GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Presidential Debate II : Winner? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1085584)

Rochard 10-16-2012 08:49 PM

CNN is claiming Obama won, 46% to 39%. I'm a bit surprised because I thought it was much closer.

Brad Mitchell 10-16-2012 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 19256521)
Sounds like you aren't that undecided. :winkwink:

I'm becoming less undecided.. that's my job, I have to vote in two weeks!

If Obama was to change direction this late in the game and present something dramatically different, I would sincerely consider it. I don't like the plans he has announced thus far and while Romney lacks specificity, this doesn't mean he can't be a great American president. I'm more likely to gamble on a new guy to do a good job than someone who didn't to magically give us four amazing years.

On most social policies, I'm a total liberal. What we need the most now is jobs or its all for nothing.

Brad

Axel_Crak 10-16-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19256609)
CNN is claiming Obama won, 46% to 39%. I'm a bit surprised because I thought it was much closer.

Well if obama had won the 1st one, i think the result would have been closer tonight , even with 100% of the same debate. its the perception/redemption effect

Like a Tie tonight will have equal a win to Obama .... Hes like the dealer in blackjack :) , he owns the power so , the one who want to beat him has to be better, not equal or near..

madm1k3 10-16-2012 08:59 PM

Pretty funny in America that a guy running for president has to say "I care about 100% of the population" and actually have to sell it.

Basically democrats think Obama won, Republicans thought Romney won, and I think everybody agrees America loses.

But I'm sure because I made fun of Romney I will get called a sheep by some "independant" thinkers spewing fox news talking points.

StickyGreen 10-16-2012 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axel_Crak (Post 19256604)
Well i know and I'm interest in economy more than the average and less then some peoples

The charts reflect some aspect of the economy but for sure not everything. but they reflect perception, fear, hope, investment etc...

They stop the crash by lower the rates and printing money, for sure has you said hyperinflation could destroy the economy and turn the country into dark... But nobody does know that clearly.

If it was that clear well the market will be the mirror of that,,, and i will short all the stock i can. I think now investors has put their pink glasses a lil too fast, but theres a reason, and its because its not only bad news and their is still gas in the tank

The debt is so crazy and scary I agree too... and if the country wasn't the USA ill be VERY pessimist.

The Subprime mortgage crisis was not a walk in the park, the artificially stop it, and they may find another way to stop this one too to goes to lower level, that's my point, I'm more optimistic, and USA has a lot of tentacle and influence and tricks !

I think that economy will go down-up-down-up for few years but i dont see a HUGE recession, but a recession for sure

Also. we don't know whats gonna happen with europe, india/china, innovation, war, virus, etc etc all those factors will influence the rest, at least USA is a solid country

its only my opinion and i respect it, but one thing im sure, nobody know whats gonna happen, nobody has the verity, even the best economic guy on the planet..

Im interest to hear your tough and learn about your opinion so feel free to continue :)

Well the reason I say the writing is on the wall is because we can see what the Federal Reserve is doing, they are debasing the currency at a rate we've never really seen before.

Inflation caused by the Federal Reserve is one of the greatest economic problems that we face, it even looks as if we will soon experience HYPERINFLATION, yet they dare not bring it up at a presidential debate.

Andrew Jackson (and JFK, sort of) was the last president who actually challenged the central bankers and was successful in disbanding their 2nd Bank of the United States because he realized what a threat it was to the country's economy. (The Federal Reserve is essentially the '3rd Bank of the United States,' they just changed the name when they were able to renew their charter under the treasonous snake Woodrow Wilson, and threw in the word 'Federal' to make it seem more official).

You would never hear a Barack Obama or a Mitt Romney challenge the unconstitutional Federal Reserve like Andrew Jackson did. Why is this? Because they are part of the problem, they are somehow comprimised by the Federal Reserve system. This is true because they do not go after the obvious problem in our country (obvious at least to educated people who understand these things).

Brujah 10-16-2012 09:03 PM

Brad, check out the non swing-state thread? Would be interested in your opinion especially since Obama will get Michigan's electoral votes anyway.

Robbie 10-16-2012 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19256590)
57. I was draft age in 1973

ha-ha! You're older than I am! :1orglaugh

Just fucking with you..

But getting serious, I'm pretty sure that Nixon did end the Vietnam War. Kennedy got us involved and Johnson ratcheted it up.

As for transcripts of discussions between people that occur while they are reaching a decision...I don't put much stock in that. I've said shit during discussions with people that was totally the opposite of what I finally did.
In a discussion leading to a big decision you have to put everything on the table.

Sorry...I'm a bit of a Nixon fan when looking back at his overall presidency in perspective. When I was a teenager I was like everybody else and hated him. But that was what we all did back then...hated the govt. (can't say the same for today's "liberals")

kane 10-16-2012 09:08 PM

To me most of it was a tie, but the one point where Romney got caught in the lie about what Obama said after the Libya attacks and the moderator called him on it was a telling moment, but when Obama then spoke and straight bitch slapped Romney for suggesting that he was playing politics with american lives that was a moment where Obama looked presidential and Romney looked pretty bad.

Robbie 10-16-2012 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19256609)
CNN is claiming Obama won, 46% to 39%. I'm a bit surprised because I thought it was much closer.

I just watched that....but they then said it was a "tie" because of the sample of the poll or some such thing.

Young 10-16-2012 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen (Post 19256577)
"Obama called it terrorism the day after the attack!"

"No he didn't!"

"Yes he did!"

"No he didn't!"

"Yes he did, go read the transcript!!"

God damn you people are pathetic. lol, it's like watching children on a playground.

Complaining from the sideline makes you no better :2 cents:

Barry-xlovecam 10-16-2012 09:14 PM

I don't think this debate will change many decided voter's preferred candidate. However, I do think it does reinforce preconceived opinions.

I wish that the debate was a real debate not a controlled question and answer session. Better the back and forth between the candidates on moderator suggested topics.

Heated debates are better -- the first guy to loose his cool loses usually.

A President has to make decision calls under pressure and a real debate that gets nasty gives you a real idea of who you would trust to make the right decision under pressure.

Young 10-16-2012 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19256609)
CNN is claiming Obama won, 46% to 39%. I'm a bit surprised because I thought it was much closer.

CNN also pointed out that the poll contained an 8% higher sampling of Republicans than all CNN polls for 2012. And that it's not representative of the Democrat vs Republican split in the country.

Translation: It's a lot worse than it even looks.

Young 10-16-2012 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19256647)
I don't think this debate will change many decided voter's preferred candidate.

The debate has yet to change any minds. All it's doing is rallying the bases. Republican's will think their guy won and Dems will think their guy one.

The debates had absolutely nothing to do with the polls tightening.

The polls were always going to tighten because it is a tight race.

Anyone who is still undecided at this point doesn't deserve to fucking vote. Low information assholes.

Axel_Crak 10-16-2012 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen (Post 19256625)
Well the reason I say the writing is on the wall is because we can see what the Federal Reserve is doing, they are debasing the currency at a rate we've never really seen before.

Inflation caused by the Federal Reserve is one of the greatest economic problems that we face, it even looks as if we will soon experience HYPERINFLATION, yet they dare not bring it up at a presidential debate.

Andrew Jackson (and JFK, sort of) was the last president who actually challenged the central bankers and was successful in disbanding their 2nd Bank of the United States because he realized what a threat it was to the country's economy. (The Federal Reserve is essentially the '3rd Bank of the United States,' they just changed the name when they were able to renew their charter under the treasonous snake Woodrow Wilson, and threw in the word 'Federal' to make it seem more official).

You would never hear a Barack Obama or a Mitt Romney challenge the unconstitutional Federal Reserve like Andrew Jackson did. Why is this? Because they are part of the problem, they are somehow comprimised by the Federal Reserve system. This is true because they do not go after the obvious problem in our country (obvious at least to educated people who understand these things).

interesting stories, i dont know that much about that period, i will make some read

I dont know also if the dollar crash, how much more the usa can raise and focus on exportation, with the global economy and the others countries with cheap production cost it will not be an easy game

If you have time, pls drop a line about what you think about romney vs obama economic plans ? Are you in the usa ? If yes, and if you want to tell, i presume you favor romney plan ?

