Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Romney hammered Obama on a number of issues. Obama came across like he was pleading with people not to fire him.

---

(insert VD smilie here)


How incredibly naive of me, to think you'd give Obama any credit at all.

---

Credit for what? Romney called him out on: his promises from 2008, his inability to create jobs, his cutting of the drilling permits, his pension having investments overseas, his huge fumble on the attack in Libya, and for not having a plan for the next 4 years.

Romney time and time again stated his 5 point plan and it might not be perfect but it's a PLAN...and Obama doesn't have one.

---

Depends how you want to look at it, Lyle. Unemployment is starting to come down. One could argue that the momentum from the Bush years took a while to stop. Cutting drilling permits? You find that to be a selling point do you? You want another BP on the country's lap? Obama supports responsible energy policies.... not the mindless, petroleum-guzzling policies of "Bush/Romney". About Obama's pension having investment overseas? Again... you're nitpicking... and refusing to give Obama any credit. Goes right along with your typical inflexibility. It was a stupid point to make by Romney, who then got the comeback he deserves. The attack on Libya? Did you not read the previous posts or better yet.... watch the debate last night where Romney tried to politicize the incident and got fact checked across the face?

I'm only sorry you're going to be hugely disappointed come November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Depends how you want to look at it, Lyle. Unemployment is starting to come down. One could argue that the momentum from the Bush years took a while to stop. Cutting drilling permits? You find that to be a selling point do you? You want another BP on the country's lap? Obama supports responsible energy policies.... not the mindless, petroleum-guzzling policies of "Bush/Romney". About Obama's pension having investment overseas? Again... you're nitpicking... and refusing to give Obama any credit. Goes right along with your typical inflexibility. It was a stupid point to make by Romney, who then got the comeback he deserves. The attack on Libya? Did you not read the previous posts or better yet.... watch the debate last night where Romney tried to politicize the incident and got fact checked across the face?

I'm only sorry you're going to be hugely disappointed come November.

---

Barack Obama said he would get unemployment to 5% by this time or his Presidency would be a 1 term deal....those are HIS OWN WORDS. Mitt Romney is just holding him to what he said and Mitt Romney said the difference between what we have right now 7.8% vs 5% is 9,000,000 jobs. I'm sorry if I don't believe Obama can get us there because he hasn't given me any signs of real progress.

Responsible energy policies?!?!?! Is giving $90 BILLION to "green energy" companies responsible...people complain about the breaks given to Exxon and big oil companies, $90 billion dwarfs their breaks and also WHERE ARE THE JOBS?!?!...so he pissed away $90 Billion for what? Cars that recharge their batteries using power from your house that gets power from coal plants that Obama wants to shut down? I'm sorry Tito, but to say Obama is responsible on energy is just idiotic. I'm for a clean environment but I also know oil & gas WORK we run on them if Solar & Batteries were viable everyone else would use them but they just aren't.

Fact checked on Libya? HAHAHA Oh you poor gullible person the Ambassador to the UN called the attacks in Libya "a spontaneous reaction" and that was the stance of Obama's White House for well over 2 weeks before they changed course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Obama doesn't have much of a plan to get the economy going again.

---

....you don't say

---

How about replying to the question I asked?

---

Which one would that be Mr. "I don't watch videos" ......was there a pie chart with it? Or some sort of graph? Because if there was that would really narrow it down.

---

What do you think Romney can do that Obama hasn't done? What is this five point plan you speak of?

Also, too. You don't think government is capable of doing anything better than the private sector. We've suffered a massive recession/economic collapse over the last few years and you expect government to solve this problem? How? And how can you believe that government should be able to solve the biggest economic collapse since the Depression in four years but they can't do anything else better than the private sector?

These questions also are to Mars Ax and anybody else attacking Obama and thinking Romney has all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Watched with volume off (think Lampley calling a fight ;D ) . Ate homemade tacos w/ guac and drank the beers. Advantage: me.

Who 'won' ???

---

Who do you think won with the sound off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Any "plan" that Romney/Ryan have already outlined for job growth, economic recovery, lowering the deficit and saving medicare & social security is better then what the "magic mulatto" has already tried and failed at.

---

In what ways?

---

*crickets*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

What do you think Romney can do that Obama hasn't done? What is this five point plan you speak of?

Also, too. You don't think government is capable of doing anything better than the private sector. We've suffered a massive recession/economic collapse over the last few years and you expect government to solve this problem? How? And how can you believe that government should be able to solve the biggest economic collapse since the Depression in four years but they can't do anything else better than the private sector?

These questions also are to Mars Ax and anybody else attacking Obama and thinking Romney has all the answers.

---

The 5 Point Plan is: Energy Independence, Proper Education/Training, More Trade that's Beneficial to America, Cutting the Deficet, and Championing Small Business. There's a number of points he goes over to say how he will accomplish these things, but that's the jist of it. I would have listed them but I am not of the opinion that you're interested in facts.....if you were you wouldn't side with Obama like you do.

OK Mr. More Government....if Government can't solve this economic issue then why do you support a President who thinks Government has all the solutions? All Mitt Romney said he was going to do is to take the handcuffs off of small businesses, he's going to allow them to do business with less oppressive regulation. But hey maybe we need another Stimulus huh? I mean it worked SOOOOO well for us.

Romney has a plan, Obama doesn't.....or does he Kirkland, perhaps YOU can tell us what Obama won't? Perhaps you can tell us how Barack Obama plans to turn around this economy because I certainly didn't hear any ideas from him last night all I heard was him bitching about Romney's ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Now for a preemptive assessment of how the debate looked, both sides, from the perspective of VC:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtAiZLFRntk

;D

---

I concur but again I could only stomach 10 minutes before I called it a night. The moderator was again horrible, the questions were lousy and both of them are an embarrasment to our nation.

Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters

Well......well.......well....lookey what we have here. A nice LARGE sample size (over 2,000 people), LIKELY voters, and it doesn't look good for President Obama (rightfully so).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Any "plan" that Romney/Ryan have already outlined for job growth, economic recovery, lowering the deficit and saving medicare & social security is better then what the "magic mulatto" has already tried and failed at.

---

In what ways?

---

*crickets*

---

Ermm.. is there some reason why you think I have to answer all your half-assed questions? I get it Kirkland, you're a BO supporter, good for you, now kindly fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Any "plan" that Romney/Ryan have already outlined for job growth, economic recovery, lowering the deficit and saving medicare & social security is better then what the "magic mulatto" has already tried and failed at.

---

In what ways?

---

*crickets*

---

Ermm.. is there some reason why you think I have to answer all your half-assed questions? I get it Kirkland, you're a BO supporter, good for you, now kindly fuck off.

---

I was just wondering whether you actually knew anything about the things you're opining on or whether you were just ranting away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

What do you think Romney can do that Obama hasn't done? What is this five point plan you speak of?

Also, too. You don't think government is capable of doing anything better than the private sector. We've suffered a massive recession/economic collapse over the last few years and you expect government to solve this problem? How? And how can you believe that government should be able to solve the biggest economic collapse since the Depression in four years but they can't do anything else better than the private sector?

These questions also are to Mars Ax and anybody else attacking Obama and thinking Romney has all the answers.

---

The 5 Point Plan is: Energy Independence, Proper Education/Training, More Trade that's Beneficial to America, Cutting the Deficet, and Championing Small Business. There's a number of points he goes over to say how he will accomplish these things, but that's the jist of it. I would have listed them but I am not of the opinion that you're interested in facts.....if you were you wouldn't side with Obama like you do.

OK Mr. More Government....if Government can't solve this economic issue then why do you support a President who thinks Government has all the solutions? All Mitt Romney said he was going to do is to take the handcuffs off of small businesses, he's going to allow them to do business with less oppressive regulation. But hey maybe we need another Stimulus huh? I mean it worked SOOOOO well for us.

Romney has a plan, Obama doesn't.....or does he Kirkland, perhaps YOU can tell us what Obama won't? Perhaps you can tell us how Barack Obama plans to turn around this economy because I certainly didn't hear any ideas from him last night all I heard was him bitching about Romney's ideas.

---

Ah, the five point plan.

"Energy independence"

This is a perfect example of the GOP using a bullshit argument to win votes from clueless people who think that America can solve its energy problem/reduce the price of gasoline by domestic drilling. . What point number one is really about is allowing drilling in enviromentally protected areas like northern Alaska. But even if you allow drilling in places the oil industry want to drill, it'll only increase oil production by about a million barrels a day and take ten years to get there. In the meantime America's oil consumption will go up five or million barrels. And oil is a global product with the price set by a cartel (OPEC) who would just cut production to keep the global price the same anyway even if America did manage to produce vast new oil supplies. So because the electorate is made up of a bunch of know-nothings the debate about energy in America is at second grade level.

Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?


Trade that's beneficial to A,erica.

What is this, trade agreements or posturing by bashing Cjina? If it's trade agreements then they benefit America by exporting jobs to Asia and benefit US corporations by them not having to pay US labour rates. Both parties make these agreements and so they're both anti-US jobs. How can you complain about Clinton signing NAFTA but Ronmey is suddenly creating jobs by signing NAFTA-like agreements?

It it's pretending to bash China __

When Obama took action against the Chinese dumping cheap tyres in America Romney called it "bad for our nation and our workers." Obama and McCain played the same anti-China card at the last election and they didn't mean it either. No US president is ever going to prevent US corporations -- the people who put them in the White House -- from making massive profits by manufacturing in China. If Romney wins he'll make one single gesture about Chinese dumping of goods -- Obama did tyres and Bush did steel -- and then that'll be it.

Cutting the deficit.

The only president in living memory who cut government spending is Obama. Romney's tax plan will add five trillion to the deficit/debt over the next ten years and he's also going to give the Pentagon an extra two trillion they didn't even ask for. How is this going to cut the debt? What Romney will do is do the tax cuts without ending any of the loopholes which will explode the deficit.

Small businesses.

There have been eighteen separate tax cuts for small businesses under Obama but it's not really helping them. What they need are more customers with money to spend. And what's all this new regulation that Obama has imposed? This is just more bollocks.

Basically it's just five talking points to fool the rubes and Romney clearly knows his market, doesn't he?

As far as having a plan neither guy has a plan. And that's because there's very little either guy can do. The biggest thing either of them could do is allow mass renegotiation of underwater/bad mortgages but the banks won't let either prez do that. Other than that we've just got to wait for the debt overhang to subside enough so that households start spending again (70% of the economy is consumer spending) but until they make a big hole in their debt households aren't going to spend like they used to :

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ate=2012-10-18

Quote:

---

Ermm.. is there some reason why you think I have to answer all your half-assed questions? I get it Kirkland, you're a BO supporter, good for you, now kindly fuck off.

---

Quote:

---

I was just wondering whether you actually knew anything about the things you're opining on or whether you were just ranting away.

---

I see, why don't you just keep on wondering.

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

Oooh a graph....color me surprised :rolleyes:

Kirkland just face the facts Barack Obama is a terrible President, he broke his promises, he missed out on his unemployment numbers by 9,000,000 jobs, 3,000,000 MORE women are living below the poverty line thanks to his policies, and he has the audacity to try and spin this whole "Binders of women" deal into his favor.

Energy Independence: I watched the debate and I was amused at Obama's explination of gas prices...it made me laugh. "The reason gas prices were so low was because the economy was so bad" so by Barry's rational gas is higher now because the economy is getting better and further on that same point if the economy does even better then I could pay $90 to fill up my car....hmmm he seems to understand how things work quite well. It's not about getting new refineries or increasing production, it's about how great the economy is and right now the economy must be kicking some major ass because it costs a lot to fill up a car.....not that you would know or care about that.

Education: Teachers Unions are killing education, the DOE is killing education. We need private schools and ACCOUNTABILITY and I know what I'm talking about because people in my family were teachers.

Trade & China: So we're just supoposed to let them suppress the value of the yuan and put tarrifs on the goods we export and we're supposed to be cool with that?

Cutting the deficet: Obama has put us in a $6 Trillion hole....yeah so that's "less" than who exactly or are you going to attempt to blame that all on Bush....AGAIN? After 4 years you would figure Obama would OWN his failures.


"And that's because there's very little either guy can do"...time to read your own words and just butt out of the debate then instead of attempting (rather hilariously) to sway voters into thinking Obama has done some fucking bang up job. I live in the United States and I can tell you Obama isn't a good leader, he's done 0 for this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

---

I'm not so sure Romney's plans include any budget cuts for education, I believe the final proposal will be very different from what you've posted. Just saying, you could be right, but let's see how the final draft looks before we criticize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Oooh a graph....color me surprised :rolleyes:

Kirkland just face the facts Barack Obama is a terrible President, he broke his promises, he missed out on his unemployment numbers by 9,000,000 jobs, 3,000,000 MORE women are living below the poverty line thanks to his policies, and he has the audacity to try and spin this whole "Binders of women" deal into his favor.

Energy Independence: I watched the debate and I was amused at Obama's explination of gas prices...it made me laugh. "The reason gas prices were so low was because the economy was so bad" so by Barry's rational gas is higher now because the economy is getting better and further on that same point if the economy does even better then I could pay $90 to fill up my car....hmmm he seems to understand how things work quite well. It's not about getting new refineries or increasing production, it's about how great the economy is and right now the economy must be kicking some major ass because it costs a lot to fill up a car.....not that you would know or care about that.

Education: Teachers Unions are killing education, the DOE is killing education. We need private schools and ACCOUNTABILITY and I know what I'm talking about because people in my family were teachers.

Trade & China: So we're just supoposed to let them suppress the value of the yuan and put tarrifs on the goods we export and we're supposed to be cool with that?

Cutting the deficet: Obama has put us in a $6 Trillion hole....yeah so that's "less" than who exactly or are you going to attempt to blame that all on Bush....AGAIN? After 4 years you would figure Obama would OWN his failures.


"And that's because there's very little either guy can do"...time to read your own words and just butt out of the debate then instead of attempting (rather hilariously) to sway voters into thinking Obama has done some fucking bang up job. I live in the United States and I can tell you Obama isn't a good leader, he's done 0 for this country.

---

You're angry with Obama, and angry people rarely discuss issues in a rational manner. Example: I'm pro-Obama and anti-Romney... but I was lucid enough to concede that Romney did a better job in the first debate. Whereas you angrily denied that Obama had done a much better job in the second debate.

Another example: Your defense of Romney in the energy issue is downright ridiculous. Surely you're intelligent enough to know that the answer to America's (and most of the civilized world) energy problems isn't drilling the shit out whatever oil reserves happen to be left, without paying attention to renewable energy sources. "Energy independence", the buzzword everybody loves to throw around, doesn't mean continuing to irresponsibly exhaust the oil reserves within the control of the U.S. government and to hell with the next 10-20 years. If you disagree with that, then I consider you to be short-sighted, and never mind the argument... it's useless. Oil is a finite resource. Soon all we'll be doing is finding more ways to extract the very difficult-to-reach oil reserves, which by the way take millions of years to replenish. Not only that. You bash Obama for "denying drilling permits".... but conveniently choose to ignore the consequences of reckless drilling, such as the mega (and very costly) disaster BP created in the Gulf. Oh.... but you don't live there, do you.

Romney is just a "Bush", but with a private enterprise background. He'll champion the "balls to the wall", reckless drilling for oil... any environmental or energy supply consequences be damned. "Screw the big, long term picture. We need to squeeze the shit out whatever oil we can get our hands on. And if we have to go to war for overseas oil, we'll do that too. Green energy? Fuck that. It doesn't fill my own personal interest pocket."

But I don't want to bore you with this environmental "crap". Suffice it to say that you would defend Romney regardless of what he says, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. You hate Obama... and you want him out. No amount of common sense to the contrary will sway your laser-focused mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

You're angry with Obama, and angry people rarely discuss issues in a rational manner. Example: I'm pro-Obama and anti-Romney... but I was lucid enough to concede that Romney did a better job in the first debate. Whereas you angrily denied that Obama had done a much better job in the second debate.

Another example: Your defense of Romney in the energy issue is downright ridiculous. Surely you're intelligent enough to know that the answer to America's (and most of the civilized world) energy problems isn't drilling the shit out whatever oil reserves happen to be left, without paying attention to renewable energy sources. "Energy independence", the buzzword everybody loves to throw around, doesn't mean continuing to irresponsibly exhaust the oil reserves within the control of the U.S. government and to hell with the next 10-20 years. If you disagree with that, then I consider you to be short-sighted, and never mind the argument... it's useless. Oil is a finite resource. Soon all we'll be doing is finding more ways to extract the very difficult-to-reach oil reserves, which by the way take millions of years to replenish. Not only that. You bash Obama for "denying drilling permits".... but conveniently choose to ignore the consequences of reckless drilling, such as the mega (and very costly) disaster BP created in the Gulf. Oh.... but you don't live there, do you.

Romney is just a "Bush", but with a private enterprise background. He'll champion the "balls to the wall", reckless drilling for oil... any environmental or energy supply consequences be damned. "Screw the big, long term picture. We need to squeeze the shit out whatever oil we can get our hands on. And if we have to go to war for overseas oil, we'll do that too. Green energy? Fuck that. It doesn't fill my own personal interest pocket."

