Moderator needs buttons to kill their mikes. Both of them are deliberately running over even when told to shut up. :mad:
One thing about Romney is he is a much smoother talker
Moderator needs buttons to kill their mikes. Both of them are deliberately running over even when told to shut up. :mad:
I was thinking more along the lines of shock collars.
I'm listening to it on radio, kind of wish I watching it on TV.
Oh boy a gun question.....
Romney against automatic weapons!
Dufas! :facepalm:
The assault weapon question, neither side had a good answer
She hasn't been as bad as I expected truth be told. So far ;)
Neither one really rose above the level of background noise for me, so I'm calling it a tie.
[Sexist Pig]Why is a woman named Candy moderating a debate instead of swinging around a stripper pole?[/Sexist Pig]
The blatant lie she told to support Obama's naked lie on Benghazi was the single most egregious debate moment I've ever witnessed. Not only did she take sides, she lied to support her preferred candidate.
[Sexist Pig]Why is a woman named Candy moderating a debate instead of swinging around a stripper pole?[/Sexist Pig]
I had an idea that Candy wouldn't be the best moderator.
Insert Quote
I'd like to see someone like Neal Boortz
You have actually seen the woman in question haven't you?
The blatant lie she told to support Obama's naked lie on Benghazi was the single most egregious debate moment I've ever witnessed. Not only did she take sides, she lied to support her preferred candidate.
The blatant lie she told to support Obama's naked lie on Benghazi was the single most egregious debate moment I've ever witnessed. Not only did she take sides, she lied to support her preferred candidate.
i guess i missed that part, what did she say?
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.]
Candy did a nice pivot to protect Obama when Fast and Furious came up...
He (OBAMA) never really answered the Fast and Furious question, why does he need a executive order to hide the facts regarding the investigation of his pal Eric Holder giving guns to Mexican drug cartels???
He (OBAMA) never really answered the Fast and Furious question, why does he need a executive order to hide the facts regarding the investigation of his pal Eric Holder giving guns to Mexican drug cartels???
[Sexist Pig]Why is a woman named Candy moderating a debate instead of swinging around a stripper pole?[/Sexist Pig]
I'm sick of debates moderated by journalists. We should hire boxing referees. At least they know how to read a watch.
[Sexist Pig]Why is a woman named Candy moderating a debate instead of swinging around a stripper pole?[/Sexist Pig]
. . . I'm sick of debates moderated byFIFYjournalists. Democrat partisan hacks . . .
Romney wasn't as firmly "pro gun" as I would have liked, but does anyone else think that Obama's support for a renewed AWB will cost him votes in flyover country?Agreed there.
Its Bush's Fault 1111!!!!
does anyone else think that Obama's support for a renewed AWB will cost him votes in flyover country?
I watch the debates using xbox-live. So there is no running commentary from the fat heads, just straight up live stream.
I know it's RT, but there is a lot of truth packed into this segment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZJwcDbIkXw
Yeah, I'm not sure where Romney is going to go with the Syria criticism. We do not need to get deeply involved in Syria.I have gotten that way on Afghan also. If all we are doing now is nation building, I think it is not worth the effort or toll on our miliary forces. We need to retain the will and desire to use our military to kick butt when needed. If we constantly bleed our military in minor or meaningless efforts, we will either not have them when we need them or not be willing to use them when we should.
I think the folks here have changed my mind on Afghan, either get Sherman or Sheridan style on Taliban areas or get out. I don't think we have the stomach for it, so get out.
This. In particular, the bit about the Green Party candidate getting arrested outside the venue.
I'm not going to vote for her or Gary Johnson or Romney or Obama... but the minor party candidates might actually invigorate conversation in a direction away from perpetual war.
I watched John Stewart the other day and he was making fun of both candidates and the constant search for a new Middle East war.
Seems EVERYONE in America scorns Mordor on the Potomac for its warmongering and has zero trust towards the latest impending zOMGnukezors reports.
May the better liberal win.
Romney is liberal the way W. was liberal on matters like education and immigration, both of which are critical for our national future.
But, again, a Romney victory buys us time, an opportunity to get involved and militant.
A Romney victory would mean that Obama would not be president for another four years.
In reality, that's ALL I need to know.
May the better liberal win.
Romney is liberal the way W. was liberal on matters like education and immigration, both of which are critical for our national future.
But, again, a Romney victory buys us time, an opportunity to get involved and militant.
1) The bill I signed in Massachusetts was not an assault weapons ban. It was a bill that corrected some problems with existing legislation, and which had been reviewed by people on both sides of the issue. It didn't 'ban' anything new.
2) I will not entertain any specious legislation calculated to disarm law-abiding citizens based on fallacious terminology designed to frighten the public about personal arms, whose ownership and use is Constitutionally protected and enshrined in the Second Amendment.
As the failure of the 1994 ban demonstrated, restricting weapons from law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce crime, and if the objective is to reduce crime, we need to work on the causes of crime, not the tools of self defense and family protection.
The more recent Heller and McDonald decisions make it clear that gun bans are a move in the wrong direction.
3) Further, my administration will not engage in any under-the-radar, false flag operations formulated to incite outrage among the public to facilitate further disarming America using the rationale that somehow our Second Amendment is "killing babies in Mexico."
The very term, 'Assault Weapon,' is dishonest, being a concoction of an anti-gun activist. If we are to have an honest discussion of firearms and their appropriate uses, let us at least use real words and accurate terminology.
I'm sure Obama can find a dog to wag somewhere....
Here ya go: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/white_house_ponders_strike_over_libya_attack/
I'm betting the strike happens on November 2. Close enough to the election that it dominates the news cycle, but won't interfere with football on Sunday/Monday.
A Romney victory would mean that Obama would not be president for another four years.
In reality, that's ALL I need to know.
No guarantees, but with Romney we have at least a resonable chance of getting decent SCOTUS appointments, even if its no better than a coin flip.
The chances of Obama nominating a good justice are about the same as my winning $100,000,000 in a lottery.
This argument smells like FAIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts).
That's why I'm voting for the communist.
This argument smells like FAIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts).Well, when your only choices are ebola or flu . . . and making a third choice GUARANTEES ebola . . . =(
Which one is that?
Yeah.:mad:
I'm tired of all these wussy, mediocre, wishy-washy, in-name-only, wanna-be "conservatives."
I wanna vote for someone who has some stinkin' convictions.
That's why I'm voting for the communist.
:mad:
Yes.
And therefore I'm going to make my vote a STATEMENT!!
That'll show 'em. That'll send a message.
Yes.
And therefore I'm going to make my vote a STATEMENT!!
That'll show 'em. That'll send a message.
I mock the legitimacy of the vote.
The notion that the majority of you can sit down and choose to take anything from me, by proxy of force by hired mercenaries, is preposterous. And until there's someone worth voting FOR that understands that the only role of government is to compel behavior by threat of mercenary theft (and wants to truncate every opportunity government currently makes for itself to plunder its serfs) I will not be voting and instead be doing something more rewarding with my time, than giving my approval to being raped by Obama or raped by Romney.
Well, yes. That's what a vote is, right? ???
I think Mitt will be one of the best Presidents we have had in a long time, G.W also had a lot of faults and way to liberal for my taste. Yet he made great choices for scotus if your main issue is guns.
My main issue is gun rights, if we can shoot back we have a chance of improving things.
At least with Mitt there is a chance I may be able to afford to buy guns again, as well as carry them if he picks a good scotus like GW did.
Depressing, isn't it?
And yet I deal with that logic every day.
Romney isn't [favorite guy here], so I'm [not voting/voting for (obscure/fringe) candidate/voting communist] instead.
Perfect is the enemy of the good. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good)
A man whom I respect a great deal recently responded to my characterization of Obama as essentially communist/fascist/socialist with a request for a concise list of references proving my claim. What?? From a continuous stream of evidence and clues over a three-year period, you expect me to reach into my pocket and produce a CONCISE summary? In my spare time?