Robbie 10-16-2012 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19256647)
I wish that the debate was a real debate not a controlled question and answer session. Better the back and forth between the candidates on moderator suggested topics.

I agree with that 100%.

Seems like the moderators are more concerned with showing they can "control" the "debate". But all they seem to do is interrupt the candidates before they can give their full explanations of policy. :(

After watching last weeks Vice Pres. and tonight's Pres. "debates"...I'm thinking that Jim Lehrer might have been unfairly criticized for not having "control" of the first debate.

I'd much rather hear what the President and Romney have to say than watch BBW dreamgirl Candy Crowley "control" the debate. lol

Seemed like every time that Obama or Romney were trying to give us details...she would interrupt because it was more "important" that they "move on" instead of fully addressing any of the questions.

GrantMercury 10-16-2012 09:46 PM

Obama finally stopped being polite, and beat his ass. :thumbsup

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/24774767.jpg

Obama 2012.

StickyGreen 10-16-2012 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axel_Crak (Post 19256659)
interesting stories, i dont know that much about that period, i will make some read

I dont know also if the dollar crash, how much more the usa can raise and focus on exportation, with the global economy and the others countries with cheap production cost it will not be an easy game

If you have time, pls drop a line about what you think about romney vs obama economic plans ? Are you in the usa ? If yes, and if you want to tell, i presume you favor romney plan ?

Yes I'm in the USA. No, I don't favor Romney or Obama's plan, they are both snakes in the grass and puppets of the Federal Reserve system and the military industrial complex as most presidents were before them.

theking 10-16-2012 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19256528)
I watched for two weeks while He blamed it on a youtube video. and they called it a spontaneous act even though it happened on 9-11... Nobody in this country is stupid enough to believe that.

Or are you talking about the "unreleased tape"

Educate yourself...the tape is not "unreleased"...and has been out there since the day after after the attack.

SmutHammer 10-16-2012 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19256602)
No.
As a simple matter of language there is zero difference.
2+2 = 4
You can dislike 4. You can prefer 3.
None of that changes what 2+2 actually is equivalent to...
Act of Terror = Terrorist Act in English.

Are even close to serious? There is a huge difference!


Quote:

Originally Posted by theking (Post 19256712)
Educate yourself...the tape is not "unreleased"...and has been out there since the day after after the attack.

I was going off of what it sounded like they said during the debate. on the same note, He did not call it a terrorist attack.

GrantMercury 10-16-2012 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 19256610)
I'm becoming less undecided.. that's my job, I have to vote in two weeks!

If Obama was to change direction this late in the game and present something dramatically different, I would sincerely consider it. I don't like the plans he has announced thus far and while Romney lacks specificity, this doesn't mean he can't be a great American president. I'm more likely to gamble on a new guy to do a good job than someone who didn't to magically give us four amazing years.

On most social policies, I'm a total liberal. What we need the most now is jobs or its all for nothing.

Brad

And we're adding jobs. The unemployment rate is falling. Don't go backward now.

The Republicans took us down. Now they bitch because Obama hasn't cleaned up their mess fast enough (while they do NOTHING to help, of course).

Fucking Mitt has taken every position under the sun! He has no shame. Whatever position he thinks the people in front of him want to hear - he's all for. He's fucking sickening.

http://i.qkme.me/3pxi43.jpg

theking 10-16-2012 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19256640)
ha-ha! You're older than I am! :1orglaugh

Just fucking with you..

But getting serious, I'm pretty sure that Nixon did end the Vietnam War. Kennedy got us involved and Johnson ratcheted it up.

As for transcripts of discussions between people that occur while they are reaching a decision...I don't put much stock in that. I've said shit during discussions with people that was totally the opposite of what I finally did.
In a discussion leading to a big decision you have to put everything on the table.

