are you gonna watch the you know what tonight?

[zoebartlett]

Maria, the question was "What don't you know and how will you learn it?" My mom said that after Tom Brokaw read my mom's question, neither the President (candidate at the time) nor Senator McCain really answered it to her satisfaction. I think she thought both answers (particularly Obama's) were fluff...not really answered very thoughtfully. She was disappointed. She did become somewhat of a local celebrity for the question though, and my family got a kick out of it.

That *is* a great question and sounds like something a teacher would ask! Is your mom a teacher too?

Yep! Well, retired as of a few years ago, but my mom was a teacher for many years.

 

[beebrisk]

Goodmalood
Stereotypes exist because they are based in truth.

Would you care to back up that statement with proof? I do not want to get all discussion of political topics banned from Pricescope, so I will try not to be inflammatory in my response to you. It does not take a lot of historical research to show that minority groups such as Jews as African-American have been sterotyped by the larger society in the past century, however. I do not believe that the stereotypes used to characterize these racial/ethnic groups were based in truth. I believe that they were based in prejudice and jealousy.

If you have any actual evidence that stereotypes are always based in fact, by all means bring it on!

I think the more interesting question would be: Can you provide evidence that they're not? Can you site factual information that there isn't a single kernel of truth to stereotypes and/or generalizations?I'm not suggesting that we resort to using them, I'm simply stating that there is *some* basis of truth to them. If not, no one would ever use a stereotype or generalization to bolster their case. You can see plenty of evidence of that right here on these pages when one is trying to make a point about a dissenting opinion; as in, "American's are terminally stupid".

There is a difference between making a comment-i.e.stating something (be it right or wrong)-as I did when I said, "Americans are terminally stupid" which is assuredly a stereotype and defending all stereotypes as based on truth!!! I was once a Ph.D candidate in modern European history and had a chance to be exposed to Nazi propaganda used in German schools after the Weimar Republic. I assure that the pictures of Jews in the children's schoolbooks were not based on true representations of how Jewish people looked. I do not believe that there was a kernal of truth in what was said in them, either.

Logically one does not have to look at all stereotypes and prove that absolutely none has any truth in it to argue that the statement, "Sterotypes exist because they are based in truth" is false. One must only find one stereotype that does not exist because it is based in truth in order to prove the statement false.


Deb/AGBF

As a conservative woman, I've read enough posts here stereotyping and generalizing people with a similar world view to mine to fill up my Kindle.

If those comments were not in any way based on truth, but strictly prejudice and jealousy would you then agree that they are wholly disingenuous?

You see, there IS some truth to them and I've never heard anyone here or elsewhere for that matter, rail against stereotypes when using them to defend their own position and refuting another's political leanings.

It's interesting that stereotypes create such a visceral reaction in people when they are used to further a particular narrative about race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. We argue self-righteously that they aren't true! Yet, when stereotyping comes into play as a tool used to defend one's own political point of view and attack the opponent, would you write them off as completely false (a lie?) and an indicator of "jealousy and prejudice"? Or, would you believe there is some truth to the argument?

So really, are we talking about truth here? Or are we in fact denying the truth in an effort to maintain a standard of political correctness?

 

[HollyS]

You mean stereotypes like . . . all evangelical Christians are Republican?

Or the Tea Party is just a bunch of racially biased white folks? With a fixation on Sarah Palin?

Or, if you want to be truly informed and evolved, then, of course, you vote Democrat?



Gosh. And here I thought these things were accepted truths . . .

 

[AGBF]

beebrisk and Holly-

I am going to stick with my point and not get dragged into answering all your questions. I refute the statement that "stereotypes exist because they are based in truth". I say that that statement is untrue.

You are both smart women and on another occasion maybe we can discuss other issues if you wish, but all I want to discuss now is this sentence. You should, naturally, continue to discuss what you wish.

Cheers!
Deb

 

[beebrisk]

You mean stereotypes like . . . all evangelical Christians are Republican?

Or the Tea Party is just a bunch of racially biased white folks? With a fixation on Sarah Palin?

Or, if you want to be truly informed and evolved, then, of course, you vote Democrat?



Gosh. And here I thought these things were accepted truths . . .