Truly I despair.
Did you miss the part in the debate where he said automatic weapons are already illegal here?
He doesn't have a clue what our gun laws are and will just go with whatever he is handed by congress. The same as the other choice.
Lucky for us the gun control group in congress is still a small group. That could change here in a few weeks.
jim
I don't trust Romney on guns (or many other things), either.
However, what he said is a quick distillation of the truth. Yes, TECHNICALLY, automatic weapons are legal.
Practically, they might as well be illegal. Owned by very few people, unavailable to purchase any modern versions (I'd LOVE a real P-90, for instance).
So, if you were trying to explain to someone what the state of automatic weapons is in this country, wouldn't saying they are already pretty much illegal?
. . . Yes, TECHNICALLY, SOME automatic weapons are legal IN SOME PLACES.FIFY
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html?ICO=most_read_module
i could not make it up because he talks slower
They have a rationalization for giving the president more time, how surprising. I'd be interested in knowing how they rationalize why he got the last word 73% of the time.Because he is slow.........................I mean slower.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html?ICO=most_read_module
i could not make it up because he talks slower
Because he is slow.........................I mean slower.
Come on, he was likely a C student at best. I know that because I must assume the worst if he want release his records. Looking at some of the stuff he has gotten in hot water over, even most idiots would realize it was a bad idea.
wasn't washington in charge at work at 16?
Huh. I didn't know a wiki article of such a category existed until you inspired me to do a bit of googleing.i would count education and personal accomplishment together. Obama's accomplishments bear no comparison to those of President Washington. Obama can then fall back on his education, but I would bet President Washington's education (formal and informal) would compare quite well to anything Obama has to show. I also think President Washington had a level of humility and leadership Obama can't begin to match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_education
George Washington: Possessed a Surveyor's Certificate from The College of William and Mary but never actually graduated from any institution of higher education. His level of formal education is described as that of "elementary school."
“I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States…[Obama]’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”
Looks like Chris Matthews hasn't lost that tingle:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/19/msnbc-matthews-claims-it-unconstitutional-for-romney-to-challenge-obama/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/19/msnbc-matthews-claims-it-unconstitutional-for-romney-to-challenge-obama/)
Chris Mathews is nothing more than a shill, a brown-noser.
I think you forgot "completely unhinged."
Huh. I didn't know a wiki article of such a category existed until you inspired me to do a bit of googleing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_education
George Washington: Possessed a Surveyor's Certificate from The College of William and Mary but never actually graduated from any institution of higher education. His level of formal education is described as that of "elementary school."
Eighth grade then would equal a master's degree today from most higher ed institutions.
Check out Matthews blathering in front of Mt. Rushmore (or a backdrop thereof).
Ludicrous.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48080993#48080993
If I'm remembering right, through the early to mid 19th century, grades 1 through 5 were considered primary education and were the highest learning of the average person. Grades 6-8 were "university" of a sort and it was something special that your parents would send you off to. If you graduated from the eighth grade you were a well educated person.I've thought this for YEARS.
Our education system today could really use a massive overhaul.
Personally I'm thinking that Elementary school should be restructured as to equip people with all the basic skills they would need to be a productive person. A very good reading comprehension (because that really is the basis for all future self-education), primary math, and a good basis for the social construct of our country and it's history. If they simply can not continue on beyond this point then so be it, but they should at this point be able to find gainful employment and be able to manage their own affairs.
Junior High which should introduce some higher math, basic sciences and a more expanded history and understanding of the world in general. At this point it should be going at it as the Renaissance Ideal, a broad and general grasp of most things in order to equip the person to be able to do most anything they set themselves to.
If the person shows an aptitude for further education (lets be honest, not everyone does), then move them on to High school for the higher level sciences and arts. This should be supplemental and specific education, they should not be trying to secure basic life skills at this point, that should have been covered 8 years previously.
But, what do I know, I'm not a "professional educator" and never went to some University that costs $50,000 a year, right?