Sorry...I'm a bit of a Nixon fan when looking back at his overall presidency in perspective. When I was a teenager I was like everybody else and hated him. But that was what we all did back then...hated the govt. (can't say the same for today's "liberals")

It was President Eisenhower that first sent troops/advisors to Vietnam.

theking 10-16-2012 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19256716)
I was going off of what it sounded like they said during the debate. on the same note, He did not call it a terrorist attack.

I heard him say "act of terror" on the day after the attack...and that is on tape.

GrantMercury 10-16-2012 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19256716)
I was going off of what it sounded like they said during the debate. on the same note, He did not call it a terrorist attack.

He called it an act of terror. He did. The very next day. He did.

Now, is a president responsible for any act of violence committed against Americans anywhere around the world? Jesus.

Incredible that airliners slam into the twin towers and yet no Republicans blamed Bush.

Ridiculous.

Obama 2012.

SmutHammer 10-16-2012 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19256717)
And we're adding jobs. The unemployment rate is falling. Don't go backward now.

The Republicans took us down. Now they bitch because Obama hasn't cleaned up their mess fast enough (while they do NOTHING to help, of course).

Fucking Mitt has taken every position under the sun! He has no shame. Whatever position he thinks the people in front of him want to hear - he's all for. He's fucking sickening.

http://i.qkme.me/3pxi43.jpg

Losing good paying jobs and replacing them with shit jobs doesn't help much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19256722)
He called it an act of terror. He did. The very next day. He did.

Now, is a president responsible for any act of violence committed against Americans anywhere around the world? Jesus.

Incredible that airliners slam into the twin towers and yet no Republicans blamed Bush.

Ridiculous.

Obama 2012.



And went on for weeks blaming a youtube video :thumbsup Time for a replacement!

Brujah 10-16-2012 10:03 PM

If it has to boil down to whether Ed Hammer acknowledges that Obama said it was a terrorist attack, or that "act of terror" means the same thing, then I'm pretty sure Obama won this round.

Rochard 10-16-2012 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude (Post 19256572)
Kudos to Candy Crowley for not letting Romney squirm his way out of the lies he made regarding Obama's response to the embassy attack in Libya, when he totally misrepresented the President's response to the issue (and while Romney sidestepped his own disloyal and disrespectful comments which he made at the time).

I think this is unfair.

What the President the US Government knew at any exact moment during a moment that involves the security of the US or an embassy, etc, is up to the government to reveal at the moment of it's choosing. The US government - in this case the White House and the President - most likely knew exactly what happened within hours. However, this is a moment where you have to dot your i's and cross your t's before saying anything.

At the same time, a fucking debate or someone running for President should not have ANY influence on international relations, no less attempting to influence the President during a security situation.

Yet Romeny attacked the President over this?

selena 10-16-2012 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 19256610)
I'm becoming less undecided.. that's my job, I have to vote in two weeks!

If Obama was to change direction this late in the game and present something dramatically different, I would sincerely consider it. I don't like the plans he has announced thus far and while Romney lacks specificity, this doesn't mean he can't be a great American president. I'm more likely to gamble on a new guy to do a good job than someone who didn't to magically give us four amazing years.

On most social policies, I'm a total liberal. What we need the most now is jobs or its all for nothing.

Brad

I honestly don't know how you could be a total liberal and vote Republican. I just don't.

I agree, we need jobs. I also think that no one, not Superman himself, could have fixed our collective mess in 4 years. Or 8. Or even 12.

SmutHammer 10-16-2012 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 19256725)
If it has to boil down to whether Ed Hammer acknowledges that Obama said it was a terrorist attack, or that "act of terror" means the same thing, then I'm pretty sure Obama won this round.

Have a good night, I have to be up early.

Good job to Obama for not looking at the floor the whole time :)

Rochard 10-16-2012 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19256644)
I just watched that....but they then said it was a "tie" because of the sample of the poll or some such thing.

I honestly don't think Obama did that good tonight. And a tie isn't a win for Obama, it's a loss.

clickhappy 10-16-2012 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 19256610)

On most social policies, I'm a total liberal. What we need the most now is jobs or its all for nothing.

Brad

FYI Romney hasn't created any jobs ever.

Romney got rich by putting people out of work.

