President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Gideon]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

Romney was defending his plans to maintain military budget by pointing out that the navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 and the air force has been the smallest since its inception. Obama's zinger was that we don't have a lot of bayonets or horses anymore, countering that superior technology has mitigated the need for superior numbers, i.e. quality vs. quantity.

[StevePerryHair]

The Won looked mean, Mitt was calm and cool, just what we need.

Mitt looked sweaty and pale.... I honestly felt like something was wrong with him tonight. Maybe not feeling well?

[Memorex]

Neither Romney nor Obama answered the question about Israel calling because Romney first answered it correctly and I am sure Obama agreed - that would never happen. That's not a side step.

Dismissing a hypothetical based on its unlikelihood is the very definition of a side step.

I actually thought it was a great response because it reiterated the fact that our relationship is strong enough (no matter what party) that such a thing is not really a valid question.

The question on it's face was silly, I think and both did well to not answer it.

[Gideon]

Neither Romney nor Obama answered the question about Israel calling because Romney first answered it correctly and I am sure Obama agreed - that would never happen. That's not a side step.

Dismissing a hypothetical based on its unlikelihood is the very definition of a side step.

I actually thought it was a great response because it reiterated the fact that our relationship is strong enough (no matter what party) that such a thing is not really a valid question.

The question on it's face was silly, I think and both did well to not answer it.

Rhetorically, it was a great response.
Substantively, it was a complete and utter dodge.

Schieffer was clearly trying to gauge how far each candidate was willing to commit to Israel and both of them put their agility to the test.

[FinnFreak]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

Romney was defending his plans to maintain military budget by pointing out that the navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 and the air force has been the smallest since its inception. Obama's zinger was that we don't have a lot of bayonets or horses anymore, countering that superior technology has mitigated the need for superior numbers, i.e. quality vs. quantity.

Indeed. Modern warfare requires investments in hitech - not more catapults...

Certain areas would absolutely benefit from building more ships for the Navy... still, the Pentagon's role is different.


This debate went to Obama - Romney wasn't convincing tonight... no Benghazi..? - Man, I was disappointed.


John -

[Behshad]

Hey ginger

When you watch a debate with biased eyes you see things differently.
The President wasn't rude. He was to the point. He was factual and he made sure this time around Romney doesn't tippy toe around issues and uses his " I never said that" crap that he always ativks to when he flip flopps.
Showing your viewers that you have more knowledge about foreign policy isn't rude. It just brings it to people's attention that Romney really doesn't know much about foreign policies. Well except about shipping jobs or criticizing the queen of England

You have already made up your mind about your candidate. This debate was simply for those who are still undecided and what most of them saw at the debate was the president telling us about how he handles foreign issues and Romney saying " yea I'd do the same." ... " Yea I agree with Mr president "....
The president wasn't rude. He took the command and showed that he is the leader of this country.
Now Romney looked cool and calm to FF , but the way he was stuttering and sweating , I'd say he wasn't really that cool & calm.

Of course they would agree on most issues when it comes to foreign policies and although it was overall more of an " I agree with president" show than an actual debate , Obama had the edge cause he was focused and he wasn't napping like he did during the first debate. He did what he had to do and it angers you that he did that well.

[Behshad]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

[KenTheDude]

Obama kept talking about wanting to build bridges and roads. Isn't that what a good portion of the stimulus money was supposed to cover? Where did all that money go? Oh, that's right, I forgot. It went to companies like Solyndra, A123, Fisker and all the other failed companies that are in bed with Obama. Or perhaps we can talk about 14,000 vacant or nearly vacant buildings owned by the federal government that cost taxpayers some $190 million a year to maintain.

[Gideon]

When you watch a debate with biased eyes you see things differently.

Whose eyes aren't biased?

[conversationpc]

Looks like Romney supporters share the same mentality as their savior: WEAK.

This is hilarious considering the fervent practical worship that some Obama supporters seem to engage in and especially looking back at the Obama speech in 2008 when he said, referencing his election, that this was the moment the "rise of the oceans began to slow". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto

[Behshad]

When you watch a debate with biased eyes you see things differently.

Whose eyes aren't biased?

The undecided !

[Behshad]

Obama kept talking about wanting to build bridges and roads. Isn't that what a good portion of the stimulus money was supposed to cover? Where did all that money go? Oh, that's right, I forgot. It went to companies like Solyndra, A123, Fisker and all the other failed companies that are in bed with Obama. Or perhaps we can talk about 14,000 vacant or nearly vacant buildings owned by the federal government that cost taxpayers some $190 million a year to maintain.

Here's the transcript of the debate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82712.html

Where did he "keep talking about wanting to build bridges and roads" ?

[Behshad]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

http://youtu.be/O_3YgHvDUmU

Pardon me...as many...the horses thing also was meant to be a cut.

Rick I love ya, but disagree on his intent with that statement.

The intent of the statement was plain and simple : We do invest more in MODERN technology, which makes sense.

[conversationpc]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

http://youtu.be/O_3YgHvDUmU

Pardon me...as many...the horses thing also was meant to be a cut.

Rick I love ya, but disagree on his intent with that statement.

The intent of the statement was plain and simple : We do invest more in MODERN technology, which makes sense.

This'll probably surprise you but I actually agree on Obama's intent with that statement. What I didn't like about it was the condescending, snarky attitude with which the President said it.

[Behshad]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

http://youtu.be/O_3YgHvDUmU

Pardon me...as many...the horses thing also was meant to be a cut.

Rick I love ya, but disagree on his intent with that statement.

The intent of the statement was plain and simple : We do invest more in MODERN technology, which makes sense.

This'll probably surprise you but I actually agree on Obama's intent with that statement. What I didn't like about it was the condescending, snarky attitude with which the President said it.

And I agree with you about the tone and the way he delivered it ! Guess we surprised eachother !

[conversationpc]

This'll probably surprise you but I actually agree on Obama's intent with that statement. What I didn't like about it was the condescending, snarky attitude with which the President said it.

And I agree with you about the tone and the way he delivered it ! Guess we surprised eachother !

[Behshad]

Yahoo debate poll: Romney 53 percent, Obama 47 percent. 402,615 votes cast.

Whatever makes you feel better

[Memorex]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

Wanted the BK without all the stimulus money we lost. I can prop any company up with billions of dollars of borrowed money. That's no trick and the initial part was Bush.

I work in the Bankruptcy industry, so I know that they should have filed like everyone else and they would have come out of it just fine and saved us a lot of money.

[Behshad]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

Wanted the BK without all the stimulus money we lost. I can prop any company up with billions of dollars of borrowed money. That's no trick and the initial part was Bush.

I work in the Bankruptcy industry, so I know that they should have filed like everyone else and they would have come out of it just fine and saved us a lot of money.

If you work in the bankruptcy industry, you should know that it wouldnt have worked "like everyone else", without FUNDS. There were no funds. And Romney said clearly LAST NIGHT that he would support the BK , WITH GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS!

[Behshad]

Yahoo debate poll: Romney 53 percent, Obama 47 percent. 402,615 votes cast.

You must feel rather desparate to use yahoo polls as your reassurance of Romney winning. Whatever happened to Gallup ?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158237/obama ... ebate.aspx

[Memorex]

Rassmussen this morning: R 50% O 46%

That's a pretty big deal because it is starting to fall in the way Gallup did. I wonder if those gains are all in the south and meaningless. Really, Ohio is about the only thing to watch at this point.

From what I understand, this is the first time that Rassmussen has shown any candidate with a lead of 3 or greater.

[Memorex]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

Wanted the BK without all the stimulus money we lost. I can prop any company up with billions of dollars of borrowed money. That's no trick and the initial part was Bush.

I work in the Bankruptcy industry, so I know that they should have filed like everyone else and they would have come out of it just fine and saved us a lot of money.

If you work in the bankruptcy industry, you should know that it wouldnt have worked "like everyone else", without FUNDS. There were no funds. And Romney said clearly LAST NIGHT that he would support the BK , WITH GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS!

I have worked on the largest bankruptcies ever filed. I've worked on hundreds of Chapter 11's. Never once - not a single time - did any of them involve government funds. Believe me - there is money out there for this without having to get it from the government.

But let's say for instance that there was no other money. It still should have been up to a BK judge to determine what was done. Especially when public funds are involved.

[Behshad]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

Wanted the BK without all the stimulus money we lost. I can prop any company up with billions of dollars of borrowed money. That's no trick and the initial part was Bush.

I work in the Bankruptcy industry, so I know that they should have filed like everyone else and they would have come out of it just fine and saved us a lot of money.

If you work in the bankruptcy industry, you should know that it wouldnt have worked "like everyone else", without FUNDS. There were no funds. And Romney said clearly LAST NIGHT that he would support the BK , WITH GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS!

I have worked on the largest bankruptcies ever filed. I've worked on hundreds of Chapter 11's. Never once - not a single time - did any of them involve government funds. Believe me - there is money out there for this without having to get it from the government.

But let's say for instance that there was no other money. It still should have been up to a BK judge to determine what was done. Especially when public funds are involved.

How would Romney's GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS be any different than what Obama did ?


And if you had the money and were an investor, would you have taken the risk to let GM borrow the money from you ?
And most of those companies that you said you worked with and filed for bankruptcy, how many of them filed for bankruptcy and closed their doors ?

[Behshad]

Who Will Win? 51% Say Obama, 39% Romney

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Likely U.S. Voters still think President Obama is the likely winner of the presidential race, while 39% expect Mitt Romney to come out on top, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Confidence in Romney has been inching up and is now at its highest level in surveys since late August. The 12-point gap between the candidates is the narrowest yet, down from 20 points just two weeks ago.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _39_romney

[Liam]

I kept getting "facts" from my lib friends from MSNBC. LMFAO

[Behshad]

Q. What's the difference between Barack Obama and a bayonet?

A. One is a useless tool. The other is still used by the US Marines.

Hilarious and very original !

[Liam]

Q. What's the difference between Barack Obama and a bayonet?

A. One is a useless tool. The other is still used by the US Marines.

Nice!!!!

[Behshad]

Q. What's the difference between Barack Obama and a bayonet?

A. One is a useless tool. The other is still used by the US Marines.

Hilarious and very original !

I wish it were mine. As you know I steal everything.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I don't follow this Intrade shit, but apparently Obama is tanking from previous highs. FWIW.

Intrade is what you should read , not the polls. Political nerds dont play cards on Friday night or join into a football betting pool. They buy into intrade markets. Those nerd are pretty careful about their money and its an important indicator.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

http://youtu.be/O_3YgHvDUmU

Pardon me...as many...the horses thing also was meant to be a cut.

Rick I love ya, but disagree on his intent with that statement.

The intent of the statement was plain and simple : We do invest more in MODERN technology, which makes sense.

This'll probably surprise you but I actually agree on Obama's intent with that statement. What I didn't
like about it was the condescending, snarky attitude with which the President said it.

Logically the point was correct, what it does show on Obama's part is an under appreciation for the continuing role that Naval power should have in 21st century. Naval power can be used to keep sea and trade lanes open (and free trade can often diffuse conflict) , show force, show solidarity, and to even strike in a measured manner at a legitimate aggressor - and in a way that doesn't require putting boots on the ground in a country where their presence may not be welcome and only counterproductive.