Jim Lehrer vs. two really tall guys that think they knows whats' best for 300 million+ people. Yeah, that's going to work out real well. They should just extend the debate time to 2 hours, but only let them know a day ahead of time. Then they would probably fit their comments into the allotted time. That or but digital clocks behind the candidates so when they go over time everyone knows and it looks bad for them.

I remember when I used to debate that you would be seriously penalized if you went over time. They should set it up like that. Any extra time a candidate uses answering one question is subtracted from their following answers, end of story. They also need more muscular moderators that don't care about interrupting the candidates.

On facebook allmy liberal friends are all claiming the victory for obama,

to me this shit was so one sided in terms of clarity, power, and reasonable solutions

romney rock on fucker

At 10/3/12 10:59 PM, berthon wrote:

Romney: IM GOING TO DO THIS AND THIS AND REPEAL THIS AND THIS AND THAT
Moderator: your time is u---
Romney: NO IM NOT FINISHED FUCK YOU! AND IM GOING TO...
Moderator: your time is up sir. Obama take the floor.
Obama: So how are you going to do this?
Romney: uhhh... IM JUST GOING TO DO IT ALRIGHT!

ha! that's it in a nutshell.

Wow, this is pitiful. This forum board is full of Leftists who think Obama didn't get his ass handed to him.
Even Worse! Is then stepping up and saying that the debates don't matter

blah propaganda blah

Bill Clinton & George W. Bush won their Presidency based off of their debates. Romney dominated this debate.

At 10/3/12 11:01 PM, Travis wrote:

At 10/3/12 10:55 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: We truly are fucked if we think that debating over rhetorical propaganda campaigning is going to make a positive and tangible difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwIr_dsuyCs&feature=g-user-u

Dude, I understand that corporations and shit lobby the government, but it's my right to say "fuck you" to that guy who made the video and vote because there ARE things that either one of the candidates can do that WILL effect me.

Just because the kooloaid tastes good does not mean it is good for you. Ignorance is bliss to some and death for others.

I actually thought Obama did better in this one.

At 10/3/12 11:05 PM, DawnOfDusk wrote:

blah propaganda blah

George W. Bush won Presidency based off of debates.

Comforting.

At 10/3/12 10:47 PM, Gagsy wrote:

At 10/3/12 10:29 PM, berthon wrote: the moderator sucks, he keeps cutting off Obama and getting cut off by Romney.

I think the difference is Obama let him cut him off. He was trying too hard to be polite and Romney was just going for the jugular.

Did we watch the same debate?

Romney had to fight for more speaking time because Obama ate it all up. Romney relented to the moderator more than Obama.

Overall I think Romney won the debate but he still doesn't really give specifics on how his policies are improvements on Obama's but I think he did a good job hanging with Obama when I figure most people would rather tune out Romney from the get go. I hope that someone makes a clear step forward in my mind/ by the time Debate season is over and the election begins.

At 10/3/12 11:05 PM, DawnOfDusk wrote:

At 10/3/12 10:59 PM, berthon wrote:

Romney: IM GOING TO DO THIS AND THIS AND REPEAL THIS AND THIS AND THAT
Moderator: your time is u---
Romney: NO IM NOT FINISHED FUCK YOU! AND IM GOING TO...
Moderator: your time is up sir. Obama take the floor.
Obama: So how are you going to do this?
Romney: uhhh... IM JUST GOING TO DO IT ALRIGHT!

ha! that's it in a nutshell.

Wow, this is pitiful. This forum board is full of Leftists who think Obama didn't get his ass handed to him.
Even Worse! Is then stepping up and saying that the debates don't matter

blah propaganda blah

Bill Clinton & George W. Bush won their Presidency based off of their debates. Romney dominated this debate.

Bush is a war mongering profiteer not to mention Dick Cheney/Halliburton. Obama won on the premise that he would help fix Bushes many fuck ups as be that as it mayt Obama is working for Wall Streets interests and could give a shit about ending wars so long as the profit keeps rolling in and the debt is on your shoulders not his.

At 10/3/12 11:01 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/3/12 10:57 PM, berthon wrote: But as the moderator, he has to say when people are done, and he didn't do that, when he told Mitt to stop he didn't, and because the moderator didn't actually stand up for himself, he let Romney get away with a lot of vauge bull shit.

I honestly don't know how you could have told Romney to shut up. He was downright rude at points.

He was rude, to Obama. And constantly tried to shut him up. He even at one point asked Obama a question, and let Romney answer.

I think that Obama technically lost the debate, though I don't think it matters. Debates are all about style, since the substance is always up for debate and Romney was more fluid in his speak and more confident in his posture and tone. He even yelled down the moderator who knows how many times. Americans respect a certain degree of aggressiveness in their politicians.

That being said, I don't think it matters, because most people didn't watch the whole debate. I am making this prediction now, but it is a fairly easy prediction to make. Most people don't watch the debates and this debate was particularly dull and uninformative, so I imagine a lot of people tuned out. Most people have already decided who they are voting for by now, so it is only the independents that may be influenced. Despite what the polls may say in the next few days a 1-2 point bump will not be a game changer.

At 10/3/12 11:16 PM, CrazyKat wrote: I think that Obama technically lost the debate, though I don't think it matters.

Romney was more fluid in his speak and more confident in his posture and tone. He even yelled down the moderator who knows how many times. Americans respect a certain degree of aggressiveness in their politicians.

Are you seriously using that as ground to winning a debate?

I tried watching the debate with my mom and dad but ended up falling asleep towards the end as Obama and Romney ignored the moderator and did whatever the Hell they wanted. The only really concrete thing I got from all of this was that Romney doesn't like Big Bird and that Obama just wants 5 more goddamn seconds to talk.

#CANTWAITFORTHISSHITTOEND

most people didn't watch the whole debate. I am making this prediction now, but it is a fairly easy prediction to make.

True two of the three people I watched it with left half way through because they were way too frustrated with it.

At 10/3/12 11:17 PM, naronic wrote:

At 10/3/12 11:16 PM, CrazyKat wrote: I think that Obama technically lost the debate, though I don't think it matters.

Romney was more fluid in his speak and more confident in his posture and tone. He even yelled down the moderator who knows how many times. Americans respect a certain degree of aggressiveness in their politicians.

Are you seriously using that as ground to winning a debate?

Most of those things are necessary in a debate ...

If someone wants to make an educated vote, they'd have decided already.

I'm not bias at all, but it's safe to say that Romney walked all over Obama tonight. He's a much better speaker and he really has a solid plan that was backed up with extensive knowledge, statistics and reason. Obama's views are way too basic and oversimplified, I almost felt like at some points in the debate he didn't even know what to say. I think it's a good indication of how he's doing as president; he doesn't even really know what to do.

At 10/3/12 11:17 PM, ZJ wrote: I tried watching the debate with my mom and dad but ended up falling asleep towards the end as Obama and Romney ignored the moderator and did whatever the Hell they wanted. The only really concrete thing I got from all of this was that Romney doesn't like Big Bird and that Obama just wants 5 more goddamn seconds to talk.

#CANTWAITFORTHISSHITTOEND

"Obama and Romney ignored the moderator and did whatever the Hell they wanted." A preview of business as usual on;y when the get in power they ignore the people and not some inane "moderator".

At 10/3/12 11:18 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
The next time PBS sends a moderator, it'd better be big bird. Anyone else totally surprised that Romney said he wanted to stop paying for an educational children's show on public tv? How many stay at home moms think less of Romney for that comment alone?

I 100% agree. Sesame street was a huge part of my childhood, and it should be for all kids. It's not just an educational show, because I know plenty of people who use that show as kind of a secondary school to make sure their kids have the right morals, and are having fun with their learning.

At 10/3/12 11:23 PM, mothballs wrote: I'm not bias at all, but it's safe to say that Romney walked all over Obama tonight. He's a much better speaker and he really has a solid plan that was backed up with extensive knowledge, statistics and reason. Obama's views are way too basic and oversimplified, I almost felt like at some points in the debate he didn't even know what to say. I think it's a good indication of how he's doing as president; he doesn't even really know what to do.

Yeah, I most liked the part where Romney cut the moderator off, vaguely told the audience what they wanted to hear while not being able to articulate his policy to lower taxes without hellishly raising costs for middle class families.

