Clear victory for Romney.

Reasons why it was not a pure knockout, could not give details on tax plan and obamacare=romney care.

Does anyone else feel the moderator was a wimp?

(PS: C'mon now Romney, PBS, seriously that is what you choose to pick out?)

One year he donated and was promised the civil war seies on VHS and they sent him the tote bag. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Actually, no one seems to get why Romney care ISNT exactly Obama care. Very similar I agree, but Romney tried to point out the differences last night. I was listening, was anyone else?

1. His plan was a STATE plan. Though the inner workings are quite similar, it was a plan that was handled at the state level, not the federal. Part of the underlying theme of the night was the ending topic, the role of the federal government. And cramming an entire nation into a one size fits all plan is NOT the way to go. Some states may decide to follow the same model, others may choose other models.

2. His plan was a plan put through by bipartisan efforts, not just crammed down his state's throat by having ONE republican sign off.

3. The third reason is sketchy and I understand why its hard to follow, because really not only are the plugs (the plans) different, but the sockets (the circumstances) were also different. Because it was a state plan it did not have any jurisdiction to effect Medicare to bridge its gaps, but, at the same time, it was a revenue neutral plan, in that it did not raise taxes.

The feeling I got from that portion of Romneys rebuttal was that, had the Obamacare plan been a model presented for state adoption and use, and had it been a far more bipartisan initiative, perhaps it would not be the center of debate now.

I too wanted to hear specifics from Romney, but honestly, I dont think they were absolutely necessary. Again, an incumbent is far more predisposed to formulating specifics, many campaigns have succeeded on platitudes alone, suffice that they make good on their implementation. Im not really disputing that specifics would have helped, they would, as long as they were solid specifics, not thrown together ideas that would change later.

Yes the moderator was a push over, in fact, he even tried to throw a few life preservers overboard for Obama, but he was just too far out to sea to reach them.

I agree with ending PBS subsidies.......but I agree there were far better examples to throw out, especially given the moderator was from PBS.

The great Neal DeGrasse Tyson tweeted:
"Ending PBS funding (0.012% of the budget) is like trying to make space on your hard drive by deleting text files." - LOL

Doing Romney like Pluto.

PBS has stated previously that they can support themselves through private donors, but the image that is portrayed by cutting that program is not something taken lightly.

What image is that? The one that says we're not going to fund a friggin TV station with tax dollars while we're borrowing money and paying over 4 billion a day in interest? That image?

WDRacing wrote:What image is that? The one that says we're not going to fund a friggin TV station with tax dollars while we're borrowing money and paying over 4 billion a day in interest? That image?

Agree, funding public TV in this day/age is silly. But it accounts for just $444 million this year, barely a flea on an elephant's tush in terms of the federal budget. It should have been gone years before Obama took office. Sesame Street can find a new home to broadcast.

four, four hundred and fourty four million dollars, ah ah ah ah!

I agree that it's only a small chunk of the spending by comparison, but doesn't that speak volumes to how totaly F'D we are? The numerical value of 1 million is no longer large. In fact, unless the number is in the high billions no one even seems to blink.

To think that we owe 16,000,000,000,000 f*** dollars is beyond my comprehension.

Thank you Al Gore for coming out of the shadows and letting us enjoy one more time what a f*** ing whack job you are. The only thin air that was causing Obama difficulty was his inability to point towards the past four years with pride.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm9BoM2Q ... r_embedded[/youtube]

WDRacing wrote:What image is that? The one that says we're not going to fund a friggin TV station with tax dollars while we're borrowing money and paying over 4 billion a day in interest? That image?

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about
No, the potential projected image that the government doesn't care about education (sesame street isn't the only show on there) But like I said, PBS can support itself on private donors so I support the move.

Also...does this apply?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

You are wrong because:

1. Brian says so

2. Elmo is f*** ing annoying

3. Romney has a huge forehead

and

4. What's that over there?

Paranormal Activity four is also coming out. Really? How long are we going to stand for this? C'mon on board for the big win man, fur is murder.

BUTTERFLIES?!

Dam, you have destroyed my entire argument. I cede the point to you sir.

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:

WDRacing wrote:What image is that? The one that says we're not going to fund a friggin TV station with tax dollars while we're borrowing money and paying over 4 billion a day in interest? That image?

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about
No, the potential projected image that the government doesn't care about education (sesame street isn't the only show on there) But like I said, PBS can support itself on private donors so I support the move.

Dude, if you garnered the image that by closing PBS the Gov doesn't care about education, you're probably the only one. If you believe Romney is anti education it's because Obama said he was. Not based on any factual data, have you looked at Mass education rating by chance? In case you haven't been paying attention, Obama says all kinds of things that aren't just inaccurate, they're out right wrong.

If Romney was saying all these half truths and lies then why didn't Obama call him out? He wasn't "talked over or drowned out" either, he had more time with the mic then Romney did. He failed utterly to do anything other then recite a few out dated and inaccurate talking points. He was picked apart and made to look like a dumbass. The only people that don't think so are the sheeple that blindly follow Obama and think that he can do no wrong.

Our local politifact does on air segments daily during the campaign, and they rated a few of each guys statements, and they both got mostly true ratings. Neither got TRUE, but neither got FALSE either. Campaigns aren't about facts alone, but interpretations of facts. Romney did a better job at reinterpretting Obama's claims against him than Obama did for himself. That is where the win comes from.

Im really interested to see how the VP debate goes. They need to put a post it note on Biden's podium that reads "Remember, we're on Obamas team". He's taken to blowing out his own tires lately.

Definitely. Romney worked the bag and did the roadwork. He came to the fight like T in Rocky 2. Obama was a chubby lazy Stallone. The results were the same. What a shame Axlrod didn't have a heart attack.

themadscientist wrote: What a shame Axlrod didn't have a heart attack.

Barack, you're gonna eat lightning and crap thunder!

But I don't even have a locker Dave.

WDRacing wrote: In case you haven't been paying attention, Obama and Romney say all kinds of things that aren't just inaccurate, they're out right wrong.

Fixed
Oh, and there are rather more people than my lonesome that share the same sentiment. There are other programs with the same monetary impact that won't produce the same affect.

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:

WDRacing wrote: In case you haven't been paying attention, Obama and Romney say all kinds of things that aren't just inaccurate, they're out right wrong.

Fixed
Oh, and there are rather more people than my lonesome that share the same sentiment. There are other programs with the same monetary impact that won't produce the same affect.

[like] [/like]

And those programs should also be cut. You can't make a dent in 16 trillion without some deep cuts. The "effect" is only going to be felt be naive/ignorant individuals. I don't place you in that category mind, since you already acknowledged that PBS can be sustained by private donations. But even if PBS fails there are already very good alternatives available.

His point was simple, cut everything that isn't a "must have".

He could've made it better.