7:14 Central Time: Setting up this post, I say "I'm so psyched for this debate!" And Meade says "I think you ought to lower your expectations. I think they will both look good, both look presidential, and there won't be any real change because of this debate." Perhaps. But I think it will have an effect... not because I think Obama has a way to change his image back into something we will love, but because we'll see Romney again, and that seemed to work last time, as people saw that he is not the villain the Obama campaigned tried to make us think he is.
7:33: Someone just asked me what I think will happen, and I said "I think Obama will try to be different, but not that different, because that would be phony. And Romney has the advantage of knowing if he just acts like the person he really is, it will work as a striking contrast to the way the O campaign has portrayed him, which is really what happened last time. I think that will happen again. But O will be more alert and engaged so it won't be so horrible." That's my prediction, anyway. What do you think?
7:57: I'm looking at the gathered throng of "undecided" voters. I don't feel confident that they're really undecided. And I think the moderator, Candy Crowley, favors Obama. But that's the way it always is. The Republican must overcome the disadvantage. ADDED: We're told by CNN's Erin Burnett that these supposedly "undecided" voters "in 2008, overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama." But they are "dead even split" in this election.
8:08: Both Romney and Obama jump on this poor Epstein kid who's going to college and wants to be able to get a job. Both candidates talk about their economic plans generally. They are both wired. Obama is particularly intense. He wants everyone to know he is awake and alive. I don't know if he can keep that up or if we can take it. Crowley calls Romney "Romley."
8:13: The second question, with Obama going first, is about gas prices, and Obama launches into alternative energy, which seems quite unlikely to help people struggling with the gas prices. This is a great opening for Romney. Romney talks about how oil drilling on federal lands has been reduced under Obama. R is for more drilling and clean coal, and he makes that clear. Candy invites Obama to respond and he accuses Romney of getting the facts wrong. Obama is for oil drilling and even coal plants. Romney, getting his turn, asks Obama a direct question, and both men try to control this time. There's back and forth bickering, and Romney ends up in control of the floor. The tension is extreme!
8:22: Obama says gas prices were lower when he took office because the economy was on the verge of collapse. He's not taking any responsibility for what gas prices are now. In fact, he's kind of taking credit.
8:23: Romney is able to stay relaxed while dominating. Crowley and Obama both seem cranked up and stressed.
8:25: A question about taxes. Romney is clear and focused. Obama's over there on the chair, hunkered down, crouching, oddly. Hey, Jaltcoh is live-blogging. Check it out.
8:31: "Governor Romney, I'm sure you have an answer," Crowley almost snarks. Her bias shows. She prompts Obama, suggesting the substance of the answer. Now, this doesn't really help Obama. It makes Romney look more dominant, and we get the impression that Obama needs a boost. It's actually patronizing.
8:34: When Obama speaks, Romney doesn't go back and sit down. He stands there, eyeing Obama, who seems desperate. Obama yammers quickly in a high, strained voice. I can't believe this is making the people in the audience feel connected and confident.
8:37: Why does Obama go back to the chair? Does he need the rest?
8:37: Romney sits down when an audience member speaks. Obama gets a softball question about women not making as much money as men. Obama repeats a story we've heard before, about his grandmother's career. He tells us about the Lily Ledbetter law, the first law he signed. Romney talks about work he did as Governor. He wanted women in his cabinet and initiated a search and found "binders full of women." He promotes flexible work schedules and generally strengthening the economy, which will help women. When it's Obama's turn, he brings up Lily Ledbetter again, then switches to health care.
8:45: A woman brings up Bush. She's afraid of Republicans because they remind her of Bush. Romney has a 5-point plan — all 5 points differentiate him from Bush. "President Bush had a very different path for a very different time."
8:53: Another question — why did they pick this? — about the stagnant economy. The man basically says: I don't feel so good. Obama rattles off a lot of economic points. I think they picked this question because it gave Obama a chance to show warmth and caring. [ADDED: But Obama didn't take the opportunity. Not that Romney did.]
9:09: Crowley calls on someone named "Carrie" and Obama does a "Hi, Carrie" that sounds gentle and it's obvious he thinks it's a female. But it's a big old guy. "Cary," presumably. And he's got the Libya question. Uh-oh.
9:10: Obama's answer on Libya is all material he's said before. Nothing updated to deal with the newest revelations. Same old talking points. Investigate. Track down the criminals. Romney politicized it. "I am ultimately responsible"... that's new.
9:12: Romney acknowledges that Obama took responsibility "for the failure."
9:16: Obama, yelling, says it's "offensive" to suggest that anyone on his "team" would "play politics." "That's not what we do," he says, making eye contact with Romney, but then he breaks eye contact and looks down. Check the video on this. It's a moment.
9:19: Romney, in command, questions Obama about what he said the day after the attack in the Rose Garden. "You said it was an act of terror?" Romney asks twice. After the first time, Obama says "That's what I said." After the second time, Romney gives him a penetrating look. There's a pause. Romney raises his eyebrows in a way that seems to repeat the question again. "It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying?" Obama bows his head. His eyes are closed. Obama looks up and with a little smile says: "Please proceed Governor." Romney gestures with his hand. "I wanted to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi and act of terror." Obama says "Get the transcript," and Crowley helps Obama by saying "He did in fact, sir... He did in fact call it an act of terror. It did as well take 2 weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you're correct about that." Jeez, Crowley is way overparticipating! And the audience applauds her!
9:20: Romney got tripped up on a little detail there, so his theatrical presentation fizzled in the end. He stuttered a bit. He should have had the preparation for that moment nailed. Obama lucked out. [ADDED: We're checking the transcript on the Rose Garden speech and the word "terror" (or "terrorist" or "terrorism") is not in it! Am I wrong? That really tripped up Romney, so if he wasn't wrong, I condemn Crowley.][AND: He said "outrageous attack," but certainly nothing like "act of terror."][ALSO: The word "terror" does appear in the full transcript of the remarks, as opposed to the written statement, but not in the context of characterizing the attack in Benghazi, in a more general reference, quoted at 10:21 below. The answer to Romney's question "You said it was an act of terror?" was clearly no, and when Obama bowed his head and looked down, I think he knew he was being deceitful. I imagine he thought: This is what I have to say.]
9:21: Gun control. Obama's talking about the Aurora shootings. He wants "a comprehensive strategy" that includes getting "into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur."
9:22: Romney stresses the 2-parent family in response to the gun control question, then shifts to a Fast & Furious presentation. He'd "like to understand" what happened.
9:44: I've gotten behind in the recording after getting distracted by that "act of terror" business. And now, I'm so outraged at Crowley's intrusion to make an incorrect assertion to side with Obama that I can barely pay attention to the rest of this. (But I will keep going and get to the remainder of the material.)
9:47: Obama interrupts Romney — who's talking about competition with China — and he has been interrupting throughout the evening.
9:48: The last question is: "What is the biggest misperception people have about you as a man and as a candidate?" Romney says "his passion" flows from his belief in God. He also ticks through his resume again, which isn't responsive to the question. Ignoring the question is kind of the theme of the night.
9:51: Obama's turn. People think he believes that government creates jobs. "That's not what I believe. I believe in individual initiative."
9:52: Obama brings up the 47% remark, while it's his turn and he's speaking last. Romney can't answer! But Obama didn't make much of it. He said "47%" but didn't dramatize the idea in a memorable way.
9:54: "The most rancorous debate ever" — says the CBS announcer. Presidential debates are changed forever, we're told.
10:03: It's bizarre to think of all the pre-debate commentary about how the town hall format is used to reach out to the individuals in the audience and demonstrate the human connection! It must have been a surreal experience for these poor folks.
10:21: The phrase "acts of terror" does appear in the Rose Garden remarks at one point: "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." But as Patrick Brennan says at NRO: "One could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to label it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be: According to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated." Obama's supporters may want to say this is enough. I don't think so. But what is certainly plain is that Crowley's manipulation of the event was unjustifiable. The bias from the moderator tonight was disgusting. But I'm sure it was worth it to her to squander her reputation to help Obama out of what was a very uncomfortable jam.
10:27: Here's the transcript. Sorry I didn't write anything about the immigration discussion. It's all there in the transcript.
10:37: Even though Romney's big moment got deflated, I think the focus now will be on what exactly is in that transcript, and hair-splitting about "No acts of terror will ever shake" isn't likely to sound compelling, especially as it becomes an occasion for focusing on the 2 weeks of lies/nonsense about the nonexistent demonstrations and the "Innocence of Muslims" video. There's a controversy over what Obama said, and even if there is one way to wriggle out of it, it forces us to spend time on the statements made about the attack, and this should hurt Obama. Whoever "wins" the debate, there's the post-debate discourse, and that must be won too.
10:53: Thanks to all the commenters for keeping the flow of opinion going on the second, third, and fourth pages. I haven't had the time to get in there and read things yet, but I wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions and my pleasure at being able to provide a place where people can talk.
October 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
981 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 981 of 981"And if you're so pissed about China stealing your inventions..."
That's the thing. Although it has cost me millions, I'm not angry about it. I believe in free enterprise. I stopped patenting my products years ago. If they can make them cheaper and that's what people care about, then more power to them. I'm proud of the many people employed in Taiwan, China, Vietnam, and other places because of my work. They are people too, and they deserve to work and win what business they can. I simply choose voluntarily to do all my manufacturing in the U.S. I'm not afraid to compete. My people are amazing, and we say: "Bring it"!
Because business taxation and regulation have made profit margins so thin in this country that its pointless to take the risk and cost of producing it in the USA when they can do it for half the cost elsewhere.
People dont start a business in the private sector for the common good. They do it to make money. And anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Thanks Jason, but that question was for Ritmo.
Not that he would really answer it.
--If we got rid of the teachers unions and the dept. of mis-education and do what the Germans do and train people in skilled crafts for those who aren't college material we would have a decent manufacturing industry.---
And that would mean the State decides what path you follow by the age of 13, IIRC.
Shouting proves his single-issue voter creds. Resolved: Today is 1979. We need Reagan. Thirty two years of history really didn't happen.
Inga said...
Roberto, the spinning that these conservatives are doing must be making them awfully dizzy.
10/16/12 10:36 PM
Hon you got it backwards, its the progs that are dizzy with spin.
"Because business taxation and regulation have made profit margins so thin in this country that its pointless to take the risk and cost of producing it in the USA when they can do it for half the cost elsewhere."
Vecause if we had less taxes and regulation, our wages would be competitive with China? Look, I'm a Democrat, but even I don't think that Republican economic policy would set the economy back that far.
According to the Luntz focus group Romney won in a rout. One of the guys actually said:
"[Obama] has been bullshitting the public" to laughter from the rest of the group.
" Blogger Roberto said...
Whine all you want.
The president kicked his ass."
Luntz's focus group of former Obama voters don't agree with you. I was surprised at their comments. I thought Obama would fool them but Nope.
Anybody who thinks the consulate whining will have any real effect has their head up their ass.
Do not fret people... the undecided voters can see through alot of BS.
THEY will judge not 'who won' but who had a better path to bring America out of the jam it is in.
They will see through the fake questions, the BS rhetoric, the 'help' the moderator gave, etc....
Just wait a few days and see the polls. I bet Mitt goes past 50 pct. in them all and well past the 270 electoral votes.
The Las Vegas Political Odds Markets says it will be a landslide.. for Mitt.
Michael K - Luntz, employed by Fox...his group doesn't agree with me?
I AM SHOCKED.
From a conversation with susan rice and david gregory:
NBC’S DAVID GREGORY: “You talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks that killed Ambassador Stevens and others there was spontaneous? Was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?” AMBASSADOR SUSAN RICE: “The best information we have at present, first of all, there’s an FBI investigation that’s ongoing and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. but putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo. Almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted of course by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya and it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/16/12)
And this was a few days after Obama's statement in the rose garden.
Roberto said...
bago shit - He's created 5,000,000 jobs.
Fact.
He did that? All by himself? Idiot. You don't count the number of jobs created and leave out, convieniently the number of jobs lost and not subtract one from the other to have an actual net job number, which in the case of Urkel is a net job loss. Not only that, the total cost of those net jobs lost, plus those that don't qualify as participants in the job pool any longer, on a per person basis is outrageously high. Try again with your little erroneous and mischaracterized facts.
Thanks Jason, but that question was for Ritmo.
Not that he would really answer it.
You're not asking me a question. You're asking me to agree with the idea that industries should write their own legislation and defang any need for regulation.
Of course I disagree with that. I disagree that doing so makes any economic sense, also.
It's just a way to make us a third-world nation. Those countries have some rich business owners, also. But their countries suck.
And we won't allow that to keep happening here.
Even Romney understands that. But he refuses to do the right thing about it.
Thanks Jason, but that question was for Ritmo.
Not that he would really answer it.
LOL
Sorry dude :)
58-36 for Obama...Colorado independent poll.
In fairness I would call this a draw, however on substance, Urkel clearly lost and went into campaign speech mode several times. On content he lost and he will not get a bounce from this and will trend downward because people will simply not believe him and it's already showing up that way.
I've always liked Crowley, but that was extremely unprofessional and took the wind out of Romney's sails. I would guess she felt Romney was being over-bearing in challenging the president aggresively, and came to the rescue spontaneously.
Unfortunately, I think the MSM will be leading with "Obama did say 'terror,' so there!"
Candy did her job.
I missed the debate.
Why is Althouse so mad at Candy?
$4 gas is a good thing.
Remember that.
Ahhhh, the progs smell blood in the water..........
My initial thought was Crowley way overstepped her bounds and she wasn't doing Obama any favors. I'll have to see it in replay though.
These "moderators" have to go. I like the idea of putting the debaters in separate rooms and turning off their mikes as soon as they exceed the time limit [give each an extra 15 seconds with a warning clang like they use in a prizefight].
You're not asking me a question. You're asking me to agree with the idea that industries should write their own legislation and defang any need for regulation.
Of course I disagree with that. I disagree that doing so makes any economic sense, also.
It's just a way to make us a third-world nation. Those countries have some rich business owners, also. But their countries suck.
So lowering the corporate tax rate, lowering the cost of labor (i.e. forced benefits), and simplifying the tax code will make the US a "third-world nation"?
Alrighty then.
Read up on some of JFK's speeches regarding business economics. You'll be shocked. And it will open your eyes to think that its only Romney who thinks this way.
The take-away from this debate will be Obama's assertion that he labeled this an act of terror from the first day.
Althouse will be at work first thing tomorrow morning.
Obama lost.
This bit will be what is remember, and it will not play out well for him over the next week.
Seeing Red said...
--If we got rid of the teachers unions and the dept. of mis-education and do what the Germans do and train people in skilled crafts for those who aren't college material we would have a decent manufacturing industry.---
And that would mean the State decides what path you follow by the age of 13, IIRC.
10/16/12 10:38 PM
How about offering tech training to those who seek it instead on giving free money to Harvard with its multi-billion dollar investment portfolio, instead of sticking the tax payers to pay for an over inflated education? Besides since when do you have a problem with state intervention in a persons life?
How about actually reply to a point instead of typical lefty obfuscation when you can't reply?
"I don't think any business owner should think it's only about his business alone. "
Jesus. I saw this comment quoted in Jason's 10:30 post. What bumbling useless ignorant assfuck said that?
Oh, let me guess - Ritmo.
I have a brother-in-law who is a successful small business owner. He gave up a good job at age 30 to start his first business. It failed. At 40, he started his second one. It succeeded - because he put in 80 hour work weeks for many years. He employs 100 people. He is also one of the kindest, most generous people I know.
But, you know, he didn't really build that. And some pseudo-intellectual clownfart on the Internet, a guy who still creams his pants when he digs out his old copies of Zinn and Chomsky, thinks people like my brother-in-law shouldn't think only of himself.
Right. Christ, I'm glad I'm no longer on the left.
"I had to personally sign my house and my personal possessions to obtain a credit line for my business 3 days ago"
Yea, been there too. People have no idea how scary that is. If you fail, everybody goes and finds another job, but you still owe the money. You take all the risk, and few people are willing to do that. I think more people should, especially instead of blowing it on college just so you can get a job someday. You can easily teach yourself as much as you want now days, but you will never get those years back. Those energetic years where you learn so easily and risk so fearlessly.
Candy Crowly has an amazing memory, good for her, she should've let Romney keep making a fool of himself though.
He lied about calling Benghazi a terror attack in the Rose garden. He used the word terror in the speech but like a coward his reference of that phrase was general and about the aftermath of 9/11/2001 and not Benghazi. He introduced the religious video meme in that speech which was carried by everyone in his admin for the next two weeks including himself.
In fact, back when the discussion on the embassy attack was about the video, I was one of the people saying that the video was just a smokescreen. The idea that it was a spontaneous attack that just happened to take place on 9/11 stretched credulity. And it was Inga saying that the film maker had blood on his hands. Remember that Inga? The film maker was responsible for inciting these people? That WAS the default position of OBama's administration at the time was it not?
Read up on some of JFK's speeches regarding business economics. You'll be shocked. And it will open your eyes to think that its only Romney who thinks this way.
It's not a question of "thinking a certain way". It's about understanding math and how different numbers apply to different situations. JFK campaigned in an economy with a much higher top-marginal tax rate and much lower debt-GDP ratio. I am taking into account the way the present facts differ from those. HIstory happens, not that conservatives notice.
Inga, are you psychotic?
You argued for a week after the White House dropped the video defense that the video was the cause of the attack.
You can't be serious.
You even continued that argument today.
You need to go away. Too damned stupid to believe.
How about actually reply to a point instead of typical lefty obfuscation when you can't reply?
Whoa. I don't think Seeing Red is a lefty.
And besides, Southpaw is the preferred nomenclature.
9:51: Obama's turn. People think he believes that government creates jobs. "That's not what I believe. I believe in individual initiative."
You didn't build that.
Why is Althouse so mad at Candy?
Candy was immersing herself in the debate a little bit too much... by suggesting... and reinterpreting what a candidate was saying.
Overstepping her bounds a little bit.
So exiledonmainst is the next guy to chime in to approve of the idea that owning a business is a great way to exempt you from caring about the state of the nation and its economy as a whole.
YOu guys are really letting some regrettably unthinking ideas fly and some true colors show. The mistake that this is will sink in later.
Roberto said...
Anybody who thinks the consulate whining will have any real effect has their head up their ass.
Again the expert speaks.
Sorry, Zero's been caught in a lie (so, for that matter has Butkus, covering for him), but the worst of it is that now the people who've been covering Zero's ass have to rerun the tapes and all the lies for the past 5 weeks.
If Zero won (don't hold your breath if you're taking Crowley News Net's word), it's gonna be a Pyrrhic victory.
PS Roberto sounds a lot like shilol.
Without out the smileys, of course.
Mark said...
$4 gas is a good thing.
Remember that.
Sec. Chu wants $6-10. He stated as much. So does Ritmo. Remember that.
Candy Crowly has an amazing memory..
Calling a sister fat is unbecoming of you Ellie.
You're not asking me a question. You're asking me to agree with the idea that industries should write their own legislation and defang any need for regulation.
Of course I disagree with that. I disagree that doing so makes any economic sense, also.
It's just a way to make us a third-world nation. Those countries have some rich business owners, also. But their countries suck.
And we won't allow that to keep happening here.
Even Romney understands that. But he refuses to do the right thing about it
No, I was just asking you a question.
""I had to personally sign my house and my personal possessions to obtain a credit line for my business 3 days ago"
Yea, been there too."
