believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old... and if they had the chance, that is what they would teach. Yes, there are people that believe trees are Gods and Mother Earth is our vagina, and if they had their way, they would teach it in schools.

Point is... neither have their way, and as F'ed up as our school system is, we do not have time to deal with this nonsense. Problem is... one side keeps demanding that a student never knows there is a God as long as they are in the public school system, and how it is imperative for a 4th grader to accept homosexuals. The other side demands we all pray in school just not to Mohamad, Vishnu, or a tree, and that Jesus had a pet dinosaur.

WTF ever happened to reading writing and arithmetic? What about history, civics, and economics???? How about we go back to doing those well?

But ya, sure..... whether Romney believes Jesus had a pet dinosaur is sooo much more important right now for the President.

If you're going to put words in my mouth, please make them accurate.  First of all, I never said it was "the most important thing."  2nd, I never said kids should be taught "there is no God."  I would never tell anyone there is no God and I would be appalled if a school taught a child such a thing.  (this reminds me of the so-called "war on religion" silliness...there is no "war on religion"...and even in a benign post I made, you seemed to infer incorrectly I was attacking religion, which I wasn't, but I'll save that for another thread)   

Cruse, as to your question, yes, there need to be national standards.  I actually liked part of the GOP's stance (at least it used to be, I don't know if it still is) of vouchers.  Vouchers could provide competition and challenge public schools to perform better.  The problem with vouchers though, is that some folks will take federal tax dollars and use them to provide sub-standard education to their children.  In those scenarios, federal funding would be provided to schools teaching children the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that dinosaurs lined up 2 by 2 on an ark in a flood...or, that money would be free to fund fundamentalists of other religions.  I don't mind the idea of competition with public schools with an attached voucher system...but it has to be done with a lot of regulation to ensure those types of scenarios I mentioned above are prohibited.

I believe in upholding national standards on a federal level, yes.  When you say it should be up to the state/city/town to decide (and fund) everything education-related, yet again, those on the bottom will take the biggest hit.  Federal funding is huge for less advantaged school districts.

It sounds great to strip the federal govt. down and say we'll save so much money, but would we really?  I'd argue no, and the collateral damage caused in the long run could be even more costly.  So, in the choice of federal vs. state/city/town, why can't it continue to be both?  Why can't we tweak the system where it needs to be tweaked?  Why can't we foster a system that introduces competition to help step the public schools' game up?  I know a lot of this goes past standard talking points, but I'm pretty sure we've got a lot of creative minds here in CoJ.  What says you?

Where are you getting this?  That bolded part is just not true.  The most hardcore of atheists isn't advocating children be prevented from religion.  I don't understand why peoples' personal religious beliefs have to be "taught" in school.  

As for the 4th graders learning that there are homosexuals in the world, when do you think schools should break it to kids?  It's a pretty big deal and I bet we've all seen a lot of intolerance out there.  Personally, I'd bring up the subject later, maybe in Health class around the time kids are going through puberty, 5th or 6th grade might be a good time...I'm not an expert on the subject...but you know darn well there are folks out there that are happy with the old status quo of just sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist, or that when it does exist it's the work of evil, sin, etc.  

That said, something seems to be working.  Younger generations seem to be more tolerant of "alternative lifestyles."  

...and yes, we need to improve our performance as a nation in math and science or we are going to lose in the long run.  

and, as I said before, you can joke about Romney believing Jesus had a pet dinosaur, but ya know what?  It is just one of the many factors that moves the needle one way or the other.  I know where it sends my needle...(and no Rep. Paul Broun, it doesn't point my needle straight to the pit of Hell.)  

Wow, nice sweeping brush about religious schools.  So, if a kid is in a failing system and learning nothing it's better than their parents having a choice to send them to a good school that happens to teach about creation, which oh btw almost half of America believes in. 

Teaching Creationism exclusively (notice how I said exclusively) is a substandard education. Teaching something that is directly contrary to modern science and excluding the actual science for something else that is conjecture is substandard. It would be like teaching about a flat earth after someone had sailed around the world

^Thank you JoshR.  I should have included the "exclusively."  I thought that by the context of using the descriptor of fundamentalism, that would be inferred.  My apologies for not being more specific.  And yes, JoshR, you're 100% correct...therein lies the debate.  We have this never-ending federal vs. states' rights battle going on...do we allow states to create creation-only texts?  It's an interesting question.  

Thank you for illustrating my point so well. Our country is in the worst shape it has been since the great depression. Our political system is broken. Our education system is being used for a cultural match, MILLIONS have stopped looking for work... and the one question you want answered by the Pres is if he is going to teach  creationism in your kids class. Then you go on to explain when it is appropriate for the public school system to teach kids about homosexuality. (not that there is anything wrong with that)

First, the most hard core atheists most certainly think anyone who believes in a God or supreme being is stupid... just ask Bill Maher. They are making it their goal in life to remove any mention of any God in any public place paid for by tax dollars.

It isn't about the merits or homosexuality, or prayer in school, it is the FACT that we are failing to do the most fundamental job in the school system... teaching our kids a basic education. There are so many other places and different avenues to teach extra curricular subjects. We can't do the one important job well, because we are fighting about cultural nonsense.

There is much much more important issues regarding the next President beside where he/she stands on a supreme court ruling that will never be overturned.  There is so much much more our school system could be focusing on besides origin theory and two guys kissing.

The FACT is... while evolution may very well be fascinating... it has absolutely ZERO impact on my daily life and my time on Earth here. In fact, it has no more impact on my life than Goldilocks and the Three Bears. I will not evolve one bit in my 70 years, even though I find it quite interesting. And while the Big Bang is quite mind blowing... it actually has no more impact on my life that some guy that gather two of every spices on the planet to save them from a flood from God. Seriously... absolutely none what so ever.

Now math has come in handy, physics has provided a career, writing comes in handy too. You want to make sure the "other side" does not get any ground.. and the only way you can do that, is make sure your side has a say in public education. It goes on and on and the important stuff goes out the window. I can honestly say I do not give a rat's behind what Romney's religious beliefs are. I don't care about Obama's... because every single politician claims to be devote, yet I have never see any of them act it. Obama made darn sure everyone knows he's a Christian, yet I have never seen him in church. I DON'T CARE. Tell me how you are going to run the country, and if I am interested in school curriculum I will go to a school board meeting.

Wow - way to misrepresent and distort what secular beliefs mean. 

I have an Darwin fish on my car. My SIL asked me if it meant I was anti-god. I had to explain that it means I am pro-science. Now, if your religious beliefs are that failing to teach in a public school YOUR particular belief set is the same as teaching that there is no god, that is a pretty sad state of affairs for you and your religion.

I believe schools should teach facts. So the science curriculum should be teaching geology (the earth is not 6000 years old), archaeology (dinosaurs did not coexist with modern humans), physics The earth is not the center of the universe), biology (for which, yes, evolution is a cornerstone. And in fact, is occurring in a demonstrable way now). We should teach history and literature - which in the western world cannot be done without some working knowledge of the bible as literature and religions as a force behind political changes and regimes in history.

As for what I think Obama stands for that persuades me to vote for him - he believes in universal health coverage. Romney, despite having created the model on which Obamacare is based, apparently no longer thinks this is a good idea. He is moving to equal treatment of gays, finally ended DADT and now endorsing gay marriage. I don't believe Romney supports those positions.

Basically, I think Obama believes we need to give everyone the same basic access to rights that the majority have. While Romney seems to believe that you should be on your own. And that if you need some help at some point, you are a dependent leach with no drive to become independent.