I would kill for just one of these debates to have a decent moderator, ughhhhhh.

I was particularly irritated when Obama allowed Romney to repeatedly assert that he (Obama) was unwilling to compromise whereas Romney was apparently a master negotiator between the two parties.

The best Obama came up with was that compromise didn't mean giving in to extremists, but he brought that up in a roundabout way by laying it on Romney's kowtowing to the far right in the Republican party.

Yet it seems to me that Obama has been more than willing to compromise, and I suppose you'll find plenty of informed liberals that feel he didn't put forth ideal legislation because of compromise.

Originally Posted by chibamm Couldn't find the whole thing. I've watched the whole thing and it is pretty funny. I'm not talking bad about Romney or Obama, it's the way to do politics. There is no gain from talking specifics. Romney keeps it general and vague as did Obama. That's all.

So you tracked down a heavily edited video to show that "both sides do it" while trying to reference an hour long interview that you think proves your point? I mean holy , do you know who Charlie Rose is? Did you bother googling "Charlie Rose Tom Brokaw?" Is watching a 4 minute clip made by a far-right winger really supposed to prove what you're saying? Cause it doesn't. All it says is that you agree with the individual that posted a heavily edited video that distorts the context.

Try again.

Originally Posted by ID2006 I was particularly irritated when Obama allowed Romney to repeatedly assert that he (Obama) was unwilling to compromise whereas Romney was apparently a master negotiator between the two parties. The best Obama came up with was that compromise didn't mean giving in to extremists, but he brought that up in a roundabout way by laying it on Romney's kowtowing to the far right in the Republican party. Yet it seems to me that Obama has been more than willing to compromise, and I suppose you'll find plenty of informed liberals that feel he didn't put forth ideal legislation because of compromise.

Romney's assertion that he was some kind of "great compromiser" was particularly irritating to me in light of the fact that he's from the party that has very publicly based their legislative agenda around blocking and opposing the President at every opportunity...

Problem with politics, people get combative. Take it down a notch and we can have a conversation about it.


Obama was vague in 2008.
Romney is vague now in 2012.

It's a strategy. Attack mode on the incumbent or incumbent party as Obama did.


Do you think Obama gave specifics in 2008?

Originally Posted by chibamm Problem with politics, people get combative. Take it down a notch and we can have a conversation about it. Obama was vague in 2008. Romney is vague now in 2012. It's a strategy. Attack mode on the incumbent or incumbent party as Obama did. Do you think Obama gave specifics in 2008?

I'll turn it down a ing notch when you turn down the stupid. Back it up with reasoned arguments with some evidence that isn't a 4 minute long hack job.

edit: If you put more effort into your posts, you'd get a better response.

Shitty debate all around, but Obama was particularly bad. Just wasn't inspired at all, rambled and stumbled on words at time, was visibly irritated at times.

Romney said lots of dumb shit, but was more charismatic for the most part. And with the intelligence and attention span of the average American, that stuff has much more impact than what is said. i.e. the drop Gore saw after his "sigh" debacle debate.

I couldn't find the whole interview unfortunately. I'll have to find it on the PBS website, I keep getting errors everywhere else.

I don't appreciate the harsh words though, completely uncalled for.



edit:

Yes I do know who Charlie Rose is. What's your point?

Originally Posted by cancerman1120 Maybe I am being unfair but I thought this was not very well moderated.

There was a moderator?

Originally Posted by chibamm I couldn't find the whole interview unfortunately. I'll have to find it on the PBS website, I keep getting errors everywhere else. I don't appreciate the harsh words though, completely uncalled for. edit: Yes I do know who Charlie Rose is. What's your point?

First off, you posted a heavily edited video of Rose interviewing Brokaw to show how vague Obama was. Now think about that until you can figure out why that is stupid.

Secondly, I shouldn't need to explain AGAIN how to find the full interview. If you know who Rose is, then NOT finding the video would be next to impossible unless you didn't know who Brokaw is either. This scenario is even LESS LIKELY since the youtube page tells us exactly who those people in the hack job are. The point is that there are any number of videos that could possibly illustrate your point, but you chose a biased hack job because you claim that its the only one you could find? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.

I also don't appreciate you acting dumb or expecting people to fall for stupid bullshit.

Originally Posted by Cantatus There was a moderator?

Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.

