snip...."I didn't watch the debate – I just couldn't. I read it in transcript form afterwards. I know it is widely believed that Mitt Romney won, but I don't agree. I think both candidates lost. I think they both sucked. Romney told a series of outright lies – the bit about the pre-existing conditions was incredible – while Barack Obama seemed unaccountably disinterested in the intellectual challenge of the exercise, repeatedly leaving the gross absurdities hurled his way by Romney unchallenged.Romney's performance was better than Obama's, but only if you throw out criteria like "wasn't 100% full of sh!t from the opening bell" and "made an actual attempt to explain who he is and what his plans are." Unfortunately, that is good enough for our news media, which drools over the gamesmanship aspects of these debates, because it loves candidates who sink their teeth into the horse-race nonsense that they think validates their professional lives.So the answer to the question, "What will you do to rein in the biggest budget deficit in history?" comes down to, "I'll cut PBS, which is about one millionth of the federal budget, and some other stuff."For God's sake – "I'll take programs that could be run more efficiently at state and send them to state"? Is that a joke? That's worse than a Bill Belichick answer: "What's our plan against the Broncos? We're going to watch the film and do what's best for our football team."Reporters should have instantly pelted Romney with bags of dogsh!t for insulting the American people with this ridiculous non-answer, but he was instead praised for the canny "strategy" hidden in the response"Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/presiden...
The debates are irrelevant. I didn't watch the first one, and I doubt I'll watch the others. They aren't even really debates, they are platforms to make talking points. The moderator can't even bring them back on topic (which they "pivot" from almost instantly, never answering the actual question).They're a waste of time. If they made them REAL debates, with real debating rules, that would be different. But they don't.I'll stick with what both men have said leading up to today (which in the case of Romney is confusing because he keeps changing his statements every other day), and look at the tangible results of economic policies (as shown by actual data), and any fact-checking of their statements.That's all that matters. The rest is pointless fluff.
Spin to your heart's content but Obama got a butt-whoopin'!
"I'll take programs that could be run more efficiently at state and send them to state"? Is that a joke?"I'll take programs that could be run more efficiently at state and send them to state"? Is that a joke?No - It's not a joke - 47 Federal jobs' programs that are run efficiently by 9 agencies - doubtit ! PSObama also lost because he is not intellectually deep. He is extremely bright. But he is not intellectually deep. If you read, rather than only listen to, any of his speeches -- from Berlin and Cairo until today -- you will discover how essentially empty they are. But because he never is challenged and because he delivers his largely nice-sounding vapidities so smoothly and authoritatively, many Americans are fooled.Finally, Romney won because he understands how the economy works much better than Obama does -- and because he understands what America stands for much better than the president does.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/09/its_imp...
Libs are poor losers
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat