Obama - Romney debate

Like Tree382Likes


Mitt isn't from PA. So colloquialism doesn't really apply to that statement. It really wasn't a stretch. He's like a decade older than Obama which puts his early days right in a time where the phrase could have come off as racially inappropriate.

Every teardrop is a waterfall
Originally Posted by ss40
I never said Mitt was from PA. I was using our local way (colloquialism) of saying girls as an example. He probably just refers to his kids as boys. It is a real stretch in my mind to come up with him calling Obama a boy. Your side is losing me on this one.
Originally Posted by munchkin
I got your point.

Boy or son is used often by racist ppl to make Black men feel inferior. Is Obama one of Mitt's sons? Is he a child? Does Mitt believe Obama is inferior? Did he say anything like that to his counterparts during the Primary debates?

While it may seem like a stretch in your mind there are many ppl who caught Mitt's insinuation. No one is twisting his words. We are reading into his statements. Either way Mitt Romney flipped & flopped all over that stage.

You mentioned you are undecided, what do you want to hear the candidates say to convince you? I'm curious.

Every teardrop is a waterfall
Originally Posted by ss40
+100000000000

It's called context. It's not always directly correlated to the present moment. Our identities are especially contextual. We each carry a lot of unseeable baggage (not the best word I know) such as our history, heritage, ethnic background, age, gender, sexuality, etc. Who you are in a conversation matters and is always relevant. It's not a stretch by any means at all.

It's easier and more comfortable to not "go there".


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
curlyarca, Amneris and hippychic like this.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds

-Albert Einstein
Discounts:iHerb: EZA283 for $5 off!, OCO522 for $10 off first purchase | Komaza Care Referral Code: J5Q362VG
I really hope they change the format. Because that format was ridiculous and Romney was such a big bully and derailed it completely. NO RESPECT...why would anyone even vote for him when he clearly showed his a$$ yesterday???
Originally Posted by coilynapp
Most analysts (according to the AP) praised the format of the debate last night. Their verdict was that it was conducive to being information heavy and solidifying contrasts.

At first I was nervous that there was going to be a scene between Lehrer and Romney. I kept wanting Romney to cool it and be appropriately cordial and LISTEN to the moderator.

Over time the bigger impression that Romney was making was that he was feisty and passionate about what he had to say...he wasn't going to miss any chance to drive his points home, and he wound up getting a little better with following Lehrer's moderation.

Think about it. If Obama had been the one in control, which in all fairness is much trickier because sitting Presidents like to be more diplomatic in their behavior, the criticism Lehrer's getting wouldn't exist.

Yes, Lehrer's moderation left the avenue open for someone to dominate the floor. Mitt Romney took better advantage of that opportunity than people expected he could.

As as aside, Romney's demeanor has always really ticked me off. Painfully phony. But last night for the first time ever I was able to respect him. Not for his aggressiveness, but just simply for being quick thinking and up for the challenge of debate, in fact, very eager for it. I know a lot of people who expected him to be slaughtered by the president. I wasn't sure how it would go, but I expected that Romney would probably at best hang in.

He's never impressed me when he's on his own sidelines and preaching to the choir. I'm thinking he's one of those people that thrive at expressing their positions if they're being directly challenged for them. He likes to function amidst opposition, that actually stimulates him.

The fact he wouldn't be the Romney we saw last night during the GOP debates tells me that if he were given the job of president, he would wind up being a pretty moderate Republican. When he's playing to his own party, he's unimpressive, just going through the motions, it's a means to an end that he's bs'ing his way through.

(That is not a good thing to me personally, though being popular with the GOP and not bs'ing isn't a good thing in my eyes either. But I think that's insight into the real Romney...judging by when he's most fake).
nynaeve77 likes this.
“It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Last edited by sew and sew; 10-04-2012 at 02:38 PM.

