Debate analysis

by JnC4GB Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:59 pm

If any of you folks watched the debate tonight I'm wondering if you had the same takeaway that I did.

That being, it totally reminded me of a football game where one team is sitting, boringly, on their lead by using the agonizing-for-fans but strategically wise prevent defense, and the other team is in a frantic no-huddle offense, energetic and focused as never before completing pass after pass as the clock goes tick...tick...tick.

The President was playing safe with the lead and it showed. The challenger was fighting for his fucking life and it showed.

Just my takeaway. Thoughts?

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:51 am

JnC4GB wrote:If any of you folks watched the debate tonight I'm wondering if you had the same takeaway that I did.

That being, it totally reminded me of a football game where one team is sitting, boringly, on their lead by using the agonizing-for-fans but strategically wise prevent defense, and the other team is in a frantic no-huddle offense, energetic and focused as never before completing pass after pass as the clock goes tick...tick...tick.

The President was playing safe with the lead and it showed. The challenger was fighting for his fucking life and it showed.

Just my takeaway. Thoughts?

Strategically, in contrast to Obama--Romney has always had the advantage in being able to run on a record of success... His background is littered with it. Where Romney has been challenged in his campaign before tonite is adequately delivering that message of success--as he largely has been on the defensive the whole campaign fighting the liberal media machine in their effort to make Romney look like some sort of enemy as a result of his success. Tonight, the stench of all that bullshit propaganda was missing--as it was for the first time just the two men standing there--all alone...one-on-one...naked in the skin of their own record of success or failure...

The talking heads all rushed to declare Romney the surprise winner... Given the layout of the battlefield in this contest overall--within the confines of a naked forum such as a debate...there was no surprise here. It's difficult to win a battle when you suffer from little stockpile of personal ammo...and all your big, bad comrades in arms are forced to sit the battles in this forum out...

The more direct facetime you see with Romney and Obama together--the more Romney will surge in the polls...despite his fucked-over little geeky, howdy-doody smile after everything he says that makes me wonder every time if Buffalo Bob has just gone yard delivering the fist. Bank it, bitchezzzz... Cool

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by duck Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:56 am

As you all know, I seldom comment on our silly political events. But I do watch them.

Romney was the decisive winner tonight. It was a weird debate. I expected Obama with his formidable verbal skills to dominate but, as JnC pointed out, he seemed content to "sit on his lead" whereas Romney was far more dynamic and energetic. Shockingly, Obama didn't even play any of his obvious cards, such as Romney's 47% blunder. I get the feeling his strategy was to let Romney hang himself by coming across as a snake oil salesman... but it failed.

In terms of facts, they're both lying cheating sacks of shit and spin and obfuscate as it suits their purpose, so in this regard neither had a measurable advantage over the other. However, Romney's presence was far more compelling than Obama's. He was clear, focussed and on point. In contrast, the President was detached, rambling and professorial.

These debates always initially favor the challenger because he gets a bump in status merely by being on the same stage with the incumbent. Sometimes viewers are shocked at how the challenger can appear more "presidential", as evidenced by how Kerry exuded a leadership vibe much more so than Bush.

I expect to see some major adjustments in presentation by the Obama camp in the next debate. It will be interesting to watch.

And of course, it's important to note that these guys aren't trying to score points with their own base. No point preaching to the choir. It's all about persuading undecided voters in swing states.

In that regard, it appears to me that Romney did the best job.

by JnC4GB Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:47 am

"the liberal media machine" ..."propaganda"..."comrades" ??

Jesus HD, I'd offer you some Kool-Aid but it's obvious you've had enough. Spot on about the creepy smile thing, though.

Duck, nice job. Objectivity is our friend Very Happy

For the most part, Romney did about as well as he could have. Aside from coming off at times as over-rehearsed, too tightly wrapped, and displaying his can't-shake demeanor of false sincerity, he CLEARLY won the debate on points.

Big picture though, the President came out okay. As I mentioned before, he's a man playing with a lead and nothing he did screwed the pootch on that score. A debate for an incumbant president is the very definition of a "lose-lose" situation. Minimizing damage is the only gameplan option, really. The perfomance strategy can be somewhat modified (and will be) in the 2nd and 3rd debates.

So, the right-wingers will get to crow some for the next couple of news cycles (and who can blame them after the shit sandwich the Romney campaign had been feeding them for the past two months), but as anyone who's actually studied these things knows, events of serious magnitude would have to occur for the race to be recast from its now obvious outcome. Being a scorecard winner in a debate with a sitting president alone won't make a crap's worth of difference in the end.
Don't believe me?
Ask Walter Mondale and John Kerry.
Two guys who in the debates repeatedly humiliated the sitting President --but who today have trophy cases that are identical to the Minnesota Viking's.

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:09 am

[quote="JnC4GB"]"the liberal media machine" ..."propaganda"..."comrades" ??

Jesus HD, I'd offer you some Kool-Aid but it's obvious you've had enough. Spot on about the creepy smile thing, though.

?? I know you'd prefer to deny it--but are you here to suggest that the media machine in this country isn't predominantly liberal? Good God, dude...pull your fingers from your ears and open your eyes... The bias they propagate is everywhere you look... In fact--you're a product of it...

Duck, nice job. Objectivity is our friend Very Happy

LOL! If Objectivity is your friend--you sure as shit have been on an extended trip with her (and clearly sleeping in separate beds) to visit some delusional fairy clown fucks in Adversaryland...

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:22 am

duck wrote:Romney was the decisive winner tonight. It was a weird debate. I expected Obama with his formidable verbal skills to dominate but, as JnC pointed out, he seemed content to "sit on his lead" whereas Romney was far more dynamic and energetic.

*Formidable verbal skills*? Neutral

Obama is clearly a bright man and certainly articulate--but get him away from the 'prompter and the spit-shined words of others...and he isn't quite the same...

Bill Clinton--that's someone who has formidable verbal skills...and the Obama campaign has been walking a tightrope from day 1 in trying to figure out how to leverage Bill Clinton to their advantage without putting the two anything close to side-by-side and thus drawing the stark contrast to how Obama pales in comparison... Besides--ya just gotta like the way the man seasons his cigars... Laughing

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:59 am

[quote="_HD_"]

JnC4GB wrote:"the liberal media machine" ..."propaganda"..."comrades" ??

Jesus HD, I'd offer you some Kool-Aid but it's obvious you've had enough. Spot on about the creepy smile thing, though.

?? I know you'd prefer to deny it--but are you here to suggest that the media machine in this country isn't predominantly liberal? Good God, dude...pull your fingers from your ears and open your eyes... The bias they propagate is everywhere you look... In fact--you're a product of it...

Duck, nice job. Objectivity is our friend

LOL! If Objectivity is your friend--you sure as shit have been on an extended trip with her (and clearly sleeping in separate beds) to visit some delusional fairy clown fucks in Adversaryland...

I've been thinking more about this adversarial relationship you have with Miss Objectivity, JnC...and I'm here to help score you back some magic... Very Happy

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:38 pm

JnC4GB wrote:"the liberal media machine" ..."propaganda"..."comrades" ??

Jesus HD, I'd offer you some Kool-Aid but it's obvious you've had enough. Spot on about the creepy smile thing, though.

Duck, nice job. Objectivity is our friend

For the most part, Romney did about as well as he could have. Aside from coming off at times as over-rehearsed, too tightly wrapped, and displaying his can't-shake demeanor of false sincerity, he CLEARLY won the debate on points.

Big picture though, the President came out okay. As I mentioned before, he's a man playing with a lead and nothing he did screwed the pootch on that score.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by KBen Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:40 pm

read this today, some food for thought so to speak

Remember, the
taxing power sets the value of a currency. In other words,
if the dollar is strong, it is because world money gurus believe that the
dollar will be able to bring in more tax revenue (proportionately) than
competing currencies.

When there is more taxing going on, the dollar strengthens which
means it takes fewer dollars to "buy the Dow" or an ounce of gold.
Thus, prices appear to come down. Conversely. if the
underlying taxing ability of the dollar weakens, then the value of the
dollar drops, so it takes more of them in order to "buy the Dow" or to buy
that ounce of gold. So, it appears prices go up.

Sometimes economic reality is hard to discern, particularly when the
republicorps spend an inordinate amount of time blaming the democorps for
inflation and that gets into people's heads. Clever, these
both-sides-of-mouth types in pollyticks (sic).

Seriously, this is how the people who comprise ThePowersThatBe really work.
For them, it is all a game, and in this case, the faction of PTB that has
been buying up gold and silver while the markets have languished sideways
have some easy money ahead if Romney wins.

