Debate # 2

[_subgenius]

Like most candidates going up against an incumbent, Romney knows he can't hope to win unless he can convince people that they'd had it really bad the last four years.

which has not been a difficult argument...even Obama conceded in Debate2 that the past 4 years were tough...even Biden noted that the past 4 years had "buried" the middle class. Romney effectively had to do very little to convince anyone.

Whether this is true or not doesn't phase him, as he is in this for his own glory. So he focuses on all the possible negatives while ignoring the clear positives.

this is true for either candidate and is the inevitable result of an adversarial system. It is a rather academic necessity. I recall a professor in an architecture studio announcing that the purpose of a critique was not to solely pat you on the back because little will come of that...the negatives must be illuminated.

I don't think Obama needs to explain why he should remain President.

nice promotion for being an informed voter, but it seems that many people disagree with your notion....myself included.

Most Americans know that he has been President since 2009 and they also know that hyper-inflation hasn't even begun to occur as predicted. They also know that the economy has improved, contrary to Right Wing predictions, and they also know that Obama is hardly the Communist Dictator as predicted either. So at this point all this idiotic fear mongering about Obama the socialist is old news that has been disproved by recent history.

the economy being improved might be hard sell to those who "know" they are unemployed.
the communist dictator might be a hard sell to those who "know" they will be punished if they do not buy healthcare, or expect that military detention has a time limit, or that freedom of speech also applies to making fun of Muslims.

In the end it all boils down to one question: Are we on the right track after four years? I think the answer is an obvious yes.

the answer is an obvious no.

The economy has turned around in the right direction, even though the velocity of its progress can be disappointing at times.

you are trying to sell a broken clock under the guise that it is correct at least twice a day. The economy is not in the right direction, that is why its velocity is so disappointing, it is being impeded by Obama's policies.

Despite all the spin doctoring from the Right about the "real" rate of employment, the unemployment rate is down nearly three percentage points from what it was in late 2009. Job creation in the private sector is on the upswing, contrary to Right Wing predictions of 2008-2010. The stock market has literally doubled since Obama has been in office, which is what FOX News once called the best indicator of an improving economy.

the Dow has only grown 60% since Obama. which is good, but it is hardly the best indicator. You can not simply cherry pick Fox news for credibility...simply because Fox never has had any cherries.

Manufacturing jobs are up, etc. These are positives that the Right Wing media tries to hide from the public because they know that when all the facts are known, there is really no intelligent reason to vote for Romney based on the economic concerns. In fact, there is plenty reason to avoid him, as he is essentially Bush 2.0.

the unemployment rate seems to contradict your hallucination. Besides, incomes has not kept pace with inflation...gas is more expensive, food is more expensive, etc...
State and local governments have had to gut their staff due to funding and this has way offset the timid private sector growth.
The reality is that when Obama took office there were 2.7 million unemployed...today there are more than 5 million....that fact alone neuters your conspiracy theories.

The beauty of Obama's performance was that he didn't let Romney's lies go unchallenged this time. I don't know how anyone can say it was a tie, unless you're grading them on the number of times they tried to become the alpha dog in the debate. The reason Obama won is because he had truth on his side, and he used it to slam Romney to the ground on a number of occasions.

so, when Obama lied about calling the embassy attack a terrorist attack, or when he ignored the fast and furious, or when he claimed Romney invested in China, etc. these are examples of the truth in your eyes.....?

I just loved the way the moderator corrected the old lie about how Obama never called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack, and the crowd began to applause when that happened, which was HUGE for Obama because these kinds of reactions have an effect on the broader audience.

and yet we quickly learn that she, like Obama, were wrong.

I know they were supposed to avoid applause, but I'm glad they did it. It just showed how excited they were that finally see we were getting to the bottom of something. No more he said/ he said BS. A claim was fact-checked on the fly and Romney looked like a babbling idiot after that. I mean when you're lying so badly that the moderator has to step in and correct you... WOW.

yes, WOW...how easily you were impressed with style over substance, with a lie over the truth.....ironic.

I loved the way Obama responded to Romney by telling him to "keep going" when he was asking him that question. It was a great technique of giving your opponent enough rope so he could go hang himself with it, and it worked beautifully.

obviously you posted this before you actually learned the truth....typical Obama supporter i suppose, they love a good show!

[_Drifting]

I'm confused after the debate. Does Romney have a tax plan, and if he does, why doesn't he know what it is?

you are likely the only person, whom i assumed was literate, that would pose this question...everyone else has a clear understanding of it.

Romney's tax plan pledges to cut income tax rates by 20 percent across the board; get rid of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax; maintain progressivity; and pay for these rate cuts by eliminating tax loopholes, but not ones that provide incentives for savings and investment. While Romney has been very specific about which taxes to cut, he and Ryan have roundly refused to specify which loopholes they would eliminate.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/rob ... -plan-math

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Kevin

I don't think Obama needs to explain why he should remain President.

Yea, I think he ought to sit these debates out, too!

Most Americans know that he has been President since 2009

Since you said "most", I'll give you this one.

they also know that Obama is hardly the Communist Dictator as predicted either.

Okay, you can have this one as well.

In the end it all boils down to one question: Are we on the right track after four years?

I think the answer is an obvious yes.

Yes, Kevin, I am aware that you believe the answer is an obvious yes.

There are some that believe the answer is an obvious no.

The economy has turned around in the right direction

Yea, the economy is freaking fabulous!

Despite all the spin doctoring from the Right

Yup, of all the corrupt, disgusting, and pathetic political "leaders" in this severely broken and utterly failing sytem..... it is clearly and only the right who expend enormous effort, money, and energy to spin things for their particular party and cause.

there is really no intelligent reason to vote for Romney based on the economic concerns.

Yea, but as you surely know, there are millions of really really stupid Americans that just might do exactly that.

The reason Obama won is because he had truth on his side

Or- it could be that the reason Obama won is because he was the better debater, against the opponent he was debating..........in a debate.

by the way: Why did Obama loose the first debate? Did "truth" arrive via Fed-Ex in the last few days?

WOW.

[/quote]

My thoughts exactly!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Or maybe I just don't pay attention to you. Eh? Whatcha think about that, huh?

Very well.

I didn't realize this.
I'll refrain from now on.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bob Loblaw]

Some interesting quotes:

"The economy is strong, and it's getting better," the president said on Monday, repeating a months-old mantra from the campaign trail. "In spite of a recession, emergency, attacks, war and corporate scandals, we're growing, and growing quite substantially. We've added nearly 1.5 million jobs over the last 12 months."

His opponent's campaign wasn't buying it: "We could have had temporary stimulus that would have been more effective with respect to jobs, without having this horrendous long-term deficit problem," said a campaign spokesperson, describing the president's record as a "jobless recovery."

From the New York Times, "The President stands for reelection. ... Without a miracle, he's going to reach that crossroads with the worst record on jobs since Herbert Hoover collided headlong with the Great Depression. ... Indeed, the good news that economic growth leaped from June through September runs smack up against the miserable realities of a 6.1% U.S. unemployment rate."

But the administration's supporters suggest that the president's policies have kept the US from falling even deeper into the abyss. "Who knows what the economy would have looked like without the [president's stimulus] packages?" asked Stephen Gallagher, chief economist at SG Corporate & Investment Banking. "We might not be happy where we are, but it likely would have been much worse."

The odd thing is that the president in question was George W. Bush. My how times have changed.

[_Brackite]

I just loved the way the moderator corrected the old lie about how Obama never called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack, and the crowd began to applause when that happened, which was HUGE for Obama because these kinds of reactions have an effect on the broader audience. I know they were supposed to avoid applause, but I'm glad they did it. It just showed how excited they were that finally see we were getting to the bottom of something. No more he said/ he said BS. A claim was fact-checked on the fly and Romney looked like a babbling idiot after that. I mean when you're lying so badly that the moderator has to step in and correct you... WOW.

From factcheck.org:

Terrorist Attack in Libya

There was a sharp exchange between the candidates on the issue of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the question of when the president acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. Obama said he called it an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama is correct that he referred to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 speech in the Rose Garden. But after that Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack while it was under investigation — even though other administration officials did.

Obama: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. …

Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

Obama: Please proceed governor.

Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

Obama: Get the transcript.

The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. Romney claimed Obama refused for two weeks after the Benghazi attack to call it a terrorist attack and, instead, blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video that earlier that day triggered a violent protest in Egypt.

The president did seem to suggest in his Rose Garden speech that a reason for the Benghazi attack was the video. Obama said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”

It is also true that Obama, after the Rose Garden speech and Las Vegas event the same day, refrained from characterizing the attack as an act of terrorism. The administration adopted a wait-and-see position, deflecting questions until the investigation into the attack could be completed. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, for example, was asked in a Sept. 17 press briefing if the administration considered the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She said: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack even after others in the administration said it was.

Matt Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified on Sept. 19 that it was a “terrorist attack.” He also said the administration still lacked “specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”

A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. He said, “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.”

The Romney campaign has accused the administration of misleading the public by claiming the anti-Muslim video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi, rather than admiting it was a failure to detect and prevent an act of terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We cannot say if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or whether, as the administration says, the conflicting statements in the weeks after the attack were the result of an evolving investigation. We’ll leave that for readers to decide.

[_bcspace]

Anyway, just wanted to be fair with all of my beloved liberal-left friends here at the MDB. (God! That was hard to type)

What say you?

Romney commanded and Obama obeyed.

[_krose]

Or maybe I just don't pay attention to you. Eh? Whatcha think about that, huh?

Very well.
I didn't realize this.
I'll refrain from now on.

Hmm. I'm not sure you recognized the tongue in the cheek, perhaps due to my steadfast refusal to use emoticons.

That's unfortunate. But it's a risk I must always be prepared to take, for I will not compromise on the important issue of goofy little face pictures.

[_Brackite]

Please See Also: Candy Crowley: While Obama Did Say ‘Act Of Terror,’ Romney Was ‘Right In The Main’

[_aussieguy55]

Mitt Romney Is an Enneagram Three – What That Means

"Type Three in Brief
Threes are self-assured, attractive, and charming. Ambitious, competent, and energetic, they can also be status-conscious and highly driven for advancement. They are diplomatic and poised, but can also be overly concerned with their image and what others think of them. They typically have problems with workaholism and competitiveness. At their Best: self-accepting, authentic, everything they seem to be—role models who inspire others."
Everyone needs attention, encouragement, and the affirmation of their value in order to thrive, and Threes are the type which most exemplifies this universal human need. Threes want success not so much for the things that success will buy (like Sevens), or for the power and feeling of independence that it will bring (like Eights). They want success because they are afraid of disappearing into a chasm of emptiness and worthlessness: without the increased attention and feeling of accomplishment which success usually brings, Threes fear that they are nobody and have no value.
Everyone needs attention, encouragement, and the affirmation of their value in order to thrive, and Threes are the type which most exemplifies this universal human need. Threes want success not so much for the things that success will buy (like Sevens), or for the power and feeling of independence that it will bring (like Eights). They want success because they are afraid of disappearing into a chasm of emptiness and worthlessness: without the increased attention and feeling of accomplishment which success usually brings, Threes fear that they are nobody and have no value."
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typethree.asp