Originally Posted by sr2012
Watching 3rd one now. This is bad. Very bad for Obama. Waffling, attacking Romney, co-opting Romney's statements, arrogant... Not cool. Not good.
In what world is now the Republican candidate making the most sense?
I mean, however true his intentions, Romney is totally nailing it.
Very sad to see the Left taking it up the shaft like this. Not cool.
Obama - "Ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future"
...When people are getting slaughtered, I think they really do want to determine their future but it's a bit hard when babies are getting shot and stuff... Pretty insensitive.
At the outset I felt Obama was winning. Obama looked and sounded confident and aggressive for about 30 minutes, whereas Romney was being fairly passive. However, after Mitt's Afghanistan answer (which I didn't like), the debate turned completely. Obama started looking angry, petulant, condescending and snarky. He was off his game, and Mitt started getting more direct. Romney was Presidential. Obama came off like a desperate challenger.
That link really doesn't help your case. It shows that on balance, Romney was correct, especially about the Air Force. The article also launches into some opining on why the size of the force is not a good metric. That's a perfectly legitimate debate to have, but it's hardly "fact checking."
- - - - -
Obama did a great job, I think, reminding people regularly of how Mittens was shifting his position. Today Mittens was trying to get the undecideds by moving to the center. He may have sounded good tonight in some respects, but if we look back at his statements over the past few months, he is in fact quite scary. Indeed, most of his foreign affairs advisors hail from the staff of George W. Bush. Remember, people, he said himself he needed 50.1% of the vote, and he will do anything, say anything to get there. Shape-shifter.
- - - - -
You sank my battleship!
1. Yes, yes, Berg. We know that's all you and your man have left: Paint Romney as "reckless and radical," a war monger, etc. The problem you have here is no one really believes it's true. This is particularly so because of Romney's calm and pleasant demeanor, speaking style and overall tone.
2. That was a funny line by Obama. As with the others however, it was also very un-presidential.
Originally Posted by trumptman
The pettiness of the Obama campaign has transferred down to his supporters. Look how strange and petty the complaints have been in the threads here. Same bumper-sticker thinking and same attempt at sarcasm, caricature and snark rather than leadership.
Millions are unemployed and underemployed. Growth was never strong for the recovery and is weakening each month. The president has borrowed TRILLIONS has no intention of changing his path.
That isn't important though, what is important...BINDERS.....that isn't important, what is important.....BATTLESHIP.
It's really, just so sad that people are suffering and Obama sounds like a weak Jon Stewart.
Yep. At first I thought Obama was winning the debate because Mitt wasn't hitting him hard enough. But Obama perhaps got overconfident, because he started coming across as petty, angry and ridiculous.
Originally Posted by svnipp
Well, I don't know the historical data from almost 3/4 of a century ago, but how about the fact that the top 1% makes 17% of the income. That does seem quite unfair, doesn't it? How is it that the top 1% makes so much money? I think Obama is correct and we should make sure that the rich pay their fair share. The top 1% only pays 37% of all Federal income tax!!! How dare they!!! Proportionally the top 1% is paying only slightly more than double their "fair share". Oh wait, let me think this thru...
So if Obama is right in that the rich need to pay their "fair share", does that mean that he intends to cut their tax rate by about 50%? If they make 17% of the income in America, wouldn't their "fair share" to be to pay 17% of the income tax?
Just how much do you propose that we soak the rich? You are aware that NOBODY has ever paid anything even close to the 90% top marginal rate aren't you? Back in the day, apparently your glory days of 70 to 90% top marginal rates, many of the evil rich simply stopped working when they got to that top marginal tax rate. Additionally, their were so many loopholes and deductions that even those who made well into that top rate never paid anything close to that rate. Where is the incentive to work when you are only going to get 10 to 30% of your compensation for that work?
He won't listen. BR is convinced the rich don't pay enough and that by raising their taxes, you not only make things More Fair(TM) but you decrease the deficit was well,. Neither is true, but that won't stop him.