Both WTHR and WRTV both just reported Romney's "mistake" on the Libya discussion. No reporting of Candy's retraction. No showing of Obama's rose garden statement.
Did you really think there would be.
Both WTHR and WRTV both just reported Romney's "mistake" on the Libya discussion. No reporting of Candy's retraction. No showing of Obama's rose garden statement.
WTH debate were you watching???
I truly feel sorry for you, if your ability to discern between these two men, is actually that clouded.
They are the SAME? Get serious man!
Fact, I guess is less open to interpretation. Fair enough. Regardless, why does one side exagerate the "shortcoming" of the other when the "facts" are enough to stand on their own? It's a rhetorical question. It would be refreshing to see in one of these post debate analyses that the commentator had nothing to correct.
Well, my 32" analog tv is still intact, mainly because the wife took me out for dinner last night and we went to the bedroom to read our books immediately we had gotten home.
From the conservative commentators I've been listening to, IMO, Romney did okay considering the debate was what I thought it would be: a 2-against-1 against him.
As for "facts" during a debate: C'mon. Without notes, NO candidate is going to have all the "facts" at his disposal; what they do have are carefully crafted talking points laden with their versions of the issues. They memorize those stats and items that they expect to have to react to, or to emphasize the points they want to make.
Unless a candidate outright lies - the Benghazi Consulate attack reaction springs to mind - the "facts" are always going to be subject to spin and interpretation based on the biases of the commentators, so I don't really see any point in getting exercised about them.
Of course, I had made up my mind who I was NOT going to vote for in early 2009, so these debates are simply an exercise in frustration and a temptation to take high blood pressure meds for me. Not interested.
I guess it was determined who initially started the applause when the moderator wrongfully backed up Obama in front of all those undecided voters...I thought the audience was supposed to refrain from noise...? Guess they aren't so "undecided" after all...
Hmmm. That's a shocker.
She's too busy clapping.I think they're getting Michelle to moderate.
It would look really bad if Michelle didn't support Barry even if she thought he was wrong or doing a bad job. It is part of her job to wear fancy dresses and support him. We've seen other presidents look like complete fools (from both parties) with loving wives that supported them.
It saddens me that people take sound bytes, and fail to listen to the whole message. We have dealt with this "two sides of the same coin" nonsense for the past 50 years. Only when people start paying attention to words and actions of our elected officials, rather than the "R" or "D" following their names will we finally be able to get this thing in check. Until then, we may as well pick our candidates blindfolded.
The gent who asked the question - "Who turned down the request for additional security in Libya" never did get an answer did he? Obama danced around it and then Candy bailed him out..
I don't think you understand.
The rules of attendance stated "No noise". No applause, no booing, no outbursts of any sort.
The fact that the "FIRST LADY" started it is reprehensible...and says a lot.
I understand the rules. I also understand that rules in other areas were bent a bit. They should have the debate audience separated from the debaters so people can act a fool if they want. Have their questions and reactions fed via video or put them in a sound proof room with a mic feed and speakers. Turn the mic on for questions. They should also just the cut mics when one of the debaters goes over their time limit and keep it cut off when it isn't their turn to speak. The noise from the audience was less of a distraction for me then the constant talking over each other.
Both WTHR and WRTV both just reported Romney's "mistake" on the Libya discussion. No reporting of Candy's retraction. No showing of Obama's rose garden statement.
Did you really think there would be.
Again, pointing out room for action here. Local stations can only stay alive if they are supported with $. Don't support them and they'll straighten up or GTFO.
And as far as I can tell, from your own posts, you are just another self-decorated keyboard intellectual..... who wants to automatically 'categorize' people that you know NOTHING about.
Don't pretend to know how involved I am in politics, or to know what I listen to, read or know. And don't sit behind your keyboard veil and put an (R) behind my name..... based on YOUR lack of knowledge.
FYI, if I had been old enough to vote back then, I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy (had he not been murdered). And I DID vote for Ron Reagan, but certainly not for a "straight Republican ticket", then or since.
I am voting for Mitt Romney.... because of the man he is and because of the leader he is, and will be. Not because he is a Republican.
So please, take your infantile generalizations, and kindly stuff them in the ballot box.... like you will on Nov 6 (if you have enough balls to even vote).
I know, I know. But that's where we have to make a choice. Support your self-interest while supporting a station biased to the enemy? Or not?But my favorite show is on that channel.
I know, I know. But that's where we have to make a choice. Support your self-interest while supporting a station biased to the enemy? Or not?
If you wish to strengthen you stance, how about you address the points I made in my rebuttal posts, explaining "why" and "how" they are different rather than trying to pad your zinger count.
The post, I made was in reference to voters, taken generally, who are traditionally poorly educated as to the policies and stances of their preferred candiates. If you can refute that statement, I would be sincerely impressed.