Lie well and lie often, then accuse you opponent of lying.That's the recommended approach- it works! it makes you look "aggressive" and "dynamic."
One example was when Obama explained the fuzzy math of Romney's budget plans, and Mitt responded with indignation, insisting that his plans will balance the budget by virtue of bringing in MORE revenue by reducing the tax rates of rich people. The Congressional Research Service and most economists reject that, noting it has been tried many times and has never achieved the desired goal. In 2012, the concept is especially silly. Tax rates for the rich are already low- Mitt's tax rate is lower than mine- so you run into diminishing returns. What next, zero taxes for the rich and we will suddenly run a budget surplus?
But Mitt did speak with passion. It seemed as if he might actually believe it.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 252
Karl Rove indeed.
Goodbye.
Psshhh...and...HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!!!
The lie(s) that this person sees in everyone but his mates those lie(s)
" the most transparent administration ever"
" I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue." even liberal Glenn Kessler did not take Obama serious, writing “virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting."
Or maybe it was this lie that their talking about.
Under Romney's plan, "the average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more."
But the The Associated Press agreed with studies the Romney campaign has cited that showed his plans would not raise taxes on anyone.
“over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector.” But even liberal Glenn Kessler, of the Washington Post, said Obama was trying to “obscure the fact that the overall job record so far in this presidential term has been negative.
Goodbye
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
...which more accurately describes Mitt's shortcomings.
;-)
Having a transparent administration? Closing Gitmo? Posting bills online? Ohhhh oops.....
Prove it.
*you're
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
~Ralph Waldo Emerson"
LOL, Tony, the comment still doesn't make rational sense as applied to this conversation, but it makes far more with the omitted word, THANKS!
His efforts to close Gitmo was blocked by congress, because of the unfounded concerns about housing terrorist on the mainlland would maybe, possibly lead to unlikely attacks. In WWII, Oklahoma housed more enemy POWs than what there is in Gitmo. and some of these were allowed to work for local farmers under minimal supervision.
I disagree. I thought Romney was going to burst a vessel or start sweating like a farm animal. I thought Obama was pitch perfect. Romney seemed juvenile, like a boy next to a man and he wanted the man's "toys". He had no idea how they worked but he wanted them.
Because he's got NOTHIN'! THAT'S why!
The Poster Campaign for cognitive dissonance...and stand-up comics everywhere.
"Unfortunately, the media & pundits aren't reporting it that way."
...a display of ignorance much? For years, all of you on the left have been listening to Obama's lies while the lamestream media has backed him up and covered for him. They've never called him on any of it. Now you're all shocked? And, you've been believing the fraudulant polls and setting yourselves up for another shock when Romney wins in a landslide. Remember, it was Obama who commanded that you shouldn't watch Fox NEWS or listen to talk radio, the only ones who would have kept you informed. Of course, you could have just listened to us also. Instead, you've trusted the liars, fought off the truth, and believed in the socialist/communist propaganda laid out by Obama.
Problem is, Opinate, that they Truly BELIEVE what they believe...
That ain't ever going to happen!
"I think Obama stood there & took it because he was the adult in the room. Romney appeared to me to be like a little kid so desperate to convince his mommy that he's telling the truth he can't stop babbling, even to allow others in the room to have their turn, as he so adamantly pointed out he thought was unfair when he, again thought, that he wasn't getting his turn. I also think Obama just kept that knowing smile on his face because allowing Romney to be so disrespectful, rather than to get into insisting on fairness, was in Obama's best interest..."
1. Becky is dead right.
2. I think a lot of males don't get this, as even nicely suggested in the dial in polling to which E. J. Dionne referred. The little boy tantrum stuff doesn't play well with women, and they will greatly decide this election.
3. This was a clinic scene in emotional intelligence and Romney has 0.
4. Becky is dead right.
No offense, but this isn't really the case~aides close to the Prez are saying that he was unprepared & their strategy didn't pan off. Needless to say, that strategy is being reworked for the next debate.
Just woke up, but I'll try to find the story & link it...
I think Obama just has had a poor four years and it is simply difficult to defend his policies.... he is very good at attacking and diverting and pointing fingers, but how can one defend the deficit, the (lack of a) budget, the horrific foreign policy, the failed green stimulus (the whole stimulus), the lack of transparency, the polarization, the fact that more people got more food stamps than jobs, his trampling of the Constitution....ohhhh I could go on.....but I will spare you ;-) What has he done right? Aside from Bin Laden? And he messed that up, too. And than there is the VP, "gaffe a minute" train wreck.
Ms. Thang - I know that you like Obama - and I like you (mostly ;-]), but I honestly do not understand how anyone could take this guy seriously....I really would love to understand what he has done that makes people consider electing him again....
As far as the debate...I have heard so many excuses - the fact that he did not prepare enough is only one (Al Gore said it was the altitude, Stephanie Cutter said Mitt Romney prepared too much). Chris Matthews just about blew a gasket - did you see him freak out? His hair was all wild and he was yelling like a freak.....
But I digress...just assuming that he really didn't prepare.... it is no excuse - if he wants to be prezzy, he needs to perform in a debate. Is Beyonce more important? Letterman? I am sure he could have squeezed in some time.
I suspect that his using the same tired material from last election is starting to seem hollow... His repeated finger-pointing, his calls for the wealthy to "pay their fair share," his rock star lifestyle, this terrible Benghazi mess... it is getting old.
Let's put it this way, I like Obama way better than Romney~Romney is a liar, esp. about his job as governor here in MA (I'll be posting, stay tuned). As far as the debate, I think Obama's lack of prep was pretty much in evidence. Do you have to dispute every friggin' thing??? No wonder you get beat up here & nobody really takes you that serious, well, nobody x your buds!
RF provided a pretty lengthy comment (on your post, I think) of 27 lies (that # is circulated all over the net) committed by Romney during the debate. What bothers me more than the lies, is that he was completely comfortable in doing it~I now view the friggin' guy as dangerous! AND, what's everyone talking about 4 days later~BIG BIRD, no longer the fact that Romney "won!"
"But I digress."
Seems to be a bad habit of yours...& I could care less whether you like me or not!
Perhaps the altitude is high where you are, today?
2. I think a lot of males don't get this, as even nicely suggested in the dial in polling to which E. J. Dionne referred. The little boy tantrum stuff doesn't play well with women, and they will greatly decide this election.
3. This was a clinic scene in emotional intelligence and Romney has 0.
4. Becky is dead right."
Thanks, Teri, sorry I missed your earlier comment! I agree, that garbage just doesn't play well with women :-).
I think debates Are about more than just body language. try just reading the debate in a transcript. did Romney actually say anything that was accurate?
...hmm, like Obama? Oh wait, he smiles when he lies. And Obama showers us with his lies whether he has to or not.
Look at them...stunned, all...
You are very good at working with the retarded.
There is no answer...because there is no answer.
Tony Stark Oct 7, 2012, 5:44am EDT
I must beg your pardon, I mistook you for somebody else.
I already posted the answer a few threads down.
"I must beg your pardon, I mistook you for somebody else."
Apology accepted.
Hey, how about a reference from Mitt? He did not offer one.
Peter, what lies did Romney tell that have you so hot and bothered?
Muppets.
...the one liner that's been provided to the drones until the leftist think tanks can put their combined two brain cells together and come up with a more creative excuse. Or maybe just keep repeating that until a faux "crisis" can be created.
I always ignore political debates, they tell me almost nothing.
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Congressional-Report-Tax-Cuts-for-the-Rich-Do-Not-Promote-Growth-63992-1.html
Give saps like me a tax cut and I will spend it. Since those in the lower income are about 100 times more persons that those rich ones, and since we will spend the extra cash, retail sales will climb, real estate purchases will climb, entertainment facilities and events will experience greater attendances. When the rich owner of these enterprises see the increased demand, they will increase supplies and availability, creating new jobs. Benefits trickle up not down.