Stereotyping:
One=Many
Few=Most
Some=All

The problem is which grand generalizations are acceptable (and accepted as fact) to those who can't admit that they too fully engage in generalizing and stereotyping.

You see, SOME evangelicals are Christian, therefore they ALL are. SOME Tea Partiers are highly influenced by Palin, therefore they ALL are. SOME Democrats are well educated, therefore they are ALL well informed, evolved and way smarter than Republicans.

It's all about the spin, the perception and of course, self righteous hypocrisy.

 

[HollyS]

beebrisk and Holly-

I am going to stick with my point and not get dragged into answering all your questions. I refute the statement that "stereotypes exist because they are based in truth". I say that that statement is untrue.

You are both smart women and on another occasion maybe we can discuss other issues if you wish, but all I want to discuss now is this sentence. You should, naturally, continue to discuss what you wish.

Cheers!
Deb

Stereotypes are generalizations based upon accepted commonalities. That's what Webster's says.

Generalizations made based upon either known or suspected commonalities. SOMETIMES, the "known" or "suspected" commonalities are a complete fabrication, but, if used often enough, they can easily become accepted as truths.

I do not agree with any statement that would say stereotypes are NOT based in truth. Some are. Some are not.

 

[beebrisk]

beebrisk and Holly-

I am going to stick with my point and not get dragged into answering all your questions. I refute the statement that "stereotypes exist because they are based in truth". I say that that statement is untrue.

You are both smart women and on another occasion maybe we can discuss other issues if you wish, but all I want to discuss now is this sentence. You should, naturally, continue to discuss what you wish.

Cheers!
Deb

Stereotypes are generalizations based upon accepted commonalities. That's what Webster's says.

Generalizations made based upon either known or suspected commonalities. SOMETIMES, the "known" or "suspected" commonalities are a complete fabrication, but, if used often enough, they can easily become accepted as truths.

I do not agree with any statement that would say stereotypes are NOT based in truth. Some are. Some are not.

I agree with that statement.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="beebrisk|

As a conservative woman, I've read enough posts here stereotyping and generalizing people with a similar world view to mine to fill up my Kindle.

[/quote]


i'd give you a lot credit for making that statement on PS ... beebrisk for President!!...

 

[Mayk]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

 

[AGBF]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

If President Obama is to blame for the attack on the consulate in Libya, according to your reasoning President Bush is to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Of course, the truth is that President Obama is not to blame for terrorism. It was he who finally caught Osama bin Laden although George W. Bush put out a, "Mission Accomplished" sign early on. What matters more...announcing something early (like George W. Bush) or actually accomplishing it (like President Obama)?

AGBF

 

[Mayk]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

If President Obama is to blame for the attack on the consulate in Libya, according to your reasoning President Bush is to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Of course, the truth is that President Obama is not to blame for terrorism. It was he who finally caught Osama bin Laden although George W. Bush put out a, "Mission Accomplished" sign early on. What matters more...announcing something early (like George W. Bush) or actually accomplishing it (like President Obama)?

AGBF

Who owns it! No one wants to say it was Terror because the president has told all of us he killed Osama like he pulled the trigger himself... Right? He ended the war on terror..right? He's a freaking saint. I guess he's singing a different tune now. He's stopped saying he has them on run.

I guess he does not own it he can still blame Bush....

 

[AGBF]

Who owns it! No one wants to say it was Terror because the president has told all of us he killed Osama like he pulled the trigger himself... Right? He ended the war on terror..right? He's a freaking saint. I guess he's singing a different tune now. He's stopped saying he has them on run.

I guess he does not own it he can still blame Bush....

What is your point in this rant? Besides your not liking President Obama, that is.

Deb

 

[Mayk]

No point. It's pointless to argue. I have my opinions and you have yours.

Bittom Line: I'm worried about national security. It's been my point all along. I think our strength has been compromised. It scares me.

You are correct. I don't care for our current President. So you get to be right on that one.

I only added to the thread that I would be very interested in how it's addressed tonight since we have an obvious cover up. Have you watched the hearings. It should scare you too! Poor Hillary tossed herself under the bus. But we all know she's done in December anyway. I happen to like and respect Hillary for the record.

