Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Barack Obama, right, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney participate in the second presidential debate, Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
By Karoun Demirjian (contact) 
Published Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 | 4:20 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 | 10:30 p.m.
Tuesday night’s presidential town hall debate was a chance for President Barack Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney to answer voters’ questions face to face.
But it also became an opportunity for the candidates to get in each other’s faces as they directly accused one another of everything from shifting their positions to outright lying on the debate floor.
Oftentimes circling one another as if pitted together in a boxing ring, Romney and Obama fought extensively about how to characterize each other’s energy policies. They ripped each other up over the arithmetic of their tax plans. They appeared to nearly physically challenge each other when the conversation turned to immigration, and their efforts to stare each other down over Libya brought an icy pall to the Hofstra stadium.
The result: A debate that wound up more fiery than their first and required both candidates to more forcefully defend their own records and proposals while savaging their opponent’s.
“The commitments I’ve made, I’ve kept. And the commitments I haven’t been able to keep, it’s not for lack of trying,” Obama said. “The choice of this election is going to be whose promises will more likely help you.”
“The policies he’s put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank ... these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow as it should have,” Romney said about Obama. “He’s great as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision, and that’s wonderful, but we have a record to look at.”
The free-wheeling style of the debate highlighted the extent to which this was an existential fight, but it also delivered a few new revelations on underaddressed topics that could swing undecided voters this close to the election.
The debate got off to a meandering start. A question about job opportunities for graduating college students led both candidates to offer expansive presentations of their economic plans. A second question on whether the government can affect gas prices inspired a somewhat tedious back and forth on energy investments and the bailout of Detroit’s automotive industry.
But the conversation quickly became combative — and more focused — when the debate turned to candidate’s respective tax plans.
Obama relaunched his charge that Romney’s tax plan would add $8 trillion to the deficit and force him to raise taxes on the middle class.
“We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that,” Obama argued, turning to Romney. “If somebody came to you with a plan that said here, ‘I want to spend $7 or $8 billion and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how’ ... you wouldn’t take such a sketchy deal. And neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up.”
“Of course they add up,” Romney retorted. “I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget, I ran the state of Massachusetts as a governor ... and balanced the budget all four years.
“When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That’s math that doesn’t add up,” he said.
Romney noticeably did not offer more details to counter the president’s accusations, save for one: That he intends to offset whatever losses in revenues are incurred under his tax plan by capping possible itemized deductions at “I’ll pick a number — $25,000.”
Romney first floated this idea on the eve of the first presidential debate, but offered a different number for the cap: $17,000. That — or whatever figure Romney eventually settles on — represents the cumulative cap on home mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health care, child tax, charitable donations and other tax deductions that anyone could claim on an annual tax return.
“But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains, and no tax on savings,” Romney said, defining a middle-income taxpayer as persons earning up to $250,000. “That makes life a lot easier.”
It’s a potentially critical conversation for the voters of Nevada, where homes are underwater and many families rely on certain middle-class focused tax credits to make ends meet.
According to the Tax Policy Center, the $17,000 cap and even the $25,000 cap would end up adversely affecting at least some of the income earners Romney defines as “middle class,” because they often claim more than that in tax writedowns — particularly in home mortgage interest and employer-sponsored health care benefits.
Conversely, Romney's suggestion to eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends for middle-class earners presumes most have capital to invest. Typically, a middle-class family’s largest investment is their home — and capital gains from most home sales are waived for the middle class already.
Obama has also floated a plan to limit tax deductions based on net rates, rather than caps. Under Obama’s plan, top income earners would not be allowed to claim deductions that reduced their effective tax rate to less than 28 percent.
But Obama kept quiet about that on Tuesday night, arguing instead that Romney’s tax plan favors the rich and will eventually force him to turn to the middle class for revenues.
Equally important for many Nevada voters are the differences Romney and Obama drew on immigration: Obama favors a pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants, especially young college students and military enlistees who came to the country as minors, while Romney favors a pathway to permanent residency for those who would enlist in the military and a policy of self-deportation for the rest.
Romney used the opportunity to take a jab at Obama for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform early in his term. As Obama complained that Republicans stood in the way of the bill, Romney piped up, “I’ll get it done in the first year.”
That wasn’t the only unexpected event of the night. In response to a question about gun control, Obama declared his support for banning assault weapons, an answer that gave Romney an opportunity to make an easy play for the gun-toting voters.
Instead, however, Romney pivoted to the role of two-parent households in preventing gun violence.
“But let me mention another thing — and that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids, wherever possible,” he said. “But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that’s a great idea.”
Romney also fumbled an opportunity to hammer Obama on his answer to a question about who was responsible for the security lapse in Libya that resulted in the American ambassador’s assassination on Sept. 11.
“The president just said that on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror ... It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?” Romney said, staring down a noticeably agitated Obama who told him, tight-lipped, to proceed.
”I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,” Romney said.
Moderator Candy Crowley jumped in to say Obama did refer to the attack as an “act of terror” the day after the attack.
Various lawmakers have accused Obama of trying to avoid accusations he mishandled security in Libya by blaming what is now known to have been a coordinated attack on protesters angry over an anti-Muslim video.
Romney lost the point in the crosstalk and Obama seized the moment to assume the full poise of the presidency. Obama told Romney it was “offensive” to suggest he “played politics,” adding with an air of finality: “I’m the president, and I’m always responsible.”
Control of the atmosphere and the conversation was as much an issue in this debate as in the first.
Romney strove to police the flow of the back-and-forth, arguing at several points with Crowley over his allotted time to speak. He also delayed answering new questions in order to jump back to an old topic.
That stylistic choice meant that Romney sometimes delivered noticeably inexact answers to very specific questions, such as when he responded to a question on equal pay for women with an anecdote about how hard it had been for him to find women willing to apply for jobs in his gubernatorial administration.
Obama, too, was guilty of pulling the occasional dodge. But for the most part, Obama strove to avoid the pitfalls of his last debate, refusing to give as much ground to Romney as he did the first go-round.
Whether Obama rescued the momentum of his campaign from his lackluster performance in the first debate will be revealed by public polling in coming days — especially in swing states such as Nevada. And with early voting starting in Nevada on Saturday, the debate was a last chance for both candidates to sway many voters in the Silver State.
