On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT), "Wile E." <jsm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:45:59 PM UTC-7, Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> Wow Mitt really kicked Obummer's ass !!!!
>> No contest !
>Romney was excellent, but watch the lefty media spin it >O's way.
yeah already i see pbs taking calls from one person after another who
say obama won and romney kept interrupting him andthe moderator gave
Romney too much time.
abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best. Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel Obamacare.
I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a factcheck on the run...
Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and milk as much profit as they can.
> >> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
> > CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
> It escapes me what did he do so well...
> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
MITTIE LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH, the mofo
everything that romney kept saying he was against in the past tonight he was for everything. he lied through his teeth tonight. now wait til round two
>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>>> CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
> MITTIE LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH, the mofo
> everything that romney kept saying he was against in the past tonight he was for everything. he lied through his teeth tonight. now wait til round two
I think it was seen as "win" for Romney because people were expecting Obama to slaughter him. But of course it's easier to criticize for past policies when you're not presenting your own...
At least on the surface. It all depends on gullibility of voters.
I think Obama's tactic was not getting into defending his policies too much. Oh and the poor moderation did play a part, let Romney finish segments more than Obama I think.
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>My opinion:
>abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best. >Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at >moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss >out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel >Obamacare.
>I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a >factcheck on the run...
>Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing >government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism >doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and >milk as much profit as they can.
>> > On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> >> My opinion:
>> >> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>> > CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
>MITTIE LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH, the mofo
>everything that romney kept saying he was against in the past tonight he was for everything. he lied through his teeth tonight. now wait til round two
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:07:17 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>4.10.2012 6:37, guyana kirjoitti:
>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:33:23 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>> 4.10.2012 6:26, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>> On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>> My opinion:
>>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>>>> CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
>> MITTIE LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH, the mofo
>> everything that romney kept saying he was against in the past tonight he was for everything. he lied through his teeth tonight. now wait til round two
>I think it was seen as "win" for Romney because people were expecting >Obama to slaughter him. But of course it's easier to criticize for past >policies when you're not presenting your own...
>At least on the surface. It all depends on gullibility of voters.
>I think Obama's tactic was not getting into defending his policies too >much. Oh and the poor moderation did play a part, let Romney finish >segments more than Obama I think.
Bullshit ! The moderator allowed Obama to go WAY over his allotted
time over and over many times. CNN had a stop watch on it. The
moderator favored Obama heavily and Romney still won.
> >> My opinion:
> >> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
> > CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
> It escapes me what did he do so well...
> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
It is not so much what Romney did well as what Obama failed to do well
in this particular debate. All Obama managed to do was highlight and
remind people of his economic failures over the past four years. But
it is only the first debate and means little in the grand scheme of
things.
>> > On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> >> My opinion:
>> >> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>> > CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
>It is not so much what Romney did well as what Obama failed to do well
>in this particular debate. All Obama managed to do was highlight and
>remind people of his economic failures over the past four years. But
>it is only the first debate and means little in the grand scheme of
>things.
> >> > On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> >> My opinion:
> >> >> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
> >> > CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
> >> It escapes me what did he do so well...
> >> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
> >It is not so much what Romney did well as what Obama failed to do well
> >in this particular debate. All Obama managed to do was highlight and
> >remind people of his economic failures over the past four years. But
> >it is only the first debate and means little in the grand scheme of
> >things.
> You have NO say. You do not have a vote. I do.
I don't particularly love either candidate but I would have a hard
time voting for Obama again if I was a US citizen based on his
economic policies.
>> >> > On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> >> >> My opinion:
>> >> >> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>> >> > CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>> >> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>> >> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
>> >It is not so much what Romney did well as what Obama failed to do well
>> >in this particular debate. All Obama managed to do was highlight and
>> >remind people of his economic failures over the past four years. But
>> >it is only the first debate and means little in the grand scheme of
>> >things.
>> You have NO say. You do not have a vote. I do.
>I don't particularly love either candidate but I would have a hard
>time voting for Obama again if I was a US citizen based on his
>economic policies.
yes a vote for Obama is a vote for another lousy 4 years. No make that
an even worse 4 years. He will start confiscating wealth big time to
feed the people who are happy to stay home, never work and live off
the Federal government. That is a formula for the demise of the
Republic.
Corporations are sitting on 2 TRILLION in cash just waiting to hire
and spend but that is NOT going to happen as long as they view the
President as a Socialist or worse yet a Communist. OTOH if Romney wins
they will fall all over themselves hiring and spending and the economy
will boom once more.
but ya know, the 47% don't want that ! they would rather stay home,
not work, watch TV and collect welfare and food stamps. That *is*
Obama's America.
> On Oct 4, 7:39 am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 04:32:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 11:33 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 4.10.2012 6:26, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>>> My opinion:
>>>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>>>>> CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>>>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>>>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
>>> It is not so much what Romney did well as what Obama failed to do well
>>> in this particular debate. All Obama managed to do was highlight and
>>> remind people of his economic failures over the past four years. But
>>> it is only the first debate and means little in the grand scheme of
>>> things.
>> You have NO say. You do not have a vote. I do.
> I don't particularly love either candidate but I would have a hard
> time voting for Obama again if I was a US citizen based on his
> economic policies.
Well you're a known dingbat after all. I just posted a topic which lists some of Romney's policies, they're much worse. Just repelling everything Obama did. Let's get back to Bush era, yeah, what a great solution.
>>>> My opinion:
>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>>> CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
> It is not so much what Romney did well as what Obama failed to do well
> in this particular debate.
Maybe. But once the dust settles and people look at what was SAID, Obama has more content.
> All Obama managed to do was highlight and
> remind people of his economic failures over the past four years.
Nonsense. He highlighted Romney's lack of specific plans, that Romney makes vague promises but doesn't have clear plans for them, just vague "loopholes".
Romney tried to highlight Obama's "failure"... and repeated over and over 716 billion cut from medicare - which is actually a good thing, it's a cut from INCREASE of medicare SPENDING, not a cut from sick people. And that's supposed to be Romney's biggest criticism against Obama's plan? Not impressed.
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> My opinion:
>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
>> Obamacare.
>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
>> factcheck on the run...
>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
>> milk as much profit as they can.
>>>>> On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>>> My opinion:
>>>>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way.
>>>>> CNN says Romney won too-- by 67%.
>>>> It escapes me what did he do so well...
>>>> I don't think wanting to roll back to Bush policies is going to cut it...
>>> MITTIE LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH, the mofo
>>> everything that romney kept saying he was against in the past tonight he was for everything. he lied through his teeth tonight. now wait til round two
>> I think it was seen as "win" for Romney because people were expecting
>> Obama to slaughter him. But of course it's easier to criticize for past
>> policies when you're not presenting your own...
>> At least on the surface. It all depends on gullibility of voters.
>> I think Obama's tactic was not getting into defending his policies too
>> much. Oh and the poor moderation did play a part, let Romney finish
>> segments more than Obama I think.
> Bullshit ! The moderator allowed Obama to go WAY over his allotted
> time over and over many times. CNN had a stop watch on it. The
> moderator favored Obama heavily and Romney still won.
Romney bullied the moderator, not good. At least Obama showed some respect for the format and moderator.
Romney "won"... Only won in a way that people saw he can talk. Too bad that when they later on look at WHAT he said, it's a bunch of flip-flopping and HORRIBLE policies... getting back to Bush era.
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>My opinion:
>abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best. >Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at >moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss >out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel >Obamacare.
>I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a >factcheck on the run...
>Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing >government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism >doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and >milk as much profit as they can.
I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >My opinion:
> >abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
> >Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
> >moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
> >Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
> >out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
> >Obamacare.
> >I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
> >factcheck on the run...
> >Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
> >government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
> >doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
> >milk as much profit as they can.
> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
Obama SUBSTANCE???
Apparently you haven't followed US politics much in the last four
years ...
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> My opinion:
>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
>> Obamacare.
>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
>> factcheck on the run...
>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
>> milk as much profit as they can.
> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
And yes, of course Obama has more substance. You also need a factcheck when listening to Romney...and also to know his former opinions, since chances are that he's said exactly opposite couple months/years ago...
> 7.10.2012 16:59, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>> My opinion:
>>> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.
>>> Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at
>>> moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>>> Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss
>>> out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel
>>> Obamacare.
>>> I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a
>>> factcheck on the run...
>>> Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing
>>> government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism
>>> doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and
>>> milk as much profit as they can.
>> I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
>> Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
>> So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
>> like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
>> comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
>> hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
>> Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
>> suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
>> policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
>> So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
>> or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
>> I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
> Well if your impression from the debate only was that Romney criticizes
> but doesn't have the cure himself - then I think Obama succeeded on
> exactly what he wanted to succeed at...
> And yes, of course Obama has more substance. You also need a factcheck
> when listening to Romney...and also to know his former opinions, since
> chances are that he's said exactly opposite couple months/years ago...
It appears Obama has gone down 6 points on forecast, from 86 to 80%.
Not necessarily his own undoing at debate, probably many other people, too, watched Romney for first time and thought the man can talk.
The dumb thing with these debates is that even if say Obama would reveal Romney's flip-flopping, Romney can deny and spin it since moderator doesn't do fact-checking on the fly.
>>abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best. >>Romney was pretty much how I expected, did look a bit uncomfortable at >>moments, did go for his attacks... while Obama was more into details.
>>Obama was civil and pointed out Romney's lack of specifics. He did miss >>out mentioning 47% while mentioning Romney's partisan agenda to repel >>Obamacare.
>>I think the moderator did a lousy job. Also, why can't they do a >>factcheck on the run...
>>Romney is wrong, big time, with his plan for healthcare. Reducing >>government involvement makes healthcare more expensive. Capitalism >>doesn't work for low cost healthcare, private healthcare will try and >>milk as much profit as they can.
>I watched the debate later, after I had read all the stories saying
>Romney won, that Obama was unconvincing and stuttered and whatever.
>So I was kind of expecting to see Obama do badly, but it didn't look
>like that. I haven't followed US politics and economy enough to really
>comment on the substance, but both appeared pretty convincing to me. I
>hadn't really seen Romney before, at least he doesn't seem like a
>Sarah Palin type who doesn't understand anything about anything. I
>suspect he was a bit like "Timo Soini", i.e. criticizing all existing
>policies, but doesn't have any realistic alternatives.
>So my impression was, again not having followed US politics or economy
>or the campaign much, that "image-wise" they seemed pretty equal, but
>I suspect Obama had more actual substance.
Substance ????????? !!!!!!!!!!
Roll back to 2008 and review Obama's promises for CHANGE against what
he has actually DONE.
The "substance" of anything Obama "says" is ZERO !