The reason? Romney is their best bet to decrease planned tax
increases which, perhaps counter intuitively, would have been
deflationary since the purchasing power of dollars rises when
taxes go up. But, the purchasing power under Romney may be expected to
drop a good bit, because he would likely continue tax cuts if he
can.

Moreover, prospects of more democrats (higher taxes) in congress would tend
to increase the value of the dollar (relative to say, the Euro) and that
would make it seem like prices are being held in check.

So - for the astute observer - there's no need to watch the debates.
You only need is to read one or two headlines and look at the price of gold
to see who won. The market, later on today, will rally modestly but
really be saying the same thing: Romney won the first debate.

Still, if you want to wallow in the complexities of partisanship and buying
into this whole blood pressure-raising stuff called pollyticks, have fun.
But the reality is that Romney would cut taxes and maybe do something about
socialism's flip side to "forced-production" - which is what?
"Forced-consumption" of things like, oh, corporate marked-up healthcare.

It all sounds really good to the Romneyites - on the front end, but there's
hell to pay (inflation, soaring prices) on the back end. So while
there are plenty of good stories on how the debate went, like the
NationalJournal's

"Incumbent Debate Curse: Barack Obama Falls to Mitt Romney", you don't
need to spend the time.

If gold goes up, and drags the market along with it, Romney won. If
gold goes down, Obama's making headway. It's really that simple.
Value is relativistic but it's easy to be sucked in to prices go up when
money's value's going down. That's not a popular view on the web, but it's
what we roll with around here.

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:29 pm

KBen wrote:read this today, some food for thought so to speak

Remember, the
taxing power sets the value of a currency. In other words,
if the dollar is strong, it is because world money gurus believe that the
dollar will be able to bring in more tax revenue (proportionately) than
competing currencies.

When there is more taxing going on, the dollar strengthens which
means it takes fewer dollars to "buy the Dow" or an ounce of gold.
Thus, prices appear to come down. Conversely. if the
underlying taxing ability of the dollar weakens, then the value of the
dollar drops, so it takes more of them in order to "buy the Dow" or to buy
that ounce of gold. So, it appears prices go up.

Sometimes economic reality is hard to discern, particularly when the
republicorps spend an inordinate amount of time blaming the democorps for
inflation and that gets into people's heads. Clever, these
both-sides-of-mouth types in pollyticks (sic).

Seriously, this is how the people who comprise ThePowersThatBe really work.
For them, it is all a game, and in this case, the faction of PTB that has
been buying up gold and silver while the markets have languished sideways
have some easy money ahead if Romney wins.

The reason? Romney is their best bet to decrease planned tax
increases which, perhaps counter intuitively, would have been
deflationary since the purchasing power of dollars rises when
taxes go up. But, the purchasing power under Romney may be expected to
drop a good bit, because he would likely continue tax cuts if he
can.

Moreover, prospects of more democrats (higher taxes) in congress would tend
to increase the value of the dollar (relative to say, the Euro) and that
would make it seem like prices are being held in check.

So - for the astute observer - there's no need to watch the debates.
You only need is to read one or two headlines and look at the price of gold
to see who won. The market, later on today, will rally modestly but
really be saying the same thing: Romney won the first debate.

Still, if you want to wallow in the complexities of partisanship and buying
into this whole blood pressure-raising stuff called pollyticks, have fun.
But the reality is that Romney would cut taxes and maybe do something about
socialism's flip side to "forced-production" - which is what?
"Forced-consumption" of things like, oh, corporate marked-up healthcare.

It all sounds really good to the Romneyites - on the front end, but there's
hell to pay (inflation, soaring prices) on the back end. So while
there are plenty of good stories on how the debate went, like the
NationalJournal's

"Incumbent Debate Curse: Barack Obama Falls to Mitt Romney", you don't
need to spend the time.

If gold goes up, and drags the market along with it, Romney won. If
gold goes down, Obama's making headway. It's really that simple.
Value is relativistic but it's easy to be sucked in to prices go up when
money's value's going down. That's not a popular view on the web, but it's
what we roll with around here.