But I don't want to bore you with this environmental "crap". Suffice it to say that you would defend Romney regardless of what he says, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. You hate Obama... and you want him out. No amount of common sense to the contrary will sway your laser-focused mind.

---

1. Obama did better in the second debate than he did in the first BUT Romney still won it going away and why do I say that? I say that because Romney's camp isn't going after petty bullcrap attempting to rile the base on nothing of substance like the Obama campaign is. "Binders of Women" that's all you've got? Mitt Romney said "Binders of women" because the Massachusettes State Government didn't have an adequate amount of women working in the highest level so Romney asked for smart, qualified women to interview for positions in his cabinet and he got them. Obama attacking petty stuff like that just shows he's got 0 ideas, 0 plans for the future, and that America is better off without him. Romney has attacks of SUBSTANCE: Libya, the economy, the President's own failed/broken promises but not only that Romney provides us with solutions! He tells America what he will do to help get us headed in the right direction.

2. People have always said "We'll run out of oil by _____", they use it as some sort of boogey man to try and force feed solar & wind to the masses. We're not going to run out of oil. Also as for BP...why did they have to drill waaaay far out in the ocean in the first place? Ever thought of that? And if offshore drilling is sooooo bad then why did Obama finance offshore drilling in Brazil? Why help them to reap the benefits of their land when we don't use our own? America has to stop being such an oil prude...we demand other nations drill and refine, why don't we expect the same from our own nation??? "Green Energy" HA....these "Green Energy" companies should only be called green due to the massive amounts of cash Obama handed them $90 BILLION...let that sink in for a second.

3. Mitt Romney isn't George W. Bush, that comparison shows your irrational hatred of Mitt Romney. Plus your ideas that W "didn't give a damn about the environment" is unfounded. Global climate change is a hoax (scientists have admitted as much) and all the Kyoto Protocol was going to do is hamper the American economy to the point where we get taken down a peg in terms of our economic dominance.

http://siliconcowboy.files.wordpress...omney-free.jpg


Barack Obama isn't fit to lead this country, he never was. He has no idea what he's doing and it's too risky to give him 4 more years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

---

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

---

You know who is REALLY cutting access to higher education???

http://i.l.cnn.net/money/2008/08/20/..._education.gif

.....the colleges & universities are by price gouging

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Oooh a graph....color me surprised :rolleyes:

Kirkland just face the facts Barack Obama is a terrible President, he broke his promises, he missed out on his unemployment numbers by 9,000,000 jobs, 3,000,000 MORE women are living below the poverty line thanks to his policies, and he has the audacity to try and spin this whole "Binders of women" deal into his favor.

Energy Independence: I watched the debate and I was amused at Obama's explination of gas prices...it made me laugh. "The reason gas prices were so low was because the economy was so bad" so by Barry's rational gas is higher now because the economy is getting better and further on that same point if the economy does even better then I could pay $90 to fill up my car....hmmm he seems to understand how things work quite well. It's not about getting new refineries or increasing production, it's about how great the economy is and right now the economy must be kicking some major ass because it costs a lot to fill up a car.....not that you would know or care about that.

Education: Teachers Unions are killing education, the DOE is killing education. We need private schools and ACCOUNTABILITY and I know what I'm talking about because people in my family were teachers.

Trade & China: So we're just supoposed to let them suppress the value of the yuan and put tarrifs on the goods we export and we're supposed to be cool with that?

Cutting the deficet: Obama has put us in a $6 Trillion hole....yeah so that's "less" than who exactly or are you going to attempt to blame that all on Bush....AGAIN? After 4 years you would figure Obama would OWN his failures.


"And that's because there's very little either guy can do"...time to read your own words and just butt out of the debate then instead of attempting (rather hilariously) to sway voters into thinking Obama has done some fucking bang up job. I live in the United States and I can tell you Obama isn't a good leader, he's done 0 for this country.

---

Lyle, exactly how many politicians can you name who kept the promises they made before they got elected?

In 2008 when Obama made various claims the economy was estimated to contract by 5% due to the meltdown. It actually contracted by double that over the next year. The economy was losing 800 000 jobs a month when he took office, it was in freefall and there was no way of knowing exactly how bad it was going to get. Also the banks had only disclosed about half of their bad loans/debt and this meant hundred of thousands more foreclosures of mortgages, severely depressing the economy. Neither of these two crucial things had been known when Obama made whatever promises he did back in 2008, so it's fair to take them into account now.

And Obama is dead right about why gas prices were low when he took office and why they're higher now. I know facts make you break out in hives but here's a graph to explain it to you :

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ate=2012-10-19

When Obama took office in January 2009 the gasoline price was right at the bottom of that big dip. Now the economy improved so the price has recovered to almost the same level it was at before. And like I already pointed o0ut to you, building new refineries or increasing production won't have any effect on the gas price.

You can have as many private schools as you want but you need people to be able to afford them. For 95% of the country they're unaffordable. So you need to improve the system you have, and that means spending more money on it. Unions don't kill education. All the top countries in the world for education have much stronger teachers' unions than America does.

China will continue to do what they're doing and neither Obama noe Romney will do anything serious about it. Every candidate threatens China when he wants to get elected but then does fuck all in office. Again, US corporations put these guys in the White House so they're not going to do anything about China.

Don't have time to explain the deficit to you right now. I've explained it before but the facts have fallen out of the back of your brain. Maybe next week.

I'm not trying to sway anybody, I'm just showing you one guy will do a bad job of running the country and the other guy will do an even worse job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

---

Ermm.. is there some reason why you think I have to answer all your half-assed questions? I get it Kirkland, you're a BO supporter, good for you, now kindly fuck off.

---

Quote:

---

I was just wondering whether you actually knew anything about the things you're opining on or whether you were just ranting away.

---

I see, why don't you just keep on wondering.

---

Don't need to keep wondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

---

You know who is REALLY cutting access to higher education???

http://i.l.cnn.net/money/2008/08/20/..._education.gif

.....the colleges & universities are by price gouging

---

It's a free market for tertiary education out there, lots of colleges starting up and even some closing down. People pay more for education because good schools can charge a premium, and they can charge it mainly due to income inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

---

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

---

Education is not a federal role. States fund higher education and the price has gone out of control leading to large of amounts of student loan debt due to the states reducing funding but more importantly b/c of the obscene amount of subsidizing the federal government does. Remove the subsidies and the problem corrects its self.

"One guy will do a bad job (Obama) and one guy will do even worse (Romney)" and when you post that you are cheering for Obama to win and I can tell you Obama has no idea about what he's doing, he wasn't ready for the job (still isn't), and all of that just flies over your head because of your irrational dislike of Mitt Romney.


Also your graph can show whatever it's just a correlation which doesn't show cause and effect so I could show a graph like this...
http://news.runnersworld.com/files/2...0.09.58-AM.png
and point out how fucking ridiculous correlations can be Mr. Graph Man

Some news today...Fromer Chrysler Chairman and life long Democrat supports????? ROMNEY ;)
Lee Iacocca endorses Romney for president - Conservative News

Bad news for the President
President Barack Obama on Benghazi attack: 'If 4 Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL' | Mail Online
It just proves the man isn't fit for office.


Oh and the new polls out...Romney 51% Obama 45%......looking great for you Kirkland, looks like a solid win for you and Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QlwilbVYvUg

No comments!

What I enjoy about this election, beyond appreciating the spectacle that it is, is that if Romney manages to win it's no big deal personally. We are pretty happy here in Canada. Things are good in the most educated, free health care country on the planet. I mean, even Romney was pining in the last debate how you all should be more like us with our only 15% business tax etc.

And if Obama wins (again), well, the amount of EPIC BUTTHURT will be legendary.

Kind of a no lose situation.

:cool:

There won't be any noticeable difference no matter who wins. I think the butt hurt will be more epic in a Romney win than vice versa. It is always a big kick in junk when a party's incumbent loses and this guy gets such an epic pass from the media that the meltdown will be monumental. If it is going bad on election night I'll be watching MSNBC all night to watch Matthews, Maddow and Shultz cry like bitches.

lol oh I know. While the whine may sound different depending on party, it will be no less loud or hilarious. I noticed it quite a bit from the Dems at 538 with his polling, whom at one time had the election as a nearly 90% for Obama, until the first debate. Was a lot of gloating going on, and then the first debate hit and the numbers and probabilities began tanking, as up till then they were all laughing at Repubs and their disbelief. Well, they immediately began questioning his methods and saying he was now nuts because it no longer gave them the comfort they once had. Turned into the very creatures they were mocking.

