login
Pres Debate #3 (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-10-23 8:51 AM in reply to: #4464652 |
Pro  4277    Parker, CO |  Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-22 10:10 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? Really? You honestly believe that to be "educated on all the info" voters need to watch these debates? You really think more Republicans will vote 2 weeks from today? That's extremely unlikely. The President just won his 2nd of 3 debates. There was a reason Mitt ignored foreign policy at the GOP Convention. Tonight showed why.
Actually Brian, I have to disagree with you on both points. Last night I was somewhat impressed with Romney and his knowledge of foriegn affairs. And while Romney seemed kind of passive at some points during the debate...I would not say that Mr. Obama was the winner. I know the pollsters are calling Obama but from what I understand Romney had a strategy and stayed with it last night. I don't think it lost him any votes and I do think Mr. Obama might have lost some undecided voters...especially military. Besides, Yahoo has a readers poll this morning and they have Romney 60%, Obama 40%. It's really hard to declare a true winner in a debate unless some Fs up really bad like Mr. O in the first one! I'm mailing in my ballot tomorrow and I will be glad when this election is over and we can start talking about GnR again. BTW, Axl endorses Romney!
|
| 2012-10-23 8:51 AM in reply to: #4464976 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. Of course he did. He's a man. And men always win! Because we're men! |
| 2012-10-23 8:53 AM in reply to: #4464622 |
Veteran 219 College Station, Texas | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 ejshowers - 2012-10-22 10:25 PM So positions should never change? Of course they should as Obamas have, we need to have a flexible mentality so when the situation changes we can properly react!GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 10:20 PM So when he agrees with the other side, you think that's bad. When he changes to your point of view, he's a flip flipper, when he refuses to change he's "doubling down". At least nobody can say Obama flip flops. He just goes left and keeps going left. It's called character and integrity: you say what you mean and you do what you say. I don't think Romney has much of either and will say and do whatever it takes. Bottom line - I don't trust him, and I have voted for plenty of Rs in the past (prior to their move to the far right) when I thought they had the best ideas, etc. edited for: goodnight!
|
| 2012-10-23 8:53 AM in reply to: #4464967 |
Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 7:46 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:26 AM In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. More troops doesn't equal more horses and bayonets. Maybe more bayonets if they are still standard issue, but if there are more military use horses now than in 1917 I will change my profile pic to one of Mittt Romney from now until election day. Please provide a verifiable resource for the number of military use horses today compared to 1917 (that was the year Romney used) of all things discussed during the dabate I find this pretty irrelevant but looking forward to your new avatar! |
| 2012-10-23 8:54 AM in reply to: #4464980 |
Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 mr2tony - 2012-10-23 7:51 AM Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM Of course he did. He's a man. And men always win! Because we're men!AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. Manly men! |
| 2012-10-23 8:57 AM in reply to: #4464980 |
Science Nerd 28760  Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 mr2tony - 2012-10-23 9:51 AM Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM Of course he did. He's a man. And men always win! Because we're men!AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won.
|
| 2012-10-23 9:00 AM in reply to: #4464986 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 rayd - 2012-10-23 9:53 AM mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 7:46 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:26 AM In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. More troops doesn't equal more horses and bayonets. Maybe more bayonets if they are still standard issue, but if there are more military use horses now than in 1917 I will change my profile pic to one of Mittt Romney from now until election day. Please provide a verifiable resource for the number of military use horses today compared to 1917 (that was the year Romney used) of all things discussed during the dabate I find this pretty irrelevant but looking forward to your new avatar! I find it pretty irrelevant too, but what I do find relevant is that people here continually take great exception to things the President didn't even say. He said "fewer". Period. He didn't say we don't use horses. He didn't say we don't use bayonets. He simply said fewer than in 1917. And I'm not even going to vote for Obama. Yes, I am pedantic and anal retentive. |
| 2012-10-23 9:00 AM in reply to: #4464683 |
Expert 1951 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Left Brain - 2012-10-23 1:14 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-22 11:10 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? Really? You honestly believe that to be "educated on all the info" voters need to watch these debates? You really think more Republicans will vote 2 weeks from today? That's extremely unlikely. The President just won his 2nd of 3 debates. There was a reason Mitt ignored foreign policy at the GOP Convention. Tonight showed why.
