Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 13)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The president was better at playing it off when she cut him off. Romney did poorly with that in this debate and in the last. When Mr. Obama saw she was not going to budge, he acted like it was his idea. She was pretty strictly enforcing the time limits for both candidates (I estimate that they both got about equal time, but I'll wait for the time keepers to weigh in on that), and she was pretty good about staying out of the way otherwise.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
web page

quote:
According to CNN's timekeeping, Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50.
3 minutes of extra time is a lot in these sorts of things. Particularly if those 3 minutes are the last word in nearly every topic.

And this is after she claimed that the time keepers are working, when Romney voiced a complaint about being unable to respond (again).

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although, I do agree with your criticism regarding the rose garden statement. She over-represented the President's side initially, and her clarification was a little too weak.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did anyone else feel like the first fifteen or twenty minutes were coming to us courtesy of bizarro-land? Seriously, it was like neither of them could /understand/ the questions, nevermind answer them. If I hadn't been watching with my husband, I would have turned off the television.

I was impressed with Romney's answer to the immigration question. I sincerely doubt he was telling the asker what she wanted to hear. I want to stand up and applaud every time a politician gives an answer which may be unpopular, but which he believes.

Some maybe-specifics on his tax plan, different from the maybe-specifics I last heard presented but at least /mentioned/ in the debate, which Obama ignored (and we didn't hear about them for very long.)

A decisive answer from Obama on Libya (taking responsibility for what happened there). Also, some honesty on low-income manufacturing jobs.

Lots of repeating the same material from both of them.

Meh.

[ October 16, 2012, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If that's the case, then I'm disappointed in that regard. 4 minutes is a ton. I do like the tone she carried with both candidates. I would like to see moderators find that happy balance between being strict with time constraints but otherwise being respectful.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lots of repeating the same material from both of them.
Agreed.

quote:
I would like to see moderators find that happy balance between being strict with time constraints but otherwise being respectful.
Agreed.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Edgmatt:] "Josh - I'm flabbergasted that you thought the moderator was excellent. The president was able to speak last on nearly every issue, she interrupted Romney (as she should) anytime he was over time, but did not do so for the President, and she bailed out the President on this remark about an act of terror."

Oooh, that means you think Romney lost.

[Chael:] "Did anyone else feel like the first fifteen or twenty minutes were coming to us courtesy of bizarro-land? Seriously, it was like neither of them could /understand/ the questions, nevermind answer them. If I hadn't been watching with my husband, I would have turned off the television."

Definitely. My wife looked like she was going to throw the cat at the tv. But it did settle down after that and Obama became more and more comfortable. Romney had a few rough patches but overall did ok.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al: Please. Don't speculate. I thought the moderator in the VP debate was really biased, and I thought the debate was a tie.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al - What I said means exactly what I said, no more no less.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
Don't speculate. I thought the moderator in the VP debate was really biased, and I thought the debate was a tie.

I'm not sure that the debater was clearly biased, but she did allow Obama to run over time much more than Romney. Obama consistently got 10 to 15 seconds in extra time throughout the debate. the moderator should have insisted the time remain at least close to equal. Instead, by the end of the debate Obama had accumulated substantially more time to talk.

That being said, the debate was pretty much a tie. Obama scored a few more rhetorical points, but it's hard to believe that either candidate swayed many independent voters. Scoring points for your based doesn't really help at this point. I'm not sure this debate changes much and leaves the election very much a toss up.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney:
- I wanted to hear more specifics on his tax plan. He started to with an early question (the lady who couldn't remember "the other exemption") but he needs to keep that ball rolling.
- His answers on immigration were honest which was good to see.
- I think the entire conversation (both his and the Presidents) about who's been better to women was a complete waste of time. It came across as "look what I did, I'M nicer to women." Bleh.
-
Obama:
- Seemed to make a lot of accusations and say Romney's points weren't true, but didn't back it up. Seemed like he was doing it just to make up for last debate. I think this hurt him.
- Made a very strong statement when he told Romney that accusing him and anyone on his team of turning the Benghazi disaster into politics was very offensive. Romney will have to be careful in future statements.
- Was too...arrogant is the best word I can come up with. It was as if he and the moderator were buddies. When Romney complained to the moderator that he was supposed to get the last bit, and the Pres said "time checkers are workin" and several times when he interrupted Romney and talked to Candy as if they were best friends. Too much.
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.

