Debate #3: What's the point?

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama will need to explain his "More flexibility" comment regarding being Putin's sock puppet and why he lied about the Benghazi Terror Attack for weeks

 

[Katzndogz]

Libya won't be the only question asked. If there is any question at all about Israel/Palestine, obama is going to be reduced to a puddle on the floor.

Hardly.

Did you forget the time Romney went to Israel and made a bunch of racist comments about the Palestinians?

Which just shows that Romney has a grasp of the reality on the ground in Israel and obama doesn't.

 

[decker]

Libya won't be the only question asked. If there is any question at all about Israel/Palestine, obama is going to be reduced to a puddle on the floor.

well that also akward due to tensions in 2011 over 1967 border. romney will want to make obama out to be against israel . so obama got to be ready for that to

it massive debate and he has to turn up second debate style, if he produces first debate peformance then romney will pull clear.

 

[decker]

Obama will need to explain his "More flexibility" comment regarding being Putin's sock puppet and why he lied about the Benghazi Terror Attack for weeks

no doubt romney got lot of stuff to load at obama

 

[decker]

Really?

Schieffer is kind of a big time lib, too.

Romney's biggest problem is, on a personal level, people don't like him. Not even other republicans.

Romney's bigger problem, of course, is that every time he talks about foreign policy, he puts his foot in it. Heck, he managed to antagonize the BRITISH.

Doesn't look to me like he'll be coming into this debate from any kind of strong postion. He's got no real foreign policy experience himself and his FP advisors all hail from the last Presidential admin.

We all know how popular their policies turned out to be....

He'll spend every single moment of his time trying to talk up Benghazi. He has zero knowledge on anything else, and the knowledge he has on Benghazi is flawed.

I hope to GOD he brings up "not optimal." I really do.

he will do and he bring up anything he think will hurt obama. obama got to counter attack well all this

 

[westwall]

Libya won't be the only question asked. If there is any question at all about Israel/Palestine, obama is going to be reduced to a puddle on the floor.

Keep hoping.

Don't need to hope. Who was the POTUS the last time a ambassador was killed? Oh yeah, it was Carter....how many terms did he get?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I think the Obama campaign set this up beautifully.

The last debate pits POTUS (who gets a security briefing every day) with Mitt Romney who will get 1 courtesy briefing.

One of the most successful FP presidents in modern history, working with his 'Co-president' Hilary Clinton, is debating a businessman who embarrasses himself every time he leaves the country.

I predict that the President will be pulled away in the middle of the debate to oversee a mission to capture the terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attack.

Mitt will stand there talking to himself. Joe Biden will walk on stage, laugh at him and say, "Please proceed, Governor..."

I smell the fear in this post...... So is obam gonnna get the video maker?oh wait he already has...so he fixed it...no more terrorism.... Only dumbfucks like you bought the video cover story. Keep bringing this up...its an easy way for me to mock your stupidity

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Libya won't be the only question asked. If there is any question at all about Israel/Palestine, obama is going to be reduced to a puddle on the floor.

Keep hoping.

Don't need to hope. Who was the POTUS the last time a ambassador was killed? Oh yeah, it was Carter....how many terms did he get?

If you REALLY think that this election hinges on that, you are entirely retarded.

 

[JoeB131]

The sad thing, Joe...is that despite how liberals denigrate folks in the "fly over" States...it's places like those that remain solvent while the more 'enlightened' places like California, Illinois and New York have slowly changed into fiscal disasters. Funny how those "fancy educations" don't seem to translate into common sense governance.

except that more tax dollars go IN to those "solvent" red states than come out.

interesting.

You progressives keep trotting that statistic out, Cheddar and it always makes me laugh. You really think that the reason California and Illinois are in such awful shape fiscally is because they receive a slightly smaller amount per person back from the Federal Government in benefits than "red" States? The truth of the matter is that California and Illinois are in SUCH bad shape that they're looking for larger and larger bailouts from the Federal Government just to stay solvent and that problem is only getting worse by the day because both States are controlled by liberal legislatures that continue to recklessly spend money they don't have.