What is truth, said Pilate, washing his hands.
...never mind, you wouldn't make any sense.
"Kinda reminds me of the GOP's Angry Penguin candidate in 2008."
...do I detect a liberal mocking McCain's physical handicap? Do I detect the typical leftist double-standards?
...no need for a response, it is what it is.
"I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut."
"I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
"We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country."
Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have."
"Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
Of course you don't. That would mean you'd have to admit to insulting someone. In your mind, the condescending, pompous things you say are perfectly civil and acceptable. In reality, you're a small man that has to make yourself feel better by making disparaging remarks about others and your twisted attempts to rationalize your insults makes you a sociopath. Seek help.
Good list, Tony. And there are many more (see Larry M's post).
Now if you channel Julie Andrews a bit, and assume Mitt learned to sing just a wee bit better, you would get:
These a few of Romney's Favorite Lies
Opinion or intrepretation..."Felix the Cat is anthropromorphic"
Only a simpleton would make these analogies!!
But then, his intention was just to argue semantics in the first place, in an attempt to try to deflect from Romney's lies while simultaneously taking snarky pot-shots at me and liberals in general.
I think you should grow up.
"Oh, I think I see what you are talking about...merely disagreeing with liberals equals a personal attack."
No, the "disagreement" angle may be a favorite of right wingers, but your insult is what I'm referring to. Let me re-post it for you, since you seem unable to recognize it for yourself....
"You people really should learn the vocabulary..."
This is a comment meant to demean, by attacking my intelligence, or according to you, lack of intelligence. It's an uncivil, snarky comment to make and the fact that you're now claiming innocence is really just the next stage of the right wing script - insult, wait for an objection to said insult, then claim the objection was raised because someone disagreed. It's just business as usual for you people.
"That's it Joe! If you disagree with the B.S. it is a personal attack. Pathetic ain't it?"
You know what's really pathetic? Your hit-and-run comments. I debunk your nonsense on a daily basis, and your response is to abandon the thread because you have no answers. How did that conspiracy theory about the Obama rally picture work out for ya?
"...you can stop blowing hot air."
You first.
http://youtu.be/f3gp_4Ih3yQ
I would never watch any videos that you posted. The things you say are ridiculous enough, why would I subject myself to some right wing nonsense video? Btw, you need to stop telling me what to do - you don't run me.
...aw, poor victim. That newest liberal tactic will win no sympathy. Stop being so delicate.
...gee "Tony Stark" you made nearly that same comment to me once. And do you remember correcting my spelling once? And, what was the purpose in that? I think I know who you really are now, since I saw another person whine about being "picked on" and "harassed" who then created a brand new profile just to make a comment that was for the sole purpose of harassing someone else. Then, when I pointed that out, that new person deleted their profile.
Aw, condescending presenter of snide comments, your oldest conservative tactic will win you no respect. Stop telling me what to do.
"And do you remember correcting my spelling once?"
Once?
"And, what was the purpose in that?"
To enlighten, of course. And the fact that you believe that knowing the meaning of words and knowing how to spell them is the same thing speaks volumes.
"I think I know who you really are now, since I saw another person whine about being "picked on" and "harassed" who then created a brand new profile just to make a comment that was for the sole purpose of harassing someone else. Then, when I pointed that out, that new person deleted their profile."
Pardon me while I put on a tinfoil hat so I can more easily understand the logic behind that paragraph. The altar accusations are really getting old now.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
not.
...but only as "entertaining and amusing" as... oh say... Beavis and Butt-head.
but there is no such a thing as a republican lie in the minds of some folk.
You then come up with "lol @ ''Opps". Classic. xD"
...and, what was that? Thanks for providing us with another example of leftist double standards.
