That's the point I failed to make... cept Dems are reluctant to say Obama won that debate.

Well... next Friday nobody is going to be talking about either of these debates because people have short term memories and will only care about how the next debate goes. Well, that is, unless Obama poops his pants again. I don't think it'll go down that way. I think it'll be a lot more even next week.

It all depends on what kinds of questions are asked of Romney. People want more clarity on the whole 47% video and maybe even the fact that Romney is a member of the LDS cult. I'd ask him... can I see your magic underwear?

Excuse me? Did I comment on the polls before, you fluffing idiot?

Wait wait wait wait wait waaaaaaaait! Isn't this the same kind of fluff that Romney did that everyone went nuts over and said he won? So if the President can talk over someone and be 'abrasive', it's ok, but if the VP doesn't just shut his yap then it's GAME OVER MAN! [/quote]

Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times! 82! Every comment Ryan said Joe laughed, scoffed, made sounds, or continually interrupted him to the point Ryan asked him to stop. If you think Romney was anything like this you need your head examined. Romney, unlike Obama, smiled at him, concentrated on his comments and then after Obama finished his thoughts Romney jumped on everything to make a point. However he never interrupted, scoffed, laughed, or was disrespectful. The two aren't even on the same level man, not even close.

Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times! 82! Every comment Ryan said Joe laughed, scoffed, made sounds, or continually interrupted him to the point Ryan asked him to stop. If you think Romney was anything like this you need your head examined. Romney, unlike Obama, smiled at him, concentrated on his comments and then after Obama finished his thoughts Romney jumped on everything to make a point. However he never interrupted, scoffed, laughed, or was disrespectful. The two aren't even on the same level man, not even close. [/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-5c4RO5YFg

Oh. My. God. Open your fluffing eyes dude. I don't care who you fluffing vote for but open your fluffing eyes. Stop being blind to everything the side you support is doing. I guess Romney interrupting both Obama AND the moderator NUMEROUS times is zero to you.

If someone did that to me I would consider it disrespectful as fluff.

I think Biden was like that on purpose BECAUSE of how interrupty Romney was in that debate. Slap down that little flea, Paul Ryan.

I don't know if you have looked at how badly he treated the teachers, police officers, and firemen in his state... but maybe you should to get a feel for what kind of man he really is.

There was a major difference between Romney and Biden, and if you don't see that difference you may be a... Well use your imagination.

Lieing and telling half-truths is not the exclusive domain of the Republicans. The Democrats are telling some rather large whoppers right now. Some examples:

Democrats will tell you we are heading in the right direction because we've had 30 months of private sector job growth. While that is true the job growth has been so poor that it is not keeping up with population growth.

They also mention the economy is growing but do not mention it is a paltry ~1.6% which is slower then 2011 which was in turn slower then 2010.

Democrats say unemployment is at 7.8% and that the economy therefore must be improving. They do not mention that a large driving force behind the employment rate going down is that people are giving up looking for work. If you counted those people unemployment would be 11%+

As much as the MSNBC douchebags like to call Romney and Ryan liars, they perpetuate a lot of bullfluff themselves.

I'd like to point a few things out to you Orkinman, just to put this all into context.

When the American economy crashed in 2008, it wasn't just the American economy that was affected. The whole WORLD was affected and damaged by it. If you can feel comfortable with the notion that the American economic collapse affected the entire world economy, then it's not much of a stretch to infer the opposite.

America's economic recovery is partly dependent on the world economy getting better as well... which isn't exactly in the control of any one government.

I'd also like to point out that this recession was worse than the great depression (which lasted 10 years and took WW2 to get out of it). NO LEADER CAN FIX A COUNTRY SO BROKEN IN 4 YEARS. I know you like your fast food and your on demand television, but not everything happens over night and something this huge can't be fixed in 4 years. I hate to say it, but the problem with America is Americans. There is going to need to be an entire paradigm shift through the next few generations that will eventually (hopefully) fix your country. THAT is how countries change... not in 4 years.

It's very fast and easy to ruin a country... it's like getting into a car accident. It takes just a split second and it could take the rest of your life to recover.

REAGAN DID.

Reagan had a depression as bad as this? Give me a break.

The Reagan slump was brought to a rapid end when the Fed decided to relent and cut interest rates, sparking a giant housing boom. That option isn’t available now because rates are already close to zero... and Obama's recession was brought on by private-sector excess: above all, the surge in household debt during the Bush years.

Compare them again pls.

REAGAN INHERITED AN ECONOMY IN ABSOLUTE DISARRAY, WITH DOUBLE DIGIT INFLATION AND RISING UNEMPLOYMENT RATES. RATHER THAN JUST BLAMING HIS PREDECESSOR, HE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

REAGAN AND A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WHICH AT THAT TIME STILL BELIEVED IN ECONOMIC FREEDOM, FIXED THE PROBLEM BY DRASTICALLY LOWERING TAX RATES AND EASING REGULATION. AND YES, AS YOU POINT OUT, BY ALSO ENACTING SANE POLICIES AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE. THE RESULT WAS THAT THE INEVITABLE ECONOMIC CONTRACTION TOOK PLACE DURING HIS FIRST 2+ YEARS IN OFFICE, FOLLOWED BY THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH WHICH HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE ARE FINALLY UNSHACKLED.

IN THE TWO OTHER MOST NOTABLE ECONOMIC DISASTERS OF MODERN US HISTORY, (TODAY, AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION) WE TRIED TURNING AWAY FROM FREEDOM, IN FAVOR OF BIG GOVERNMENT WHICH WOULD SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS. IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES, THE RESULT WAS A DEEPENING AND LENGTHENING OF OUR ECONOMIC WOES.

IF MASSIVE, IRRESPONSIBLE FEDERAL SPENDING IS THE ANSWER, THEN WHY DOES IT CONSISTENTLY FAIL? WE'VE BEEN RESPENDING THE "STIMULUS" EVERY YEAR FOR FOUR YEARS NOW, AND IT HAS NOT WORKED.

HOW MUCH MORE DO WE NEED TO SPEND? DO WE NEED TO DOUBLE MY GREAT GRANDSON'S SHARE OF THE NATIONAL DEBT FROM $50,000 TO $100,000? AND BY THE WAY, HOW DID CANADA FARE WHEN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS FINALLY EMBRACED THERE IN THE 90'S? WHAT WAS THE CANADIAN DOLLAR WORTH THEN, AND HOW MUCH IS IT WORTH NOW?

WHEN LIBERTY IS EMBRACED, GOOD THINGS HAPPEN. WHEN STATISM IS EMBRACED, NOTHING HAPPENS.. IF WE'RE LUCKY.

HA!

SAM

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work....After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" - Henry Morgenthau Jr, FDR's Treasury Secretary.

i'd read what you said, but it's in all caps and i think that's too obnoxious.

TRANSLATION: "YOU ARE CORRECT"

DID YOU AT LEAST READ THE QUOTE? THE LETTERS OF POWER WERE NOT USED THERE.

I'm not american, but thank you galleri!

Erm, since you love Reagan so much, did you know he spent double (for his time adjusted for inflation and all that) in 4 years than Obama did? I think you should brush up on your Reagan history...

From http://mises.org/...t_detail.aspx?control=488

....
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
-----------------------------
Now, the best part of this article is it was written in 1988... I was only 5 years old. So you can't even call it partisan!
Go ahead, argue again that Obama is outspending Reagan.

galleri... while i agree with your sentiment that hating on everyone and everything is bad... I simply cannot abide the lies that people tell. If the lefties want to just get along, the righties will walk all over them with lies. We saw that in the Mittens/Obombs debate did we not?

I DON'T REMEMBER CLAIMING REAGAN WAS PERFECT.

