Third and Final Presidential Debate Thread.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I read the entirety of the posts. I wasn't happy with either candidates' performance. I came here to read the responses of the posters, and so many people seemed fixated on what the speakers were physically doing, 'that one flinched', 'that one swallowed hard', etc.
It seemed as if the posters were simply watching with the sound off. Many were dedicated to the body movements, and doing so to encourage themselves into believing their chosen candidate was doing better in the debate.

I'm not happy with either candidates' foreign policy. I listened, and was displeased. They both turned the debate homeward, playing both of their strengths, instead of sticking to the debate format.
I know Obama's foreign policy, I've seen it in action. I'd like to hear more specifics in Romney's plan. Neither came across strong on foreign policy.

The moderator kept saying "This is the question." but they wouldn't stay on topic.
The little nitpicking of each other didn't help me understand what either will do. A debate is more than making the other guy look bad. I realize that one candidate did it more than the other, but it makes the whole format look bad.

So. I might know what I'm talking about. I understand I'm using a cartoon avatar, but it doesn't mean I'm not as savvy as one who uses a Beatrix Potter av.

reply to post by Taiyed


His reply made no sense because although we need fewer horses or bayonets....we need ships and we need more not less.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Taiyed

 

His reply made no sense because although we need fewer horses or bayonets....we need ships and we need more not less.

Why do we need more? Who is even close to our Navy?

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Taiyed

 

His reply made no sense because although we need fewer horses or bayonets....we need ships and we need more not less.

That costs money. Where do we get the money for that and what does Romney propose that will pay for it?

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
. So your boss is not hiring based on Obama care? How many people did he hire during the so called recession and before Obamacare was passed? From your statement I am gathering you guys don't have insurance? So what do employees do when they get sick or injured? Obviously your boss wasn't doing too well before Obama was elected if he did well than he did not care enough about his employees to be concerned about their health. Either that or he's just selfish and needs more money for his pleasure while you guys are left with crumbs. I worked for a small business myself the difference was my boss was a great man who treated his employees the way he wanted to be treated. He provide health insurance when most small businesses would not. Spoke to him the other day and his business is doing great. He has that thing about him where he makes it happen no matter what. Since he always provided insurance for his employees he doesn't see his future as bleak.Maybe that's the real issue bad business plans.

Well. we did over 150 projects a year before Obama was elected. Last year we did about 40. We previously had 2 shifts running but during Obama's presidency we had to lay off the entire 2nd shift. We had Humana health insurance before Obama became president. Shortly after we switched to Blue Cross. The week Obamacare was signed into law our heath insurance premiums went up by a third and our coverage dropped considerably. The representative who came to our office said that the increases were a direct result of the new health care laws. I stated the same in other threads.
My boss cares about his employees and when the economy was good I was getting $20,000 a year bonus's. Those days are gone and I don't see them coming back due to anything Obama has planned for the the next 4 years. We have a good business plan, that is why we are still working and employing several hundred people.
You are way off base. Don't take it personal. These are just the facts. No one, and I mean No one, can claim that Obama's economic plan has succeeded in creating a robust economy.

reply to post by Sparky63


Romney said he would not repeal Obamacare....how does that sit with you?

Either way, we are screwed because it's a corporate welfare program!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


As a matter of fact, I heard MIchael Savage say that Bush was a fiscal socialist even during the 08 election cycle, so please do not think you know everything I am thinking.

That and Bush had a Democrat controlled Congress toward the end of his second term. We know Democrats love socialism.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Romney said he would not repeal Obamacare....how does that sit with you?

Either way, we are screwed because it's a corporate welfare program!

Not good. It's going to cost me more in the long run and I am pretty sure that the quality of healthcare is going to go right down the tubes.

reply to post by TheCounselor


I missed the farting....is it recorded....who did it first? Was it in morse code?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

We know Democrats love socialism.

And so do the Republicans according to your admission....Oh, and according to Savage.

reply to post by timetothink

It would've definitely livened up the debate, as both men would point and blame the other.

reply to post by TheCounselor


Alternatively, I see more people talking about what the candidates said this debate than their demeanor. They both had more self-control this time, and Romney refused to take the bait from his opponent.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Romney said he would not repeal Obamacare....how does that sit with you?

Either way, we are screwed because it's a corporate welfare program!

Not good. It's going to cost me more in the long run and I am pretty sure that the quality of healthcare is going to go right down the tubes.

Exactly!

You better hope for a single-payer program or a government option. That is the only way the Left or Right will not be able to force you to pay a corporate insurance program for basic healthcare.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

We know Democrats love socialism.

And so do the Republicans according to your admission....Oh, and according to Savage.

Hence the favorite Tea Party term "RINO". Real conservatives will admit Bush let spending go. But does that mean we should elect someone who does it even more? Please, be reasonable here.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I am not saying we should run right out and get more ships, my point is that in this crazy world....he shouldn't say having less is acceptable.....that's just naive.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Huh. Zatso?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

We know Democrats love socialism.

And so do the Republicans according to your admission....Oh, and according to Savage.
/quote]

Hence the favorite Tea Party term "RINO". Real conservatives will admit Bush let spending go. But does that mean we should elect someone who does it even more? Please, be reasonable here.

You're right. Why would I vote for a man that was once a Democrat that actually passed a state version of Obamacare?

Why would I vote for a man that claims to be a conservative but wouldn't even stand up to Obama on his healthcare plan?

Why vote for a RINO?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Romney said he would not repeal Obamacare....how does that sit with you?

Either way, we are screwed because it's a corporate welfare program!

Not good. It's going to cost me more in the long run and I am pretty sure that the quality of healthcare is going to go right down the tubes.

Exactly!

You better hope for a single-payer program or a government option. That is the only way the Left or Right will not be able to force you to pay a corporate insurance program for basic healthcare.

No thanks. I've seen the quality, or rather, lack of quality, of heath care in countries with single payer systems.
I still like the option of shopping around for the best deal. When government controls heath care, it is reduced and rationed unless you are a politician with the Cadillac plan.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

I am not saying we should run right out and get more ships, my point is that in this crazy world....he shouldn't say having less is acceptable.....that's just naive.

Having less is necessary when you have no money to build it. No one seems to thing about that.

Let's just build more ships.....with what? You got the funds?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Taiyed

 

His reply made no sense because although we need fewer horses or bayonets....we need ships and we need more not less.

That costs money. Where do we get the money for that and what does Romney propose that will pay for it?

Well...we could get about 20 million folks off full blown public assistance, into the jobs sector, then divert that money to paying for it. At least it's a start in the right direction.

Des