...not really, it's more like, "suddenly" when a Republican says something that can be used for leftist propaganda and agenda purposes, that Republican is credible, otherwise all Republicans are stupid liars. Hey, we're aware of the progressives in the Republican party, and yes, they are RINOS. And, we're out to remove them too.
get in line, Barack.
...accusations and blaming, does the man have anything else? ANYTHING?
NO!!!
How can you calculate the number of people actively seeking work? Unless one goes out to each prospective employer and counts applications, it can't be done. Also, with the pathetic Obama economy, people above retirement age are looking for jobs too. Considering all of that, Romney did undershoot the actual number of unemployed.
I provided a link that has all of that information.
"Considering all of that, Romney did undershoot the actual number of unemployed."
There is no factual evidence to support that claim.
Hell for that matter, look at the U6 number FROM BLS - which includes those that are working at part time (some as BLS itself says, is only one hour a week). and minimum wage that were forced into it by the economy - BLS says U6 is 14.7% 0 FAR above the U3 number -and that does NOT include those living with parents, and grandparents, siblings, on the street etc -.............
When you look at the former "workforce" (157 MM according to BLS) and the current "workforce"(150MM according to BLS) there are 7MM no longer counted and that is ignoring the youth that have entered employment age, but never yet found a job- so even the U6 that BLS admits too, is low -add another 7MM to the workforce, and to the unemployed number –now U6 is NOT 14.7% (22MM out of 150), but is actually 29MM out of 157MM – 18.5% in true unemployment and underemployment.
Just because a persons benefits ran out, and they are no longer working (living off the charity of friends and relatives) does NOT mean they should not be counted!
All the numbers are out there on the internet – all FROM the BLS – all you have to do is care to look.
So yes, Romney UNDERstated the numbers – why? I would have to think it was to avoid the argument about what IS the real number – when even the fake number is bad enough already.
The factual evidence is there - you just have to want to look, and have a basic understanding of what U3 vs U6 is, along with realising the Workforce has been reduced artificially - proven by the numbers themselves.
Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment insurance
benefits?
No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households. All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.
Look them up - as I did - or continue to use a biased survey sample - BLS is based on ACTUAL claims, and actual numbers - not estimates.
You may you not be used to anyone doubting you absolute, supreme word in your apartment, but I am not impressed - it is 100% Deja Moo (I have heard this BS before).
I TOlD you where to find it - you have to be smart enough to read it, and understand it - I am positive you ARE smart enough - but are you willing????
Probly not.
An actual attempt at providing facts from the empty suite!
"Have a link?"
Mick doesn't need one....Your source validates all that he has posted! Maybe you should read the material you link to a bit more thoroughly.
Unemployed = 12,544,000
Persons who currently want a job = 6,493,000
Marginally attached to the labor force = 2,575,000
Discouraged workers = 977,000
Other persons marginally attached to the labor force = 1,598,000
24+ million in America without work!
Oh man, Obama has really destroyed the economy and put everybody out of work! Look at the REAL numbers, Tony, and you'll see that U6 has gone up by 0.5 since Obama took office, and it only went up 6.9 under Bush!1!!
Uh, what?
glad to see not much has changed LOL.
so wil - ya figger the U6 number given by BLS is a lie???
or is it than 14.7 is NOT worse in your mind than 8.1 - cpourse it IS only an 80% increase in the quoted rate - but why get bogged down in favts, when you are trying to argue facts eh?
so lets see - cpi is up - gdp is down - u/e is up - net worth in middle income people is down 40%, in wealthy people it is down 60%, there are 47MM on welfare - an increase of 7MM, food stanps are the highest ever, ........
yea - things are just lolipops and roses.
good thing you stay down under - no one would even talk to you if you decided to come back to yourt homeland.
wil, you remind me of why i dont bother coming on here - the idiocy of the comments runs rampant.
Like a boss.