Bro......Republicans don't vote on emotion....that's a liberal deal. "Hope and change" didn't turn out to have any "change", and "hope" is absolutely gone with the current President. Now is not the time for emotion.....Obama couldn't deliver.....empty suit. Bill O'reilly, is that you???? |
| 2012-10-23 9:06 AM in reply to: #4465008 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 KateTri1 - 2012-10-23 9:00 AM Left Brain - 2012-10-23 1:14 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-10-22 11:10 PM GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 11:55 PM Why is it that when CNN explains the polls, they always say "this is a scientific poll of debate watchers and is approximately 8% more republican."? If its a scientific poll then you adjust for what you think will be the electorate (I.e. you value the Rs votes less). Right? Otherwise, where's the science? But another thing is interesting. There have been 8% more Rs watching each of the debates. But all the polls indicate a majority of D voters. So either there will be 8% more Rs voting or the Dems who have not watched the debates (and I know there are many) will suddenly show up at the polls without having educated themselves on all the info. What does COJ think the numbers will be? 8% more Rs or closer to 6% more D's like the polls have shown? Really? You honestly believe that to be "educated on all the info" voters need to watch these debates? You really think more Republicans will vote 2 weeks from today? That's extremely unlikely. The President just won his 2nd of 3 debates. There was a reason Mitt ignored foreign policy at the GOP Convention. Tonight showed why.
Bro......Republicans don't vote on emotion....that's a liberal deal. "Hope and change" didn't turn out to have any "change", and "hope" is absolutely gone with the current President. Now is not the time for emotion.....Obama couldn't deliver.....empty suit. Bill O'reilly, is that you???? Nah....just fed up with listening to President Obama and his lame garbage....he's accomplished nothing. I'm even fed up with his supporters....more empty suits. Outside my office I watched an anti-war protest go on for the last two years of the Bush presidency.....we still have wars, but not a single protester since Obama was elected. I don't think those folks were empty suits, I think they had empty heads. |
| 2012-10-23 9:09 AM in reply to: #4465007 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 10:00 AM rayd - 2012-10-23 9:53 AM mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 7:46 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:26 AM In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. More troops doesn't equal more horses and bayonets. Maybe more bayonets if they are still standard issue, but if there are more military use horses now than in 1917 I will change my profile pic to one of Mittt Romney from now until election day. Please provide a verifiable resource for the number of military use horses today compared to 1917 (that was the year Romney used) of all things discussed during the dabate I find this pretty irrelevant but looking forward to your new avatar! I find it pretty irrelevant too, but what I do find relevant is that people here continually take great exception to things the President didn't even say. He said "fewer". Period. He didn't say we don't use horses. He didn't say we don't use bayonets. He simply said fewer than in 1917. And I'm not even going to vote for Obama. Yes, I am pedantic and anal retentive. The salient point is Ships and horses and bayonets are not equivalent. There have been replacements for bayonets and horses that are currently in service, they are specific instances of weaponry. Ships have undergone many changes but they are an entire class of weaponry so though we no longer have wooden 3 masted schooners in service we do have aircraft carriers. To compare a specific type of weapon to an entire class of weapons and think it is a good argument is simply more sophistry. |
| 2012-10-23 9:19 AM in reply to: #4464985 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 PhilipRay - 2012-10-23 8:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-10-22 10:25 PM So positions should never change? Of course they should as Obamas have, we need to have a flexible mentality so when the situation changes we can properly react!GomesBolt - 2012-10-22 10:20 PM So when he agrees with the other side, you think that's bad. When he changes to your point of view, he's a flip flipper, when he refuses to change he's "doubling down". At least nobody can say Obama flip flops. He just goes left and keeps going left. It's called character and integrity: you say what you mean and you do what you say. I don't think Romney has much of either and will say and do whatever it takes. Bottom line - I don't trust him, and I have voted for plenty of Rs in the past (prior to their move to the far right) when I thought they had the best ideas, etc. edited for: goodnight!
