He said Obama Bin Laden

[Penny Lane 8,159]

The kenyan got schooled tonight.

http://www.therightscoop.com/fact-check-romney-right-on-all-debate-disputes/

Obama supporters could admit when he got schooled in the first debate. It's a shame that Romney supporters can't admit defeat. The second debate was a tie, but there's no denying who won last night. At least, not for rational people.

The best part was watching Mittens agree with Obama, but try to word it differently to sound like he's coming up with new ideas.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Evylin

[Penny Lane 8,159]

[JohnR! 5,495]

The kenyan got schooled tonight.

In fact, I would say everyone who watched the debate got schooled to the fact Romney does not have the slightest inkling as to how foreign policy works nor does he know the first thing about our military.

On a positive note, Mittens agreed with the POTUS on a majority of issues, save the occasional foot-in-mouth flip-flopping for which Romney has become famous.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is that the best you got? Yeah, it shows that Mittens lost. Big.

No it shows you and the president both don't know shat about Bayonets. Bayonets are still alive and kicking . More today than back then.

As to who won the debate. I guess it depends on who you support. Most I read thought it was very close

Certainly no one moped the floor with anyone. That's absurd

[Penny Lane 8,159]

No it shows you and the president both don't know shat about Bayonets. Bayonets are still alive and kicking . More today than back then.

As to who won the debate. I guess it depends on who you support. Most I read thought it was very close

Certainly no one moped the floor with anyone. That's absurd

What's even more absurd is Romney thinking that saying something like "the Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917" actually makes any kind of reasonable argument against Obama.

He's said it multiple times during his campaign and it doesn't make sense.

Not only that, it's factually inaccurate. Yet he keeps saying it.

Romney claimed that “our Navy is now smaller than any time since 1917.” That’s not true — at least as measured by the number of active-duty ships. There are more Navy ships now than during the last four years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

According to the Defense Department’s Naval History and Heritage Command, there were 342 total active ships as of April 6, 1917, when the U.S. entered World War I. And there were 285 total active ships as of Sept. 30, 2011, the most recent month for which figures are available. So it’s true that the Navy has fewer ships now than it did then — but not fewer than at “any time” since then.

There were fewer active ships at the end of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, as follows:

282 as of Sept. 30, 2005

281 as of Sept. 30, 2006

278 as of Sept. 30, 2007

282 as of Sept. 30, 2008

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/factual-flubs-in-florida/

But hey, Romney supporters don't seem to care about the facts when it comes to debates. As long as their guy is louder and talks a lot, they consider it a victory.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Evylin

[JohnR! 5,495]

What's even more absurd is Romney thinking that saying something like "the Navy is smaller than it was in 1917" actually makes any kind of reasonable argument against Obama.

He's said it multiple times during his campaign and it doesn't make sense.

That was a very weak and infantile comment. I am surprised nobody in his camp discussed how inappropriate and misplaced such a comment would be.

Also it shows the hypocrisy and how ill prepared he was for the debate.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Not to mention that "apology tour" that Republicans eat up, despite how factually inaccurate that statement is as well. Same old, same old.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is also smaller that it was before WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and anytime in between, including when he took office. It may be a good thing. That would have been the thing to argue, not some flippant response meant to embarrass Romney, that pretty much backfired, making Obama look petty.

What is even more interesting, although most focus groups believe Obama did a better job on debating the topic of foreign affairs, he came up short on domestics affairs, especially the economy. Given a choice between pocketbook concerns and foreign affairs, most of those undecided voters went with Romney and the economy. Romney's message of security overseas begins with a strong economy at home did better than Obama's message that less bullets mean more teachers.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Obama supporters could admit when he got schooled in the first debate. It's a shame that Romney supporters can't admit defeat. The second debate was a tie, but there's no denying who won last night. At least, not for rational people.

The best part was watching Mittens agree with Obama, but try to word it differently to sound like he's coming up with new ideas.

So, no one?

Seriously, no one won that damn thing last night. Not even worth being called a tie.

A pathetic display from both candidates and why even CNN's poll said based on this debate 50% polled didn't want to vote for either one of them.

If you're a Romney or Obama supporter and you think either one won, then you're a typical hack, which is to be expected I suppose around here, but still.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Not to mention that "apology tour" that Republicans eat up, despite how factually inaccurate that statement is as well. Same old, same old.

That was Romney appealing to a group he needs not appeal: those on the fringes of the right, who would vote for anyone the GOP throws their way. Mittens was throwing a bone to Hannity's listeners... :rofl:

I know a lot of republicans who are Americans first and foremost, who can be both objective and non partisan when discussing matters of importance to the United States, who laugh at that expression just as hard as the other side does...

[aaydrian 479]

It is also smaller that it was before WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and anytime in between, including when he took office. It may be a good thing. That would have been the thing to argue, not some flippant response meant to embarrass Romney, that pretty much backfired, making Obama look petty.

What is even more interesting, although most focus groups believe Obama did a better job on debating the topic of foreign affairs, he came up short on domestics affairs, especially the economy. Given a choice between pocketbook concerns and foreign affairs, most of those undecided voters went with Romney and the economy. Romney's message of security overseas begins with a strong economy at home did better than Obama's message that less bullets mean more teachers.

Only to Republicans. That little statement saved Obama 45 secs in rebuttal talking and shut Romney up.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So, no one?

Seriously, no one won that damn thing last night. Not even worth being called a tie.

A pathetic display from both candidates and why even CNN's poll said based on this debate 50% polled didn't want to vote for either one of them.

If you're a Romney or Obama supporter and you think either one won, then you're a typical hack, which is to be expected I suppose around here, but still.

Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't like either of them. And good for you. Vote for someone else, then. But to be realistic, one of these men will be the President for the next four years, so yes. It only makes sense to compare the two and declare a winner.

It is also smaller that it was before WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and anytime in between, including when he took office. It may be a good thing. That would have been the thing to argue, not some flippant response meant to embarrass Romney, that pretty much backfired, making Obama look petty.

What is even more interesting, although most focus groups believe Obama did a better job on debating the topic of foreign affairs, he came up short on domestics affairs, especially the economy. Given a choice between pocketbook concerns and foreign affairs, most of those undecided voters went with Romney and the economy. Romney's message of security overseas begins with a strong economy at home did better than Obama's message that less bullets mean more teachers.

Do people really feel that was Obama's message? There is no hope.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Evylin

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So, no one?

Seriously, no one won that damn thing last night. Not even worth being called a tie.

A pathetic display from both candidates and why even CNN's poll said based on this debate 50% polled didn't want to vote for either one of them.

If you're a Romney or Obama supporter and you think either one won, then you're a typical hack, which is to be expected I suppose around here, but still.

First honest post I have seen on the Debate/. Thank You

[Penny Lane 8,159]

First honest post I have seen on the Debate/. Thank You

So vote for someone else!

[JohnR! 5,495]

It is also smaller that it was before WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and anytime in between, including when he took office. It may be a good thing. That would have been the thing to argue, not some flippant response meant to embarrass Romney, that pretty much backfired, making Obama look petty.

Romney chose that argument, not the POTUS. It backfired on Mittens. The POTUS responded in kind to the argument Romney was making.

Of course, had he done as you suggest, the argument would be made that Obama was weak and evaded the question altogether...

It would have flown over the head of many if Obama had answered that with 'look Mittens, something shiny in the audience!!!'

Edited October 23, 2012 by Gegel