When I was a banker we called this hog tying the the customer.
Sadly, I can't say that we ever thought about the personal impact re the folks on the other side of the table. It was business.
Check Althouse's comments.
Tomorrow, she will get down to a serious vetting of Obama's remarks over Benghazi.
Obama just lost big time. The issue is on the table.
Liberals don't even really know what happened because the legacy press suppressed the story.
Obama just let the cat out of the bag.
CubanBob - I think it was Ritmo who brought up Germany, I just pointed out the kids don't get a CHOICE!
There's that word again, CHOICE!
The State will decide what you should do.
Uh huh.
Crying Tommy, didn't I tell you to go to hell the other day, why are you still here, shooo go, go now!
Don't be mad that your guy lost this debate BIG TIME, it's OK, go ride your bike..... To hell.
Here's a question? Did Obama do anything to reinforce the message of his campaign?
Do voters now feel more strongly that Romney will somehow violate all the lady parts in America?
Do voters now think fat cats will get fatter under Romney, while skinny cats get skinnier?
Does voting for Romney mean you're a White Supremacist? (Or an Uncle Tom, for that matter?)
Do voters now believe Romney doesn't have the plan to deal with the rolling catastrophe that is our current economy?
You still love the Big O, am I right? Who's your daddy? I'll spank that naughty bit of boot back there.
What am I missing re: Obama's messaging?
"bago shit - He's created 5,000,000 jobs."
I wasn't even referring to Obama, but he didn't create shit. He didn't invest or risk his own money, or invent anything, or start a single business. In fact , he will be paid handsomely for wasting your money and mine to the point where even our children will never be able to pay it back. Even if you give him credit for those jobs, they cost $350K each, and will never be worth what WE paid for them.
Shouting Thomas I had no idea you were such a believer in the power of Althouse.
They have been playing Crowley's corretion of Mitten for the past hour. Seems Ann's outrage at the intrusion, is/was, how to put this delicately, ... a canard perhaps?
I dunno.
My read is that while Romney temporarily looked like a stuttering fool when Obama lied about the Al QAeda attack and what he said in the Rose Garden, and Crowley broke out of a moderator role to play "fact checker" and backed him up.....
This actually bites both Obama AND Crowley in her humongous progressive Jewish media ass.
It keeps this quite alive until the next debate for two big reasons.
1. Like Meade and Sane guy - the fact that Obama lied is easy to verify from the Rose Garden transcript.
2. For the "technical, rules matter!" members of the media, while they will defend Crowley on being a spendid woman moderator and a real credit to her lady parts and all that - they cannot ignore she butted in on the side of one candidate and derailed a key moment of the debate. Precisely what the original debate rules on moderator conduct in town hall were supposed to stop. And worst, she was dead wrong.
They will not resist hashing over how Bob Scheiffer must avoid "doing a Candy"....and they will be forced to analyze the Libyan timeline.
3. With an upcoming debate, the Romney people will likely go out and demand a full discussion on what Obama actually said in the Rose Garden and later, who in the White House dispatched Susan Rice to lie.
I missed the Bengazhi portion, but saw and heard the energy policy portions. Romney cleaned up. This is Obama's Achille's heel.
Benghazi is a perfect topic to litigate, but Chubama's insane energy policy hurts everyone involved.
I think the problem is that Obama asserted he said a quote; where as Crowley inferred the meaning from what Obama said.
Unfortunately for Obama, the Romney ads won't feature Crowley. They'll focus on the Rose Garden speech versus Obama's words in the debate.
Bagoh continues to impress me. He sounds like a good person to work for, or with.
ALH said...
"Yankees finally die. Its like fatal attraction bathtub seen with them."
Technically, all the Yankees have to do is win the next four games...
It has been done before. (*cough* 2004 *cough*)
But, yeah... it's unlikely.
Inga, you argued today that the video was the cause of the attack.
What in the hell is wrong with you?
Do you even read what you write?
CNN - 46% Obama...39% Mittons
-- HIstory happens, not that conservatives notice-
BRB, I have to get my waders.
We point it out all the time, but lalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can't hear you cos THIS TIME it's gonna work!
I thought that Obama often presented topics as his intentions and feelings and avoided (with a couple of exceptions) talking about topics in terms of what he has done or is doing. It felt like "elect me because I want to help" and I kept thinking... but we *did* elect you.
But I don't expect that many people watching noticed that.
I think that Obama's "eat the rich" policy is wrong to the point of being evil and Romney is right about the necessity to promote, not punish, both big and small businesses because that's who create jobs.
But a great number of people like "eat the rich" and like the moral loftiness that imagines a world where someone hires you as a matter of righteousness instead of because they want to make money.
So I won't say for a moment that Romney *won* the debate. I sort of doubt that either of them changed anyone's opinions about anything at all.
JFK campaigned in an economy with a much higher top-marginal tax rate and much lower debt-GDP ratio. I am taking into account the way the present facts differ from those. HIstory happens, not that conservatives notice.
Oh...so corporate tax cuts and business-friendly policies are OK if the top marginal tax rate is higher? At a time when most small businesses claim as individuals?
Good one.
We point it out all the time, but lalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaa Can't hear you cos THIS TIME it's gonna work!
Show me any country that has thrived on socialism.
Shouting Thomas I had no idea you were such a believer in the power of Althouse.
I know how to locate the sites that count page hits.
Don't you?
Nerd, please!
" a little bit too much... by suggesting... and reinterpreting what a candidate was saying.
Overstepping her bounds a little bit."
"little bit...little bit"
Especially coming from Lem, this doesn't seem like much of an indictment. Is the "little bit" meant facetiously. Or, was Althouse's blaming the refs as lame as it seems.
Bag O' might be a good guy in a few ways or even in many ways. But he's dead wrong that what motivates him as an individual should be the template for overall economic policy. He's wrong to confuse microeconomics with macroeconomics. He's dead wrong to flirt with the currently vogue idea among his colleagues that anyone disagreeing with him is anti-work and wants hand-outs. ANd he's wrong to not see that our economy doesn't have to compete just with China's. It can compete with other advanced economies that produce high-end products with better skilled labor.
He is just too emotional to see why that is. It doesn't make him a bad guy, just an emotional one.
Show me any country that has thrived on socialism.
Sweden does pretty well, outside of the suicide rate.
But it would be really difficult to turn the United States into Sweden. Maybe Montana, but not the entire country.
Can't and what's even better is Zeropa is falling to pieces cos we're not undergirding them anymore.
Crying Tommy, I have said numerous times that the video was the cause of protests in over 20 countries and an outright breaching of 11 embassies. I have said that we do not know yet what caused the attack upon the consulate, as the investigation is NOT OVER, now go to hell.
Sweden doesn't do well. IF they're doing better now it's because they cut taxes.
Insty used to post a lot of articles about Sweden. Someone compared them to a state and it would have been in the bottom 5, LOLOLOL.
Sorry if this is a repeat ( I haven't read the gigantic thread), but I am furious at Candy Crowley for proving exactly why the debate commission was right to give her the coveted "potted plant" moderator spot. She deserved no more than that, and, IMHO. far less. So many women journalists would have refrained from the kind of cheerleading, obstructionism, and biased "fact-checking" in which she engaged. She was a disgrace.
Inga, you've contradicted yourself so many times that you really should be embarrassed to continue to appear on this site.
Tomorrow will be a fun day at Althouse.
Althouse will have a lot to say about the "terror" issue.
And, it will reverberate out into the legacy media. Obama really stepped in it big time. His attempt to defuse this issue just blew up in his face.
On 9/11, how convenient.
Watching Candy on CNN...
Candy looks like she went to the salon for the first time in a long time... Why did Candy put on makeup and did her hair?
Isnt that a feminist impeachable offense?
Ritmo-
I see what you're saying, but I don't understand what your fix/solution is.
Are you an isolationist? A Keynesian? A European Socialist?
Shout (DT): "The take-away from this debate will be Obama's assertion" I hope your right about the press. I don't think the althouse connection will mean anything tho.
Oh go kiss Althouses ass some more Crying Tommy.
Until recently, I thought Obama had this election sewn up.
I'm beginning to be persuaded that Romney can win.
The Benghazi lies will continue to eat away at Obama. You can count on that.
Crying Tommy, I have said numerous times that the video was the cause of protests in over 20 countries and an outright breaching of 11 embassies. I have said that we do not know yet what caused the attack upon the consulate, as the investigation is NOT OVER, now go to hell.
Wow. This is the internet. We have links, you know.
@Inga: ST makes you an honest woman.
CNN is "fact checking" the Rose Garden statement.
Just leave it Ritmo, you are having an Obama night with all the straw men, and reaching. You don't understand this stuff. You've never been in the trenches fighting to make a business work. You don't know business here or overseas. Come on, fess up you sockpuppet. How's Michelle and the kids?
We have links, you know.
Yes, what does Instapundit say?
Nyuck nyuck nyuck.
For what Inga had rather were true she more readily believes.
You are only as bad as Francis Bacon who was no slouch.
Yeah, Ritmo, you're a really caring, compassionate guy. That's obvious from your posts.
Like I said, a psuedo-intellectual clownfart.
CNN is "fact checking" the Rose Garden statement.
That' great, but the Rose Garden statement isn't the issue.
I like Althouse. I disagree with her quite often.
But, I've been extremely impressed with her grasp of the power of the New Media.
I've been in the New Media biz since it began. That's where I work as a programmer and multimedia developer. I respect the work of a pro when I see it.
Althouse is blazing new ground here. I'm not just talking about opinions. She knows how to use this medium to maximum effect. The legacy media has no idea how to deal with her use of the New Media.
Watch what happens tomorrow. I'm going to go to bed and look forward to the next episode.
I predict that it will not turn out well for Obama.
I have a binder full of women here at my house.
Anyone wanna look?
Chickelit, you're a silly little chicken, really. I am a supremely confidant person, what you have to say to me about myself, truly means nothing, you seem to keep thinking it does.
Yes, what does Instapundit say?
Nyuck nyuck nyuck.
There's great markdowns on Inga's previous comments at Amazon!
"That' great, but the Rose Garden statement isn't the issue."
Agreed, but it will make an impression that Crowley had to walk back her defense of Obama.
Inga tries: Chickelit, you're a silly little chicken, really. I am a supremely confidant person, what you have to say to me about myself, truly means nothing, you seem to keep thinking it does.
Haha!
@Inga: All I can say is "people talk"
I have a binder full of women here at my house.
Romney said that there were more women in his governorship than any other in the nation..
Put that in your binder pipe and smoke it.
Chickelit, all I can say is.... Yenta.
"They have been playing Crowley's corretion of Mitten for the past hour."
On MSNBc, no doubt. Lynn the Talking Vag's Most Trusted News SourceQ
Synova said....I think that Obama's "eat the rich" policy is wrong to the point of being evil
This is SO true. I keep wanting to ask the liberals, "what do you think will happen to the poor and the elderly when ou've destroyed our economy? We're $16 trillon in debt and adding over $1 trillion to that annually now. The rich don't have enough money to cover that off. And high taxation will run off the most productive. They'll either power down, or run off to another country.
Now we're printing money, which generally leads to inflation - which hurts the poor most (and makes more people poor).
Please explain to me how it is that your big spending / big taxation ideas are so compassionate? What do you think will happen to the people when the money runs aout and the riots start over here?"
Romney said that there were more women in his governorship than any other in the nation..
BILL CLINTON CALL YOUR OFFICE!
BagOh-
Stop being such a prick- acting like you know more about the economy and job creation than the rest of us just because you employ people and make things and pay for peoples healthcare.
That stupid "women make less money for the same work" thing is my basic test for female brain activity... or lack of it.
Seriously girls, that is soooo 1980s.
Way back when we still tried to convince the guys that we wanted to be appreciated for our brains.
Women dont like the up close back and forth of the two men.
CNN snap poll gives it to Obama by 7 points. So in the real world, that's Romney by 5. Obama had to win no matter what. But follow up this week will kill him.
Based on what Lem said, and what Althouse said, and what I read on Sully, I can summarize the whole thing:
Candy is not in Romney's binder.
Full stop.
That stupid "women make less money for the same work" thing is my basic test for female brain activity... or lack of it.
I thought it was still about 78 cents on the dollar. Are they supposed to not care about that because "it's so 80's?"
Obama had a chance to clear up Benghazi and all he did imo was to repeat the lies.
ALH,
I don't really know more than most people on the subject, it's all really basic, but Ritmo/Obama are out on that broken chip missing from the bell curve on this subject.
phx said...
@LilyBart Good one. Classy
That Crowley woman has EARNED my contempt. She inserted herself into this debate inexcusably. And it can't be undone.
She did the people, and her profession, an injustice.
I'm glad she's not.
Obama won the debate but, on every question on substance, the people polled like Romney better.
WTF polls.
"I thought it was still about 78 cents on the dollar."
You thought wrong.
Inga/Allie/Whatever name that bloated post menopausal cow is calling herself these days bleated:
I am a supremely ignorant person, what you have to say to me about myself, truly means nothing, you seem to keep thinking it does.
Fixed that typo for you, you are welcome.
