[birdman]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

Dude, seriously, you just ignore people don't you?

Already provided to you: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

I won't accept Rolling Stone magazine as a source any more so than you would accept Town Hall magazine.

Also, you aren't answering my question, you are just posting links.

[Ferrari333SP]

Let's stop the religion talk and just watch/listen to this:

[Ferrari333SP]

Originally Posted by birdman

I won't accept Rolling Stone magazine as a source any more so than you would accept Town Hall magazine.

Also, you aren't answering my question, you are just posting links.

So what's in that article is factually inaccurate?

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Ferrari333SP

So what's in that article is factually inaccurate?

I didn't read it.

[dretti]

Originally Posted by David87

Just print out the facts on the lie on the tax plan and hand it out to everyone

Might just go make about 10,000 copies and drop them literally everywhere.

Although it might not even matter...since people around here are stating it was a Romney "ass-whooping" based off of his body language, speaking louder, and offensive consistency with interruptions. Politics is apparently only a hair away from a national sport now.

[Ferrari333SP]

Originally Posted by birdman

I didn't read it.

Why not give it a shot, then see what you think?

[birdman]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Which posts gave you that impression?

Not one post in particular. Just all of the calling Romney out on his lies (totally fair) and ignoring Obama's own lies.

It's why having an honest discussion about politics is impossible on this board. I feel like this board, me included, treat politics like a college football or something.

The fact is, Romney said a bunch of stuff without giving absolutely crucial specifics, this is why he is going to lose the election. Obama, on the other hand, tensed up because he isn't used to being challenged (McCain certainly didn't). I'll give Romney points for pointing out some of the reasons Obama is terrible at his job, but I won't give him the win because he failed to convince why he would be better.

They both did a really poor job at talking to the American people.

But Lehrer takes the cake as the failure of the evening.

[dretti]

Originally Posted by birdman

I won't accept Rolling Stone magazine as a source any more so than you would accept Town Hall magazine.

Also, you aren't answering my question, you are just posting links.

Matt Taibbi is actually legit, but I can offer you a story in the Boston Globe or perhaps the New York Times? Both are filled with examples

[birdman]

Originally Posted by dretti

Matt Taibbi is actually legit, but I can offer you a story in the Boston Globe or perhaps the New York Times? Both are filled with examples

I'll take the Boston Globe for 200 and get back to you.

[georgedcc]

I like you Jason and I'm glad you're posting in this forum again, but you do seem to get really pissed off, really easily.

[dretti]

Originally Posted by birdman

Not one post in particular. Just all of the calling Romney out on his lies (totally fair) and ignoring Obama's own lies.

It's why having an honest discussion about politics is impossible on this board. I feel like this board, me included, treat politics like a college football or something.

The fact is, Romney said a bunch of stuff without giving absolutely crucial specifics, this is why he is going to lose the election. Obama, on the other hand, tensed up because he isn't used to being challenged (McCain certainly didn't). I'll give Romney points for pointing out some of the reasons Obama is terrible at his job, but I won't give him the win because he failed to convince why he would be better.

They both did a really poor job at talking to the American people.

But Lehrer takes the cake as the failure of the evening.

I pretty much agree with you on all of this. Especially the last two lines. I thought the debate format fell apart from the get-go, and was largely pretty uninteresting. Besides Romney acting like he had a completely different platform than what his actually is, it was pretty much stump speech (known counterpoint)-followed by-stump speech (known counterpoint). I agreed with what a lot of the pundits were saying last night and today that Romney won the debate because he acted "as an equal" to President Obama. Not necessarily better than in any way, but he at least could "walk the walk, and talk the talk," which I think surprised everyone. Lies were to be expected, but this was a different Romney last night than the normal "Robot Mitt," this Mitt was energized and didn't act like a businessman, but a politician.

[David87]

Matt Taibi is a very legit journalist who shouldn't just be discounted because "oh it's in Rolling Stone"....like, really?

[David87]

Also....I'd really just like a panel of people from the Tax Policy Center or from factcheck and politifact to just be sitting there at a table in the room, doing real time fact checks, and after these candidates stop talking, have the moderator turn to the fact checking panel and say "well, gentlemen?"...and proceed to watch our politicians be exposed for the liars they are live on national television.

[kyle is hk]

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by georgedcc

I like you Jason and I'm glad you're posting in this forum again, but you do seem to get really pissed off, really easily.

My default state is what you see as "pissed off." It's just normal old me. Sitting around drinking a coke and eating Cheez-Its. Nothing changes. Me actually pissed off is a whole different ball-game.