Obama has bigger balls so far!

Romney is sweating LOL

Mitt is incredibly weak, naive and dangerous when it comes to foreign policy.

Romney is now taking credit for the Iran sanctions. He says he proposed them seven years ago, and he attacks Obama for not putting them in place earlier. Earlier when? Like when Bush was president? And then he says the sanctions are tight enough. Ergh, Mitt, make up your effin' mind.

Theyre both kissing jew butt now.

lulz romney looks like he's about to cry. he so skerrred

This is a yawner on both sides.

Romney said TUMULT... that's a shot of tequila for everyone in this household.

OMG Romney is choking sooooo bad! Big black Obama cock is fucking him up the ass LOL

LOL, Romney is completely clueless. This is the textbook definition of getting schooled.

I think Obama is getting about 100% more talk time than Mittens too.

Give it up loser. lol

Romney just wilted—started to demand time for rebuttal, then backed down. Probably was trying to avoid looking like a dick, but ended up looking like a wimp, which is worse.

massacre debate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney just wilted—started to demand time for
> rebuttal, then backed down. Probably was trying to
> avoid looking like a dick, but ended up looking
> like a wimp, which is worse.


"i suppose you're right"---romnesia

Wow, Romney is incredibly weak on foreign policy. Seriously bad.

See that look in Mitt Romney's eyes. That's the feeling a guy with $300 million has when he's found something he can't buy.

YES Romney does looks sad mad irritated and about to cry...He looked about to cry since the first 8 minutes, but now really bad lol...He keeps giving looks at the mod like a sad child lol.

"OMG Romney is choking sooooo bad! Big black Obama cock is fucking him up the ass LOL"
Sums it up perfectly!!!

I want a count of the number of times Mitt Romney has praised Obama tonight. Got to be a ton.

Romney is coming across very weak and nervous. Did he just lose his bowels?

uhm yeah, I agree

lulz

Romney is wrong. The greatest threat to the world is not a nuclear Iran. It is an imploding, loose-nuke Pakistan.

Everytime Romney blinks when Obama is speaking (and he is blinking a lot) I envision him saying to himself, "Fuck, fuck, fuck, shit, fuck, why me, fuck, when will this end..."

I love how Obama brought women's issues into the debate too! Romney had no idea how to incorporate any other topics into the debate with the same ease that Obama had..
He just seems to look to Bob for help lol..
Nice try Romney

did you see that big gulp that Romney made when Obama said, "Cutting our spending on education will not help us to compete with China" just after Romney had been saying we need to be more competitive with China.

Romnesia-Fail2012



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2012 10:29PM by sam vest.

Obama is such an ASSHOLE. He interrupts constantly.

If this administration couldn't figure out that an embassy in Libya is at risk is not an administration that will figure out when the Iranians have the capability of making the bomb.

I dont give a shit if the President is an asshole and interupts. He's got bigger balls!

JohnGalt, using that lame logic, do you alsoblame Bush for not preventing the tragedies on 9-11?

Barack is looking solidly presidential as this thing carries on.

OBAMA 2012!!!!!

applause worthy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barack is looking solidly presidential as this
> thing carries on.

And Mitt, the opposite.

Half the posts here are the same idiot talking to himself. lol

JohnGalt338 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama is such an ASSHOLE. He interrupts
> constantly.
>
> If this administration couldn't figure out that an
> embassy in Libya is at risk is not an
> administration that will figure out when the
> Iranians have the capability of making the bomb.



JohnGalt338 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If this administration couldn't figure out that an
> embassy in Libya is at risk is not an
> administration that will figure out when the
> Iranians have the capability of making the bomb.


Romney brought on 17 of his 23 advisors from the Bush administration. If Bush didn't know that we were going to be attacked with multiple planes and 3,000 people died on Sept 11, 2001....then how does Romney have the "capability" as you say...

Mitt does sound like quite the salesman. If only he were more believable.

I can't believe how Mittens got SPANKED!

I wonder who Tagg Romney will want t o punch tonight?

Both candidates brought over advisors from past administrations as was the case in 2008 with McCain and Obama. That's why there's no real change.

fact checker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Romney brought on 17 of his 23 advisors from the
> Bush administration. If Bush didn't know that we
> were going to be attacked with multiple planes and
> 3,000 people died on Sept 11, 2001....then how
> does Romney have the "capability" as you say...


actually it is 17 of 24 but your numbers were close enough.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine?page=full



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2012 10:41PM by sam vest.

Romney just got served!

sam vest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fact checker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >> Romney brought on 17 of his 23 advisors from
> the
> > Bush administration. If Bush didn't know that
> we
> > were going to be attacked with multiple planes
> and
> > 3,000 people died on Sept 11, 2001....then how
> > does Romney have the "capability" as you say...
>
>
> actually it is 15 of 22 but your numbers were
> close enough.
>

Among the 22 members of Mitt
> Romney’s foreign policy staff, 15 were foreign
> policy advisers under George W. Bush. Six are
> former members of Project For A New American
> Century (PNAC).

I wouldn't worry if they were run of the mill Republican advisors from Bush's administration. But the ones from PNAC, those are the ones we should be scared of.

They are the ones who authored the study in 1997 that the process of transforming our military and embarking on empire would be a long one absent a catastrophic and catalyzing attack, like a "new pearl harbor".

And they were the ones who took 9/11 for the opportunity to invade Iraq.

