Up for Debate: The final debate

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 12:26am

In the final presidential debate of this election, the candidates appeared a bit more civilized but throw no-less pointed barbs at each other. What's you reaction on how each one did? Who came out on top? What were the highlights?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

174 Comments on this post:

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 8:51

Donald's bomb - Mitt convinced him to appear without his rug.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/23/12 at 8:53

LOL Blanket.

By: Loner on 10/23/12 at 8:54

If anyone was to give Iran a "ready-made" nuke, it would be the Pakistanis, not the Russians.

Nobody seemed to factor in the fact that Russia has a naval base in Syria, on the Mediterranean Sea...their only one on that strategic body of water...or did I miss that conversation during the presidential debates? I did go to the fridge a few times during the lengthy gab-fest....and went out for a smoke, of course.....(cough, cough)

By: Captain Nemo on 10/23/12 at 9:00

Sheriff Roy locked his son in the closet for doing what other kids toll him to do, like picking his nose and then licking his fingers. “Damn it you idiot boy”, he said locking the closet door. Then in a fit of anger his tossed the key out the door and the idiot dog ate it. He waited a week before the dog gave it up.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/23/12 at 9:04

When Putin rears his head over the United States, he first flies over Mass.,Utah and Mich.

Mitt Romney-

By: slacker on 10/23/12 at 9:05

That's a great Homeland plot Loner.
The Paks give Iran a nuke, they sneak it into Israel.
The blonde, bi-polar girl, comes to the rescue, jamming the nuke with a tampax.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/23/12 at 9:06

LOL slacker

By: Ummm... on 10/23/12 at 9:15

Hmm... The righties sure sonud desperate this morning, don't they? What with the consensus from polling showing the president as the clear winner of the debate and Willard's "me too" strategy of endorsing pretty much 100% (not just 47%) of Obama's foreign policy, I guess they're left wondering what their candidate actually believes in. Welcome to the club, fellas. Flip-flopping, say-anything-to-get-elected Willard has once again proved everything his critics have been saying to be true: the man has no core. Unless you just really have to have a white plutocrat as president (and I'm sure some of you feel that way), you're invited to vote for the only guy in the race with actual principles.

By: Ummm... on 10/23/12 at 9:17

Oops, s/h/b "sound desperate," sorry.

By: BenDover on 10/23/12 at 9:19

The biggest concern with the balance of power in the world is if Germany and Russia hook up.

That's why Poland is so important.

The 2nd biggest concern is the radicalization of the governments in Northern Africa with Egypt and Libya new state authorities fomenting increasing hatred against Israel and Iran's ongoing quest for an atomic weapon that they have vowed to use against Israel.

By: Loner on 10/23/12 at 9:23

Willard has talent, of that there is no doubt....he's a great actor....he acted like a devout Mormon during the Vietnam War, thus evading the draft. Mitt's now playing the role of the "peace candidate"....but he protested against the Vietnam war protesters during the war.

Mitt is a draft-dodging chicken-hawk....and he wants to be the US Commander-In-Chief.....and millions of Americans are quite comfortable with that....is the hatred of this black president so intense that we would choose Willard to be POTUS?

Mitt is currently acting like a champion of women's rights...but as a Mormon Bishop, according to reports, he once excommunicated a women, for not giving up her illegitimate child for adoption.....Mitt has played both "pro" and "anti" roles on the woman's right to choose argument...he fully supports an Israeli woman's right to choose, but his position on that, with regard to American women, has flip-flopped and see-sawed over the years.

Reagan was great at reading from a script....so is the Bishop.....no wonder then, that Ben Dover is enthralled with the guy....Mitt's the new Reagan....he's auditioning for the Actor-In-Chief role and he may win the 2-man competition.

Let's face it, the election is Democracy Lite and both both candidates are on short leashes...their campaign financiers hold their leashes....some donors, like Defense, Israel & Energy, hold the leashes of both men.....if we get a new boss, he'll be the same as the old boss.....only more on the take than the old boss was.

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 9:23

Ben - If Romney gets in, that won't matter because he doesn't know where any of those places are.

By: budlight on 10/23/12 at 9:31

bfra on 10/23/12 at 7:24
The biased bunch jumped on here early! Let's hope Romney doesn't accidently get elected, with his lack of geography knowledge, he might declare war on our own allies. If the first 3 had paid attention, their man is totally dumb as far as Presidential needs go.

During the race for president in 2008, Obama said that he had "visited all but one of the 56 states".

Geography? I'd say Obama needs a few lessons. And recently he has referred to working with Governors of 46 states (and he said 46 states last night); so where' s the other 4? Or if he was right in 08, the other 10?

He is a nut cake.

By: yogiman on 10/23/12 at 9:34

That's OK, Ummm. we righties don't mind your errors. We just consider the source and ignore them, regardless of how many there are. It only seems to embarrass you wrongies. You just can't stand being wrong, can you?

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 9:34


By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 9:35


By: Captain Nemo on 10/23/12 at 9:41

Double (Flush)

By: Ummm... on 10/23/12 at 9:41

Little Bennie- Germany and Russia "hooking up?" Apart from the amusing choice of words, which bunch of visitors from another planet thinks that's about to happen??? Have you been reading "Neocon Times" again?

By: Kosh III on 10/23/12 at 9:42

Bud it was 57 and that was including the various colonial possessions such as Puerto Rico or Guam.

Maybe 4 governors refuse to work with the uppity colored boy? What 4 were they? MS?TX???

By: Captain Nemo on 10/23/12 at 9:47

If Russia and Germany were to hook up, then what would their children look like?

By: slacker on 10/23/12 at 9:50


By: Loner on 10/23/12 at 9:55


Ben, your rhetoric is over the top this morning, my friend; the Iranians have never threatened to use nuclear weapons against the Jewish state or any other state.
Israel, on the other hand, has a clandestine, illegal, unregistered stockpile of nukes and state-of-the-art delivery systems in place right now.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to ore-emptively attack Iran's IAEA & NPT-sanctioned and registered nuclear facilities.

My concern is not so much about a potential nuclear threat from Iran; I'm concerned about Israel going nuts and nuking folks right now.

Here's a link to a site that discusses Israel's Samson Option...Israel's doomsday plan to take out the rest of the world, if they should ever face imminent annihilation....the nuclear holocaust would be triggered by an "existential threat", as determined by the Israeli Prime Minister.....it's a true Doomsday Device and it may be set in a hair-trigger mode.



Here's more:

The Israelis considered using their nukes in 1973...here's a NYT snippet that backs that claim up:

It was in the early hours of Oct. 9 that senior Israeli military leaders brought up the idea of using Israel's doomsday weapons. By that time Israel had lost some 50 combat planes and more than 500 tanks -- 400 on the Egyptian battlefield alone. According to a new book by the Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, when the prime minister's top military aide heard those ideas, he begged the army's deputy chief of staff, tears in his eyes, ''You must save the people of Israel from these madmen.''


By: Mike Burch on 10/23/12 at 9:56


Yet another act of shape-shifting metamorphosis by Bishop Romney. He now emerges as a peaceful butterfly and a fan of the Obama administrations policies and actions.

By: BenDover on 10/23/12 at 9:58

Here you go Nemo.


By: yogiman on 10/23/12 at 9:58


You keep using the word "volunteer" in a negative manner on Mitt Romney. May I ask you; what is a volunteer? Is that a draft dodger? Are you insisting Romney should have known he was going to run for President within the next 4 decades he should have volunteered?

Well, I understand he did volunteer. For his church, not the military.

A volunteer is defined as one volunteering, regardless what they are volunteering for. So... what has Barack Obama volunteered for? The only thing I can see him "volunteering" for was to usurp our Oval Office.

And people like you and your fellow posters on this site are still backing the guy even though you still don't know who in the hell he is. And he still will not [volunteer] to identify himself.

I'm sure if you did, you would have thrown that evidence in my face at the beginning of our arguments.

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 10:02


By: Moonglow1 on 10/23/12 at 10:04

Moonglow1: Romney was completely out of his depth. He was sweating, pale, belching, and splotchy-all indicators of extreme nervousness. He continually repeated his handler's buzzwords.

No secret why he wants to increase defense spending over what has been requested by the defense dept. Romney hired The Bush Neocons to run defense. Because Romney has NO aptitude for foreign affairs, he will outsource that function to The Bush Neocons. What does that mean for us-war, war, and more war. This in spite of the fact that none in the Romney family have served. Not one.

Romney is concerned about the supreme Warlords. I am concerned with the supreme idiocy of Romney and the people who may just get him elected.

Romney-an empty sweat filled suit.

By: BenDover on 10/23/12 at 10:06

Romney, again, pointed out to the voters that he's nothing like the caricature painted by Obama and the media. Like the last debate everyone will declare Romney the loser and then he will get the bounce in the polls.

The question is whether his lead with the voters can overcome the fraud.

It would seem that the Wikipedia page on Supercentenarians needs to be updated to include the 2600 or so that have absentee voted in North Carolina so far this year.


By: Loner on 10/23/12 at 10:14

Netanyahu has called for quick elections, by Februaray, he should be re-installed, with new vitality and a fresh mandate to strike Iran in the Spring or Summer of 2013, as he threatened to do in his recent address to the United Nations.

If Romney is then POTUS, we can expect war at that time. Obama may be able to constrain Bibi, but even that is doubtful...Holy Wars Suck....we'll be sucked in quickly.

Iran may use missiles to strike Israel's nuclear facilities in Dimona and/or Israeli cities....using conventional warheads, most likely.

Israel's missile shield would probably stop some, but not all the Iranian missiles.

Israel may have miscalculated things; if thousands of Israelis are killed by these retaliatory Iranian missiles, the Israelis could decide to nuke Tehran...Russia and China might not sit idly by as their trading partner is being nuked...and Pakistan might also decide to nuke Israel, if the Israelis start using their nukes....Doomsday is a distinct possibility.

The thirteenth year of the 21st century could be one for the history books.....Armageddon is actualized?

By: Moonglow1 on 10/23/12 at 10:19

Moonglow1: my take on Romney and his positions on Russia and China

Russia is nationalizing its oil. It will hurt The Koch's. Plain and simple.

The currency manipulation in China is hurting Adelson's Macau casinos. That's it-plain and simple.

So middle class is voting to help The Koch's and Adelson.

We can argue all we want in this post, but if Romney and his handlers win the plutocrats have already said, "If the Chinese can work for 99 cents per hour, so should Americans.

So lies your future.

And Yogi get in front of the line of idiots who will be mandated to "Kiss the A##s of the 1 percent.

By: BenDover on 10/23/12 at 10:21

I think it's interesting that Obama adopted Romney's very effective 'listening intently' mannerism for the split screen shots when Romney was talking. I think. if anything. that helped him most in his debate performance.

By: govskeptic on 10/23/12 at 10:32

Looks like this election is over with: Obama carries NCP, CNN, MSNBC (by
landslide) after having fought very hard has even won over Whoopie and Rosie.
Ross Perot's endorsement almost carried the day for Romney but didn't.
Congrats to Barry!

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 10:33

Ben - Still clutching at straws & failing to see what is before your very eyes.

By: Ummm... on 10/23/12 at 10:46

Moonglow1, re: your 10:19 post, you've hit the nail on the head. If, by some evil chance Willard were to be elected, then government of, by, and for the plutocrats will be re-established in the White House. Anyone who's been paying attention sees that Romney will say anything to win. His polling undoubtedly told him that Americans overwhelmingly endorse this administration's foreign policy, so he changed his tune (yet again) to "everything you've done is right, Mr. President, but I would have done it better." The voters must not allow this creepy, power-hungry, self-righteous pretender within a field goal's distance of winning this. We can't allow the Scalia's of the government to decide this election the way they did in 2000.

By: Mike Burch on 10/23/12 at 10:58


I think Bishop Romney has been carefully schooled about what to say by his neo-con advisers. The goal is to get him elected, after which he can be manipulated, the way Bush Junior was manipulated by Cheney and Rumsfeld. When he looks uncomfortable on stage, perhaps it's because he knows he is now saying exactly the opposite of what he said in the recent past. No one likes to be called a liar, and Romney was a Bishop of the Mormon church, and remains a high priest. So he is in a very odd position, to say the least. He wants everyone to admire him, but he's been caught in so many lies that he has to know what's going to be said, as soon as the new lies come out of his mouth.

Perhaps Ann Romney was right to worry about him having a breakdown. She knows him better than anyone.

By: Mike Burch on 10/23/12 at 11:06


During the debate, I was struck by how much Romney looked and acted like Reagan. But there is a HUGE difference, in my opinion. I think Reagan believed what he said and -- agree with his positions, or not -- he could be taken at his word. His greatest mistakes were not the result of dishonesty, but of adopting the wrong policies and trusting the wrong people, as with Iran-Contra. As a person, he seemed to be a man of character.