I thought it was still about 78 cents on the dollar. Are they supposed to not care about that because "it's so 80's?"
Because its been largely debunked. But old narratives die hard. Especially when people find themm politically useful.
Does anyone have any use for the truth anymore?
Inga called me "Yenta"
That's what you call Palladian! I'm flattered!
The women underpaid thing was embarrassing. Women make that statistic by choice. You want the choice to work less or not. That part of the debate was insulting to any woman worth her ovaries. There is nothing preventing a woman from making as much as she is willing to work for. The highest paid person in my company is a woman, no college, well into the 6 figures.
Phx:
Ask your very own Department of Labor
@phx "I thought it was still about 78 cents on the dollar."
You thought wrong. The entire comparison is completely wrong and has been debunked a million times already. Not knowing that flags you as economically ignorant, so much so that you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
About a half hour ago, Hannity reported that Crowley admitted she was wrong about her recollection of the 'terror' statement.
Why don't you and your friends try to stay on the subject of this thread Chickelit? I know your guy lost, quit trying to deflect from that sad fact.
So...
The final take on the debates so far...
Romney is going to be our next president.
I can support that.
Bengazi - still so many questions. But what 'word' he used in a quick, political speech he gave before heading out to Vegas on a fund-raising trip is not really one of them.
(and if he called it 'terror' in the Rose Garden, he certainly undercut himself when he made a trip to the UN to talk about the Youtube video and American Free Speech rights)
"I thought it was still about 78 cents on the dollar."
The thing is that it's really not 78 cents on the dollar if other factors are controlled for, such as hours worked and interruptions in employment or that sort of thing.
The last I heard was that if the data was corrected for women with children, childless women made what men make across the board.
But it's still trotted out there as though there is systematic discrimination against women in the workplace. There maybe a systematic disadvantage but it's not caused by "glass ceilings" or some notion that women aren't as good as men at their jobs.
If a woman is less willing to travel or relocate or work extra hours or odd hours or takes off maternity leave... she might make less money, and that may suck, but it's not equal *work*. Is it.
" well into the 6 figures."
Nobody thinks that makes you rich.
Where have you been.
The debate is on the top one or three percent.
Sheesh.
P.S.
Does this so-called well off employee live in a nice place in Santa Monica (or anywhere I'd want to live)? /rhetorical question
I think the debate tonight was exactly like the Packers-Seahawks game from two weeks ago. Mitt was the Packers and Obama the Seahawks.
At the end of the hard fought debate, Mitt intercepted the ball in the end zone for the win with the Libya discussion and Candy Crowley the ref ran over and immediately signaled TOUCHDOWN OBAMA!
Seeing Red said...
CubanBob - I think it was Ritmo who brought up Germany, I just pointed out the kids don't get a CHOICE!
There's that word again, CHOICE!
The State will decide what you should do.
Uh huh.
10/16/12 10:50 PM
But Obamacare isn't a choice? Being compelled to pay other people's child support is a choice? Or other people's college educations is a choice? Or being compelled to pay for other people's Obama phones is a choice? Or abortions or birth control is a choice? Or being compelled to join a union in a closed shop is a choice? Congress had a choice about Obamacare, they chose to except themselves.
Do the kids get a choice about not getting stuck paying future taxes for Obama's current borrowing?
From Ace of Spades:
"CNN's focus group claimed they thought Obama "won." They had it something like 14 for Obama, 15 draw, 6 Romney.
But even that group said this-- on the question of "Who offers a better vision for the future?," Romney edged Obama 18-17.
Now that's very slim. I wouldn't read too much into that.
But consider: More people think Romney presents a better vision for the future -- the quickest possible shorthand for "who should be President?" -- and yet he didn't "win" the debate?
You always have to question what the criteria people are employing when you ask them who "won." I think people are rating the performance. And narrowly saying, on performance, it was a close thing, but edge to Obama.
But ask about who actually reached them on the most important issues, and it's Romney, all the way.
So they seem to be distinguishing between performance and substance.
Romney wins the substance, pretty clearly.
I'll take it. And give Obama his charity performance points."
Actually, I think Meade called it right before the debate started. Won't move the needle at all.
I could be wrong though. We'll know on Friday.
Terrorism is a premeditated event not a spontaneous reaction to a video. And an act of terrorism is to the same as terrorism, necessarily.
THe CIA defines terrorism this way:
Q: How do you define terrorism?
A: The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
Was the Obama administration stressing from the beginning that this was a premeditated event or a spontaneous one? Were his subordinates when they went before the media?
EMD said...
Show me any country that has thrived on socialism.
Sweden does pretty well, outside of the suicide rate.
But it would be really difficult to turn the United States into Sweden. Maybe Montana, but not the entire country.
10/16/12 10:57 PM
Their corporate tax rates are lower than ours and their personal income tax rates are less progressive than hours.They are slowly moving in the right direction-to the right while Zero and the new-comunist democrats want to push us further left. No doubt you want a heft VAT tax that hits everyone, rick, poor or middle class just like the Swedes and other Europeans.
" well into the 6 figures."
Nobody thinks that makes you rich.
Obama does. Making $200,000 puts you into the "millionaires and billionaires" category.
Show me any country that has thrived on socialism.
The United Federation of Planets?
Median disposable household income is $26,672 in the US and $19,736 in Sweden, so their system is not as prosperous as ours.
"The women underpaid thing was embarrassing. Women make that statistic by choice."
Of course, they do. I know women who have taken 5 years off to raise their children. You make that choice when you have to decide what is more important to you, raising kids or climbing the corporate ladder.
Romney, incidentally, missed a great opportunity to ask Obama why women in the WH make less than men:
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/11/war-obama-white-house-pays-women-less-men
Candy Crowley said Romney was essentially right but used the wrong word:
http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/
And she's the one who tried to throw the question Obama's way.
Sweden's socialism is backed by their oil resources.
AA I wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions and my pleasure at being able to provide a place where people can talk.
We thank you back. This bunch makes me think and gives me great laughs which I share with the unwashed masses of my immediate family.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Read up on some of JFK's speeches regarding business economics. You'll be shocked. And it will open your eyes to think that its only Romney who thinks this way.
It's not a question of "thinking a certain way". It's about understanding math and how different numbers apply to different situations. JFK campaigned in an economy with a much higher top-marginal tax rate and much lower debt-GDP ratio. I am taking into account the way the present facts differ from those. HIstory happens, not that conservatives notice.
10/16/12 10:46 PM
Obviously you haven't history either. When JFK was president the government's share of the economy was considerably smaller and taxes went to things tax payers benefited from, not then then equivalent of Obamaphones.
