Here's where I struggle and the reason I asked my original questions.

 

You say he won because he came across as more knowledgeable. I'm struggling with how you(collective) can come to such a conclusion.

 

This isn't defending an already set platform.

 

As I said I'm putting more criticism on us as the voting population than I am on any candidate. We cry all the time about what you've listed above and yet we then say "congrats, big boy, you WON because your lies were spoken with such conviction."

 

We're morons.

 

Clyde, it is like I told you at the start of this thread. It is about likeability and connecting with the voters. You just need a thread of truth in your content if you can deliver it with conviction and use it to make a point. Romney won the debate because he "performed" better than Obama and that is the way debates go. Style wins over content.

Clyde, it is like I told you at the start of this thread. It is about likeability and connecting with the voters. You just need a thread of truth in your content if you can deliver it with conviction and use it to make a point. Romney won the debate because he "performed" better than Obama and that is the way debates go. Style wins over content.

 

 

Awesome. I realize there is no test that one has to pass in order to validate his/her vote and I'd never advocate any other way.

 

Nothing wrong with likeability. It's human nature.

 

Hell, even if you just say "I only vote for one party" or "I just don't like the other guy" or "I would never vote for a guy who supports...." I'm cool with that.

 

What gets me is when you have light thinkers who say "he won because he showed he knows the economy and he proved he can improve the economy" yet when you say "how" they resort to sophomoric and moronic posts. Or if you pose one guy's article about misstatements and it doesn't fit your narrative you resort to "you're playing games."

 

We're not blessed with a lot of deep thinkers on BGP as Corleone has shown.

Awesome. I realize there is no test that one has to pass in order to validate his/her vote and I'd never advocate any other way.

 

Nothing wrong with likeability. It's human nature.

 

Hell, even if you just say "I only vote for one party" or "I just don't like the other guy" or "I would never vote for a guy who supports...." I'm cool with that.

 

What gets me is when you have light thinkers who say "he won because he showed he knows the economy and he proved he can improve the economy" yet when you say "how" they resort to sophomoric and moronic posts. Or if you pose one guy's article about misstatements and it doesn't fit your narrative you resort to "you're playing games."

 

We're not blessed with a lot of deep thinkers on BGP as Corleone has shown.

 

And BGP is almost surely a deeper thinking group than the general voting populace.

He did not.

 

You put $90 billion into -- into green jobs. And -- and I -- look, I'm all in favor of green energy. Ninety billion (dollars) -- that -- that would have -- that would have hired 2 million teachers. Ninety billion dollars. And these businesses -- many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they've gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by -- by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

 

The implication was clear. He wasted $90B. His claim that half of them have gone out of business seems to also be incorrect.

10 seconds on my Google machine tells me that he wasn't.

 

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions

Green Companies That Took Taxpayer Money and Went Bankrupt

Yeah but look who benefited the most from the Green Job Money.

 

GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors – 19 Companies Went Bust (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Awesome. I realize there is no test that one has to pass in order to validate his/her vote and I'd never advocate any other way.

 

Nothing wrong with likeability. It's human nature.

 

Hell, even if you just say "I only vote for one party" or "I just don't like the other guy" or "I would never vote for a guy who supports...." I'm cool with that.

 

What gets me is when you have light thinkers who say "he won because he showed he knows the economy and he proved he can improve the economy" yet when you say "how" they resort to sophomoric and moronic posts. Or if you pose one guy's article about misstatements and it doesn't fit your narrative you resort to "you're playing games."

 

We're not blessed with a lot of deep thinkers on BGP as Corleone has shown.

 

Here's the thing, I don't need articles or exact numbers to know what I know. Big governments and increased taxes do not grow economies, period. I have no idea if the stats Romney used are correct or not and neither did Obama. In this case the numbers are not important, the big picture is what matters. Tons of debt, increased government spending, higher tax rates on anyone, class warfare, none of these things are good for the economy. If you need examples look at France and that is exactly the path the United States is currently taking. Is it all Obama's fault, no but those policies going forward will not stimulate growth. We will hover around 8% unemployment and the GDP will grow around 2%.

 

I may sophmoric and moronic but I'm not miserable or frustrated.

10 seconds on my Google machine tells me that he wasn't.

 

List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions

Green Companies That Took Taxpayer Money and Went Bankrupt

 

Perfect. Exactly the type of response we need in order to have a debate.

 

I took a quick look and it's obviously a different story than we've heard repeated by many of the fact-checkers. So I, too, hit my Google machine and looked up Amonix Solar since it was at the top of the list. The snippet said it was funded by tax credits and grants (that caught my attention) given by the Obama administration.

 

First, the plan that Gov Romney criticized wasn't for tax credits and grants if I understand it correctly. The plan was for subsidized loans. So that seems like an issue.

 

Secondly, this company received said tax credits and grants IN 2007 .

 

From the article I read:

 

Amonix was selected for a grant under the Bush administration's Department of Energy in 2007 and eventually received a total of $15.6 million under the grant, she said.

 

Amonix closes North Las Vegas solar plant after 14 months - Business - ReviewJournal.com

 

However, let's assume that the POTUS would have given the guaranteed loan to this company just for argument's sake. The main reason it seems to have gone under is its owner died in a plane crash. When the owner of a small company dies it's often left to employees and/or family members who are not ready to run a company. Are we going to say the govt is to blame for not knowing the owner was not going to live?

 

So I'm a bit skeptical already of the report. To be fair it was the first one I checked. Maybe the rest will have some semblance of accuracy. I'm getting ready to jump on a conference call so it may be a bit.

 

Lastly, Dividedstates.com seems to have a bit of a slant which in and of itself is not an issue but when you add in the rest my senses are a bit heightened.

Here's the thing, I don't need articles or exact numbers to know what I know. .

 

You've made that quite clear.

Here's the thing, I don't need articles or exact numbers to know what I know. Big governments and increased taxes do not grow economies, period. I have no idea if the stats Romney used are correct or not and neither did Obama. In this case the numbers are not important, the big picture is what matters. Tons of debt, increased government spending, higher tax rates on anyone, class warfare, none of these things are good for the economy. If you need examples look at France and that is exactly the path the United States is currently taking. Is it all Obama's fault, no but those policies going forward will not stimulate growth. We will hover around 8% unemployment and the GDP will grow around 2%.

 

 

Big picture is a fair and reasonable argument to make. If you had made that initially I would have been fine with it. It's based on opinion which is cool.

 

That's not what you said though nor is it what I asked you to respond to. Again, not surprising that you chose the path you did but it tells me that maybe you are not cut out for this forum.

Big picture is a fair and reasonable argument to make. If you had made that initially I would have been fine with it. It's based on opinion which is cool.

 

That's not what you said though nor is it what I asked you to respond to. Again, not surprising that you chose the path you did but it tells me that maybe you are not cut out for this forum.

 

Why are you so bitter?

Why are you so bitter?

 

No one enjoys life more than me, holmes.

 

I just can't put up with people who are not thinkers AND who take shots at me.

 

There are lots of people on here who struggle with intelligent thought and using facts but they don't get personal so I just let them roll.

 

YOU on the other hand have contributed NOTHING to this forum yet you still take shots. You're fair game at that point.

 

It's not even partisan. RTS positions are often different than mine. 75 also. LN. Actually, many. However, they are logical and bring facts to the discussion AND when I challenge them or disagree they don't go to the personal card like you.

 

100% on you, chief.

Perfect. Exactly the type of response we need in order to have a debate.

 

I took a quick look and it's obviously a different story than we've heard repeated by many of the fact-checkers. So I, too, hit my Google machine and looked up Amonix Solar since it was at the top of the list. The snippet said it was funded by tax credits and grants (that caught my attention) given by the Obama administration.

 

First, the plan that Gov Romney criticized wasn't for tax credits and grants if I understand it correctly. The plan was for subsidized loans. So that seems like an issue.

 

Secondly, this company received said tax credits and grants IN 2007 .

 

From the article I read:

 

Amonix was selected for a grant under the Bush administration's Department of Energy in 2007 and eventually received a total of $15.6 million under the grant, she said.

 

Amonix closes North Las Vegas solar plant after 14 months - Business - ReviewJournal.com

 

However, let's assume that the POTUS would have given the guaranteed loan to this company just for argument's sake. The main reason it seems to have gone under is its owner died in a plane crash. When the owner of a small company dies it's often left to employees and/or family members who are not ready to run a company. Are we going to say the govt is to blame for not knowing the owner was not going to live?

 

So I'm a bit skeptical already of the report. To be fair it was the first one I checked. Maybe the rest will have some semblance of accuracy. I'm getting ready to jump on a conference call so it may be a bit.

 

Lastly, Dividedstates.com seems to have a bit of a slant which in and of itself is not an issue but when you add in the rest my senses are a bit heightened.

I don't know anything about that website which is why I also included the heritage link. Aminox doesn't appear to be on their list.

Here's the thing, I don't need articles or exact numbers to know what I know.

 

You have me intrigued. How exactly did you come to know what you know? This education and knowledge gathering apparently by osmosis sounds really interesting. I want me some of that!

No one enjoys life more than me, holmes.

 

I just can't put up with people who are not thinkers AND who take shots at me.

 

There are lots of people on here who struggle with intelligent thought and using facts but they don't get personal so I just let them roll.

 

YOU on the other hand have contributed NOTHING to this forum yet you still take shots. You're fair game at that point.

 

It's not even partisan. RTS positions are often different than mine. 75 also. LN. Actually, many. However, they are logical and bring facts to the discussion AND when I challenge them or disagree they don't go to the personal card like you.

 

100% on you, chief.

 

If you think I have anything personal against you then you have a very thin skin, have way to high of an opinion of yourself, or both.

Here's the thing with these debates. Anyone with a brain realizes beforehand that 95% of what they hear will be at best half-truths. So with that in mind, it's easy to see why people judge who "won" or "lost" based on appearance and performance. I'm not necessarily interested in whether this statement or that by either candidate was accurate. I just assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Those that I deem as important to me, I'll delve into deeper, those I don't care about, I let slide.