If one of the people is Catholic and divorced, all you have to do is get the church to consider your marriage annulled under the eyes of the church. You are still legally (under the eyes of the law) divorced; just a way for the church to get around it. I know this because my husband's ex-wife had their marriage "annulled by the Catholic church."
Originally Posted by munchkin
My fiancee and I are having our 1st marriages annulled. It's not such an easy process. We had to get a lot of paperwork together, get witnesses, and fill out a very lengthy questionare. It also is costing us each $500. The process could take from 18 to 24 months to be completed. I wasn't raised Catholic, so this all seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Originally Posted by Lotsawaves
What I don't understand is why non-Catholics who don't agree with these requirements consent to them and then complain. Is it because your fiance pressures you and you feel you have to go along with it? That's not really the fault of the Church. If you don't desire marriage in the Church you (general you) should be honest with your partner and tell them that. If it is so important to them to marry in the Church, they should find a Catholic or someone amenable to the process. If YOU are important to them then they shouldn't insist on something you don't want. I don't think the Church is responsible for that. It has its own views on marriage, which we can debate because they are not necessarily all reasonable, but nonetheless, it is upfront about that and a Church marriage is not required. Most religious institutions have rules and procedures around marriage - some stricter than others and you can certainly shop around. Since the state ultimately provides marriage, you can also opt out of religious marriage altogether if you want to get married more quickly. Or you can have a civil marriage first and do a religious ceremony later (some do it the other way round in other religions such as Islam.)
Originally Posted by Amneris
This. When my sister got married, the priest at our church wanted my non-Catholic brother-in-law to agree to raise their kids Catholic. He didn't want to agree to that, and my sister didn't feel good about the priest asking that of them, so they opted to get married elsewhere, in a non-Catholic church. (My dad hated that, but there you go.)
Amneris likes this.
3B corkscrews with scatterings of 3A & 3C.
Most analysts (according to the AP) praised the format of the debate last night. Their verdict was that it was conducive to being information heavy and solidifying contrasts.
Originally Posted by sew and sew
Yes, but Lehrer did a poor job enforcing the parameters of the debate.

That said, I don't fault Romney for violating the rules - pushing the boundaries is an integral part of debate strategy. And Obama didn't lose because of the format, or because Lehrer was a pushover. He lost because he failed to capitalize on a host of opportunities, including Romney's inconsistencies, distortions and outright falsehoods.
Amneris and curlypearl like this.
.
sew and sew, B-wavy and curlypearl like this.


Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang



As far as him using the word 'boys', he and Ann have that way about them when it comes to talking about their family. I bet there's thousands of instances of him saying 'my boys' while talking to members of the public on the campaign trail.

I really don't think it was a slight at Obama...that wouldn't serve him well anyway.

Did anyone catch how he said "poor kids" and then fear washed over him and he corrected it to "low income kids"...it was a very brief moment, but it's obvious he was trying hard not to step in anything.

He's not going to win points with the electorate already behind him and undecideds by calling Obama a boy.

If some people thought they caught that and relished in it, rather than were offended, it's not a number he needs to court. There's a much bigger number he needs to court that would be offput by that.
Originally Posted by sew and sew



It was "coded". That "boy" line was a "zinger"...specifically crafted, rehearsed, and delivered to send a message. It was powerful...yet subtle.

Like Obama's "lipstick on a pig" line from last election cycle. That was an insult to Sarah Palin, to mock her convention speech where she said something similar. It was a crafted, rehearsed, and delivered zinger. Powerful, yet subtle enough that Obama could deny that he ever meant anything insulting by it. Of course he did. Of course Romney did with the "boy" line.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves

Alright, well I saw that said and it didn't get delivered in carefully rehearsed zinger style to me. I know what you're talking about, and it truly didn't have that 'feel' to me.

And again, the incentive to take a dig like that would have to be incredibly low, so low that there's way more compelling disincentive.

I guess the retort to that is that there's so many racists in America that I underestimate how Romney would find it advantageous to play to them.

Which basically ends the argument...because there's damning absolutes being accepted without question.

"My boys" aside, I thought the point he was making was more mean than called for. You can dig at someone's credibility in less blanketed ways....ways that don't make it sound like you believe this is your opponents character all around. ...They're just a liar. In British politics that would fit in fine, but Americans are usually more civil.
“It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Most analysts (according to the AP) praised the format of the debate last night. Their verdict was that it was conducive to being information heavy and solidifying contrasts.
Originally Posted by sew and sew
Yes, but Lehrer did a poor job enforcing the parameters of the debate.

