2nd Debate Discussion

[carlfense]

So Carl, is it your belief that the official story from the administration, the day after the attack and commencing for the next two weeks, that the attack on our embassy was a terrorist attack not generated by the anti-muslim video?

That would depend on who you're including in your definition of "administration."

 

What cannot be denied is that President Obama (who I assume is within your definition of "administration") referred to this as an act of terror on the very next day after the attack. Has the message been consistent and clear from everyone in the US government? No. It has not.

 

What conclusions do you draw from that?

[JJ Husker]

Gotcha. You're ok with the adminiatration making up it's own narrative on the nature of the attack. If you're ok with them perpetuating a false story of why four Americans were killed at one of our embassies, I guess this discussion is pointless. Must be that you don't expect the truth from people with a D behind their name...

[carlfense]

Actually, he is promising to generate an economic and business climate that will allow businesses to create those jobs.

But the 12 million jobs gained number is projected regardless of who is elected.

 

Big difference between that and claiming "we created x number of jobs". The only jobs Obama ever "created" were some czar positions in his administration.

He said that his policies will create those jobs. His reasoning is . . . shall we say . . . creative? A more cynical man might say that it is dishonest.

 

So Romney’s claim of 12 million jobs over four years breaks down to 7 million jobs over 10 years in an economy that’s already at full employment, 3 million jobs over eight years that have nothing to do with any of Romney’s policies, and 2 million jobs if China suddenly became very, very respectful of U.S. intellectual property laws.

 

This is a lot of misreading studies to get to a number that’s pretty easy to reach: According to Moody’s Analytics, the economy is set to add 12 million jobs over the next four years anyway. Romney’s goal might sound ambitious, but it’s actually what we expect will happen if policy stays more or less stable over the next few years. But rather than say their goal wasn’t actually that ambitious, and they simply planned to not mess anything up, the Romney campaign tried to make it sound ambitious by misusing a bunch of studies.

 

This isn’t the first time the Romney campaign has had some trouble getting studies to persuasively prove their point. Their recent white paper and op-ed on the economy either misquoted, selectively quoted, or misread most of the research they mentioned. In fact, it relied heavily on the work of Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, and Reinhart and Rogoff were so concerned about the misrepresentations that they wrote a whole new paper rebutting the Romney campaign’s arguments.

 

http://www.washingto...s-its-tax-math/

[carlfense]

Gotcha. You're ok with the adminiatration making up it's own narrative on the nature of the attack. If you're ok with them perpetuating a false story of why four Americans were killed at one of our embassies, I guess this discussion is pointless.

Could you link to me saying any of that? Oh, right. You can't.

 

Anyways, Obama called it an act of terror on the day after the attack. Let's end that echo chamber 14 days thing right now. There is video. There are transcripts. Give it up.

 

Now what conspiracy theory are you peddling about the muddled messaging? I'm genuinely interested.

[chamrocck]

Carl- In the scheme of the debate, you are correct, he went for the on the record kill shot and whiffed.

Yes he did. And Obama played him into it perfectly.

 

Romney was effectively correct.

No . . . he was completely wrong. And he intentionally drew more attention to his error by trying to pin Obama down . . . when Obama was correct and Romney was wrong.

 

So Carl, is it your belief that the official story from the administration, the day after the attack and commencing for the next two weeks, that the attack on our embassy was a terrorist attack not generated by the anti-muslim video?

either way, would it not be an act of terrorism?

I can't believe people are falling for Obama's BS. This is exactly the problem. He wants to confuse you regarding what really happened to save his ass. So it is an act of terror but remember it was caused by a spontaneous uprising, right? Who believes that? Look at the actions of the next 2 weeks. Obama is going to get further exposed on this in coming days. And I bet he is going to really enjoy explaining it again at the next debate when surely a question about clarifying this confusion comes up. Keep digging, Barack.

[carlfense]

Keep digging, Barack.

Would you say that you want to get that for the record?

[sd'sker]

Obama did a good job letting us know that the government makes jobs.

romney promises to make 12,000,000,000 jobs, but then again, the gov't does not make jobs. (oh yeah, and the economy is projected to make that many jobs regardless of the person in office).

 

Actually, he is promising to generate an economic and business climate that will allow businesses to create those jobs. Big difference between that and claiming "we created x number of jobs". The only jobs Obama ever "created" were some czar positions in his administration.

no there is not. any difference is semantics. they are both representing what the gov't will do with either of them as president. i would ask you to explain your position, but i know you are loath to offer explanations.

[sd'sker]

I can't believe people are falling for Obama's BS. This is exactly the problem. He wants to confuse you regarding what really happened to save his ass. So it is an act of terror but remember it was caused by a spontaneous uprising, right? Who believes that? Look at the actions of the next 2 weeks. Obama is going to get further exposed on this in coming days. And I bet he is going to really enjoy explaining it again at the next debate when surely a question about clarifying this confusion comes up. Keep digging, Barack.

what am i falling for? it was an honest question. and he seemed to handle the question rather successfully tonight.

[chamrocck]

Keep digging, Barack.

Would you say that you want to get that for the record?

No, I would not have presented it that way. But Obama may have scored a small technical victory battle but is going to get buried on the larger war in the coming days and the next debate on this issue. Why are you allowing Obama to pull this political BS on you...aren't we trying to get away from this type of politics? Romney didn't use best choice of words but everyone (and I mean everyone) knows what he was talking about. I think Romney will use the next debate to clarify that and what is Obama going to say..."hahaha well I got it technically right...but sorry I misled everyone for the next 2 weeks...my bad." Sheeesh.

