Round 3 - Who do you think did better? Won?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-23-12, 6:13pm
Birchwood

I'll try to be as objective, and base my observation as a former highschool and college debater.
1. Obama beat the heck out of Romney point for point.
2. In style and substance, Obama was ahead 5 to 2 in arguments.
3. Romney exposed himself several times and got hit bad.
4. If the basis for a win is an image of who is the better "commander in Chief"- then Obama just convinced a lot of folks.
5. I don't get the strategy of just showing there and looking presidential?- It's a debate and Romney lacked offense and lost.
10-23-12, 7:12pm
ApatheticNoMore

Quote:

must admit that I am secretly looking forward to my 20% tax cut, since I think we will all be getting them, right?

Quote:

He'll probably change his mind by then.

Meh, who can care too much one way or other.
10-23-12, 7:14pm
freein05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

It's pretty much spelled out in the Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, passed with a 69% majority in the House and a 76% majority in the Senate. As well as The Iraq Liberaton Act of 1998 which was passed during the Clinton Administration by a 90% majority in the House and by Unanimous Consent in the Senate.

You might remember the former as the resolution that John Kerry famously voted for before he was against it.

And, it was an International Coalition rather than just the US.

Congress was lied to by the Bush administration! Congress was given false information. Bush and Chenny should have been tried for treason.
10-23-12, 7:30pm
Gregg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birchwood

I'll try to be as objective, and base my observation as a former highschool and college debater.
1. Obama beat the heck out of Romney point for point.
2. In style and substance, Obama was ahead 5 to 2 in arguments.
3. Romney exposed himself several times and got hit bad.
4. If the basis for a win is an image of who is the better "commander in Chief"- then Obama just convinced a lot of folks.
5. I don't get the strategy of just showing there and looking presidential?- It's a debate and Romney lacked offense and lost.

Interesting. That is almost my identical take, in reverse, from the first debate. Most sources had the 2nd debate nearly a draw. I guess the debates didn't do much as far as pushing a clear choice (to undecided voters, that is). I'm still glad they were held. And welcome to the sand box Birchwood!
10-23-12, 7:52pm
mtnlaurel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

And welcome to the sand box Birchwood!

+1
10-23-12, 8:53pm
peggy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

It was the bi-partisan, Congressionally approved mission to bring down the Iraq government and defeat their military, which was a success.

I'm not sure I'd call it Amnesia Kool-Aid, it seems to me to be more in line with Orwell's 'memory holes'. When historical events don't match the current propaganda, they must be purged.

Bush's 'kill' list.
But being the chicken-hawk that he is, he lied to congress, he lied to the American people and he lied to the world, to do it. He lied, then joked about it at a dinner with a video of him 'looking' for WMD's under his desk. Yeah, go ahead and defend him. Defend him and his lying cowardly act.
Yes, people do try to re-write history, and already you are trying to rewrite Iraq as some glorious victory.
Bush managed to kill over 4 thousand of our people and how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Obama has managed to reach his objectives with remarkably few American lives lost. The objectives of finishing what Bush could not. Bush just wanted to be a glorious 'war' President, without all that messy detail, or clean up, or consequence. Obama simply wanted to cripple Al Qaeda, which he has.
Perhaps you prefer the old fashioned, storm the hill and die for your country method.
Maybe Romney will convince one of his 5 sons to step up and take one for their country. You know, in the name of glorious war!
10-23-12, 9:02pm
The Storyteller

Quote:

Originally Posted by CathyA

I didn't notice Romney sweating.

Maybe it was the cameras they used. It was pretty clear on the PBS feed. The guy was wilting. It got worse as the evening wore on.
10-23-12, 9:33pm
Lainey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

He single handedly committed weapons and other resources to the insurgents in Libya without even bothering with Congress. Have we ever had a President do anything like that before?

Here's a list of all of the invasions our country has committed - not sure how many of these had Congressional approval or not, but the CIA attacks surely had presidential knowledge before they were committed:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gros...rventions.html
10-23-12, 9:39pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by peggy

Bush's 'kill' list.
But being the chicken-hawk that he is, he lied to congress, he lied to the American people and he lied to the world, to do it. He lied, then joked about it at a dinner with a video of him 'looking' for WMD's under his desk. Yeah, go ahead and defend him. Defend him and his lying cowardly act.
Yes, people do try to re-write history, and already you are trying to rewrite Iraq as some glorious victory.
Bush managed to kill over 4 thousand of our people and how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Obama has managed to reach his objectives with remarkably few American lives lost. The objectives of finishing what Bush could not. Bush just wanted to be a glorious 'war' President, without all that messy detail, or clean up, or consequence. Obama simply wanted to cripple Al Qaeda, which he has.
Perhaps you prefer the old fashioned, storm the hill and die for your country method.
Maybe Romney will convince one of his 5 sons to step up and take one for their country. You know, in the name of glorious war!

LOL Peggy >8), I admire the way you never let simple facts get in the way of your passion. One day I'd love to sit around a fire with a pitcher of margaritas and discuss the issues of the day with you.
10-23-12, 9:59pm
peggy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Well, at least that's pretty much all you heard. For the record, he repeatedly said 8 - 10 years for most of the plan, not 4. Your guy made the rookie mistake of saying he should be accountable after 4 years and is now probably wishing he would have said 8 - 10 as well.

So what you're saying, Gregg, is a candidate should be held accountable for every word they say, right? We should examine every position, and re-position, with a magnifying glass cause, a candidates word is what it's all about, for you, right? Actions, or consequence, or changing realities don't mean anything in the face of THEIR WORDS.
Hummm, let me think on that one a bit and get back to ya with some of the WORDS that perhaps you missed in this run-up to the election.
But, as a starter, here are a few WORDS you should hear since a candidates words are so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x2W4...eature=related

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page