User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5662 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Professor Obama stayed home and Community Organizer Obama showed up.
I don't know if that plays better or not, but I think Obama is clearly having a much better night than last time out.
That's funny because my girlfriend, who is a professor, said that she can tell Obama used to teach because unlike Romney he is addressing the whole crowd.
Yes. This debate is much more even than the last.
It does keep the candidates somewhat on topic. They can't ignore an audience member like they can a moderator.
Who did? I'm watching on PBS to feel superior and they didn't have one.
I don't think I'd argue... I'm not saying the audience is full of plants (Christ, Michelle Malkin would start hiding in the bushes outside people's houses) -- but the questions do seem to be much more up Obama's alley than Romney's... and some of them are framed in ways that aren't friendly to Romney.
Still - it's a blue state, even if it's in a purplish area - so maybe this is just the crowd of 'undecideds' you get from a blue state.
Well, Romney needed a win given where he is in the polls. So even if it's a draw I think you'll see the GOP complain given a draw is all Obama needs.
Yep. The first debate was a big win for Romney, but he was way down to start. If this one is a "draw" the math still favors Obama.
How so? The polls are showing a dead heat.
You know Obama is killing it when this is the first time you hear from JoeK.
?????
I don't know why people even bother... America loves its guns... The GOP is bought and paid for by the NRA and the Democrats are scared shitless to say boo on gun control.
So, fine -- I will cede the issue and solution to the right on this... Just give me some answer that doesn't have me feeling like the answer is either for me or for half the people around me to walking around like we've just wandered into Deadwood, because 'get a gun' just isn't something I have any interest in as a solution.
You know how many people got killed by guns in that TV show? Not a lot.
I did. All I got is stuff about the Revolutionary War general and some rock-paper-scissor game.
Last I saw Romney was behind in Ohio. He needs Ohio to win. That assumes he wins Florida and Virginia. That said, talking about polling is pretty boring, so I'll just read whatever you have to say in response and rethink my position in light of whatever facts you have and not actually respond.
That's true, I just think he doesn't need a "win" tonight to take Ohio. There are 3 weeks left, and another debate.
This format is always a tough one for Republicans.
I still have zero desire to own a gun.
I'm honestly not certain I could shoot someone even in self-defense...
This format is talking to people about the things they care about. So that's not a good sign.
This format is talking to people about the things they care about. So that's not a good sign.
The format is talking to a very specific subset of people who ask a certain type of questions.
The issue is that the debaters can't pin each other down, so you can make glib assertions, which Obama is very good at. Romney is not as glib, nor was McCain. Reagan would slaughter Obama; but that's true of any format.
I thought Obama stared Romney down on Libya... I'm not sure if Mitt just flubbed it or Obama did a pretty nice job dusting him back, but I think that was my favorite exchange.
That doesn't refute what I said.
I thought Obama stared Romney down on Libya... I'm not sure if Mitt just flubbed it or Obama did a pretty nice job dusting him back, but I think that was my favorite exchange.
The President is the President and it's pretty hard for a candidate to not come off looking bad if he tries to get too feisty on a subject like this.
The question went to Romney first, he should have just addressed it.
No, but you tend to get a lot of questions that aren't the critical issues of the campaign. I mean, assault weapons bans?
My father - who lives in a gated retirement community in Arkansas surrounded by old widows - has six handguns that he keeps loaded in his nightstand, for "protection". And woe be to anyone (re: me) who suggests that that might be a little insane to think someone would need 6 handguns to protect himself from an 80-year-old blue hair bearing a homemade apple pie.
If Romney won relatively unexciting 27-10 game in debate one that just had one team out listless, I think this one was more fireworks, 35-31 Obama. Both guys just aired it out all game and Obama got a few better spots by the refs, which may have been the difference, may not have been.
I don't think I'll ever fire a gun in my life, but I do like to imagine that if I needed to, I could. (Emotionally, I mean; I would kind of need to take a class first, though.)
The town hall format is great for SNL, because they can always rely on "Wacky person asks zany question" instead of wringing humor out of the actual candidates. It's how they get out of writing a monologue a lot of the time.
Just because you or I don't find something to be a critical issue doesn't mean it isn't to someone else.
Didn't Zonk call Debate #1 for Obama? Admitting even a small Romney win is a big admission for him.
I won't even talk gun control with my dad... there was one memorable argument where it got so heated I asked "That thing's locked up and unloaded, right?" -- and I was probably only kidding 90%.
Like I said, I give up. It really bothers a couple friends of mine who lost a parent and grandmother to a handgun... Wasn't a criminal, wasn't even a deranged guy... bought the gun legal, simply 'snapped' because of a dispute that wasn't even personal -- just wrong professional place, wrong situation; then following, laid in wait, and assassinated them. I have no answers for them.
I know the poll that stated this makes the right squirm in their seats like they are watching really good porn, but it's just an oversell on an admitted Obama loss.
Obama 37, Romney 30, tie 33
I've fired a gun... I've even hunted... I have uncles that are honestly serious gun nuts -- I've fired all sorts of exotic weapons. Supposedly, they were 'legal' -- some automatic pins or something removed (don't ask me how hard it is to undo something like that).
In fact, when I was in Jr High -- we actually had a mandatory 'course', presented by the NRA, on gun safety. I will say, for the most part (there was a lot of stuff better relegated to history and/or civics class), it was mostly solid and perfectly good stuff.
Maybe that's one thing I'd ask the NRA crowd... Can we require everyone to take such a course -- it was probably a good 5 hours total -- before buying a gun? Hell, so long as the course is publicly approved, I'd even let the NRA design it.
Honestly, growing up in a rural area -- I get the importance some people place on guns, I really do... and honestly, I don't even know that if it were even possible, I'd sign on to repealing the 2nd amendment (I accept that the courts have spoken) -- but the whole idea that some of these things are so readily available and accessible to people who basically need nothing more than lacking a criminal record just scares me.
I was thinking the same thing. I thought it was a shame that Obama didn't bring it up as some sort of masked tax cut for the wealthy.
At least he's not trying to sell it like "Most everyone has an IRA or 401k, so most everyone has capital gains and thus will benefit."
Who won on the economy?
Romney 65, Obama 34
Thing is, though -- they actually had pre- and post-debate numbers on the same sample and BEFORE the debate, Romney was winning on the economy 71-27.
In other words, a sample that went in believing Romney better on the economy by 71-27 prior to the debate shifted to 65-34 AFTER the debate.
The other good development is that one by one those GOP state voter suppression schemes are being either thrown out by the courts or put off until next year for a decision.
That's gonna leave a mark.
How so? Preferring Romney's position on the economy isn't the same thing as saying Romney won in a debate on the economy. It's apples and oranges.
Meanwhile, Frank Luntz's focus group in Nevada saw Romney as the winner. One of the ladies looks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
My wife and I both saw this a classic debate where most peoples' view of who won is which guy they liked more before the debate. Which is a HUGE improvement for Obama over the first one, but isn't likely to move the dial much in either direction.
Obama 46, Romney 39
Not looking like a game-changer.
The Luntz focus group is back on. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is mad as hell at Obama. Ha ha.
I thought the exchange where Obama said to check the transcript and the Moderator corrected Romney on Libya was a huge win for Obama. It really dramatized Romney's core deceptions.
Amazing. Amazing.
***
Kevin Drum has this concept called the "Hack Gap." I think it really applies here.
I'd also like to point out this gem from snapper:
Notice the "Forcible" modifier there. Classy.
I did notice, glad you said something. I meant to and didn't. Thanks for the debate talk (since I didn't watch - I get my debate news here and tomorrow morning reading my RSS feed.
And one final point on diversity, as great as I think it is, diversity training universally sucks. It is HR at its worst and is a miserable waste of time and sanity. That is all.
Or just more objective. Romney did fine; Obama got, at best, a tie - he may have needed more given how badly he did in the first debate.
An incumbent President running for re-election needs to do 3 things: (1) defend his record; (2) provide a vision for his second term; and (3) paint his opponent as an unacceptable alternative. The Obama campaign has had trouble with # 1 & 2, and have relied almost entirely on #3. It may not be enough, since Romney is looking reasonably Presidential in these encounters. Trash talk isn't going to win the election.
Except that Candy Crowley just admitted she was wrong and Romney was right.
I haven't loudly declared it anything; I've simply posted a couple of the poll results, as I did for the last two.
I actually saw Obama as a very slight winner, mainly because — with Candy Crowley's help — he got away with a huge lie re: Benghazi. Romney beat him up a few times before and after, but Libya was a missed opportunity.
***
Well, I don't see tonight as a game-changer in the sense that I still see Romney as the slight favorite.
Huh. This is actually true. She'll probably never be allowed to moderate another debate.
Full transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
Also in that speech:
Come on now.
Obama went to the United Nations and mentioned the YouTube video six times.
The criticism itself is idiotic. How could he be expected to know one way or the other so early on? (Rose Garden speech was what? 24 hours later?) But Crowley can't insert herself and correct Romney in a way that's unsupported by the facts. It's up to Obama to make the counters. It's not the moderators job.
Romney said it took him two weeks to refer to it as an act of terror. Check the transcript. Mr. Romney was incorrect, and he was called on it.
edit:
What? he refers to it as an outrageous and shocking attack, senseless violence, a terrible act, and in a clear rhetorical move, addresses it along with other terrorist attacks.
He clearly refers to it as an act of terror. Which, by the way, is the exact phrase Romney used. Romney said that it took Obama two weeks to refer to it as an act of terror. He did so the next day. The moderator is right to point out clearly untrue statements.
Nonsense. If Obama thought it was terrorism, why did it take him until the tenth paragraph of a 13-paragraph speech to use the word "terror," and why did he use the word only once and in such a non-specific way?
Even tonight, he referred to the attack as a "crime."
He never called what happened in Benghazi an act of terror. He simply states that 'acts of terror won't shake the resolve,' which is not the same thing. I just don't see it the way you are seeing it, especially in light of Obama's words and actions in the ensuing weeks.
Mind you, I don't think it's an especially relevant critique. I'm not sure I'd want the President jumping to the conclusion so quickly, without sufficient evidence, that the attack was an act of terror. But Crowley was off base in correcting Romney in the manner she did.
Textual criticism by numbers! I must have missed that class in comparative literature. Another way to put "13 paragraph" is 800 words, because that's what it actually was.
Graph 1: Sometimes Americans abroad face great danger.
Graph 2: Four Americans died, including an Ambassador.
Graph 3: The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack
Graph 4: Nod to respect of all religions. Pivot to: But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Graph 5: Libyans are our allies.
Graph 6: Biography on Ambassador.
Graph 7: Context for what he was working for.
Graph 8: 9/11 sure sucked.
Graph 9: Appeal to sacrifice.
Graph 10: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation
Graph 11: America! F-Yeah
Graph 12: Closing
Graph 13: Boilerplate
Obama condemns the attacks in the strongest terms in graph 3. He refers back to the attacks in similar strong language the next graph, explicitly referring to it along with 9/11 in Graph 10. He actually ties the embassy attack to 9/11 rhetorically.
Condemning it in the "strongest terms" would have been calling it a terrorist attack, rather than a "shocking attack" or "senseless violence."
"Shocking attacks" and "senseless violence" are what occur every day in Obama's old Chicago neighborhoods. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and it should have been explicitly labeled as such in the first sentence.
This was a presidential speech in the Rose Garden written by professional speechwriters, not some 7th grader who mistakenly buried the lede. If Obama wanted to specifically label Benghazi a terrorist attack, he would have done so in the first sentence.
Yeah, having the moderator admit she was wrong and Romney was right is really going to hurt Romney.
It does Obama absolutely no good for people to be talking about Libya tomorrow. If that's what happens, tonight was little more than a Pyrrhic victory.
This is the dumbest Gotcha. And to be clear, I mean both Romney's "You didn't call it a terrorist attack soon enough!" and Obama's "Did too!" Who cares? What possible difference does it make whether he said the magic words? Don't either of these guys have something substantial to talk about?
Romney botched it. Crowley too.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main