dayman

lol...of course nobody cares...this debate is for fun...and w/ these two...I think it will be

So when he goes on Sunday shows and 60 minutes and says he isn't cutting taxes on the rich, he just means he isn't cutting the full 20% on the rich. And the 3% of small business effected (idk about this number but they appeared to have stipulated to this in the last debate) will decide to hire enough people they apparently need (even though they otherwise wouldn't hire them) to combine with "loopholes" to offset $4.8T (plus $2T military increase if it suits your fancy)? This is the what we're going with to fix that debt clock at the convention?

that should be a "finish your drink"

fixed

Being purposefully misleading about the policies you run on during the election is not a strategy Presidents use a whole lot in the past brother. It will be interesting to see what Ryan does though. B/c whether you love or hate him...that guy knows what he advocates and says it. Can he do so tonight following the last debate? If he is allowed to, Biden can highlight the last debate. If can't, he can't be himself and won't do well.

Can Biden curl like this? Thought not. Game over old man

That's a clarification? And supply side GOPers expect this to spur growth how?

No b/c the truth (regardless of the propaganda some on the right like to spew) is that Obama, and Romney if he were elected, would like to try and work this way. It won't happen. B/c the problem isn't the President. The problem is the parties. So anytime someone says that b/c Mitt was Governor of Mass so he somehow can fix partisanship in Washington...they sound (respectfully speaking) like a huge idiot.

Let me ask you, and I'm not here to claim Mitt is some demon-like man ready to transform the country into the hunger games. Is Washington a game of parties? What part of GOP push does Mitt repudiate and what makes you think it/when has he shown that. Then, how is Mitt somehow uniquely equipped to install a bipartisan cooperative culture in Washington? I'm not using this against him, b/c no 1 person can. Sadly, not even the President with the power of the bully pulpit. But you aren't going to sit down with those "across the aisle" and say "I want to cut taxes 20%, continue to increase military spending like always, cut PBS and planned parenthood, repeal Obamacare and replace with "something" that doesn't address people who can't get coverage b/c of preexisting injuries, and on and on"...and then say "I was Governor of Mass...so I'm bartisan so lets do it."

• If Ryan uses his mother as an example to pitch Romney's Medicare plan, take a drink. • Every time Biden inappropriately uses the word "literally," take a sip. • If the war in Afghanistan, now entering its 12th year, is mentioned, take a drink. • On Medicare, if either candidate mentions the figure $716 billion, chug two drinks. • If either candidate alludes to the historic age gap between them, which places Joe Biden in the Senate when Paul Ryan was only 2, take two drinks. ...ok...we're doing it...Biden is going to "literally" kill us tonight

How about when it comes to his tax cuts. There was a pretty damn big nevermind there, supply side nuts on the right must be wondering what the !@#$ he's talking about. And btw on these "social issues" he's still not saying never mind...he saying never mind on tv then releasing "never mind the never mind" pressers...same w/ preexisting injuries etc... Someone chalked it all up earlier to Obama having positions last time that he didn't deliver on (like every elected official ever), this is not that. This is not being straight up about the positions you take in the first place. It's transparent. I know it's just a talking point to you guys that Mitt is somehow doing this, but it's right there...for all to see.

How about this, you tell me what policies you think Mitt stands for and for the purposes of this discussion we'll use those, and then I'll tell why it doesn't matter that he was Governor of Mass (which should be self explanatory).

Of all people Tom I can't believe you buy this pitch. Anybody who knows anything about Washington, and listens to Mitt's agenda....knows that "being Governor of a Liberal State like Mass" means precisely nothing.

I would expect him to govern more far-right than you give him credit for. I don't know what makes you think he wouldn't be a hawk given his advisers and rhetoric and military budget. And when that GOP congress sends him the stuff he was made to talk about in the primary, he's going to sign it. As for his tax plan, he's going to cut on top of Bush-cuts...it's his number 1 promise. Perhaps he cuts less than 20% if it will blow up the budget....but he isn't interested in revenue/balanced approach. And it's going to be tough to govern in a bi-partisan way like that....this ain't Mass State Legislature Mitt....this is the **** show in all it's glory.

I'm glad this guy speaks on behalf of the economy.

Honestly isn't 12M the number projected for either candidate based on trajectory expected (particularly from 2014-2016 when we supposedly are more likely to break through)

You don't think it will eventually hurt him when he's doing things like this stupid abortion thing. Or when he tell 70 million people preexisting injuries are covered under his plan in a debate about Obamacare. Just generally being uncomfortable to be straight up about his own positions?

The Romney strategy seems to be to say whatever he thinks people want to hear in debates and interviews, then have campaign release pressers the next day explaining that it isn't the case.

I would go with: "I don't like Obama, and I want my 7000 employees to know their jobs may be at risk if he's reelected."

"Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan" - Mitt Romney to 70 million people

Are you John McCain? It's blasphemy to not be interested in everything that goes in the middle east being 'our responsibility' b/c of Iran?

Hehe, well they won't be nailed w/ a liberal search bias. It is funny how worst president comes up with basically the last 5 presidents minus Clinton (and also H. Bush doesn't show up much).

So to summarize: "Iran" Still not sold...the American people should not buy this load of **** from our leaders anymore. If they start gassing a bunch of civilians or something...maybe I'll buy it under the "humanitarian BS"....but jump all around the middle east to curb Iranian influence? Not interested...

type "completely wrong" in a google images search and tell me what you results you get

A Syrian Civil war is our responsibility? Putting aside Obama or Romney...just as America...this is our "responsibility?" If Turkey is mad that the **** show is spilling over...then fine. It's about time the regional neighbors take a more active role if they feel they need to do so. But us? I still don't get how everything is our "responsibility." Is it b/c we are the "one indispensable nation?" So we need to arm someone every time a civil war breaks out? Make no fly zones in every dispute? I mean...I just don't get it. I'm not a total isolationist but c'mon...