Debate #2

[Saltheart]

The moderation was absolutely horrible. Horrible!

Obama did show up this time but the whole subject matter just seemed like a rehash of the last time. Except for the very brief spat over Lybia (where the moderator showed she was firmly there to support Obama) you could have just watched a rerun of the last debate.

I hate how when one of the questioners asks a specific question both guys just dance around it instead of giving an answere.

Anyway , no real blood spilled IMO but what a lack of Presidencial Dignity on the part of both candidates. Its too bad there are no statesmen left for us to vote for. Its in the gutter politics now and it makes us look like fools all around the world.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

The cow knew the truth when she helped Obama with Libya
I shut it off after that
She didn't just eff up she chose to perpetuate the lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I cannot recall the last time I saw a debate moderator take it upon herself to come to the rescue of one candidate. It was ridiculous.

[Saltheart]

One thing I forgot. I really hate this percent business. Obama keeps saying Romney only paid 14% while lower income people paid more in taxes. Well this percent bull is a classic sales tool. Fact is , romney paid more dollars (forget percent) that Obama's total income. You don't pay taxes with percent certificates. You have to write a check in dollars.

So ask the question....who paid the most dollars in taxes last year and Romney certainly paid more thanb Obama and likely more than anyone else in that whole room last night.

The Dems never mention percent when talking 44% for small business top brackets. Add to that 11% state taxes in RI and about 10% Social security taxes and they want a small business guy to fork over 65% of the last marginal income he makes. Where's the percent talk when they are porking people? Why only to jab at a guy who paid more tax dollars than 99% of individuals in the USA?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I cannot recall the last time I saw a debate moderator take it upon herself to come to the rescue of one candidate. It was ridiculous.

And after she shuts off Romney twice and Obama says "show him the transcript " she waves it in the air !!!
A sure wtf moment......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Obama was quick to shut down Romney when it came about Obama's investments.....he acts like he is not a millionaire

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

And after she shuts off Romney twice and Obama says "show him the transcript " she waves it in the air !!!
A sure wtf moment......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I saw that. I can't help but wonder why, as a moderator, she had that transcript handy. I can only think of 1 reason, and that is that she wanted to use it to help her preferred candidate.

I also love when Obama says he "created 5 million jobs", which conveniently ignores the 5 million jobs he lost during his first 18 months. Unemployment was 7.8% in January 2009, and it is 7.8% today. In total (and that's the only fair way to measure it), he has had zero net job gains. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

I mean, if I lose $5 million at the casino on Monday, and win $5 million at the casino on Tuesday, would Obama claim that I'm $5 million richer? Because that's what he is saing about his "job creation".

It's such a blatant lie, and no one calls him in it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Obama was quick to shut down Romney when it came about Obama's investments.....he acts like he is not a millionaire

He's a millionaire several times over. But much like the Hollywood crowd, it's OK to be in the top 1% if you are liberal. Or an actor. But if you struck it rich on Wall Street, or as a small business owner, well then you must have left a path of devastation in your wake during your selfish rise to the top.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I also love when Obama says he "created 5 million jobs", which conveniently ignores the 5 million jobs he lost during his first 18 months. Unemployment was 7.8% in January 2009, and it is 7.8% today. In total (and that's the only fair way to measure it), he has had zero net job gains. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

It's a critical metric when you take over at the very tip of a massive purging of jobs. Without the job creation the unemployment rate would be in the teens...

Nobody can turn the economy around overnight and considering the depth of the recession even in a few years...can't be done in a global economy.

Today, unemployment is backing down, personal savings is up, the housing market is starting to recover and corporate profits are looking pretty good. I've read that the improving housing market could drive better than expected performance overall in 2013.

Romney is promising his policy will create 12 million new jobs, except they're already projecting 12 million new jobs under the current trajectory set by Obama's policies.

I hate to break it to you, but it's working.

-spence

[Raven]

i've been looking for someone thats presidential


and i'm still looking

[wader-dad]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

One thing I forgot. I really hate this percent business. Obama keeps saying Romney only paid 14% while lower income people paid more in taxes. Well this percent bull is a classic sales tool. Fact is , Romney paid more dollars (forget percent) that Obama's total income. You don't pay taxes with percent certificates. You have to write a check in dollars.

I am sorry to disagree. If I get a dollar in interest on my lousy money market account that is paying next to nothing and pay federal tax of 30 cents, I am not happy if the CEO of WC Bradley is paying 15 cents on each dollar of dividends he gets from the 5,000,000 shares he got when he exercised his stock options that he paid for with the sales proceeds of a portion of the option shares. So percents matter to me.

If I have a house in Westerly that is taxed at 11 cents per thousand of assessed value, I will be very unhappy if they decide that the CEO with a mansion in Watch Hill is taxed at 3 cents per thousand- even if that guy pays a lot more in real estate taxes on his $8,000,000 cottage than me.

I am also not happy that last year Exxon paid 2% of its 73 billion in profits to the USA. 2% is 1.46 billion which is a lot- but 2% is not a good percentage. Exxon paid more than 10 times that in taxes to foreign countries. How is that possible?

The whole tax system absolutely sucks. We need a flat tax on everyone.

I agree with you guys on lots of items but as you can see, I am not a fan of fortune 500 companies. I think that they sit on hordes of billions in cash, realize that hiring humans will not help them meet their earnings targets, but laying off 1,000's of workers, merging, outsourcing to Pah-Ke-Stan and installing robots will help meet earnings targets, The CEO's get stock options and tax breaks you and I don't see. If the stock price falls below the option exercise price, they reissue the options at a lower price. The stock price is their God and they treat hard working people like crap.

But like women, I suppose you can't live with them but you can't live without them.

[Jackbass]

I would absolutely agree with a flat tax. No BS how much did you earn x a percentage period eliminate all the back door hoopla.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by wader-dad

I agree with you guys on lots of items but as you can see, I am not a fan of fortune 500 companies. I think that they sit on hordes of billions in cash, realize that hiring humans will not help them meet their earnings targets, but laying off 1,000's of workers, merging, outsourcing to Pah-Ke-Stan and installing robots will help meet earnings targets, The CEO's get stock options and tax breaks you and I don't see. If the stock price falls below the option exercise price, they reissue the options at a lower price. The stock price is their God and they treat hard working people like crap.

That's why the elite get to play by a different set of rules.

Not all corporations are evil and some corporate officers I believe are good stewards of their employees, but ultimately, shareholder value is the reason they exist.

You make some good points above. I'd simplify it by saying that the true value of a dollar is a lot less for the elite than the average working joe.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a critical metric when you take over at the very tip of a massive purging of jobs. Without the job creation the unemployment rate would be in the teens...

Nobody can turn the economy around overnight and considering the depth of the recession even in a few years...can't be done in a global economy.

Today, unemployment is backing down, personal savings is up, the housing market is starting to recover and corporate profits are looking pretty good. I've read that the improving housing market could drive better than expected performance overall in 2013.

Romney is promising his policy will create 12 million new jobs, except they're already projecting 12 million new jobs under the current trajectory set by Obama's policies.

I hate to break it to you, but it's working.

-spence

"Nobody can turn the economy around overnight "

True. But not everyone is incompetent enough to add $5 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and all we have to show for it is a net gain of zero jobs and lower wages.

"I hate to break it to you, but it's working."

Zero job growth, lower wages, higher health costs, higher gas prices, anemic GDP growth...and $5 trillion deeper in the hole.

If that's 'working' to you, you are entitled to that opinion. But we can do better.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True. But not everyone is incompetent enough to add $5 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and all we have to show for it is a net gain of zero jobs and lower wages.

It has nothing to do with incompetence and everything to do with larger trends.

Obama inherited a trillion + defecit and given the reduced tax revenues, war expenditures and pre-planned spending there's little a McCain president could have done to avoid adding similar debt. Sure, there's the gamble that stimulus spending was unecessary but I'm willing to wager it helped keep us slipping into a worse situation.

Zero job growth, lower wages, higher health costs, higher gas prices, anemic GDP growth...and $5 trillion deeper in the hole.

If that's 'working' to you, you are entitled to that opinion. But we can do better.

So you agree that nobody could turn things around overnight but the fact that things are getting better still isn't good enough, it's not fast enough for you. We could always sprinkle some magic dust on the US economy...that would fix the EU and China as well...right?

The problem right now isn't Obama, it's a political system that can't agree on even the most basic steps forward. Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around but either party would be well served to compramise with whomever is elected.

We know how the GOP responded to Obama's win.

-spence

[scottw]

you need some new talking points

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney


hey, looks like some of the 47% are smartening up

apparently no candidate at 50% in a Gallup poll in mid October had ever lost...things ARE getting better Spence!

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by scottw

you need some new talking points

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney


hey, looks like some of the 47% are smartening up

apparently no candidate at 50% in a Gallup poll in mid October had ever lost...things ARE getting better Spence!

I don't know,
Read on FB a little while ago, Bigfish Larry is going to vote for the 1st time in his life.
He's voting for Barack Hussein Obama

[BigFish]

Yup! I am Ronnie!! Its called a choice.......I make em'......I stand behind them.....and I live with them! I can also respect that you have a choice, I would hope I get the same respect and I certainly would not belittle you for it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It has nothing to do with incompetence and everything to do with larger trends.

Obama inherited a trillion + defecit and given the reduced tax revenues, war expenditures and pre-planned spending there's little a McCain president could have done to avoid adding similar debt. Sure, there's the gamble that stimulus spending was unecessary but I'm willing to wager it helped keep us slipping into a worse situation.

It has everything to do with a central government acting like a giant corporation with top-down directives on how the underlings will conduct the business. It has everthing to do with the "directors" of this giant corporation irresponsibly gambling with the earnings of the underlings and assuming unpayable debts that are transferred to some of the underlings who must sacrifice more and more of their earnings not only to pay down the unpayable debt, but to allow the "directors" to irresponsibly gamble more and accrue more debt. It has everything to do with the "directors" pitting enough of the underlings, who are allowed to pay less or nothing toward the gambling and debt accruing, against the underlings who must pay more, thus keeping enough "happy" with the gambling and debt as they are brainwashed into believing that they benefit from the gambling and unpayable debt and will have to pay less or nothing to sustain the unsustainable.

And as for those who believe that all will be, somehow, better if the "directors" would just act "responsibly," they willingly, or ignorantly, miss the point that the irresponsibility does not lie in the gambling or debt accruing, which the "directors" believe is necessary and proper and totally responsible to achieve the goals of government benevolence according to the dictates of the "directors," but the irresponsibility is in doing that which the Constitution never intended for them to do. The irresponsibility can only be corrected by the dismantling of this illegal giant government corporation, and by returning the power and responsibility of creating an "economy" to the people, in whom the Constitution originally vested such responsibility.


So you agree that nobody could turn things around overnight but the fact that things are getting better still isn't good enough, it's not fast enough for you. We could always sprinkle some magic dust on the US economy...that would fix the EU and China as well...right?

Sprinkling fairy dust, as you so often do, over the actions of our central administrative and unelected bureaucracy, in whom you have a magically unwarrented trust, will merely continue the "irresponsible" spending.

The problem right now isn't Obama, it's a political system that can't agree on even the most basic steps forward. Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around but either party would be well served to compramise with whomever is elected.

The problem is a political system that is run by a constitutionally unintended fourth branch of the federal government--the nearly 400 regulatory agencies that are responsible for most of the new, annual, regulations that fill the 80,000 new pages of the Federal Register every year. No one person, not the President, not the congressmen, not the judges, not any of the bureaucrats, reads all 80,000 pages per year. None know the totality of what's in those pages. And we are bound, as underlings of this giant corporation, to obey those regulations and run our lives and businesses accordingly. And the new regulations keep coming, and more agencies are created. And the problem is a political system that has been transformed from a limited central government to an all-powerful one that can create these agencies, and can tax at will, and spend at will, and the only barrier left to defend us against that directorate, is the uncompromising bickering among the "directors." Heaven help us if they all finally agree on how to run our lives.

We know how the GOP responded to Obama's win.

-spence

Just as political parties have always responded.

[Clammer]

Ronnie ,

No problem ......... But don,t think age has anything to do with it .

I,ll argue anything EXCEPT polotics [SP] & religion both are no win battles .even if millions of people have been killed over the centuries over both ><><.

I believe each individual has their own right to their opinions & religious beliefs. .

So much so >I was married 36 years to a a wesome woman ........... we always voted .......one election nite we were talking & somehow it came out who each of us had voted for ..for some office ......... yep we each voted for the opposite person .

THE only Bitch I have is .......... you have allllllllll the right in the world to bitch about whatever & whoever you want in this country .................... BUT in you do BITCH & you don,t vote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IMO your worse than any of them & should shut the F uck up

[The Dad Fisherman]

My father, to this day, won't tell anybody who he is voting for....not even my mother.

Smart Man...

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by wader-dad

I am sorry to disagree. If I get a dollar in interest on my lousy money market account that is paying next to nothing and pay federal tax of 30 cents, I am not happy if the CEO of WC Bradley is paying 15 cents on each dollar of dividends he gets from the 5,000,000 shares he got when he exercised his stock options that he paid for with the sales proceeds of a portion of the option shares. So percents matter to me.

.

The CEO has to pay income tax on the stock options when exercised as INCOME. He then pays 15% on the capital gains - price change from when he he exercsied until when he sells.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It has nothing to do with incompetence and everything to do with larger trends.

Obama inherited a trillion + defecit and given the reduced tax revenues, war expenditures and pre-planned spending there's little a McCain president could have done to avoid adding similar debt. Sure, there's the gamble that stimulus spending was unecessary but I'm willing to wager it helped keep us slipping into a worse situation.




So you agree that nobody could turn things around overnight but the fact that things are getting better still isn't good enough, it's not fast enough for you. We could always sprinkle some magic dust on the US economy...that would fix the EU and China as well...right?

The problem right now isn't Obama, it's a political system that can't agree on even the most basic steps forward. Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around but either party would be well served to compramise with whomever is elected.

We know how the GOP responded to Obama's win.

-spence

"It has nothing to do with incompetence "

That's your opinion. In my opinion, 4 years is a lot of time, and $5 trillion is a lot to flush down the toilet, if all you have to show is zero jobs created and lower wages. A huge majority of business owners said the passage of Obamacare would hurt them, but Obama did it anyway. That's a big part of the 'larger trend' yuo describe, and that effect lies right at his feet.

Spence, there are states that are growing and adding jobs. They are overwhelmingly red states. Pure coincidence, I supose.

"Obama inherited a trillion + defecit "

(1) Inherited from whom? Obama and Biden were members of the US Senate, and they were in the party that controlled Congress from 2006-2010. In our country, the legislature controls the legislative agenda and the purse strings. So I'm not sure I give Obama a complete 'pass' on the mess he claims to have 'inherited'. He didn't walk in off the street. He was there. I'm not saying it's all his fault. But I'm saying he bears some responsibility for what happened.

(2) He promised to cut that deficit in half.

"there's little a McCain president could have done to avoid adding similar debt"

Wrong. McCain would not have passed Obamacare, and he wouldn't have implemented a stimulus that did nothing except delay public sector layoffs for one year.

"you agree that nobody could turn things around overnight "

Agree 100%. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could have mis-managed the crisis worse than Obama has.

"the fact that things are getting better "

It's not a fact that things are better. $5 trillion added to our debt. That means that every living American is now $16,667 deeper in debt than when he took office. That works out to $67,000 for a family of 4, and the interest is now accumulating. What does that family of 4 have to show for that $67,000 IOU Obama gave to the Chinese on their behalf? Zero jobs created, and wages that are $4300 lower than they were 4 years ago. Higher healthcare costs. Astronomically higher fuel prices. How you can claim that it's a 'fact' that things are better, I simply cannot fathom.

We're not bleeding jobs like we were, that is a fact. But at what cost? And what kinds of jobs are being created - part time jobs with no healthcare. Whoop-dee-doo.

"We could always sprinkle some magic dust on the US economy"

You think that's a fair assessment of what McCain would have done, or what Romney is proposing/

That's you in a nutshell, right there, that post. You bend over backwards to heap praise on Obama, and yuo dismiss those who disagree with him as proposing to 'sprinkle magic dust'. That's very dishinest, and it's what we have all come to expect from you. I;m happy to honestly debate the merits of what Obama has actually said and done. You cannot bring yourself to do that with my side, because you know you can't reject these ideas on their merits, so all you can do is dishonestly dismiss them.

I cannot fathom that you work in finance, I can only pray that your DNA isn't on anything that will ever impact my family.

[scottw]

you two would never make it very far as foxhole buddies...

.....I did say "foxhole"......

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you two would never make it very far as foxhole buddies...

.....I did say "foxhole"......

Gallup poll just released has Romney up 6. He is surging, really "peaking" at the right time. And the fact that the last debate, the last impression people will have, will be on foreign policy, could not work more to Romney's advantage. He has all weekend to prepare a narrative to use the Libya debacle to back Obama into a corner from which there is no escape. I cannot imagine that Obama's camp is looking forward to this debate.

The only tough question Obama got in teh debate (and it was a very tough question) wa steh gyu who asked "who rejected the diplomat's requet for more security, and why". Obama's answer? He spoke about how heroic the diplomats are...never even came close to answering teh question that was asked. And God knows Canbdy Crowley wasn't going to ask Obama to answerthe question that was asked. I guess sheet cake isn't brain food.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"It has nothing to do with incompetence "

That's your opinion. In my opinion, 4 years is a lot of time, and $5 trillion is a lot to flush down the toilet, if all you have to show is zero jobs created and lower wages. A huge majority of business owners said the passage of Obamacare would hurt them, but Obama did it anyway. That's a big part of the 'larger trend' yuo describe, and that effect lies right at his feet.

It may be argued that Obama is extremely competent in accomplishsing HIS goals, not yours. When you argue back and forth with Spence on what are "better" economic methods and solutions, you are playing in his sandbox (and, apparently, yours) in which the problem is merely competence within a system of government that allows bureaucrats to do what they do, rather than the original sand box that would not allow such shenanigans. When arguing about competence within the parameters of the status quo (the central government's right and responsibility to control and create the "economy"), you are accepting that status quo. And it is that status quo, that system, which allows the competence or incompetence, to be the argument of who will be "better" rather than whether the federal government even has that right and responsibility

Spence, there are states that are growing and adding jobs. They are overwhelmingly red states. Pure coincidence, I supose.

There will always be sectors that will do better or worse. That's the beauty of federalism--the States being the laboratories of social, political, and economic experiments. But only insofar as they are allowed to do so. The more centralized that government becomes, the less will be the diversity of those experiments, and the more static society, the "economy", and the relationship between the citizen and the government becomes. The overall "economy" if left to the control of a central government will be diverse and evolutionary in the most limited way--only at the hands of a unitary directorate, and only change course within those limited parameters when parties can convince the electorate that their director is more competent than the other party.

"Obama inherited a trillion + defecit "

(1) Inherited from whom? Obama and Biden were members of the US Senate, and they were in the party that controlled Congress from 2006-2010. In our country, the legislature controls the legislative agenda and the purse strings. So I'm not sure I give Obama a complete 'pass' on the mess he claims to have 'inherited'. He didn't walk in off the street. He was there. I'm not saying it's all his fault. But I'm saying he bears some responsibility for what happened.

(2) He promised to cut that deficit in half.

Yes, you're absolutely right (there are absolutes, Spence). Obama bears some responsibility for the inheritance he helped to create--as do all the other members of Congress, and other Presidents and judges. And, as well, We The People bear some of that responsiblity, not only for electing them, but allowing them to transform the Constitution into a system of government that makes us underlings instead of masters.

"there's little a McCain president could have done to avoid adding similar debt"

Wrong. McCain would not have passed Obamacare, and he wouldn't have implemented a stimulus that did nothing except delay public sector layoffs for one year.

McCain would have helped to maintain the present administrative system of government, perhaps with a smaller growth in deficits and national debt. But the system would have been maintained, perhaps advanced to another level, and would be there for future mischief by bigger spenders and controllers.

"you agree that nobody could turn things around overnight "

Agree 100%. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who could have mis-managed the crisis worse than Obama has.

Again, depending on what Obama's goals are for fundamentally transforming this country and its system of government, he may be considered to have managed very well.

"the fact that things are getting better "

It's not a fact that things are better. $5 trillion added to our debt. That means that every living American is now $16,667 deeper in debt than when he took office. That works out to $67,000 for a family of 4, and the interest is now accumulating. What does that family of 4 have to show for that $67,000 IOU Obama gave to the Chinese on their behalf? Zero jobs created, and wages that are $4300 lower than they were 4 years ago. Higher healthcare costs. Astronomically higher fuel prices. How you can claim that it's a 'fact' that things are better, I simply cannot fathom.

See, that's the progressive sandbox in which you are playing. Arguing about how much rather than should they even be able.

We're not bleeding jobs like we were, that is a fact. But at what cost? And what kinds of jobs are being created - part time jobs with no healthcare. Whoop-dee-doo.

When the blood has drained so much, there is not as much left to be drained. It would have been mathematically impossible to maintain the higher number of jobs lost, but the rate at which they are presently lost in comparison to how much "blood" is left, may be as high or higher. Again, is it the Federal Government's responsibility to create jobs?

"We could always sprinkle some magic dust on the US economy"

You think that's a fair assessment of what McCain would have done, or what Romney is proposing/

That's you in a nutshell, right there, that post. You bend over backwards to heap praise on Obama, and yuo dismiss those who disagree with him as proposing to 'sprinkle magic dust'. That's very dishinest, and it's what we have all come to expect from you. I;m happy to honestly debate the merits of what Obama has actually said and done. You cannot bring yourself to do that with my side, because you know you can't reject these ideas on their merits, so all you can do is dishonestly dismiss them.

I cannot fathom that you work in finance, I can only pray that your DNA isn't on anything that will ever impact my family.

Finance, the "economy," jobs, health care, etc. are very important issues. The question (and answer) is whether the Federal government should be responsible for those things.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by BigFish

Yup! I am Ronnie!! Its called a choice.......I make em'......I stand behind them.....and I live with them! I can also respect that you have a choice, I would hope I get the same respect and I certainly would not belittle you for it.

first Honey Boo Boo...then Big Fish Larry....oh...noooooo!!!

[RIJIMMY]

congrats Larry, I am glad you are voting.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Gallup poll just released has Romney up 6.

now "7" (insert Joe Castiglione screech) and leading in the Electoral College....WOW...Honey Boo Boo switched to Romney explaining the unlikely surge...


whatever happened to Mitt blowing it and all the trends and data pointing to a Barry Cakewalk?


McCain was gaining some ground at this point in 08'

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

now "7" (insert Joe Castiglione screech) and leading in the Electoral College....WOW...Honey Boo Boo switched to Romney explaining the unlikely surge...


whatever happened to Mitt blowing it and all the trends and data pointing to a Barry Cakewalk?


McCain was gaining some ground at this point in 08'

Yes, it i snow a 7-point lead, and significantly, that poll starts to reflect the impact of the second debate. Perhaps Obama's improved performance did not stop the bleeding.

And the fact that the last debate, the one that will stick in people's minds, is foreign policy, can only help us. Romney will spend the weekend preparing to disembowel Obama over how ineptly he handled the ebmassy attack. That timing just could not work out better for Romney.

McCain lost the election when Lehman Brothers went belly-up. Once that was blamed on Republicans (no one has ever explained why Republicans did more than Democrats to cause the subprime mortgage crisis), McCain had no chance.

I can not believe Romney is doing as well as he is. Obama has cheeleaders moderating debates, and he is still very vulnerable. I never thought we'd have this good a chance with the media so in love with Obama. This "binder" nonsense just might be the stupidest, and most dishonest, thing I have ever heard.

[BigFish]

Yeah....binders full of womens names!!! That struck me as weak!!!