Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[Gator]

Ignoring the conspiracy theory, I have a few comments about the debate.
 
I am not sure how to explain Obama's performance.  It was not rope-a-dope.  Instead it was due to one or all of the following:
 
1.  Obama is simply the equivalent of being out of shape.  He has not been involved in a debate in 4 years.  He has been surrounded by friendly press, giving him only softball questions and never pursuing weaknesses.  Also, I doubt that his staff argue with him when setting policy.  Obama does not know what it means to be challenged with facts and logic.
 
2.  Obama's 4-year record is so bad that he can not defend it; no one can defend it.  Political pundits and  his campaign staff are laughable when they try to defend Obama's record.

3.  That is how a person looks when lectured by a superior.
 
4.  Obama is so arrogant that he does not give a shit about Romney's points.  He stood there with a smirk on his face that says "Mitt, I don't have to listen to you because I will win.  I will be re-elected and continue to do what I have been doing but this time with less restraint.  You will lose and go away.  You are wasting your breath."
 
Obama's smirk.   
 

[Gator]

What ever the reasons, the debate has done the following:
 
1.  It has re-energized the Romney supporters.

2.  It should make many of those independent undecided voters to lean in Romney's favor.

3.  It should make some soft voters for Obama in 2008 rethink their 2012 vote.  Some simply may lose interest and not bother to vote, and that is already beginning to show in groups such as the young voters, Jewish voters, etc.    Many could not identify with McCain, and many felt compelled to vote for hope.  That has changed.
 
There are more debates, and Obama will be better prepared.  Ryan should eat Biden's lunch, but the VP has been around a  long time.   The Town hall meeting debate will be a good one as it tends to give reveal the apparent personality of a candidate.    And Obama should be able to prevail when it comes to foreign policy; however......  This election is not over!
 

[Eduard]

Let's say you were a private international banking cartel that was in a position to issue unlimited credit to the world's most powerful country, with just a few keystrokes and unencumbered by a Constitution or gold standard. In other words, as long as that debt is maintained (or massively increased), you essentially own that country's entire GNP.

Let's also say that IRS revenues did nothing but pay the interest on that debt.

What would you do?

I think Eduard knows... (he's probably the only one who wonders why we're paying interest on our own money!)

Cameraman, you are giving me too much credit, I'm just trying to learn and understand. What is your opinion in regard to my question? If this international banking cartel controls practically everything, does it really matter who gets elected? Where is the line drawn in regard to how much power any given US president has to exercise his own economic and political agenda?

[Eduard]

Ignoring the conspiracy theory, I have a few comments about the debate.
 
I am not sure how to explain Obama's performance.  It was not rope-a-dope.  Instead it was due to one or all of the following:
 
1.  Obama is simply the equivalent of being out of shape.  He has not been involved in a debate in 4 years.  He has been surrounded by friendly press, giving him only softball questions and never pursuing weaknesses.  Also, I doubt that his staff argue with him when setting policy.  Obama does not know what it means to be challenged with facts and logic.
 
2.  Obama's 4-year record is so bad that he can not defend it; no one can defend it.  Political pundits and  his campaign staff are laughable when they try to defend Obama's record.

3.  That is how a person looks when lectured by a superior.
 
4.  Obama is so arrogant that he does not give a shit about Romney's points.  He stood there with a smirk on his face that says "Mitt, I don't have to listen to you because I will win.  I will be re-elected and continue to do what I have been doing but this time with less restraint.  You will lose and go away.  You are wasting your breath."
 
Obama's smirk.   

I'd say "all of the following".

[Eduard]

  And Obama should be able to prevail when it comes to foreign policy;

what makes you think that? His foreign policy record is terrible from where I'm sitting...

[Cameraguy]

Ignoring the conspiracy theory,

Calling provable, factual information a "conspiracy theory" is simply a way of marginalizing or denigrating it.
 
Those who refuse to investigate or even consider these types of "hidden hand" scenarios will be constantly disappointed (or more likely, just blame the other side) when their fervent partisan dogma fails to produce meaningful change (except for massive increases in the national debt.) Meanwhile, K Street lobbyists for the military/industrial Banksters, Big Oil and Big Pharma are laughing all the way to the bank. Divide and conquer. Oldest trick in the book.
 
All the Dubya true believers discovered this phony left/right paradigm in spades. So did the gullible "Change We Can Believe In" crowd. Who's next?
 
Until issues that someone like Ron Paul brings up are seriously addressed, you're just rah-rah-ing for alternate sides of the same coin.

Cameraman, you are giving me too much credit, I'm just trying to learn and understand. What is your opinion in regard to my question? If this international banking cartel controls practically everything, does it really matter who gets elected?

Ask Bernie Madoff or or his corporate counterpart Government Sa, err, I mean Goldman Sachs... 
 
Or better yet, read a historically documented book like Professor Anthony C. Sutton's "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler" or for you Russophiles, (Eduard, you'll love this one!), "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists" http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X

Review
'Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored.' - Richard Pipes, Baird Professor Emeritus of History, Harvard University (quoted from Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future)   

About the Author
ANTONY C. SUTTON, born in London in 1925, was educated at the universities of London, Gottingen and California. He was a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford, California, from 1968 to 1973 and later an Economics Professor at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author of 25 books, including the major three-volume study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. He died in 2002.

Where is the line drawn in regard to how much power any given US president has to exercise his own economic and political agenda?

JFK would be the ulimate authority on that one...

[GQBlues]

Last thoughts...
 
So whatever happened to Stevens' journal CNN got a hold of? How come Americans are not made aware of if he in fact 'warned' the State Dept of the pending danger in Libya? Will we ever know?
 
Isn't there supposed to be an investigation going on with this? Will we ever know?

Following this story...

On the eve of the congressional hearing into this matter there apparently are evidences stating that Stevens/consulate had requested security support from the State Dept prior to 9/11 but was refused. There are also reports stating that despite *knowing* it was a terrorist attack, the state dept briefed the department's staff within 24 hours of that fateful night that attack was a spontaneous response to a video and stayed with that alibi for days until Carney finally submitted that ..."it's self evident..." statement.

[GQBlues]

[Gator]

PHONY IN CHIEF
 
Yes GQ, "Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer."  - Thomas Sowell
 
And Obama has not spoken to the press since the Benghazi attack.  His friendly press is not so friendly now.
 
I have noticed some news agencies becoming more focused on the factual distortion coming from the Obama campaign.  Today Erin Burnett of CNN (I do not watch Fox) challenged Obama's Press Secretary about how Obama claimed Romney lied  about his tax plan and that Romney's  plan would produce a $5 trillion tax cut.   Erin quoted independent sources refuting Obama's claim that Romney is a liar and can not be trusted.  The Press Secretary continued to speak the campaign line. 
 
It is sad indeed that our President is setting such a bad example for dishonesty.  As Thomas Sowell wrote today, Obama is our Phony in Chief.
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html
 
I understand and respect a person's decision to vote for the Democrat platform.  I can not understand voting for Obama, especially with Romney as the alternative.  I hope you democrats know how to "split your ticket."

[Cameraguy]

You guys sound shocked, absolutely shocked, that the government would lie to you.

Except that's what governments do. ALL of them and ALL the time.

[GQBlues]

You guys sound shocked, absolutely shocked, that the government would lie to you.

Except that's what governments do. ALL of them and ALL the time.

CG-

It isn't so much of a shock to me that ALL politicians lie but the fact despite having all the tools necessary, so many of us still persist not to ask demand the truth. The appointments of Daschle (attempt), Geitner, Dodd, Frank and Jones to positions of high offices in DC despite their recent remarkable achievements (sic) is a very clear indicators how rampant these silliness reside in our country.

If a citizen deceives another, it's called a fraud. When a citizen lies to the country via the court system, it's called perjury. I know that's just the way it is....but what bothers me more are those amongst us who chooses not to ask and accept things as they are told.

This administration, sadly enough, is bookcase by two dead *Stevens'*. Ted and Chris. We're f*cked!

On a happy note: According to this article, it's been a long 6 YEARS (6 years?!? WTH, I've been pointing this out for well over 20 years!) this matter needed to be looked upon by the highest court in the land. Although methinks with Sotomayor's appointment I doubt anything will change at all (dang, there's that bastard word again).

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14339036-high-court-to-hear-biggest-race-case-in-six-years?lite&ocid=msnhp

Yes, your honor! It IS discrimination (I am curious what this court will conclude this time though).

[GQBlues]

...Today Erin Burnett of CNN...

YUM! Today, yesterday and everyday...She's so sexy she can sing me the news anyday good or bad...and Jackie Johnson can whisper the weather in my ears..

 

[GQBlues]

I, too, would like to see Ms. Susan Rice testify under oath on who in the intelligence department factually gave her the information that this was indeed a spontaneous response to a silly video. Then march in Carney and Ms. Hillary Clinton closely behind....





...even up to the 7th day post-terror attack in Benghazi (9/18), our brave and fearless leader of Hope and Change said during his free campaign appearance on Letterman's Late Night Show, courtesy of CBS and David Letterman, happily told the American people this (9/11 attack on Libya's consulate) was in fact a spontaneous reaction to a video (unfortunately, it's at 26:20 into the video). Despite learning within 24 hours after the attack that it was a terrorist attack, he still lied on national TV as to what the cause of the attack was...


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7422156n



As Jennifer Rubin of Washington Post opined (and I'm not a fan of Ms Rubin)...

"...This is a mess on multiple levels. The Obama administration failed to protect our people. They have failed to assess the growing threat of Al Qaeda. And the president and his advisers have been hiding the ball from voters to save their own political skins. All in all it’s a shabby performance.

People should be fired, but perhaps the voters will take care of that. So where is the president? He’s not come forward to explain any of this, although his vice president will be on the hot seat at the debate tomorrow night. After all, Jay Carney's dissembling, Susan Rice’s misleading TV appearances, and the president’s own assertions, including his September 25 speech to the UN (“a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world”) have left an evidence trail a mile wide.

Whether incompetent or dishonest or a combination of the two, Obama needs to face the American people and be held accountable. And the media, both reporters and pundits, who have tried studiously to downplay or ignore a scandal that in a GOP administration would be compared to Watergate, have their chance to show they are more than apologists for a president whose stature is shrinking by the minute...."

[Faux Pas]

GQ
Personally, I am convinced they are so use to telling us so many lies, feeding us so much of their shyt that they though this was just another one and we will digest just as we have all the other. Frankly, I was shouting about this bullshyt lie right after 9-12 in this thread and couldn't believe nobody seen a connection to 9-11. I questioned my own sanity

[Cameraguy]

Hmmmph? Hey, what was that? Something just woke me up!

Did someone just mention government lies and 9/11 in the same sentence?

Oh, never mind -- I'll go back to sleep. Probably one of those annoying "conspiracy theories."

CG-

It isn't so much of a shock to me that ALL politicians lie but the fact despite having all the tools necessary, so many of us still persist not to ask demand the truth.

Couldn't agree with you more, my friend... 

[Gator]

     CG-It isn't so much of a shock to me that ALL politicians lie but the fact despite having all the tools necessary, so many of us still persist not to ask demand the truth.   

Couldn't agree with you more, my friend... 

The press is responsible to investigate misleading information and lies.  For more than four years the press has failed to investigate Obama.   Could it be that the press's attitude is changing?  This exchange between  ABC's Tapper and the White House Press Secretary Carney says "yes".   

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/10/tapper_to_carney_on_libya_didnt_the_president_shoot_first_and_ask_questions_later.html
 
You can see this particularly at 2:30 of this video.  Tapper reminded Carney that  Obama said on 60 Minutes, "Romney has a tendency to shoot first and aim later" (regarding Romney's comments on the Benghazi attack).  Tapper then asks  Carney, "Didn't Obama shoot first and aim later?" 
 
I watch a lot of business news and ever since the debate I have seen more and more past supporters of Obama now backing off.   

[Gator]

Tonight's Veep debate should be entertaining.  Biden must come out swinging.  He has much more experience than Ryan.  Plus Ryan's economic plan from some months ago is more controversial than Romney's current plan, and I presume Ryan will defer to Romney's plan.
 
If Joe can avoid being Joe, the Obama campaign may score a few points.   

[GQBlues]

Hmmmph? Hey, what was that? Something just woke me up!

Did someone just mention government lies and 9/11 in the same sentence?

Well, the new normal these days apparently re-defined the words 'lie' and 'truth'. This administration obviously made a conscious decision on who to lie to and who to tell the truth to...





Somewhere out there a Pakistani doctor is cursing the very day he decided to help the US intelligence in getting OBL. Even deep-blue coated Diane Feinstein is appalled at all these security info leaking coming from Washington! Feinstein!?! for crying out loud!

...Couldn't agree with you more, my friend...

LOL, well, CG....I won't be as quesy about your 'guy' being a bit on the racially challenged side as much as I am about his stance with THE Day of Infamy (sic). I do agree with you though that we do need another platform in our politics.

[GQBlues]

...On a happy note: According to this article, it's been a long 6 YEARS (6 years?!? WTH, I've been pointing this out for well over 20 years!) this matter needed to be looked upon by the highest court in the land. Although methinks with Sotomayor's appointment I doubt anything will change at all (dang, there's that bastard word again).

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14339036-high-court-to-hear-biggest-race-case-in-six-years?lite&ocid=msnhp

Yes, your honor! It IS discrimination (I am curious what this court will conclude this time though).

Abigail Fisher for President!!!! You go girl! There is hope for America's young! Now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to make sure they're won't be deep in debt and so disadvantaged when they take helm.

I just love an AW who is not afraid to advance herself on the depth of her merit and character and NOT by the color of her skin!

 

[tfcrew]

• Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and health-care centers. A “federal solution” to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated “equitably” across the United States.
• The re-creation of a 21st century version of Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs.
• Specific plans for a National Infrastructure Bank: This entity would “evaluate and finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance” and would finance “transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, waste water and other infrastructures.”
• Wresting control of the military budget from Congress by attempting to place an “independent panel” in charge of military spending while slashing the defense budget in shocking ways.
• The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and step up use of “peacekeeping” deployments.
• A new “green” stimulus program and the founding of a federal “green” bank or “Energy Independence Trust,” which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in “clean energy.”
• Detailed plans to enact single-payer health-care legislation controlled by the federal government.

"Fool Me Twice"....

Author Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief for WND and hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. His co-author is Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. Together they previously wrote “The Manchurian President” and “Red Army.”
“Fool Me Twice” is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.

[Shadow]

US military to fight global warming? Does that mean they will blast the SUV's with a bazooke ?

[BillyB]

 

You guys sound shocked, absolutely shocked, that the government would lie to you.

Except that's what governments do. ALL of them and ALL the time.

We still have a better country than most so those guys have to be doing something right.
 
Welcome back CG but politics should not be the reason you're back. RW should be the reason.
 

US military to fight global warming? Does that mean they will blast the SUV's with a bazooke ?

Bazookas are too weak. Tanks that get 1 mile to 16 gallons are the solution. We will blast global warming back into the last Ice Age where it was born.
 
I like Romney and if those who did not watch the debate, watch the video Gator provided. Obama may come better prepared but how can he realistically defend his record. Biden did a good job in his debate. There are viewers out there that are clueless and will believe one side or the other depending how they present their argument or likability.
 
Spell check at RWD did not like Obama and Biden but was fine with Romney. Another reason to vote Romney.

[Anotherkiwi]

  ...Spell check at RWD did not like Obama and Biden but was fine with Romney. Another reason to vote Romney.

Because Romney is a well-known breed of sheep that has been around for a very long time!     Any candidate named Merino, Hereford or Jersey would pass this test too!

[GQBlues]

...Obama is our Phony in Chief.
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief_115715.html

I just now read this article and for the life of me I couldn't quite remember where and when I read it before that started my disdain to this clown. It's good Sowell gave citations for his references...

"...In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

 Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.


Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.


If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it -- rub people's emotions raw to hype their resentments. And this was Barack Obama in his old community organizer role, a role that should have warned those who thought that he was someone who would bring us together, when he was all too well practiced in the arts of polarizing us apart.


Why is the date of this speech important? Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.


Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Nor can Barack Obama claim that he wasn't present the day of that Senate vote, as he claimed he wasn't there when Jeremiah Wright unleashed his obscene attacks on America from the pulpit of the church that Obama attended for 20 years.


Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.





The result was announced—yeas 80, nays 14, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

YEAS—80:

Akaka, Alexander, Allard,BaucusBayh, Bennett, Biden, Bingaman, Bond, Brown, Bunning, Byrd, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Chambliss...Salazar, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Tester, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner, Webb

NAYS—14:

Boxer, Burr, Clinton, Coburn, Dodd, Enzi, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Obama, Sanders, Whitehouse, Wyden

NOT VOTING—6:

Brownback, Coleman, Hatch, Johnson, Schumer, Thomas


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2007-05-24/pdf/CREC-2007-05-24-pt1-PgS6823-2.pdf


The guy is a moron.

[GQBlues]

There was a fairly heated debate between Biden/Ryan when the subject of Tax Plan (Reform) came to light. While Ryan was trying to rebut Biden's claim that the Romney Plan would in fact put additional tax burden on the middle-class, Biden just simply won't STFU and let Ryan have the floor - respectfully.

 

The Obama campaign immediately launched a press release in hopes of further clouding the issue once and for all.

http://www.larryelder.com/b/Princeton-Economist:-Obama-campaign-is-misrepresenting-my-study-on-Romneys-tax-plan/-608643759231818827.html

"... "Even the studies that  Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to  raise middle-class taxes," said the Obama campaign press release. "In  fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey  Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large  tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."..."


Princeton Harvey Rosen's response:

"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that  under plausible assumptions, a  proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be  revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes  above $200,000 about the same.  That is, an increase in the tax burden  on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make  the overall plan revenue neutral."

Check the math here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html


My caveat: When pressed for specifics, the Romney/Ryan is admittedly short in clearly laying out how and what tax loopholes will need to be discontinued for their 20% tax plan to maintain revenue neutrality.

OTOH, I can understand as this will require full bi-partisan cooperation, which remains uncertain and volatile (though Romney is confident as he had proven this can done before), and the fact citing clear specifics which tax shelters many of us will lose in exchange for a simplified, lowered tax rates to maintain revenue neutral and ease corporate tax roll to spur employment allowing (should) for a progressive deficit reduction; could in fact appear to be too hot for comfort for some who aren't closely tuned in with the Ryan plan.