ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297383 wrote:Quaker Oats is right there.

There is a big difference between partisan and delusional.

Quaker Oaks is certainly partisan, but he/she nearly always posts arguments and links (and not biased links, actual news links) to further his/her argument. I can't remember the last time Gibby actually made an argument.

Why didn't Candy ask Obama to elaborate on this statement?

Economy. The first loss is the most obvious. Mitt Romney absolutely dismembered Obama on economics. Obama wasn’t merely outclassed. He was out-leagued. Take, for example, the Romney-Obama exchange on gas drilling. After Obama blathered on about how he’d been great for oil supply (false), Romney gutted him with a single line:
The proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it's $4.00 a gallon.
Obama’s response was perhaps the worst economic gaffe in modern debate history:
Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.
This is perhaps the dumbest economic argument ever. Obama is essentially arguing that gas prices were low four years ago because low gas prices cratered the economy. He even says that if Romney brings down gas prices, it would crater the economy again. This is pure insanity.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/16/Romney-big-winner

The Media. The greatest threat to a Romney victory after a good debate tonight was the mainstream media. It was obvious before this debate that they would spin anything but a full-on catatonic episode from Obama as a full-on Obama triumph. And it was also obvious that they’d jump all over Mitt Romney as a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a racist, a murderer, and a genocidal maniac. A desperate media with the patina of objectivity would have been Romney’s worst nightmare.
Thanks to abysmal moderator Candy Crowley, however, the mask is gone. Crowley handed Obama three minutes of extra time. She interrupted Romney far more than she did Obama. She stacked the questions two-to-one in favor of Obama-friendly questions. And she jumped into the Libya question to save Obama when he was on the ropes. Even Crowley recognized what a booboo she’d committed with that one. Meanwhile, as Obama played his class warfare card, media types cheered – literally cheered – in the other room.

Manhattan Buckeye;1297390 wrote:There is a big difference between partisan and delusional.

Quaker Oaks is certainly partisan, but he/she nearly always posts arguments and links (and not biased links, actual news links) to further his/her argument. I can't remember the last time Gibby actually made an argument.

lol

that's the only way I can respond to that.

I'm not sure how QO can sleep at night with his tin foil hat on.. b/c I know he's too scared to take it off at night.

After viewing some of the debate over my morning coffee something was missing.

Obama and the Democrat prized Obamacare was over looked, mention briefly and was never commented by Obama as an accomplishment to his administration.
(IMO a failure to the American people)

Am I wrong and did anyone else see this as strange?
Obama had a number of opportunities but avoided the Obamacare

I tuned in late and what I came away with was that neither of them answer the question that was asked very well. I remember hearing a quote from Justice Scalia where somebody asked him what his biggest gripe about lawyers was and he said "they don't answer the question I asked."

Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama would give these great answers but they were answers to different questions.

Yeah I guess they have to try to turn a question on assault weapons into something about their overall vision but you can at least answer that question first and foremost.

Should've kept it on Tosh.0

bases_loaded;1297395 wrote:So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.
This is perhaps the dumbest economic argument ever. Obama is essentially arguing that gas prices were low four years ago because low gas prices cratered the economy. He even says that if Romney brings down gas prices, it would crater the economy again. This is pure insanity.

No...Obama is not arguing low gas prices tanked the economy. This is a giant LOL. Gas Prices were high in the summer of 2008 ok...Then world economy went into the toilet and demand for oil plummeted and so the price went down ok. What Obama is kind is suggesting is that low gas prices are the consequence of a recession and the last recession was a result of conservative economic policies and that if you elect Romney and his conservative economic policies you'll get a recession and therefore lower gas prices.


.

Manhattan Buckeye;1297390 wrote:There is a big difference between partisan and delusional.

Quaker Oaks is certainly partisan, but he/she nearly always posts arguments and links (and not biased links, actual news links) to further his/her argument. I can't remember the last time Gibby actually made an argument.

Anyone can find partisan shit in the internet that matches their ideas and quote it. Just because a partisan blog is referenced doesn't make it any more credible.

I Wear Pants;1297365 wrote:And Romney's few ideas are recycling of failed Bush administration policies. Neither candidate is someone who I like. I wasn't disagreeing with you because I think Obama is great, I was disagreeing with you because I don't think Romney is any better. They are both awful.

Actually, Romney's answer to the question of how he is different from Bush, was extremely intelligent, well thought out, and eloquent. He nailed it.

And I continue to be amazed by the comment "they are both awful". Obviously we know obama's record is awful, but how can you say that Mr. Romney, who has been highly successful in the private sector, highly successful in saving a near-disaster with the Olympics, and then successful as the executive of a state, is awful. He is successful, and on top of that, highly generous (giving away a third of his income to charity). I simply cannot understand that. If that is "awful" how do you define 'good'?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297414 wrote:lol

that's the only way I can respond to that.

I'm not sure how QO can sleep at night with his tin foil hat on.. b/c I know he's too scared to take it off at night.

You're a rookie in this forum; rookies have no standing to judge entire bodies of work.

Stick around a few years; you will learn a lot.

Good luck!

QuakerOats;1297465 wrote:You're a rookie in this forum; rookies have no standing to judge entire bodies of work.

Stick around a few years; you will learn a lot.

Good luck!

Oh I've been around here a few years... you're all batshit crazy.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297469 wrote:Oh I've been around here a few years... you're all batshit crazy.

Z4P when you have nothing intellectual to add .... name calling is not the mature reaction.
Bro I have more faith in you than to be young and stupid you’re better than that mofo.

Belly35;1297478 wrote:Z4P when you have nothing intellectual to add .... name calling is not the mature reaction.
Bro I have more faith in you than to be young and stupid you’re better than that mofo.

Don't be mad b/c you're part of it

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297469 wrote:Oh I've been around here a few years... you're all batshit crazy.

Reps when I get to a computer

Am I the only one that finds it suspicious that within 30 minutes of the debate the moderator gets on TV and admits she was wrong and that Romney was right on the Rose Garden/Libya speech by the President?

If you have even half paid attention the last 2 weeks you knew Obama was lying about the Lybia debacle and she covered for him, then gets right on TV that same night and admits Romney was right and her and Obama was wrong.

Maybe the 70+ million viewers during the debate and the fact that only 1000s were watching CNN/Fox/MSNBC later afterwards to see her retraction had something to do with it?

jmog;1297492 wrote:Am I the only one that finds it suspicious that within 30 minutes of the debate the moderator gets on TV and admits she was wrong and that Romney was right on the Rose Garden/Libya speech by the President?

No! I do too!

Manhattan Buckeye;1297055 wrote:Every place I ever worked bent over ass-backwards to hire women...if they make less its because they are on the "Mommy track" and work fewer hours - that results in less compensation. Sure the big male partners made more than the female partners, but that's because they work 80 hours a week rather than 40.

This x10000.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297499 wrote:


No! I do too!

Come on Z4P, anyone who has paid ANY attention to the Libya thing knew Obama and her were wrong during the debate. As a journalist she HAD to know.

What's next, you going to say that Obama was telling the truth about his Libya comments during the debate?

jmog;1297505 wrote:Come on Z4P, anyone who has paid ANY attention to the Libya thing knew Obama and her were wrong during the debate. As a journalist she HAD to know.

What's next, you going to say that Obama was telling the truth about his Libya comments during the debate?

lol I'm just giving u a hard time. I doubt it was a big conspiracy though.

Manhattan Buckeye;1297081 wrote:Leaving at 6:00 to pick up your kids while someone else pulls an all-nighter is not equal work, and it happens often. One of my best friends at my old shop had her own contract with the firm - she was a partner but she made less than most senior associates because she had three young children it was important for her to be at home at night. So since she made $150,000 while a male senior associate pulled in $180,000, that's discrimination?

This is exactly how it is at my workplace. I've only seen one female stay past 8:00p here and that was a one-time occurrence. Most women are out the door at 5p every day; 5:30 and they start bitching about how they work too much and they need to get a massage and a drink after work. I don't think they understand that most of the men here never see the door at 5:30 much less 7.

Ty Webb;1297056 wrote:http://www.pay-equity.org/

Anyone who understands math and statisics knows this site is bunk.

However, since you want to talk, it has been shown that when you compare men and women based on their actual job title and actual work experience, the pay difference is about 2 cents, or 98%, not 72%.

The 72% claim is apples to oranges and so statistically aweful that someone with a basic statistics course in college can see the mistakes.

You can't compare men vs women as averages across the board when they make different career decisions ON AVERAGE (what type of job, what field, what to do when the family has kids, etc).

Like manhattan said, companies bend over backwards to find women and hire women in management positions, but the problem at times is finding qualified women.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297469 wrote:Oh I've been around here a few years... you're all bat**** crazy.

We know you have been around, just not in this corner of the site. Stick around here for a couple of years and not only will you learn a lot, your own debate skills will improve dramatically; you will be able to win arguments without denigrating a fellow poster etc...

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297506 wrote:lol I'm just giving u a hard time. I doubt it was a big conspiracy though.

If I had to bet money I'd say it wasn't on purpose, just very suspicious as she was obviously biased during the debate.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297506 wrote:lol I'm just giving u a hard time. I doubt it was a big conspiracy though.

I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but it was absolutely unprofessional for Crowley to do what she did. Millions of people watch these debates, and for the moderator to be throwing out incorrect statements, is the biggest gaffe a moderator can make in a debate.

jmog;1297515 wrote:Anyone who understands math and statisics knows this site is bunk.

However, since you want to talk, it has been shown that when you compare men and women based on their actual job title and actual work experience, the pay difference is about 2 cents, or 98%, not 72%.

The 72% claim is apples to oranges and so statistically aweful that someone with a basic statistics course in college can see the mistakes.

You can't compare men vs women as averages across the board when they make different career decisions ON AVERAGE (what type of job, what field, what to do when the family has kids, etc).

Like manhattan said, companies bend over backwards to find women and hire women in management positions, but the problem at times is finding qualified women.

This is all true. Yet, it is basically all MOOT; we ALREADY have laws that address this issue; maybe some of the liberals here need to read up on EEOC matters etc... Geesh. The pathetic question during the debate was simply a softball for obama, the community organizing "advocate"; it had no purpose in this debate when the nation is teetering on fiscal calamity and being attacked by terrorists due to this administration's lax security and foreign policy bungles.

Next.