Presidential Debate

[E4 No More]

I have a bridge in Mexico I'd like to sell to you!

This is too much of an inane response to warrant a thoughtful retort, sorry.

[maroonandwhite]

I have a bridge in Mexico I'd like to sell to you!

How much? I may be interested. I have some savings built up from all the money I saved on insurance by switching to Obamacare.

:rofl:

[Erik88]

Stop spewing opinions without doing your homework.

How am I spewing opinions? You are defending Romney's signing of the AWB. If Obama had a signature under his belt you guys would be tearing him apart on it even if he promised to not sign another one.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Chucktshoes]

... and you should be able to tell jokes on the Leno show because I like you? You need more friends

If you are saying that the election is really no more than just entertainment for the masses without a real possibility of changing the downward direction of our country (a position that does bear consideration), then that analogy holds up. Otherwise, not so much.

If a candidate is on enough state ballots to numerically win the election, they should be included in the debates, period. This is about the governance of our nation, not a late night talk show.

On a personal note, you seem to be taking it awfully personally that a few of us think your guy is a total bag of dishonest #### whom cannot be trusted. Relax, it is just politics, we're ####ed either way. No sense getting too upset about it.

[mikegideon]

How am I spewing opinions? You are defending Romney's signing of the AWB. If Obama had a signature under his belt you guys would be tearing him apart on it even if he promised to not sign another one.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I'm a hypocrite? You might need move back to mommy's basement for awhile. I don't think you're ready for this adult thing yet . Seriously... read up. You'll understand some day.

[mikegideon]

If you are saying that the election is really no more than just entertainment for the masses without a real possibility of changing the downward direction of our country (a position that does bear consideration), then that analogy holds up. Otherwise, not so much.

If a candidate is on enough state ballots to numerically win the election, they should be included in the debates, period. This is about the governance of our nation, not a late night talk show.

On a personal note, you seem to be taking it awfully personally that a few of us think your guy is a total bag of dishonest #### whom cannot be trusted. Relax, it is just politics, we're ####ed either way. No sense getting too upset about it.

Nothing personal. I take the health of the US personally, and am very aware of the definition of better. I do think helping Obama get reelected is bordering on treason. That's just me though.

[Chucktshoes]

Nothing personal. I take the health of the US personally, and am very aware of the definition of better. I do think helping Obama get reelected is bordering on treason. That's just me though.

We've been over this a bunch of times before, it is no longer enough for me to vote against someone. I have to be voting FOR a candidate. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Romney. There is a better candidate on the ballot and he will receive my vote. I reject as false your assertion that any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama.

[mcurrier]

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Even if they don't show in the polls? Perot got 19% of the vote in his first run. He was a REAL candidate.

Their not being showed in the polls, because the special interests (Republicans and Democrats) don't want you to know you have more than 2 choices in the Presidential race. The media is bought and paid for by those 2 gangs.

[mikegideon]

We've been over this a bunch of times before, it is no longer enough for me to vote against someone. I have to be voting FOR a candidate. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Romney. There is a better candidate on the ballot and he will receive my vote. I reject as false your assertion that any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama.

I know we have, and it's cool. We can argue about Glocks for awhile if you want

And BTW... it can't be true or false at this point because it's only speculation (based on some history). We'll have to see the final numbers from the election. At that point, it will be true or false with very little room for opinion.

Edited October 17, 2012 by mikegideon

[DaveTN]

Beside the Republicans and Democrats you have the following parties with candidates:

AMERICA'S PARTY / AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY:

AMERICAN THIRD POSITION PARTY:

CONSTITUTION PARTY:

GREEN PARTY:

JUSTICE PARTY:

LIBERTARIAN PARTY:

OBJECTIVIST PARTY:

PARTY OF SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION (PSL):

PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY:

PROHIBITION PARTY:

REFORM PARTY USA:

SOCIALIST PARTY USA (SP-USA) / LIBERTY UNION PARTY:

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (SWP):

and then you have 10 INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WITH BALLOT STATUS IN AT LEAST ONE STATE.

None of those third party candidates have a snowballs chance of getting elected. I don't want to waste time listening to the opinions of someone that can't get elected; I can do that here.

[mikegideon]

Beside the Republicans and Democrats you have the following parties with candidates:

AMERICA'S PARTY / AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY:

AMERICAN THIRD POSITION PARTY:

CONSTITUTION PARTY:

GREEN PARTY:

JUSTICE PARTY:

LIBERTARIAN PARTY:

OBJECTIVIST PARTY:

PARTY OF SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION (PSL):

PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY:

PROHIBITION PARTY:

REFORM PARTY USA:

SOCIALIST PARTY USA (SP-USA) / LIBERTY UNION PARTY:

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (SWP):

and then you have 10 INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WITH BALLOT STATUS IN AT LEAST ONE STATE.