The third and final debate, on foreign policy, is Oct. 22.
First question was put to Romney. Romney blows a great chance to connect with college students. Obama's answer is not much better. Neither says how Jeremy can have confidence he will be able to find a college level job. Candy calls them on it. Good for her.
Their answers to Candy are no better.
Result is a tie which neither should be happy with.
I think we're starting to see a pattern to Obama's debate rebuttals tonight: anything Romney says is not true.
Sounds a lot like "It's not my fault, I inherited this mess."
And now Obama is interrupting Romney's rebuttal. In the last debate he was weak on performance. This time around he is coming off as trying to hide a weakness by overcompensating.
Who the heck coached Obama in his body language?!? That pose he adopts when Romney is speaking is unreal!
Watching Obama gives new insight into why large codpieces became popular.
This moderator looks like a hand waving Halloween robot. Romney realizes that America's wealth comes from our digging in or rich land and mountains, and that foreign born city slickers like Obama have no clue how we make jobs and money in this country.
Nancy Pelosi set the standard for not revealing details when she said "We have to pass it to see what is in it." No wonder neither Obama or Romney feel they have to tell us how their plans will work.
There is a new name for desperation......Obama!
He isn't ready for this debate either.
Why does everyone in a debate feel the need to say "That's a good|great|fantastic|OMG that was an orgasmic" question instead of just getting on with the answer?
The question is about women's pay, and Obama goes off on women's healthcare. Yes, that is a very important issue, but please, does he really think that women can only think with their, errr, well, you know. They're not like men after all.
Ok, Obama just resorted to a personal attack. I was already planning on voting for "NOTA" but that just sealed the deal.
Think what you want, but there is a world of difference between the posture of the two when they are "listening" to each other. Romney has lost the perma-smile, and Obama has shifted to something that I can only say would get me a reprimand from my 3rd grade teacher.
Comment removed by moderator. - -
As before, Obama is running roughshod over the moderator, at least she is fighting back this time.
Obama just doubled down on what he said in March of 2009 that we don't want off-shored jobs to come back.
Idiot!!!!
I'll call this a draw overall, but the President was by far the loser on style. What a pathetic example to set for someone who is the leader of our country.
Comment removed by moderator. ALL CAPS
genius-revealed, great remark.....true genius
---
Candy interjected herself incorrectly when she declared that Obama had declared that Benghazi a terrorist attack the day after 9/11 and Obama had to rush and agree with Candy.
Everybody know that the statement was a generalization followed by a monolog about the video.
Proof of that is for the next two week the only WH narrative was that a spontaneous crowd formed because of the Hollywood video evenly sending.
-----
So did Obama just admit that the WH lied about the Hollywood video being the cause for two weeks?
Clarification to come Monday
----
WOW! WOW! WOW!
PRESIDENT OBAMA KICKED ROMNEY'S FLABBY OLD BUTT!!!
He dismantaled romney.
Romney looked like a foolish old man.
Proof.....
CNN poll.....
PRESIDENT OBAMA 46%
romney 39%
FOUR MORE YEARS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
CNN poll Romney won on the economy 58-40
boftx.....
Not even close.
future....
romney lost on everything.
romney is WORSE than bush.
Candy Samples just admitted she was wrong on confirming Obama's terrorism comment in the oval office. Romney blew a perfect opportunity by not bringing the six video comments in front of the UN.
republicans fool no one.
YES.....
PRESIDENT OBAMA wiped the floor with that crazy
old republican.
No problem.
romney lied and it showed.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
President Obama had the facts and romney had the
lies.
President Obama is the MAN and will easily be
re-elected.
Heretic.....
The polls tell the truth.
romney LOST!
What about Obama saying he talked with a person who was shot in Colorado three weeks or maybe a month ago and he had been shot through the head. Then he said two months went by and the guy was up walking around. Did he travel into the future? Am I the only one who caught that?
YES, PRESIDENT OBAMA overwhelmed romney with the
facts.
romney's math doesn't add up and never will.
All that romney offers is more trickle-down
republican voodoo economics that ALREADY FAILED!
The romney campaign unraveled again.
THANK GOD!
I saw Obama making the same promises to do this and do that he made FOUR years ago.
Sir - you've had FOUR years and have accomplished less than Calvin Coolidge did in two.
Just tell me Harry Reid is O-U-T and you get my vote again. Otherwise I'm going for the same "Change" I voted for last time and did NOT get.
President Obama really lost me because he did not appear as a person I wanted to represent our country.
It is no secret that I intend to vote "NOTA" in this election (just as I did last time.) But Obama really drove it home tonight that I am making the right choice.
It was his level of arrogance that I could barely stomach.
Don't get me wrong, I *want* a President to show some American arrogance, but Obama showed only personal arrogance. Let me say this a different way: it is perfectly okay for the President to be arrogant when talking about our country, it is NOT okay for the President to be arrogant when talking about his personal power as President.
Obama's worse example of this was when he referred to the diplomatic staff in Libya as *his* representatives. WRONG!!! They are *our* representatives, not his.
That statement was inexcusable in my view.
John.....
The man Obama talked about SURVIVED the shooting.
That's what counts.
The question is....
Why would you back a heartless republican who is
going to steal our health care?
AND HAS NO REPLACEMENT!
boftx......
Those representatives are part of Obama's team.
That's why he said they are his.
Your statement is very weak.
Everyone that I talked to said that Obama looked
like the solid leader that he is.
ROMNEY LOST, BIG TIME!
Comment removed by moderator. ALL CAPS
AND romney said that he was a Paster of his
church for 8 years.
No Paster should ever be a president.
That's a HUGE conflict of religious interest.
That's why he wants to get rid of ROE VRS. WADE.
factsforyou.....
Your facts are false.
You didn't watch the news.
Thousands of people rioted over the video in
several mid east countries.
That was also a HUGE part of it.
Left leaning news outlets declare that President Obama won the debate. Right leaning outlets herald Governor Rommey as the victor. When the media becomes this polarized, it does not really matter who won the debate, the voters have lost.
Test Guy....
Thinking voters have not lost.
The truth is the truth.
