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.
You mean kinda like how conservatives elected a bungling fool, not once, but twice, who completely destroyed the economy prior to the current President and didn't care?
Quite the double standard among Republicans on this board. Apparently Republicans have never done wrong.
Yep, this exactly. I think the President was trying to be professional. Next go round I hope he's a lot more aggressive. I still don't understand Romney's specific plan. I heard a lot of rambling. He may have been the more passionate of the two, but he certainly wasn't the more factual.
You mean kinda like how conservatives elected a bungling fool, not once, but twice, who completely destroyed the economy prior to the current President and didn't care?
Quite the double standard among Republicans on this board. Apparently Republicans have never done wrong.
Whom are your referring to?
The only presidents who I would ever credit with "destroying the economy - whom have been re-elected are Democrats.
I refain from calling those presidents fools - because the Bible specifically warns against doing such a thing.
How did I rewrite history? I didn't mention anything specific that would constitute rewriting history. If you are claiming Bush's 2 wars and tax cuts on the rich didn't wreck the economy, or the fact that he spent more than all previous President's combined, you're delusional. Is Obama's spending much better? No, but at least I'm not claiming Democrats are perfect.
Yep, this exactly. I think the President was trying to be professional. Next go round I hope he's a lot more aggressive. I still don't understand Romney's specific plan. I heard a lot of rambling. He may have been the more passionate of the two, but he certainly wasn't the more factual.
I didn't really watch the debate, but I will certainly concede by the sound of it Romney performed much better than Obama, and was the more likable of the two. However, I've also heard that Romney made up a lot of stuff. We'll have to wait and see what the Fact Checkers come out with.
So in terms of image, Romney won. In terms of content, probably about a draw.
At the Presidential debate last night, we saw the first example of what happens when a knowledgable conservative confronts a Democrat used to exaggeration, fibs, and "gotcha" politics, without that Democrat's being able to rely on his party's usual backing by spin artists and a compliant media willing to overlook his problems, mistakes, and past record of failure.
Mitt Romney repeatedly pressed Obama on the results of his policies, expressed honest incredulity at the extremes of failure that have been let go and rationalized by so many, and did a very good job of presenting contrasting ideas of how things should be handled instead... and why.
And Obama was left with nothing but tired denials, repetition of his party's long-debunked lies about Romney, and the same empty assurances that things would get better if we gave him another chance.
The contrast between the two was striking. There hasn't been a more stark display of Democrat dispiritedness, and Republican enthusiasm and determination, than at the Presidential debate last night.
Funniest part was seeing the liberals in the various networks afterward, falling all over themselves trying to express "surprise" that Romney wasn't the stiff, boring figurehead they had insisted he was supposed to be... as though their wishing it were so had made it true.
It got so bad afterward, that I heard one older lady haughtily inform us that the $716 billion Obama was cutting out of Medicare, was NOT a cut... it was merely a slight reduction in the planned rate of increase over ten years!
And this after Democrats had been screaming literally for years that Republicans' attempts to slow down the rate of increase in government spending (with never a word about actually spending less next year than we did this year), amounted to "draconian cuts" that would do such grave harm to seniors, the middle class, and the chillun!
Last night was a revelation. I can't help but think that Obama will do better in the NEXT debate, after falling flat on his face in this one. He MUST.
But what, exactly, can he change to make his performance better? The facts will be no different, his record for the last four years will be no better next week, the deficits will be no smaller, our Ambassador to Libya won't be brought back to life by the next debate, the middle Eastern riots won't be any less virulent, and people won't want Obamacare any more next debate than they did during this one.
The Democrats have been making their bed for the last four years, ably assisted and masked by a huge, compliant media. But at these debates, the media is stripped away. Cutter isn't allowed to speak, and the CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN commentators must remain silent while Romney points out what has actually been going on and describes what should be done from now on, and why.
Democrats have built a house of cards, from wishful-thinking plans of socialist nirvana; denigration of people who work hard, take chances, and succeed; and quietly sweeping under the rug the actual results of their policies.
And last night, that house of cards finally began to collapse.
And I don't see what changes can be made by the Democrats in the next few weeks before Nov. 6, to keep the trend from accelerating.
That's what happens when his MSM blockers can't be there for him like they have been for the last 4 years.
That's also what makes the debates so valuable as an information tool. Obama HAS to stand on his own two feet. We found out last night that he can't. It's blatantly obvious to all now that he's been artificially propped up his entire presidency.
You said that Bush destroyed the economy when HISTORY proves that Democratic policies, ones that Bush warned Congress about over a dozen times, were responsible for that.
I thought the president looked old. I mentioned that he had aged to a Democratic friend and that guy hit me with "he has done so much good and fought so much opposition that of course he has aged" bit. I pointed out that President George W. Bush dealt with much more trying issues and he agreed that all presidents show "graying hair" as a byproduct of the job.
Sheesh - I can't even make a simple observation without a Democrat turning it into a political issue.
I am sure that the liberals on this forum are surprised that I have friends who are Democrats. Deal with it libs - among my closest family members are Democrats also.
You mean kinda like how conservatives elected a bungling fool, not once, but twice, who completely destroyed the economy prior to the current President and didn't care?
Quite the double standard among Republicans on this board. Apparently Republicans have never done wrong.
The economy just didn't magically go in the crapper under Bush, it was headed there after Reagans spending and then of course the republican legislation that was backed by none other than the democratic god...Bill Clinton. NAFTA and the repeal of Glass Stegall.
Mark my words, if I'm candidate Ryan in the upcoming debate...the minute Biden opens his mouth about jobs....I'm going to jam the fact that he was one of the signers of NAFTA and cite just how many jobs got offshored by that legislation. Yep, Biden was a NAFTA signer...to not remind voters of that would be terrible strategy during the upcoming debates especially when you can quote Hillary saying she was against it.
The economy over the last couple decades is EVERYBODYS fault. I agree Bush was terrible, but the bubble economy under CLinton was popping when Bush took it over, so I guess we can blame the bad econ under Bush on Clinton?
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.
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.