Here's the flaw in your author's ridiculously partisan thesis, Ben, that renders it a completely useless POS. His/her assumption is that when tax rates are increased--overall tax revenue being brought into the coffers necessarily follows. WRONG. Progressively higher taxes disincentify taking progressively greater risk and working progressively harder to become progressively more successful. Higher income tax rates--counterintuitively to most anyone who has never been faced with the upper boundries of the progressive income tax code--almost always results in decreased GDP...that means less economic vitality to tax. Your author's economic model on which he/she draws their conclusions is thus fatally flawed... As such--just another partisan hack blowing smoke from their ass out from under their ass hat in a topic they demonstrate ignorance... Wink

Remember the Jimmy Carter years? Mortage interest rates at 18+% so nobody could buy a home...rampant runaway inflation with historically alarming unemployment? Japan was kicking our ass--and there was very little pride anymore in being an american. Guess what? Tax rates were at an all-time high...

In fact--you know what Ronnie Reagan later cited as his primary reason for even running for Prez? He said he'd make one movie a year...and after that would turn down multitudes of great scripts, sit back and do nothing... Why? That second movie he could have made every year would push him into the 90% tax bracket. He said fuck it--why bother...and started to think about how many others were out there just like him--societies most successful...the people who create economic vitality--out there like him--just sitting on their hands... The first thing Reagan did was slash income tax rates--and guess what? The country went back to work. Tax revenues SKYROCKETED...and economic prosperity followed... This shit really isn't that difficult for those not poisoned by partisanship...

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:18 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Thank goodness....we didn't know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit," Obama said at a Denver rally today.

LOL! Beautiful... As the sitting President of the United States--it takes but a single debate with his challenger to go into full-scale little reactionary bitch... Love it! So predictable... This is no bastard liberal love child, my friends--but the real deal... Very Happy

by duck Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:50 pm

_HD_ wrote:
duck wrote:Romney was the decisive winner tonight. It was a weird debate. I expected Obama with his formidable verbal skills to dominate but, as JnC pointed out, he seemed content to "sit on his lead" whereas Romney was far more dynamic and energetic.

*Formidable verbal skills*? Obama is clearly a bright man and certainly articulate--but get him away from the 'prompter and the spit-shined words of others...and he isn't quite the same...

Bill Clinton--that's someone who has formidable verbal skills...and the Obama campaign has been walking a tightrope from day 1 in trying to figure out how to leverage Bill Clinton to their advantage without putting the two anything close to side-by-side and thus drawing the stark contrast to how Obama pales in comparison... Besides--ya just gotta like the way the man seasons his cigars...

No question Clinton is a smart cookie. Whether or not he is superior to Obama is debatable but also irrelevant in the sense that Obama has clearly demonstrated enough verbal ability to render his opponents underdogs in a debate.

I'm still a bit mystified at how thoroughly Romney thumped him. He didn't do it on content because as the Monday morning fact-checkers are showing, he's completely full of shit. However, so was Obama, so that's a push. Anytime you get two weasels mixing it up like this, they spin, lie, and distort with impunity. Each kept reframing questions into their own skewed perspectives. Bullshit followed by more bullshit. But, such is politics and that's why I'm nauseated by it.

Romney killed Obama on style points. He appeared more engaged and presidential. He gave quick tight and coherent answers, even if they were often lacking in substance. Obama seemed almost befuddled at times and he danced around so much you got bored and often forget what kind of point he was trying to make. It was almost as if Obama was depressed or on downers or something.

If Obama's game plan was to play it cool and just try to avoid a major gaffe, it backfired miserably. In doing so, the Dems neutralized what should have been a significant Obama advantage (his eloquence). That would be like the Packers building their game plan around Cedric Benson and letting Rodgers throw the ball 15 times in a game. Stupid.

Now, surely the Obama camp has realized its blunder and is already formulating a different approach to the subsequent debates. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:42 pm

No question Clinton is a smart cookie. Whether or not he is superior to Obama is debatable but also irrelevant in the sense that Obama has clearly demonstrated enough verbal ability to render his opponents underdogs in a debate.

I'm still a bit mystified at how thoroughly Romney thumped him.

That's because your whole perception of Obama is a carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie... Milli Vanilli at its best... Wink

As I've said--he's bright, but he isn't the exceptional intellect that he has been made out to be... Thank about it... Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting? Practically anybody can get up and lip synch to someone else's lyrics with a bunch of choreographed professional dancers behind them and look good with enough practice... The emperer had to perform in a forum with his clothes stripped from him last night--and the contrast between who he really is--and who he has always been made out to be was largely his undoing...

by JnC4GB Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:52 pm

"Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting?"