Originally Posted by Cantatus There was a moderator?

Lehrer has been bad and showing his age for a long time. He's not doing as well as Dan Rather.

Originally Posted by dohdough First off, you posted a heavily edited video of Rose interviewing Brokaw to show how vague Obama was. Now think about that until you can figure out why that is stupid. Secondly, I shouldn't need to explain AGAIN how to find the full interview. If you know who Rose is, then NOT finding the video would be next to impossible unless you didn't know who Brokaw is either. This scenario is even LESS LIKELY since the youtube page tells us exactly who those people in the hack job are. The point is that there are any number of videos that could possibly illustrate your point, but you chose a biased hack job because you claim that its the only one you could find? Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba. I also don't appreciate you acting dumb or expecting people to fall for stupid bullshit.

Sorry, I didn't give you a play by play. I kept getting proxy errors from Rose's website so I couldn't get the whole video up. I watched the episode years back with the girlfriend and we had quite the laugh about it at the time. We still joke about the line, "We really don't know Obama."
However, eventhough it is heavily edited I think it still shows the point I was trying to make.
Charlie Rose says, "We really don't know what his world view is..."
I found it ironic that Rose would say it. If that statement was coming from Fox News or something it would be damning. But he didn't mean it like that obviously, he was speaking in context of the media.
However, Rose could same thing about Romney now. He says alot without saying anything, without getting into specifics.
Obama did not have to get into the nuts and bolts of it to get votes in 2008. And Romney doesn't have to either to get elected either.
It wasn't so much as "both sides do it", but rather "that's how elections work". I'm not going to be this guy. All that.

I feel like I'm going to go on a rant of the executive branch itself in a minute but we can have that discussion some other time.

Sorry again, if I type succintly as well. It can come across as obtuse.

And fall for my bullshit?
I don't want you to think I'm part of some right wing agenda. Because I'm not. Just an observer.

Edit:

I thought Lehrer did an alright job. Some moderators can get long winded.

Originally Posted by cancerman1120 Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.

And who's going to pay attention to those? Not many.

Originally Posted by chibamm Problem with politics, people get combative. Take it down a notch and we can have a conversation about it.

They don't want a conversation, they want fellation or immolation. But I'll give you some of Obama's specifics from 08.

Close Guantanamo Bay
No warrantless wiretapping
No indefinite detention of Americans/no suspension of Habeas Corpus
No military tribunals for detainees
Stop the federal crackdown on medical marijuana
Televise the health care debate

Though I do agree with the overall point... Hope and change, that was his campaign. He didn't often get into details of how his plans would be executed.

Originally Posted by cancerman1120 Yeah so the insta-polls has Romney winning the debate and I really cannot say I disagree as far as it looked. The problem is the fact checkers are already pulling much of Romney's statements apart. So if winning means being the cheeriest liar on TV then we are doomed.

The thing that surprised me is that some of the incorrect statements Romney made during the debate are things he's said previously. I figured this was the time for Obama to nail him to the wall on these things (like the $800 million Medicare cuts), but mostly Obama would start talking about something else. I can understand him not wanting to look like he's on the defensive the entire time, but it runs the risk of people believing that Romney was telling the truth. I'm doubting a majority of the people who watched tonight's debate are going to be reading the fact check websites tomorrow.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

This is the problem with fact checking sites.

Early in the first presidential debate, President Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney’s tax plan as unbalanced and devastating for the middle class. He charged that Romney’s plan "calls for a $5 trillion tax cut," and challenged him to defend it. The candidates repeatedly disagreed about that number. Four times the president spoke of Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut, and four times the governor rejected it [...] The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts. We rate the statement Half True.

Every Republican president in my lifetime has promised to murder deductions and then done exactly nothing about it. Every single one. And this is a half truth.

No Politifact, it's not half true. It's more likely than the ing sun coming up tomorrow.

i dont trust either, but i did feel romney was stronger in this debate.

Originally Posted by VipFREAK

I should not have done this. Really not my best morning right now...

Originally Posted by speedracer This is the problem with fact checking sites. Every Republican president in my lifetime has promised to murder deductions and then done exactly nothing about it. Every single one. And this is a half truth. No Politifact, it's not half true. It's more likely than the ing sun coming up tomorrow.

Obama actually promised to do that himself in 2008, to eliminate deductions for those over $200,000.