[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Terez, on 17 October 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 17 October 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Obama just got claps from the audience!

That was awesome! Twitter died in that moment.

Who are you following if they are all so idiotic that all you hear is pro-Romney shit?

It's actually a mix. And when I said Twitter died, I meant Twitter freaking overloaded. Can't wait to see the tweet counts on that moment. (Also, people I have on Facebook and Twitter are mostly WoT people, so they have various political opinions.)

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 17 October 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Terez, on 17 October 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 17 October 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Obama just got claps from the audience!

That was awesome! Twitter died in that moment.

Who are you following if they are all so idiotic that all you hear is pro-Romney shit?

It's actually a mix. And when I said Twitter died, I meant Twitter freaking overloaded. Can't wait to see the tweet counts on that moment. (Also, people I have on Facebook and Twitter are mostly WoT people, so they have various political opinions.)

Shouldn't they be discussing the cloth the suits are made of and the gleam of the cufflinks?

[worry]

Please tell me someone didn't actually bring up single parents. I'm gonna start watching it from the top pretty soon but I need to know if I need a vomit bucket within arm's reach.

[HoosierDaddy]

Briar King, on 17 October 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

I'm waiting Chinas nukes to hit us tonight. Romney hates loves them lol.

Ftfy.

[worry]

Keeping in mind I also bought McDonald's for dinner tonight.

[HoosierDaddy]

Wat? "What are the lying liars lying about to us?"

Nice question, asshole. But, Mittens just set himself up for the 47% uppercut, so nevermind.

[Terez]

OBAMA GETS THE LAST WORD!

Watch, Romney is going to try to say something. Even though neither Obama nor Biden did when their opponents got the last word.

Watch.

PS—Amazing, he didn't.

This post has been edited by Terez: 17 October 2012 - 02:39 AM

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 October 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Terez, on 17 October 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Terez, on 17 October 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 17 October 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Obama just got claps from the audience!

That was awesome! Twitter died in that moment.

Who are you following if they are all so idiotic that all you hear is pro-Romney shit?

It's actually a mix. And when I said Twitter died, I meant Twitter freaking overloaded. Can't wait to see the tweet counts on that moment. (Also, people I have on Facebook and Twitter are mostly WoT people, so they have various political opinions.)

Shouldn't they be discussing the cloth the suits are made of and the gleam of the cufflinks?

I thought about neg-repping you for that. And then...

WoT fan on Twitter said:

Everytime one of them speak, I keep looking at their tie. Do u think it was planned that Romney would wear blue (D-party color) and Obama would wear red (R-party) color? Haha

[Terez]

Briar King, on 17 October 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Lmao @ HD.

Well CNN seems to be giving this win to Obama so that's cool with me!

What's sad is that conservatives think CNN is the liberal media. CNN, which is not much better than Fox News!

[LinearPhilosopher]

so i've been reading through the debate transcript.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847
According to the CIA world factbook, oil production in the states as been up as per obama's claim, not rommneys.
It's be really awesome if someone asisting the moderator could lookup the actual facts mid debate so as to eliminate pointless back forth between candidates.

Cmon google search is availble to most cell phones now, is it really that much to ask for?

[Sindriss]

Yes, if only fact-checking was so simple as a google search and looking at the first few sites to appear.

[Terez]

BalrogLord, on 17 October 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

so i've been reading through the debate transcript.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847
According to the CIA world factbook, oil production in the states as been up as per obama's claim, not rommneys.
It's be really awesome if someone asisting the moderator could lookup the actual facts mid debate so as to eliminate pointless back forth between candidates.

Cmon google search is availble to most cell phones now, is it really that much to ask for?

The Republican spinners were on afterward talking about how it's dishonest for Obama to take credit for that, blah blah, in spite of his policies, not because of them, blah blah. But Romney was trying to spin that one in several different ways, and it made him look stupid.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Sindriss, on 17 October 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Yes, if only fact-checking was so simple as a google search and looking at the first few sites to appear.

The cia world fact book is easily referenced and highly reliable. Other data can easily be found in national census data.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 17 October 2012 - 03:30 AM

[worry]

One of my favorite moments -- which may come as no surprise to those who argued with and/or against me a couple years ago, in one of my fondest Discussion forum threads of all time -- was Obama absolutely nailing Romney on AZ SB 1070. I almost spit out my $1 Large Coke from McDonald's (what a deal!) when Romney -- in the vaguest, slimiest terms possible -- tried to intimate against everything in his record so far that he somehow supports the DREAM Act. "The military is one such path..." or whatever he said. Nobody bought it while he was talking and Obama -- classily and with the facts at the ready -- stripped it away.

I agree with HD's frustration (at least I think it's what he meant) when a yes or no question was asked and neither's first word was a "yes" or "no" -- I get nuance but it just comes off weird.

I'd basically score this one Obama: B+, Romney D-.

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 17 October 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

One of my favorite moments -- which may come as no surprise to those who argued with and/or against me a couple years ago, in one of my fondest Discussion forum threads of all time -- was Obama absolutely nailing Romney on AZ SB 1070. I almost spit out my $1 Large Coke from McDonald's (what a deal!) when Romney -- in the vaguest, slimiest terms possible -- tried to intimate against everything in his record so far that he somehow supports the DREAM Act. "The military is one such path..." or whatever he said. Nobody bought it while he was talking and Obama -- classily and with the facts at the ready -- stripped it away.

I agree with HD's frustration (at least I think it's what he meant) when a yes or no question was asked and neither's first word was a "yes" or "no" -- I get nuance but it just comes off weird.

I'd basically score this one Obama: B+, Romney D-.

Both just disregarded the questions. It is annoying and a bit insulting.

By the by, every time I see a "focus group" of undecided voters I'm forced to shake my head. Most of these people will just end up voting for whoever is winning at Nov. 5th, I think.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 17 October 2012 - 04:38 AM

[Terez]

Now they're polling the Irish on who they would vote for:

http://uk.reuters.co...E89F0RT20121016

Like, the Irish in Ireland.

[worry]

I find it weird that Romney consistently references MA's 85% Democratic legislature, the fact that he passed a bunch of progressive legislation like Romneycare and the assault weapons ban (which he flat out lied about tonight), and pretends they were bi-partisan efforts. The legislature -- again -- was 85% Democratic: he could not have done otherwise!

Also, his actively seeking more women to be on his staff after only getting male applications is, uh, what's that phrase?? Oh yah, affirmative action!

[worry]

Terez, on 17 October 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

Now they're polling the Irish on who they would vote for:

http://uk.reuters.co...E89F0RT20121016

Like, the Irish in Ireland.

Malarkey!

[worry]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 October 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

By the by, every time I see a "focus group" of undecided voters I'm forced to shake my head. Most of these people will just end up voting for whoever is winning at Nov. 5th, I think.

I saw the MSNBC one and yeah. I can only hope that there are so many decided people this year that the undecideds -- usually pretty goony in any election -- are really the dregs this year in particular. That's where I find solace.

[worry]

Nevermind, Mitt Romney didn't actually conduct Affirmative Action. He just lied about the whole thing: http://blog.thephoen...the-binder.aspx

Not a true story.

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

I will write more about this later, but for tonight let me just make a few quick additional points. First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women.

Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)

Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?