You mean extemporaneously, you carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie that isn't the exceptional intellect that you make yourself out to be.

clown

by Guest Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:30 pm

JnC4GB wrote:"Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting?"

You mean extemporaneously, you carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie that isn't the exceptional intellect that you make yourself out to be.

LMAO!! Very well done, my good man... Laughing

WTF? I guess trying to arrange for my daughter's birthday party today in addition to everything else did a cookie crisp on something in my feeble fucking brain... Excellante par excellence... Don't become used to it, bitch... Wink

by duck Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:48 pm

_HD_ wrote:No question Clinton is a smart cookie. Whether or not he is superior to Obama is debatable but also irrelevant in the sense that Obama has clearly demonstrated enough verbal ability to render his opponents underdogs in a debate.

I'm still a bit mystified at how thoroughly Romney thumped him.

That's because your whole perception of Obama is a carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie... Milli Vanilli at its best...

As I've said--he's bright, but he isn't the exceptional intellect that he has been made out to be... Thank about it... Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting? Practically anybody can get up and lip synch to someone else's lyrics with a bunch of choreographed professional dancers behind them and look good with enough practice... The emperer had to perform in a forum with his clothes stripped from him last night--and the contrast between who he really is--and who he has always been made out to be was largely his undoing...

Perhaps Obama is better at giving speeches than participating in debates. He certainly has delivered some captivating oratorical performances, even if they were largely fluff and cliches. Even from your negative viewpoint you have to admire a guy who could sell "hope and change" the way he did in 2008.

As a debater, the jury is still out. I thought he got the best of McCain, but Romney just nailed him in round one in 2012. The next two meetings between Obama and Romney will be very revealing. I honestly don't know what to expect because each candidate will make some changes to his game plan. Romney has proven to be quite formidable. If Obama also brings his A game, it should be a very competitive event.

by duck Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:52 pm

_HD_ wrote:
JnC4GB wrote:"Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting?"

You mean extemporaneously, you carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie that isn't the exceptional intellect that you make yourself out to be.

LMAO!! Very well done, my good man... WTF? I guess trying to arrange for my daughter's birthday party today in addition to everything else did a cookie crisp on something in my feeble fucking brain... Excellante par excellence... Don't become used to it, bitch...

Planning your daughter's birthday party? That gives you an automatic pass on my part.

As I recall, she must be at or near those teenage years, and something you need to learn, Dad (if you haven't already), is that teenage girls know everything.

My daughter turns 15 next month. She's a great kid and I love her dearly but, ai yi yi, her attitude can be unbearable at times. affraid

by Tiberius Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:42 am

[quote="_HD_"]

JnC4GB wrote:"the liberal media machine" ..."propaganda"..."comrades" ??

Jesus HD, I'd offer you some Kool-Aid but it's obvious you've had enough. Spot on about the creepy smile thing, though.

?? I know you'd prefer to deny it--but are you here to suggest that the media machine in this country isn't predominantly liberal? Good God, dude...pull your fingers from your ears and open your eyes... The bias they propagate is everywhere you look... In fact--you're a product of it...

Duck, nice job. Objectivity is our friend

LOL! If Objectivity is your friend--you sure as shit have been on an extended trip with her (and clearly sleeping in separate beds) to visit some delusional fairy clown fucks in Adversaryland...

[quote="_HD_"]

JnC4GB wrote:"the liberal media machine" ..."propaganda"..."comrades" ??

Jesus HD, I'd offer you some Kool-Aid but it's obvious you've had enough. Spot on about the creepy smile thing, though.

?? I know you'd prefer to deny it--but are you here to suggest that the media machine in this country isn't predominantly liberal? Good God, dude...pull your fingers from your ears and open your eyes... The bias they propagate is everywhere you look... In fact--you're a product of it...

Duck, nice job. Objectivity is our friend

LOL! If Objectivity is your friend--you sure as shit have been on an extended trip with her (and clearly sleeping in separate beds) to visit some delusional fairy clown fucks in Adversaryland...