 

[justginger]

I understand being scared, Mayk. But I think many Americans are scared of the wrong things. The chances that terrorists are going to murder your family and seize control of the country are minimal. Honestly. The chances that you're going to be systematically lied to and stripped of all your personal rights, pitted against your fellow citizens over financial and moral issues, pushed back into the kitchen where you belong, and be forced to watch your fellow citizens die without proper medical care, well, they're pretty high. You have to decide what risk you're willing to take. The risk that the US falls apart from the inside out, or the risk that it will be overthrown from outside forces. From my point of view, it is crystal clear which is more likely to occur.

 

[Mayk]

I understand being scared, Mayk. But I think many Americans are scared of the wrong things. The chances that terrorists are going to murder your family and seize control of the country are minimal. Honestly. The chances that you're going to be systematically lied to and stripped of all your personal rights, pitted against your fellow citizens over financial and moral issues, pushed back into the kitchen where you belong, and be forced to watch your fellow citizens die without proper medical care, well, they're pretty high. You have to decide what risk you're willing to take. The risk that the US falls apart from the inside out, or the risk that it will be overthrown from outside forces. From my point of view, it is crystal clear which is more likely to occur.

I have seen it all argued here and I've said I'm not a fan of the current administration's programs for healthcare or entitlement programs. But I will tell you. It's just a matter of time before there are more attacks on the US like 9/11. Iran alone should make all of us uncomfortable. I think Foreign policy is as important as the social issues.

I'm not going to get into the social issues here. I'm middle of the road on some issues and conservative on others. I'm not going to argue about how I feel about those points here. But when it comes to our Military and protecting our boarders and our citizens and diplomats. I'm hard core for having a strong foreign policy. I want someone who will stand up to the likes of Iran and say we will not tolerate this behavior. The speech by their President at the UN should have made everyone listen up. He's crazy, has the weapons and while Israel is his top target, we're next.

 

[beebrisk]

I understand being scared, Mayk. But I think many Americans are scared of the wrong things. The chances that terrorists are going to murder your family and seize control of the country are minimal. Honestly. The chances that you're going to be systematically lied to and stripped of all your personal rights, pitted against your fellow citizens over financial and moral issues, pushed back into the kitchen where you belong, and be forced to watch your fellow citizens die without proper medical care, well, they're pretty high. You have to decide what risk you're willing to take. The risk that the US falls apart from the inside out, or the risk that it will be overthrown from outside forces. From my point of view, it is crystal clear which is more likely to occur.

I have seen it all argued here and I've said I'm not a fan of the current administration's programs for healthcare or entitlement programs. But I will tell you. It's just a matter of time before there are more attacks on the US like 9/11. Iran alone should make all of us uncomfortable. I think Foreign policy is as important as the social issues.

I'm not going to get into the social issues here. I'm middle of the road on some issues and conservative on others. I'm not going to argue about how I feel about those points here. But when it comes to our Military and protecting our boarders and our citizens and diplomats. I'm hard core for having a strong foreign policy. I want someone who will stand up to the likes of Iran and say we will not tolerate this behavior. The speech by their President at the UN should have made everyone listen up. He's crazy, has the weapons and while Israel is his top target, we're next.

Crazy like a fox. He's got all his faculties alright...he is just simply, evil.

I want someone to stand up to the despots, too. Sadly, we don't have strong leadership right now. Tonight's debate will be enlightening...

 

[beebrisk]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

If President Obama is to blame for the attack on the consulate in Libya, according to your reasoning President Bush is to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Of course, the truth is that President Obama is not to blame for terrorism. It was he who finally caught Osama bin Laden although George W. Bush put out a, "Mission Accomplished" sign early on. What matters more...announcing something early (like George W. Bush) or actually accomplishing it (like President Obama)?

AGBF

Correct. The president is NOT responsible for the attack in Libya. He is responsible for ignoring the reports of instability in the region and pleas of help that came from Ambassador Stevens before the attack that killed him and three other Americans.

 

[AGBF]

Crazy like a fox. He's got all his faculties alright...he is just simply, evil.

If we are talking about Ahmadinejad, I think we may be in agreement for once. I really hate that man.

Deb

 

[AGBF]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

If President Obama is to blame for the attack on the consulate in Libya, according to your reasoning President Bush is to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Of course, the truth is that President Obama is not to blame for terrorism. It was he who finally caught Osama bin Laden although George W. Bush put out a, "Mission Accomplished" sign early on. What matters more...announcing something early (like George W. Bush) or actually accomplishing it (like President Obama)?

Correct. The president is NOT responsible for the attack in Libya. He is responsible for ignoring the reports of instability in the region and pleas of help that came from Ambassador Stevens before the attack that killed him and three other Americans.

Baloney. You just say that because you hate Obama. You can't blame a president for every act of evil performed by enemies of the United States.

Deb

 

[beebrisk]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

If President Obama is to blame for the attack on the consulate in Libya, according to your reasoning President Bush is to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Of course, the truth is that President Obama is not to blame for terrorism. It was he who finally caught Osama bin Laden although George W. Bush put out a, "Mission Accomplished" sign early on. What matters more...announcing something early (like George W. Bush) or actually accomplishing it (like President Obama)?

Correct. The president is NOT responsible for the attack in Libya. He is responsible for ignoring the reports of instability in the region and pleas of help that came from Ambassador Stevens before the attack that killed him and three other Americans.

Baloney. You just say that because you hate Obama. You can't blame a president for every act of evil performed by enemies of the United States.

Deb

First of all, I don't "hate" Obama.
Read the emails from Stevens. They are profound and desperate and they were ignored.
Like I said, I do NOT blame the president for the attack or for "every act of evil". I blame him for leaving our men there vulnerable despite their pleas for more security and then for trying to cover it up.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

people like my daughters don't know what's going on in lybia,but they do know how much it cost to fill up their gas tank and how hard it is to find a job.

 

[HollyS]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

If President Obama is to blame for the attack on the consulate in Libya, according to your reasoning President Bush is to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Of course, the truth is that President Obama is not to blame for terrorism. It was he who finally caught Osama bin Laden although George W. Bush put out a, "Mission Accomplished" sign early on. What matters more...announcing something early (like George W. Bush) or actually accomplishing it (like President Obama)?

AGBF

Deb, this has been pointed out before - - right here on PS.

The Mission Accomplished banner was there for the sailors returning home after their tour of duty at sea. Yes, Bush's team decided that would be a prime location to have their press conference. Yes, they took advantage of the subliminal message. Yes, it came back to bite them in the butt, because of that same maybe-not-so-subliminal message, when things turned sour later. But the Navy has said, emphatically, that the banner was theirs, already in place. There are numerous places on the web which have direct quotes from the commander of the aircraft carrier and folks higher up the Navy chain of command.

Like I said, some things become accepted truths whether they are, in fact, the truth or not. This little myth is a prime example.

 

[Mayk]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

people like my daughters don't know what's going on in lybia,but they do know how much it cost to fill up their gas tank and how hard it is to find a job.

I'm confused... I thought tonight's debate was about Foreign Policy... These other items were touched on in the first two debates... It's a hot topic for me as are the others. My only point was about tonight's debate and I was preparing to hear the spin. Wasn't the original question of this very long thread... Will you watch tonight?

 

[vc10um]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

people like my daughters don't know what's going on in lybia,but they do know how much it cost to fill up their gas tank and how hard it is to find a job.

DF, why don't you just buy your girls electric cars???

In all seriousness, though, if you want to talk gas prices: THEY.WILL.NEVER.GET.BETTER. Oil reserves are in decline. Authorities estimate we hit peak oil production sometime between 2007 and 2010. Any new oil finds are not "easy" oil. It is oil that takes massively expensive equipment, dangerous drilling, ridiculously expensive refining...etc, etc, etc...to turn it into usable gasoline. And right now it TAKES a gallon of gasoline to MAKE a gallon of gasoline. At what point do we say enough is enough!!??? So, unless you want the government to subsidize either oil companies or gasoline itself (which, obviously, YOU wouldn't, right???) there's really never going to be relief. And it has NOTHING to do with who is or who is not President.

As far as finding a job goes, this country has encouraged high school graduates into 4-year degree programs for FAR too many years. College is not for everyone, and the job market can't handle the number of people who are now over-educated and over-qualified. But trades? They are HURTING for people. Plumbing. Electrical. Masonry. They ALL need people. Some of them desperately. Not that it helps your daughters, but again, this isn't something the President can take care of! Companies have learned how to operate in new ways with less staff than ever before. The stock market has rebounded. Corporations are turning out record profits in terms of percentage of our GDP. And yet: they're not hiring. No one, not even the President, can force companies to hire workers if they don't feel they need them. The only thing he can actually do is create more government jobs...and, again...YOU wouldn't want THAT, right???

 

[MissStepcut]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

people like my daughters don't know what's going on in lybia,but they do know how much it cost to fill up their gas tank and how hard it is to find a job.

Really? If my dad believed that about me, he would be ashamed to admit it.

 

[FrekeChild]

Can someone tell me what it is that Romney is going to do that is going to turn the economy around? Please? I would like to know. Seriously.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

people like my daughters don't know what's going on in lybia,but they do know how much it cost to fill up their gas tank and how hard it is to find a job.

I'm confused... I thought tonight's debate was about Foreign Policy... These other items were touched on in the first two debates... It's a hot topic for me as are the others. My only point was about tonight's debate and I was preparing to hear the spin. Wasn't the original question of this very long thread... Will you watch tonight?

i will watch the replay after the football game. lets not play the blame game .

here's what we are facing in front of us...

7.8% unemployment .
added $16 trillion of debt.
gas prices near all time high.
high food prices at the grocery store.
more americans on food stamps than ever.
all these young college grats with no jobs will not vote for Obama this time around,thus Obama can't win w/o their votes.

 

[vc10um]

i will watch the replay after the football game. lets not play the blame game .

here's what we are facing in front of us...

7.8% unemployment .
added $16 trillion of debt.
gas prices near all time high.
high food prices at the grocery store.
more americans on food stamps than ever.
all these young college grats with no jobs will not vote for Obama this time around,thus Obama can't win w/o their votes.

DF, addressing that bolded one...you do realize that 1) Americans pay a smaller percentage of their income for food than pretty much any other first world country (due to government subsidies on things like corn and beef)? and 2) we had a vast drought due to the affects of climate change that Romney and other conservatives continue to insist is not happening even though the consensus of the scientific community is that the Earth is getting warmer AND WE ARE CAUSING IT?!?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Can someone tell me what it is that Romney is going to do that is going to turn the economy around? Please? I would like to know. Seriously.

don't know what Romney will do about our economy but we all know what Obama has done the our economy in the past 4 yrs. there won't be a middle class after 4 more yrs of Obama policy .all the middle class will be on welfare with no jobs.

read my post below.

 

[Mayk]

I'm preparing myself for the "spin" on Lybia... the death of our ambassador, the very long delay in calling an act of terror "an act of terror" and more importantly the justification to have our people in Lybia with bismal protection. What justifies putting them in the line of fire and then not protecting them... I've heard it spun so many ways by the media I can't stand it.. bottom line.. it was an act of Terror on 9/11 (hello people they like to anniversary this date.. it was a big day for them to see the US lose so many lives) and they will continue to target this date for attacks.. along with other insignificant dates to kill Americans.. we are TARGETS...no matter what anyone would like to think and how the President (present or future) plans to protect us is of the utmost importance to me!

people like my daughters don't know what's going on in lybia,but they do know how much it cost to fill up their gas tank and how hard it is to find a job.

I'm confused... I thought tonight's debate was about Foreign Policy... These other items were touched on in the first two debates... It's a hot topic for me as are the others. My only point was about tonight's debate and I was preparing to hear the spin. Wasn't the original question of this very long thread... Will you watch tonight?

i will watch the replay after the football game. lets not play the blame game .

here's what we are facing in front of us...

7.8% unemployment .
added $16 trillion of debt.
gas prices near all time high.
high food prices at the grocery store.
more americans on food stamps than ever.
all these young college grats with no jobs will not vote for Obama this time around,thus Obama can't win w/o their votes.

Not blaming you for anything... Withdrawing fom the thread.... Finding somewhere else to do my downtime.