Presidential Debate Tonight

[Bill Mattocks]

The next problem is fact checking the fact checkers...on Factcheck.org...

I've looked for sourcewatch and if it is the same one I am looking at, it too is left leaning. Of course there could be another one I haven't found yet.

The president of sourcewatch.org appears to be Richard Kimball, a democrat who ran against John McCain...doesn't help the credibility but there are a lot of people working here so it might be okay...

I don't think FreeRepublic is entitled to decide what is and is not biased. Ha!

But I have been reading factcheck.org for a long time now, and I do not believe they are biased. They skewer both sides pretty evenly, and when people object to their skewering, they post those complaints, and I read them; most are factless diatribes, nothing of any value. I also note that the Left doesn't like factcheck.org either; they're pretty well convinced that it's Right-leaning. If they are ticking off both sides, that's what I like to see.

http://factcheck.org/about/

Unlike most of the ranting lunatics over at Freerepublic and similar websites, factcheck.org cites their sources. They report on their donors. They make it easy for a person to do their own research if they find they distrust the conclusions that factcheck itself has come to. I like that. Others seem not to like actual facts so much as they like being told what to believe.

What I see happen most times, is someone posts some idiotic statement they read on Freerepublic about "OBAMA HAS SIGNED 900 EXECUTIVE ORDERS!" So I got to factcheck.org, find out it is not true, and debunk it here. The person who posted the crap information then either says something brilliant like 'Nuh-uh!" or they change the subject, often saying something like "Well, he may not have signed 900 of them, but he sure signed a LOT OF THEM!" Which is standard ultra-right wing garbage that I've noted before; saying outrageous things that they know to be untrue when they say them, but it lets them then change the subject to some pet ******** issue they want to hammer on. Facts are irrelevant to them; what matters is party loyalty.

Speaking of those 900 Executive Orders, let's have a peek, shall we?

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

Q: Has President Barack Obama signed 900 executive orders, some of which create martial law?

A: No. Obama’s executive orders do not create martial law. And so far he has signed 139 executive orders — not 900.

But if you read further, you will find that factcheck ALSO takes the time to point out where a right-winger could be LEGITIMATELY concerned:

It’s true that President Obama is increasingly using his executive powers in the face of staunch Republican opposition in Congress. He’s changed federal policies on immigration and welfare and appointed officials without congressional approval.

...

It’s true, however, that Obama is employing his executive powers now more than ever before during his presidency.

Obama has been sidestepping Congress through his “We Can’t Wait” initiative, a series of executive actions that he claims benefit the middle class through infrastructure projects and economic policy changes.

He also skirted Senate approval in January when he appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointments were unprecedented because he made them when the Senate was technically not in recess, prompting legal challenges from conservative groups.

In June, the president halted deportations of illegal immigrants who entered the United States when they were children and met certain requirements, such as the lack of a criminal record. The change mirrored provisions of the DREAM Act — failed legislation that Obama supported and Senate Republicans blocked in 2010.

And in July, Obama changed welfare policy to allow states to modify work requirements if they test new approaches to increasing employment. Obama did not submit the policy change to Congress for review, which the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done.

Does that sound like a left-wing bias to you? It doesn't to me. Sounds like accurate reporting without regard to where the chips may fall.

But partisans - on the left and the right - do not like facts. Facts suck. Only spin matters to them.

But you keep on reading Freerepublic. I'm sure they are quite willing to do all your thinking for you.

 

[WC_lun]

Well said, Bill!

 

[crushing]

President Obama will do better in the more altitute friendly cities in NY and FL.

"Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you have only a few hours to adjust, uh, I don’t know . . . maybe . . . " - Al Gore

 

[WC_lun]

I think the foreign policy debate is the most dangerous for obama.

Mexico
--obama's justice department allowed over 2500 assault rifles to be transferred to drug cartels resulting in the death of over 300 mexican citizens, men, women and children, and "operation Castaway," another guns for cartels program transferred guns to Countries in Central and South AMerica as well, with more murders and mayhem stemming from these sales. Also, there was another gun running program in Texas.

Many of these programs were started by President Bush and continued through the new presidency. Remember congressman Issa? He is part of a panel that authored a recent report from thier investigations that concluded that the president had no knowledge of the program running guns.

Canada
--Denial of the Keystone pipeline from Canada killed jobs here, increases our dependence on oil from radical muslim countries, and is forcing our friend and ally Canada to ship that oil to China, one of our main competitors and lenders.

You mean the pipeline that is not needed, full of pork, and from the same company that just had two other pipelines cause spills? Also a point of fact, US oil production is up as well as imports from Canada and Mexico, while oil import from countries that don't have our best interest at heart are down.

