I would venture to guess that as well.

It's an interesting debate--practically and philosophically--but yes, also a lengthy one. Perhaps best saved for a rainy day. I've got ridiculous workload for next few weeks then it frees up. Hopefully we can all engage in some friendly banter down the road then

Going back to the Mittens and Obombs debate...

The most interesting part that I found was that Mittens argued that his platform is full of moderate policies like keeping bank regulations in place, bringing in more teachers, maintaining taxes on the wealthy, to making sure those with pre-existing conditions have health insurance...without giving details. His lack of details makes me think that he was just trying to appeal to the middle class voter but is definitely not part of his plans.

Obombs knows all this stuff... but failed to slap the fallacies down. I mean, Mitt lied through his teeth all night and Obama let him... so if that means Romney won the debate, I'll let you have it.

.1

Why are people being assholes? Dissidenticn never said he wanted the entire platform and you turned on him like a fluff. He said he wanted more details, not ALL details -_-

.

I still see it in an unfavorable light concerning your reply and even if you were right your post reeked of superiority and was quite insulting :P

Well, Obama managed to give details on what his administration is doing... Romney could have given SOME numbers. It just seemed like he backed off most of his platform and said exactly what voters wanted to hear.

It just seemed like he was trying to be sneaky... and thus gave very little detail for his policies. Also, I think you should lose points if you lie. you can put on a great show and seem to win the debate... but if you told a pile of lies then you should technically lose. I dunno, maybe I'll email Foxnews about this.

The problem with Romney is that it's impossible to know where he actually stands. It's easy to go back and look at statements made in 2008 and earlier and find contradictions on every major issue.

To some extent, I appreciate when a candidate/politician is open-minded enough to admit that he was wrong about something and who is willing to change his mind. But that's clearly NOT what's going on with Romney, considering just how many issues he's flip-flopped on. Instead, it truly does seem like he's willing to say whatever he needs to in order to convince people to vote for him.

After all, he said in one interview awhile back he was happy to see that his health care plan was being used as a model, now he's against it, but at the debate, he was only against certain portions of it, wanting to prevent insurers from turning down people with pre-existing conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance. Those are noble, but the individual mandate was designed to make those other issues affordable. So to me, that's the same type of thinking we saw from Pres. Bush when he wanted to lower taxes even after it was clear we had a war to fight in Afghanistan (and after he led us into Iraq as well).

It's ultimately a case of wanting to give voters what they want rather than being honest with them.

I recognize that, to a certain degree, all politicians do this, but Romney seems especially superficial in his beliefs due to the extreme number of flip-flops.

Here's a video that shows this, and if you watch to the end, you'll notice that it's not an Obama support video, but it was actually a Ron Paul support video from the primary season, so ultimately, this video is how people of Romney's own party view him.
https://www.youtube.com/...edded&v=EQwrB1vu74c#!

good video. tough to refute Mittens' own words.

Mitt of 2008... meet Mitt of 2012.