Actually, they are in bad shape because they have people and have to provide services.

It's easy when all you got are clem and cleetus and you have to treat whatever they caught from the sheep and you have big federal subsidies for doing so.

When you have millions of kids to educate, and roads to maintain, and so on, and the feds take more than they give you, that's soemthing else.

 

[Oldstyle]

except that more tax dollars go IN to those "solvent" red states than come out.

interesting.

You progressives keep trotting that statistic out, Cheddar and it always makes me laugh. You really think that the reason California and Illinois are in such awful shape fiscally is because they receive a slightly smaller amount per person back from the Federal Government in benefits than "red" States? The truth of the matter is that California and Illinois are in SUCH bad shape that they're looking for larger and larger bailouts from the Federal Government just to stay solvent and that problem is only getting worse by the day because both States are controlled by liberal legislatures that continue to recklessly spend money they don't have.

Actually, they are in bad shape because they have people and have to provide services.

It's easy when all you got are clem and cleetus and you have to treat whatever they caught from the sheep and you have big federal subsidies for doing so.

When you have millions of kids to educate, and roads to maintain, and so on, and the feds take more than they give you, that's soemthing else.

So tell me, Joe...is it educating the kids and fixing the roads that are bankrupting California and Illinois...or is it having to pay for the benefits and retirement packages that the average public sector employee gets? I'm guessing that is isn't "road repairs" that are breaking the bank in California and Illinois...I'm pretty sure it's having to pay for all the sweetheart deals that Democratic lawmakers have given to the public sector union people who got them elected.

 

[HomeInspect]

Debate # 3 ?? what's the point ? If Romney has to debate both the president and the moderator as in debate #2, the results will be the same.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Debate # 3 ?? what's the point ? If Romney has to debate both the president and the moderator as in debate #2, the results will be the same.

 

[JoeB131]

So tell me, Joe...is it educating the kids and fixing the roads that are bankrupting California and Illinois...or is it having to pay for the benefits and retirement packages that the average public sector employee gets? I'm guessing that is isn't "road repairs" that are breaking the bank in California and Illinois...I'm pretty sure it's having to pay for all the sweetheart deals that Democratic lawmakers have given to the public sector union people who got them elected.

You mean actually giving them decent salaries is a "Sweetheart deal".

Here's what the average salaries are for State of IL workers.

SJ-R.COM - State of Illinois

it ranges from $42,812.66 for an employee of the Sec. of State's office to $84,486.10 to a member of the state police. Again, better than the private sector gets these days, to be sure, but that's really the fault of the private sector for letting the wealthy get away with it.

The ironic thing is, we used to have that "sweetheart deal" in the private sector. Until the assholes decided they didn't have enough Dressage Ponies and they moved all the good paying jobs to shitholes like China.

And dumb clunks like you, watching your good salaries go to China, or get driven down to to "right to work" or some such shit, don't get angry at the millionaires and billionaires who made that happen.

You get made at the guys who didn't go along with it and used their political power to fight back.

You are like the guy who gets his house burned down by an arsonist, and instead of wanting to punish the arsonist, you want him to burn down your neighbor's house.

Dude, that is like totally messed up.

 

[JoeB131]

Debate # 3 ?? what's the point ? If Romney has to debate both the president and the moderator as in debate #2, the results will be the same.

Sounds like a lot of blaming going on.

Most of the damage Romney suffred in the second debate was self-inflicted. (And the same can be said about Obama in the first debate.)

Here's why I think that the third debate WILL be useful.

Presidents don't really have that much control over the economy in the short term. So Romney whining that Obama didn't fix what Bush fucked up fast enough is kind of tedious, especially when all his plans are the same things Bush did to get us into this mess.

But Foriegn affairs are where a president really does have an effect. And exposing the fact that Romney is surrounded by the same idiots who responded to a terrorist attack by attacking the wrong country will be very enlightening.

Let him go ahead and talk about how he wants to get us into wars in Iran and Syria, and then let the mothers of teenage boys look at their sons and realize who is going to end up fighting his war.

As I said. Very enlightening.

 

[Liability]

Debate # 3 ?? what's the point ? If Romney has to debate both the president and the moderator as in debate #2, the results will be the same.

Sounds like a lot of blaming going on.

Most of the damage Romney suffred in the second debate was self-inflicted. (And the same can be said about Obama in the first debate.)

Here's why I think that the third debate WILL be useful.

Presidents don't really have that much control over the economy in the short term. So Romney whining that Obama didn't fix what Bush fucked up fast enough is kind of tedious, especially when all his plans are the same things Bush did to get us into this mess.

But Foriegn affairs are where a president really does have an effect. And exposing the fact that Romney is surrounded by the same idiots who responded to a terrorist attack by attacking the wrong country will be very enlightening.

Let him go ahead and talk about how he wants to get us into wars in Iran and Syria, and then let the mothers of teenage boys look at their sons and realize who is going to end up fighting his war.

As I said. Very enlightening.

^ idiot lib Obamamutts still pretend that the incumbent "won" the second debate.

The incumbent sucked ass so badly in Debate #1 that his combative "style" in Debate #2, alone, make the Obama fluffers claim victory.

The actual score, so far (giving The ONE the benefit of the doubt), is: Mitt 1.5 to Obama .5.

 

[JoeB131]

^ idiot lib Obamamutts still pretend that the incumbent "won" the second debate.

The incumbent sucked ass so badly in Debate #1 that his combative "style" in Debate #2, alone, make the Obama fluffers claim victory.

The actual score, so far (giving The ONE the benefit of the doubt), is: Mitt 1.5 to Obama .5.

Before I put you back on ignore, most of the polls showed Obama won the debate.

And it will be great to watch him squirm his way out of his incoherency on foriegn policy.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination will say..."I killed UBL but I had nothing to do with Libya, that's Hillary's fault."

 

[thanatos144]

Debate # 3 ?? what's the point ? If Romney has to debate both the president and the moderator as in debate #2, the results will be the same.

Amazing how blindly stupid you progressives are.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Liability]

^ idiot lib Obamamutts still pretend that the incumbent "won" the second debate.

The incumbent sucked ass so badly in Debate #1 that his combative "style" in Debate #2, alone, make the Obama fluffers claim victory.

The actual score, so far (giving The ONE the benefit of the doubt), is: Mitt 1.5 to Obama .5.

Before I put you back on ignore, most of the polls showed Obama won the debate.

And it will be great to watch him squirm his way out of his incoherency on foriegn policy.

"Won" is subjective bullshit. The Obamatwerps were DESPERATE for good news after The ONE totally screwed the pooch in the first Debate. Fact.

Therefore, assholes like you, JoeBitch, "saw" his irrational performance in Debate #2 as a "win" even though, in the real world, he lost on facts (that's the fault of his own since he lies compulsively) and AT BEST managed a "draw."

If you put it to a vote and 57 percent say that Germany "won" WWII, that doesn't make it true, you idiot.

And despite your desperate urge to toss the President's salad, he has NO CHANCE at all in a debate on foreign policy. He has been a nearly unmitigated disaster. Yeah. We get it. He claims personal credit for the dispatching of Osama bin Laden. That claim only goes so far. But he has NOTHING else to offer. He has been a clusterfuck and he is going to get pummeled by Mitt.

Now, hurry and put me "back" on ignore, the bastion of pussies like you. I frankly don't give a shit if you pay attention or not. Talking to a cock-smoker like you is very much like talking to a wall, anyway. You aren't even up to being honest about how much of a flop the incumbent has been in foreign policy. So, you don't matter at all in any genuine debate.