You can see more here.
– Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
– Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
– Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
– Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
Lies and half truths aside, I agree Willard won this debate. He was practiced, polished and like a champ chameleon he’s now a moderate! He might even smoke a joint before elections and OUT one of his sons.
No the chameleon act was during the primaries pretending to be a conservative. No true conservative refers to themselves as ‘severely conservative’. Romney is a liberal who only became a Republican because Ted Kennedy ran for reelection rather than retiring so being a Republican was his only chance at the Senate seat he wanted. Romney supports gay marriage and abortion, as can seen by his donations to Planned Parenthood and attending their banquets, as well as scheduling a ballot referendum on gay marriage not when it mattered at the next election in 2006 but instead for when he was scheduled to be running for President in 2008. He is also the guy who ran up electricity bills in Massachusetts and sued the Bush Administration for CO2 controls(Mass v EPA). And of course he supported ObamaCare.
It is possible that Obama is tanking the election because he knows his vision can only happen if a Republican is elected, just as Eisenhower cemented the New Deal. If the current economic malaise is the new normal caused by ATM machines as Obama said, then it would take a Republican Administration failure to prove that fact. Having it be a liberal Republican who won’t do too much makes it even better.
Oh, and you mean OUTT one of his sons?
The main fact is that Obama didn’t do his homework and was unprepared. He didn’t have to, he IS the president.
The ego has landed.
Obama said debate prep is a drag. Well he shouldn’t have invited John Kerry to stand in for Romney. Bring in Howard Dean and it would have been fun.
Here’s Mr. Dean. YEAH!
“Not only are we going to New Hampshire … we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York! And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we’re going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!”
http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/jan-19-2004-howard-dean-scream-9438051
– Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
YES HE DID!
He was very specific. Remember the “Three things” answer?
1. Raise taxes
2. Improve the economy -> employ more people -> get more taxes.
3. Cut spending.
He was VERY SPECIFIC that there is no need to do #1 because he can do #2 and #3, which Obama is too incompetent to do. Remember cutting funding to PBS and other things the government doesn’t have to do?
You’re an idiot.
He was very specific. Remember the “Three things” answer?
1. Raise taxes /// He said the opposite “but” until you give a NUMBER to how much taxes “specifically” you are being fatally VAGUE!!
2. Improve the economy -> employ more people -> get more taxes. /// Improve the economy how? VAGUE.
3. Cut spending. /// Yes, yes. Cut what programs? Rmoney won’t say and no one is challenging him on that fatal vagueness. Obama lost this debate by that failure: not wanting to get into the mud with this pig.
Oh_No==you are kidding right? You claim the above is not only specific, but VERY specific.
Pull my finger.
Ahh, the Troll got his itty bitty feeling hurt that his Messiah got his ass kicked and is going to loose!
Again.
It’s hysterical to watch a hysterical TROLL go to pieces!
Funny, and pathetic.
The issue Oh_No which you fail to coverup is whether or not your 3 point plan above is VERY SPECIFIC.
Care to confirm that one way or the other or shall we accept your red herring obfuscation as an admission you didn’t read your talking points close enough to see how tragically wrong they were?
Ah_Yea==you used to post so much more rationally, intelligently, and informatively. Has unemployment been this hard on you? I guess it does hit some harder than others, but keep a hold onto reality. Make it your friend. It helps.
Rachel Madow has done a number of segments on how FactCheck.org is “wrong” in its analysis. The first item is a good example of her critique. The Headline judgement says the charge against Rmoney regarding the failure to balance the 5 Trillion Tax Cut is “Untrue” but the body of their analysis (see the Link) leads to the opposite conclusion.
Something is seriously wrong with FactCheck’s ability to match their conclusions to their evidence and analysis.
Nonetheless, even if Rmoney was the best candidate for the job, as a Republican, he is Exhibit One for what is wrong with American Politics: lying. He can promise whatever inconsistent program he wishes, but in office its only performance that counts. Unfortunately, too many voters are as easily separated from reality as is FactCheck.
RICH = CRIMINAL
Put them all in jail, use the confiscated assets to grow jobs. Its the only way the Rich contribute.
“RICH = CRIMINAL”
“Put them all in jail, use the confiscated assets to grow jobs. Its the only way the Rich contribute.”
——-
Quite a statement!
What is “RICH”? Is there a cut-off amount?
Does money buy happiness? Is it all about how much stuff you own?
Without the wealthy, who would buy the uber expensive cars, boats, homes, and planes? How many “non-rich” craftsmen and workers would be affected if nobody bought this stuff?
Can wealth be acquired honestly?
You sound angry and jealous, like you were you once swindled by a rich guy. I hope not. Are you out of work?
While some of the rich are criminal, some of the poor are lazy. Both are true, but so what?
What you saw last night was what you get when an elected official takes more questions from David Letterman than he does from reporters. In England the Prime Minister has to stand in the House of Commons once a week and take questions from political rivals. If the PM turns out to be an empty chair it doesn’t take four years for people to find out.
PM took questions from Letterman too. Acquitted himself well but apparently needs to brush up on his Latin.
My problem with fact checkers is the next set of fact checkers may disagree with the this set of fact checkers and then you need to do your own research which takes a lot of time….
Yep, thinking is hard. Easy route: check enough facts enough times until one side or the other proves themselves to be pretty much unreliable: like Rmoney.
BOTH sides are lying though until they produce a 1-3-5 and 10 year detailed budget showing all the appropriate revenue and cost expenditures. Doens’t matter if Congress doesn’t pass it: PRODUCE IT. Obama’s has produced budgets each year. Important but secondary issue that Congress does not pass it. Rmoney has not produced any budget at all. Just impossible self contradicting vague promises. Put it in writing like Lyin Ryan did so we can all smack our foreheads with its destruction of the middle class audacity.
Easy Peasy.
Fact: Obama wonders if Obamacare covers the whooping he got in last night’s debate.
We learned one thing for sure: John Kerry is a horrible debate coach.
I found it very interesting how Obama continued to look down, did not stand up straight, and would not look at Romney when he spoke. On the other hand, you had Romney look Obama straight in his eyes commanding the whole debate. Be sure to see Obama come out firing in debate number 2.
I thought it was because Romney didn’t know where the cameras were.
I think last nights debate is not unlike “ROCKY 3”, with Mr. Romney playing the role of Clubber Lang. For a week we were told that the Obama team was lowering the bar, complimenting Romney, pointing out Mr. Obama hadn’t debated in years, etc. Suddenly, today the media is aghast that POTUS did so poorly?
QUESTION: Will the next debates be “Round 3”?
In 2007, Obama compared himself to Apollo Creed.
He was very specific. Remember the “Three things” answer?
1. Raise taxes
2. Improve the economy -> employ more people -> get more taxes.
3. Cut spending.
1. Raise taxes – Who, What, Where, and Why is missing.
2. Improve the economy -> employ more people -> get more taxes. – Who, What, Where, and Why is missing.
3. Cut spending. – Who, What, Where, and Why is missing.
Sounds like a good plan, except for the little details that are MISSING.
Keep in mind that since 1980’s campaign for President, the first debate ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
Something’s not right when your best debate performance is Clint Eastwood vs the Empty Chair.
I’ve heard it lots of time here, and perhaps Paul Krugman, but now Obama has said it. What is this tax deduction to ship jobs overseas?
The only explanation I’ve seen is you get to take a loss when you sell your factory here, if you still haven’t taken all the depreciation tax credits and the amount remaining is more than what you got for the sale.
So Al Gore says it was because of Denver’s thin air. Was Obama in Denver the days before his speech in 2008?
It doesn’t matter worth a damn…
Mittenz or O’mama. Big shit.
There’ll still be a millionaire in the white house and lots more in the congress and the senate, all looking to get richer.
Guess what we aren’t millionaires and we don’t have any representation.
On “Death Panel”: It is formally true that the letter of the law prohibits IPAB from rationing the care. However, the same chimera law gives them power to control Medicare cost and to exert negative feedback on the physicians who do not follow the orders by cutting their payments… In essence, indirectly and effectively IPAB can cause healthcare rationing which can be overturned only by 3/5ths supermajority in Congress! They don’t need even Obama Administration favorite tools of murky interpretations of laws directly against the specific bans (recent welfare act meddling). Law, as is allows 100% indirect health care rationing with serious economic punishment for those who do not go along built in the bill.