Bet on it, he thinks both he and the blatantly biased and in the tank liberal media are completely objective, and he buys every word he hears from them, hook, line and sinker. I've seen a million of him in my lifetime. It's just no use, HD. Like many of these kids, he's obviously been indoctrinated into the leftist extremist way of thinking and reasoning, and like all naive extremists, he tunes into outlets featuring other extremists like him who are totally in the tank and who tell him exactly what he wants to hear to keep the alternate reality alive in his mind. Rachel Maddow could be running against Romney and he'd be telling you how much more qualified and smarter she is than Romney. I just about had a coronary from laughing as I heard Chris Matthews going off the rails at Obama after the debate and telling him how he (Obama) needs to be like him (Matthews) and the rest of that rational, reasonable, truthful and objective (LOL) MSNBC team in going after Romney. They are so objective that the veins were nearly popping in the mortified Matthews' head as he watched his Dear Leader and leg thrill provider tank in front of the nation without his teleprompter and his fawning media, always there to bail him out, ask him those tough questions like the ladies of The View do, and excuse or flat out ignore his endless lies and screwups. "Milli Vanilli" is exactly what this "president" is. An empty suit and an unqualified fraud, propped up by the fawning leftist media from day one.

Unfortunately for him they are unable to do a thing on a live debate stage where he's on his own and will actually be challenged to actually perform without a net, which he's had (a net) for the vast majority of his presidency and both of his campaigns. If Romney wins round two it wouldn't shock me for a second if MSNBC installed a ten second tape delay so they can censor any parts in round three where Romney lands a blow. Most of the media in all forms is in the tank for Obama, but MSNBC is the gold standard on TV for over the top nasty extremist leftist bias and stupidity. The truly comical thing is that they actually believe they are objective, and even funnier that they believe they represent regular everyday, objective, rational and intelligent America. Like Hollywood, they live in an alternate reality in their minds. A leftist make believe bubble where they are completely insulated and isolated from the real world.

In round two, Obama will be in aggressive attack mode, which in his case means I predict going into his cocky and arrogant act with his smug demeanor and his Reverend-like campaign dialect. He'll also be tossing out every nasty unproven/false accusation the country has been hearing in all of his campaign ads. Romney has drawn blood, Obama knows it, and Obama has taken a beating from his sycophants in the media who watched the first debate in horror. Unfortunately for him, Romney has more than enough ammunition to counter anything he has. Anybody running against Obama has a garage full of ammunition to counter anything he has, and if he goes too far over the top with the unproven nasty accusations and gets too obnoxious in attacking Romney, he's going to open a whole new can of worms. Contrary to the idiotic dolts at MSNBC, the country does not want to see Obama acting like the idiotic dolts at MSNBC. The minute he starts that, he'll be down 0-2.

The only reason Obama's approval rating isn't around 30% is because that steadfast leftist media is so in the tank for him. They simply will not report honestly and accurately. And he knows it. It's grown to dangerous levels over the last decade or so, and it's hurting the country and the democratic process of the country.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by duck Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:15 am

Uh, you really voted for the Democratic candidates in some elections, Tiberius???

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:27 am

DENVER—President Barack Obama, stung by bad reviews in his first debate of the 2012 White House race, joked Thursday that the "very spirited fellow" onstage with him was "not the real Mitt Romney." Obama also mocked the former Massachusetts governor's pledge to cut government subsidies for PBS as "finally getting tough on Big Bird."

Jeezus... I'm honestly embarrassed as an american to be represented as President by someone this fucking nutless... Very Happy

by Tiberius Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:31 am

duck wrote:Uh, you really voted for the Democratic candidates in some elections, Tiberius???

Yes. As I've said, I've voted for a lot of Democrats, but never again a media-hyped unqualified and corrupt, extremely divisive Chicago hardball leftist/collectivist with a chip on his shoulder about America and those who have prospored here. The only people missing from this administration are Al Capone and Frank Nitti.

by Tiberius Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:39 am

_HD_ wrote:DENVER—President Barack Obama, stung by bad reviews in his first debate of the 2012 White House race, joked Thursday that the "very spirited fellow" onstage with him was "not the real Mitt Romney." Obama also mocked the former Massachusetts governor's pledge to cut government subsidies for PBS as "finally getting tough on Big Bird."

Jeezus... I'm honestly embarrassed as an american to be represented as President by someone this fucking nutless...

Mitt Romney: And you are the same Barack Obama who ran in 2008? You have governed as the same man you campaigned as? Your present campaign is the same as four years ago? You've done and haven't done the things you campaigned on doing and not doing?

Adv, Romney. Again.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:14 pm

[quote="duck"]

_HD_ wrote:No question Clinton is a smart cookie. Whether or not he is superior to Obama is debatable but also irrelevant in the sense that Obama has clearly demonstrated enough verbal ability to render his opponents underdogs in a debate.

I'm still a bit mystified at how thoroughly Romney thumped him.

That's because your whole perception of Obama is a carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie... Milli Vanilli at its best...

As I've said--he's bright, but he isn't the exceptional intellect that he has been made out to be... Thank about it... Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting? Practically anybody can get up and lip synch to someone else's lyrics with a bunch of choreographed professional dancers behind them and look good with enough practice... The emperer had to perform in a forum with his clothes stripped from him last night--and the contrast between who he really is--and who he has always been made out to be was largely his undoing...

Perhaps Obama is better at giving speeches than participating in debates. He certainly has delivered some captivating oratorical performances, even if they were largely fluff and cliches. Even from your negative viewpoint you have to admire a guy who could sell "hope and change" the way he did in 2008.

Yes Duck... The situation was tailor made for him--for, since he had no experience or track record to sell whatsoever--all he offered was hope, and hope he sold well... Coming off the what I would consider to be the failure of the Bush presidency--he was the right man at the right time to appeal to the prevailing interest in the electorate's desire for change... Unlike Tiberius, however--despite my disappointment in Bush--I was not persuaded that Obama had anything close to the necessary experience for his presidency to be anything beyond a very high stakes training ground for him to make his mistakes and learn how to run anything. This isn't the minor leagues...and you don't go from the mailroom to CEO without paying the price in-between that delivers the wisdom to carry the role...

Once elected, however--I was willing to give him a chance. He seemed well-meaning...and if his heart was in the right place--than maybe that could help serve to carry his lightweight little ass in the direction he needed to go. Obviously, with four years of performance to assess--he has failed... Nothing but a garden-variety partisan political hack serving the special interests he is beholden to.

He has failed. Time to go--and give someone else an opportunity...

by duck Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:18 pm

[quote="_HD_"]

duck wrote:
_HD_ wrote:No question Clinton is a smart cookie. Whether or not he is superior to Obama is debatable but also irrelevant in the sense that Obama has clearly demonstrated enough verbal ability to render his opponents underdogs in a debate.

I'm still a bit mystified at how thoroughly Romney thumped him.

That's because your whole perception of Obama is a carefully cultivated and ridiculously processed lie... Milli Vanilli at its best...

As I've said--he's bright, but he isn't the exceptional intellect that he has been made out to be... Thank about it... Beyond this debate--how often do you ever see the man speaking contemporaneously in an adversarial setting? Practically anybody can get up and lip synch to someone else's lyrics with a bunch of choreographed professional dancers behind them and look good with enough practice... The emperer had to perform in a forum with his clothes stripped from him last night--and the contrast between who he really is--and who he has always been made out to be was largely his undoing...

Perhaps Obama is better at giving speeches than participating in debates. He certainly has delivered some captivating oratorical performances, even if they were largely fluff and cliches. Even from your negative viewpoint you have to admire a guy who could sell "hope and change" the way he did in 2008.

Yes Duck... The situation was tailor made for him--for, since he had no experience or track record to sell whatsoever--all he offered was hope, and hope he sold well... Coming off the what I would consider to be the failure of the Bush presidency--he was the right man at the right time to appeal to the prevailing interest in the electorate's desire for change... Unlike Tiberius, however--despite my disappointment in Bush--I was not persuaded that Obama had anything close to the necessary experience for his presidency to be anything beyond a very high stakes training ground for him to make his mistakes and learn how to run anything. This isn't the minor leagues...and you don't go from the mailroom to CEO without paying the price in-between that delivers the wisdom to carry the role...

Once elected, however--I was willing to give him a chance. He seemed well-meaning...and if his heart was in the right place--than maybe that could help serve to carry his lightweight little ass in the direction he needed to go. Obviously, with four years of performance to assess--he has failed... Nothing but a garden-variety partisan political hack serving the special interests he is beholden to.

He has failed. Time to go--and give someone else an opportunity...

Bush was a disaster. Obama is a disaster. Romney would be a disaster. Each and every one of them is in bed with their own special interest groups. Our problem is systemic and impossible to rectify with either Tweedledee or Tweedledum.

Thank God for escapism, in particular beer and football.

by JnC4GB Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:01 pm

On that note Duck, here ya go (you can thank me later8) )

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Sponsored content

Debate analysis

Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis

Re: Debate analysis