pres debate #2 (Page 6)

Now I've heard of child prodigy, but that's a little excessive.  

btw, I'm enjoying the same stuff with my two oldest kids.  My 17 year old turns 18 a month after the election so he doesn't get to vote this time around, but is very interested.  The 16 year old is also very engaged.  My daughter (13) isn't too interested, but she did watch the debate last night as well.  My 16 year old is pretty conservative and picks a lot of unpopular subjects for his papers and debate's in school.  My oldest is a lot more in the middle and doesn't really know which way to go.  Socially he's pretty progressive, but fiscally he's conservative so it's fun to watch his gears turning trying to figure out who he would vote for.

I was asking you Kevin, sorry thought that was clear.

I hear the term "access" thrown around not just by you but both sides of the political isle.

Based on what you stated my interpretation of your definition is that for there to be "access" it not only has to be free but they need to be paid to receive it. I hope that's not what you meant, but based on what I asked and how you responded, it's the conclusion I'm left with.

From what I've gathered when the Democrats use the word "access" they mean that if it's not free then there is no "access".

who cares when it works to your advantage and makes your opponent look like they don't know what they are talking about.

Here is his quote: 

I'm sure he just decided to mention acts of terror to scare the general populace or something right? Maybe a coincidence?

This is pretty clear partisan spectacles coming through IMO.

(In case no one knows, I don't like either of them and think both are going to lead this country off a cliff )

You make a very good point and from what I understand this was the day after the attack in  morning before he flew to Las Vegas for a Campaign Fund Raiser correct?

Could you explain all of the times after that morning Obama, his Press Secretary and the UN Ambassador said with conviction that it was due to a protest about a video?

How many different times did Obama, his Press Secretary and the UN Ambassador mention the video and how many times did they mention a terrorist attack 14 days after the attack?

Hey, I'm not his defender remember, I don't like him either. I just prefer that people complain about his actual issues. 

Yes, that was the day after I believe.

He never said "Benghazi was not an act of terror."

But he also didn't call Benghazi an "act of terror."  He spoke about Benghazi and the video and religious tolerance, but then he said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

It's an independent sentence in paragraph 13.  It's part of the administration trying to get away from the Bush terminology of the "Global War on Terrorism."

Difference in style or trying to bury the lead?

I do think it was interesting how one of the questions was "Mr. President, why didn't you do more in-advance of the attacks in Libya?" and his response was to say "The next day, I was in the rose garden, I went to Arlington, I... I... I..." 

That's not what you did or should've done before, that's what you personally did (he forgot to mention flying to Vegas for a fundraiser) in the aftermath.  By the way, does anyone know if the FBI has been allowed into the Benghazi compound yet?  Last I heard they weren't allowed in.

All that said, I would definitely say Obama wins this round.  He looked more comfortable in this format and more comfortable knowing Candy was there to help him out...

If you are going to provide a defense for Obama on that statement and accuse everyone who has a problem with the way Obama and his administration as just plain partisan politics at least have the courtesy to answer this.

Could you explain all of the times after that morning Obama, his Press Secretary and the UN Ambassador said with conviction that it was due to a protest about a video?

The article is partisan, the video probably won't get much coverage in the media.

If you're wanting to argue semantics, then technically you did not hear me throw the word "access" around anywhere.  Go back and read through my posts, the only time I used it was when directly quoting Left Brain.  And our of respect for Don Tracy, I will make sure to refrain from using the word contraceptive and only use the term birth control.

Left Brain's post stated that it made no difference if birth control was paid for or not, birth rates would not be affected.  The study I referenced directly contradicts that statement.  If you give women free birth control, birth rates drop.  Dramatically.  How is that a bad thing? 

Giving a small stipend is pretty common when you're recruiting people to participate in research studies.  If there was even a single woman in the 9,000+ that participated that thought to themselves "well, I don't want to be involved in a four year study with regular interviews of my sex life, but hey it'll get a cool fifteen bucks in my pocket so I'll do it" I would be suprised.  But if that extra $15 is what it takes to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, so be it. 

I'm a Libertarian on about 90% of the issues (vote Gary Johnson everybody!), but I'm also a realist.  First, my guy isn't going to win.  Second, neither Romney or Obama is going to eliminate welfare.  If our politicians won't get rid of it, then at least they can work to reduce the number of people on it.  From 1997 to 2007 our country spend a billion dollars on abstinence only programs.  How well did that work out for us?  If a couple hundred dollar procedure to implant an IUD, plus a $15 stipend, is all it takes to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country by 70%, then that is a program that I would absolutely support.  Money well spent.

All of that money printing goes straight to Wall Street. Why would Romney do anything to harm his old buddies?

I'm not the president or involved in his administration so how could I explain why they do what they do?

I'm sure he's covering his butt because he knows he will get pounded on it by his opponents, no matter what he did/didn't do, whether it was right or wrong. 

The President and his campaign have made the Benghazi (sp?) attack an issue.  The reason being, at least in Florida, the Obama campaign is running an ad campaign that specifically calls Romney a liar and says if he lied during the debate (the first deabte) and will say anything to get elected, then how can you trust him as president.  It's being run both in print and electronic media.

Thus, credibility, truth and veracity have become an issue. (And should always be an issue in my opinion)  So the issue of what the administration knew, when they knew it, and what they said to the American people is an issue because of the truth, veracity, credibility issue, that the Obama administration is stressing in their own ads.

(Also the Rose Garden assertion that I said it was terrorism the day after doesn't fit with the actual time line of various administration statements.  Take a look at the press briefings and how Carney was pushed on the issue, If the Rose Garden statement about "acts of terror" was meant to apply to the consulate acts of the previous day, why wouldn't the administration be shouting from the rafters immediately that the President labeled it as an act of terror immediately?  THe fact is niether Carney in the numerous daily briefings, the President in the smattering of interviews after the Rose Garden speech, Ambassador Rice, nor even Joe Biden in the VP debate, mentioned or asserted that the President immediately pegged this as a terror attack.  The story of the administration has been pretty consistent and consistent in its changes.  It was first a spontaneous uprising because of the movie, then when that went South it became that the Administration was simply acting on the Intel they had available to them at the time (this was restated as recently as in the VP debate), now in the time between the VP debate and the Prez debate v.2, the administration is claiming that the Prez nailed it immmediately.

My opinion of what happened, and it fits with the time line of what was said and when, and by whom, is that between the VP debate and Prez debate #2 the Presidents campaingn combed transcripts and found this statement made in the Rose Garden speech, and it was just vague enough that it allowed them to argue that the President said it was a terrorist attack from the begining.  I've read, and listened to the Rose Garden speech and contextually I don't think the President was referring to Libya there.  But it's vague enough to provide an out for the President.  Of course the gorrilla in the room is the fact that they weren't screaming about this from the very beginning.  I think what was not said about the Rose Garden speech in the weeks that followed is more telling about the situation.

Of course I don't like this President, so I am naturally going to resolve the vagueness issue via my own prejudices. (I think that's what the campaign is hoping for, those that will believe will believe, those that won't wont.  And that's good enough in such a close election)

Aw, snap. 20 and you knew that!

It's also interesting to see what issues are important and unimportant to him.

His generation (or at least he and his friends) are in many ways much more socially liberal than our generation. Things like gay rights they just assume are normal, since they all seem to know at least one openly gay person from school. But he also sees how hard him mom and I work, and at the same time how many homeless families we see here in the city, so there's that conflict between making people working to get ahead and the reality that not everyone makes it and sometimes people need help. He was laughing when Romney said that line about women getting home in time to cook dinner (he's studying to be a chef, and his girlfriend can't cook), but at the same time he liked the line by Ryan at the VP debate about abortion being safe, legal and rare. He asked me about BP when they talked about drilling.

Like you said, it's pretty cool getting to watch the wheels turn.

I agree with your statements. I just don't think we, the public, know half of what went on, especially as it is being filtered through the MSM that everyone laments so frequently. 

I don't think either one of these guys have any real "credibility, truth, veracity" to speak of. My humble opinion is that you don't make it to the highest levels of power in this country with any of those qualities. You don't raise $1 billion because you are credible or honest. You do it because you are selling yourself out to anyone and everyone who will pay you. Then you of course pay them back once you are in office.

Here's a clear distinction.  Romney said last night:

"I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years, and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the -- the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years."

Meanwhile, Obama never said he will balance the budget.

At least one is saying they will balance a budget and has experience doing so.

You're going to vote for Gary Johnson and I agree with you that breaking-up the 2 party stronghold would be good for the US.  But a fiscal conservative like yourself should at least admit that a 2nd Term Obama ("I'll have more flexibility after the election") is a worse choice for the budget.

I will agree that Obama is a worse choice for the budget. But I won't agree that Romney is a good or even not bad choice. For all of the comments about "Obama doubled the deficit", he did no such thing. The deficit has barely budged in his 4 years. It won't budge in the next 4 years without drastically increased revenues or cuts. It is a structural issue, that no one in congress will deal with.

My prediction: regardless of who is president the national debt will be over 20 trillion sometime in 2015. Maybe it's in February for Obama and June for Romney. Hardly a good reason to pick one over the other.

A lot of people don't grasp two simple facts:

1. With the budget deficit that we have and the economy that we have, balancing the budget is virtually impossible, as is the reasoning to do so.  NEITHER would be able to balance the budget in 4 years.  No one could.
2. The government is NOT a business.  It's not meant to generate a profit.  It's not meant to maintain a surplus.  It doesn't "maximize shareholder value".  Citizens are not investors.  A government that runs in the black has a country with a very bad economy and a very bad social environment.  Ask any educated economist what would happen if the deficit were totally wiped out and the government took in more tax revenue than it paid out.

Are you kidding me, didn't you just read how he and his family took free stuff from the government. That's as hypocritical as what Paul Ryan did getting Stimulus Money for his constituents, this fiscal conservative he is trying to represent doesn't match his actions.

You can't have it both ways Josh.

Deficit under Bush over 8 years= $4T.

Deficit under Obama over 4 years = $4T.

4/8= .5

4/4=1

Maybe you mean the last 4 years of GWB, 2 of which were with the Pelosi Congress and Reid Senate.

Every one of us takes free stuff from the government, whether we know it or not.

Also, you said it was okay to do that.