If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   It's President Obama versus Mitt Romney in their first televised debate. Will Obama come out swinging? Will Romney emote? It's your official 2012 Presidential Debate discussion thread. The fun begins at 9PM Eastern   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 5624
    More: PSA, Mitt Romney, President Obama, Massachusetts Health Care, Medicare and Medicaid, policy debate, pushback, substantive  
•       •       •

5320 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 6:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



5624 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | » | Last
 
2012-10-04 11:40:29 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: IronTom: Atypical Person Reading Fark: IronTom: WhyteRaven74: IronTom: That was very unfair.

No, no it wasn't.

Yes, yes it was.

No, no, it wasn't. You, my friend, still have to live amongst the great masses of public school educated children who, despite your own parents and their dedication to your education, are getting a substandard education. Or are untalented.

Whatever the reason, there are lots of things you cannot do without the cooperation of your society. If the vast majority of people in the U.S. are uneducated, you can sit and read a book - but what else are you going to do? France has very strict immigration laws and those same people are going to be your coworkers, underlings - and unless your parents also can afford to buy you a job - your bosses.

A society has to educate everyone. Yes, I sent my kids to private school. No, I'm not complaining. I pay for the kids across the street to get educated because I really can't stand being around lots of uneducated people and it's already bad enough.

That is a good point. It is worth it to have an educated populace, but much of our populace currently seems pretty uneducated, or at least, less well than they used to be. There is something wrong with our education, and maybe Mitt can bring some of the magic from Massachusetts education to help the nation.

Public education teachers' unions. Their unswerving exclusive concern is for more teachers to pay union dues, and more pay and benefits. All the while bleating "it's for the kids!" That's at least what seems to be the problem here in California. Highest or near highest pay in the nation, dead last in student learning.


thisbearsrepeating.jpg

for people that are supposed to be there "for the cause" they sure spend an amazing amount of time and energy (&$$$$) guilt tripping the rest of us to give them more money - yet the idea of holding them accountable for the quality of their product is just absolutely not acceptable.
 
2012-10-04 11:43:05 AM

youmightberight: but paying taxes on 320k at the 33% rate


mlkshk.com
MARGINAL TAX RATES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
GOOD NIGHT!
 
2012-10-04 11:48:00 AM

Libertrollian: Delay: If this is some chess game strategy that his advisers have cooked up

ohwaityoureseriousletmelaughharder.jpg

I love this reasoning. Obama is so smart, that he realized his best strategy was to look like he was in way over his head. He decided to set the bar incredibly low. GENIUS!!

Our golden god Obama couldn't possibly have lost simply because he's a weaker candidate...that's unpossible!

Search your feelings Obamatrons. I can feel the conflict within you. Let go of your liberal hate.


If you're trying to win the maximum trolling title, be aware you're like #8 in the top 10 and the champ isn't afraid of you.
 
2012-10-04 12:12:22 PM
People seem to be under the impression that debate winners are based on debate club rules. They're not. It's based on back-of-the-schoolbus clique rules. Politics is like high school, and the cool kids don't play by nerd rules. Ever.

And that's why Romney won.
 
2012-10-04 12:41:19 PM

King Something: craig328: Obama had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate for half of his administration

Does the word "filibuster" mean anything to you?


When did a filibuster take place? Citation please.
 
2012-10-04 12:52:02 PM

FutherMucker: Lunchlady


So... you're undecided and waiting for more information, but are clearly in the tank for Romney?

/Fark Independent-like typing detected.
 
2012-10-04 12:53:18 PM

Ricardo Klement: People seem to be under the impression that debate winners are based on debate club rules. They're not. It's based on back-of-the-schoolbus clique rules. Politics is like high school, and the cool kids don't play by nerd rules. Ever.

And that's why Romney won.


And Romney's "victory" resulted in stuff like this:
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 12:59:30 PM

david_gaithersburg: King Something: craig328: Obama had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate for half of his administration

Does the word "filibuster" mean anything to you?

When did a filibuster take place? Citation please.


Are you stupid, or trolling?
www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-10-04 01:03:33 PM

Epoch_Zero: david_gaithersburg: King Something: craig328: Obama had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate for half of his administration

Does the word "filibuster" mean anything to you?

When did a filibuster take place? Citation please.

Are you stupid, or trolling?
[www.washingtonpost.com image 600x552]


So you can't come up with any I see.
 
2012-10-04 01:12:19 PM

david_gaithersburg: Epoch_Zero: david_gaithersburg: King Something: craig328: Obama had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate for half of his administration

Does the word "filibuster" mean anything to you?

When did a filibuster take place? Citation please.

Are you stupid, or trolling?
[www.washingtonpost.com image 600x552]

So you can't come up with any I see.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-04 01:18:29 PM

Propain_az: Even though Romney kicked President Obama's ass tonight. He still lost. Nobody has a Romney Phone, or Romney Cash.


Why are you so goddamn dumb?
 
2012-10-04 01:22:03 PM

Smackledorfer: Atypical Person Reading Fark: The Great Gazoo: I didn't watch the debate, so here's my question: Did Romney really win, or did he just not fall flat on his face like expected, which could look like a win in comparison?

I was watching body language and expressions, mostly. What both of them said was so standard.

Romney looked eager, looked willing to "take on" the job; Obama seemed as if the whole thing were beneath him, he was bored or over-confident, yet gentlemanly. Romney was no where near the doofus I thought he would be.

If you judge a debate on looks instead of words, you are a fool. Americans still undecided at this point may well be fools who also judge the debates on those merits.


Actually, I'm old enough and involved enough to have read many, many words. I actually read the effin' legislation these people put through - sometimes books of it. I don't have to listen to the circus on television. What I like to observe in these ridiculous "debates" is what actually ends up persuading - it's rather like what happens in a courtroom. People believe cops because they come across as cop-like - and in fact, it's well known that cops who fidget, look uncop-like, etc., might as well not show up.

You, my friend, are just one of the many reasons I'm an independent. The incredible assumptions that both Democrats and Republicans bring to their partisan politics have finally made me ill. My dad, who is a registered Democrat and has been voting for 73 years, feels the same way. My daughters, who are registered Democrats, feel the same way.

No one has even come close to touching why, in my estimation, Obama has not got my full support. I hope he wins, I believe he will. I'm voting in a state where my vote doesn't matter - he's going to win California in any case. But if he really wants my vote back, if he really wants to listen to an educated person's view about where he's gone wrong, I'm more than happy to keep sending emails, attending conferences, donating to PAC's and all the other things I do to try and shape government.

Being called a fool by Smackledorfer affords me yet another opportunity to think about how directive, how authoritarian, how prone to judgment many Americans have become. This is not the America I want to support.

But listening to these guys yap in a limited situation that MEANS NOTHING and has MEANT NOTHING for the entire history of debates simply damages my mental health.
 
2012-10-04 01:24:34 PM

Ricardo Klement: People seem to be under the impression that debate winners are based on debate club rules. They're not. It's based on back-of-the-schoolbus clique rules. Politics is like high school, and the cool kids don't play by nerd rules. Ever.

And that's why Romney won.


Calling it a "win" is a bit strong - but yes, you're right. These debates are exactly like high school, and the person who grabs the most positive attention "wins." What do the polls say today? Are more of the undecided decided? (I bet not) Did any Obama support get persuaded (Hell no).
 
2012-10-04 01:36:05 PM

Cyclometh: STOP LYING YOU PIECE OF SHIATSHIATS.

 
2012-10-04 01:47:47 PM
david_gaithersburg (farkied: Bible thumper): Epoch_Zero: david_gaithersburg: King Something: craig328: Obama had a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate for half of his administration

Does the word "filibuster" mean anything to you?

When did a filibuster take place? Citation please.

Are you stupid, or trolling?
[www.washingtonpost.com image 600x552]

So you can't come up with any I see.


Are you stupid, or trolling?
 
2012-10-04 02:06:36 PM

intelligent comment below: COMALite J: RsquaredW: Actually, the Tenth Amendment reserves rights to the People.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mention Rights, and really shouldn't be considered part of the Bill of Rights (which should end at Amendment 9, which does mention Rights).

It mentions Powers. Powers ≠ Rights. Those two terms are not synonyms. Only Persons (individually, or collectively as The People) have, or can have, Rights of any kind. Governments, both Federal and State, as well as Persons, can have Powers.

If corporations are people then so is government


Neither corporations nor governments are Natural Persons. Only Natural Persons have Rights. I should′ve specified that.