His company did leverage buyouts (LBO's), he borrowed HUGE amounts of money from banks, used it to buy out companies, then strapped those companies with huge debt, charged huge management fees, and closed them down. Fired all employees, then sold off the profitable parts.

Like a parasite.

He made his money by FIRING workers, not creating jobs.
Then takes pictures with money in his teeth.

I know, I lived in Massachusetts while he was governor, he didnt create shit for jobs. I think Mass was 47th in jobs growth while Romney was governor.

Then when Bain needed help they got a government bailout...the very thing he said he's against.

I dont like either of them, but at least with Obama we move forward socially with women, gays, minorities, and not have a president who believes in magic underwear and fires people while taking pictures of money stuffed into his pockets to gloat.

Robbie 10-16-2012 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clickhappy (Post 19256753)
FYI Romney hasn't created any jobs ever.

Romney got rich by putting people out of work.

His company did leverage buyouts (LBO's), he borrowed HUGE amounts of money from banks, used it to buy out companies, then strapped those companies with huge debt, charged huge management fees, and closed them down. Fired all employees, then sold off the profitable parts.

Yes, he made all of his money just like that. And NEVER hired even one person "ever".

It's statements like these that hurt the Democrats arguments and cause a backlash against the President. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

If you think Obama's ideas are better than Romney's then vote for Obama. No need to exaggerate shit about Romney's life.

In my opinion they are both disqualified because they don't really believe in personal freedom.

But in your world...Romney never hired anyone "ever"...
Seriously?

Axel_Crak 10-16-2012 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19256741)
I honestly don't think Obama did that good tonight. And a tie isn't a win for Obama, it's a loss.

Tie is a win for Obama. Hes the president. And its even more true after his 1st bad performance. Hes the one leading. Piriod

TheStout 10-16-2012 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19256779)
Yes, he made all of his money just like that. And NEVER hired even one person "ever".

It's statements like these that hurt the Democrats arguments and cause a backlash against the President. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

If you think Obama's ideas are better than Romney's then vote for Obama. No need to exaggerate shit about Romney's life.

In my opinion they are both disqualified because they don't really believe in personal freedom.

But in your world...Romney never hired anyone "ever"...
Seriously?

Creating jobs is different than hiring someone.

He could have hired 100 people in company A and laid off 500 in company B he bought just to sell off the parts. That is a net loss of 400 jobs. He didn't create a single job in this case. I do not know how many jobs Romney created but it is worth looking into. Unless you know Romney has created a surplus in jobs IN America then saying clickhappy hurts the democrats because of his statement is just ignorant.

clickhappy 10-16-2012 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19256779)
But in your world...Romney never hired anyone "ever"...
Seriously?

Then show me how Romney has any track record of creating jobs?

Dont split hairs if I use the word ever and he actually hired 20 or 30 people.
I'm talking about substantial job creation. he's been in positions of power but only has a track record of finding good companies, sucking money out of them, then moving on to the next company, and putting his money offshore.

So you show me how Romney created jobs

Captain Kawaii 10-16-2012 11:13 PM

a draw. still lots of ads to buy.

Brujah 10-16-2012 11:15 PM

Robbie must be right, and Romney has created millions of jobs. Maybe they were created in China!

kane 10-16-2012 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStout (Post 19256794)
Creating jobs is different than hiring someone.

He could have hired 100 people in company A and laid off 500 in company B he bought just to sell off the parts. That is a net loss of 400 jobs. He didn't create a single job in this case. I do not know how many jobs Romney created but it is worth looking into. Unless you know Romney has created a surplus in jobs IN America then saying clickhappy hurts the democrats because of his statement is just ignorant.

When it comes to job creation, I don't know the numbers, but his company was behind getting Staples started and they helped it grow and become what it was. He also sat on the board of Mariott and helped them get more profitable (due in large part to the amount of pay per view porn they offered in their rooms), but he also killed big companies like KB Toys.

Brujah 10-16-2012 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 19256810)
When it comes to job creation, I don't know the numbers, but his company was behind getting Staples started and they helped it grow and become what it was. He also sat on the board of Mariott and helped them get more profitable (due in large part to the amount of pay per view porn they offered in their rooms), but he also killed big companies like KB Toys.