Those are the guys we need to worry about.

Hillary Clinton has bigger balls than Obama -- by far. Romney will not go on an apology tour lasting four years when he constantly bemoans whatever America has done for the world.

Yam Sauce - no I don't blame Bush for the tragedy on 9/11. Culpability for that attack belongs more to Bill Clinton. But I do hold Bush responsible for all the other terrorist attacks that took place on American soil during the remainder of his administration.

Libya - Think about it, you have a long term despot murdered (not that I am opposed to Qaddafi's death) and no effective government and the US Ambassador is asking for more security and our allies are bugging out and Obama can't figure it out. Now he and Biden want us to trust them to protect us from making a nuclear bomb. That's not a risk that I want my children to take.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/204343.html

LOL...just got off the phone with a friend who is voting for Romney. It won't change his mind but he said he was disappointed in Romney's performance.

BigW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL...just got off the phone with a friend who is
> voting for Romney. It won't change his mind but
> he said he was disappointed in Romney's
> performance.


But he's still voting for him.

As will about 51% of voters.

Awwwww. lulz

Yup 51% of the voters for Romney but who cares. Obama will have the electoral votes.

Bubble popped Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But he's still voting for him.
>
> As will about 51% of voters.



From the Gallup website:

"Each seven-day rolling average is based on telephone interviews with approximately 3,050 registered voters"

3,050 people is nothing.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

sam vest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bubble popped Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > But he's still voting for him.
> >
> > As will about 51% of voters.
>
>
>
> From the Gallup website:

"Each
> seven-day rolling average is based on telephone
> interviews with approximately 3,050 registered
> voters"

>
> 3,050 people is nothing.
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.asp
> x


Not talking about Gallup. You can call it roughly even now by the time that you factor in error.

I'm not going to dig out the studies to support this but they're easy to find if you want to look. In an incumbent Presidential election, independents and undecided voters break decisively to the challenger about 8 out of 10 times. Or said another way, if they're not counted in the incumbent's totals at this point, then the probability is that they're voting against him. Unless something major event happens within the next two weeks, they will again. This year, the number of those voters amounts to about 4 or 5 points in the polls. The split will be probably 3:1.

So, the general rule is that for every point under 50% that the incumbent has in the polls going into the election, the likelihood of his winning decreases by about 20%. At 49% he's OK. 48% it's an even bet. 47% he's done.

Obviously, the electoral votes come into play so you'd need to extend that on a state-by-state basis. And every rule is made to be broken, but that's what history says.

Bubble Popper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And every rule is made to be broken, but that's what history says.

I think that Al Gore said that too...right after he said that he invented the internet.

I'm looking forward to the next round of polls that include the lackluster Romney performance in this last debate.

I think I may be waiting a long time for those polls....

Romney got bitch slapped big time by Obama.

Your Right to Vote! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney got bitch slapped big time by Obama.

+1

Indeed he did.

The real shocker of the evening last night was when Romney said, "The surge in Afghanistan has worked..."

This is not only such a departure from his previous positions, from what Paul Ryan was saying a couple weeks ago and the rip-roaring criticism that John McCain had given earlier in the day -- its something that I'm not sure Obama would even say, the military commanders or the American people.

The jury is definitely out as to whether the surge in Afghanistan as worked.

The surge in Afghanistan is perhaps Obama's weakest foreign policy change. It has cost a fortune in blood and treasure. Not only has the violence increased significantly, but the supply of our troops in Afghanistan has cost us a fortune in payments to Pakistan.

Bubble Popper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In an incumbent Presidential election,
> independents and undecided voters break decisively
> to the challenger about 8 out of 10 times. Or
> said another way, if they're not counted in the
> incumbent's totals at this point, then the
> probability is that they're voting against him.


“It’s no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go one way or another.”

Here's the thing, most middle-Americans don't care about the surge, they don't care about Benghazi, they don't care. They want a job and a way to feed themselves and their families. Last nights debate did nothing to sway those millions who just don't care.

oblomney seemed pretty unsteady last night.

I could be wrong but I'm right 99% of the time

Joe Six Pack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the thing, most middle-Americans don't care
> about the surge, they don't care about Benghazi,
> they don't care. They want a job and a way to
> feed themselves and their families. Last nights
> debate did nothing to sway those millions who just
> don't care.


I totally agree. This is the unfortunate thing. Once again we are electing a blank slate for foreign policy. George W. Bush campaigned on economic issues and we ended up with a decade of foreign policy disaster.

Remember 911 Ito? That kind of moved foreign policy up the totem pole of issues. And our response to that drove the entire foreign policy of this country for the rest of Bush's presidency. What would Obama have done after 911, lauch a few cruise missiles in the desert ala Bill Clinton and call it a day? We didn't have the army of drones back then so we couldn't have fought the way we're fighting now.

Uncle.Ream.Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember 911 Ito?

Huh? 9, what?

The American electorate has the attention span of a gnat.

Yes Uncle we all remember that the proper response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq.

It was pretty funny at times. Obama certainly got Romney to say he was going to spend on the military and that snippet will be used in many ads over the next week or so.

Crush it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was pretty funny at times. Obama certainly got
> Romney to say he was going to spend on the
> military and that snippet will be used in many ads
> over the next week or so.


Yeah, that's going to cost Romney lots of votes????? Do you mean in Romney ads?