That said, I don't fault Romney for violating the rules - pushing the boundaries is an integral part of debate strategy. And Obama didn't lose because of the format, or because Lehrer was a pushover. He lost because he failed to capitalize on a host of opportunities, including Romney's inconsistencies, distortions and outright falsehoods.
Originally Posted by yossarian
Lehrer didn't do that poor of a job IF he's given some credit for approaching it like "well, these guys are really getting into this particular topic and duking it out, why get in the way of that?" Let the American people see how it goes.

The problem for one camp is that the other camp's guy seemed to be in control of that time. The president actually asked for the subject to be changed at one point, which you really want to steer clear of in debating. The moderator can be asking for that, the candidate shouldn't.

Lehrer probably wasn't expecting Romney to be so assertive and he rolled with it. He rolled with Obama when he took his 30 second 5 seconds. He would have rolled with the president more if the president would have turned it on more.
“It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

I've seen many trials on TV (48 Hours, etc.) where each side's expert has a different set of facts (or as I call it, a different opinion).
Originally Posted by munchkin
They may choose to highlight or question different facts, but there still has to be a factual basis for the information given. You can't say "Well, there were fingerprints at the scene and they've been tested and shown to be the accused's fingerprints, and there are ten witnesses saying they saw the accused there, and the accused confessed to doing it, but my opinion is that he didn't do it because he is a nice guy."

You can say "Well, his fingerprints were there, but he was there earlier that day, and there are ten witnesses, but it's cross-racial identification / it was dark and they couldn't see clearly / the police did the ID improperly and made suggestions to the witnesses, and the accused confessed but he has a low IQ and was improperly coerced into it by the police and denied his rights, so there is insufficient evidence to convict." You'd need some proof he was there earlier through a witness or something, an exert on the problems with cross-racial identification, testimony from the witnesses as to sloppy work by the police, etc. for this theory to be given any weight. It isn't just some lawyer's crazy opinion.
Originally Posted by Amneris
I have seen "expert" witnesses regarding someone's mental state and the other side's expert disagrees. I have seen "expert" witnesses regarding blood spatter and the other side's expert disagrees. If something is a clear cut fact, I know it can't be disputed but there are many so called "facts" out there that aren't clear cut and two different experts can come to two different conclusions. That is all I am saying.
Originally Posted by munchkin
That I agree with. Facts can certainly be manipulated, refrd, etc.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I am glad I did not watch it because I would be more skeered than I am from just reading this thread. I don't want mitt to be president. .
Central Massachusetts

One good reason to only maintain a small circle of friends is that three out of four murders are committed by people who know the victim. ~George Carlin~

In regards to Vagazzling: They just want to get into the goods without worrying about getting scratched up by fake crystals. ~spring1onu~

If one of the people is Catholic and divorced, all you have to do is get the church to consider your marriage annulled under the eyes of the church. You are still legally (under the eyes of the law) divorced; just a way for the church to get around it. I know this because my husband's ex-wife had their marriage "annulled by the Catholic church."
Originally Posted by munchkin
My fiancee and I are having our 1st marriages annulled. It's not such an easy process. We had to get a lot of paperwork together, get witnesses, and fill out a very lengthy questionare. It also is costing us each $500. The process could take from 18 to 24 months to be completed. I wasn't raised Catholic, so this all seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Originally Posted by Lotsawaves
What I don't understand is why non-Catholics who don't agree with these requirements consent to them and then complain. Is it because your fiance pressures you and you feel you have to go along with it? That's not really the fault of the Church. If you don't desire marriage in the Church you (general you) should be honest with your partner and tell them that. If it is so important to them to marry in the Church, they should find a Catholic or someone amenable to the process. If YOU are important to them then they shouldn't insist on something you don't want. I don't think the Church is responsible for that. It has its own views on marriage, which we can debate because they are not necessarily all reasonable, but nonetheless, it is upfront about that and a Church marriage is not required. Most religious institutions have rules and procedures around marriage - some stricter than others and you can certainly shop around. Since the state ultimately provides marriage, you can also opt out of religious marriage altogether if you want to get married more quickly. Or you can have a civil marriage first and do a religious ceremony later (some do it the other way round in other religions such as Islam.)
Originally Posted by Amneris
I am Catholic. I converted in 1985. I'm doing it mainly for him. It's very important to him. He isn't insisting, but since I love him and know how important it is to him I am doing this. We have already decided to do a civil marriage 1st.
From Michael Berg:

Every person has a unique connection to the Creator that can never be extinguished, and every person has a great soul that can manifest important things in our world. To make a person feel less than they are because of something inside themselves, be it faith, race, or sexual orientation, is the greatest sin of all."
One other thing: who the hell helped the president with debate prep?
Originally Posted by Springcurl
The guy on the unemployment line this morning
Originally Posted by yossarian
xcptnl, curlypearl and yossarian like this.
“It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald
I'm not feeling optimistic about Obama winning another term.
Originally Posted by medussa
Last night when Romney was speaking I thought, "Oh, god. I'm looking at the next president."
Originally Posted by Springcurl


I did not think that at all. This election will be won where it is always won...in the few battleground swing states...and Obama is leading in all of them, often in double digits. One bad debate performance isn't going to erase all that. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this is lost...that's what the Reps want you to think.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Pretty much agree with all of your posts so far in this thread.

I am constantly amazed by the way the Republicans can spin literally anything into a positive. See: legitimate rape. One day they will be telling us that food is actually not needed and we can all get by on toenails.
wild~hair and Amneris like this.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
There's only one more presidential debate plus a VP debate.
Originally Posted by curlyarca
Not true. The VP debate is on 10/11, the next presidential debate is on 10/16, I believe, and there's one more, but I don't know its date.
Originally Posted by WurlyLox

I must have heard wrong last night. Sorry. Probably some of the alkyhall I had.
Amneris and xcptnl like this.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
Someone asked what I needed to hear to be convinced one way or the other. I'm not really sure. Maybe it is a combination of their side to all the issues and how they come across. . . how sure I would feel with them being our leader. I guess I don't have that "warm fuzzy" feeling quite yet from either. I do have one personal reason I am leaning towards one candidate. I'm not going to say what it is, but I asked my husband if that was selfish (I have always voted for the person I thought would be best for everyone). Has anyone here ever voted for a strictly selfish reason? Is that wrong?
3b/c
There was def. overtalking on both sides. I was thinking that Jim should have just pulled out a bullhorn and been like "Times Up!"
As far as him using the word 'boys', he and Ann have that way about them when it comes to talking about their family. I bet there's thousands of instances of him saying 'my boys' while talking to members of the public on the campaign trail.

I really don't think it was a slight at Obama...that wouldn't serve him well anyway.

Did anyone catch how he said "poor kids" and then fear washed over him and he corrected it to "low income kids"...it was a very brief moment, but it's obvious he was trying hard not to step in anything.

He's not going to win points with the electorate already behind him and undecideds by calling Obama a boy.

If some people thought they caught that and relished in it, rather than were offended, it's not a number he needs to court. There's a much bigger number he needs to court that would be offput by that.
Originally Posted by sew and sew



It was "coded". That "boy" line was a "zinger"...specifically crafted, rehearsed, and delivered to send a message. It was powerful...yet subtle.

Like Obama's "lipstick on a pig" line from last election cycle. That was an insult to Sarah Palin, to mock her convention speech where she said something similar. It was a crafted, rehearsed, and delivered zinger. Powerful, yet subtle enough that Obama could deny that he ever meant anything insulting by it. Of course he did. Of course Romney did with the "boy" line.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves

Alright, well I saw that said and it didn't get delivered in carefully rehearsed zinger style to me. I know what you're talking about, and it truly didn't have that 'feel' to me.

And again, the incentive to take a dig like that would have to be incredibly low, so low that there's way more compelling disincentive.

I guess the retort to that is that there's so many racists in America that I underestimate how Romney would find it advantageous to play to them.

Which basically ends the argument...because there's damning absolutes being accepted without question.

"My boys" aside, I thought the point he was making was more mean than called for. You can dig at someone's credibility in less blanketed ways....ways that don't make it sound like you believe this is your opponents character all around. ...They're just a liar. In British politics that would fit in fine, but Americans are usually more civil.
Originally Posted by sew and sew

Of course there is incentive for Romney to use this type of coded racial language.

1. It's red meat for his base.
2. It serves to degrade Obama.
3. It helps keep white voters who might be considering voting for Obama in line by reminding them, subtly, that Obama is "other".
4. Regular white folks aren't likely to notice this type of racial insult, so there is little chance of being called out on it.
5. Minority folks who do notice, aren't likely to be paid attention to if they complain about the racial insult, because Romney has plausible deniability.

That's why it's important for regular white folks who do notice to say something and not just dismiss it as a ridiculous claim.
If the debate last night was enough for someone to decide to vote for Mitt Romney, they probably weren't voting for Obama anyway.

Romney played Romney last night: "What do I need to do to make them buy what I'm selling?" And people bought it. I agree with Obama, he changed his stance pretty much a 180 last night....I'm sitting here giving him the side eye. People bought it. Hook line and sinker.

During the discussion about entitlements, he said the president gets entitlements: a plane and a house. He likened the president to one of his boys, behaving as boys do. It's easier to believe he didn't mean what he meant....because that is just to unacceptable for many people to believe....and it's just all in some people's heads. It's the same nasty coding used when people say state's rights. As an example: It reminded me of when a poster here said someone didn't have maternal instincts. If you didn't know the history of the poster it was directed at or just read it superficially, the real, nasty meaning of that zinger would have been lost on you. I know it took me reading it multiple times to get it (and that's only because of the remarks of of other posters on that thread), and by the second time I was like, "oh, no she COULDN'T mean that." By the third time I had to concede that she unfortunately did mean it that way, and it kind of figuratively took the wind out of me. It's a way of telling someone "f you, I hate your fing guts," without saying anything that necessarily links you to a direct insult.**

I didn't learn anything new last night. No one won because they just repeated what they've been repeating in ads.



**This is an example I am using to try to explain why many people assert that Romney was being very subtley nasty, dare I say bigoted, last night.
wild~hair likes this.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.

Last edited by curlyarca; 10-04-2012 at 05:12 PM.
To those undecided, are you undecided between Obama and Romney or between those two, or one of the two, and the third party candidates?if its the former, what haven't you seen that you need to see in order to make a decision? We've had 4 years with Obama so we know him well. Romney has shown himself and if you've been paying attention to the news I don't know how you could be on the fence with him. Aside from politics they have a significant contrast in personality. I'm just wondering because I'm really trying to understand.
Originally Posted by CocoT
I am very much decided but my husband is not. The undecideds I know fall into two camps:

1. Historically democrat but not happy with Obama. They could have been easily swayed to vote republican but they don't like Mitt Romney and/or the social platforms of the republican party. (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, religion etc.)

2. Historically republican but don't like Mitt Romney or religion in government.

I think a lot of the undecideds aren't waiting to hear anything. They just don't love either candidate and they're trying to choose the lesser of two evils.
Quote:
When are women going to face the fact that they don’t know their own bodies as well as men who have heard things?

Don Langrick
Bonsai Culturist
I too am socially far left but fiscally conservative. Undecided at this time but leaning towards Obama. I will be watching.
Originally Posted by munchkin
You might check out Gary Johnson - he's the libertarian candidate and is getting shut out of a lot of debates. He is fiscally very conservative but is pro-marriage equality and pro-choice. He is also pro-legalization of marijuana and has some less traditional (but in my opinion, quite logical) views on immigration, which also tie into his views on legalization of marijuana. He was New Mexico's governor for 8 years, and re-elected for his second term (as a Republican!) in that majority-democrat state. I don't love every single one of his policies, but he is far more in line with my beliefs than either of the major party candidates.
Originally Posted by susirene
Thank you! If we all "waste" our vote in good independent or Libertarian candidates, maybe we can have better outcomes and choices.
Loose botticelli curls and waves
No silicones/no sulfates since March 2008
There was def. overtalking on both sides. I was thinking that Jim should have just pulled out a bullhorn and been like "Times Up!"
Originally Posted by KookyCurl
This visual made me LOL. I hope he has one next time..
"Life is full of beauty. Notice it. Notice the bumble bee, the small child, and the smiling faces. Smell the rain, and feel the wind. Live your life to the fullest potential, and fight for your dreams.”

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com