At 10/3/12 11:34 PM, naronic wrote:

At 10/3/12 11:23 PM, mothballs wrote:

Yeah, I most liked the part where Romney cut the moderator off, vaguely told the audience what they wanted to hear while not being able to articulate his policy to lower taxes without hellishly raising costs for middle class families.

Another step to eliminate the middle class good thing he was unable to effectively articulate his rhetoric on that one as the sheep will follow if it sounds good as history has proven time and time again.

At 10/3/12 11:23 PM, mothballs wrote: I'm not bias at all, but it's safe to say that Romney walked all over Obama tonight. He's a much better speaker and he really has a solid plan that was backed up with extensive knowledge, statistics and reason. Obama's views are way too basic and oversimplified, I almost felt like at some points in the debate he didn't even know what to say. I think it's a good indication of how he's doing as president; he doesn't even really know what to do.

Wait until they do the fact checking on Romney tomorrow. Oh boy...About 90% of Romney's statements were lies. I'm not going to explain it to you because I am too lazy and it's 12:10 in the morning. Just wait until the news coverage comes, but do NOT watch Fox News.

At 10/4/12 12:10 AM, HiryuGouki wrote:

Wait until they do the fact checking on Romney tomorrow. Oh boy...About 90% of Romney's statements were lies. I'm not going to explain it to you because I am too lazy and it's 12:10 in the morning. Just wait until the news coverage comes, but do NOT watch Fox News.

I watched the debate on fox news, they didn't filter anything did they?

anyways, the last thing I heard before changing the channel was a reporter saying Obama looked annoyed but Romney kept his cool..... even though Romney kept looking down and up like he had an uncontrollable twitch during Obama's arguments

also, was Obama's statement about the 5 trillion tax cut true?

At 10/4/12 12:10 AM, HiryuGouki wrote: Wait until they do the fact checking on Romney tomorrow. Oh boy...About 90% of Romney's statements were lies. I'm not going to explain it to you because I am too lazy and it's 12:10 in the morning. Just wait until the news coverage comes, but do NOT watch Fox News.

I think it would be fair to say that both candidates need a little "fact-checking", but some of Obamas' statements were extremely outlandish. ObamaâEUTMs claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion was pure nonsense. Romney basically said to the affect that his tax plan will be "revenue neutral". Although Romney did not provide precise details on how he will anchor the tax rate-cuts, that does give Obama the right to fabricate the details for him. Obama's other claim that pulling out of the Iraq war has created some new cash reserve was just as ludicrous. We went into the wars in the Middle-East using borrowed money, it's not as if we can now use the money for different purposes (it was borrowed to begin with).

Whether you like Romney or not, he ultimately was able to come out with a win tonight because he was really on his game. This is evidenced through the polling done on CNN and other channels. Honestly, I feel that Obama did not have his head in the game in this debate and even many liberal commentators are suggesting something similar.

At 10/4/12 12:39 AM, Pride wrote: that does give Obama the right to fabricate the details for him.

* that does "not" give Obama the right to fabricate the details for him*

Apologies, typo.

Bill Maher on the Denver Debate.

At 10/4/12 12:39 AM, Pride wrote:

At 10/4/12 12:10 AM, HiryuGouki wrote:

I think it would be fair to say that both candidates need a little "fact-checking", but some of Obamas' statements were extremely outlandish. ObamaâEUTMs claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion was pure nonsense.

Obama said that Romney's tax plan would eventually cost an upwards of $5 trillion. Romney kept on saying that's not what he's going to do, completely misunderstanding what was being said.

At 10/3/12 11:10 PM, Gobblemeister wrote:

Did we watch the same debate?

Romney had to fight for more speaking time because Obama ate it all up. Romney relented to the moderator more than Obama.

Overall I think Romney won the debate but he still doesn't really give specifics on how his policies are improvements on Obama's but I think he did a good job hanging with Obama when I figure most people would rather tune out Romney from the get go. I hope that someone makes a clear step forward in my mind/ by the time Debate season is over and the election begins.

He just seemed more direct I guess. The stuttering and politeness didn't help Obama really.

I can't pretend to understand 90% of what they were talking about, being a Brit who is genuinely uninterested in politics but it made for some good viewing actually. I will make sure to watch the next one and hope Obama has learnt from this.

Saw this Gob and thought of you.