Del, you're the best. Be well.
Nope, that's not how it works. I made a counter-point and provided a link that supported what I said. It's not my job to run around looking for numbers to support your counter-point. If you want to be part of the debate, provide evidence that supports your counter-point, instead of your opinion.
"Yes, we're finally below that 8 percent level, but it's still indicative of a slow growth environment," Michelle Meyer, senior U.S. economist for Bank of America, said.
While more than 100,000 jobs is healthy, it's not impressive.
"Think about what we've come off of, the deepest part of post-war recession, and we're adding 100,000 jobs a month," Meyer said. "It's not sufficient."
Much of the drop in unemployment rate is attributed to the growth in part-time jobs.
Amie Crawford, 56, was forced to take a minimum wage job in a Chicago restaurant when she couldn't find full time work as a home designer. She said she didn't even get responses to her resumes.
"I've always believed a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'm not confident in the economy," Crawford said.
Forty percent of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more. That number did not drop last month.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said this week his concern is that growth just isn't fast enough to put people back to work.
Even though 150,000 jobs are being created a month right now, that just keeps up with the population growth. We need more than 200,000 jobs to make a dent in unemployment.
Nope. But I don't insist that U6 is the REAL number and the others are somehow fake. They're all real numbers measuring different things.
"or is it than 14.7 is NOT worse in your mind than 8.1"
It's not a matter of better or worse, because they measure different things. 14.7 is bad, especially when compared to, say, the 7.0 of Sept 2000. But it's better than the 17.2 of Oct 2009.
"cpourse it IS only an 80% increase in the quoted rate - but why get bogged down in favts, when you are trying to argue facts eh? "
If you want to argue facts, you might try sticking with comparing apples with apples. Comparing numbers that measure two different things is likely to get you bogged down in something that sure as hell won't be "facts".
"so lets see - cpi is up - gdp is down - u/e is up - net worth in middle income people is down 40%, in wealthy people it is down 60%, there are 47MM on welfare - an increase of 7MM, food stanps are the highest ever, ........"
Up...down...up...down. Maybe, maybe not, but the big question is what they are being compared to when announcing that they're up or down.
"yea - things are just lolipops and roses."
Who are you talking to, Del? Voices in your head? Because I sure didn't say that. Of course things are lollipops and roses for some. It seems like nearly every day some company or another is announcing record profits. Forbes announced last week that the 400 wealthiest Americans increased their net worth by 13% last year. Things are looking pretty good for Mitt and the rest of the 1%.
But there's no doubt that for a lot of Americans, the economic situation is not good. My comment was not meant to imply otherwise, it was to point out that it didn't suddenly happen the day Barack Obama was inaugurated.
"good thing you stay down under - no one would even talk to you if you decided to come back to yourt homeland."
LOL! Surely you're not deluded enough to think that you speak for the entire population of the United States, do you? The funniest thing about your dumb-ass comment is that here you are talking to me (for reasons that I can't begin to imagine), and I didn't even have to make the trip.
"wil, you remind me of why i dont bother coming on here..."
Don't let the door hit you, Del. I'm so very glad that I could do my part, without even trying.
Wilbur....please don't write the word ' dumb-assed ' Tony will report you to the Gather Police. Though I disagree with pretty much everything you stand for, I do like you for some strange reason and I'd like for you to stay around. Just looking out for you dude.
...so that link can be reported to the lying "Truth Team" and be scheduled for removal. Ah, see how that works? Too bad the right doesn't have that capability.
...waaa, like me. You reported me shortly after you arrived as a "new" profile, which leads me to believe that you could very well be someone who was kicked off Gather and came back with a grudge.
I have no idea what government conspiracy theory now. A simple "no" would have sufficed.
"...waaa, like me. You reported me shortly after you arrived as a "new" profile, which leads me to believe that you could very well be someone who was kicked off Gather and came back with a grudge."
Or, I could be someone that just doesn't play. You learned the hard way.