Anyway, i'm just trolling a bit, having some fun as the emotions begin to boil to the surface with the date closing in. Our political system is no better here. It's rather, kinda boring as hell.

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

---

It IS sad how lately the elections seem to be more about getting "so-and-so" to lose, rather than "yeah, he's pretty good... but my candidate's better." Sad reflection of the times we live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

---

It IS sad how lately the elections seem to be more about getting "so-and-so" to lose, rather than "yeah, he's pretty good... but my candidate's better." Sad reflection of the times we live in.

---

Isn't that pretty much how American politics has always been? It's the 2 party system, one side wins and the other side is pissed off for 4 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

---

It IS sad how lately the elections seem to be more about getting "so-and-so" to lose, rather than "yeah, he's pretty good... but my candidate's better." Sad reflection of the times we live in.

---

Isn't that pretty much how American politics has always been? It's the 2 party system, one side wins and the other side is pissed off for 4 years.

---

Yeah, but ideally it should be about wanting your guy to win more than your wanting the other guy to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

"One guy will do a bad job (Obama) and one guy will do even worse (Romney)" and when you post that you are cheering for Obama to win and I can tell you Obama has no idea about what he's doing, he wasn't ready for the job (still isn't), and all of that just flies over your head because of your irrational dislike of Mitt Romney.


Also your graph can show whatever it's just a correlation which doesn't show cause and effect so I could show a graph like this...
http://news.runnersworld.com/files/2...0.09.58-AM.png
and point out how fucking ridiculous correlations can be Mr. Graph Man

---

The price of gasoline fell off a cliff due to the world economy falling off a cliff. Because the economy crashed -- millions of layoffs and redundancies/bankrupcies worldwide -- the global demand for oil crashed as well. There was suddenly massive excess supply, with tankers full of crude parked up all over the world unable to offload because the supply chain was fully stocked. There isn't anything remotely controversial about what I just wrote, it's just what actually happened.

And anyway, why is it surprising to you that you were wrong about gasoline and Obama was right? You're consistently wrong about everything, you demonstrate every time you post that you don't have a fucking clue about any of this stuff so why is it a shock to you that you were wrong again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

---

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

---

Education is not a federal role. States fund higher education and the price has gone out of control leading to large of amounts of student loan debt due to the states reducing funding but more importantly b/c of the obscene amount of subsidizing the federal government does. Remove the subsidies and the problem corrects its self.

---

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

---

If Romney was actually advocating strong conservative policies, the kind he was advocating back during the primaries, he'd be losing by ten points plus.

Back to Romney's plan.

Romney's plan is the top five things that focus groups tell the pollsters they want. Cheap gas, jobs, cut the deficit and so on. That's it. And it's just five bullet points, there's no actual plan past the bullet points. On even casual examination the "plan" falls apart but it doesn't even get that from the media. The entire campaign on both sides is operating at fifth grade level, you didn't build that, Benghazi shows Obama is soft on terror and so on. The real issues never get discussed because neither side wants to address them.

The real issues are the massive debt overhang, the median wage not having gone up since Reagan and all the benefits of economic growth going to top earners and corporations. Without these issues being reversed America's economy isn't going to do very well in the long term.

Obama's real plan is to continue the system we have whereby US labour rates are being arbitraged down to Asian labour rates (currently a dollar a day to as much as a dollar an hour for unskilled labour, a couple of dollars an hour for skilled labour and six dollars and change an hour for college graduates) on an ongoing basis and US corporate profits are maximised while government programmes that hold America's middle class together, Medicare, social security etc have large cuts made to them.

Romney's real plan is to turn America into a giant Foxconn dormitory and take an axe to Medicare and social security, basically handing them over to the private sector. An express train to the third world in other words while Obama's train runs a lot slower and makes lots of stops along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The federal government subsidises higher education?

---

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

If Romney was actually advocating strong conservative policies, the kind he was advocating back during the primaries, he'd be losing by ten points plus.

---

Yeah, Obama tells the truth 100% of the time and never varies...just like on Libya it was a "Terrorist Attack" from day one and NEVER changed....never changed.....it simply never changed. It wasn't because of a mean video against Islam or whatever, it wasn't a spontaneous attack or anything, it was terrorism right???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU



And what does Barry have planned for his second term? Shouldn't we be hearing about that by now??? Or has this term been so strong he doesn't have to do anything but shout down Romney???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The federal government subsidises higher education?

---

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

---

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?