OCinBuffalo

Romney should have said "route to the Mediterranean sea" Can't wait for the morons to talk about this...because they don't understand why the Med is '= "the sea" in general.

As clear as you were about Libya, there, Mr. "Youtube did it"?

"Excuse me" Romney = President. Obama = not.

yeah....bob...Romney is killing Obama...so "let's give the President a chance" So transparently pathetic. Obama just walked into a real problem: Now there are Al Queda training camps in western Iraq...because you left...moron. Opinions? How about facts moron?

Well, too bad for you...because it is now as I said it would be above: Romney just ran down the entire list of FAIL. And, he just took away the Bin Laden thing by congratulating Obama for it. These are not tag lines, these are real outcomes directly tied to real failed policies and approaches....or did you forget about bowing to the Saudi King? Russia is selling weapons right now to Syria, and a ton of other places. That's not a talking point: that's a long term reality and a set of conditions that Obama's policy has created.

I think that the people who meet these radicals in the WH may or may not be who you think they are, and they can neither confirm or deny that as well. No, I seriously believe that there are advisers and undersecretary types who are career people whose job it is to meet with these people and run the tactics and operations. However, as you have said, the strategy is set at the cabinet level, if not by the President himself. Or, he just listens and goes along with whatever these guys think. I can't know any of it. I do know that what I have said above is accurate. No different than I know this guy downstairs has tools. I have serious doubts as to whether either he or Obama is capable of using their tools properly. However, I know that the tools work.

Are you trying to wrap yourself in a "Libya is the only example of where Obama foreign policy has failed" cloak, even before the debate? How has the Russian Reset button worked out? Has anybody in the EU taken Obama seriously, when he tells them they have to stop spending money? Did we lead in the Arab Spring, or, was that the British? How good of a leader are you, when you are being out-lead by France? You can cry all you want to about the Rs making Libya political, but, in fact, you did that with "youtube did it" long before. And, if the Libya is the only thing discussed tonight in terms of foreign policy failure...that's lucky. EDIT: Do you think Obama will be able to find a way to talk about abortion or contraception in this debate? Do you think he won't try?

Or, what if Bill Clinton had been advised to go after Bin Laden by Susan Rice, the same "it was a video" lady, rather than her telling him there was some law enforcement nonsense hangups? Since when do we arrest people who declare war on us? But, that was Susan "youtube did it" Rice's advice. What if Clinton had been a little "less peaceful", and captured Bin Laden, when the Sudanese were offering him up? He didn't even have to kill him. We could have picked him up at the airport. Just slightly less costly of a decision. Yes, nothing like being "more peaceful", exactly like Chamberlain, letting bad get out of hand, and then leaving the problem for the next guy.

Every government installation that has something to do with national security is an intelligence operation, at least on some level. Most are more involved with counter-intelligence. Counter-intelligence is the other advantage of bringing these people in: creating an illusion for them to take home and operate under. If I know that Mustafa Bin "Says he's clean, but I know he's dirty and is going to go home and report everything" is in the US, why not bring him in and fill his head with lies? Or, even better, with half-truths that his masters will believe are lies? Counter-intelligence is just as important as intelligence, and in many cases more important, because, if you can tell the right lies well, you can not only see if they are working, based on how the enemy behaves, but, if they are really good, you can actually control that behavior.

We live in a world where the NOW women had nothing to say, about honest to God sexual harassment in the workplace, regarding Clinton? That's right, the "women's" groups did nothing, said nothing, and went out of their way to continue to support Clinton? And, you want Romney to play it straight? Blow it out your ass. Where are your "moral" arguments? Romney is simply playing the game by the rules you've created. He's playing it better than you, and now you are crying about it. Nobody feels sorry for you getting outplayed here, and certainly not independent voters(segue coming up)....who Juror #8 neglected to mention in his OP. It's amazing, truly amazing, that Romney leading Obama by an average of 10 pts with INDs, when they have been the decisive factor for every election in my lifetime...is not a story. How is this not THE story? It was THE story in 2008. There were literally 1000s of articles, when Obama carried them by 8pts. Now, they don't matter? Where is this mass delusion, that Obama is going to turn out enough D voters to not only beat the clearly energized R turnout, but also overcome the I turnout, coming from? Or, where is the hard news that shows exactly how this is going to happen? Juror #8 has 8-10 points of insider info, yet not a single one about independents? I like the inside stuff, but, WTF? These are professional political operatives....who have nothing to say about the independent vote? Isn't that a little strange?

The great Democratic party was sunk the minute it abandoned the white, working class males who made it great. They think they are going to win by treating latinos the same way they have treated blacks, and relying on college professors, lawyers, young voters and nuts. All unified by an incongruent set of special interests? Idiocy. Hysterically, they don't seem to realize that they are going to create massive infighting in their new party, and that WILL cause huge sets of these people to refuse to vote. They don't realize that they are creating weakness all over the place. They got by in 2008 due to a charismatic leader, and serious mistakes from the other side. The Republicans will probably make more mistakes, but, how many more Obama's do they have? But, I don't want them to listen to me. Let them fail. We might actually get things like saving social security done, while they are busy trying to sell abortion to Latinos. This may, I stress may, be one example of the right getting the opposite of what it intends. I am with you: I simply don't trust Trump's political instincts. He was leading in the polls, but, killed his candidacy with this brither stuff. Who's to say why he is doing this? Is it because he has some non-birther stuff that he really thinks it will help, or, is it because he wants to fix his credibility, and he thinks even more birther stuff will finally do that? I am hoping it isn't the 2nd one. In fact I am hoping that whatever he has doesn't make people feel sorry for Obama.

The anti-voter ID people have a serious problems with the "moral high ground", and with "law and order". There's nothing immoral about making sure people don't cheat, especially when we have an entire thread full of examples of people being caught cheating. We need to KNOW that the game is not rigged, and that our laws do in fact produce order. Their argument also requires us to believe that we don't live in our time, and that we live in 1965, just like all their arguments. It requires that somehow we can't do simple tasks like put people in a DB, ensure the integrity of that process, and make sure that it isn't hacked. For all of these reasons, the anti-voter ID people will FAIL, no different than they failed to get Card-Check passed. A bad argument will die, it's just a matter of time. The only thing that can keep it going? Well-told lies, the charisma of the people telling those lies, and...how much money they have to pay lawyers. Now, does anybody want to bet me that, in 2 years or so after voter ID is accepted practice...they demand that the voter ID DBs be taken away from the states, because "the Feds can do a better job, cheaper" and/or the FEC be expanded to now be in charge of running all of those DBs(and hiring even more people we can never fire)? I'll even give you 3 to 1 odds.

But....dude...do you actually believe that a Romney WH will have less of these people? The whole point of having these people come in, is to see what they are thinking and why. I don't begrudge the Obama administration the chance to listen to what the problems are, and see what can be done about them....or, to in fact find out which of these people is drone bait. "Listening to the competition" is important. These radicals are the competition: do you want to wear silly hats, or, whatever you want? Do you want all women to be in binders, or, to let them run free and start shows like Oprah?(Tough one there ) In all seriousness, listening to what they say, is the best way to expose them. Using their own words against them is the best way to impugn their values. Look at what Romney has done to Obama, and, look at what DC_Tom does to Duck_In_Norfolk.

If we went popular vote, because "it's more fair"....then the morons(guess who) who supported that would get, once again(like they always do), the opposite of what they intended. If it happened, then instead of having 11 or 12 battlegrounds that got all the attention, we'd have 3 states first, CA, TX, NY that got most of it, because all of these are political hubs, in addition to having the most votes. Then, a second tier that got far less attention in FL, IL, and PA. Maybe 2 more, depending on the year. Everybody else would get practically ignored, because, if each candidate could drive up/hold their numbers in each big pop. state, then that goes a much further in determining the outcome. For example, in 2008, Obama won CA by 24 pts. This time, he's leading by 14. That's considered a win for Romney. Now, imagine if Romney was there all the time...pointing out that the Obama EPA has taken away the CA farmer's water? Over and over, hitting that "government overreach" point, would drive down Obama's support even more. But, at some point, you hit a wall, where the best you can do is perhaps Obama +8. This is where you hope to be on election day. You assume that all the smaller states will vote for you, and that you've gotten a huge lead in TX, so you never set foot in them. Meanwhile, Obama does just the opposite, and the winner is determined by 8-9 big states, while the rest of the country is ignored, because a 3 pt swing in CA, has a bigger effect than a cumulative 3 pt shift in 10 little states. So, the far left ends up getting it's values challenged, and its failures examined, on a massive scale, over and over, because the "the war" is going to be largely fought in their backyard: in NY, CA, IL, and PA. No matter what, they will lose support if they are constantly being assaulted by ads/spots, etc. Meanwhile, the right only has to defend TX, and FL retains its swing state status. This is the exact opposite of what the left wants, but they will argue to get rid of the EC...because they are idiots.

That's the problem: I'm not convinced that we can't. But, if you won't even try....

Objectively? No way in Hell Fitz cost us the game today. When today is over, his #s will be better than average. He threw for 2 TDs and let how many scoring drives in a row? Yeah, he got hit and the ball died on him at the end...but the D cost us this game.

Crap. Crapity Crap.

Not goofiness McLuvin...at least let our O have a chance.

Yes...gannon acting like that was a "decision" is moronic. OTOH, Fitz could have just eaten the ball and taken the sack.

Come on one play D one play is all we need

See....this is the thing about this team. You have no idea what is going to happen. And, if you are overly critical about something, or overly praising something, that is the something that will burn you almost immediately.

NOOOOOOO!

Yes, the "leave the TE open for 3 qtrs, and get killed on it, to sucker them into trying it one time in the 4th" strategy"

Hence the "could" Did I mention we covered a TE? Now, just imagine if we could do that just one more time?

We finally covered a TE! Only time all game!