Hi BOFTX, thanks for the blow-by-blow of the debate as I was not able to catch it live. Have an exception to your last statement ... Technically the diplomatic staff are the representatives of the President. He appoints them and they serve at his will. They don't represent us in any fashion like our elected representatives (and they don't really represent us anymore, but mainly cater to the special interest groups). Diplomatic staff might be seen as symbols of the USA, but maybe not as representatives in the vernacular. And.. sorry the moderator watching you ;-) I enjoy reading your posts!
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Test_Guy,
I was thinking in terms of the diplomatic staff being symbols of the US as you put it. In that respect, I still say it was highly arrogant of the President to refer to them as "his" representatives.
That is in line with my feeling that it is perfectly okay, even expected, that a President show arrogance when talking about our country, but entirely out of line if the President is arrogant about his person (i.e. using the royal "we", as President Obama has arguably done a number of times.)
And romney threw 47% of low income Americans
UNDER THE BUS!
That's the real romney.
He only cares about the rich and his church
members.
Speaking as a former member of the diplomatic core, diplomats are "his" representatives. As a diplomat you represent the president and his policies; that's why you are there. Yes, you represent the US as well, but it is party line all the way ( even as a kid you know what is expected of you, and you follow it,) regardless of your personal belief. You are there to act as a presidential surrogate if you will.
President Obama was 100% accurate in calling the diplomats his representatives.
Seek and ye shall find.
Mr. BOFTX, you watched the debate looking to denigrate Obama and you certainly found it, based on your very limited frame of reference. You found many reasons NOT to vote for him, more to justify your choice to yourself than to anyone else.
Be honest, you did not find anything idiotic about Romney's performance?
And, you're telling us you are voting NOTA? That was quite a performance, blow by blow to boot.
Try again. The third one is coming up.
bftx, I no longer believe you are voting NOTA!
Milissa and Nancy....great comments.
peacelily.....
YES, It looks like boftx is a republican after
all.
His Wig talk is a bunch of malarky.
Yes, I am voting "NOTA". There are a number of reasons that I can not support Romney. Obama has only solidified my decision to go NOTA.
Given my choice, I would like to see Hillary as POTUS, even *after* what she has said about her responsibility.
EffectiveTeacher,
I could have voted for Huntsman if he had received the nomination, mainly because I felt he had a unique perspective on our relations with China. Are you saying that (in theory) he represented the person of President Obama and not the US? I have *major* problems with that system if that is the case.
boftx......
Hillary will take over for Obama in four years.
You can vote for her then.
She might even have Bill as her V.P.
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
genius_revealed......
Candy Crowley did a great job.
And romney got his lying republican butt kicked.
THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!
He will easily be re-elected.
Nancy,
I was not looking for a reason to denigrate President Obama. In fact, I expected him to be very different from the first debate and to perform at a higher level. (My wife thought he intentionally lost the first debate so he would be an "underdog" for the second.)
What I want to see from our President is a composure that has no need to fall back on debate tactics because he deals with our national situation every day. The office of POTUS should command tremendous respect or fear all by itself, regardless of who occupies it.
President Obama simply didn't show that tonight. His posture was terrible! He routinely interrupted both Romney and the moderator, as he did in the prior debate. His position alone should preclude the need for him to do that in order to command respect.
Being a veteran, I have the utmost respect for the office of POTUS, but that does not mean that I must feel the same for the person who occupies that office. I am disappointed in Mr. Obama's execution of that office so far.
teamster,
Hillary should be the one running for re-election now. I voted for her in the 2008 primary.
boftx.....
PRESIDENT OBAMA got Bin Laden and is respected all
over the world.
He is easily one of the best presidents we have
ever had.
You and Carmine aren't going to convince anyone
on this site.
You need to show respect for our great president.
He deserves it.
President Obama turned our entire country around
from the huge mess that republicans created.
He's doing an awesome job.
teamster,
I show respect to the office Barack Obama holds by referring to him as "President Obama" in my posts. That does not mean that I must agree with his policies.
boftx......
So what policies do you want him to change?
Yet, you mentioned nothing about Romney's behavior - who may very well be the POTUS - if there are enough people like you out there.
Oh Lord help us. Did you see that picture of Romney at Huffpost?
The hatred in his eyes is terrifyingly palpable. It was murderous! It seemed to say, how dare you challenge me, a white rich man! How dare you usurp that power that should belong to me. (He did want it also in 2008, but even then Republicans didn't think he qualified and chose McCain and SARAH!).
Sorry. This was my impression. I could be wrong.
Nancy.....You are correct.
We can never trust this man.
Nancy,
My biggest problem with Romney is that I fear he will allow his religious beliefs to color his decision making process to the detriment of this country. I have no problem with the fact that he is a Mormon, but I feel that he will be unable to set aside his religious dogma in his decision making process. I feel the same about any religious (or atheist) person running for office.
I would greatly prefer to have an agnostic as POTUS.
I forgot. If he didn't qualify then, what in the blazes name did he do in the last four years that made him qualified in Republicans' eyes/ears/and whatever else they use to elect.
Couldn't they find someone else that typify real Republicans? Say, there's Nordquist, the brothers Koch, Boehner, McConnell? Is it because none of them have a good chance to win? So, they 'dress-up' a person with a possibility to win as they did the last Republican president?
Just asking.
Nancy,
Other than Huntsman or Ron Paul, can you really say that you would want the Republicans to pick someone *other* than Romney? Would you really want Santorum?!?
It doesn't matter if you like President Obama or not, there is a significant number of people who do not, and a large number of independent voters who are skeptical at best. It is vital that the Republicans nominate the most reasonable candidate if possible.
Romney, for all his faults, is head and shoulders about the rest, other than maybe Huntsman or Ron Paul when it comes to that. As much as he denied it during the primary race, he has a proven track record as a moderate.
Oh my!!! President Obama wins the debate with class and character. And, if this wasn't great, Jim Bacon, (boftx) comes charging into this discussion forum like a "Raging Bull" and is soundly defeated by the classy and character filled commentaries of Nancy Agustin, "Teamster" and all the other voices of the Democrats. Great job!!!
No questions about Romney wanting a military footprint in the middle East? No inquiries about his wanting America to 'stand up' to Russia and China? Nothing about Bain Capital's Sensata technologies, a company in the process of transferring operations to China this year?
And Romney's solution of 'flexible hours' to allow more women to be home to cook dinner and then return to work in the evening? Don't they also have to help with the kids with homework and bath them children before putting them to bed? Or do the children fall into bed with spaghetti sauce on their faces as usual?
All that time on Libya spent on determining what name to call it - should it be a spontaneous or planned action. What nonsense. 15 minutes of planning is the same as spontaneous.
Romney never did say what actions he would have taken, like an invasion of Libya? Bombing the snot out of the desert? Marines hitting the beach while yelling to scare the terrorists and create another military footprint in the middle east? Then six more years of war chasing ragtags to teach them to be scared of the Americans, like in Iraq and Afghanistan? (Aren't they scared yet?) Or would he open up a Bain field office to hire more women in Tripoli? And give them flexible hours too? (Promise?)
Teamster: Please keep those great posts comming. You give me a huge laugh every morning I wake up. Thanks again...
I'd call it at best a draw. Neither one took control and both didn't sway me either way. One thing that does disappoint is that blatant lie the President made about his rose garden speach. Romney should have jumped all over him and didn't.
TO THE MODERATORS: Again I read more racial comments coming from your progressive posters, in this case Ms. Augustin, who claims to be a teacher. Please let me know when it will be ok for anyone else to refer to President Obama as being black with deragatory comments, as she does about Romney being an angry white man. If racial bating is not approved here than I submit that she and others that comment like that should either have thier remarks removed or should be forced off this site. This really is getting old.
Teamster again you prove how clueless you are so keep them coming, you always give me a laugh too.
The whole thing was nothing but "smoke and mirrors" from both candidates.
<<No questions about Romney wanting a military footprint in the middle East? No inquiries about his wanting America to 'stand up' to Russia and China?>>
SunJon:
Next debate is foreign policy. So there is time for Romney to change his views on foreign policy...again...and again. But if it is up to Romney - it will end up "boots on the ground" in the Middle East even though most of the country does not want another war.
romknee needs to go back to grade school and learn arithmetic.
just because you may believe 2 + 2 = 5 does not make it so.
Of course, he is lying and is only going to make rich people richer.
He should put his money where his lies are -
if his economic voodoo doesn't work -
THEN ALL THE EXTRA MONEY RICH PEOPLE MADE IS AUTOMATICALLY 100% TAXED AND GOES TO THE 99%.
In a way, I pity Romney. That man may not recognize himself anymore when he looks at the mirror with all the "costume" he had to put on. I hope he does not fall into an identity crisis before he has the chance at his magic to "fix" the economy.
Happy Halloween!
Jim boftx:
Your palpable dislike and borderline hatred of Obama, coupled with your repudiation of the two major American political parties make your criticism of the POTUS of very little importance.
You represent about 1/10 of 1% of the electorate and that is pretty sad, because you are sliightly likeable.
Choosing None Of The Above gives a negative half a vote to each one of the candidates and gives you some twisted level of pride.
Any rational person watching the first debate gives the win to Romney, the VP debate to Biden, and last nights debate was a clear victory by Obama.
Those are the facts dude, hate it or love it, that's the truth.
Jeff, I consider myself to be a rational person, except when reading you and your fellow libs drivel, and I think the debate was closer to a draw.
Obama scored some good ponts but I think Romney was better at details.
The incident concerning Obama's comments in the Rose Garden was very disturbing on several levels. He didn't use terror in a specific way concerning the attack. He used it in a much broader "war on terror" connotation. For him to try and dodge this issue with his usual double-speak is a blatant abuse of his trust with the american people. He then has the temerity to insinuate that Romney violated the American people's efforts in this conflict. Obama has reached a new low, and for him that's a pretty low bar.
Hairetic:
If you, an overtly right wing demagogue thinks it was a draw, this means it was a HHHUUUUUUUGGGGGEEE victory for the POTUS.
You wouldn't give Obama a glass of water out kindness if he showed up at your door. So you have telegraphed to us folks who are the true critical thinkers that Obama hit a home run.
Thanks!
Heretic, I'm still waiting for details from the arrogant knucklehead. There was absolutly no substance at all from Willard.
As for The President and his mannerisms toward the knucklehead, I for one was happy that Willard received what he has been giving. His stance (willard) has been arrogant and condecsending throughout the debates. I'm happy that he got the same attitude thrown back at him.
PART I
The following are my personal opinions and observations regarding the debate on October 17, 2012.
As a woman, I have struggled and juggled the responsibilities of being a working mother. From my point of view, there is no way that Romney has a clue about the realities of being a working woman, working mother, a single mother, an unemployed mother with children, a grandmother, or a struggling senior who happens to be a woman.
President Barack Obama walked into the room with confidence, dignity, and respect for the debate, its rules, Willard, and Candy Crowley. President Barack Obama knocked it out of the ballpark. He was fired up and was not going to be pushed around by a do nothing, arrogant, narcissistic, spoiled brat, who is accustomed to ordering people around to get what he wants.
Willard walked into the room as if he was going into a board meeting where he would enlighten his staff with his knowledge through dictating one directive after another. Oops, it did not turn out as he expected. Darn, he rehearsed his lines, but the engagement had changed. Much to his surprise, the moderator and the President of the United States of America were not at the debate to kowtow, indulge or cater to the elitist, Mittens, as he expected and rehearsed. That expectation took him aback and he was off his game within just a few moments and could not build any momentum or credibility. He was not productive in his use of time as he continually repeated the same talking points. So, the only thing he could do was go off topic and continue with the bully pulpit, which is comfortable for him as that is who he is. When he was on topic, he appeared to lack professional decorum, control, and seemed out of touch. I believe that he probably spent time rehearsing his lines expecting the same type of debate and control over the debate that he had previously. His rehearsed plan did not factor in a president who was fired up and a moderator that would not indulge him because, he is Mittens. He did not obey the rules of engagement; in fact, he broke them. His "You cannot tell me I can't have more time" attitude was prevalent and disrespectful to everyone during the entire debate. He seemed shocked that he was not allowed additional time. In my opinion, he exhibited a total lack of respect, manners, and not even a modicum amount of class during the debate; while sitting on the chair waiting to speak; he acted like a spoiled child because he did not get his way. He expected to deliver his lines when and how he wanted to; he expected to take total control and all the time he needed, but this time he was not allowed to do what he wanted to do; when he wanted to do it.