I am all about introspection, growing, and changing one's position as times and people change (see Best ending to an anti-gay rights speech ever), but switching your specific position on say troop withdrawal from Afghanistan from debate 1 to debate 3 is simply waffling and pandering. |
| 2012-10-23 9:22 AM in reply to: #4464976 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. I sincerely thought I would be the winner of the debate by watching football instead. But did you see that game? Sheesh, that was ugly on both sides. Has there ever been a worse 5 - 1 team than the Bears? And what the heck happened to Matthew Stafford? Didn't he used to be a competent NFL QB? I want my three hours back. |
| 2012-10-23 9:28 AM in reply to: #4465054 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 scoobysdad - 2012-10-23 10:22 AM Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM I sincerely thought I would be the winner of the debate by watching football instead. But did you see that game? Sheesh, that was ugly on both sides. Has there ever been a worse 5 - 1 team than the Bears? And what the heck happened to Matthew Stafford? Didn't he used to be a competent NFL QB? I want my three hours back. AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. Read a book it is better for you brain. That way it doesn't explode from debates or bad football. |
| 2012-10-23 9:48 AM in reply to: #4465070 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 trinnas - 2012-10-23 9:28 AM scoobysdad - 2012-10-23 10:22 AM Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM I sincerely thought I would be the winner of the debate by watching football instead. But did you see that game? Sheesh, that was ugly on both sides. Has there ever been a worse 5 - 1 team than the Bears? And what the heck happened to Matthew Stafford? Didn't he used to be a competent NFL QB? I want my three hours back. AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. Read a book it is better for you brain. That way it doesn't explode from debates or bad football. Well, I'm writing a book right now so I even need a break from that! |
| 2012-10-23 9:54 AM in reply to: #4465025 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 trinnas - 2012-10-23 10:09 AM mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 10:00 AM rayd - 2012-10-23 9:53 AM mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 7:46 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:26 AM In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. More troops doesn't equal more horses and bayonets. Maybe more bayonets if they are still standard issue, but if there are more military use horses now than in 1917 I will change my profile pic to one of Mittt Romney from now until election day. Please provide a verifiable resource for the number of military use horses today compared to 1917 (that was the year Romney used) of all things discussed during the dabate I find this pretty irrelevant but looking forward to your new avatar! I find it pretty irrelevant too, but what I do find relevant is that people here continually take great exception to things the President didn't even say. He said "fewer". Period. He didn't say we don't use horses. He didn't say we don't use bayonets. He simply said fewer than in 1917. And I'm not even going to vote for Obama. Yes, I am pedantic and anal retentive. The salient point is Ships and horses and bayonets are not equivalent. There have been replacements for bayonets and horses that are currently in service, they are specific instances of weaponry. Ships have undergone many changes but they are an entire class of weaponry so though we no longer have wooden 3 masted schooners in service we do have aircraft carriers. To compare a specific type of weapon to an entire class of weapons and think it is a good argument is simply more sophistry. Great, fine, wonderful. Make the argument that it's lame comparison. Just don't argue that "fewer" is the same as "don't use" (not you Kate, just in general) and then point out where the Special Forces rode into battle on horses post 9/11 and therefore the president is a horrible person. |
| 2012-10-23 9:56 AM in reply to: #4465120 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 scoobysdad - 2012-10-23 10:48 AM trinnas - 2012-10-23 9:28 AM Well, I'm writing a book right now so I even need a break from that! scoobysdad - 2012-10-23 10:22 AM Artemis - 2012-10-23 8:50 AM I sincerely thought I would be the winner of the debate by watching football instead. But did you see that game? Sheesh, that was ugly on both sides. Has there ever been a worse 5 - 1 team than the Bears? And what the heck happened to Matthew Stafford? Didn't he used to be a competent NFL QB? I want my three hours back. AcesFull - 2012-10-22 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-22 10:11 AM jeffnboise - 2012-10-22 9:57 AM Good Monday Night Football game and Game 7 of NLCS. I predict dismal ratings for this one. No doubt-- an important NFC North matchup, too. I think this debate gets demoted to DVR-delay status. Some women will likely be watching on the small TV up in the bedroom, while their man-folk huddle in their man-caves watching football or baseball on the big screen. Not sure who this helps or hurts. Hey know, I don't appreciate the stereotyping. In my house, it was the opposite. I wanted to watch football, hubby wanted to watch the debate. He won. Read a book it is better for you brain. That way it doesn't explode from debates or bad football. Ok Fine, karaoke then, just shake your groove thing and it will help release frustration. |
