Printable View
Some headlines
Turkey's parliament authorises military operations against Syria
Turkish military fires into Syria for second day after five civilians are killed by shelling in border town
Turkey strikes back at Syria, approves further military action
Turkey retaliates after deadly shelling from Syria
Turkey shells Syria: Will NATO be drawn into conflict?
Syria and Turkey: how long can the world's great powers sit on their hands?
NATO demands halt to Syria aggression against Turkey
This is the Turkish military and the Turkish government. 5 Turkish civlians were killed yesterday by Syrian mortars. Russia, the UN, Nato, etc are all involved. This isn't ordinary.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]This is the Turkish military and the Turkish government. 5 Turkish civlians were killed yesterday by Syrian mortars. Russia, the UN, Nato, etc are all involved. This isn't ordinary.[/QUOTE]
Rebels have strategically captured border checkpoints trying to pressure Assad, that's why Syria has attacked Turkey which along with the Jet Fighter incident forced Turkey to act. Now is this just Turkey trying to intimidate Syria and show the Turkish people that they have done something against Syria's attacks or is it Turkey trying to get NATO involved and do away with Assad? Syria is Iran's last line of defense and subsequently Russia/China's front against the West.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Romney did what he should've been doing all along. From the Charlotte Observer editorial:
Quote:
This wasn't the 47 percent guy, stumbling from one gaffe into another. It wasn't the candidate who made independents uneasy by giving himself up to the extremes of his party. The Mitt Romney that debated Wednesday night was the nominee moderates in each party hoped for long ago. He won the debate in a rout.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think was the Romney we've seen all along. As in the 47% tape, he was telling the audience what it wanted to hear. Did he really think everyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is an Obama voter? Obama would be up by like 10-15 nationwide if that was true. On the tape that came out, he was quite a smooth talker who said was his audience wanted to hear and didn't let his facts get in the way.
That's what he did last night as well.
He claimed he has a lengthy plan to replace Obamacare. His plan is one page long.
He claimed that preexisting conditions will be covered under his plan. (Only if you have continuous coverage).
He claimed that kids could be on their parents health plan until age 26 because that's already the law. Yeah, the law that Obama fought for and the one you want to repeal.
He claimed he won't cut taxes on the rich. Well he has said he would cut tax rates across the board by 20% and eliminate the estate taxes. Sounds like the rich would do very well.
He claimed his tax plan would not cost 5 trillion dollars. However, the non partisan experts who have looked at his plan, say this will be the cost over the next decade.
He says he can make this up by eliminating loopholes and deductions (and that he won't raise taxes on the middle class). When the nonpartisan experts say: A. There's not enough loopholes and deductions paid only by the rich to make up for the $500 billion in tax cuts per year his plan.
B. To make up those cuts, you would have to go after deductions and credits used by the middle class.
He claims his plan is revenue neutral, however he's never actually given us the details of what his plan is. His plan is basically Trust Me, it will work out.
Romney's gaffes tend to come out when he is unsure of what to say to his audience. He was very well prepared and on message in this debate.
[QUOTE=TheMan]I know he ain't British, they don't use "mate" that much, that's the Aussies, I'm just playing along with his lame gimmick.[/QUOTE]
yup. that gimmick uses mate more times in one post then i have heard in all the times i've been to london
On the Obama side.
He said insurance premiums grew at the slowest rate in 50 years. Not true. Overall healthcare spending has grown slowly, not premiums.
He said he had a $4 trillion dollar deficit reduction plan for the next 10 years. Some $2 trillion of this is already agreed to and in place.
Edit: Obama also talked about using the savings from winding down the wars and implied we could use that money elsewhere. The wars were never paid for. We were borrowing that money. So you still would need to cut the department of defense budget significantly.
I don't see the use for debates really anymore.
I remember Bush sounding like a bumbling idiot and he won twice.
And from what I saw last night it was the same speeches and topics the candidates have been say over and over.
I don't understand how people would be undecided.
The two candidates have clear differences.
I do not think they are undecided I think they are just tuning in?
Both covered topics their campaign has already beaten into our minds through ads but Romney seemed more comfortable. I don't know if the fact that Romney handled the debate somewhat better than Obama will swing any votes his way because policy wise they seem very different.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Romney did what he should've been doing all along. From the Charlotte Observer editorial:
Is it going to make a difference with the electoral college? Probably not.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Obama is still under 50% in the vote, for an incumbent, that's risky territory. I get the feeling that there's a bunch of former Obama voters who aren't too enthused after the past 4 years and right now they are looking for a reason to give Romney a chance or they'll simply stay at home come Election day. Most of the post-debate focus groups showed a major leaning towards Romney after coming in neutral or even favoring Obama, don't underestimate the ability of the American people to fall for emotion-driven rubbish, its how Obama got elected in the first place after all.
This race is very much up for grabs and what Romney did last night, the single most important thing he accomplished was that he basically overturned 4+ months and 100+ million dollars worth of advertising that tried painting him a certain way. He brought his own campaign back and earned himself a new chance, with over a month to go, this will tighten up even further as Romney will probably gain a point or two in the polls as a result.
The worst thing Obama did last night was to look passive. I'm sure there was some sort of strategy to play the nice guy role and let Romney come off as too aggressive and a bully that would turn off independent voters, especially women, but instead, Romney came out looking decisive and strong and Obama came out looking petulant and weak, neither being a good trait for someone in a leadership position.
On the real, both of these guys are full of it and told all sorts of tall tales, but a major part of the debate is presentation and presence and in that, Romney won hands down.
romney's load of bullshit was better than obama's, but it was still bullshit. :lol
[QUOTE=DCL]romney's load of bullshit was better than obama's, but it was still bullshit. :lol[/QUOTE]
LOL good way to put it.
But f*ck Romney I will vote on the lesser of two evils.
[QUOTE=DCL]romney's load of bullshit was better than obama's, but it was still bullshit. :lol[/QUOTE]
Well yeah. It's not so much about what you say but how you say it. Only political nerds will go run off and factcheck everything, the average person will watch, when its over they'll change the channel and turn on Jersey Shore but the emotional impression they got from the debate will stick with them. 99% of what is said is usually BS but its all about appearances, seeming competent and confident.
The CU model which has been accurately predicting electoral winners since 1980 has Romney winning big right now after new economic data was input.
[url]http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_21698333/cu-boulder-profs-updated-forecast-still-gives-win[/url]
[QUOTE] With the presidential election a little more than a month away, political science professors from the University of Colorado have updated their election forecast with more current economic conditions and are standing by their prediction that Mitt Romney will win.
The professors -- Kenneth Bickers of CU's Boulder campus and Michael Berry of CU's Denver campus -- project that Romney will earn 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes.
President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes, which is down five from the initial prediction that the professors announced on Aug. 22. [/QUOTE]
Al Gore's blaming Obama's performance on the altitude.
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?hpt=hp_t2[/url]
[QUOTE=daily]Al Gore's blaming Obama's performance on the altitude.
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?hpt=hp_t2[/url][/QUOTE]
:roll:
That's good spin right there. Let's hope getting one's ass kicked is covered under obamacare.
[QUOTE=PejaNowitzki]The CU model which has been accurately predicting electoral winners since 1980 has Romney winning big right now after new economic data was input.
[url]http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_21698333/cu-boulder-profs-updated-forecast-still-gives-win[/url][/QUOTE.
It's over for Obama. :bowdown::bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
[QUOTE=PejaNowitzki]The CU model which has been accurately predicting electoral winners since 1980 has Romney winning big right now after new economic data was input.
[url]http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_21698333/cu-boulder-profs-updated-forecast-still-gives-win[/url][/QUOTE]
lol
[IMG]http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/galleries/2012/10/04/romney-would-cut-pbs-funding-7-unemployed-big-bird-memes-photos/_jcr_content/gallery/297b10e0-7809-40ab-a84f-73cdfc833171/image.img.472.315.jpg/1349326230863.cached.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=TheMan]lol[/QUOTE]
You can't accept reality. :lol
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jebDlVAcpGo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jebDlVAcpGo[/URL]
Obama tells supporters in Denver that the real Mitt Romney was not present at last nights debate.
[QUOTE=TheMan][IMG]http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/galleries/2012/10/04/romney-would-cut-pbs-funding-7-unemployed-big-bird-memes-photos/_jcr_content/gallery/297b10e0-7809-40ab-a84f-73cdfc833171/image.img.472.315.jpg/1349326230863.cached.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Lime"]Repped.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Actually, I think was the Romney we've seen all along. As in the 47% tape, he was telling the audience what it wanted to hear. Did he really think everyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is an Obama voter? Obama would be up by like 10-15 nationwide if that was true. On the tape that came out, he was quite a smooth talker who said was his audience wanted to hear and didn't let his facts get in the way.
That's what he did last night as well.
He claimed he has a lengthy plan to replace Obamacare. His plan is one page long.
He claimed that preexisting conditions will be covered under his plan. (Only if you have continuous coverage).
He claimed that kids could be on their parents health plan until age 26 because that's already the law. Yeah, the law that Obama fought for and the one you want to repeal.
He claimed he won't cut taxes on the rich. Well he has said he would cut tax rates across the board by 20% and eliminate the estate taxes. Sounds like the rich would do very well.
He claimed his tax plan would not cost 5 trillion dollars. However, the non partisan experts who have looked at his plan, say this will be the cost over the next decade.
He says he can make this up by eliminating loopholes and deductions (and that he won't raise taxes on the middle class). When the nonpartisan experts say: A. There's not enough loopholes and deductions paid only by the rich to make up for the $500 billion in tax cuts per year his plan.
B. To make up those cuts, you would have to go after deductions and credits used by the middle class.
He claims his plan is revenue neutral, however he's never actually given us the details of what his plan is. His plan is basically Trust Me, it will work out.
Romney's gaffes tend to come out when he is unsure of what to say to his audience. He was very well prepared and on message in this debate.[/QUOTE]
Romney also said there are no incentives for sending jobs overseas. That's a lie
The biggest problem was the moderator. He allowed Romney to dictate the tempo and get the last word on every topic. He was terrible.
i think obama could stand there completely stone cold silent during the debates and still win this election. shitty mitty has no chance
but im voting for gary johnson or jill stein
if anything mitt romney said last night was true, he should probably be running as a democrat.
he called for more regulation on industry
he changed his position on rich people and taxes
he wants to get rid of obamacare and in the same sentence talks about how his identical romneycare plan was the greatest thing ever for massachusetts.
there is this hilarious cognitive dissonance that occurs when hardcore right wing middle americans support a guy like mitt romney. look at this guy, he is a slick ny businessman who harvests companies in middle america to enrich himself, he flip flops on literally every issue possible, he basically created obamacare, and on top of that he dodged the draft because he is in a cult. he also pays a lower tax rate than you pay, but you work in tire shop in oklahoma city. the right wing rush limbaugh and evangelical christian crowd has to pull off some serious mental gymnastics to get behind romney.
I like how Romney changed his stance on nearly every one of his opinions and the average person believes he won because he was "aggressive".
:coleman:
[QUOTE=Nanners]
there is this hilarious cognitive dissonance that occurs when hardcore right wing middle americans support a guy like mitt romney. look at this guy, he is a slick ny businessman who harvests companies in middle america to enrich himself, he flip flops on literally every issue possible, he basically created obamacare, and on top of that he dodged the draft because he is in a cult. he also pays a lower tax rate than you pay, but you work in tire shop in oklahoma city. the right wing rush limbaugh and evangelical christian crowd has to pull off some serious mental gymnastics to get behind romney.[/QUOTE]
Yeah those suckers have been roped into havin principles, aye mate?
You work in a tire shop, he works in a office, you both should keep what you earn, rather than let the government waste it. What a bunch of bollocks! Taxes are lower on investment returns because those require risk. Important risk to innovation and economic growth. Evil bastards! Mate, the bloke in the tire shop can invest too. If he dont, it aint nobody elses fault. He could go to night school and learn investment strategies. Some folks do, and they improve themselves. Others spend it on a new truck, a pack of marb reds each day, season tickets to the local ball team. Thats also his prerogative. Thats called bein free, mate.
Fa ggots like tou who expect everyone to be able to make different choices, but then demand the same results and play the victim card when it dont happen, are NOT the kind of men America was built by. You belong in a male bathouse givin AIDS to Freddy Mercury mate. Youre just a neurotic hand wringin pansy. Thats all that is, mate. Plain and simple.
Give your mum a call mate and cry to her on the phone about mean ol Mitt who wont take care of you.
Fa ggot.
Cheers mate :cheers:
lmao at getting negged twice for what i said this thread. one of them was signed kevinnyc but i dont really think it was him
[QUOTE=Nanners]lmao at getting negged twice for what i said this thread. one of them was signed kevinnyc but i dont really think it was him[/QUOTE]
I sign my negs [B]insidehoops (Jeff)[/B]