Corporations, unions, trusts, communities, etc. are Aggregate Persons, a legal fiction necessary to enable them to participate in civil tort (lawsuits) and contract law on an equal footing with Natural Persons. They are Persons in no other sense, regardless of what Mitt Romney or Citizens United says. If they were, they could vote, run for public office, serve jury duty, and be subject to criminal law including imprisonment and capital punishment for criminal malfeasance.
 
2012-10-04 02:07:34 PM

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Ricardo Klement: People seem to be under the impression that debate winners are based on debate club rules. They're not. It's based on back-of-the-schoolbus clique rules. Politics is like high school, and the cool kids don't play by nerd rules. Ever.

And that's why Romney won.

Calling it a "win" is a bit strong - but yes, you're right. These debates are exactly like high school, and the person who grabs the most positive attention "wins." What do the polls say today? Are more of the undecided decided? (I bet not) Did any Obama support get persuaded (Hell no).


Don't know. According to Larry Sabato, the results are mixed. There was a 9-point overall swing against Carter and in favor of Reagan after one debate. I don't see that likely here (and in that election, there were a lot more undecideds going into the debate), but sometimes the shift can matter.
 
2012-10-04 02:16:13 PM

tony41454: You had four years and two of those with overwhelming partisan support from both houses of Congress



This is what conservatives desperately want you to believe
 
2012-10-04 02:18:44 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Every pundit, left and right all agree



It's funny how you right wingers always tell us never to listen to the librul media but suddenly they make a point that you like, and we should listen to them now? I'm so confused. Make up your damn minds!
 
2012-10-04 02:19:48 PM

Ricardo Klement: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Ricardo Klement: People seem to be under the impression that debate winners are based on debate club rules. They're not. It's based on back-of-the-schoolbus clique rules. Politics is like high school, and the cool kids don't play by nerd rules. Ever.

And that's why Romney won.

Calling it a "win" is a bit strong - but yes, you're right. These debates are exactly like high school, and the person who grabs the most positive attention "wins." What do the polls say today? Are more of the undecided decided? (I bet not) Did any Obama support get persuaded (Hell no).

Don't know. According to Larry Sabato, the results are mixed. There was a 9-point overall swing against Carter and in favor of Reagan after one debate. I don't see that likely here (and in that election, there were a lot more undecideds going into the debate), but sometimes the shift can matter.


Obama "losing" this debate isn't his problem.

The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.
 
2012-10-04 02:21:42 PM

hbk72777: Maher also mocked Obama for sounding too professorial



So Romney completely lied and flip flopped about everything, sounded like a used car salesman, but he won? And these are the reasons people think he won? #WINNING
 
2012-10-04 02:24:47 PM

youmightberight: The gov does and they are using it to pay someone to sit on their ass for an extra 33 weeks.



Unemployment and welfare are insurance, where you pay the taxes while you're working. What's next? You pay for someone on social security to sit on their ass the rest of their lives pretending they never paid into the system themselves?

I bet a grand total of 10 dollars of your tax money went to pay for "someone to sit on their ass"

And you are outraged at only that. Sounds like you want to be one of those people too. so sell your business and sit on welfare, it's a dream!
 
2012-10-04 02:31:42 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Public education teachers' unions. Their unswerving exclusive concern is for more teachers to pay union dues, and more pay and benefits. All the while bleating "it's for the kids!" That's at least what seems to be the problem here in California. Highest or near highest pay in the nation, dead last in student learning.



Another lie, you're good at this

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4579408/california-falls-to-35th-in- n ation.html

California falls to 35th in nation in per pupil education spending
 
2012-10-04 02:33:21 PM

MeinRS6: The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.



So don't blame Congress? You know, they write the actual laws n stuff
 
2012-10-04 02:38:52 PM

intelligent comment below: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Every pundit, left and right all agree


It's funny how you right wingers always tell us never to listen to the librul media but suddenly they make a point that you like, and we should listen to them now? I'm so confused. Make up your damn minds!


No, that is actually exactly their point.... just like McConnell's thing with "Our #1 objective now is to beat Obama" comment... which he said later on basically "Well, if Obama would only agree with everything we believe, then we wouldn't feel that way".

In the same way... "the Liberal media is fine, when they say stuff we agree with."
 
2012-10-04 02:57:48 PM
Romney won that debate. Obama looked like he wasn't prepared and that he didn't have any fight in him. Obama will slay him on foreign policy debate and the social issues. This one mattered because the voters really care about jobs and the economy.
 
2012-10-04 03:00:21 PM

intelligent comment below: MeinRS6: The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.


So don't blame Congress? You know, they write the actual laws n stuff


You can blame the Dems in congress for not producing a budget since they took power. That hasn't helped.

But it's comical that now that your boy has been in charge and had Dem majority in both houses of congress for a while, suddenly all of the things that were "Bush's fault" cannot possibly be Obama's fault.

Remember when the price of gas was Bush's fault? He was making all of his oil buddies rich on purpose. This, of course, what a ridiculous libby lie. Well? How about now? Are gas prices Obama's fault? Is he making all energy prices high on purpose to make the oil companies rich?
 
2012-10-04 03:04:23 PM

MeinRS6: intelligent comment below: MeinRS6: The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.


So don't blame Congress? You know, they write the actual laws n stuff

You can blame the Dems in congress for not producing a budget since they took power. That hasn't helped.

But it's comical that now that your boy has been in charge and had Dem majority in both houses of congress for a while, suddenly all of the things that were "Bush's fault" cannot possibly be Obama's fault.

Remember when the price of gas was Bush's fault? He was making all of his oil buddies rich on purpose. This, of course, what a ridiculous libby lie. Well? How about now? Are gas prices Obama's fault? Is he making all energy prices high on purpose to make the oil companies rich?


You're more daft than I thought ... Crude oil is a global COMMODITY, when the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it caused major upsets in the world commodities markets, thus resulting in higher oil prices.

The current rise in oil commodities market is explained through simple supply and demand shocks, not newly started wars into oil sensitive regions.

/Please, get educated, because this is just sad that you cannot decipher a difference between the two situations.
 
2012-10-04 03:13:45 PM

seadoo2006: MeinRS6: intelligent comment below: MeinRS6: The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.


So don't blame Congress? You know, they write the actual laws n stuff

You can blame the Dems in congress for not producing a budget since they took power. That hasn't helped.

But it's comical that now that your boy has been in charge and had Dem majority in both houses of congress for a while, suddenly all of the things that were "Bush's fault" cannot possibly be Obama's fault.

Remember when the price of gas was Bush's fault? He was making all of his oil buddies rich on purpose. This, of course, what a ridiculous libby lie. Well? How about now? Are gas prices Obama's fault? Is he making all energy prices high on purpose to make the oil companies rich?

You're more daft than I thought ... Crude oil is a global COMMODITY, when the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it caused major upsets in the world commodities markets, thus resulting in higher oil prices.

The current rise in oil commodities market is explained through simple supply and demand shocks, not newly started wars into oil sensitive regions.

/Please, get educated, because this is just sad that you cannot decipher a difference between the two situations.


I never said that oil wasn't a commodity. You are arguing with yourself.

Respond to what I actually posted.
 
2012-10-04 03:16:38 PM

MeinRS6: seadoo2006: MeinRS6: intelligent comment below: MeinRS6: The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.


So don't blame Congress? You know, they write the actual laws n stuff

You can blame the Dems in congress for not producing a budget since they took power. That hasn't helped.

But it's comical that now that your boy has been in charge and had Dem majority in both houses of congress for a while, suddenly all of the things that were "Bush's fault" cannot possibly be Obama's fault.

Remember when the price of gas was Bush's fault? He was making all of his oil buddies rich on purpose. This, of course, what a ridiculous libby lie. Well? How about now? Are gas prices Obama's fault? Is he making all energy prices high on purpose to make the oil companies rich?

You're more daft than I thought ... Crude oil is a global COMMODITY, when the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it caused major upsets in the world commodities markets, thus resulting in higher oil prices.

The current rise in oil commodities market is explained through simple supply and demand shocks, not newly started wars into oil sensitive regions.

/Please, get educated, because this is just sad that you cannot decipher a difference between the two situations.

I never said that oil wasn't a commodity. You are arguing with yourself.

Respond to what I actually posted.


I'll type slow and in short words.

Bush = started a war, upset the market
Obama = market is responding to supply/demand forces

Bush made a move, for better or worse, and upset the market. That makes him ground zero for the oil price rising. Obama hasn't done anything to the market, which is why we've seen a slow, gradual rise over time for oil prices. It's not dishonest to say that if Bush DIDN'T start a war, there wouldn't have been the shock to the market like we saw.
 
2012-10-04 03:19:44 PM

intelligent comment below: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Public education teachers' unions. Their unswerving exclusive concern is for more teachers to pay union dues, and more pay and benefits. All the while bleating "it's for the kids!" That's at least what seems to be the problem here in California. Highest or near highest pay in the nation, dead last in student learning.


Another lie, you're good at this

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4579408/california-falls-to-35th-in- n ation.html

California falls to 35th in nation in per pupil education spending


Whups! I was mistaken. My bad; I generalized. "Highest or near highest pay in the nation, dead last in student learning" Those stats, I believe, apply to the LAUSD, not to California as a whole.

However, let me point out that "per pupil education spending" does NOT equal "pay levels for teachers."
 
2012-10-04 03:28:38 PM

seadoo2006: Bush = started a war, upset the market
Obama = market is responding to supply/demand forces

Bush made a move, for better or worse, and upset the market. That makes him ground zero for the oil price rising. Obama hasn't done anything to the market, which is why we've seen a slow, gradual rise over time for oil prices.


If Bush drove the prices up, then why were gas prices lower when Bush was in office than now with Capt Peace Obama at the helm? If you think that the Iraq war is the contributing factor to the current prices we are all paying at the pump, then you are too stupid to bother having any discussion with. And you sure as hell don't know anything about the commodities market.
 
2012-10-04 03:38:27 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: Yeah, Romney kept saying some rather stupid shiat, and OBama didn't take the bait to correct him on anything.


I kept waiting for Obama to call him out on the whole "we borrow all our money from China" talking point.

I kept waiting for him to get called out on a huge list of obvious falsehoods. It just wasn't happening.

I know it was his 20th Wedding Anniversary, I know he would have much rather been out with Michelle that night, but he just didn't have his head in the game.
 
2012-10-04 03:40:31 PM

Mrtraveler01: MeinRS6: f Bush drove the prices up, then why were gas prices lower when Bush was in office than now with Capt Peace Obama at the helm?

Someone has conveniently forgotten what gas prices in 2008 were before the financial collapse:

[66.70.86.64 image 670x325]

Highest average price for gas was in August 2008 at $4.11. Say, who was President back in August 2008? 

/Once again we caught MeinSR6 lying


You don't get it and you are making my point for me. I was pointing out the "Bush's fault" nonsense that came from libs non-stop, but as soon as Obama comes into office you libs start saying things like "It's the fault of congress". I used gas prices as an example. The truth is that libs were lying about gas prices being Bush's fault. Now you will NEVER even see a news story about high gas prices like you did while Bush was in office, much less one that blames Obama for high prices on everything. 

Can a Farklib name anything that IS Obama's fault?
 
2012-10-04 03:46:15 PM

MeinRS6: Mrtraveler01: MeinRS6: f Bush drove the prices up, then why were gas prices lower when Bush was in office than now with Capt Peace Obama at the helm?

Someone has conveniently forgotten what gas prices in 2008 were before the financial collapse:

[66.70.86.64 image 670x325]

Highest average price for gas was in August 2008 at $4.11. Say, who was President back in August 2008? 

/Once again we caught MeinSR6 lying

You don't get it and you are making my point for me. I was pointing out the "Bush's fault" nonsense that came from libs non-stop, but as soon as Obama comes into office you libs start saying things like "It's the fault of congress". I used gas prices as an example. The truth is that libs were lying about gas prices being Bush's fault. Now you will NEVER even see a news story about high gas prices like you did while Bush was in office, much less one that blames Obama for high prices on everything. 

Can a Farklib name anything that IS Obama's fault?


No, you said that prices were lower under Bush than they were under Obama. I was just calling you out on that BS talking point.

Whatever persecution complex you were trying to nurse with that talking point I don't care, but you can't make up your own facts.
 
2012-10-04 03:46:57 PM

MeinRS6: Mrtraveler01: MeinRS6: f Bush drove the prices up, then why were gas prices lower when Bush was in office than now with Capt Peace Obama at the helm?

Someone has conveniently forgotten what gas prices in 2008 were before the financial collapse:

[66.70.86.64 image 670x325]

Highest average price for gas was in August 2008 at $4.11. Say, who was President back in August 2008? 

/Once again we caught MeinSR6 lying

You don't get it and you are making my point for me. I was pointing out the "Bush's fault" nonsense that came from libs non-stop, but as soon as Obama comes into office you libs start saying things like "It's the fault of congress". I used gas prices as an example. The truth is that libs were lying about gas prices being Bush's fault. Now you will NEVER even see a news story about high gas prices like you did while Bush was in office, much less one that blames Obama for high prices on everything. 

Can a Farklib name anything that IS Obama's fault?




At this point showing that gas spiked under Bush is pointless for the left given that the money spent by the average person on gas over the last 4 years far exceeds the what they spent under Bush, especially when pegged on household income.
 
2012-10-04 03:52:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: No, you said that prices were lower under Bush than they were under Obama. I was just calling you out on that BS talking point.


Bush was president for 8yrs. Gas was lower on average in those years than it has been under Obama. But again, that's not the point. I'm not a libtard that thinks the president controls gas prices to make his friends in the oil business rich. If you don't remember that lib talking point, then you should lay off the weed as it is frying your brain.

So again, can any Farklib think of ANYTHING that is Obama's fault? Because it seems that suddenly the president isn't responsible for anything. The economy? That's congress's fault now, right? The price of gas? Congress. Inflation? Congress. Unemployment? Must be congress.
 
2012-10-04 03:57:05 PM
Hmmmm..... interesting.

Just spent five minutes doing a download of this thread to Excel and running a few stats. "intelligent comment below" comes frantically riding into the thread on page 5, at comment #4267, at 10:53 (just minutes after the debate ended). From that point on he makes 43 comments, or 3.38% of the posts. This out of only 359 separate people who posted the next 1273 remarks.

In other words, he tries to dominate and steer the conversation.

It's almost as if he had been dispatched by someone to do damage control.
 
2012-10-04 04:05:51 PM

MeinRS6: Bush was president for 8yrs. Gas was lower on average in those years than it has been under Obama.


www.consumerenergyreport.com

They were rising pretty quickly under Bush and then dipped during the recession and Obama brought gas prices back to where they were before.

I don't think that Bush manipulated prices or anything that nefarious, but what is your reasoning for why gas prices rose every year Bush was in office?
 
2012-10-04 04:16:08 PM

shotglasss: Fart_Machine: ozarkmatt: quatchi: Obama's performance was low key but honest.

Nobody that has to look at the floor, refusing to meet ANYBODY in the eye (other than his moderator friend) can be considered honest.

Moderator friend? Ok 7/10 for getting me to bite. Nice one.

I don't think Lehrer sees himself as Obama's friend...more like his bodyguard. Same as the rest of the liberal media...protecting their Messiah from all his own failures and making sure Americans don't see him for the failure he is.


The only ones who call Obama the Messiah are conservatives.
 
2012-10-04 04:30:29 PM

MeinRS6: Mrtraveler01: No, you said that prices were lower under Bush than they were under Obama. I was just calling you out on that BS talking point.

Bush was president for 8yrs. Gas was lower on average in those years than it has been under Obama. But again, that's not the point. I'm not a libtard that thinks the president controls gas prices to make his friends in the oil business rich. If you don't remember that lib talking point, then you should lay off the weed as it is frying your brain.

So again, can any Farklib think of ANYTHING that is Obama's fault? Because it seems that suddenly the president isn't responsible for anything. The economy? That's congress's fault now, right? The price of gas? Congress. Inflation? Congress. Unemployment? Must be congress.


Considering a lot of those began in 2008, before Obama was in office, how are they his fault? And I was told while Bush was in office that the president has no say or affect on oil and gas prices, but when Obama became president he's the one responsible for the prices. Which is it, people?
 
2012-10-04 04:40:51 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: MeinRS6: Mrtraveler01: No, you said that prices were lower under Bush than they were under Obama. I was just calling you out on that BS talking point.

Bush was president for 8yrs. Gas was lower on average in those years than it has been under Obama. But again, that's not the point. I'm not a libtard that thinks the president controls gas prices to make his friends in the oil business rich. If you don't remember that lib talking point, then you should lay off the weed as it is frying your brain.

So again, can any Farklib think of ANYTHING that is Obama's fault? Because it seems that suddenly the president isn't responsible for anything. The economy? That's congress's fault now, right? The price of gas? Congress. Inflation? Congress. Unemployment? Must be congress.

Considering a lot of those began in 2008, before Obama was in office, how are they his fault? And I was told while Bush was in office that the president has no say or affect on oil and gas prices, but when Obama became president he's the one responsible for the prices. Which is it, people?


OK, to repeat myself, Obama is President of the United States, not God Emperor of the planet. If anything screwed up oil prices, it was Republican posturing on attacking Iran.
 