The whole law can still be thrown out. Here we have Congress passing a law that says it cannot be repealed except for a 30 day window in a specific year and that the courts are not allowed to hear challenges to the law. Is this the precedent liberals want for Congress’s authority?
That 50% return for Obama at InTrade is already down to 45%. I hope you’ve started sending your money before that return drops to 25%. Still a good deal, but if only you’d listened when I told you before…
Obama’s major PAC Priorities USA, the one that accused Romney of murder, is now pulling ads from Florida and Wisconsin. So they think these states are lost, or that Romney has no chance there and better to focus elsewhere?
Obama was uncomfortable because he did not have the Puppet Master Clinton’s hand up his ass. The next debate will be between Clinton and Romney.
President Obama was as unprepared for the debate as he was for the Presidency.
The wacko libs are blaming the high altitude, the moderator, the debate structure.
Won’t be too long before they start blaming Bush for Obama’s wretched performance last night.
Wow the whole of your comment is a little bit slanted, name calling… then reminding us of the prior catastrophe who you named. Please let’s forget if only for a short while.
We’re all trying to survive, and move on. I don’t care about D or R, same old same old.
Ah debates are boring. Especially the rehearsed ones. Here’s something more entertaining.
The minute I saw this picture I thought, “The world’s first windmill powered horse”.
http://tinyurl.com/8ewna95
Either that, or someone decided to make their horse run greener.
Bored also about the debates. The spinning can make you dizzy if you pay attention. What a waste of resources. The Brits do all this political shite in a condensed form.
A 1 hp windmill. Wouldn’t want to be on the horse when she breaks wind. With the mill to my back.
I am envious of that job that USBP agent has, if he is a BPA. I’m not talking about patrolling the southern border.
My dream job as a teenager was to be a Park Ranger.
Yes that would be a nice job, in most parts. However I’ve heard of some Park Rangers in dangerous territories, where drug trafficking is a problem. You think you’re just there to prevent forest fires or help lost hikers. But some dope peddling thugs take you out, for seeing what you weren’t supposed to see. And it probably doesn’t get counted as a death from the “war of drugs”. Since it’s not DEA or ATF, you’re working for. Just listed as unknown reason.
Obama would make a great infomercial speaker. He has a line of BS like a true politician. He typically smears the truth and ignores anything that makes him look bad. We deserve better then a line of BS after 4 years. I would have had more respect for Obama if he would simply admit his faults and move on. Instead he continues to play the broken record of blaming Bush or blaming Congress or the Republican or anybody else. For me Obama is the President but he does not act like the President. Stand up Mr. President admit your limitations and faults. Take a look at other peoples views. Maybe your last 4 years were bad because you did not have a open mind on solving problems. A President has to be more of a negotiator then a dictator.
They should blame Karl Rove. I’m sure it was his idea to have the debates in Denver, and he told Romney to prep there. And don’t forget the ATM machines.
So why is his SuperPAC abandoning the state of Florida?
We liberals only blame Bush for crashing the globoal economy.
.
We blame the GOP for blocking the recovery.
Bingo!
Romney promises to cut trillions taxes but won’t tell us where the offsets will come from.
Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah. Reagan. He vaguely promised to cut “waste.”
And he exploded the naitonal debt.
You know revenues were higher for Reagan when he left office than when he came in?
And spending those revenues like a drunken sailor is what caused the national debt to rise under him.
pedro in a rare demonstration of attempted insight says:
10/4/2012 at 12:07 pm
No, I do not confuse it. I hate whenever someone distorts the nature of an entity for their own benefit, be it private or public. You should have already know that Bobbo. //// Why should I know that Pedro. Even if you consistently post to make such a point, no reason to think anyone here would notice. Very few here are known for their positions. Beyond Alfie, the Libertards, and the Bobble Headed Neo Cons, most people, including you, post with a range of response showing some ability to flex to changing fact patterns. If you want to become completely irrelevant, you need to start using CAPS, rhyming schemes, and be totally one note.
That’s why making generalizations like the ones you make are so distorting and blind. /// Not so. The ability to make accurate generalizations is one hallmark of a discriminating mind.
Even if it were true that all rich people are criminals /// PP–RICH = CRIMINAL is a generality. Not a math equation. Even if “most” rich were not criminal, the equation would stand because the damage caused by the few rich is sufficient to keep the issue in mind in CAPS.
there’s also a context to it. /// Exactly. funny you can use the concept and then apply exactly backwards. Try again.