There was no good answer to that question. So he avoided the unpleasantness by ignoring the specifics.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question was: "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

We're on the same page, JWatts?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
The question was: "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

We're on the same page, JWatts?

Actually, that's not what I was thinking of.

But still that's a question that Obama is just probably going to avoid answering. He really can't afford to throw Hillary under the bus at this point and what else could he say? It's pretty clear that there were requests for extra security and a clear threat, but they denied the extra security. His administration already took the approach that it was a spontaneous attack caused by a riot, which turned out to be completely false. He certainly doesn't want to be caught in a further lie. So his best approach is to attack Romney for daring to even bring the subject up. His base will eat it up and some independents won't think about it too deeply.

After looking it up, that is the question I was thinking of, there was just more of a prelude.

quote:

We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?



[ October 17, 2012, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Romney:
- I wanted to hear more specifics on his tax plan. He started to with an early question (the lady who couldn't remember "the other exemption") but he needs to keep that ball rolling.
- His answers on immigration were honest which was good to see.
- I think the entire conversation (both his and the Presidents) about who's been better to women was a complete waste of time. It came across as "look what I did, I'M nicer to women." Bleh.

1) Yes, me too.
2) Yes.
3) The question was very specific (pay inequality), so I agree. I did appreciate Obama giving a relevant answer here. And frankly, Romney sounded a little out of touch. My husband commented that out of his co-workers who use some variant of flex-time to go take care of the kids, about half of them are men. Women aren't the only ones who benefit from a little work/life balance.

quote:

Obama:
- Seemed to make a lot of accusations and say Romney's points weren't true, but didn't back it up. Seemed like he was doing it just to make up for last debate. I think this hurt him.
- Made a very strong statement when he told Romney that accusing him and anyone on his team of turning the Benghazi disaster into politics was very offensive. Romney will have to be careful in future statements.
- Was too...arrogant is the best word I can come up with. It was as if he and the moderator were buddies. When Romney complained to the moderator that he was supposed to get the last bit, and the Pres said "time checkers are workin" and several times when he interrupted Romney and talked to Candy as if they were best friends. Too much.
- He did not answer the one man's question about Benghazi. He completely avoided it.

1) He made similar accusations in the first debate. I do agree that he seemed to be striving for a more.. combative performance. I was wondering if they were going to have a wrestling match or somesuch.

2) Yup. And frankly, I thought it was about time.

3) Obama was spinning his way. Can't say I'm surprised.

4) Yes, agreed--sorry; I was unclear earlier (if this had anything to do with my comment earlier--sorry for 'world revolves around me' syndrome if it didn't). I would have been happier with a "we're looking into the matter, as previously mentioned; when we are absolutely certain, the public will know, because at that point the person's reputation will be ashes and we want to be sure" answer. I really doubt this was a decision made on his level, even though he is ultimately responsible.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone have whole debate links for the VP debate or for the whole debate?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On energy, Obama seemed to win 70-30 in my judgment.

Would like links to the larger scale debates.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chael - yes, that sort of response would have both answered the man's question and dodged it at the same time. But he chose to just avoid it completely.

BTW I went back and found the vid from the rose garden after the Benghazi attack. I wanted to see the Pres actually say all the words that were in the transcript. After watching the video, I think he certainly came closer to calling the Benghazi incident an act of terror than I originally thought. I still think he made a big mistake in the debate by being so over-confident about it, because he certainly didn't say it directly, but it's not quite as bad as I first thought.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete - I can't find links yet.

I'm surprised you thought the Pres was strong on Energy. He and Romney were contradicting each other with the numbers, and Romney put him to the question and the Pres was weak (IMO). What did you like about what the Pres said?

