or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by NoahJ

I watched both, it was not that same in any sense of the word. Whether you believe your opponent in a debate is telling the truth or not, speaking over the top of them is poor form at best. You allow them to complete their time and then you rebut. Laughing over top of the person, then speaking out of turn over top of the person when it is not your time shows a lack of control or respect.
Go on. Back that up. If Mitt wins it is because Obama did not live up to the hype he built up for himself and has not made things better now that they were when he entered office for the majority of America. Considering the support Obama enjoys from the many groups and the fact that he is actually raising funds as well as or better than his opponent. If he loses he will only have himself to blame.
What does that have to do with the question I asked? You are stating a moral issue while I was questioning factual accuracy. Can you speak to the facts and not the moral issue that you are focused on? Assume I agree otherwise with your position. Ok?
Biden was rude and did not allow Ryan to complete his statements ever. He embodied every claim that Democrats made against Romney in hs debate against Obama. But in this case it made him the better debater while Romney, who did not do this but was claimed to have was said to have done a poor job by those same people who are now applauding Biden. Sad.
Mitt is likely going to win this election, and you are likely to lose this argument. Both seem clear to me. You have not changed much in the time I took away.
When the argument presented is a false choice, "either you are for or against" what did you expect the debate to be? Honestly, I believe this occurred just like you wanted it to. You got to lay into anyone who disagreed with you, and you got to feel superior to any who disagreed based on your false dichotomy. For the voice of reason on these boards that you see yourself as, pretty unreasonable.
Funny that BR finds this post helpful when he did start the sidetrack that h nothing to do with the thread and then happily pulled it so far off topic as to be unrecognizable from the original post. In case you forgot this was done by this post:Svnipp took the flamebait and the thread was derailed. But you can try to make it seem like it happened otherwise if you like. My memory is not as short as you would like to believe though.
Of all the points that irritated me about the debate, the one from Biden that Iran didn't have a bomb to put that fissile material into was the one that just lost it for me. Unless I completely misunderstand nuclear weapons, and I might, the basic premise is that the tech for making the bomb itself is not impossible, the hard part is getting the fissile material. Biden kept saying, all they have is the fissile material, stop worrying. What am I missing here?
I am honestly very interested in these debates. I hope to see how Ryan does under some pressure in front of an audience. We already know how Biden does... Otherwise, I do not expect to learn much of anything new.
Well, this thread went exactly where I thought it would...
New Posts  All Forums: