• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2012 Debates

grunion said:
And, just in, a leak from the Romney campaign of his debate warmup (this one is about education reform):



I thought he looked damn good, but obviously could use a little tightening up on the pauses and "um"s. Certainly enough to claim victory.
Click to expand...
Wow! I'm voting Romney!

Boy, I really hope we get to see his magic underwear!
 
Olowkow said:
I gotta say, I honestly can't tell you why anyone is pro Romney. The lack of position and all the lies don't seem to matter.
Click to expand...

The has an (R) next to his name. That is all that many need to know.

That works both ways though. Many will vote for him because he's a republican, just as some will vote against him for the same reason.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Historically, everyone remembers Nixon/Kennedy, where the election really may have swung on the debates, but other than that there's been no historical knockout punch in the debates.
Click to expand...
This might qualify.
Reagan said:
"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.
Click to expand...
 
I have to wonder which of these two gentlemen will end up being the master debater of the evening :D
 
Olowkow said:
I gotta say, I honestly can't tell you why anyone is pro Romney. The lack of position and all the lies don't seem to matter.

The only answer I ever get is "anti Obama", and some vague mumbling about "his policies". It always sounds like a memorized response from some right wing source.

And why is there not a single republican taking the high road and expressing outrage about voter suppression tactics?
Click to expand...

This reminds me so much of Creationism / ID. Lack of positive evidence, lots of lies, and the supporters don't really know what it is or how it is supposed to work, just some vague mumbling about how they don't like evolution.

Same people, you think?
 
fishbob said:
This reminds me so much of Creationism / ID. Lack of positive evidence, lots of lies, and the supporters don't really know what it is or how it is supposed to work, just some vague mumbling about how they don't like evolution.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've often said that Obama supporters' views on the economy are a lot like the views of YECs, particularly in the way they are held. Skeptical thinking has gone out the window on this particular subforum.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Actually, I've often said that Obama supporters' views on the economy are a lot like the views of YECs, particularly in the way they are held. Skeptical thinking has gone out the window on this particular subforum.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that?
Details or I will say that you probably wear a road-kill ground squirrel on your head.
 
fishbob said:
Why would you say that?
Click to expand...

There are lots of similarities, mostly with their methods in arriving at what they believe to be true. For example, evaluating arguments based upon their conclusions as opposed to the cogency of the argument, and not understanding what they are trying to argue against.

Example:

"If evolution is true, why don't monkeys give birth to humans?"
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Actually, I've often said that Obama supporters' views on the economy are a lot like the views of YECs, particularly in the way they are held. Skeptical thinking has gone out the window on this particular subforum.
Click to expand...

Yes, we keep ignoring the overwhelming evidence in support of the proposition that cutting taxes on the wealthy leads to U.S. job creation.

;)
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Actually, I've often said that Obama supporters' views on the economy are a lot like the views of YECs, particularly in the way they are held. Skeptical thinking has gone out the window on this particular subforum.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've often said that, and I am sure your explanation will be as scintillating and entertaining as always. We wait with bated breath.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
This might qualify.
Click to expand...

Actually, while that was a crucial moment, it wasn't so much a knockout punch as a game-saver (to change metaphors in midstream). Reagan had looked a bit old and confused in the first debate and he needed to show that he still had that (scripted) verve.

I think his "Now there you go, again" was closer to a knockout punch.

The thing with Reagan is that he was a B actor but he was at least an actor. He could carry the fake lines (I paid for this microphone) and deliver them. But people are aware of the opportunity and the intention of delivering those zingers and if either of them is seen to be shoe-horning in an opportunity to throw out a canned zinger, it'll hurt them.
 
Tricky said:
Oooh, now heres some really good advice to Romney from someone who all Americans respect. Donald Trump thinks Mitt should go birther on the Kenyan.
Click to expand...

And the trainwreck that is Sean Hannity's hour on Fox has been, for the past week, trying to run against the 2007 Obama. He and that little git Tucker Carlson dredged up another speech and are analyzing it to death on Fox right now. Hannity gets more delusional by the day. This is the guy who, when the 47% tape was released interrupted someone (probably Juan Williams) and said, incredulously, "That was back in May!" But he's pushing Mitt to run against tapes from 1998 and 2007!!??
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think his "Now there you go, again" was closer to a knockout punch.
Click to expand...
As I recall, after Reagan had used the line against Carter, Mondale was prepared for his "there you go again" and turned it right back on him, showing how Carter's accusation that he would propose cuts in Medicare were on the mark. I think Palin also tried it against Biden.

For my money, the best blow in these debates was the "I knew John Kennedy - you're no John Kennedy" line that Bentsen used against Quayle.
 
Last edited:
grunion said:
As I recall, after Reagan had used the line against Carter, Mondale was prepared for his "there you go again" and turned it right back on him, showing how Carter's accusation that he would propose cuts in Medicare were on the mark. I think Palin also tried it against Biden.

For my money, the best blow in these debates was the "I knew John Kennedy - you're no John Kennedy" line that Bentsen used against Quayle.
Click to expand...

Of course Bentsen was ultimately on the losing side.

But the origin of the line is interesting. I heard in a course I'm taking that during debate rehearsal, the stand-in for Quayle (can't remember who this was) knew that Quayle liked to use the Kennedy comparison as one of his main claims to fame, so he pulled it out and hit Bentsen with it in a practice session.

Unaware that Quayle had used this in the past, Bentsen went ballistic, "What? Quayle actually makes this comparison? That's absurd! I knew Kennedy, he was a friend. Quayle is no Kennedy!" Immediately, so the story goes, Bentsen's handlers knew they had a winning line.

But somehow word leaked out to Quayle that they were going to pull this line out if he dared to use the Kennedy comparison.

Fast forward, during the debate, Quayle was asked what his qualifications were for the vice presidency. He had memorized 3 or so, and when asked again for more, having run out of canned responses, he dug down and all he could come up with was his similarity to Jack Kennedy. He took the chance and went for it.

Apparently, if you dig out the video, Bentsen can be seen smiling just as Quayle mentioned Kennedy, and confidently pulled out his "You're no Jack Kennedy," line.

Good story, not sure if it is true, but it sounds plausible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom