debate #1

budlover13

King Tut
The reasoning for Obama's lack-luster performance has been solved. Being as they were in Colorado, he was "too high" lol.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-gore-actually-blames-high-altitude-in-denver-for-obamas-debate-performance/

Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday suggested a curious culprit was to blame for President Barack Obama’s lackluster debate performance: Denver’s high altitude.
“I’m going to say something controversial here,” Gore said on Current TV. “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust — I don’t know.”
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The reasoning for Obama's lack-luster performance has been solved. Being as they were in Colorado, he was "too high" lol.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-gore-actually-blames-high-altitude-in-denver-for-obamas-debate-performance/

Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday suggested a curious culprit was to blame for President Barack Obama’s lackluster debate performance: Denver’s high altitude.
“I’m going to say something controversial here,” Gore said on Current TV. “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust — I don’t know.”


Well.... he is a smoker.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Yeah, they were the pillars of neutrality. From their obvious dejected and disappointed demeanors all the way to actually saying Obama should watch their shows if he wanted to know how to beat Romney. No blatant bias there, right? They are fucking outright saying how sick they are over the outcome.

So, to your line of thought, since the rout was so complete that even they couldn't lie like they normally do and spin it into a win for Obama, somehow that shows the bias thing is fictitious? Good luck with that.

Even the leftist spinners admitted that Romney did better. Had the shoe been on the right foot, I dare say you would not have seen such an honest appraisal.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Even the leftist spinners admitted that Romney did better. Had the shoe been on the right foot, I dare say you would not have seen such an honest appraisal.
I can't argue the point until it happens. However, I think my rebuttal of your earlier post was accurate. These guys are EXTREMELY biased and they're not even trying to disguise it any longer.
 

nontheist

Well-Known Member
Even the leftist spinners admitted that Romney did better. Had the shoe been on the right foot, I dare say you would not have seen such an honest appraisal.
That's not true canndo, first of all the media loves Obama. Had the shoe been on the other foot we would have threads like "I toad a so" "Romney is a dumbass" and UB would have skidmark post after post of blatant nonsense. Post like this show how out of touch with your base you are.
 

beenthere

New Member
I keep hearing from the left that Romney wasn't very clear on what was in his health plan but when asked what was in Obama's health care plan when he was campaigning in 2007-2008 I hear crickets!

Perhaps canndo can fill us all in?
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
If I was to judge this on entertaining and show style I would give it to Romney. If I was to judge on substance and details it go's to Obama. Romney did nothing to win OVER people, but he did reignite his base after his ZERO bump convention.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I keep hearing from the left that Romney wasn't very clear on what was in his health plan but when asked what was in Obama's health care plan when he was campaigning in 2007-2008 I hear crickets!

Perhaps canndo can fill us all in?
This only shows that you don't pay attention. You hear crickets because you live in the backwoods
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/Oct/The-2008-Presidential-Candidates-Health-Reform-Proposals--Choices-for-America.aspx
[h=3]Executive Summary[/h] [h=4]Introduction[/h] With the 2008 presidential election just weeks away, health care reform is at the top of the nation's domestic policy agenda. The soaring costs of health care, along with a faltering economy and lackluster wage growth, are leaving many working families without insurance or with medical expenses that consume a large share of their incomes. A recent Commonwealth Fund study found that nearly two-thirds of working-age adults—an estimated 116 million people—either were uninsured for a time during 2007, were insured but had such high medical costs compared with their incomes that they were underinsured, reported a problem paying medical bills, or did not get needed care because of its cost. Over the past seven years, such problems have crept up the income scale among people with and without health insurance. Consequently, voters are calling for change: eight of 10 adults said in a May survey that the health care system is in need of a major overhaul or fundamental reform.
Both presidential candidates, Senator John McCain (R–Ariz.) and Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.), have proposed plans to reform the health insurance system in the United States. They also have put forth ideas to improve the quality and efficiency of care. To inform the public discussion about possible paths to reform, this report describes the candidates' proposals, examines key differences in their vision of a future health insurance system, and evaluates the proposals against key principles outlined by the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System.
[h=4]Distinct Approaches to Health Care Reform[/h] The presidential candidates' health care reform proposals offer fundamentally different visions of the future of health insurance in the United States. Both candidates propose reforms in which the health system would continue to be structured around private insurance markets, with a supporting role played by public insurance programs. But their plans diverge significantly on the way a reformed system should operate. McCain would change the tax code to encourage people to buy coverage through the individual insurance market and effectively loosen state rules governing the sale of insurance by allowing people to buy policies across state lines. Obama would encourage the continuing participation of employers in the health insurance system, expand eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and create a new insurance market "exchange"—with consumer protections, choice of public and private health plans, and income-based premium subsidies—that would largely replace the individual market. According to one estimate, discussed below, in 10 years McCain's proposal would reduce the number of people who are uninsured by 2 million out of a projected 67 million. Obama's plan would reduce the number of uninsured people by 34 million in 10 years.
McCain's Approach: Tax Credits for Individual Market Insurance. McCain proposes to expand coverage through the individual insurance market by replacing the current tax exemption for employer-provided health benefits with tax credits of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Currently, premium contributions from employers are not treated as taxable income to employees. Under McCain's proposal, these contributions would be subject to income taxes. People could use their tax credits to offset the costs of employer coverage or coverage purchased on the individual market, and could deposit any remaining funds in health savings account (HSAs). He also would effectively deregulate individual insurance markets by allowing people to buy coverage across state lines. He has proposed federal funding to expand existing state high-risk pools for people who cannot gain coverage through the individual market because of their health conditions, with premium assistance for those with lower incomes.
Obama's Approach: Private and Public Group Insurance with Consumer Protections and Income-Based Subsidies. Senator Obama has proposed a plan for universal coverage that would build on the current system of mixed private and public group insurance. Some of its features are similar to the universal coverage law now being implemented in Massachusetts. All employers, other than small businesses, would be required to offer health insurance to their employees or contribute to the cost. Eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP would be expanded. Small businesses, self-employed individuals, and people who do not have coverage through their employers, Medicaid, or SCHIP would be able to purchase a plan through a new insurance market called the National Health Insurance Exchange. Through this exchange, people could choose a private plan or a new public plan similar to that offered to federal employees and members of Congress. All insurance carriers would be required to offer plans to all applicants and could not charge premiums based on health status. Small businesses would be eligible for tax credits to offset their premium costs and individuals would be eligible for income-based premium subsidies. Obama has not yet defined the size of eligible small businesses and those not subject to the requirement to offer coverage.
 

beenthere

New Member
I can't argue the point until it happens. However, I think my rebuttal of your earlier post was accurate. These guys are EXTREMELY biased and they're not even trying to disguise it any longer.
Right after the debate I checked a couple of the left wing blogs and many of the lefties were declaring Obama the clear winner. A half hour later it was a whole different tune, just about all of them fell in lock step, funny how most of theses dolts have to be told how to think!
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
If I was to judge this on entertaining and show style I would give it to Romney. If I was to judge on substance and details it go's to Obama. Romney did nothing to win OVER people, but he did reignite his base after his ZERO bump convention.
Wishful thinking. I just saw a report on the highly coveted "Walmart Moms" group. Romney has jumped Twenty points after last nights debate. I guess it's a good thing all those polls oversampling Democrats by 8+ points are accurate and Ohio and the other swing states are lost for Romney. Obama can't lose, so none of this matters anyways.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Wishful thinking. I just saw a report on the highly coveted "Walmart Moms" group. Romney has jumped Twenty points after last nights debate. I guess it's a good thing all those polls oversampling Democrats by 8+ points are accurate and Ohio and the other swing states are lost for Romney. Obama can't lose, so none of this matters anyways.
you just remember our bet sir...Don't be like the other losers who lost and then became a sockpuppet so they could avoid my ownage
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
CNN poll
Obama 18%
Romney 35%
Neither 47%

Look at the righties all proud of finally beating-er I mean not losing. It is still early in the game ladies.
 

beenthere

New Member
This only shows that you don't pay attention. You hear crickets because you live in the backwoods
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/Oct/The-2008-Presidential-Candidates-Health-Reform-Proposals--Choices-for-America.aspx
Distinct Approaches to Health Care Reform
LMAO I didn't think you had it in you to use your own words.
This is from a left wing bias website, not from Obama campaigning on the stump or in debates!
Would it be fair to say you did not learn this from the presidential debates in 2007? LOL

Perhaps Mitt Romney could tell all you lefties the details you all claim are missing in his economic and health plans could be found on the Heritage Foundation website, would that fly with you? LOL

BTW, here's what Clear Politics think of your source.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/another_bogus_report_card_fo1.html
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Look how hard the righties are trying to keep the focus on healthcare because they don't want to admit Rmoney's tax plan is unworkable.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
LMAO I didn't think you had it in you to use your own words.
This is from a left wing bias website, not from Obama campaigning on the stump or in debates!
Would it be fair to say you did not learn this from the presidential debates in 2007? LOL

Perhaps Mitt Romney could tell all you lefties the details you all claim are missing in his economic and health plans could be found on the Heritage Foundation website, would that fly with you? LOL

BTW, here's what Clear Politics think of your source.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/another_bogus_report_card_fo1.html
sorry that you don't understand why I did not use my own words...so let me explain to the stupid. Someone said that Obama did not have a plan in 2007-2008...sooooo I provided a link and a story from 2008 that showed that he did. Hating Obama is making you dumb. Check the link website and date ( October 2, 2008 ) and you would see just how :dunce: you are right now. No plan in 2008 you say but the site compares McCain plan to Obama's....IN 2008. yawnnnn to easy...hey do you know a guy named Sync0 ???
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Look how hard the righties are trying to keep the focus on healthcare because they don't want to admit Rmoney's tax plan is unworkable.
But we don't know Romney's tax plan according to all the libs on here. How do we know it's unworkable, if we don't have any of the details? Quite a conundrum.
 

beenthere

New Member
Look how hard the righties are trying to keep the focus on healthcare because they don't want to admit Rmoney's tax plan is unworkable.
Best tax plan I've heard in years, and what do you dolts know about taxes, very few of you have to pay them.
Hell, Obama made an ass out of himself last night talking about tax breaks for businesses that don't exist! LOL
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
But we don't know Romney's tax plan according to all the libs on here. How do we know it's unworkable, if we don't have any of the details? Quite a conundrum.
cut taxes+raise spending=unworkable

Quite deductive.

I just want Rmoney to admit he plans to run the printers over time to pay for it. Guess what, those "across the board tax cuts" translate to tax cuts for the rich only because the inflation will have far less effect on them.
 
Top