PART II
The following are my personal opinions and observations regarding the debate on October 17, 2012.
He seemingly showed contempt and disrespect by pouting while eagerly awaiting his time to speak or interrupt. He was obtrusive and looked like a child who just got a time out. His body language sent out a negative message. His smirk did not go unnoticed nor did his pale face. For a moment, I thought he was going to pass out. When it was his turn to speak again, he returned to the same uncontrolled, unprofessional bully mentality that has gotten him by his entire life. I felt he was completely disrespectful to the moderator, to the president, and to the attendees of the debate who waited patiently for their questions to be addressed. He showed his lack of respect to everyone involved with this debate; including the American People. His lack of respect for others and his lack of manners and dignity extended right up to the end. He promptly left the room. I am not sure if he thanked the moderator. Maybe he is not comfortable with the "Common People", the "Little People", or "You People" or maybe he was just not interested in hearing what the "Common People" had to say. After all, he is an elitist. However, President Obama and the First Lady, Michelle Obama, stayed and greeted the crowd. They are kind, understanding, and compassionate people. During the debate, Romney discussed his religion and says he is a man of God, but how can a man of God lie continually?
I used to say that I am not convinced that Willard could ever identify with and/or relate to ANYONE below his income bracket. I believed that he could represent and identify with the top 1-2% of the American People because those are his people and his base. I stated that just because he was a CEO of a company does not mean he is qualified to be the next President of the United States. He was not a successful CEO. His legacy to the state of Massachusetts was a large deficit and the worse job creation numbers in the country. He was a failure as a governor and would be a failure as the president.
Willard is an elitist and there is nothing wrong with that, but after witnessing how he conducts himself, he is NOT presidential material. He has money, but not class, dignity, or respect for others. His arrogance, disrespect, and lack of understanding for an Average American is frightening. What is extremely frightening is that his legislation will be based on his beliefs and his understanding. I used to say that if you want to be the President of the United States, you must understand and identify with all income brackets; not just the top tier; not just your base; not just your own kind. Willard not one of us; we are the "Common People"; the "Little People" and some are in the 47% and they just do not count at all. Today, I believe that is true more than ever.
Romney was on the defensive for most of the night. That makes him look like a weak person.
Jeff, You are so misguided I am surprised you can find your keyboard. I think Obama has done some very good things. I even voted for him ONCE.
Right wing demagogue....wow!! You clearly haven't read enough of my posts to fire that silly shot across the bow.
Glass of water out of kindness??? You are right about that, but I would buy him a beer or a nice glass of Scotch and we could chew the fat over his misconceptions of ME. A common middle class taxpayer.
I am very liberal on social issues but I am fiscally conservative. I don't believe in god but I believe that people are inherently good. I believe in hand-ups not hand-outs. Oh yeah, I'm a right wing nutjob. You really need to get more often.
PART III
The following are my personal opinions and observations regarding the debate on October 17, 2012.
He does not understand the basics, necessities of life of an average American citizen, which a staffer cannot continually brief him on what to say or do.
He does not understand even the fundamentals like:
Working mothers;
Women's issues that go well beyond healthcare;
Immigration;
Senior Citizen Concerns;
Students;
Plus a whole list of the basics.
He is not presidential. He does not act presidential. He does not possess the experience necessary to become the next President of the United States. On his first trip outside the country, he insulted every country he visited. His running mate is an, arrogant, know it all, pompous punk and he does not get it either. Here we have two rich guys who care only about their rich friends and donors. They want to win the ultimate prize. They do not want to help the American People or fix the problems created by the previous president. The American People need help not two rich guys who want to placate us so that they will win our vote. They are both a disgrace. Neither one of them understand the needs of the American People. Ryan is Catholic and the Nuns are travelling the country speaking out against him. When has a nun gone out on a limb and spoken out against a Catholic running for vice-president. NEVER!! He is mean, cruel, and lacks compassion for the American People. The two of them together are a dangerous combination.
These are my opinions and I am sticking to them!
It your a person who likes "visuals" this was a good debate. It your a person who likes "substance" this debate was not complete.
These debates are for the undecided, the uninformed, and people who don't have access to most forms of media and other informational contacts pertaining to Mitt Romney, President Obama and the issues of this presidential campaign.
No, this does not mean one lives in a cave, or just plain disinterest. As voters, as citizens, we have a responsibility to seek out the facts when making the very important decision on who gets our vote. Or better yet, who will earn our vote.
The President did well. Mitt Romney did not. It is that simple as far as debates goes.
If your informed, by watching or listening to the debate, this will reinforce what each of these men stand for. This election provides a clear choice on who is better to lead this country. It's not Mitt Romney.
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
....A word from the wise,
"Don't argue with liars or ignorant people, they will beat you with experience" (unknown)
Folks and those voting NOTA, it all comes down to this: Can we survive four more years with Harry Reid as President?
No, Romney is not the optimal candidate but the last four years with Reid as President have been a complete disaster.
Obama says "I will do this and I will do that" but in reality he won't do anything more than he has done in the last four years - which is absolutely NOTHING for Nevada.
The absolutely worst thing we can do is keep this senile, vindictive old man running the White House.
Romney acted Presidential. Smart and business minded. Obama still does not have a clue. Obama is still the darling of the liberal media but he has accomplished little in four years. There is a job waiting for Obama here in Las Vegas come January.
genius_revealed Oct. 16, 2012 8:52 p.m.
At the end of the debate Obama slipped and blurted out to the audience during his answering of the last question that was asked regarding moving American jobs overseas:
Obama: "Look, those jobs aren't coming back"
This is an economic outrage. Obama has slapped the American people across the economic face and told them that they are derelict economic losers.
Nevada has had thousands of jobs moved to foreign countries offshore in telecommunications, alone.
Here are two just in Las Vegas:
NOS Communications - 3,000 jobs lost - closed three major technical and customer service call centers in Las Vegas and moved all jobs to Egypt, Australia, Mexico. These jobs are never coming back according to Obama.
Clearwire Corporation - 1,000 jobs lost - closed two high tech and customer service callcenters in Las Vegas and moved all jobs to Phillipines. According to Obama these jobs are never coming back, either.
**********************
Why in the world does that surprise you? Outsourcing has been going on for decades.
I don't know the exact time frame, but I am surprised that any call center is still in the United States and YES it is only going to get worse. Anything that can be done from a call center or a computer will eventually be outsourced. Why, because the corporations are GREEDY! CEO's want MORE money and want to pay less. Shareholders are more demanding than ever.
I realize that Corporate America is somewhat of a foreign word here in Las Vegas, but this has been going on for a very long time. It is very sad, but this is not a new concern it is just that people are realizing it more and more and it is becoming a reality that affects them directly.
Will someone please let me what NO ONE ever blames the local politicians in Las Vegas for the problems in Las Vegas?
P.S.
Why doesn't ANYONE ever blame the Governor or state representatives for the problems in Nevada (e.g. Las Vegas).
How long have we had a Republican Governor?
Lorraine Osorio asks Romney what he would do about immigrants in the country illegally who are living productive lives. Blah blah no amnesty, blah blah comprehensive reform, won't round up 12 million, blah blah blah.... President Obama, we're a nation of laws, blah blah, Arizona bad blah blah, The Republicans wouldn't let me, boo hoo hoo. The fact is Lorraine, they're not going to do anything except exploit you if you come here illegally. Self deportation is what they're both want to do by gradually implementing E-verify for everything and belittle you in every possible way, except on election day.
@Kepi. "Obama: "Look, those jobs aren't coming back"
This got your attention, good! To a large degree what the President said is true.
Kepi, you want the truth, the President said a hard truth with respect to a large portion of the jobs that went overseas.
Don't hate the messenger, support the message.
Be part of the solution by supporting companies here in the USA, that make products here in the USA, that hire US citizen to do the work.
We as citizen may not have millions to influence our political leaders, we do have the power of choice, the power of selective purchase.
Be smart, use all tools your control.
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
Longtimevegan Oct. 17, 2012 8:55 a.m.
@Kepi. "Obama: "Look, those jobs aren't coming back"
This got your attention, good! To a large degree what the President said is true.
Kepi, you want the truth, the President said a hard truth with respect to a large portion of the jobs that went overseas.
Don't hate the messenger, support the message.
Be part of the solution by supporting companies here in the USA, that make products here in the USA, that hire US citizen to do the work.
We as citizen may not have millions to influence our political leaders, we do have the power of choice, the power of selective purchase.
Be smart, use all tools your control.
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
***************
I have been up since 3:00 a.m. so I am a bit confused by your message. I AGREE with the PRESIDENT AND YOU. Those jobs are not coming back and more will go overseas, which is what I tried to explain. I DO support U.S. companies that make products in the U.S. and hire U.S. employees. I spend a great deal of time locating those companies and get very excited when I find a new U.S. company that makes products here in the U.S.
What did I say that lead you to believe otherwise. I am tired I know, but please explain.
I agree with you and support the president 100%.
Longtimevegan,
I think I understand. I always place the comment I am responding to on top of mine separated by *******
I was responding to: genius_revealed Oct. 16, 2012 8:52 p.m. message, which is on top and my comment is below under the *******
I was interested because I agree with you :)
Thanks Kepi, good idea. I will start using the same separating tag.
Your past comments indicates your part of the solution. stay engaged Good Citizen. :)
Obama lied about Lybia because Bin Laden is dead BUT Al Queda is still very much alive.
Do we want a president who lies to the American people and covers up terrorism? Obama didn't want you to know the Lybia consulate attack was a planned terrorist attack by Al Queda because this would make Obama look bad.
Do we want a president who does not tell us about the Al Queda strikes against the same consulate weeks before the 9/11 Ambassadors death.
Do we want a president who denies security to an Ambassador who is begging for more security?
Obama not only destroys US economy but our foreign relations too.
Back in March of 2009 President Obama, just two months into his term, had this to say about out-sourced jobs: "So I guess the answer to the question is, not all of these jobs are going to come back. And it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back ..." ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi... )
Last night, Obama doubled down on that statement.
For almost four years we have seen Obama act on this belief. He has placed far more emphasis on creating replacement jobs. However, almost all of those jobs are ones that can be, and have been, out-sourced, too.
The fact of the matter is that current economic policies are not doing anything to reverse this, and worse, the President's own words says he doesn't want to.
@boftx, you naughty person, you.
Why didn't you post the entire comments the President was making. Now, Now.
Here is the additional information. The President said;
"Now, a lot of the outsourcing that was referred to in the question really has to do with the fact that our economy -- if it's dependent on low-wage, low-skill labor, it's very hard to hang on to those jobs because there's always a country out there that pays lower wages than the U.S. And so we've got to go after the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future. That's why it's so important to train our folks more effectively and that's why it's so important for us to find new industries -- building solar panels or wind turbines or the new biofuel -- that involve these higher-value, higher-skill, higher-paying jobs...........
.....So I guess the answer to the question is, not all of these jobs are going to come back. And it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back because, frankly, there's no way that people could be getting paid a living wage on some of these jobs -- at least in order to be competitive in an international setting." (The President of United States)
The facts are telling aren't they!
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
If Romney is elected children will die from lack of medical care and from crowded emergency rooms.
How many times now have we heard that many of the solar panels and wind turbine components are coming in from China? Even when there is a start-up solar manufacturing plant in Nevada it is a joint venture with the Chinese.
The President stated a clear belief in 2009, and it has not changed since then. In reality, we do need those jobs back. Ask the people who have been on UI for 99 weeks how they feel about it.
While you're at it, take a look at the trade agreements Obama finalized. They give benefits immediately to the respective trading partners, but we don't receive any benefit for as much as five years. They gave our trade partners/competitors a five year head start. That does not seem to encourage job creation here.
Jim, you're flailing all over the place.
Let's go back to what Obama said about those low-skill jobs that you're up in arms about.
And let's take the example set forth of call center jobs that were lost to other countries.
What specific policies should Obama put in place to lure these companies back? Are you demanding we lower the minimum wage to $2.00 an hour to compete with Indonesia? Should we give these companies waivers so they don't have to give employees health coverage? Should we shower them with tax subsidies?
And doesn't all of this corporate favoritism you demand violate the golden rule of the free market?
Since you're supposedly dissatisfied with both candidates, surely you can put forth some ideas of your own.