[sd'sker]

Keep digging, Barack.

Would you say that you want to get that for the record?

No, I would not have presented it that way. But Obama may have scored a small technical victory battle but is going to get buried on the larger war in the coming days and the next debate on this issue. Why are you allowing Obama to pull this political BS on you...aren't we trying to get away from this type of politics? Romney didn't use best choice of words but everyone (and I mean everyone) knows what he was talking about. I think Romney will use the next debate to clarify that and what is Obama going to say..."hahaha well I got it technically right...but sorry I misled everyone for the next 2 weeks...my bad." Sheeesh.

he took full responsibility for the tragedy, what more can he do? why are you so inclined to politicize this? and what are you talking about 'the larger war in the coming days'? this is not as big of an issue as you wish it was.

[JJ Husker]

Carl- In the scheme of the debate, you are correct, he went for the on the record kill shot and whiffed.

Yes he did. And Obama played him into it perfectly.

 

Romney was effectively correct.

No . . . he was completely wrong. And he intentionally drew more attention to his error by trying to pin Obama down . . . when Obama was correct and Romney was wrong.

 

Gotcha. You're ok with the adminiatration making up it's own narrative on the nature of the attack. If you're ok with them perpetuating a false story of why four Americans were killed at one of our embassies, I guess this discussion is pointless.

Could you link to me saying any of that? Oh, right. You can't.

 

Anyways, Obama called it an act of terror on the day after the attack. Let's end that echo chamber 14 days thing right now. There is video. There are transcripts. Give it up.

 

Now what conspiracy theory are you peddling about the muddled messaging? I'm genuinely interested.

 

I'm not peddling any theory. I just expect more transparency than we seem to ever get from this administration (BTW, that includes Obama). I admitted that this was a debate blunder by Romney. I'm having trouble understanding why you wont aclnowledge that Obama is really obfuscating this issue and that in the midst of this debate misstep, Romney actually has a good point on this issue. I've come to expect better than that from you. I accept your need to win these little points but I don't get the compulsion to ignore the larger issue. You lnow as well as the rest of us that the administration mishandled this. That doesn't automatically mean there is some deeper conspiracy afoot but it sure does open up the possibility.

[chamrocck]

Keep digging, Barack.

Would you say that you want to get that for the record?

No, I would not have presented it that way. But Obama may have scored a small technical victory battle but is going to get buried on the larger war in the coming days and the next debate on this issue. Why are you allowing Obama to pull this political BS on you...aren't we trying to get away from this type of politics? Romney didn't use best choice of words but everyone (and I mean everyone) knows what he was talking about. I think Romney will use the next debate to clarify that and what is Obama going to say..."hahaha well I got it technically right...but sorry I misled everyone for the next 2 weeks...my bad." Sheeesh.

he took full responsibility for the tragedy, what more can he do? why are you so inclined to politicize this? and what are you talking about 'the larger war in the coming days'? this is not as big of an issue as you wish it was.

Oh, this issue will be news for the coming days and into the next debate...the final debate is on foreign policy, how convenient. Obama implying that he knew it was terrorism from the outset and pointed to vague indirect remarks he made the next day is laughable when you see the actions of him and his administration the next 2 weeks. I have no doubt he will get hammered on this in the coming days in the news, with new ads, and by Romney at the next debate. You don't let Obama the politician politic on this type of thing.

[sd'sker]

Keep digging, Barack.

Would you say that you want to get that for the record?

No, I would not have presented it that way. But Obama may have scored a small technical victory battle but is going to get buried on the larger war in the coming days and the next debate on this issue. Why are you allowing Obama to pull this political BS on you...aren't we trying to get away from this type of politics? Romney didn't use best choice of words but everyone (and I mean everyone) knows what he was talking about. I think Romney will use the next debate to clarify that and what is Obama going to say..."hahaha well I got it technically right...but sorry I misled everyone for the next 2 weeks...my bad." Sheeesh.

he took full responsibility for the tragedy, what more can he do? why are you so inclined to politicize this? and what are you talking about 'the larger war in the coming days'? this is not as big of an issue as you wish it was.

Oh, this issue will be news for the coming days and into the next debate...the final debate is on foreign policy, how convenient. Obama implying that he knew it was terrorism from the outset and pointed to vague indirect remarks he made the next day is laughable when you see the actions of him and his administration the next 2 weeks. I have no doubt he will get hammered on this in the coming days in the news, with new ads, and by Romney at the next debate. You don't let Obama the politician politic on this type of thing.

ok.

[Nebula]

I spent a lot of the debate listening to see how many times something was said in absolute tones by both candidates. In any walk of life...say, investment opportunities, if I am approached with nothing but irrefutably certain assertions, I'm out. Because that kind of guarantee isn't attainable outside of death, taxes, and humiliating events remaining in your memory until the day you die.

 

Just once I'd like a real person to somehow be in the running, and speak based on passionate, unconstrained, and fearless ideology; not with endless streams of empty assurances that are impossible to fulfill.

 

Doesn't anyone value the Socratic method anymore?

 

Thought Obama came off the better of the two tonight. Close, but that's how I saw it.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Watched most of the debate, also watched the VP debate last week, which was a mess as well. I don't believe any of these people, but they are politicians so that makes sense. At this point I'm voting for Obama................I'll explain it this way.

 

It's no so much I'm voting for Obama as it is I'm not voting for Romney..............if you get what I'm saying.

 

I'd run for president, but I don't know much about some of the stuff they talk about. All I know if it isn't good for the American people then it isn't worth it.