Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am tired of seeing President Obama as "mister nice guy." Some one has to tell him to tell it like it is.
President Obama failed to mention the 47%, Romney's war on gays, Romney's view on exploiting resources in the name of profit, Romney's intention to start another unfunded useless war, etc.
It was very obvious that Jim Lehrer was favoring Romney. This is like the control big business has over our government. The simple solution to controlling the debate would have been to turn off the microphone of each speaker at the end of the time limit.
Regardless, Romney has still failed to spell out a plan. Romney promises everything and will deliver very little. No sensible person can believe that anyone can reduce the deficit, increase military spending, maintain government programs, and at the same time reduce taxes.
Romney was pumped. Magic underwear or a shot from a doctor? Romney looked more like a heroin addict waiting for a methadone treatment. Romney's intense state also made his lying more obvious. Romney constantly blinks and stammers. Also notice that when many times when Romney lies he turns his head slightly to the side and downward giving credence to "talking out the side of one's mouth."
One thing I learned from the debate is that Mitt Romney is a very good snake oil saleman.
Romney spelled out numerous plans during the debate so I don't understand this rhetoric that he "lacks specifics". To your last point, people will decipher whatever they can to "prove" that someone is lying. More often that not, Obama's facts did not add up.
Every speech Obama has given has been littered with ums and uhs and "you know whats" and false starts. It's how he speaks. It's an improvement of Bush. Remember Bush? Neither is a great orator.
I'd rather have a leader who pauses with a "ums" or "uhs" while he thinks about what he's going to say than have a leader who just shoots off his mouth with things he or his handlers have to retract the next day.
You may well be the only liberal on this forum who actually believes that Barack Obama was winning or won the debate.
This is precisely the kind of cult of personality worship that I rail about all the time. Some of you really do live in a dream world don't you? You absolutely cannot accept that Barack Obama is not the Messiah that you thought he was, can you?
And you read one post, vs. a number of comments that I've made, and pulled all this BS out of it, right? As I've said repeatedly, I think Romney did much better than expected, and Obama did worse. Whenever you exceed expectations you win, and Romney had to exceed expectations last night to stay in the race. He accomplished that, but now he has to be able to pull off the same performance in stump speeches, in press interviews and coming debates. He doesn't exactly have a strong track record of smooth performances. We'll see how that goes.
As far as body language goes, I'm a marketing/PR/development professional, and my comments are completely in line with all the other people in my field who turned off the sound and just watched the candidates, If you already support someone, you listen for what you want to hear. If you're trying to decide between two individuals, you WATCH as much as you listen, and that's where the few remaining undecided voters are. Romney looked angry and aggressive, and Obama was going for calm and presidential. Obama made a few flubs on body language, but he DID come across as much more composed than Romney, who looked aggitated, he interupted, and he was often rude. I think the cult of the personality works both ways--you hate Obama so much that can't be objective about what happened. Body Language Expert: Romney ?Hyperactive,? Obama ?Measured? in Debate - The Daily Beast
I agree that was the worst moderated debate I've ever seen. Willard was talking over the president, going way past his time, going off topic, and otherwise acting like a complete jackass, and Lehrer seemed not to care. Hopefully Crowley will tell Willard to sit down and shut the F up if he tries that crap again.
You... Do understand that the debate was timed, right? And that President Obama had 5 more minutes of speaking time than Governor Romney?
And that the timer happened whenever they spoke - Even when speaking over the other?
Not only did Governor Romney speak over the President, but he should and had to to get his message across. I'm not going to say Mitt didn't lie - he did. So did Obama.
Saying that Governor Romney spoke over the President is irrelevant if Obama took five minutes more of air time than Romney. At that point, he clearly stole five minutes of Romney's time.
I'm cracking up this morning at the desperately lame excuses offered by liberals to obscure this unmitigateddisaster for Obama.
Although both candidates pushed the time rules a bit, Jim Lehrer did the right thing in shutting up and allowing a real debate to take place. That wasn't supposed to happen. Barry has always been shielded from direct challenges by surrounding himself with yes-men and a fawning media that thinks of a black President as their personal "racial tolerance trophy"; less a human being than a symbol who is not to be criticized in any way.
Last night thin-skinned Barry was obviously blindsided when someone actually stood up to him by speaking the truth about his dismal record. It was a thing of beauty to behold.
Romney spelled out numerous plans during the debate so I don't understand this rhetoric that he "lacks specifics". To your last point, people will decipher whatever they can to "prove" that someone is lying. More often that not, Obama's facts did not add up.
What deductions exactly is Romney planing to take away from the middle class? You say he spelled out his plans. This should be easy to answer since many times in recent weeks (and last night) he's said he'd lower taxes but reduce deductions for everyone. This is why he "lacks specifies." He makes these big sweeping statements but leaves the details to the devil.
You can see that throughout the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's, top marginal tax rates were as high as 92%. I had another chart at one time that showed all of the brackets for individual and married, etc. but can't seem to locate it right off hand. Regardless, you can see that even during times of unprecedented growth and prosperity, tax rates were much higher. By 1988 they were less than half of what they used to be. The beginning of trickle down economics. In the 90's, the Clinton years, an almost 10% tax hike on the highest earners. DH and I were just entering the workforce in the early 90's and throughout the 90's we had headhunters calling out of the blue. Jobs were plentiful. Then you can see in 2003 the Bush tax cuts kicking in. What happened from 2003-2008? Job growth slowed, by the end of 2008 we had negative job growth. The headhunters stopped calling a long time ago.
People, wake up. Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy or inspire the job creators to create jobs. Raising that top tax rate to generate more revenue is not going to be the death knell of the economy.
Romney is nothing more than a Republican version of Dukakis who also won the first debate. We all know how well winning the first debate turned out for him in '88. I suspect Obama will take the next two debates, Bush senior style and win in a similar landslide.
The only difference between Romney and Dukakis besides the party affiliation is Dukakis at least served in the Military. I guess Williard had better things to do than serve his country.
Romney spelled out numerous plans during the debate so I don't understand this rhetoric that he "lacks specifics". To your last point, people will decipher whatever they can to "prove" that someone is lying. More often that not, Obama's facts did not add up.
uh, naming a plan and naming specifics are two completely different things. He hasn't named specifics. Example, I'm going to reduce the taxes paid by the middle class while not adding to the deficit. Well how do you plan on doing that. Romney - I'm going to eliminate deductions and credits. Okay which ones? Chirp chirp, tumbleweeds. See there's a difference. Even with his health care plan that he pulled out of his a** last night night when POTUS stated he didn't have one (then he somehow has all of these plans). Well what does it do. Instead of saying it's another federalized version of RomneyCare (which what ObamaCare already is) he had nothing but sound bites of this is already in my new super duper secret plan that no one knew about until now. Or Medicare when asked DIRECTLY if he supports vouchers (Ryan Plan, his running mate) he didn't even bother to answer. Well then what's your plan if you do not believe in the Ryan plan. He definitely didn't have one before choosing a running mate and sidestepped his running mate's plan so what is it?
Hell, I can name 50 plans off the top of my head but if they have no substance it's just plain ole bs which is what Romney fed us last night. Pure BS, I've been saying x all during my campaign and now all of a sudden it's going to be Y. Fall for it if you want but I've seen enough professional bulls%$%#$ in my lifetime to know when one is doing just that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.