So the consensus is that Mitt Romney won the debate because he attacked the President more. In my years of studying and competing in debates, this is NOT how you win a debate per se, but I guess if the goal is to make the other guy look bad by any means, then yes you have won the "debate."

I couldn't even keep up with all the shit Romney threw out, but a few things caught my attention;

* Romney's assertion that tax breaks for oil companies (subsidies) is only $2.4 billion: All I could find is that this number comes from a bill that failed (twice) to eliminate a few subsidies to the big 5 oil producers, and the generally agreed upon number is about $41 billion (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawk s-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-ye ar). I did also make note of this because Romney defended retaining what he thought to be a $2.4 billion subsidy, but then explicitly stated (to a PBS newscaster nonetheless) that he would eliminate a $26.55 million subsidy.

* Obama has subsidized green energy to the tune of $90 billion: (sorry, I did miss the exact number he quoted but it was in the 90s) I can't find any exact number that says x amount of dollars went to green energy, but as a Joe Simpleton I took this assertion that that percentage went towards the companies that Romney rattled off (Solyndra, Tesla Motors, etc.). I can already tell that at just face-value, this is misleading because I'm sure this number also includes the $4.3 billion set aside as Home Energy Tax Credits and the $13 billion Renewable Energy Tax Credits from the stimulus bill, and possibly the $3 billion Cash For Clunkers program. If you're going to at least argue that this is a waste of money, then explain why reinsulating your house, or buying a more fuel-efficient car, or relying on renewable sources is bad for the country.

* Unemployment, gas prices, and health insurance are up, wages are down: I feel like I don't have to dignify this assumption that the President of the United States has any true control over the private sector to intelligent people. If you're stupid enough to believe this, then make sure you hold these things against President Romney.

* "Vote for me and I'll create 12 million jobs, get you better wages, etc...": Mitt Romney's closing statement sounded like a pathetic car sales pitch to me. Even worse, this man gave NO specific details on how any of his plans (that he also didn't detail) will accomplish any of this. Over the months though I've heard some of his promises (regular unemployment numbers, foreign oil dependence cut in half) will occur regardless, so it sounds like he's banking on the inevitable happening.

So this is apparently how Mitt Romney "won" the debate; by lying out of his ass. I guess Obama should've used the average 30-minute dissertations he gave for his 2-minute allotments to refute most of these lies, but I'm guessing the narrative then would be that he was being "unpresidential" in yelling at his opponent. Realistically, Mitt Romney won because this makes the race seem closer so the news has something to talk about for the rest of the month. Truthfully, both of these guys seemed like they were running for class president in high school instead, so I guess you'll have to decide which person you'd rather blame everything on for the next 4 years.

At 10/4/12 01:26 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: So the consensus is that Mitt Romney won the debate because he attacked the President more. In my years of studying and competing in debates, this is NOT how you win a debate per se,

Debates are not won by what is said, rather by how it is said. Romney looked more comfortable and ready than Obama.

At 10/4/12 01:42 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/4/12 01:26 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: So the consensus is that Mitt Romney won the debate because he attacked the President more. In my years of studying and competing in debates, this is NOT how you win a debate per se,

Debates are not won by what is said, rather by how it is said. Romney looked more comfortable and ready than Obama.

The only real thing people can do now is to peacefully, legally and Actively resist by way of not voting to really show in numbers that the people will not put up with things such as but not limited to war profiteering, lobbying, fiat currency, debt based currency, private owned federal reserve banking cartel, and crony capitalism. By way of not voting it is a very real and direct action in the eyes of the government that shows them that you actively and positively do not support the issues aforementioned. Do you really believe for a minute that the issues previously denoted will change with a vote ? I guarantee these issues will change no matter who the figure head in power at any given time your vote be dammed as your country will continually deteriorate by way of self enable collective international ignorance and disregard for the gravity and critical seriousness of the issues that are faced not only on the national level but global alike.

When has either side kept their word? The problem that we have is that these two parties have been usurped by career politicians on both ends of the spectrum. How can these Senators keep their jobs for 40-50 years? It is a cycle that goes back and forth, and will continue to go back and forth until Judgment Day. Next thing you know World War III is going to happen, I think by then it'll be survival of the fittest. Now I understand why people are wanting that zombie apocalypse now.