2012-10-04 04:42:42 PM

MeinRS6: Ricardo Klement: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Ricardo Klement: People seem to be under the impression that debate winners are based on debate club rules. They're not. It's based on back-of-the-schoolbus clique rules. Politics is like high school, and the cool kids don't play by nerd rules. Ever.

And that's why Romney won.

Calling it a "win" is a bit strong - but yes, you're right. These debates are exactly like high school, and the person who grabs the most positive attention "wins." What do the polls say today? Are more of the undecided decided? (I bet not) Did any Obama support get persuaded (Hell no).

Don't know. According to Larry Sabato, the results are mixed. There was a 9-point overall swing against Carter and in favor of Reagan after one debate. I don't see that likely here (and in that election, there were a lot more undecideds going into the debate), but sometimes the shift can matter.

Obama "losing" this debate isn't his problem.

The piss poor shape of the economy is his problem.


Apparently, it isn't, or he wouldn't have been ahead heading into the debate to begin with. Frankly, I think it's because he's not a real conservative but a Johnny-come-lately who only says what will pander to the Tea Party elements of the party. *I* don't believe Romney. I think he'll govern from the center, and do nothing about this debt.
 
2012-10-04 04:53:22 PM

MeinRS6: You can blame the Dems in congress for not producing a budget since they took power. That hasn't helped.



What does "took power" mean when they never had enough votes?

MeinRS6: But it's comical that now that your boy has been in charge and had Dem majority in both houses of congress for a while, suddenly all of the things that were "Bush's fault" cannot possibly be Obama's fault.



What does a "majority" mean when they never had enough votes?

MeinRS6: Remember when the price of gas was Bush's fault? He was making all of his oil buddies rich on purpose. This, of course, what a ridiculous libby lie. Well? How about now? Are gas prices Obama's fault? Is he making all energy prices high on purpose to make the oil companies rich?



When you start 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you certainly cause a spike in gas prices. But you call that a "libby lie"

Where are gas prices now? They only spike when, surprise, people talk about a war with Iran.

Domestic consumption has decreased every year and production has increased. Also natural gas drilling has boomed. So 0bama has done nothing to cause an increase in prices while Bush did. That's why libby libs blamed him for price increases. Do try and keep up
 
2012-10-04 04:54:04 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: In other words, he tries to dominate and steer the conversation.



I'm so confused, just a few hours ago you and your circle jerk conservative buddy were laughing at how I'm unemployed and living with mommy. Do make up your mind.
 
2012-10-04 04:54:57 PM

MeinRS6: Bush was president for 8yrs. Gas was lower on average in those years than it has been under Obama.



citation needed
 
2012-10-04 05:18:13 PM
switchboard.nrdc.org

intelligent comment below: MeinRS6: Bush was president for 8yrs. Gas was lower on average in those years than it has been under Obama.


citation needed


Yeah, volatile markets are volatile.
 
2012-10-04 05:53:48 PM

intelligent comment below: MeinRS6: You can blame the Dems in congress for not producing a budget since they took power. That hasn't helped.


What does "took power" mean when they never had enough votes?

MeinRS6: But it's comical that now that your boy has been in charge and had Dem majority in both houses of congress for a while, suddenly all of the things that were "Bush's fault" cannot possibly be Obama's fault.


What does a "majority" mean when they never had enough votes?


The Dems passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote. The Dems controlled the House, Senate, and WH. They had the votes and they blew it.

And one more time for the tards - I never said that the president controlled gas prices. You know who did say that during the Bush years? Liberals.
 
2012-10-04 06:11:20 PM

MeinRS6: And one more time for the tards - I never said that the president controlled gas prices. You know who did say that during the Bush years? Liberals.


So how come Conservatives are blaming Obama for high gas prices now if they weren't Bush's fault when he was President?
 
2012-10-04 06:21:12 PM

Mrtraveler01: MeinRS6: And one more time for the tards - I never said that the president controlled gas prices. You know who did say that during the Bush years? Liberals.

So how come Conservatives are blaming Obama for high gas prices now if they weren't Bush's fault when he was President?


The conservatives who are tend to be made up of people who think turn-about is fair play and idiots who think the president really CAN do something about gas prices. Just wait. It'll happen the other way as liberals now, who didn't experience the "blame Bush for gas prices" thing in the mid-'00s decide to get revenge for the high prices next time there's a GOP president.
 
Displayed 50 of 5624 comments

First | « | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report