None of those third party candidates have a snowballs chance of getting elected. I don't want to waste time listening to the opinions of someone that can't get elected; I can do that here.

And... you forgot Dickie Weed, who's better than all those clowns. He's tired of this sh#t!

[Jesse]

Thanks to DVR i can proudly say i havent seen a commerical or any of the debates!

[mav]

I couldn't force myself to watch it. I already know who I am voting for, so what was the point? I reasoned that it would be sort of foolish to watch this debate knowing that the only thing it will do is piss me off.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How am I spewing opinions? You are defending Romney's signing of the AWB. If Obama had a signature under his belt you guys would be tearing him apart on it even if he promised to not sign another one.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

No, actually Mike said to do your homework. I agree with him.

Obama wouldn't worry with a Republican Congress. He would just EO a gun ban because he has a four year

voter mandate and knowing he wouldn't get anything passed, he would do what he's already done. No budget

would make it, nor would any other liberal agenda point. Romney went on record last night when he said what

he said, and Congress would assure it, anyway.

[E4 No More]

No, actually Mike said to do your homework. I agree with him.

Obama wouldn't worry with a Republican Congress. He would just EO a gun ban because he has a four year

voter mandate and knowing he wouldn't get anything passed, he would do what he's already done. No budget

would make it, nor would any other liberal agenda point. Romney went on record last night when he said what

he said, and Congress would assure it, anyway.

To be fair, Obama is on record saying a lot of crap but hasn't been held to it.

[Chucktshoes]

Beside the Republicans and Democrats you have the following parties with candidates:

AMERICA'S PARTY / AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY:

AMERICAN THIRD POSITION PARTY:

CONSTITUTION PARTY:

GREEN PARTY:

JUSTICE PARTY:

LIBERTARIAN PARTY:

OBJECTIVIST PARTY:

PARTY OF SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION (PSL):

PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY:

PROHIBITION PARTY:

REFORM PARTY USA:

SOCIALIST PARTY USA (SP-USA) / LIBERTY UNION PARTY:

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (SWP):

and then you have 10 INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WITH BALLOT STATUS IN AT LEAST ONE STATE.

None of those third party candidates have a snowballs chance of getting elected. I don't want to waste time listening to the opinions of someone that can't get elected; I can do that here.

Of all the parties you mentioned, only 2 meet the criteria I mentioned of being on enough state ballots to be able to numerically win enough electoral votes to win the election. Those two parties are the Libertarian and Green parties.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

To be fair, Obama is on record saying a lot of crap but hasn't been held to it.

Yep, that's the catch with him. He's never been held to the same standard.

[mcurrier]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

:rofl:

[DaveS]

O just announced he will try to institute an assault weapons ban in place.

Dolomite

I need to make a move on my AR pretty quick!

Dave S

[Sam1]

In such a politically correct setting, with manufactured public perceptions about guns, that statement is huge. He has a spine.

I still think the best one of the night was him addressing immigration; Romney deserves a bronze star for coming out swinging that hard at it

[Sam1]

Really Mike? You are really going to defend Romney's signing of the AWB? I would love to know who these "pro-gun" people are that supported this. I don't know many on here who would.

Gun owner's action league supported it for the trade-offs they got.

Here's a fantastic interview Romney did a few weeks ago, he covers his non-support for any UN restrictions, allowing reciprocity laws for concealed carries across state lines, and a few other great points.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2930007/posts

[Sam1]

Triple post! Sorry this one was so good, it needed to be shared:

Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Crowley-interrupts-28-times-Romney

[Guest CCI]

Gun owner's action league supported it for the trade-offs they got.

Here's a fantastic interview Romney did a few weeks ago, he covers his non-support for any UN restrictions, allowing reciprocity laws for concealed carries across state lines, and a few other great points.

http://www.freerepub...s/2930007/posts

I copied this from the link you provided! Sorry, I do not konw how to copy it and post as a "quote" from the link!

In a court of law, this is called, "leading a witness"! "Cox is basically telling him what to say"!

Cox: One of the key areas where presidents can affect the Second Amendment rights of Americans is in the people they appoint to key positions. As president, will you appoint people who agree with your position that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right, particularly to the office of attorney general and other Cabinet level appointments, as well as positions that directly impact gun owners such as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Gov. Romney: That's a basic starting point, yes. If elected president, yes, I will nominate people who agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right and are prepared to implement them throughout government, from the Cabinet level on down.