YOU SAID NOBODY COULD FIX A COUNTRY SO BROKEN IN 4 YEARS. I POINTED OUT THAT REAGAN AND A MUCH MORE REASONABLE CONGRESS THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID CAN'T BE DONE.

IN ANOTHER THREAD, YOU STATED THAT YOU "HATE" PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO AGREE WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA. THAT BRINGS UP TWO QUESTIONS:

NUMBER ONE, WHY DO YOU CARE ENOUGH TO "HATE" THOSE PEOPLE. YOU'RE NOT FROM THE US. WHY DO YOU WANT SO DESPERATELY TO SEE US FOLLOW A PATH WHICH CANADA BEGAN TO TURN AWAY FROM - WITH VERY SUCCESSFUL RESULTS - TWO DECADES AGO? THE COMMITTEE OF ONE IS BEGINNING TO SUSPECT THAT YOU ARE PLANNING A HOSTILE TAKEOVER.

AND QUESTION TWO, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN ECONOMIC FREEDOM TO AGREE WITH A MAN WHOSE CORE VISION OF AMERICA IS SO RADICALLY DIFFERENT? SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR AS POSSIBLE, IS NEVER GOING TO AGREE WITH SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SUCCESS IT BECOMES YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF OTHERS WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THEY DESERVE IT OR NOT... AND THAT IT IS THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NOT ONLY TAKE THAT MONEY FROM YOU, BUT TO DECIDE FOR YOU WHO IS WORTHY OF YOUR CHARITY.

I ALSO FAIL TO SEE HOW YOUR AGE AT THE TIME AN ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IS RELEVANT TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE ARTICLE. I WAS 17 WHEN THAT WAS WRITTEN, SO DOES THAT MAKE IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT?

I literally said "I hate people who don't agree with President Obama"? I think you better reread...

The reason why I even pay attention to American politics is because it's much more interesting than Canadian politics. Do you even know who our minority party leaders are? Of course not... because it's not interesting to watch.

The age of the article makes it non partisan to this discussion since Obama was not president.

Did you read the article? I mean, it completely flips on its head your vision of who Reagan was. He didn't fix the country in 4 years... the Fed stopped inflating their currency in 4 years. Much different scenarios. One cannot even make a comparison between the two economic situations.

One was a slump and one is a depression.

I think SAM's point saying "Reagan and a much more reasonable Congress" (caps omitted, my apology, Sam) fixed the problem in 4 years is a much more reasonable way of looking at it.

Honestly, the main reason I have hope for this election is that I figure the Republicans in Congress will have no purpose in trying to obstruct Obama should he win (which is my preferred scenario) and the Congressional Democrats are typically too divided and too spineless to do that fluff to anyone, so Romney probably wouldn't be obstructed either.

I'd imagine whoever is president these next four years will actually have a much more friendly Congress and perhaps some things will get done, but perhaps I'm just naive.

I think Congress must improve no matter what... what's their approval rating currently? Bad.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/...-30-year-low-under-obama/

Dissidenticn ftw.

Congressional approval rating below 10%... brutal. While Obama's approval rating is something like 54% while Bush's second term approval rating was 37%.

Doesn't this prove that it's not all the President's fault the country is falling apart and that the whole governmental institution is fluffed?

In Obama's first term, it was clear that the Republican held Congress' main goal was to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term (instead of trying to fix the country)... Luckily there is no third term for Obama and therefore Congress can stop fluffing about and actually try to work as a team.

Wow, keep that optimism man, keep it up...

I wish I could share in it. I am trying to envision the Republican house majority leader standing up and saying "Well, it is a shame that Obama won, but I guess this term we should work with the President to improve our country so let's put our past differences behind us..."

No, I believe they will still focus on trying to ensure the President fails because they want to make the "other party" and the "other doctrine" look bad.

Still, I hope you are right...

well, the problem with trying to make the president look bad again this term is that it will blow up in their faces. Who will get elected in 2016? Not a republican if congress keeps this crap up.

See? Negative reinforcement.

Do you know what's interesting on this forum?

Conspicuously missing from AT is any discussion of the second debate.

Righty Tighty...

was that the debate where they were supposed to answer questions posed by people?

meh. what's it matter? another 4 years trying to borrow more money to pay for the failed political policies of the Baby Boomers.

polls after the second debate are all that need to be discussed, dissidentcin.

There's only one poll that matters, the poll at the end.

People are too hyper about polls. They get blasted with a lot of data and think that because they have a lot of polls that they can predict who is going to win based on that data alone.

You can have all the data you want... the point of it all is lost if you don't know how to use that information.

Besides, arguing about polling is boring. Discussing stuff that these two guys have said is much more interesting.

BS. Paul Ryan had nothing resembling a "fact" in any of his positions - and Biden called him out on them, repeatedly. If you don't like getting called out on lies, then you need to stop lying. I'd laugh, too - the reason Biden smiled so much is because he knew that every word out of Ryan's mouth was a lie.

The reason facts have a liberal bias is because Democrats are the only party to use fact when crafting their positions. Ryan's not an "idea man" - he's got nothing but the same recycled neocon stupidity. What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan? Lipstick.

Also: If you want to believe Biden lost, then you also have to believe Romney lost the first debate. The techniques were the same - so choose one. Despite the Republican sense of entitlement, you don't get to define what's "appropriate."

Tell that to the 2008 voters who bought into soundbytes and hollow promises. Sounded good, wanted changed, and presto they expected it to happen. It's not really surprising a guy with no executive experience fumbled around making a litany of ridiculously hollow promises and is now trying to walk back what he said. It's also not very surprising that his opponent is trying to run against the hollow promises and lofty rhetoric.

So we're back to square one. Meaning, who do we think can lead the country in a sustainable path toward the future? I think Peggy Noonan summarized a fair number of my thoughts on it in this column: http://online.wsj.com/...=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion . Like I have said all along, Obama's a nice guy, but he's not a leader and really never has been. Like many things in life, he fit well for the time--something entirely different than the norm, something new, fresh, promising hope and promising change, but realistically the path to fixing problems in Washington requires poise, politics, patients and leadership. Obama's got all the swagger of the varisity standout qb and all the skills of the jv nervous kid with big eyes. That's the cold reality.

So if you disagree with someone's ideas then the ideas are illegitimate? Brilliant argument.

In the minority of minorities, Paul Ryan wasn't running around trying to score political points, he was busy working with Clintonite Alice Rivilin on the long-term solvency of Medicare: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21928 .

The ideas may not work, but they're trying. It's not about putting together a commission and then totally ignoring it. It's about trying to really address the solvency of the country's biggest debt-drivers. I think it's a noble pursuit be it by Ron Wyden, Alice Rivilin, Paul Ryan or any of them. Political posturing is ultimately what sinks these things before it starts--how dare he work with a Clintonite or them with a Republican, the world will burn down.

I'm a huge Wyden supporter, but the poor guy got burned bad by trying to extend an arm across the aisle. Ryan pretty much changed their entire plan and then claimed it had bipartisan support, which it most certainly does not. That's what happens when you try to work together with Republicans these days, as Olympia Snowe could tell you...

Trumper.

Please make a list of promises that Obama broke. And I'm not talking about the promises he tried to fulfill but haven't been accomplished yet, but the things that he said he'd do but hasn't touched em yet.

*Guantanamo Bay, still open.
*Foreclosure prevention fund that his own IG railroaded.
*Cap and trade.
*Comprehensive immigration bill in year one.
*Bipartsanship, hahahahahahahahaha.
*Imported prescription drugs (to a limited amount, the FDA did allow some during severe shortages of life-necessary drugs, but really that was more a byproduct of Congressional pressure and PDUFA)
*Infamous union bill, free choice something or other.
*Repeal the Bush tax cuts (but perhaps he will let them expire)
*Raise Cap Gains...thankfully he hasn't yet.
"Eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than *$50,000 per year"--say whatever it takes, right?
*Oh how could we forget his PAYGO promise? Ha, want to list for me the items he's used PAYGO on?
*Cutting earmarks in half...right. (Don't forget his competitive bidding requirement he was going to put into place for earmarks).
*Spending $2 billion more at NASA, actually cutting them.
*Keystone Pipeline before he flipped on it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3VE8wM43Kg).
*Raise the minimum wage.

Do I need to go on? I do enjoy your disclaimer line of the "promises he tried to fulfill." Yah, I promise you I will make $100 million. And guess what, I'm currently trying. Yay.

Ok, well, you failed to answer the actual request i made. "the things that he said he'd do but hasn't touched em yet."

-gitmo- he ordered it closed, Congress blocked it.
-foreclosure prevention fund- he tried, it failed.
-cap and trade- hang on... you want this?

*****Comprehensive immigration bill- you are correct about this one.

-bipartisanship- it's a two way street dude.
-bush tax cuts- have to expire... he will not renew them.
-income tax on seniors- aren't they part of the 47% who don't pay income taxes as Romney state? come on... weak.
-Paygo is currently stalled and has exemptions that suck aka- "Congress seems to have a habit of waiving its own PAYGO rules."- politifact says
-NASA getting cut- aren't you a fan of this? don't you want the government to pay for nothing about science? I mean... you believe in a 6000 year old earth right?
-Keystone Pipeline- get your own bleeding oil... or find a new source of energy. Oh wait, that's the plan.
********Minimum wage- yes, he failed this one for sure.

Ok... so... there are only a few in your list that meet the criteria of the question I asked. The list of the good things he did is a lot longer than the list of things he didn't do. And even shorter is the list of the things he promised to do and didn't touch.

But... I guess you'd prefer to elect a president who is WAY less ambitious and can accomplish it all... instead of someone who aims too high to accomplish it. Well, I'll tell you now, Obama did better than Romney ever could.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20096380

US economic growth up sharply in third quarter

-you know what I think is hilarious about Republicans and teabaggers? You'll still find some cynical way of looking at something that is definitely good for your country. Embarrassing.

Indeed. The Republican party is hyper partisan these days. The best part is that they are proud of it, and will turn around and accuse Obama of being a partisan. It's absurd.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You know what's interesting? If Romney wins, I'll be really skeptical that he'll do good things for America... but if all of a sudden he does the exact opposite and boosts every part of it, you have my permission to hold my feet to the fire. I will rescind everything that I have said about him.

If Obama wins and makes the country a better place, exponentially better than it is now, would you all say the same thing about Obama?

You know exactly what Romney will do!

He'll cut taxes on the top 1%, increase taxes on the middle class, privatize as much as possible [even though privatization doesn't improve anything other than to give tens of millions of dollars to Wall Street], increase the deficit rather than decrease it, and roll around the world starting wars with everyone -- causing a mutiny in the Army because nobody actually wants to fight in Iran. You may have noticed Iran has more mountains than Afghanistan.

Oh, and Romney will try to remove the right to vote from women.

Good times, though!

blind partisan anyone? Jeez, why don't you just tell African-Americans that he will put them back in chains....oh wait.

that reminds me of the AP poll that states that the majority of people in the US hate black people... wonder how many black people they polled in that poll.

[quote poster=Unsympathetic; 20732; 387375]You know exactly what Romney will do!

He'll cut taxes on the top 1%, increase taxes on the middle class, privatize as much as possible [even though privatization doesn't improve anything other than to give tens of millions of dollars to Wall Street], increase the deficit rather than decrease it, and roll around the world starting wars with everyone -- causing a mutiny in the Army because nobody actually wants to fight in Iran. You may have noticed Iran has more mountains than Afghanistan.

Oh, and Romney will try to remove the right to vote from women.

Good times, though! [/quote]

Yes and Barack Obama will be dictator for life....

Anymore ridiculousness to spout?