*edited to be clear which of Pete's comments I am talking about.

[ October 17, 2012, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: edgmatt ]

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Crowley has clarified her comments. She should have avoided saying anything.


quote:

After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

Crowley interrupted Romney during the debate, insisting that President Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror.”

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

quote:
What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

Romney’s Tough Immigration View Is at Odds With His Church

quote:
While Mitt Romney is taking a hard line on immigration even as the Republican primaries head toward the heavily Hispanic states of Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, the Mormon Church to which he belongs has become a decisive player in promoting policies that are decidedly more friendly toward immigrants.

The church was instrumental last year in passing controversial legislation in Utah that would provide “guest worker” permits to allow illegal immigrants with jobs to remain in the United States. The church also threw its weight behind the Utah Compact, a declaration calling for humane treatment of immigrants and condemning deportation policies that separate families, which has been adopted by several other states.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for its reluctance to be seen as meddling in politics. But on immigration, the church actively lobbied legislators, sent Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to attend the bill signing and issued a series of increasingly explicit statements in favor of allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and work.

The church’s endorsement helped shift the debate on immigration in a Republican state where more than 80 percent of legislators are Mormons. It was the church’s most overt involvement in politics since 2008, when it joined other conservative churches in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

“They were the defining factor in passing that immigration legislation,” said Ronald Mortensen, a Mormon who is co-founder of the Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration, which opposed it. “It was probably the most obvious intervention by the Mormon Church on any piece of legislation up here for years. They’re usually a lot more subtle.”

Mormons in Utah who back an accommodating approach to immigrants say they have been disturbed to see Mr. Romney align himself with his party’s anti-immigration flank and with Tea Party members. Mr. Romney has dismissed as “amnesty” any proposal to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He at first said he would veto the “Dream Act,” which would offer legal status to young illegal immigrants in the United States if they earned a college degree or serve in the military. He later revised his position to say he favored legal status for those who serve in the military.

In contrast, the Mormon Church has said that any immigration reform must balance the principles of loving one’s neighbor and keeping families intact with the imperative to secure the nation’s borders and enforce its laws.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

And Romney should have bitch-slapped Crowley for chumming it up with Obama and letting him have an extra 4 minutes of time. But we live in an imperfect world. [Wink]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Chael - yes, that sort of response would have both answered the man's question and dodged it at the same time. But he chose to just avoid it completely.

I think it's fair to say 'I'm not secure in my answer to this question yet'. I wouldn't characterize that as a dodge.

Of course, as you said, what he actually did is to completely avoid the question that was asked.

As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

quote:
What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

Romney’s Tough Immigration View Is at Odds With His Church

quote:
While Mitt Romney is taking a hard line on immigration even as the Republican primaries head toward the heavily Hispanic states of Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, the Mormon Church to which he belongs has become a decisive player in promoting policies that are decidedly more friendly toward immigrants.

The church was instrumental last year in passing controversial legislation in Utah that would provide “guest worker” permits to allow illegal immigrants with jobs to remain in the United States. The church also threw its weight behind the Utah Compact, a declaration calling for humane treatment of immigrants and condemning deportation policies that separate families, which has been adopted by several other states.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for its reluctance to be seen as meddling in politics. But on immigration, the church actively lobbied legislators, sent Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to attend the bill signing and issued a series of increasingly explicit statements in favor of allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and work.

The church’s endorsement helped shift the debate on immigration in a Republican state where more than 80 percent of legislators are Mormons. It was the church’s most overt involvement in politics since 2008, when it joined other conservative churches in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

“They were the defining factor in passing that immigration legislation,” said Ronald Mortensen, a Mormon who is co-founder of the Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration, which opposed it. “It was probably the most obvious intervention by the Mormon Church on any piece of legislation up here for years. They’re usually a lot more subtle.”

Mormons in Utah who back an accommodating approach to immigrants say they have been disturbed to see Mr. Romney align himself with his party’s anti-immigration flank and with Tea Party members. Mr. Romney has dismissed as “amnesty” any proposal to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He at first said he would veto the “Dream Act,” which would offer legal status to young illegal immigrants in the United States if they earned a college degree or serve in the military. He later revised his position to say he favored legal status for those who serve in the military.

In contrast, the Mormon Church has said that any immigration reform must balance the principles of loving one’s neighbor and keeping families intact with the imperative to secure the nation’s borders and enforce its laws.


Tony Yapias on LDS statement on Immigration reform

More comment from Tony Yapias on LDS statement RE Immigration reform compassion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

You think "his views aren't LDS enough" really would have been a good argument for Obama to make to the general electorate?

Edited to add: I'm sorry, that sounds kind of offensive. I don't mean it that way. [Frown] Not sure how to rephrase it though. It does seem like there is some anti-LDS sentiment in Romney's party.

[ October 17, 2012, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

And Romney should have bitch-slapped Crowley for chumming it up with Obama and letting him have an extra 4 minutes of time. But we live in an imperfect world. [Wink]
There's politics, and then there's principles. I had nothing but praise for Romney when he took extra time in Debate One when he added content and specifics at the expense of form. I would be an hypocrite if I criticized Obama for doing the same in Debate Two. (that's an articulation of MY position; I ain't calling you an hypocrite since I don't recall what you said about Romney taking extra time in Debate One.)
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake.
Gas prices hit about $4/gallon toward the end of Bush's last term, but plummeted to about $2 right before Obama was elected, allowing for the technically correct but disingenuous statement that gas prices went from $2 to $4 while Obama was in office.

Gas prices don't really tend to correlate well with any particular US policy moves other than sabre rattling and invasion of middle-eastern countries. It certainly hasn't correlated with shifts in domestic drilling policies.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
As far as energy goes, a quick note: I don't know how gas prices were where they were debating, but /my/ gas went over $4.00 a gallon well before Obama took office, and I'm in Texas for goodness' sake.

Yes and then they dropped like a rock and were almost certainly a lot less than $4 when Obama took office. US average prices were under $2 per gallon in the spring of 2009.

quote:
We began 2009 with gasoline prices averaging $1.625 across the United States- January 1, 2009 was actually the beginning of the uptrend, the first day that prices began to rise. Prices didn't rise above $2 until March 26, 2009, when they were $2.011.

The peak in 2009 for gasoline prices occurred on Halloween, when prices were $2.688. The largest jump between days occurred between October 22 and 23, when average prices jumped from $2.628 to $2.660 just overnight.

Source

But on substance Obama has a point. The President isn't directly responsible for the price of gas. It's volatile and no President can directly control it. However, Romney's certainly correct that more US drilling and, more importantly, additional US refineries will result in cheaper gas.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
On immigration, I think that Obama dropped the ball by FAILING to bitch-slap Romney with the LDS church position on immigration, which agrees with Obama's position rather than Romney's recent GOP position. [Big Grin]

You think "his views aren't LDS enough" really would have been a good argument for Obama to make to the general electorate?
Gosh, no. But a good statement is a good statement, regardless of its source. And if Obama agrees precisely with the LDS church directive (and as far as I can tell, he DOES!) then why not press Romney on the matter?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gas prices have no relation to domestic output.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/23/fact-check-net-oil-exporter-drilling-drop-gas-prices-103271/

[ October 17, 2012, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Re. gas: *nod* Okay. I didn't remember it getting under $2/gallon, but that says more about the state of my memory than anything else. [Wink]

Pete: Ah, I see (I think). I don't think this calls for a bitch-slap, but rather a moral argument on policy, which (if made for something other than effect) would be better made in less heated circumstances.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I don't know if you've had a chance to listen to the debate yet, but they did have an interchange on immigration. I'd be interested to know what you thought about it, if you have had a chance to see it.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I had nothing but praise for Romney when he took extra time in Debate One when he added content and specifics at the expense of form. I would be an hypocrite if I criticized Obama for doing the same in Debate Two. (that's an articulation of MY position; I ain't calling you an hypocrite since I don't recall what you said about Romney taking extra time in Debate One.)

Actually, I believe Obama got more time to speak than Romney did in the first debate, also. He just didn't say anything particularly well, so no one really cared.

To clarify, I wasn't criticizing Crowley for letting Obama take a little extra time occasionally, to clarify a position. It was letting him take extra time on almost every question that was ridiculous. And in many cases Obama wasn't even answering the actual question as he carried on. Furthermore, Obama kept jumping in with the last word, even when it was Romney's turn to speak. However, I think the overall effect was positive for Obama, since he ended up with substantially more time to pontificate.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Gas prices have no relation to domestic output.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/23/fact-check-net-oil-exporter-drilling-drop-gas-prices-103271/

Correlation is not causation. And a link that only looks at the correlation since after the US became a large importer of oil isn't telling us the whole story. That's classic cherry picking of the data.

And regardless, every extra million barrels of domestic oil produced a day, drops the US trade imbalance by $35 billion per year. An extra $35 billion in our economy per year is a significant benefit.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lack of correlation is a fair argument *against* causation, however. Economic growth is all well and good, but there's not much evidence to support the notion that US gas prices will fall dramatically if we only ramp up domestic production. Oil is priced by a global market and the US' ability to affect it through increases in domestic production is limited.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Pete, I don't know if you've had a chance to listen to the debate yet, but they did have an interchange on immigration. I'd be interested to know what you thought about it, if you have had a chance to see it.

I did see that part. That's what I'm referencing. Although am still hunting for a complete debate link.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just finished watching the debate video, and see Romney's attack upon Obama's fuel price doubling as a reference to the broader complaint of an increased cost of living generally. Domestic development of federal petroleum reserves has been abysmal over the last four years, but I don't think Romney was linking that directly to $4.00 gas. The inflationary effects of Federal borrowing are responsible, and that can be laid directly at Obama's feet. It was entertaining to see Barry's analysis of high fuel prices. In his mind, we should all be happy, because it is symptomatic of the economic recovery that began four years ago (?). He must be relieved that the next debate will not afford an oppourtunity to expand upon that theory.

Unlike the rest of you, I do not believe the Benghazi tragedy was addressed in a way that terminated it as a debate issue. If anything, Barry is playing hot-potato with the hand-off from smiling Joe. There is only one thing that will merit more "offense" than suggesting derilection of an Obama "team" member, and that is verified cover-up of derilection by the Obama team. When I watched Hillary's assumption of "complete responsibility" her expression did not reflect positively upon her boss, and if I was a family member of one of the victims... I would have slapped that smirk off of her face. Instead of firing her, he praised her.

Watch for this to reappear in the upcoming debate on Monday. The moderator effectively re-heated the potato.

Pete, for the sake of the country, I hope Obama makes an issue of Romney's parting with Church policy on illegal immigrants. It would afford a perfect juxtaposition of National vs. International ecclesiastical interests. That contrast worked very well for JFK.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama's fuel price doubling as a reference to the broader complaint of an increased cost of living generally.
Except that the overall cost of living is increasing at the slowest pace that it has in decades.

quote:
The inflationary effects of Federal borrowing are responsible, and that can be laid directly at Obama's feet.
That's double nonsense. First of all in that we've not mustered enough inflation to promote normal levels of growth, nevermind an increase in real prices (and heck, real wages have decreased- indicating that we're fighting against deflation) Second in the sense that "federal borrowing" is as much nonsense as it is to call the sum of a bank's deposits that bank's borrowing. Our Federal Government doesn't borrow- it generates its own currency. The bonds that it issues represent excess money that is deposited with it as a form of secure savings and are actively anti-inflationary, since they're actively not being spent, and thus not contributing to overall demand levels. (And, in fact, the demand for such savings is currently so high that people are even willing to take effectively negative returns just to have somewhere to park the money)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

I was already aware that you live in an alternate reality.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
I was already aware that you live in an alternate reality.

Indeed- we call it the real world over here, as opposed to the complete fantasy world that you're making up.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1