Third Presidential Debate

[Flash]

lmao at your image, so stupid. good thing only morons like you believe that shit

 

Care to point out where he's wrong there?

[reno]

Care to point out where he's wrong there?

this. libs keep blaming it all on bush but the numbers dont lie. country was better off when obama was not elected.

[NomarFachix]

lol country was better off.

 

Bush had us in a plummet. That can't just be magically reversed, momentum has to be slowed before it can move in the other direction, obviously numbers were going to be gradually worsened in the first Obama year or two. Abre los ojos.

[Real Deal]

I'm still honestly trying to figure out why Republicans expected everything to be done in four years, yet...they are clapping for Romney when he says he has plans lasting 10 years (which is more than two terms), such as his two plans to create 12 million jobs (which is inaccurate) and cutting the deficit.

 

I mean, it's a serious question for me. Doesn't make sense.

[Lkr]

Care to point out where he's wrong there?

Not in 3 wars

The unemployment rate isn't that high

Blame your conservative congress for the credit rating

Gas prices were lower when Obama took office because no one had money. It is simple supply and demand

[Nitro]

http://theydontfoolme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/liberallogic101c.jpg

 

The gas arguement is so stupid. Gas was so low because the entire economy just crashed. Literally two months earlier gas was well over $4.00 here in NJ, which was by far the highest I've ever seen it.

[EastCoastNiner]

I'm still honestly trying to figure out why Republicans expected everything to be done in four years, yet...they are clapping for Romney when he says he has plans lasting 10 years (which is more than two terms), such as his two plans to create 12 million jobs (which is inaccurate) and cutting the deficit.

 

I mean, it's a serious question for me. Doesn't make sense.

 

Gee, I don't know, maybe because that's what OBAMA himself promised? Oh, so he lied then? Sounds about right.

 

Now, I'm honestly trying to figure out why liberals think this failure deserves a second term besides:

 

1. Oh, he's done fine (which he hasn't).

 

2. Oh, he'll finally get Republican help because they're the bad guys still! Bush is to blame for everything!

 

 

 

Also, LOL at lkr and his unemployment cluelessness. You're one of the libs that doesn't want to look at the true unemployment numbers.

 

This country is not in a better place now than when Obama took office. I'd love to actually hear an argument as to how we're in a better position now than when he took office.

 

 

 

I don't think Romney is perfect, but he is a far better candidate than Obama is.

Edited November 3, 2012 by EastCoastNiner

[EastCoastNiner]

 

 

Dem broken promises (don't agree with everything they said though)

 

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/11/02/why-was-there-no-october-surprise/

 

 

 

 

Now, as you can see below, there's no logical reason to vote for Obama unless you're like the woman in the video above.

 

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/presidentialaccountabilityscorecard.jpg

Edited November 4, 2012 by EastCoastNiner

[Real Deal]

I hope you're not trying to say that Romney's ability to run a state is going to be replicated when it comes to running an entire country, because that's typically what I've been hearing as his biggest argument to date (aside from Obama promised things would be better in four years).

 

I think the biggest mistakes being made are people wanting it all to change hands simply to get a man out of office. I truly think Republicans would elect a random city's mayor, as long as he was a Republican AND if it meant running Obama out of office, and this is me seriously speaking on the subject at hand.

 

What needs to be said is that Obama did not fulfill his promise to lower the national debt OR to significantly lower unemployment, but the steps he took should have. He is going in the right direction. There are just other factors (whether it's on him, on Congress, or even due to outside factors, such as the instability of the Middle East) that are manipulating all of it.

 

I'm not doing much of anything different than I did in 2005, when I started OTR...but because of many other things around us, this site is pretty inactive compared to where it was. There are new sites that appealed to others just by being new, by offering staff positions, or by spamming...and there's Twitter, tearing us apart. Some of our members, in the past, have made this place less enjoyable to post at. Maybe it was on me because I decided not to boot them, to give them second chances, but the source is established, regardless. Is it all on me though? Sure, because it's my site. Would a change in ownership make a difference? Probably not, unless they blew a ton of money that I don't have, affiliating with major news outlets and such...but then, we wouldn't be OTR.

 

It's ridiculous to compare a website to a country, of course, but that's not what I did. The idea is to show similarities in how much can be manipulated by the actions of others, intentional or not, and how things that may have seemed to be a quick resolution can be the complete opposite.

 

Talk is cheap. Here's the real question: what proof is there that Romney would have done anything from 2009-2012? If you consider what he's proposing, and the things he has proposed in the past...we would be in a world of hurt, and probably in WW3. Anything that suggests otherwise? I'm trying to imagine a four-year term with Romney that wouldn't land us in the next World War, especially if we gave him what Obama has had in these four years.

 

It shouldn't be about overthrowing the current, it should be about improving where we are at today. Ignoring Obama altogether, I don't see anything that makes me think Romney would make rational, consistent, and responsible decisions in the White House...not just as a leader of this country, but as a global leader, because it's no longer the 20th century, and instead of us looking down on all other countries, we have to hope they can look up to us for doing the right things.

[JYD]

Gee, I don't know, maybe because that's what OBAMA himself promised? Oh, so he lied then? Sounds about right.

 

Now, I'm honestly trying to figure out why liberals think this failure deserves a second term besides:

 

1. Oh, he's done fine (which he hasn't).

 

2. Oh, he'll finally get Republican help because they're the bad guys still! Bush is to blame for everything!

 

 

 

Also, LOL at lkr and his unemployment cluelessness. You're one of the libs that doesn't want to look at the true unemployment numbers.

 

This country is not in a better place now than when Obama took office. I'd love to actually hear an argument as to how we're in a better position now than when he took office.

 

 

 

I don't think Romney is perfect, but he is a far better candidate than Obama is.

When Obama took office in Jan. 2009:

U.S. was losing 800,000 jobs per month.

 

October 2012:

171,000 jobs added. Stock market has seen a 71% increase since he took office.

 

When it comes to creating jobs, I think we've already seen President Obama's policies work and are going to continue to work.

 

Romney's policies didn't seem to work in Massachusetts (even though he touts his record)...he's losing by 20% in the polls in his own state, and he was 47th out of 50 states in job creation.

 

Hmm...better on the economy? Advantage: Obama.

[EastCoastNiner]

When Obama took office in Jan. 2009:

U.S. was losing 800,000 jobs per month.

 

October 2012:

171,000 jobs added. Stock market has seen a 71% increase since he took office.

 

When it comes to creating jobs, I think we've already seen President Obama's policies work and are going to continue to work.

 

Romney's policies didn't seem to work in Massachusetts (even though he touts his record)...he's losing by 20% in the polls in his own state, and he was 47th out of 50 states in job creation.

 

Hmm...better on the economy? Advantage: Obama.

 

 

Unemployment is worse now than when Obama took office. Stop using the garbage numbers libtards like to use. USe the real unemployment numbers, and those are HORRIFIC.

 

Obama hasn't fulfilled his promise about unemployment numbers at all.

 

 

 

According to your logic, since more people becoming employed seems to be a trend and you praise him for that, then there's no reason to think that since the deficit has kept growing that it won't keep growing.

 

Just stop with the nonsense and false information that you keep using. Unemployment is WORSE now than when he took office. You don't want to see to account for those that left the job force.

 

 

 

The election needs to just happen already so we can get this over with already. However, libs have been voting illegally already, but that's no surprise. Registering as voters over the age of 100.

Edited November 4, 2012 by EastCoastNiner

[JYD]

Unemployment is worse now than when Obama took office. Stop using the garbage numbers libtards like to use. USe the real unemployment numbers, and those are HORRIFIC.

 

Obama hasn't fulfilled his promise about unemployment numbers at all.

Stopped reading here. When the numbers favor Obama, now they are skewed. But if Unemployment came out at a ridiculous rate this past month, you'd be touting his horrific policies. You are a [expletive]ing clown man.

 

I don't know how many times I have to show you basic job growth charts under this administration, but let me re-track and bring it back up. Stop disputing it as propaganda or something too. The numbers are the numbers. That's what every single outlet has reported.

 

 

How do you dispute this? I don't get it dude.

[EastCoastNiner]

Stopped reading here. When the numbers favor Obama, now they are skewed. But if Unemployment came out at a ridiculous rate this past month, you'd be touting his horrific policies. You are a [expletive]ing clown man.

 

I don't know how many times I have to show you basic job growth charts under this administration, but let me re-track and bring it back up. Stop disputing it as propaganda or something too. The numbers are the numbers. That's what every single outlet has reported.

 

 

How do you dispute this? I don't get it dude.

 

Are you this dense? I dispute it because there aren't the ACTUAL unemployment numbers. It's not accounting for those people who left the work force, but aren't registered as unemployed. I'm not sure what part of that you don't get. That's why that graph is completely useless.

 

 

Let me simplify this for you. Are there more or less people working now than four years ago when Obama took office?

 

 

 

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20221103been_down_so_long

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/real-unemployment-rate-146-percent-october

 

I could post many sources as these are the ACTUAL numbers, not the fudged numbers you liberals want to use.

Edited November 5, 2012 by EastCoastNiner

[JYD]

Are you this dense? I dispute it because there aren't the ACTUAL unemployment numbers. It's not accounting for those people who left the work force, but aren't registered as unemployed. I'm not sure what part of that you don't get. That's why that graph is completely useless.

 

 

Let me simplify this for you. Are there more or less people working now than four years ago when Obama took office?

 

 

 

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20221103been_down_so_long

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/real-unemployment-rate-146-percent-october

 

I could post many sources as these are the ACTUAL numbers, not the fudged numbers you liberals want to use.

Lol, but the unemployment numbers they use are always the same, right? Do they use your model when a Republican is President? Did we not add 5.4 million private sector jobs under President Obama or not? [expletive] outta here

[Lkr]

cnsnews is almost as good as christwire

[EastCoastNiner]

Lol, but the unemployment numbers they use are always the same, right? Do they use your model when a Republican is President? Did we not add 5.4 million private sector jobs under President Obama or not? [expletive] outta here

 

You're wrong, and that's a fact. The real unemployment numbers are terrible, and if you want I can find you many liberal sources that will have that information as well.

 

Please go.

 

 

This isn't a conservative spin on the numbers. These are actual facts. You don't have to spin anything to make Obama look poor and clueless. He does that plenty well on his own.

Edited November 5, 2012 by EastCoastNiner

[Lkr]

ecn, please go

[YugoRocketsFan]

lol libs

[Lkr]

Rick Scott ftw