As I’ve tried to tell you many a time before, you are rich to many millions of people in the world and thus, a criminal by your own words. ./// Yes, but my comment is not made in that Context, hence my correction of your post.
Silly, indeed. /// Not bad Pedro. Try some more. You might demonstrate potential.
Republicrats make me want to puke. A vote for either of these bobble heads is a vote for a one-party system.
Agreed, what’s the best recourse? Some ideas since I’m guessing your from across the pond.
The answer is not be complicit in hiring RepubliCrats and vote a third party. Then you are innocent. When enough people want to be innocent and not part of the problem, then the change will happen.
I voted for Perot and was prepared to vote for Ron Paul. Nothing seems to change. Things have actually gotten more corrupt.
I’m from Minnesota, and voting for Gary Johnson. Taking bets with friends of the like-mind what kind of percentage he’ll rake in. I’d rather make 20 bucks than throw my vote away.
The only person who throws their vote away is someone who doesn’t vote.
Third Party Brain Rot?
Thats really sad because it transmutes a valid concern/desire for change and results in the worst of all possible outcomes.
Voting for a third party is rationally done ONLY when that third party has a chance of winning or when the throw away vote won’t cause a change in the least worst of the remaining candidates.
for instance: here in California Obama is going to win, so if a viable third party appeared, I could easily vote for them. NOT however if I were in a state where voting for the third party would cause Rmoney to be elected.
You know good folks: REALITY is something you need to wrestle with more. Emotions are for women and little girls…. and libertards. Nice tight little groups there.
A wasted vote is voting for someone you disagree with. Reality is not forthcoming from either of these two ass-clowns.
Hence, I disagree with both Rmoney and Barry Sotero. I do however, disagree with Barry more. So, do you think I should vote for Rmoney?
See below for general response, but on a second read I see a specific question:
So, I disagree with both Rmoney and Barry Sotero. I do however, disagree with Barry more. So, do you think I should vote for Rmoney? // Yes, of course. If you vote for Gary Johnson who doesn’t have a chance in hell to win, then Rmoney gets one less vote.
Isn’t that just perfectly clear?
Voting for either of those two makes YOU part of the problem. If you can’t see that, what can you see?
P/M–respond to the Reality of what third party voting actually does. YOU gave us BushtheRetard rather than Algore.
You only look at half the candidate analysis==how they are all corrupt and bought and sold by monied interest.
Silly to not deal with Objectuve Reality. Ideas and emotions are very motivating but in the end you vote best by considering what will ACTUALLY HAPPEN as a result. Its called being pragmatic==dealing with the universe the way IT IS, rather than the way you wish it were, or can imagine it could be.
It ain’t. So deal with it rather than your fantasies.
Be an Adult.
Your unwillingness to accept responsibility for your D or R vote causes you to wiggle and squirm with specious sophistry, but doesn’t change a whit your complicity in the results.
With any investigation at all you will find you disagree with any candidate on some issue. So THE FACT IS you are ALWAYS slecting among the least objectionable.
Reality—make it your friend or your silly voting philosophy brings the very worst candidate into office.
If Nader did not take away the votes he did, we would have had Gore instead of Bush. No one disagrees with that.
Course, I forget==you think there is no difference between the Dems and R’s.
No difference????
Pull my finger.
Fundamentally no difference. Observe the lies we are told in each election year. What happens once they get into office is in my opinion, the REALITY. That reality is…the Prez is just a figurehead for the real power that controls.
And I believe that has been the case for at least 50 years, anniversary is November 23rd.
But probably longer.
Well thats certainly true but while we both agree that the two parties are too much the same, too much controled by the same corporate/monied interests behind them, one has to be a fool or a shill not to spot the differences. not enough differences you counter? Well, those differences are the only differences you get.
AND THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT>>>ALWAYS.
Look right now. ObomaCare vs the Emergency Room. Invade Syrua vs Lead from behind. Soc Sec maintained or privatized. MediCare maintained with some tweaks or voucherized. Access to Family Planning or a Coat Hanger up the Vay Jay Jay.
These are life and Death distinctions. Beyond credibility to say there is no difference.
I am surprised that you agree with at least some of my premise. But then you veer off into your immediate concerns.
The root of the problem needs to be addressed, until then, its all just a game of chess.
Well, let me be more specific:
McCullough says:
10/4/2012 at 6:27 pm
Fundamentally no difference. /// Completely wrong.
Observe the lies we are told in each election year. /// Yes, we get pimped all the time. A Con is a Con. but some Cons want your liver, while other cons only want your wallet. They are the same, but different. YOU and your similarly situated Third Party advocates give all your attention to the similarities that certainly exist AND NONE OF YOUR ATTENTION to the differences which also exist. WHAT WOULD YOU RATHER LOSE: Your wallet or your liver. You post/think/believe/vote as if there was no difference. Silly.
What happens once they get into office is in my opinion, the REALITY. // I agree. Why don’t you parse my list of the current differences the two parties are wanting to bring us?
That reality is…the Prez is just a figurehead for the real power that controls. // Yes. And as stated while the continuity and similarity is all too close, the differences are determinative and real none the less.
And I believe that has been the case for at least 50 years, anniversary is November 23rd. /// Ha, ha. If you believe money is the root of all evil, it has been true THOUGHOUT TIME. The Greeks document wrestling with the same corruption we do today.
Nothing changes. The plebes are still for manipulating with slogans like: Keep the Government out of My Medicare.
silly hoomans. Everything is connected. Everything is the same. Everything is different.
Until you can juggle these three balls, you have no balls at all.
But probably longer.
Do you understand the concept of globalism? Do you know anything about Agenda 21? Do you know that people like yourself laughed at people who even mentioned the NWO?
And yet it’s been stated over and over again, from world leaders, Popes, Bankers, Heads of the EU, that we need a New World Order?
Do you think the United Nations has the US in their best interest?
It’s a big picture, one I think most have overlooked, because like yourself, they are wrapped up in the Bullshit that is the 2 party system.
Presidential elections are minor bullshit. The big picture, the forest, not the trees. That’s what concerns me.
Maybe I am a Constitutionalist, and maybe I am an isolationist, but it is because I believe we have to maintain our sovereignty, to survive.
ROOTS is not just the history of slavery. Study the roots of globalism.
Yeah, I also remember ‘promises’ of closing Gitmo among a myriad of other things in the last election. I’m glad your memory of promises versus action serves you so well goldfish.
Scandi==thats ONE issue–and I warrant no skin off your nose at all.
Care to be relevant?
If Nader did not take away the votes he did, we would have had Gore instead of Bush. No one disagrees with that.
I do. All Gore had to do to be President was carry his home state like the majority of candidates. He did not.
Needs more light sabres.
Voting third party is good, especially if it changes the results of the election and keeps the guy who was ‘cheated’ out of your vote from winning. A slightly different example is with the Senate race in Delaware. Conservative blogger and pollster pundit Jay Cost ran the numbers and basically said it wasn’t worth supporting Christine ODonnell over Mike Castle even though Castle was very liberal. However, by voting out Castle, the Tea Party ended up with one fewer Republican Senator but every other Republican Senator was put on notice that they could be next. You get results by holding your ground. By voting for Ralph Nader, environmentalists were ensured that they would be listened to in the future. That is why Barack Obama would not approve the Keystone Pipeline now. And notice that ANWR didn’t get approved even when Bush was President. Plus they didn’t have to vote for the guy who owns an oil company, Al Gore, who also does zinc mining on his family farm.
I use to think that, at least by voting who I wanted to be in that seat. The winner or winning party would realize that they’d better straighten up their act. Because it was a pretty call, against them. But over time I’ve decided that it more like fans at a football game, buying tickets to support their team at the local stadium. It doesn’t mean the home team will win. Just that they’ll make enough money to keep on playing. Season after season. And eventually they may make it to the Superbowl, and win that. But so what? It’s just a game. And the team owner and players are really only in it for the money. And they usually earn just as much losing as winning. So it really just about keeping the paying fans entertained enough to support the game. And that’s about all it is with American politics too.
Because which ever candidate does get elected. He’ll do whatever their corporate appointed Cabinet members tell him to do. And whatever the top military brass tells him he should do. Otherwise, Presidents that don’t listen to their masters, have a way of being left vulnerable to assassination.