Their corporate tax rates are lower than ours and their personal income tax rates are less progressive than hours.They are slowly moving in the right direction-to the right while Zero and the new-comunist democrats want to push us further left. No doubt you want a heft VAT tax that hits everyone, rick, poor or middle class just like the Swedes and other Europeans.
I was kind of kidding about Sweden. ; )
Bag O', it's sad to see you resorting to more insults for the heckle of it with the country's future at stake. If you want to claim that I don't have experience in some unrelated if hands-on field that has nothing to do with macroeconomic policy, then fine. I'm sure you'd never get to the IMF either - and as comfortable there as a fish out of water. Carry on.
Original Mike said...
"That' great, but the Rose Garden statement isn't the issue."
"Agreed, but it will make an impression that Crowley had to walk back her defense of Obama."
==============
The larger issue is not "how many 'Heroes' could have been put in place to save an Ambassador recklessly leaving Tripoli for Benghazi despite his personal fears...And pinning blame who is responsible for staffing."
It is the coverup for political considerations to deny a major terrorist attack happened despite fully knowing it, and Obama's Rose Garden speech was part of that coverup.
Or if not a cover-up, the total incompetence of either the intelligence community or the Obamites. They didn't have a clue for 14 days that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video.
deborah said...
Sweden's socialism is backed by their oil resources.
10/16/12 11:31 PM
No it isn't. They don't have oil. You have them confused with Norway. But do tells us just how much you are willing to pay a 20% VAT tax on nearly everything to fund socialism on top of your income and other taxes and along with very expensive gas.
So... I'm a bit confused how Candy could possibly know that act of terror phrase was correct.... unless she knew in advance Obama intended to use that phrase and/or colluded. We need a FOIA request to see CNN and white house communications.
Utah...yeah I think Obama had the questions in advance. CNN knew them, so his team knew them.
Damn, cb, I knew I should have double-checked if it was Sweden or Norway. The rest of your question, I did not claim.
So... I'm a bit confused how Candy could possibly know that act of terror phrase was correct.... unless she knew in advance Obama intended to use that phrase and/or colluded. We need a FOIA request to see CNN and white house communications.
It was seared in her memory. Seared!
"Nobody thinks that makes you rich. "
Depends. When I made that, I thought I was rich. For a minority woman who speaks English as a second language, and has zero college education, it's pretty damned good. She earns it through hard work, integrity, intelligence and loyalty. She started out at minimum wage. We promote strictly on performance. She will inherit a large part of the company when I finally fly into a mountain someday.
From candy Crowley:
“Well, you know, again, I’d heard the president’s speech at the time,” Crowley said. “I sort of reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had said, you know, ‘These act of terror won’t stand,’ or whatever the whole quote was.”
“And I think actually, you know, because right after that I did turn around and say,‘But you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t,’” she continued. “So, he was right in the main — I just think he picked the wrong word. And they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/17/cnns-crowley-backtracks-romney-right-in-the-main-on-benghazi/#ixzz29WnYfE5R
If Obama supporters want to parse the phrasing to say their guy is right based on a technicality or an impresise word usage on Romneys part, that certainly is their prerogative.
But it doesn't change anything about Obama and co's response to the incident for two weeks. At least to people who aren't on obamas payroll or blind supporters. Or candy Crowley even.
I can't say who "won" tonight's show, but I do know who lost big--Inga/Allie/Oopsie.
He said it was terrorism! Nobody said anything about a video!
This must surely be a symptom of early-stage Alzheimer's.
"Bag O', it's sad to see you resorting to more insults for the heckle of it with the country's future at stake"
I want to thank you for taking care of the country for us. I for one, do appreciate your dedication. What are you doing exactly to help? Are you paying those higher taxes you support, or just paying as little as possible?
You sound like a great boss Bagoh, she's very lucky.
Hope the best guy for America wins this thing.
Steve Austin said...
"I think the debate tonight was exactly like the Packers-Seahawks game from two weeks ago. Mitt was the Packers and Obama the Seahawks.
At the end of the hard fought debate, Mitt intercepted the ball in the end zone for the win with the Libya discussion and Candy Crowley the ref ran over and immediately signaled TOUCHDOWN OBAMA! "
^^ You, sir, have won the comment thread.
That is all.
candy has already walked back her 'terrorist in the rose garden' defense to "romney was right in the main". well..remember the main in november.
I'm voting for and supporting people who make rational, non-self interested arguments to the American people. But you probably have contempt for the voting process anyway, so you're way above all that historical and national interest stuff. You are the nation. L'etat, c'est Bag.
Thanks, Inga. I try to be. My people are the most important thing to me. I owe everything I have to them, and I intend for them to get it.
You know what though, the government will tax my estate so heavily when I die, that it may not be possible for the employees to keep the company alive to support themselves, which is my wish. It changes all the time, but it could likely require them to come up with millions of dollars and pay it to the government just to stay in business.
They may have to close and liquidate the whole company and fire everyone just to pay the tax. It's a beautiful system the Democrats like to fight for. We don't want anybody getting too much without the government 3,000 miles away getting a big cut of it.
Vote wisely.
O ritmo wrote:
I'm voting for and supporting people who make rational, non-self interested arguments to the American people.
so wait, you're not voting for Obama?
And c,mon Obama is not making self interested remarks?
Bagoh,
As I recall you're somewhere around LA.
I used to spend winters in Santa Monica, so I sorta know the area. At least I know that it takes a lot of dough to live it up over there. Where does your highest paid employee live?
My only point is that being into six digits doesn't allow your staff to live in the nice parts of LA. (unless they're renting in one of the (commie) rent control places).
It is great that you've built (sans roads) a business that allows folks to put food on the table. But, the truth is that your folks aren't living the high life. Some may even be financially stressed or struggling.
--I'm voting for and supporting people who make rational, non-self interested arguments to the American people.--
So you don't by the dem line of "you're not voting for your own self-interest?"
Ritmo, you're a smart guy. Come on, open your mind. Centralized control of economies has been more disproven than a flat earth, and at devastating economic and human cost, just in the last century. Even the damned Chinese have accepted it. The more centralized the more devastating, and the quicker it fails.
There is nothing caring or logical about expecting a light version of that to lead to long term prosperity. It has about a 70 year lifespan at best. USSR, China, and now Europe is up to the 60 year mark and failing. It may not even make it to 70.
L'etat, c'est Bag.
Ritmo supports subsidies for Fendi's?
JFK was pre-medicare & pre- war on poverty.
Bagoh,
BTW, I know folks who are much richer than you are (i.e. many hundreds of millions), and they've found ways to pass on their dough and corporations outside of the estate tax.