But Bishop Romney seems like an eel-slick used car salesman to me. He will say and do anything, completely without shame, in order to close a deal. Now the deal he's trying to close is taking the presidency, and he will now pretend to be a peace-loving butterfly who approves of the policies of the Obama administration, even though for years he has been suggesting that it's time for the US to flex its military muscle around the world ... hence the need to spend $2 trillion dollars more than the current bloated military budget.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/23/12 at 11:10

For those who says people are not voting against Obama because of race....



By: BenDover on 10/23/12 at 11:17

Anyone who will vote against Obama because of his race voted against him last time too.

These are not the people who Obama has lost in this election and they are not the reason Romney is on the march to victory.

If anything blind racial preference works in Obama's favor because of his connection in the African-American community.

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 11:19

Ben just doesn't believe in FACTS!

By: yogiman on 10/23/12 at 11:48

Slight error, budlight. Barry said he believed he had visited 57 of the states and probably still had one to go. I figured he was talking about Hawaii hoping he could get them to put him of their ballot.

And, by golly, he did, but his qualifications with them was worded differently than the rest of our 57 states.

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 11:50


By: yogiman on 10/23/12 at 11:53

Kosh III,

Even PR and Guam left him short of the 58 he was commenting on. I'm still trying to figure out what 57 he was referring to.

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 11:59


By: pswindle on 10/23/12 at 12:03

Mitt was in over his head last night. He sweated and mumbled his words. He knew that he did not do well on his trip overseas because he has such limited knowledge in that area. I don't think that I have even seen Mitt so uncomfortable in his own skin. His facial expression said it all.

By: yogiman on 10/23/12 at 12:04

There you go, Moonglow1, siding with Loner on Romney not "volunteering" and saying no one in the campaign with him has ever served.

Tell me, how many years has Barry served, and which ones of Barry's "group" has served?

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 12:08


By: budlight on 10/23/12 at 12:26



Kosh, no one mentions puerto rico or guam when they refer to the UNITED STATES or if they do, they are quick to mention the "territories".
Maybe it's 4 states where obama has offended most of the state. You are the one who is referring to him as a "colored boy". Your words, not mine.

I don't care about his race. There is another word that is more important to people of integrity -- that word is POLICIES. Many people don't like his policies and the democrats can't figure it out.

By the way: Did anyone hear the audio of a woman ini PA calling in on a radio station to complain about the deer crossing signs? She actually states that the government needs to change the locations where it gives deer the right to cross. She said the signs need to go in small towns and in school zones and not on freeways where the speed limit is 65 and over. She actually said that the government is "directing" the deer on where to cross. The radioi announcer said "but it's to notify drivers of the high number of deer" and that went right over her head. It was all he and his co-host could do to keep from rolling over laughing. She said she has written many letters and gotten no response. She wants those deer to cross in safer areas!

OMG! You know you're talking to a democrat when . . . . !

YOGI, the guys and gals on Barry's side served in some way: they blew up government buildings and protested the war in Vietnam -- can you say William Ayers?

By: budlight on 10/23/12 at 12:30

Reagan was great at reading from a script.... - a quote from Loner and a boner!

Loner, is a teleprompter similar to a script? Or is it different from rehearsals? Well, Obama is clearly great at reading script also.

By: bfra on 10/23/12 at 12:40

(flush) (click)

By: yogiman on 10/23/12 at 12:44

Well, budlight,

When the dumbocraps are referring to voting for Barry because of his race, are they referring to him being a Negro or a Caucasian? Aren't you a racist if you only see a person's color. Are you a racist if you vote for Romney?

Why are you a racist only when a Negro is being referred to? I've never heard of a person being called a racist when referring to a Caucasian... or and Indian... or an Asian.

I'm afraid they're all proving their ignorance on both sides of that fence. I'll continue my argument: Why are they so willing to vote for someone whom they don't know and who refuses to identify himself? That, my friends (as I use the term loosely) is not only be a racist, is is also exposing your ignorance.

Could it be by party? If so, they're still wrong. Barry is a communist. His well known mentor was Frank Marshall Davis. The government had a think stack of papers on him. He was an old friend of Barry's grandparents that turned him over to Davis to teach him communism. He was well educated in it.