Russia
--The scene where Obama tells Russian President Medvedev "Tell putin I need more space because I'll have more room after the election," was a chilling thing to see an American president do. Russia is acting aggressively and obama isn't doing anything but coddle them, surrendering to their demands on nuclear disarmament and the missle shield, which makes our new friends, the former soviet satellite nations, like Poland, extremely nervous about our committment to them.

Ahh So you like Romney telling the world that Russia is the US's greatest threat...not Extremist Islam, not China, but Russia. This also prompted a very public thank you from Putin to Romney saying Romney's statements will make it easier for him to get rid of the US missile defense umbrella in eastern Europe...which by the way is now meant for defense against Iran, not Russia.

Middle East
--Our embassies are under attack, our Ambasodor and several others murdered and it may very well turn out that on the anniversary of 9/11, in a radialized Muslim country that just changed governments in a violent revolution, pleas for more security from the Ambasodor on the ground were ignored, and during the attack obama hesitated to send in support.

Libiya is not radicalized. They've actually had public protest and action against the militants. There are those elements there, but they actually like us in Libiya. Guess why? Because of Obama's decision not to let Kadafi wipe out a city. A decision which Romney opposed at the time. In fact, the view of the US in Middle Eastern countries have improved since Obama took office. Seventy five percent of Mr Romney's advisors are former Bush neocons. Thier decisions are a big reason there is animousity in the Middle East against the West. They've proven thier policies are failures for the most part, yet Mr Romney hired them to advise him.

--by attacking oil, coal and natural gas, obama makes us more dependent on the oil from radical islamic countries. No matter how much some may wish it, solar and wind will not solve any of our energy problems for another 50-100 years, if then.

Facts are a *****. Oil and natural gas are up %50 in the US. Solar and Wind energy are not meant to be a right now solutions, but PART of a long term solution. Romney's idea of opening up more reserve land for explotation would barely effect production numbers while increasing the risk to those lands.

Iran
--obama has made it clear to the world that a nuclear armed Iran is not that big of a problem, regardless of what he actually says. Rational people see this as a major problem.

Nonsense. He has repeated again and again that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. He has pushed for more and more sanctions to make it tougher and tougher on Iran to stay the course they are on. While Romney did some unproductive saber rattling (along with perpetial war hawk, John McCain), when pushed on specifics of what he would do differently he gave the same policies we are following now.

Israel
--He keeps insulting our best allies in the middle east, and ignores their fears about Iran.

He's insulted Israel? Funny, I missed that. Did that happen while Mr Romney was on tour outside the US actually insulting different ally countries?

Our Military
--In a dangerous world, obama embraces drastic cuts to our military. Even with the wars in Iraq and Afganistan being prematurely ended by obama, cutting our military, 20,000 marines, 80,000 army personel, and cuts to the airforce and navy hurt our ability to project strength around the world.

More crap. The US spends more money than all other countries COMBINED on our military. The military does not need that much money to retain its supremecy, especially given that we as a country cannot finance any more wars. Obama has actually increased spending to the military, not reduced it. Romney wants to increase spending on the military up and above that which has been requested by the DoD. It isn't neccesary and spends money we don't have.

Bin laden
--yeah, obama gave the order, but the only thing that allowed him to "give the order," was all the Bush policies and decisions that allowed us to actually find out where bin laden was, and to be in a position to get at him.

No. Bush had reduced funding and man power on the search for Bin Laden, while actually telling the American people it "wasn't a high priority." When Obama came in to office, he refocused both funds and personnel to the hunt.

Afganistan
--This is the war obama supported...we just reached 2000 combat deaths of American service personel, the surge is deemed a failure and "green on blue" attacks are now the preferred method of attack by the Taliban and al queda. The commander on the ground asked for 80,000 troops to make the surge work. Obama asked him how few troops could he get the job done with, the commander said 40,000, so obama gave him 35,000 and and announced the date we were pulling out.

I actually agree with some of this. However, Afganistan is a constant drain on our resources and personel. We should have been out of there a long time ago, but corruption among the national police and politicians have made that not possible.



So, no, foreign policy is going to be as rough if not rougher for obama in the next debate.

Mr Romney's comments, including those immediatly after the Libyian attack where he did not wait long enough for enough for even basic facts to be known, show he is woefully not prepared to lead in foriegn affairs. You don't shoot off at the mouth without having some information as to what is actually happening. His best hope is to appoint an excellent head of the State Dept, but with his penchant for Bush era neocons, that is seriously doubtful.

 

[billc]

Yeah, foreign policy is going to be a cake walk for obama, Chauncy Gardener without the kindness...:lfao:

 

[arnisador]

The debates matter a little to me--you need someone cool and diplomatic under verbal pressure--but they've never swayed my vote when all is said and done.

 

[James Kovacich]

With Romneys "reversals" me thinks Obama has much ammunition for his TV Ads.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

I just look for two things, win or lose. I look for who is telling the truth more and which canidate seems to be cooler under pressure.

 

[Steve]

It's interesting that Romney is now swinging back to the middle. His rhetoric is far from what would endear him to the tea party, for example. But I think it matters little, as they are a locked vote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

What is the name of that report or a link to the one with issa?

Hmmm...this report and Issa...

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/...-issa-discusses-the-inspector-general-report/

House Oversight chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) appeared on Fox News Wednesday night to discuss the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the Fast and Furious disaster. Issa said he felt it was a “good report overall,” but noted that some crucial information, such as the extent of White House involvement in the Fast and Furious program, was not made available to the Inspector General.

The full extent of White House involvement with the case remains a matter of great interest to investigators. In fact, one of the questions raised, rather than answered, by the IG report is why President Obama suddenly swooped in at the eleventh hour to stymie investigators with claims of executive privilege. If anything, the Inspector General’s assessment makes these privilege claims more suspicious than ever.

Hmmm...doesn't look like Issa agrees with your assessment...


on Libya...

http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/276895/81/House-panel-State-Dept-confirmed-Libya-threats

A House committee says a State Department officer told panel members there were 13 threats made against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya during the six months before the Sept. 11 attack on the facility.

The assault left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The panel adds that the officer told it the U.S. mission had made repeated requests for increased security.

Requests for increased security seemed to have gone unheeded...and people died...might be an awkward moment in a foreign policy debate hmmmm....

Why did the White House lie about the cause of the attack on the embassy when they knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and then for a week claimed it was the video?

And fast and furious vs. Bush's "Wide Reciever,"

http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/wide-receiver-vs-fast-and-furious.html

Didn't this all start under Bush? Didn't he do the same thing? Didn't his "Wide Receiver" operation use the same tactics?

The short answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. The longer and more accurate answer follows.

Under the Bush administration, several sting operations were conducted in which straw buyers were allowed to purchase guns and attempts were made to follow the guns to, and in some cases over, the border. The largest and most well known operation was called “Wide Receiver”. The other operations were similar. During these operations approximately 200-250 firearms “got away”. The fact that some guns did cross the border is the only similarity between the Bush era program and Fast and Furious.

Let’s compare the two programs:

Cooperation with Mexico:
Wide Receiver: Mexican Law Enforcement notified, Mexico consented and was a full partner.
Fast and Furious: Mexico intentionally kept in the dark. No coordination or consent.

Surveillance of Firearms:
Wide Receiver: Agents attempted to keep track of the guns at all times.
Fast and Furious: Agents were ordered not to track the guns after they were purchased.

Use of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Extensive – placed in every lot of guns purchased
Fast and Furious: One “agent built” device in one gun

Performance of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Smugglers figured out how to defeat trackers
Fast and Furious: Smugglers didn’t have to do anything

Number of Firearms Sent to Cartels:
Wide Receiver: About 250
Fast and Furious: Exact number unknown, but over 2,500

Actions at the Border:
Wide Receiver: Attempted to hand off surveillance to Mexican law enforcement
Fast and Furious: ATF worked with Customs to make sure guns were not stopped at border

Reaction to guns “getting away”:
Wide Receiver: Program terminated. William Newell wrote memo saying “never again”
Fast and Furious: Program continued – recovered guns tracked and mapped.

Ironically, Wide Receiver provides an excellent example of a truly “botched sting operation”. The purpose of the Bush era programs was to track the guns to and over the border where Mexican law enforcement would make arrests. It was poorly planned and executed – but it at least has some potential to work and serve a law enforcement purpose. Make no mistake – Wide Receiver should result in heads rolling – but the program was not designed to send guns to the cartels.

Another point: Since the Phoenix ATF had experience with this kind of operation, why would they think that a program with many less safeguards would ever work?Why was such an operation begun with months of President Obama taking office and immediately after their bogus numbers on US retail sourced guns going to Mexico were exposed as false? Sadly, the answer is obvious.

In contrast, Fast and Furious was designed to pump guns into Mexico, without the knowledge of the Mexican government. Without their knowledge and cooperation, their was no chance of making arrests as a result of allowing guns to cross the border. Therefore, there was no law enforcement purpose. It was designed and executed for the purpose of sending guns from US retail outlets to the cartels. It was not a “botched sting operation” – it was a correctly executed plan with a very evil purpose.

This begs the question: What was the purpose of sending these guns into Mexico, where they were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans?

If one looks at what this could accomplish, the only answer on the table is the same one named by both the whistle blowing agents and the former head of the Pheonix DEA office who was “in the loop”: The passage of new gun control laws in the US.

And on Israel...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html

Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.

For 2[SUP]1[/SUP] / [SUB]2 [/SUB]years, the Obama administration has refused torecognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in hisState Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Not to mention refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he was here in the states...

bin laden...found with waterboarding and because we were in Iraq and used Guantanimo and enhanced interrogation techniques to find the information that led to finding bin laden, all things that obama opposed and voted against...oh yeah, he did okay the attack...bully for him...

I'm just a guy on the internet, if obama is as prepared for the foreign policy debate as he was for this one, and I can find holes in these arguments with just a little time on the internet...

Yeah, foreign policy is going to be a cake walk for obama...:lfao:

 

[Carol]

It's interesting that Romney is now swinging back to the middle. His rhetoric is far from what would endear him to the tea party, for example. But I think it matters little, as they are a locked vote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Even at the time he was running for Governor, there was concern that he was a "say what it takes to get elected" politician. Sen. Kennedy (who faced a challenge from Mr. Romney for his Senate seat in 1994) quipped that "He's not pro-life, he's not pro-choice, he's multiple choice" :lol:

While he IMO presented much better than President Obama did, I did not hear a home run, from either side.

 

[billc]

Did Ted kennedy bring up Mary Jo at all during the debate? I heard she was unavailable for comment on the Senators performance at that debate...

Hmmmm...Leon Panetta seems to disagree with you on the cuts to the military...you know, obama's appointee...

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...the-hell-deal-thats-possible-on-sequestration

[FONT=Georgia !important]Panetta has long railed against sequestration — calling it a “meat axe approach” that would be “devastating” to national security. [/FONT]

 

[Carol]

Edit -- duplicate post.

 

[Steve]

Even at the time he was running for Governor, there was concern that he was a "say what it takes to get elected" politician. Sen. Kennedy (who faced a challenge from Mr. Romney for his Senate seat in 1994) quipped that "He's not pro-life, he's not pro-choice, he's multiple choice" :lol:

While he IMO presented much better than President Obama did, I did not hear a home run, from either side.

That was my take, too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

Did Treasurer O'brien mention that Senator Kennedy liked to make sandwiches...with waitresses...and Senator Dodd...

http://askville.amazon.com/story-Kennedy-Dodd-waitress-sandwich/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=65013242

[h=2]the act of two people (usually men) pressing their bodies up against a waitress[/h]

Being the trend watcher that I am a curious thing popped up in Google that caught my eye. On a day dominated by Ted Kennedy related trending terms I looked desperately for something, anything, non-Kennedy related. I thought I found it with waitress sandwich. Sadly, I was wrong. Waitress sandwich is exactly what it sounds like, the act of two people (usually men) pressing their bodies up against a waitress (clearly a woman as indicated by the suffix "ess"). Tradition has it that the waitress sandwich does not let up until the girl in question wiggles free and runs off screaming. Now as gross as waitress sandwich sounds, as much of a violation as it is, when I looked into it I found exactly what I expected... except for one small Kennedy related detail. According to a very detailed, and apparently well researched, albeit clearly biased comment on another site, the origins of waitress sandwich are traced to Ted Kennedy and another male politician, Senator Chris Dodd. As the comment expresses, the cute little "game" of waitress sandwich was invented by these guys in their "jolly youth." What kind of legacy does Ted Kennedy leave behind now that he has passed? If you share the opinion of this commenter, his is a legacy of misogyny. When I searched waitress sandwich this comment was the top of the list and it makes a very good point about the way Ted Kennedy the man lived and breathed.

 

[arnisador]

Maybe it'd be better if you started a separate thread for character attacks on Ted Kennedy.

 

[billc]

Sen. Kennedy (who faced a challenge from Mr. Romney for his Senate seat in 1994) quipped that "He's not pro-life, he's not pro-choice, he's multiple choice"

He was used as a source to attack Mitt Romney's credibility, and I thought it would be nice to see how credible a human being he was...or if his attacks on Romney bear up to his own acts of treason?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/te...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."

Article Controls

​

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov--the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring--at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

Sooo...should we really take Ted "remember Mary Jo," Kennedy's opinions on anything seriously...

There is this mythology about Ted Kennedy that really needs to be addressed as some attempt to make him more than he was...

 

[crushing]

President Obama had the pleaure of not enduring a primary, which requires the candidates to appeal to the base constitutents of their party, particularly if the primary is competitive. Candidates often modify their rhetoric and even positions on issues for the votes they require after winning their party's primary. This 'shift' happens pretty much every single election cycle for candidates that move on to the general election. I am quite surprised that so many people have only begun to notice it with this year's presidential election.