Are you sure that you're being properly advised?
Just sayin'
PBand J,
Your absolutely right, it is far too expensive to live here, but we have been here and on the west side of LA for 3 decades now. High rent, very high taxes, and strangling regulation. I want to move the whole company out of California, because my employees would instantly double their standard of living. Mostly it's housing that's too high, but California also taxes middle income people more than any other state.
The problem is my people don't want to move. The weather is incredibly addictive, and most have extended family here. I have been exploring moving to Nevada, which would save us close to $1 million in rent and taxes alone, and all my people could afford to buy houses there, when they can't here. I have the company for the benefit of the employees, so if they don't want to move, we will stay, but I haven't given up working on them. we have 3 more years on our lease for now.
"Are you sure that you're being properly advised?"
I have worked it with a couple different lawyers, and they have not shown me a way yet that works well. There is always an expensive trade off. I'm still researching it. If anybody knows how, let me know.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Shouting proves his single-issue voter creds. Resolved: Today is 1979. We need Reagan. Thirty two years of history really didn't happen.
=============
Ah, you democrats do the same overreverance to past leaders like FDR, JFK, and Saint Martin Luther King.
It took 40 years to shed 'do as dead FDR' did, 30 years to pop the dream that never was of Camelot, and the Cult of MLK is still going strong.
So Republicans have at least 30 years to revere Ronny and his voodoo economics and getting too much credit for ending the Cold War.
Althouse, I apologize for my commenting getting off topic, it just kinda happened. It is related, kinda.
But we did learn that the president said "terror" the very next day. But then he stopped because of the big investigation. Perhaps it has wrapped itself around the double super secret grand jury investigation of Walker. But it is an investigation and so better shut up about "terror" or, worse, "terrorism". Until we have all the facts.
So. On "The View", the show with all the smart women, he is asked directly about "terrorism" by the really smart one and he......demurs. Investigation. The smart women are silenced. Holy shit, we have scooped a story. An investigation is under way.
Later, in front of the United Nations, the very group he will lead in a few years, he does not use the word "terrorism" but he does talk about an ugly movie, a snuff movie of a sort. He talks quite a lot about it.
So that settles it, right?
Our President will lie to your face. Before we have even "gotten to the bottom of it."
Roberto said...
Anybody who thinks the consulate whining will have any real effect has their head up their ass.
It's a game changer.
Romney dominated the debate.
He's going to be our next president.
By a landslide.
Get used to the idea.
Somehow the debater in chief will weasel out of the last debate.
just realized part of definition of terror act is that it be against civilians is that technical wording in law mean that Fort Hood as a military base and Bengahzi where most were CIA mean that it cannot be technically an act of terror as the State Dept allowed the consulate to be used by CIA words have meaning
Bottom line:
Indies/undies went big for the Romster.
Zero and the Hildabeast and Hoss gotta lotta 'splainin' to do the rest of the week.
I'd call that a win.
Ritmo: --I'm voting for and supporting people who make rational, non-self interested arguments to the American people.--
Arguments are not self-interested,
though arguers may be.
If the -argument- is rational,
that's good enough for me.
(That almost scans :)
But it would be really difficult to turn the United States into Sweden. Maybe Montana, but not the entire country.
Think that Montana is a bad choice there. Currently living there, and Jon Tester is lying through his teeth to get reelected, and he and his supporters are running what seem to be half the ads on TV trying to change the debate from his support of Obama.
Still a lot of self-reliance here, and a lot of extractive industries, despite the Obama Administration and the environmental wackos killing the timber industry - with the totally expected result that forest fires continue to cause more and more damage, as the fuel builds up in the National Forests as a result. It is hard to get the big pine trees to burn, but when they do, they are just as hard to stop.
One indicia here is gun ownership, and, yes, I think that it correlates fairly well, at least out of the inner cities, with self-reliance. As they say, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. In much of the west, including Montana, it isn't single minutes, but maybe half an hour or more. So, you see some open carry, and pretty much everyone has at least one gun around the house, and even liberal college town Missoula seems to have come around to the necessity of hunting the noble wolf again.
Let me suggest that if you want to get Scandinavian socialism to work in this country, you need a large proportion of Scandinavians in the population. Minnesota maybe?
Dont think this debate changed many minds--I thought the CNN poll of undecided voters who called it for Romney was telling--undecideds are breaking for Romney.
IMO Obama managed to hold on to his base, but I dont think that will be enough.
The town hall format is an abomination and should not be allowed to continue. And Ms Cowley should not be allowed within 100 feet of a microphone. She was classless.
I just now looked in on this and don't feel like wading through 5 pages of comments, so apologies if someone's already covered this.
And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.
Set aside that, as Romney noted, automatic weapons are already for all practical purposes illegal. How many of you really want a federal government that can "catch violent impulses before they occur"? Good luck holding an Occupy Wall Street protest or union rally if the threshold for federal intervention is going to be preventing violent impulses.
Well, missed another debate.
Damn, and I love listening to those guys.
I did hear that, after Crowley's performance, Sean Hannity will be moderating the final debate to even things out.
I can't believe an event of such artifice and so little substance or relation to reality can have excited so much impassioned commentary!
It was the political version of pro wrasslin', as little deserving of serious regard.
Kathyb said...
just realized part of definition of terror act is that it be against civilians is that technical wording in law mean that Fort Hood as a military base and Bengahzi where most were CIA mean that it cannot be technically an act of terror as the State Dept allowed the consulate to be used by CIA words have meaning
None the less people who should not be dead, are dead. So the definition in law is rather absurd at this point.
Robert Cook said...
I can't believe an event of such artifice and so little substance or relation to reality can have excited so much impassioned commentary!
It was the political version of pro wrasslin', as little deserving of serious regard.
The irony.
It is to chuckle.
The content based on about more question and answer topic. The increase of gas price is creating very critical situation for every people all over world which has mentioned here and questioned to Obama how oil drilling on federal lands has been reduced in the period of Obama.
conveyors and equipment
What irony is that, Rusty?
Inga said...
Candy Crowly has an amazing memory, good for her, she should've let Romney keep making a fool of himself though.
Please keep inhaling the pharmaceutical grade goodies you have access too, you delusional pig. Really? Crowly has an amazing memory? Of what? Of filling in the blanks of the lies that Urkel told. Burger King should sue Urkel for infringing on their Whopper trademark.
Robert Cook said...
I can't believe an event of such artifice and so little substance or relation to reality
Good times. Good times.
Rusty, I must come to the conclusion you were not posting in good faith, and with a lack of sincerity, as you still have not told me what irony you're referring to.
I'm disappointed in you, Russ....
Post a Comment