Why don't you?
Obama did a better job on this debate than he did the last. However, Romney still won. Romney is a proven problem solver and has shown positive results in his state. Look how he turned around Massachusetts. MOST IMPORTANT is Romney has proven to work with Rebuplicans and Democrats. Remember, those Republicans and Deomcrats were elected by us people to represent our views. So if we have ruffly 50% Republicans, and 50% Democrats, then we need president that can work with both sides of the isle and come to agreements that are fair to both sides. That will not work with President Obama. It's his way or the highway. We need a president that will work with both the D's and the R's. I believe Romney would be better.
I have said more than a few times now that I want to see us re-structure our tariffs. Yes, I am advocating what could be called a protectionist position.
You, Kevin (and others) have often brought up Hoover's attempt at that and the bad result. My counter is that our trade position today is fundamentally different since we are now the single largest importer in the world, with a trade deficit that about the same as the rest of the world combined.
I do not worship at the altar of "Free Trade" when national boundaries are involved, it simply doesn't exist. And after have seen the definition of "Fair Trade" as used by the WTO I can't use that term either. The latest trade agreements fall into that category and are good examples of how that definition is one-sided.
At the very least, I think we should be imposing a fee on imported goods that is equivalent to the payroll taxes that would be paid on the labor component of those goods. This would not only help level the playing field (an overused phrase) but could also go into the SS and Medicare funds to help strengthen them, as well.
Such a fee might well be allowable under the WTO since it is something our domestic companies already pay and is therefore not discriminatory against foreign companies.
Jim, that's a solution to our trade deficit.
That is not a solution to outsourcing call center jobs.
Imported services, such as call centers, are a much tougher nut to crack. One approach might be to set a requirement that any foreign company with US contracts must meet US labor standards. But I doubt that would even begin to get past WTO regs, let alone Congress. There are also severe philosophical problems with it, too.
There is no good answer for services such as call centers are programming mills at this moment, other than companies recognizing the quality of service issues are more expensive than hiring in this country.
Give 12-30 million immigrants amnesty and they can immediately apply for government union jobs like fireman, police, DOE, DOD county, city workers of all kinds. They don't have to be a drag on the economy, they can be beneficial in bringing down high union wages, uninsured claims at local hospitals, and they actually know how to WORK, for cheap! Just like Americans, CHEAP and dumb.
Romney had Illegals cut his grass, trying to make ends meet don't ya know, Obama appears to be an illegal himself, just like his aunt and brother. Maybe he should go serve two years in the military, he already got a free ride in college. What a choice we have America, tell us again, who's winning?
Clerk at Office Depot helping a customer...
"Yeah, I heard about that last night at the debates. Binders full of women. We got 'em. But lemme ask you.... Whole? Or partial? Okay. Whole. Go down there (points) to aisle seven, just about halfway down on the left, bottom shelf, you'll see the binders....."
Romney is a doofus.
Obama/Biden 2012!
"I'm runnin' for President, for Pete's sake, I can't have binders full of women on my front lawn...."
Colin, nice. The POTUS has nothing and you just admitted it by being silly. Interpret it how you want but Obama is in serious trouble.
Libya-Gate will bring him and his puppet regime down.
NOvember=NObama
47 million Americans on food stamps, 23 million unemployed, 50% of college graduates can't find work, the last four years the average American family has lost 40% of their wealth, 12-30 million illegals, 6 trillion dollars added to the national debt during the last four years, average family income has dropped $4500, insurance costs have risen by over $2500 per family, consumer confidence may be the lowest in over one hundred years, FOREWARD folks.
Obama showed Romney who the Alpla-Male was last nite by playing the Commander in Chief card! LOL
"Binders?!?!? Weeee doan neeeee nooooo steeenkeeeeng binders fulla women!!!!"
Romney was schooled. At times he had a deer-in-the-headlights look about him. I think he could see his chances at the presidency draining away...
Romney wants to make capital gains non-taxable. I guess 13% is way too much for Mittens.
The reality is that there are plenty of Teamsters and other hard working union members who could have jobs working on the Canadian pipeline and other energy projects. Obama steadfastly refuses to sign permits for these large scale projects. If I were a union member I would be very upset by the current administration. Obama is pandering to these so called environmentalists which have cost thousands of high paid union jobs. That is not good.
Romney asks Obama if he knew where his pension comes from after Obama's remark about shipping jobs overseas. The Chinese have politicians bought and paid for even after they retire. Wonder how much Harry's Chinese pension is? (ENN) The only thing obvious about Reid, Mitt and the Chameleon is they do, or used to do a VERY good job hiding the Marionette.
Have any of you ever actually been convinced by someone else's opinion in this comments section?
I don't know who won the debate but I know that Obama is mean! I thought his eyes were going to pop out.
Evil_Slayer,
Why do you ask?
yesno Oct. 17, 2012 2:45 p.m.
STATED:
I don't know who won the debate but I know that Obama is mean! I thought his eyes were going to pop out.
****************************
Darling,
Oh really, do you read cards as well? Is that your take away from the debate??
kepi -- Because if no one has ever changed their mind on here, what's the point of getting so hot and bothered? By now we should all expect that we're not going to change anyone's opinion. So just state your views like calm, rational adults, and enjoy the conversation.
Laughter never hurts, but reality bites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6zrtUEXM...
boftx,
"How many times now have we heard that many of the solar panels and wind turbine components are coming in from China? Even when there is a start-up solar manufacturing plant in Nevada it is a joint venture with the Chinese."
China is the leading manufacturer and exporter of solar panels in the world.
We are not competitive, especially since we have barely started compared to Europe who committed to the environmental agreements that we did not under Bush.
Personally, I think there are too many businesses that want to run before they can walk.
The only benefit we appear to have gotten out of the deal with China in NV is the price of the land. Who is going to be employed there? China is bringing in it's own highly trained personnel and leadership.
Who is it that got us into the new China Syndrome? Businesses and politicians. Why? Profits, not people! This needs to change.
Appears the moral compass has broken down pointing East, South, West, and North.
Certainly, there is no patriotism in capitalism, only profits.
kepi, you are a wonder. I so enjoyed reading you opinions, and I agree completely.
Thank your for sharing your insights!
Jobs and outsourcing...
I'm struck at the impasse that exists in solving this problem.
We apparently can't count on our politicians to do so.
We can't count on business to do so either.
So, who has to be the ones to change this? The people!
Increasingly, there are owner/worker cooperative businesses that have been started and grow. How would you like to have a job? How would you like to be the boss, as well as the worker?
Worker/owners share the profits together, they often have a different set of priorities and values than many businesses that exist in our current structure.
Sure, there is self employment for some, but that doesn't always work for everyone and every type of work.
kepi, you mentioned buying American produced products. It might also me helpful to buy products from worker coops.
I think it is possible that worker's themselves may be the answer to bringing back balance and stability to our nation.
Worker coops are everything in one. The workers are the boss, the Board of Directors, the workers. They decide everything, one person, one vote.
I was surprised when I started researching this at how many there are and the organizations the help them, the associations. It seems a little known secret. And, whenever possible, my first choice of purchase to support these enterprises.
Surely, it takes people having an idea, coming together and planning. This isn't a quick process, but it belongs to the workers.
At the moment the majority of people are held captive by business, having to accept the crumbs they dole out, while their profits soar, stocks are soaring, but they are not willing to start jobs, or create consumers.
Why...politics! Romney offers them hope to make even bigger profits, with few or no regulations, and much lower taxes, while increasing their opportunities to outsource more jobs, and more use of tax havens.
This is not something we can fight. It is something we have to take on ourselves for ourselves.
Only in time and with effort can American workers get back what has been lost. Perhaps if there is enough competition from worker coops, in time business would have to come to it's senses. Depends on the efforts of the American workers.
2012 is the UN International Year of Cooperatives.
Even the Small Business Administration is beginning to get involved with worker cooperatives.
Here is a list of US worker cooperatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wor...
This is not new, but it is gaining a renewed effort.
peacelily,
What is sad is that I am pretty sure the technology was developed here for both and the leading advances continue to be so. (I could be wrong, but I don't think so.)
Isn't it interesting that when Pres.Obama didn't win the first debate,Republicans were all over him like a cheap suit.They bragged and boasted what a great job Gov. Romney did in winning the 1st. debate.
It is quite clear by everyone who saw the 2nd. debate that Pres.Obama had won it easily,with a knock out punch.
These same bragging and boasting Republicans won't concide that Gov.Romney lost the 2nd.debate,they call it a draw.
If I were a betting man I would bet this was a repeat of the title fight Between Muhammad Ali as(Pres. Obama), and George Forman as (Gov. Romney). In which Muhammad Ali won the fight.He(Ali) called the fight rope a dope (1974).
Kepi and Peacelilly:
Are you in that Binders Full of Women?
I wonder how one could get in it. After school, can I get in? How do I get out? Can I just jump in then out?
Who opens and closes the three rings? Are there binders also for men? Or are they in folders?
It's 2012, maybe men are ahead and are already inside icons - easy access, you know?
Darn, women are still in a 'bind'?
Warrior, thanks for the link. It was something we should keep in mind.
Nancy, LOL! Thanks for that one.
I was just thinking...I wonder how many women are in Rush Limbaugh's binders? :-D
(I think they fled)
chuck333,
It is all over the TV in poll results that the strongest supporters of Romney are white males. It is a statistical reference/reality, not racism. Nancy was not being racist.
I think Gov.Romney might have had the blinders on when he made the comment that he had binders full of women.Which he said during the 2nd. debate with Pres.Obama.Gov.Romney did lose the 2nd debate.
Romney likes to tout his experience in business, saving the Olympics, and as Govenor of MA, as qualifying him for President of the US. Here are a few links, or kinks, to look at for some facts.
Bain Capital:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...
2002 Olympics:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...
As Govenor:
http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/20...
Personally, I don't see any reason to change Presidents now. Obama should get more time to clean up the economic meltdown he inherited.
We also need to get rid of the Tea/Republicans in Congress and get it back to functionality.
boftx, I agree with you about the technology grab.
Kepi,
I did view your 8:03,8:04,and 8:05 am posts.They were all on the money a good explanation on how most of see Gov.Romney.It is a pleasure to read your posts, and also the posts of Nancy, and Peacelily as well. It seems women have a keen sense of getting to the point of things faster than some of us men do. Thanks ladies.
Romney proves time and time again that he doesn't
care about low income Americans.
After he threw 47% of Americans under the bus,
why would red state republicans vote for this
fool?
Red state republicans are low income republicans.
Romney even threw Honey Boo Boo under the bus.
He picked Snooky over Honey Boo Boo in a recent
interview.
A rich girl over a poor, red state girl.
Honey Boo Boo got even.
When asked on a talk show, who would she vote for
if she were old enough?
She said President Obama.
Willard loses again.
chuck333,
It is all over the TV in poll results that the strongest supporters of Romney are white males. It is a statistical reference/reality, not racism. Nancy was not being racist
@peacelily: Since the demographic for the President with blacks is in the 90 percentile, is it ok then for anyone to refer to blacks in this same manner. You know the deragatory one or is that to politically incorrect for you? You people and your double standards. And don't tell me about racism. I am from the streets and lived it most of my life not in some cherry picked area.
Evil_Slayer Oct. 17, 2012 3:45 p.m.
Stated:
kepi -- Because if no one has ever changed their mind on here, what's the point of getting so hot and bothered? By now we should all expect that we're not going to change anyone's opinion. So just state your views like calm, rational adults, and enjoy the conversation.
*******************************
Evil_Slayer,
I totally agree with you. Thank you for your kindness several months ago.
Nancy Agustin Oct. 17, 2012 6:45 p.m.
Too funny, thank you. And thank you for your wonderful comments day in and day out. I love your attitude and commitment and that goes for Peacelily as well.
Sam,
You are just a wonderful gentleman. Thank you for being you! You are a real delight!
Evil_Slayer,
FYI
Because of the kindness you had shown me several months ago, I wrote a very long response to your request. I did not post it because I thought my time was up; I am not a trusted commentator. But I wanted you to know that small acts of kindness stay with people. I dismiss the negative, but I do remember acts of kindness toward me and others.
So, have a nice day and thank you for your words of wisdom.
Mitty, Mitty quite contrary
How does your cabinet grow?
With huge white fancy binders
Full of women all in a row.