Debate Central- New Poll(read OP about options)

Obama won this one. Both sides were ackward interrupting each other, the moderater, and dodging questions.

I just keep coming back to one thing. "I have done it." Romney has balanced budgets, created jobs and improved schooling. Romney has private sector experience and know how to encourage private job growth, because he LIVED IT. I dont comprehend why anyone would believe someone like Obama who has zero private sector experience, and has never balanced a budget.

AdamPA1006

publicly thrown one of my team mates under the busmattbbpl

Politics is a Machieavellian endeavor. You would be bad at it.

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

Considering you have no idea what you are talking about... Shut the f-ck up...

The government has policies on how they do things... Simply requesting extra security doesn't mean you are entitled to it... If they had no evidence at the time of a security threat then why would the state department send more people? Did they have evidence? What was the state department's reasoning at the time... YOU DON'T F-CKING NO... So f-cking stop it.

If I am in a dry area and want to get fire insurance on my building because forest fires happen a lot, and the insurance company says no, a forest fire isn't enough justification, and then an arsonist sets my building on fire... Sure the insurance company is in the spotlight for not giving me the insurance for fire when a fire did the damage but their decision was based on forest fires... Not a f-cking arsonist.

airshocker

When I was in the military security was paramount. If security was needed, it was given. Funding wasn't even mentioned, nor taken into consideration. So I think I know a great deal more about the issue than you do.

The military is not the same as the state department... For the military to take one soldier or a squad of soldiers or a platoon of soldiers or an entire regiment of soldiers that are ALREADY THERE and simply move them where they are needed is not the same as sending additional state department employees or private security overseas at additional hazard pay... Especially if there is no basis for their deployment...

If the Libya security people came to the state department and simply said "the area isn't safe we need more people." Denying it on that basis isn't the same as if they came and said "there is a credible threat of an attack against the embassy and we need more people." Which I think is HIGHLY unlikely...

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

Considering you have no idea what you are talking about... Shut the f-ck up...

The government has policies on how they do things... Simply requesting extra security doesn't mean you are entitled to it... If they had no evidence at the time of a security threat then why would the state department send more people? Did they have evidence? What was the state department's reasoning at the time... YOU DON'T F-CKING NO... So f-cking stop it.

If I am in a dry area and want to get fire insurance on my building because forest fires happen a lot, and the insurance company says no, a forest fire isn't enough justification, and then an arsonist sets my building on fire... Sure the insurance company is in the spotlight for not giving me the insurance for fire when a fire did the damage but their decision was based on forest fires... Not a f-cking arsonist.

airshocker

When I was in the military security was paramount. If security was needed, it was given. Funding wasn't even mentioned, nor taken into consideration. So I think I know a great deal more about the issue than you do.

Airshocker, you sir, have shown this gentleman the door leading out of this thread. Congrats.

For the record, just like Airshocker wants republican policies to prevail, I want Obama's policies to prevail. Between that and the fact that Obama took responsibility is enough for me to look at this issue in a different light.

Perhaps he is gone and/or reprimanded, I don't know. As commander in chief it's something he has to handle - and something he has to take ultimate responsibility for.

I would never have publicly thrown one of my team mates under the bus, and had Obama done so here he would have lost a lot of respect in my eyes.mattbbpl

It's not throwing anybody under the bus when they're held accountable for their actions.

Airshocker is actually spot on here. It's pretty obvious that Obama effed up. I think Obama got the better of Romney in that exchange (which must have been incredibly hard to given that facts weren't on his side)Serraph105

I think Obama planned out that response for days. He knew he couldn't wing it, and took measures to make it a damn near slam dunk.

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

Obama won this one. Both sides were ackward interrupting each other, the moderater, and dodging questions.

I just keep coming back to one thing. "I have done it." Romney has balanced budgets, created jobs and improved schooling. Romney has private sector experience and know how to encourage private job growth, because he LIVED IT. I dont comprehend why anyone would believe someone like Obama who has zero private sector experience, and has never balanced a budget.

C2N2

Ballancing a budget in a business where you can act unilaterally and simply cut whatever you want or in a state government/olympic committee where you receive government subsidies is not the same as balancing a budget in a government where you have no power to effect any change yourself and are powerless to cut anything you want at all. That is a sh-tty argument...

Debate 1: Romney spends days prepping and bosses it.

Debate 2: Biden takes it w/ only weaknesses being smirks.

Debate 3: Law professor spends 4 days away from campaign trail to prep.

I am seeing a trend here.

.

The military is not the same as the state department... For the military to take one soldier or a squad of soldiers or a platoon of soldiers or an entire regiment of soldiers that are ALREADY THERE and simply move them where they are needed is not the same as sending additional state department employees or private security overseas at additional hazard pay... Especially if there is no basis for their deployment...

If the Libya security people came to the state department and simply said "the area isn't safe we need more people." Denying it on that basis isn't the same as if they came and said "there is a credible threat of an attack against the embassy and we need more people." Which I think is HIGHLY unlikely...

C2N2

Security is security. Funding should never even come into play.

The fact that this embassy had no Marines stationed in it during the time of the attack troubles me greatly.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] publicly thrown one of my team mates under the buscoolbeans90

Politics is a Machieavellian endeavor. You would be bad at it.

Debate 1: Romney spends days prepping and bosses it.

Debate 2: Biden takes it w/ only weaknesses being smirks.

Debate 3: Law professor spends 4 days away from campaign trail to prep.

I am seeing a trend here.

coolbeans90

Unsure if the poll results are trust worthy as a major of GS has been pulling for Obama since the summer.Swanogt19

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

The military is not the same as the state department... For the military to take one soldier or a squad of soldiers or a platoon of soldiers or an entire regiment of soldiers that are ALREADY THERE and simply move them where they are needed is not the same as sending additional state department employees or private security overseas at additional hazard pay... Especially if there is no basis for their deployment...

If the Libya security people came to the state department and simply said "the area isn't safe we need more people." Denying it on that basis isn't the same as if they came and said "there is a credible threat of an attack against the embassy and we need more people." Which I think is HIGHLY unlikely...

airshocker

Security is security. Funding should never even come into play.

The fact that this embassy had no Marines stationed in it during the time of the attack troubles me greatly.

How it SHOULD be and how it IS are not the same.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Debate 1: Romney spends days prepping and bosses it.

Debate 2: Biden takes it w/ only weaknesses being smirks.

Debate 3: Law professor spends 4 days away from campaign trail to prep.

I am seeing a trend here.

Serraph105

It reminds me of my exams, except in reverse!

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Perhaps he is gone and/or reprimanded, I don't know. As commander in chief it's something he has to handle - and something he has to take ultimate responsibility for.

I would never have publicly thrown one of my team mates under the bus, and had Obama done so here he would have lost a lot of respect in my eyes.airshocker

It's not throwing anybody under the bus when they're held accountable for their actions.

coolbeans90 2016.

Vote for me.

Also, need a running mate.

The fact that this embassy had no Marines stationed in it during the time of the attack troubles me greatly.

airshocker

coolbeans90 2016.

Vote for me.

Also, need a running mate.

coolbeans90

And publicly outing them during a nationally televised debate is holding them responsible?mattbbpl

No, he doesn't need to mention names, but he should have said who is actually at fault, within the state department. Just blanket taking responsibility may be admirable at times, but it doesn't cut it this time.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Perhaps he is gone and/or reprimanded, I don't know. As commander in chief it's something he has to handle - and something he has to take ultimate responsibility for.

I would never have publicly thrown one of my team mates under the bus, and had Obama done so here he would have lost a lot of respect in my eyes.mattbbpl

It's not throwing anybody under the bus when they're held accountable for their actions.

"Somebody dun goofed up and the case is developing. They are bad people and in trouble. It won't happen again because (vague, probably inaccuate, hypoethetical actions to prevent repeat occurence)."

SImply saying that someone fvcked up would have been a sufficient answer. It also, though, would make the administration look bad, so simply saying there is an investigation was prob spot on in terms of real politik.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

coolbeans90 2016.

Vote for me.

Also, need a running mate.

Aljosa23

Absolutely, yes, kind of, maybe, not really, no, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]And publicly outing them during a nationally televised debate is holding them responsible?airshocker

No, he doesn't need to mention names, but he should have said who is actually at fault. Just blanket taking responsibility may be admirable at times, but it doesn't cut it this time.

I'm REALLY confused as to why so many people STILL support Obama.

The guy was a flop.

He didn't keep most of his "promises."

He even said himself that if he doesn't get the job done in 4 years, we can kick him out. I say we hold him to his word and not let him be president again.

As for the debate, I haven't seen it yet, I was busy during it. I'm gonna watch it as soon as it's available for streaming online.

And I hate how liberals are trying so hard to make the election about social issues like gay marriage. It's so easy for liberals to sound like the "righteous" party because they can easily throw around words like "equality" to sugar coat everything.

Not mentioning the names and blaming someone else would lead to you saying he's trying to deflect any responsibility from himself. Its lose-lose on his part for people who want to attack him on the subjectlx_theo

I'm sure someone else would say that, but not me.

I wish they'd talk about foreign policy issues outside of the middle-east. Like how Obama said he's going to be able to be more 'flexible' for Putin after the election. Romney should've asked Obama what this 'flexibility' entails and why it has to wait till Obama's safely relected.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]And publicly outing them during a nationally televised debate is holding them responsible?lx_theo

No, he doesn't need to mention names, but he should have said who is actually at fault. Just blanket taking responsibility may be admirable at times, but it doesn't cut it this time.

QFT

The only way he could answer that question to their liking would be to say "It was me, the reqest was on my desk, I declined it, I concede defeat, I withdraw from the race, and I turn myself into the senate inquiry, Romney 2012."

Anything else and he is at fault no matter what.

I'm REALLY confused as to why so many people STILL support Obama.

The guy was a flop.

He didn't keep most of his "promises."

He even said himself that if he doesn't get the job done in 4 years, we can kick him out. I say we hold him to his word and not let him be president again.

As for the debate, I haven't seen it yet, I was busy during it. I'm gonna watch it as soon as it's available for streaming online.

And I hate how liberals are trying so hard to make the election about social issues like gay marriage. It's so easy for liberals to sound like the "righteous" party because they can easily throw around words like "equality" to sugar coat everything.

GeoffZak

Cant believe the Romney support in this thread, you guys gotta come chime in when im almost the only one calling out the president or defeding romney here.

I wish they'd talk about foreign policy issues outside of the middle-east. Like how Obama said he's going to be able to be more 'flexible' for Putin after the election. Romney should've asked Obama what this 'flexibility' entails and why it has to wait till Obama's safely relected.

Storm_Marine

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

coolbeans90 2016.

Vote for me.

Also, need a running mate.

Aljosa23

Banjo's still around these parts?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

I wish they'd talk about foreign policy issues outside of the middle-east. Like how Obama said he's going to be able to be more 'flexible' for Putin after the election. Romney should've asked Obama what this 'flexibility' entails and why it has to wait till Obama's safely relected.

Aljosa23

And exclusively about the Middle East.

Cant believe the Romney support in this thread, you guys gotta come chime in when im almost the only one calling out the president or defeding romney here.

AdamPA1006

I think the investment trust stuff was kinda dumb. 'Bama leaves enough to be desired on Libya - but I get that sh*t is developing. Obama mentioning guns did not make me happy - as in the "don't touch this issue or I won't vote for you" kind of unhappy.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

coolbeans90 2016.

Vote for me.

Also, need a running mate.

TacticalDesire

Banjo's still around these parts?

narutosomething

silly_pants

and cloud9848356

I wish they'd talk about foreign policy issues outside of the middle-east. Like how Obama said he's going to be able to be more 'flexible' for Putin after the election. Romney should've asked Obama what this 'flexibility' entails and why it has to wait till Obama's safely relected.

Storm_Marine

Obama, absolutely. Glad he kicked some ass. He was a real sissy in the last debate.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

I wish they'd talk about foreign policy issues outside of the middle-east. Like how Obama said he's going to be able to be more 'flexible' for Putin after the election. Romney should've asked Obama what this 'flexibility' entails and why it has to wait till Obama's safely relected.

-Sun_Tzu-

Odd choice of words on Obama's part then.

Yeah it was kinda stupid but Romney was poingint out the even Obama cant go through every investment and account for ever dollar and make sure its for all 100% American companies. Thats impossible.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

I wish they'd talk about foreign policy issues outside of the middle-east. Like how Obama said he's going to be able to be more 'flexible' for Putin after the election. Romney should've asked Obama what this 'flexibility' entails and why it has to wait till Obama's safely relected.

Storm_Marine

Odd choice of words on Obama's part then.

CNN gives Obama a 46-39 win, seems about right.chessmaster1989

My reaction, too. I wonder what impact that this will have on the polls. This gentlemanly repartee did not strike me as one to win the hearts and minds of the undecided voter.

I'm REALLY confused as to why so many people STILL support Obama.

The guy was a flop.

He didn't keep most of his "promises."

He even said himself that if he doesn't get the job done in 4 years, we can kick him out. I say we hold him to his word and not let him be president again.

As for the debate, I haven't seen it yet, I was busy during it. I'm gonna watch it as soon as it's available for streaming online.

And I hate how liberals are trying so hard to make the election about social issues like gay marriage. It's so easy for liberals to sound like the "righteous" party because they can easily throw around words like "equality" to sugar coat everything.

GeoffZak

Gay marriage and social issues are still issues. Don't be butthurt because your party is trapped in 1875.

Romney: My plan is to create 12 million jobs...

Romney: The government doesn't create jobs! the government doesn't create jobs!

Well, which is it?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]CNN gives Obama a 46-39 win, seems about right.coolbeans90

My reaction, too. I wonder what impact that this will have on the polls. This gentlemanly repartee did not strike me as one to win the hearts and minds of the undecided voter.

Definitely can't hurt Obama, hard to say if it'll help him that much. Given that right now he appears to be in a small lead in the swing states and around a tie nationally, I'd say Obama will level out at a 1-2 point lead.