No fragile ego here because I know that you, nor anyone else, is going to get me kicked off Gather. In fact, I could insult you directly and it still won't happen. I could call you an egg headed retarded turdfaced inbred and it still won't happen.
One commenter claims that Romney's claim of 90 billion spent on Green Energy was false. Looking at the numbers in the url above, 29+21+10+6+18+3+3+2 = 92 billion. So was the commenter correct with his claim that Ronney's numbers were false? Absolutely! Again, he undershot the actual figures. My sugestion for Mr Romney would be to brush up on the numbers a bit before the next debate.
If you recall the Obama administration before congress they consider all of those jobs as green jobs now.
"high speed trains" ARE part of the controlling agenda of "green energy" agenda.
...go ahead, Google "high speed trains" and "green energy" together.
...who's ignorant now?
In my 6 years on this website, I've seen people like you pop up just around election time...or when a major Bill is before Congress attempting to sway voters or to sway public opinion. Then after it's all over, you vanish. With this being an election year and you joining Gather just this September, there's a pretty good chance that you fall into one of the catagories that I mentioned.
Concerning such people, neither their words or threats mean anything to me.
Of course it does. There is no "pecking order" here. No seniority clause. I always have to giggle at anyone on social media that thinks membership dates and post counts actually mean anything. The people that dwell on them use them as a device to stroke their own ego and try to make others feel less worthy of participation. Sorry, but anyone with a voice should reject such a notion. You are no better than anyone else here, regardless of your membership date.
Incivility is an ugly trait and one that has grown exponentially over the past few years. We should each do our part to try to make Gather a better place to frequent. Sometimes shaming people into acting like adults works, sometimes more drastic measures are required. But in this case, I'm going to leave any reporting up to Chris, as the insult was not directed at me.
"In my 6 years on this website, I've seen people like you pop up just around election time...or when a major Bill is before Congress attempting to sway voters or to sway public opinion. Then after it's all over, you vanish. With this being an election year and you joining Gather just this September, there's a pretty good chance that you fall into one of the catagories that I mentioned."
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm here for the long haul.
"Concerning such people, neither their words or threats mean anything to me."
And now a thinly-veiled implication that I have somehow threatened you. Which is, of course, ridiculous.
It's just that we who have been here for a while have a better understanding of the enforcement of the TOS than you newbies do.
But you'll learn.
It's just that we who have been here for a while have a better understanding of the enforcement of the TOS than you newbies do.
But you'll learn."
Oh, I already have learned. And considering some people have had to delete entire posts because they littered the comments section with insults, it would seem this "newbie" understands the TOS a little better than you "seasoned vets". Maybe you should reread them (assuming you've ever read them initially) so that you can get a better understanding yourself.
"Watcha gonna do, Tony...tattle to teacher..."
I already covered that. If you read the thread before commenting, you might save yourself some time.
...yes, yes you have learned. "Tony Stark" may be a "newbie" but the person typing the comments for "Tony Stark" is a veteran here, eh "Tony"? In fact, isn't "Tony" a female? Does "Tony Stark" have a personal vendetta to settle?
Coming from Gather's resident bully, David K , who's reputation for calling people who disagree with him ' Ignorant ' or ' Uninformed ' or ' Liar ' is well known here on Gather, his comment here is quite laughable.
However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.
He talked fast, he talked loud, he talked non-stop, he constantly interrupted the President and he lied his ass off... and he won. Two examples will explain.
First, on Gather we have people who jump on a thread and fill a column with a dozen or more subtopics, making real debate impossible. The thread is hijacked and the commenter looks like the field is theirs, when in truth, no one can keep track of everything in the comment.
Second, loud matters. Mitt knows that. All he has to do is be loud enough to divert attention in the middle of a statement by his opponent. In my profession, it is not unusual for people to argue passionately and loudly. I ALWAYS win those. My voice has been stage-trained (I can be understood in the back row of any theater I've ever been in), and I've been a drill sergeant. NOBODY outshouts me.
Had I been the President (fortunately for America, I am not), at some early point my tack would have been to turn to Mitt in the middle of one of his interruptions or arguments with the moderator and say, with all the voice 'tricks' I could muster, "That's enough!" He'd've been thrown off his game for the rest of the debate. But that didn't happen... and Mitt won this debate.
The Death-Throes of the Vanquished. The Dance of the Gallows...
However, Hayshaker, I refer to the debate beatdown; and, to the fact that it shouldn't be this close, to hear the Leftist tell it.
An interesting Election it will be...
Debate beatdown - yeah, my friends should stop with the excuses. We lost - three more to go - Morward FARCH!
The race SHOULDN'T be this close... but it is what it is.
Are you ill? That's the first logical and coherent comment I've seen from you since... ever.
Agreed...it is what it is. We'll just have to sit back, spar for the sport of it, and observe. It'll be tight, and interesting.
Highpockets doesn't bother me; we're merely enjoying a bit of the "this" and the "that" between enemies. All in good, sporting fun.
Warning taken...he's shining his Jack Boots and getting out the "Long Knife" as we speak!
[1] He needs to find a way to repel Romney's tax plan and its claim to increasing employment, with:
[a] The Obama Administration's conviction, and its own research, that EXPLICITLY explains why, and how, Romney's tax policy won't work and why similar strategies haven't worked in the past.
It isn't enough to say it; he has to SHOW it.
Given the fact that other factors, other than tax policy, drive the economy, he will have to repel Romney's specific claims--with convincing points that are clear enough not to bog down the viewer.
A very difficult task--but it can be done.
[b] Then it seems to me that the President must be very specific, and clear, as to how, and why, his own tax policies will increase the possibility of employment in the country and how this has been done, successfully, in the past.
It isn't enough to say it; he has to SHOW it.
*********
The President must absolutely challenge Romney, directly and clearly, about Romney's claims.
The President must challenge Romney, directly and clearly, to PROVE his claims.
Romney, like Obama, can't get away with SIMPLY SAYING his policies work. He has to made to SHOW IT.
Not only must the President have his numbers and his strategies, to refute Romney's claims, on the tip of his brain; but Obama must find a way:
To stop Romney from talking over him--even if the Moderator is too weak or
incompetent to assist in the process.
It is quite possible--town-hall format or not--that the President may NOT BE ABLE TO
DO THIS.
OR, he might lose points for appearing overbearing, awkwardly aggressive, or
disrespectful....or otherwise inappropriately angry or impatient.
Somehow, I think, no matter how unfair it might seem, Romney might be able to get
away with such behavior, in a way that the President can't. [In part, because he's
the President.]
The President has some clear challenges ahead.
2012 is NOT like 2004--when Kerry won all the debates and lost the elections.
Anyone who is for Obama and claims that the President has proved his case, without being clear and specific enough, is living in a fantasy world.
Obama's loss was NOT simply due to Romney's take-no-prisoners style. But Romney's bulldozer style was part of it.
I wouldn't count on either Obama or Romney to get "explicit" this late in the game. But, I do agree with all the other points you made, esp. about Obama challenging Romney~Mittens won the debate despite the fact that he lied throughout & the Prez let him do it!
"he might lose points for appearing overbearing, awkwardly aggressive, or
disrespectful....or otherwise inappropriately angry or impatient."
"The angry Black man," some pundits (the Black ones) did touch on this & I was almost going to write about it, & had 2nd thoughts. I think you're right~I have no doubt the Prez was advised not to be aggressive or appear flustered/angry. But, he needs to appear PASSIONATE, & the criticisms that he appeared "off his game" & "distracted" were justified. Overall, excellent analysis, Brett~KUDOS!
Kerry almost eviscerated Bush II, in the debates, in 2004. Many pundits agree that Kerry won decisively.
What's more, Kerry knows what it's like to bounce back in debates.
In his first debate against Weld in 1996, Kerry was a disaster. But then he became feisty, assertive, and displayed his knowledge.
Partially, as the result, Kerry prevailed.
Btw, says doesn't have an apostrophe.
Oh, I see. You claim it's racist, but then can't explain why it's racist. Thanks for stopping by.
And that's not even an intelligible sentence.
Oh, sorry....
in·tel·li·gi·ble/inˈtelijəbəl/
Adjective:
Able to be understood; comprehensible.
ALL Progs are racist...They can't help themselves.
Let's hope then, Obama pulls a "Kerry" and bounces back on the next debates. I am also hoping Biden does very well against Ryan, because what do most people remember about the last debates? Biden winning against Palin.
...define "the good stuff"
...do you really think that there is even a slim possibility of that happening? If he survives at all it would be a plus for "plugs" Biden.
No. I don't take orders.
really a debate. There was hardly a fact or argument the whole night.
Republicans are getting hot and bothered when Obama looks bad,
Democrats are defensive and sad when Obama does not stand up for them.
Libertarians are saying we should have had Ron Paul talking about the Fed!
The issue is not really the difference between Obama's plan for this and
that versus Romney's plan for this and that.
The deciding factor is basically evaluating where we are right now,
and what to do about it. The hard point only is shutting out the noise.
Where we are is - things are creeping back. Obama is weak on
many things he has done and is doing (see my latest post on that),
but he is caretaking the country competently while not creating any
grand vision or rooting our any big criminals or enemies. We're coasting
because Obama does not have the confidence yet to step on the
accelerator, and may not even have it in him.
But, the alternative is what? The country is at stake and to use Obama's
tepid performance as a reason to go back to Republicanism has yet
to have any real rationale behind it other than Romney kicked Obama's
ass! So what ... half the time I'd like the chance to kick Obama's ass too! ;-)
Further tax cuts, widening gap between the rich and the poor and
deeper austerity cuts are not working, they are not working here,
they are not working in Europe, they are not working anywhere else
either!
Austerity will most likely do what it did 80 years ago in the depression
and most likely will continue to do what it did President Bush. Until
there is a narrative that is substantially different and substantial -
as in real and not a pipe dream, then all the ass-kicking in the world
does not really make that a real alternative and we should not be
so fickle as to just flip a coin and jump back and forth from one
corporatocracy color to the other in sync with the advertising ... or
we are just brainless automatons.
No, Romney has not made his case, and in my opinion likely does
not really have a case to make or he would have been out and trying
to make it instead of studying about how to he a nicer salesman
and apologize with fake sincerity.
It's really that simple.
Now ... as I said, on to Obama and his faults which is another
subject.
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
President Bush did things, then President Obama did the same things... if you look at the link above. Why does it feel like they are all on the same team. Some want to believe President Obama is evil, some want to believe Mitt Romney is evil... And I hear the same kind of stuff from both sides about the other. If any of these "puppets" were on a "different" team with a "different" agenda then why don't they undo what has been done and give us some of our freedoms back? They are on the same team... called politicians. The people who represent us at the federal level (Congress/Senate) trade votes with each other to get what they want... so they can make the people back home happy with them and they stay employed... that is why we have something called pork barreling. So do they vote with their conscience? I am not so sure, because if they don't please the people who voted them in, they will be voted out and it means they are unemployed. So yea they represent all the people???? No they represent themselves.
It's like a sports team, people get all riled up with their team is better... and it runs so deep, like being a fan is part of their identity.
It seems like there is some kind of mechanism inside that causes us to feel we need to have a cause to argue over... and people who don't "agree" with us or aren't "like" us are dumb... or "evil"...
Yet, they do the same things and keep the same things going.. it seems to me it's the same ballgame, it's just another "player" up at bat... and they are on the same team... taking turns... keeping the same agenda going.