| 2012-10-23 9:57 AM in reply to: #4465139 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 10:54 AM trinnas - 2012-10-23 10:09 AM mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 10:00 AM rayd - 2012-10-23 9:53 AM mrbbrad - 2012-10-23 7:46 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-23 9:26 AM In fact no. We have more bayonets and more horses in service now than in 1915. The standing army was only 100,000 troops in 1915. Of that, Cavalry was a small portion. More troops doesn't equal more horses and bayonets. Maybe more bayonets if they are still standard issue, but if there are more military use horses now than in 1917 I will change my profile pic to one of Mittt Romney from now until election day. Please provide a verifiable resource for the number of military use horses today compared to 1917 (that was the year Romney used) of all things discussed during the dabate I find this pretty irrelevant but looking forward to your new avatar! I find it pretty irrelevant too, but what I do find relevant is that people here continually take great exception to things the President didn't even say. He said "fewer". Period. He didn't say we don't use horses. He didn't say we don't use bayonets. He simply said fewer than in 1917. And I'm not even going to vote for Obama. Yes, I am pedantic and anal retentive. The salient point is Ships and horses and bayonets are not equivalent. There have been replacements for bayonets and horses that are currently in service, they are specific instances of weaponry. Ships have undergone many changes but they are an entire class of weaponry so though we no longer have wooden 3 masted schooners in service we do have aircraft carriers. To compare a specific type of weapon to an entire class of weapons and think it is a good argument is simply more sophistry. Great, fine, wonderful. Make the argument that it's lame comparison. Just don't argue that "fewer" is the same as "don't use" (not you Kate, just in general) and then point out where the Special Forces rode into battle on horses post 9/11 and therefore the president is a horrible person. But I like horsies! |
| 2012-10-23 10:33 AM in reply to: #4464606 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 tuwood - 2012-10-22 10:12 PM hrliles - 2012-10-22 10:09 PM One thing about a leader is to lead by example. Reaching across the aisle would have made sense over the last four years instead of waiting for people to come to his greatness. And continual overtalking someone else is not Presidential. I think Romney's working across the aisle argument is likely his strongest asset in this election. Obama has nothing to counter it. that's the one thing that keeps popping up in my mind.. He goverened a Dem state and did it well |
| 2012-10-23 10:38 AM in reply to: #4464708 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 tjh - 2012-10-23 1:15 AM "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. I think this will hurt him.. Badly.. doesnt he need to win Virginia? where the boats that go under water and have planes land on them are built. I would think the Navy Vets and people looking at the ship building effecting the local economy would be paying attention to his remarks more than someone in Iowa ( or any other land locked state) Same things when Romney was speaking about GM.. his .. I was born in detroit, love american cars. those remarks might really boost him in Ohio and Michigan. Sometimes I forget that there is a bigger picture and it's not the popular vote they are going for, They need to win states and tailor the remarks towards those issue's that really are not having an impact on where I live. but for them to win it's Huge. |
| 2012-10-23 10:45 AM in reply to: #4465239 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Gaarryy - 2012-10-23 10:38 AM tjh - 2012-10-23 1:15 AM "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. I think this will hurt him.. Badly.. doesnt he need to win Virginia? where the boats that go under water and have planes land on them are built. I would think the Navy Vets and people looking at the ship building effecting the local economy would be paying attention to his remarks more than someone in Iowa ( or any other land locked state) Same things when Romney was speaking about GM.. his .. I was born in detroit, love american cars. those remarks might really boost him in Ohio and Michigan. Sometimes I forget that there is a bigger picture and it's not the popular vote they are going for, They need to win states and tailor the remarks towards those issue's that really are not having an impact on where I live. but for them to win it's Huge. Some of the U.S. Navy's most expensive and exciting new ships are also being built right here in Wisconsin, another swing state very much in play. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33431534/ns/us_news-military/t/navy-tes... |
| 2012-10-23 10:49 AM in reply to: #4462987 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Aren't you the same people who want to cut spending? Oh, right, just not on anything you think is important. Carry on. |
| 2012-10-23 10:52 AM in reply to: #4465258 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 scoobysdad - 2012-10-23 10:45 AM Gaarryy - 2012-10-23 10:38 AM Some of the U.S. Navy's most expensive and exciting new ships are also being built right here in Wisconsin, another swing state very much in play. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33431534/ns/us_news-military/t/navy-tes... tjh - 2012-10-23 1:15 AM "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. I think this will hurt him.. Badly.. doesnt he need to win Virginia? where the boats that go under water and have planes land on them are built. I would think the Navy Vets and people looking at the ship building effecting the local economy would be paying attention to his remarks more than someone in Iowa ( or any other land locked state) Same things when Romney was speaking about GM.. his .. I was born in detroit, love american cars. those remarks might really boost him in Ohio and Michigan. Sometimes I forget that there is a bigger picture and it's not the popular vote they are going for, They need to win states and tailor the remarks towards those issue's that really are not having an impact on where I live. but for them to win it's Huge. So, that means that jobs were created in the last four years?? |
| 2012-10-23 10:53 AM in reply to: #4465231 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Gaarryy - 2012-10-23 10:33 AM tuwood - 2012-10-22 10:12 PM hrliles - 2012-10-22 10:09 PM One thing about a leader is to lead by example. Reaching across the aisle would have made sense over the last four years instead of waiting for people to come to his greatness. And continual overtalking someone else is not Presidential. I think Romney's working across the aisle argument is likely his strongest asset in this election. Obama has nothing to counter it. that's the one thing that keeps popping up in my mind.. He goverened a Dem state and did it well Not so much actually accoding to the people of Mass. He left office with an approval rating of 39% and a disapproval rating of 59%, down from 56/23 the other way when he took office. |
| 2012-10-23 10:55 AM in reply to: #4465273 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 1stTimeTri - 2012-10-23 10:52 AM scoobysdad - 2012-10-23 10:45 AM Gaarryy - 2012-10-23 10:38 AM Some of the U.S. Navy's most expensive and exciting new ships are also being built right here in Wisconsin, another swing state very much in play. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33431534/ns/us_news-military/t/navy-tes... tjh - 2012-10-23 1:15 AM "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. I think this will hurt him.. Badly.. doesnt he need to win Virginia? where the boats that go under water and have planes land on them are built. I would think the Navy Vets and people looking at the ship building effecting the local economy would be paying attention to his remarks more than someone in Iowa ( or any other land locked state) Same things when Romney was speaking about GM.. his .. I was born in detroit, love american cars. those remarks might really boost him in Ohio and Michigan. Sometimes I forget that there is a bigger picture and it's not the popular vote they are going for, They need to win states and tailor the remarks towards those issue's that really are not having an impact on where I live. but for them to win it's Huge. So, that means that jobs were created in the last four years?? No no no! Well, maybe. If they were, it's because of something Bush did. If not, then it's because Obama is a bad president. |
| 2012-10-23 10:58 AM in reply to: #4465239 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Pres Debate #3 Gaarryy - 2012-10-23 11:38 AM tjh - 2012-10-23 1:15 AM "Horses and bayonets" appears to have replaced "binders full of women" as the new internet meme. But I have to say (as a Navy man), Obama's comments about the size and function of the Navy are among the most ignorant things I've ever heard from a president. I think this will hurt him.. Badly.. doesnt he need to win Virginia? where the boats that go under water and have planes land on them are built. I would think the Navy Vets and people looking at the ship building effecting the local economy would be paying attention to his remarks more than someone in Iowa ( or any other land locked state) Same things when Romney was speaking about GM.. his .. I was born in detroit, love american cars. those remarks might really boost him in Ohio and Michigan. Sometimes I forget that there is a bigger picture and it's not the popular vote they are going for, They need to win states and tailor the remarks towards those issue's that really are not having an impact on where I live. but for them to win it's Huge. I agree. It's not about the popular vote. I think what mattered most in last night's debate
Edited by dontracy 2012-10-23 10:59 AM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK