Fact checkers? Those have been siding with Romney? What are you watching? Things like the "apology tour" have been thoroughly debunked, amongst many other supposed fact checks that do not support Romney. I find it ironic that you choose to chastise me for some kind of lack of impartiality when you are simpy throwing out Fox News talking points. Ignoring the fact that Romney was woefully inadequate on his foreign policy last night is simply avoiding the obvious and you try to wrap it up in some smarmy condescension of anyone who deigns to disagree with your observations. In reality, Obama "schooled" Romney on the navy criticism, the so called apology tour, his fund raising jaunt to Israel and nearly anything relating to foreign affairs that he didn't actually agree upon. By the way, your observation from the second debate was that the two points remembered from the debate were Obama's mishandling of the Benghazi situation and the moderator's horrible performance. Shockingly, the moderator hasn't received one iota of interest since that night and Romney shelved the Libya question, effectively leaving the impression of the second debate as one where Romney got busted on calling out the president's words incorrectly and it being, overall, a pretty inconsequential night for both. Yet, you delivered your observations with such disdain and arrogance, I thought it was fitting to note neither of your confident assertions came to pass. So, sorry, I'm not necessarily buying your unquestioned "truth" on the matter of last night's debate. The funny thing is that, even if I am a partisan, I freely agreed with the assessments of last night's debate by Republican strategists on CNN last night that OBama won the debate on points, but didn't really move the ledger on the overall election.
I completely agree. Whether perception is reality I don't know, but romney continually talking about how the president was right with this and that and vaguely saying what obama did wrong gave the impression romney himself had no strong mid east policy ideas himself.
Business owners are a conservative bunch. They want to know their costs going out for years. if they think they might get a large tax increase in the near future they don't want to hire people who will be very costly to get rid of if the economy turns south because of govt policy or if they are too expensive to keep. I just had a meeting with teh CFO of one of the biggest plumbing supply companies in the world. he told me they have more money than they know what to do with and would hire people if romney wins because they know romney would be business friendly. but during the obama administration they've spent that money that would normally go to new hires on technology so that they have the flexibility of not hiring people if the cost is too high. he also told me his personal tax rate was so high (max fed, max cali) he is going to retire early because it's not worth putting in the hours to bring back 50% of his pay. there is no argument obama isn't haven't a negative effect on employment. the only argument is HOW negative the effect is.
"when you are simpy throwing out Fox News talking points." huge pet peeve of mine. I don't know about bpv, but I never ever watch fox news, but reguraly i get accused of being brainwashed by them. it is possible for two entities (myself and foxnews) to come to the same conclusion given the same facts. listen to obama's speech, and many others, after the embassadors death and tell me there isn't a level of apologizing for america. "apology tour" is a clever marketing tool by the republican party, but there is more than a little truth to it.
My guess is because his long term plan is to tax the crap out of the rich and corporations and obama doesn't want to admit to it. My guess this is also what business owners believe as well.
Oh I agree with that. Americans died and people want to know why. When your chasing your tail like this trying to explain to people what happened and what you did and didnt do about it doesnt look good.
I'm no politician. If I were, I would lay out domestic agendas and timelines for my term and stick to them. I still don't understand what the hell he was doing in those first 2 years. He was all over the map and accomplished very little.
It was more of a figure of speech than anything, commenting on the uniformity of "anything Obama does/says is negative" at all times and merely dropping a litany of partisan remarks on the debate last night. I would never accuse you of spouting talking points, (Hell, I wouldn't think BPV does that, either.) no doubt you are your own man, whether or not we agree or not. As for the apology tour, there are a couple of quotes that are taken out of context (which aren't even that apologetic) within the overall tenor of Obama's speeches. Obama also criticized European anti-Americanism in those speeches, as well, but that never seems to get much play.
I can't imagine how this would come to pass, though. Obama has had enough trouble just trying to return tax codes to Clinton levels. How could he even possibly get tax rates to significantly raise for corporations with this Congress? I think he knows any type of huge tax increase would be paralyzingly to his administration.
do I need to assume this was all in jest? Schooling implies education, which wasn't remotely happening. His points about the Navy are childish and dead wrong - ask any Naval officer who knows his ass from his ear. The apology tour is reality, but random noise at this point and is the exact reason Benghazi has been a political disaster. The only points from the second debate remain to be that nobody cared, Benghazi (which has remained in the news) and Candy Crowley. If you missed those, you need to remove your head from Maddow's ass. Pretending you're right while accusing me of same in light of actual empirical evidence is retarded. Unfortunately, you know I'm not going to spend the time. I don't give a shit what you buy. You've challenged Jewbaccah for the local loony title. Why should I care? The "even if I am a partisan" was entertaining.
Wait, I'm supposed to give two shits about where you place me in the hierarchy of posters? Why should I care about the preening of some right wing ideologue who treats those who don't think along his own lines with such utter disdain? Of course, you reliably disregard your own criticisms of mine in regards to empirical evidence - please point to me where the moderator is even vaguely remembered, much less one of the two most important. And, please tell me where the Beghazi issue from the second debate is anything but Romney having to be corrected. In fact, the prominent understanding of the third debate was that this wasn't brought up in the debate and were looking for the issue to be effectively addressed in the third debate, which it wasn't. I am curious as to your basis to the assertion that these two items are the most noteworthy from the second debate, in particular when the moderator concern you have isn't even on the radar in retrospect. And, tell me (since I, apparently, have no friends or family in the navy that I talk to), what exactly was incorrect about his statements regarding the navy? Since you are so full of vigor in demanding evidence from me, I have to wonder what exactly was the problem in this part of the debate, one which left Romney particularly befuddled. Are we to compare our numbers to 1916 totals? We're supporting ANZAC troops at Gallipoli anytime soon? If Romney was trying to make a point about the size of the navy being reflective of being ineffective to our goals, then he lost it when he provided little support to it as well as when Obama noted the purpose of the military is effectiveness and not size, which he himself discussed with the Secretaryof the Navy? Which is more effective, 50 battleships in 1916, or 5 carriers today?
Comparing anything now to anything in 1916 is stupid as hell. I can't believe someone OK'd that, and it sure doesn't seem like something you'd ad lib. Romney should have just stuck with retweeting @OMGFacts on that one and not brought it into a nationally televised debate.
Uni, are you really claiming that the "apology tour" comment is being taken out of context? It seems to be a perfectly valid description of what happened to me.
Except he never apologized once and the claim has been thoroughly debunked again and again. It's an example of how a narrative gains traction and gets acceptance once people have an inclination to believe or hear it enough times. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-apology-tour/index.html
Don't really care about the apology, more about that he's not all that different (interventionist foreign policy). Thank goodness they both agreed on drone strikes. Nothing like 10 to 1 odds on killing a terrorist over a citizen.
