Debate?

[Forever_frost]

The mere fact this weak of an argument with full knowledge Obama was deceiving voters is your focus is proof enough for me to dismiss it. You even acknowledge it in your reply. Let's be adults here and acknowledge Obama is being deceptive. The point of the discussion is Obama knew the facts, and blamed a youtube video for two weeks. With full knowledge he hid the fact we were attacked with the intention being to deceive the American people and hide the failed to protect the ambassador. Yet here we are. The reason Candi Crowley jumped in on that discussion was because Obama was being embarrassed and caught in a lie. That is strictly against the rules as a moderator, and she was warned about that by both campaigns beforehand.

Depends on what your definition of "is" is

[Trip McNeely]

Obummer and his cabinet are excellent wordsmiths.

[Forever_frost]

Obummer and his cabinet are excellent wordsmiths.

Only when the media prewrites things for him

[CJ]

All I said was that calling somebody out on something about WHAT THEY SAID and being wrong about it bit Romney in the ass.

You say bit him in the ass, but ignore the fact that Obama is losing ground to Romney. You do know that "bit in the ass" denotes a consequence, not an advantage. Just because liberal networks hammer Romney doesn't mean he was bit in the ass. People that vote against Obama listen to the drivel daily, and ignore it. If anything the facts show Obama got "bit in the ass" on that.

[A+]

Not at all. What I'm saying is when you start pulling Snopes, look at who funds them

i realized that every media source is funded in some way by some party. Its losing battle. Now i just try go with the source that tries to cover both parties as equal as possible. I like factcheck because it posts Obamas shortcomings as well as Romneys. It seems however that its been posting a lot of stuff about Romney which comes off as a little bias but i cant find any info stating that their claims are false. I mean damn, if the most bias form of media on the planet, fox news, is gonna turn on you about your economic plan, how credible can that plan be?

[Forever_frost]

i realized that every media source is funded in some way by some party. Its losing battle. Now i just try go with the source that tries to cover both parties as equal as possible. I like factcheck because it posts Obamas shortcomings as well as Romneys. It seems however that its been posting a lot of stuff about Romney which comes off as a little bias but i cant find any info stating that their claims are false. I mean damn, if the most bias form of media on the planet, fox news, is gonna turn on you about your economic plan, how credible can that plan be?

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2923825/posts

[naynay]

Only when the media prewrites things for him

john favareua writes for him

[A+]

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2923825/posts

i know. i think you posted this info. i while back and i now take it into concideration when i read off that website. Honestly, i read 2 or 3 things it posts about Obama and 2-3 it says about Romney. I took a philosophy class once and we talked about finding info on the places we get our info from to try and determine if their information is bias in any way. I was told it was going to be difficult, and it is. Now i have to look into who is freerepublic.com and who funds theswash.com.....blah..blahbalfald.....nah, im good. Ill definitely read what they have to say though. Maybe tomorrow though. For now ill just read the BS from both sides

[CJ]

Lol @ Romney's speech at the Albert e smith fundraiser. Brutal.

[Vertnut]

The rest of the country? Everything I have seen shows Obama winning the 2nd debate pretty decisively. I haven't seen a single thing that shows Romne won that one. In fact, the least damning thing I have seen shows it a deadlock, an that was only one place.

As for more harm than good.... Do you pay attention to anything but Fox News? Maybe that's why your head is in the sand. He didn't do enough, IMO, to sway the undecided voters. He was not nearly a convincing as he was in the first debate. He wasn't specific enough about certain issues. And he didn't call out Obama nearly enough on failed policies. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but one of the fact checkers said something like 70% of what he said were lies. When you consider the undecideds, all of that does not bode well for him.

While Romney is better for the country than Obama, he's still a joke, and not what we need.

52-45 Romney over Obama in the most recent Rasmussen poll. I'm surprised you of all people would believe everything you read. As far as not swaying the "undecides", two different "undecided" panels (Fox and MSNBC) chose Romney by a large majority.

[Trip McNeely]

Lol @ Romney's speech at the Albert e smith fundraiser. Brutal.

What did he say?

[Forever_frost]

Lol @ Romney's speech at the Albert e smith fundraiser. Brutal.

Is there a link?

[CJ]

Just in fun, but Romney's was definitely a little more brutal. I'm sure YouTube will have it in a few minutes.

[Vertnut]

Lol @ Romney's speech at the Albert e smith fundraiser. Brutal.

Barry's was pretty funny, too. He would have been much more successful as a comedian.

[CJ]

Yeah they were both good. Obama was more self deprecating.