It’s hard to read when I’ve been drinking . . . .

Brewha wrote:

HD Ted me to vote for Obama but I don't want to. We need a ruling.

RAM! Do I have to vote for Obama since HD said I have to?

Nervously awaiting the decision.

teedubbya wrote:

Don't vote at all. You're in a flyover state where you're vote won't matter anyway.

HockeyDad wrote:

Liberals saying things they know aren’t true for the sole purpose of exploiting the “less-than-informed” for political gain.

zrx wrote:

A trillion dollars in new national debt per year, and stagnant economy, and high unemployment/underemployment and we're worried about did President Obama get 10% more time in the debate or 7.9% more time.....

OUTRAGE!

HockeyDad wrote:

I think you are all wet Tail and you are letting your bias taint you.

Romney was wrong on the small point and correct on the larget point. pretty simple.

And Romney didn't follow the rules of the debate as agreed upon by both parties. he had no intention to. Neither did obama. obama was just more graceful when asked to. Romney felt the need to be more aggressive.

thats neither good nor bad ... just my opinion. we all have them. Don't mistake yours as fact.

teedubbya wrote:

Ahhh... ok. So there's a list of things that are acceptable to be misleading about.

Sorry.

Really wish the republicans would disseminate that list, maybe the liberals wouldn't intentionally lie about the wrong things then. Do you happen to have a copy of the list HD?

victor809 wrote:

I had posted the 10% time differential because the numbers were posted unofficially immediately following the debate. It was 44 minutes and change for Obama, and 40.5 minutes for Romeny. The difference was just shy of 10%, probably 9.6% or 9.7% if I did the math. I didn't think it would matter for purposes of proving the impact that this moderator had.

Maybe we should talk about who pays for women's contraception. Or how Romney will end Roe v. Wade. Or how corporations have been foolish for all these years because they could have hired an all women workforce and saved about 20% in salary.
You know: the important things.

tailgater wrote:

Both candidates failed to follow the rules. Agreed. Let's move on from this point.

The moderator interjected her own brand of fact check. Even if it were accurate AND relevant, it can and did impact the tone of the debate. It also affected the results.

When Candy first interrupted Romney to state that the transcript did in fact contain "act of terror", I assumed she was correct and that the information was damning towards Romney's argument.
And I'm biased, as you have pointed out.
I'm in favor of Romney. I want Obama out of office.
Yet I felt that Romney had his information somehow wrong. that the President must have called the attacks an "act of terror" because it was in the transcript from the Rose Garden address one day after.

You don't see this as an issue. Even though it had a major impact on the debate. A debate that is supposed to be between the candidates, not the candidates and the moderator.
I find your apathy to be naive. But no harm. You're probably in the majority here. Which makes this an even more egregious breach of protocol.

tailgater wrote:

Ahhh... ok. So there's a list of things that are acceptable to be misleading about.

Sorry.

Really wish the republicans would disseminate that list, maybe the liberals wouldn't intentionally lie about the wrong things then. Do you happen to have a copy of the list HD?

victor809 wrote:

Most liberals can't read.

HockeyDad wrote:

Most liberals can't read.

HockeyDad wrote: