Mother Nature says coal is bad for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis The fuel of Neanderthals.
The person who came off looking the worst, IMO, was the moderator. She overstepped the bounds of her assigned duties by interjecting herself between the two candidates on substance. She talked about how she was going to do it all week heading into the debate. Neither campaign wanted her to do any "follow up" questions or anything beyond keeping the clock and choosing the questions. She clearly spoke up when she shouldn't have, and it looks to me like she regretted it right away. She couldn't take it back, but did try to correct the record after the fact on CNN. If catching Romney in a lie was her objective, it was a miserable failure. Upon reviewing the video posted here and shown numerous times on TV, it is clear that Obama and other top admin officials denied it was an act of terror even as damning information dribbled out over the following two weeks. So the moral of the story is they claim he's a liar, did the gotcha moment, and there was no gotcha. It kind of puts to rest the notion that he is a liar at all. Romney has plenty of money to fill the airwaves with explanatory commercials, and showing Obama in his own words. Plus there's another debate (foreign policy is the topic) on Monday where he will absolutely get the chance to correct the record. A black man stood up and told Obama he'd lost hope for any change with him. Obama's answer was terrible. He offered no plan for the future himself, and his track record was thoroughly trounced by Romney - it was one of the most effective things Romney did accomplish last night. So for those pushing the Obama line, "weak on details" when it comes to Romney... What are the details of what Obama wants to do to us the next 4 years? kthx bye EDIT: Obama lied and was caught in it. He absolutely and without a doubt has cut the number of exploratory and drilling permits offshore and on govt. land.
I make a second post because it's of a very different nature than the above. I'm not voting for Romney. He has his moments in these debates but he also has plenty of views that I find offensive. He absolutely blew it on the issue of women in the workforce last night. His story of looking to find women qualified for cabinet posts was awkward at best, and downright condescending. I personally wouldn't even consider gender when hiring, and I'd expect there to be plenty of good men and women to choose from based upon their merits. Neither Obama nor Romney have the right position on immigration, though both said things that have appeal to me. Obama would provide amnesty for some illegals (the dream act). OK by me, but for all but those who don't commit violent crimes after immigrating here, I don't see a reason to pick and choose by IQ test or some other means test. Romney suggested the legal process for immigration needs to be sped up and less red tape. Sure, why not. Both miss the point that it's a free country, mass quantities of immigrants came here all along without requiring papers. Now that we're here, let's somehow make this an exclusive club by invite only? It's literally fascist when you get down to it (nationalistic, racial discrimination). Romney's 20% tax cuts across the board absolutely make sense and can work. Simpson-Bowles suggested a cut of the top tax rate to 24% with every deduction eliminated. Romney suggests a cut to 28% with some "favored" deductions kept. Yet he's not making the case we shouldn't just do Simpson-Bowles. Keeping the mortgage deduction sounds good and maybe you don't have to explain it, but it really is as simple as, "would you rather have the deduction and pay 10% of your total income in taxes or would you rather pay 1% of your total income in taxes and have no deductions?" I can forgive the pandering to the party base on both sides. They both have records of governing to review objectively. My vote is for: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ LIVE FREE.
Apropos of nothing, my 10-year-old daughter watched the last hour of the debate with me and decided that she wants Romney to win.
I like Obama. I think he means well, he genuinely wants to build the middle class and create a country where everyone a chance to succeed. I think he is presidential, well spoken, charismatic and a great face for our country. I think his wife is an excelent representative as a first lady and that Obama picks a lot of the right people for higher positions. Obama is current, hip, and is a picture of modern America. Having said all that, I'm voting for Romney. (Highly doubt the third debate will change my mind.) Our country, the global economy, is at a crossroads. I don't think Obama runs the country into banckruptcy like Republicans chant all day. But I do think this is a critical time and how we recover from this time perioid will likely define our economy, relative to the world, for the next generation. I would rather have Romney take a crack at that than Obama. My biggest fear with Romney, is somehow losing my job and small life savings (or an unfortunate event puts me in 100,000s of dollars in debt. I would not want to be in desperate need of money with Romney as president. But I've worked staright for 20 years, I highly doubt that situation will arise. So: Go Romney!
Completely agree. What Romney really missed,however, was a golden opportunity to use Obama's comment against him in a big way. Since Obama was saying that his Rose Garden talk indicated that he knew it was a terrorist attack, Romney should have said something like, 'Of course you knew it was a terrorist attack. Nobody with the intelligence assets you have at your disposal could have possibly thought differently. The question that demands answering, Mr. President, is what then are we to make of your administration's smoke screens over the next two weeks where you tried to deflect attention from a terrorist attack by calling it a demonstration against a video gone wild? That appears to have been trying to avoid the political damage from your administrations failings by lying to the public, and that, Mr. President, is the truly offensive thing about this ugly incident.'
Do you think that Romney's team won't drop this argument on President Obama and demand an explanation next Monday? I do. It helped him last night, but next week it's going to cost him, big time.
I didn't get this either. If I were Romney, I would have been calling out Obama for not even coming close to answering the question about why nothing was done BEFORE the event even with some warning signals. Romney missed a big opportunity to land a blow there.
How much of the federal tax revenue should the top 5% be required to pay? What is "fair" in your opinion?
Given his preparation, it's amazing to me he whiffed it so badly. However, he and his team have almost a week to prepare his response to two lies in the past two debates (Biden's "we didn't get the request" and Obama's "I called it terrorism"). I suspect he will review his performance and take great pains to point out the discrepancy. It's already starting with Paul Ryan on the campaign trail: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...he_send_rice_out_to_say_it_was_the_video.html It's a simple question with an obvious answer. To not arrive at that answer and to point in another direction is going to take some clever rhetorical dancing by the Obama Administration.
Really, why... when MSNBC will do. [video=youtube;JDanNdzAUn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JDanNdzAUn0[/video]
There is something interesting about people who avoid caffeine and alcohol because they are sinful, but fall to wrath.
Interesting? Fine. But wothy of attack and ridicule? Is that affecting how he would act as President? It's so strange that the Left is so gung-ho on equality and non-discrimination (and rightly so), EXCEPT when it comes to tolerance towards the religious.
There have been three debates. What has struck me the most is that no matter how specific the Romney/Ryan team get on their proposals, it never seems to be enough. And has anyone noticed that neither Obama nor Biden have offered anything they want to accomplish in another four years? I wonder if it were John McCain running for a second term if they would be let off the hook this way?