Do you mean Government should invest in startups and help grow jobs that way by taking ownership in private companies?

TheStout 10-16-2012 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 19256810)
When it comes to job creation, I don't know the numbers, but his company was behind getting Staples started and they helped it grow and become what it was. He also sat on the board of Mariott and helped them get more profitable (due in large part to the amount of pay per view porn they offered in their rooms), but he also killed big companies like KB Toys.

I have no idea how many jobs he has created was just stating the difference between hiring and creating. It would be a good idea for Romney to show just how many jobs he has created if it was a large number.

kane 10-16-2012 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 19256815)
Do you mean Government should invest in startups and help grow jobs that way by taking ownership in private companies?

nope, I didn't say that and in most cases I think it is a bad idea. I do, however, think the bailout of the auto industry was a good thing.


I was just pointing out some of the cases where Romney himself has created and destroyed jobs.

onwebcam 10-17-2012 12:55 AM

They tied for the moron of the year award.

bronco67 10-17-2012 01:55 AM

Axe of Terrurrrr

bronco67 10-17-2012 01:57 AM

Romney thinks its his turn to be president, and rich people usually get what they want. That is all.

seeandsee 10-17-2012 02:04 AM

and winner is: _______________

SmutHammer 10-17-2012 04:41 AM

my son was excited to show me this.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

RebelR 10-17-2012 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19256602)
No.
As a simple matter of language there is zero difference.
2+2 = 4
You can dislike 4. You can prefer 3.
None of that changes what 2+2 actually is equivalent to...
Act of Terror = Terrorist Act in English.

I'm inclined to disagree. What Obama said was tantamount to saying "a couple". Not actually saying "two". So a couple + a couple can mean anything, 3, 4, 5. I thing the point that people are making is that he made a blanket statement of "no act of terror" he didn't actually say "this act if terror". If the administration backed it up in the days following the statement then it makes it more true, if not then it was just a general statement.

Minte 10-17-2012 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 19256725)
If it has to boil down to whether Ed Hammer acknowledges that Obama said it was a terrorist attack, or that "act of terror" means the same thing, then I'm pretty sure Obama won this round.

I am not speaking for Ed Hammer,

I think that the confusion is over the fact that for a week after the terrorist attack, which turned out to be an Al Qaeda terrorist attack,the administration only pointed at the fact that it was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video.

If they didn't know it was al qaeda within 5 minutes after it happened the question is why didn't they? And if they did know,why the blatant smokescreen?

Axel_Crak 10-17-2012 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer (Post 19257102)
my son was excited to show me this.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc

:1orglaugh Amazing, loved it

DWB 10-17-2012 06:51 AM

Not a single question about the Federal Reserve. Easy to see who's really running things.

Relentless 10-17-2012 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelR (Post 19257185)
I'm inclined to disagree. What Obama said was tantamount to saying "a couple". Not actually saying "two". So a couple + a couple can mean anything, 3, 4, 5. I thing the point that people are making is that he made a blanket statement of "no act of terror" he didn't actually say "this act if terror". If the administration backed it up in the days following the statement then it makes it more true, if not then it was just a general statement.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple
A couple plus a couple is always four as a result.
Never 3 and never 5.
If you add a couple and a couple but do not get four as a result...
You either didn't have two couples to start with or you added incorrectly.

Once again, you can dislike what he said, you can believe it was not forceful enough or specific enough... But on the question of what was said, an act of terror and a terrorist act are exactly the same thing. Romney tried to call him on it and the moderator correctly pointed out Romney was in fact incorrect.

What I find strange is that Republicans want the President to know all the specifics of a terrorist attack 48 hours after it happens, but they don't require Romney to know any of the specifics of his own economic plan four years after he started running for office. Our CIA and NSA will sort out what happened in Libya and kill those responsible, the same way Bin Laden was killed. However, that tax and loophole plan Romney keeps talking about will still be trillions of dollars away from magically adding up to become revenue neutral. Perhaps that might be worth a bit more focus from our electorate.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123