login
pres debate #2 (Page 8)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-10-17 5:15 PM in reply to: #4457769 |
Elite  2733     Venture Industries, |  Subject: RE: pres debate #2mrbbrad - 2012-10-17 2:08 PM powerman - 2012-10-17 1:57 PM Went to one of the most elite private schools in Indoniesia. Went to the most elite private school in Hawaii. Graduated from Columbia University.... then just decided he needed a law degree to get anywhere and went to Harvard. Married his wife who was also a Harvard Law grad. In fact his dad was a Harvard Grad. Wrote a book, became a millionaire. Will never worry about another penny.... but ya.... me and him are two peas in a pod... just two regular guys from around the block. I can't stand elitists pretending they are not elitists. Talk about spin. Wow. Actually, that's all facts about President Obama's career. He did in fact go to one of the most "elite" "exclusive" private schools in Hawaii, he did in fact go to an Ivy League school for undergraduate degree, and did in fact go to an ivy league school for his J.D.. It is also a fact that the majority of his wealth came as a result of writing a book after he was in public service as an elected official. It's really not spin, it's the truth. It's also the truth that the President is a millionaire. (Again the vast majority of his fortune was made after he was an elected official) There's really not a whole lot of spin in his statement, it's all pretty true. |
| 2012-10-17 5:16 PM in reply to: #4458145 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 drewb8 - 2012-10-17 6:10 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-17 4:08 PM You're forgetting the George Costanza rule: it's not a lie if you believe it.Agreed! If they're talkin', They're lyin'! (My plan for all future presidential debates. The candidates are hooked up to polygraphs with giant readouts above their heads. Every time a lie is registered, they get a shock. The shocks get progressively stronger with each successive lie told.) True dat'. And there in lies the problem with my polygraph plan. Additionally, I've been told that sociopaths can also beat a polygraph....Just sayin'. |
| 2012-10-17 5:26 PM in reply to: #4458144 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Brock Samson - 2012-10-17 4:08 PM JoshR - 2012-10-17 12:06 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-17 9:53 AM JoshR - 2012-10-17 11:11 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-17 9:05 AM JoshR - 2012-10-17 7:39 AM Here is his quote: Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. 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. 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.
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. Agreed! If they're talkin', They're lyin'! (My plan for all future presidential debates. The candidates are hooked up to polygraphs with giant readouts above their heads. Every time a lie is registered, they get a shock. The shocks get progressively stronger with each successive lie told.) We would never be able to elect a president then. They would all be electrocuted in the debates. |
)| 2012-10-17 7:32 PM in reply to: #4453897 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 lol, i totally missed this last night. Meaningless, but funny. Obama Says "When I Was President" At Debate
|
| 2012-10-17 10:03 PM in reply to: #4457430 |
| Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-17 8:30 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-17 9:22 AM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-17 6:45 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-17 8:27 AM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-17 6:06 AM Left Brain is arguing it. He said that he "can say without a shadow of a doubt...access to birth control will do NOTHING to change the number of kids they have". You'll never get people to stop having sex, but this study shows that you can drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And that's good for the entire country. Talk to me more about what you mean by "access"?
Not sure if you're asking me or Left Brain. As far as the Wash U study is concerned, women that signed up were given a pregnancy test. Once it was confirmed that they were not pregnant, they were informed of the various methods of birth control available in the study, and then allowed to choose which they preferred. If they wanted to be on the patch, they were given a paid-for prescription to a local pharmacy for the patch. If they wanted an IUD, an onsite doctor implanted it. Regardless of their choice, there was no cost to the woman, actually they were paid $15 for their participation. 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". 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. My apologies for including you in the "throwing around access" comment. Your word is good with me on that,. It is a word that the Democratic politicians throw around and misuse to paint those who don't want to pay for something as if I'm not paying for it I'm denying access to it. Really I think the study is NSCO type of thing. Of course if you get a group of people together explain birth control to them, give them free birth control of their choice that the rate of pregnancy and abortion would drop. My point is the Federal Govt. doesn't need to fund it, plain and simple. You mentioned this would help keep people off of welfare. Let me ask you in the last 50 years what is the amount the Federal Govt. spent on Welfare? What are the #'s of people on Welfare? What percent of the population in the USA are on Welfare? Lets make it easy say years 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960. I think the trend will scare you. Just like Social Security which started in I think 1936 was to take 2 to 6% of a persons earnings to cover them for 2 to 5 years after they retire we now have the average citizen working all of January and most of February to cover the amount they have to pay in SS taxes. Now people are retiring earlier and living longer and we wonder why it's in such a fiscal mess...... I bet Bernie Madoff smiles every time he gets his Ponzi scheme check. Federal programs inherently and I'm sure with the best of intentions start out with some noble and honorable goal but quickly grow out of control. Who funded the study (which common sense would tell you the basic results) and how much did it cost? If the Federal Govt. stops funding for Planned Parenthood and Big Bird, they will both do just fine. |
| 2012-10-17 10:21 PM in reply to: #4457430 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-17 10:30 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-17 9:22 AM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-17 6:45 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-17 8:27 AM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-17 6:06 AM Left Brain is arguing it. He said that he "can say without a shadow of a doubt...access to birth control will do NOTHING to change the number of kids they have". You'll never get people to stop having sex, but this study shows that you can drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And that's good for the entire country. Talk to me more about what you mean by "access"?
Not sure if you're asking me or Left Brain. As far as the Wash U study is concerned, women that signed up were given a pregnancy test. Once it was confirmed that they were not pregnant, they were informed of the various methods of birth control available in the study, and then allowed to choose which they preferred. If they wanted to be on the patch, they were given a paid-for prescription to a local pharmacy for the patch. If they wanted an IUD, an onsite doctor implanted it. Regardless of their choice, there was no cost to the woman, actually they were paid $15 for their participation. 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". 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. You know, I think I'm old. When I think of birth control I only think of the pill....obviously the contraceptive world has passed me by. I can see how more "permanent" contraception, with less need for personal responsibility, could be more viable for the group we are talking about. I think it could, indeed, make a difference in unwanted pregnancies. Thanks. |
| 2012-10-18 12:27 AM in reply to: #4457754 |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 powerman - 2012-10-17 1:57 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-17 11:07 AM My question is this: When Obama admitted "mine's not as big as yours", was that a classic case of pension-envy? That was such an absurd statement.... let me get this straight.... you are the President over the largest economy in the world.... and you do not look at your own personal investments, or know what you have. Ya.... that makes me comfortable. It sure was a great chuckle... but let's review.... Went to one of the most elite private schools in Indoniesia. Went to the most elite private school in Hawaii. Graduated from Columbia University.... then just decided he needed a law degree to get anywhere and went to Harvard. Married his wife who was also a Harvard Law grad. In fact his dad was a Harvard Grad. Wrote a book, became a millionaire. Will never worry about another penny.... but ya.... me and him are two peas in a pod... just two regular guys from around the block. I can't stand elitists pretending they are not elitists. If your investments are in mutual funds, there's a very good chance you don't know exactly what they are invested in. I can tell you the name of my funds, but I can't tell you what the funds invest in. |
| 2012-10-18 1:10 AM in reply to: #4457430 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 11:30 AM 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? Aside from the fact that it will hasten the insolvency of Social Security? Nothing. It has many short-term individual benefits... and a bunch of tricky, hidden social issues that pop up later. Not that unplanned pregnancies are all roses and unicorns, of course.
And just because it's a huge pet-peeve of mine: Things that you receive via insurance (or as services from the govt.) ARE NOT FREE. EVER. You pay for them. |
| 2012-10-18 1:27 AM in reply to: #4458536 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 moondawg14 - 2012-10-18 1:10 AM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 11:30 AM 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? Aside from the fact that it will hasten the insolvency of Social Security? Nothing. It has many short-term individual benefits... and a bunch of tricky, hidden social issues that pop up later. Not that unplanned pregnancies are all roses and unicorns, of course.
And just because it's a huge pet-peeve of mine: Things that you receive via insurance (or as services from the govt.) ARE NOT FREE. EVER. You pay for them. You know what......we're going to pay for a certain segment of society one way or another....we just need to decide how we will pay, or what's the easiest (cheapest). That ship has sailed. My original thoughts on the contraception issue still stand.....but I'm open to a better way....because it's going to cost us one way or another. Less unwanted babies is probably cheaper than contraception the way it was presented in the study that was cited. |
| 2012-10-18 5:24 AM in reply to: #4458514 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Artemis - 2012-10-17 11:27 PM powerman - 2012-10-17 1:57 PM scoobysdad - 2012-10-17 11:07 AM My question is this: When Obama admitted "mine's not as big as yours", was that a classic case of pension-envy? That was such an absurd statement.... let me get this straight.... you are the President over the largest economy in the world.... and you do not look at your own personal investments, or know what you have. Ya.... that makes me comfortable. It sure was a great chuckle... but let's review.... Went to one of the most elite private schools in Indoniesia. Went to the most elite private school in Hawaii. Graduated from Columbia University.... then just decided he needed a law degree to get anywhere and went to Harvard. Married his wife who was also a Harvard Law grad. In fact his dad was a Harvard Grad. Wrote a book, became a millionaire. Will never worry about another penny.... but ya.... me and him are two peas in a pod... just two regular guys from around the block. I can't stand elitists pretending they are not elitists. If your investments are in mutual funds, there's a very good chance you don't know exactly what they are invested in. I can tell you the name of my funds, but I can't tell you what the funds invest in. He said he does look at his... because it was not as big as Romneys... pause for laughter... He didn't say he didn't know the exact details of every mutual fund and what are all the subsidiaries and where they are. |
| 2012-10-18 5:35 AM in reply to: #4458542 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Left Brain - 2012-10-18 12:27 AM moondawg14 - 2012-10-18 1:10 AM kevin_trapp - 2012-10-16 11:30 AM 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? Aside from the fact that it will hasten the insolvency of Social Security? Nothing. It has many short-term individual benefits... and a bunch of tricky, hidden social issues that pop up later. Not that unplanned pregnancies are all roses and unicorns, of course.
And just because it's a huge pet-peeve of mine: Things that you receive via insurance (or as services from the govt.) ARE NOT FREE. EVER. You pay for them. You know what......we're going to pay for a certain segment of society one way or another....we just need to decide how we will pay, or what's the easiest (cheapest). That ship has sailed. My original thoughts on the contraception issue still stand.....but I'm open to a better way....because it's going to cost us one way or another. Less unwanted babies is probably cheaper than contraception the way it was presented in the study that was cited. And reproductive services are covered under most insurance in some form. I realize the Government does not stand on th street corner handing out free birth control. It is either a benefit through insurance, or you are on a government health service and it is covered there. As far as low income people... I get it. Pay one way or another. As far as regular working folks with insurance, it is just a prescription, or medical device or procedure, so I understand why it is covered. It does sort of irk me though because this subject does have a component of personal responsibility. All too often it seems the government feels the need to push for protections against personal responsibility, instead of fostering it which is what this subject is really about. Abortion is legal, period, end of story. Some folks have a problem paying for something they are morally opposed to when the solution is simply do not have unprotected sex or an unwanted pregnancy. It seems some would be happy if there was an abortion clinic on every corner with a drive through window. As far as forcing Churches to pay for birth control through insurance.... well I would have to find another church because that is silly. But both side throw out this wedge issue every election to fire up a base over a subject that has been decided 30 years ago just to keep everyone distracted from the real issues. |
| 2012-10-18 8:14 AM in reply to: #4453897 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 So where's all my people who were saying the jobs report was not suspicious? Jobless claims snap back up http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/18/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/ Give me the fudge before the brownie... |
| 2012-10-18 8:41 AM in reply to: #4458721 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 GomesBolt - 2012-10-18 7:14 AM So where's all my people who were saying the jobs report was not suspicious? Jobless claims snap back up http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/18/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/ Give me the fudge before the brownie...
From CNBC's article
Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.
There were numerous articles out last week explaining how the drop was caused by a certain state not reporting their numbers. This week they got lumped back in. All of these numbers are usually revised significantly to the upside every week. |
| 2012-10-18 9:30 AM in reply to: #4458761 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 JoshR - 2012-10-18 8:41 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-18 7:14 AM So where's all my people who were saying the jobs report was not suspicious? Jobless claims snap back up http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/18/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/ Give me the fudge before the brownie...
From CNBC's article
Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.
There were numerous articles out last week explaining how the drop was caused by a certain state not reporting their numbers. This week they got lumped back in. All of these numbers are usually revised significantly to the upside every week. California mysteriously "had delays" last week which gave the administration a favorable jobs report at the ideal time... hmmmm
|
| 2012-10-18 9:40 AM in reply to: #4458167 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 JoshR - 2012-10-17 6:26 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-17 4:08 PM JoshR - 2012-10-17 12:06 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-17 9:53 AM JoshR - 2012-10-17 11:11 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-17 9:05 AM JoshR - 2012-10-17 7:39 AM Here is his quote: Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. 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. 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.
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. Agreed! If they're talkin', They're lyin'! (My plan for all future presidential debates. The candidates are hooked up to polygraphs with giant readouts above their heads. Every time a lie is registered, they get a shock. The shocks get progressively stronger with each successive lie told.) We would never be able to elect a president then. They would all be electrocuted in the debates. I don't get your point? Is there a down side to that? |
| 2012-10-18 9:40 AM in reply to: #4458888 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 tuwood - 2012-10-18 9:30 AM JoshR - 2012-10-18 8:41 AM GomesBolt - 2012-10-18 7:14 AM So where's all my people who were saying the jobs report was not suspicious? Jobless claims snap back up http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/18/news/economy/unemployment-benefits/ Give me the fudge before the brownie...
From CNBC's article
Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.
There were numerous articles out last week explaining how the drop was caused by a certain state not reporting their numbers. This week they got lumped back in. All of these numbers are usually revised significantly to the upside every week. California mysteriously "had delays" last week which gave the administration a favorable jobs report at the ideal time... hmmmm
That cat has some serious crazy-eye. I'm not quite sure why, but I think I'm willing to do whatever it wants right now. |
| 2012-10-18 9:51 AM in reply to: #4458917 |
| Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Back to the debate, boy the Obama spin machine is in full stride saying how Obama was saying all along from day one that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. They are doing a pretty good job with it as well. Don't believe your lying eyes! |
| 2012-10-18 9:55 AM in reply to: #4458948 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 crusevegas - 2012-10-18 9:51 AM Back to the debate, boy the Obama spin machine is in full stride saying how Obama was saying all along from day one that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. They are doing a pretty good job with it as well. Don't believe your lying eyes! That seems to be a pretty desperate campaign at this point. I don't see/feel that from the other side. |
| 2012-10-18 9:59 AM in reply to: #4458959 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Left Brain - 2012-10-18 8:55 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-18 9:51 AM Back to the debate, boy the Obama spin machine is in full stride saying how Obama was saying all along from day one that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. They are doing a pretty good job with it as well. Don't believe your lying eyes! That seems to be a pretty desperate campaign at this point. I don't see/feel that from the other side.
Yeah, their desperation was 2 weeks ago before the debates. |
| 2012-10-18 9:59 AM in reply to: #4458959 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 Left Brain - 2012-10-18 9:55 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-18 9:51 AM Back to the debate, boy the Obama spin machine is in full stride saying how Obama was saying all along from day one that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi. They are doing a pretty good job with it as well. Don't believe your lying eyes! That seems to be a pretty desperate campaign at this point. I don't see/feel that from the other side. Anything, ANYTHING to deflect from the record right now. Romney absolutely savaged Obama about it during the debate and polls show he overwhelmingly won on that issue-- the issue that everyone knows will ultimately decide the election. Just wait until this revised jobs report starts getting more attention. SQUIRREL! SQUIRREL! |
| 2012-10-18 10:10 AM in reply to: #4453897 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 I was just listening to the radio and they're talking wondering how/why Candy just so happened to have a full transcript of the Rose Garden speech right in front of her when Obama made those statements. Where's that tinfoil hat at again. |
| 2012-10-18 10:21 AM in reply to: #4458994 |
| Subject: RE: pres debate #2 tuwood - 2012-10-18 8:10 AM I was just listening to the radio and they're talking wondering how/why Candy just so happened to have a full transcript of the Rose Garden speech right in front of her when Obama made those statements. Where's that tinfoil hat at again. There are probably very few people on this forum who distrust and have a lower opinion of Obama than I do. After reading this article by CNN I was wondering if there could have been some communication indirectly by the Obama re-election team and Candy. I just can't believe she would have a transcript of that particular speech with her. Anyone have any info on this to back it up or discredit it? |
| 2012-10-18 10:37 AM in reply to: #4459019 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 crusevegas - 2012-10-18 9:21 AM tuwood - 2012-10-18 8:10 AM I was just listening to the radio and they're talking wondering how/why Candy just so happened to have a full transcript of the Rose Garden speech right in front of her when Obama made those statements. Where's that tinfoil hat at again. There are probably very few people on this forum who distrust and have a lower opinion of Obama than I do. After reading this article by CNN I was wondering if there could have been some communication indirectly by the Obama re-election team and Candy. I just can't believe she would have a transcript of that particular speech with her. Anyone have any info on this to back it up or discredit it?
I think it was pretty shady of her to do this. Maybe we just need to set up a robot debate person. Have it ask the questions and just shut off microphones after the time is up. |
| 2012-10-18 10:48 AM in reply to: #4458994 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 tuwood - 2012-10-18 9:10 AM I was just listening to the radio and they're talking wondering how/why Candy just so happened to have a full transcript of the Rose Garden speech right in front of her when Obama made those statements. Where's that tinfoil hat at again. Where is the proof of that? I saw her with papers, but I never took that as a script. She could very well know the speech well discussing it in other stuff. But for her to decide to fact check one particular topic in a sea of spin, misrepresentation and lies by both is quite funny.
As far as the jobs report... who was it here taking offense that government workers would do such a thing? So a phone call is made, reports delayed, numbers adjusted after a week or so, nothing that does not happen regularly.... but Obama get's his rear handed to him in the first debate, favorable jobs report comes out to bolster his campaign... it gets adjusted later, but the impact is sustained for an electorate with short term memory.... nawwww, that's just crazy talk. |
| 2012-10-18 10:49 AM in reply to: #4459049 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: pres debate #2 JoshR - 2012-10-18 10:37 AM crusevegas - 2012-10-18 9:21 AM tuwood - 2012-10-18 8:10 AM I was just listening to the radio and they're talking wondering how/why Candy just so happened to have a full transcript of the Rose Garden speech right in front of her when Obama made those statements. Where's that tinfoil hat at again. There are probably very few people on this forum who distrust and have a lower opinion of Obama than I do. After reading this article by CNN I was wondering if there could have been some communication indirectly by the Obama re-election team and Candy. I just can't believe she would have a transcript of that particular speech with her. Anyone have any info on this to back it up or discredit it?
I think it was pretty shady of her to do this. Maybe we just need to set up a robot debate person. Have it ask the questions and just shut off microphones after the time is up. I think it was Laura Ingram who said we should just get rid of moderators all together. And if not her, someone else did. I heard it last night but was in a food coma and can't remember who it was. Yeah, that would be good. Just a free for all on stage. Why not just do a steel cage match? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK