ROMNEY ROMNEY ROMNEY !!!!

[Dave Hazelwood]

Wow Mitt really kicked Obummer's ass !!!!

No contest !

[Dave Hazelwood]

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.

exactly the opposite of what happened !!!

[TT]

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.

[Court_1]

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%.

[TT]

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...

[guyana]

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

[TT]

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.

[Calimero]

On Oct 4, 5:19 am, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> My opinion:
>
> abc says Romney won... I didn't see it that way. A gridlock at best.

> ...

Well, than let's hope for two more of your "gridlocks" so we can
finally end this failed presidency ...

Max

[Dave Hazelwood]

You have NO say. You do not have a vote. I do.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:37:44 -0700 (PDT), guyana <gap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Obama lied to us for 4 years !!!

[Dave Hazelwood]

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.

[Court_1]

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.

[Court_1]

On Oct 3, 11:37 pm, guyana <gapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,

And Obama hasn't? They are politicians, they all lie!

[Dave Hazelwood]

[Court_1]

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.

[Dave Hazelwood]

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.

Watch the movie 2016. Obama is a disgrace.

[TT]

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.

[TT]

4.10.2012 14:32, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> 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.

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.

[TT]

I don't give a damn, I'm still correct.

[TT]

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.

[Sakari Lund]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:19:12 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

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.

[Calimero]

Obama SUBSTANCE???
Apparently you haven't followed US politics much in the last four
years ...

Max

[TT]

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...

[TT]

Then again, looking at:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

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.

[Dave Hazelwood]

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 !

[Sakari Lund]

Well not really. It doesn't help him at all if I get that impression,
but majority of US people think Romney won the debate :-)

[Vlado]

On Oct 3, 10:45 pm, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow Mitt really kicked Obummer's ass !!!!
>
> No contest !

This Dave Hazelwood is a really dumb guy even for a fedtard.
I mean he claims that he is part of the Fed family and now he
supports this puppet Rumney .

I don't pay attention to these phony "elections" but I am really
stunned by the stupidity of it. Both of these guys are nothing
but puppets and Obama was exposed and always was as
nothing but a shallow low lifer serving his masters. You can
see that Obama has no energy left whatsoever and he never
had anything real anyway.

As for Romney , it's the same thing . None of them talk about
real issues that America has gotten itself into and especially
the jewish issue . All they want to talk about is how to shut
up the population by making them anxious about their survival
and claiming to be coming up to their aid just in time. Of course
this is nothing but a trick to play up on people used by every
dictatorship.

Romney says he wants to promote small business which "brings jobs"
and he wants to promote "free trade" which supposedly also
bring jobs . That's completelly
mutually exclusive because "free trade" kills local small
business along with other social detriments. Think of a
big multinational buying up and taking over smaller businesses
to "improve efficiency" and then sending up manufacturing
jobs further away to be mass produced by a virtual slave labour.

You don't have to economist to figure out that free trade and
capitalism promotes efficiency which in turn promotes slavery,
consumerism and efficiency which kills real jobs along with any
sense of community. On the other hand small business promotes
job creation, ineficiency , local community and equal distribution
of wealth. Romney and the phony "conservatives" say that they
want it all. Of course Romney never worked in a real job and never
had a small business

[Vlado]

Romney didn't "win" , Obama was just exposed with his body language
and I think it's to his credit. I don't follow mainstream media but
Obama was always
just a media made icon to make people forget about Bush years and now
that he is on his own he can't hide the emptiness and the
uncomfortable feeling
of not being your own man.Probably subconciously he can't stand for
the
things his masters want him to do and he doesn't want to prolong his
own
suffering.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Vlado <vlad...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The only thing that matters is that if Romney is elected the
Corporations will spend the TRILLIONS in cash they have in the bank,
hire like crazy and put money back in workers pockets to revive the
economy.

That is ALL I want. IT is all most people want at this stage of
middle class destruction.

If Obama wins, it's another 4 years of the same old same old with
NO jobs, NO spending and MORE welfare with LARGER deficits.
Obama is not capable of doing ANYTHING to stop it no matter how
fast or how long Bernanke keeps printing money. It will only get
WORSE.

End of story.

[Calimero]

Who are his masters?
David Axelrod and Chris Matthews??


Max

[Calimero]

I like consumerism and big companies whith soaring stocks!


Max

[TT]

The Jew?

[Calimero]

Well, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
The we could be sure that he would end people like Vlado ...


Max