I didn't even watch the debate. It's just a bunch of horse-race shit for the pundits.
Printable View
I didn't even watch the debate. It's just a bunch of horse-race shit for the pundits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
yeah basically this
I'M GOING TO SCRAP YOUR STUFF AND TAKE ALL THE GOOD PARTS, THAT'S MY PLAN
716 BILLION
716 BILLION
716 BILLION
716 Billion in cuts that are shared by the Ryan budget, by the way.
Romney argued against trickle-down economics, argued that the economy is built on the middle class, and that their differences on taxes were largely petty (5% hike on the top 3% of small businesses? THAT'S your big differential?). You can see that as a win, but if you believe in those things, then it's really not.
The Republicans have been running on this premise that Obama is a socialist who wants to steer this country in a fundamentally un-American direction, and then to come out and be like "Actually I agree with everything he says except a couple nitpicks" is really a loss, even if Obama never opened his mouth.
This is the most amazing example of hearing what you want to hear I've seen in recent memory. Between this and your Green party alignment, I think you really do have a vagina.
It's not hearing what I want to hear, he actually used the words "trickle down economics" in accusing the president. He made those words come out of his dumb head.
And I have no alignment with the Green party other than that stupid quiz thing that was posted here. I'm a registered Democrat (and I have occasionally voted republican, although I haven't for a federal office).
No, he didn't. He used "trickle down government," which was a direct contrast to Supply Side.
edit: Here you go:
LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Businessweek
Did either of these guys talk about women's vaginas at all?
no
and that's part of why the Dems are up in arms
In light of the fact that Romney also said the upper class are "doing fine" and "don't need tax cuts" and that wealth grows from the middle class, it's hard not to see that as an attempt to co-opt the kind of language Obama has been using for his own.
And it's also in direct contrast to the party platform. Romney's main tactic here was a lack of specificity, which indeed makes it hard to nail him on anything, and I agree Obama couldn't pin him down when Romney would just deny everything, but what good does that do?
Only saw the end of the debate last night. I was doing work. But my impression was 'why is Romney crying?' I thought he got stomped and gave up. Then, I read the reviews. Now, I am watching the full debate.
I know a couple hardcore republicans who listened to it on the radio rather than TV and thought Obama won. I really feel like this was a lot about posture and body language and not what was said.
Go commiserate with Richard Nixon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I don't think he said that either except in the context of small businesses. And I really liked his points that small businesses employ 54% of the people in this country and that the top 3% of those small business employ half of those 54%. My guess is that most people watching didn't realize that small businesses typically pay the individual tax rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
His tactic regarding the upper class was smart. He says they should get a 0% cut, while Obama wants to increase their taxes, so the net is that Romney is promising them lower taxes without pissing anyone else off by saying he is going to lower them.
I didn't really watch too closely, but I didn't notice Romney absolutely owning Obama in the debate -which is what he needed to do. Obama still wins
Small businesses hire 54% of the people and fire 54% (or more) of the people. I live around many small businesses and see them go up and then down constantly. Claiming they are the saviors of the economy because they hire 54% of the people doesn't tell the whole story. Plus, we're talking about mostly low-wage jobs with scant benefits.
That said I have rarely if ever seen a Republican policy that was actually geared towards small businesses. For the most part, the GOP passes policies that favor big corporations and corporate donors and then claim it is about small business. Dubya didn't even abide by federal small business contracting guidelines in office.
I might read the transcripts during lunch to refine my impressions, but what I took away from watching the debate was far different from what many of you are saying. There was some agreement between the candidates, but the vast majority of the time was spent exploring their points of disagreement. Obama stayed on the five trillion in tax cuts way too long and far past the point when it was clear that he could not adequately respond to Romney's denial of it. Just like Romney didn't prove his repeated statement that the Affordable Care Act calls for a panel that will make your health choices for you, Obama looked weak on what he was saying about the five trillion (even Politifact rates Obama's contention as "half true").
If you let your opponent define the debate, if you let him make lists of claims and don't strike them down, if you look like you would rather be anywhere else, and if you say sarcastically, not once but twice, that the other guy might be your candidate, you've lost the debate.
Given the president's low job approval rating and how long he's been coasting on "the mess that we inherited," it really would have served him well to bring a fresh face and a fresh approach to what might be a sizable audience of voters who are on the fence. Instead, Romney looked more confident, more passionate, and more prepared. How many viewers will just think that Romney cares more than the president does? Remember, the debates are less about informed voters quibbling over statistics and more about inspiring potential voters to get to the polls.
At best, the percentage of voters on the fence is 5%. It's probably more like 2%-3%. 90% of people had their mind made up in January. This is a very polarized electorate. Mitt Romney could bang out some porn stars and jump a motorcyle through a flaming hoop in the next debate and I wouldn't vote for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
What Karl Rove got right in 2004 was realizing that and focusing on rallying people out there. That's why we had all the flag burning amendment talk, the gay marriage stuff, the extreme evangelical talk, etc. It wasn't to change anyones' mind but to try to get the people who had their mind made up off their ass and into a voting booth. Kerry's debate performances were fine but he lost on GOTV efforts in Ohio.
Considering Obama's turnout is going to be drastically lower than in 2008, and Obama does all the rallying for Romney, I don't think Romney has the same challenge Bush did in that area.
Yeah, winning the debate isn't enough for Romney. He could take Florida and still lose handily - the electoral math just really isn't in his favor at all.
It's gonna be lower in states like California and New York, sure. But he's still gonna win those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It will be lower nationally. It's no longer "cool" to vote for him, and that's the only reason many people got off their lazy, uninformed asses in 2008.
Outside of your dismissive attitude towards the exercise of voting rights, what matters is whether or not it will flip states? It won't flip most of them.
Obama has no chance in North Carolina or Indiana this time around. Colorado is very tight. He won't lose Ohio or Wisconsin or Minnesota or any of those states. Obama will probably hold onto Virginia. Romney has no chance in Pennsylvania. McCain got 173 electoral votes. Right now, I'm not seeing where Romney gets what he needs. He basically needs to flip every swing state that Obama won in 2008 and that is very unlikely.
We shall see. I think the poll trending is directionally accurate, but we'll see how the actual numbers turn out on election day.
And that could cement either candidate in the lead. We have had some close races in our history. Also, in "on the fence," I include potential voters that have committed to one candidate but may pick the other when they are actually in the voting booth. You may be relied on to vote Obama, but there are many out there who will go against their stated intentions on election day by either not voting or voting for a different candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Like I said in the part of my post you didn't quote, debates are for inspiring votes.
No, debates are for putting on a show before the Royal Court of Washington DC. David Brooks must be entertained!
I can't believe people still think Romney could win this.
Obama would have to dress up like Hitler for Halloween and give poisoned candy to children on the White House lawn.
The thing is, if Romeny's words before that night were to be believed, he was entirely correct. Romney's response of "Who, me?" threw Obama for a loop because how do you argue with someone who is just lying about what they've said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Romney has not even come remotely close to a feasible proposal for narrowing the defecit, and in fact everything he's ever said suggests he would expand it, and the only way he claims this is "revenue neutral" is because he thinks it will instantly and magically fuel such economic growth that the tax base will go up, and it's just not true.
Romney is utterly full of shit there, but if he's not going to have the debate there's just no where to go with that other than to repeat the point.
he'd secure my voteQuote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
So, do tax breaks help income or hurt it?
Red lines represent the Bush Tax Cuts. Blue Line: Obama's term.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=67213
Source: http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/11db06co.xls
EDIT: OK Diff, here's wiki's chart by % of GDP.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=67214
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CB...ercent_GDP.png
That graph is incomplete without scaling those numbers somehow.
Income tax cuts help in certain income brackets, and don't in others. This is why people talk about multiplier effects. If I give a working class person $100 they will go spend it on food or clothes or something that immediately hits the economy. If I give Mitt ROmney $100 he goes and sends it off to the Cayman Islands, where it doesn't.
I think we are long past the point where giving rich people another tax break will help the economy on the whole.
OK, I thought this debate was good. I liked that it was off script and Lehrer couldn't control it. Romney won because he improved people's perception of him by holding the most clarity he's had since he began running for president ten years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKKsRxhcro
I see steady growth followed by a bubble... I'm not sure what this is supposed to establish. It certainly doesn't make it look like tax cuts are effective stimulus or create stable growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I added the wiki chart above. I wish I could find a chart like the one I created but with a second line that showed how much taxes would have been had the cuts never took place.
That looking at one variable in a multivariate system is pointless? Because otherwise, your bubble comment would mean that tax cuts, and not deregulation, caused the 2008 crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I never implied any kind of cause and effect. I agree that it is a pointless graph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It is not pointless. It is visualizing the Republicans claim to lowering taxes and increasing revenue.
But only one variable is argued by Republicans: Lower taxes increase revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I wish I could find adjusted income from the IRS, so we could see average tax percentages, but it's not available. Second note, how the hell are we collecting a fraction less money from business tax than income tax?
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=67217
The answer to the GOP claim hinges on whether or not the growth that follows the tax cut is caused by the tax cut. I'm not so sympathetic to that idea. It might have been true when Kennedy cut the upper tax bracket from 90% to 70%, but tax rates aren't that high anymore. Growth after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was fairly anemic, even coming off a recession.
The truth is nobody knows for sure. I've read studies that say that tax cuts "pay for" about 50 cents of every dollar they cut, but that still leaves a significant amount of tax revenue lost. And of course that number would be different with every tax cut - the sample size is not too large.
BTW this is how the GOP wins. They make some dumbass claim they don't even try to prove and everyone else spends time trying to analyze it. Meanwhile they move on to the next claim.
Yeah, it is absolutely possible for the upper class and businesses to be overburdened to a degree that it stunts business growth. But our taxes are so low right now, I don't see how anyone could make that argument. This is very clearly a crisis of demand we're suffering from, and only the middle class is going to get us out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Yea, I agree with that. I think it is obvious right now that the rich have enough money, giving them more will not spur them to hire anyone if nobody will buy the products they would be hired to make.
I keep saying it, the rich aren't job creators, customers are and we don't have enough of them right now. I know every macroeconomic theory goes in and out of favor over time but in a smart world Keynes would have made a comeback the past few years.
Again in the last 15 years, we are collecting 200-400 trillion a year off corporate income taxes vs 800-1,400 trillion off individual income tax. What gives? I know the whole of our corporations are making more than 800 to 1,600 trillion in profit a year. This looks like their tax rate is like 10% or less.
I mean Hell's bells, Exxon alone is making 16 billion a quarter in profit!
What middle class?
That's called loopholes bro.
Another dumbass GOP Claim: "we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world." Maybe on paper, but nobody pays that rate. It's an old joke that GE's most profitable division is its tax department. They pay like 0%-3% a year.
Thank you for addressing my outrage, Diff!
Here's the top 20 money makers (a total of $333.4 billion). http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/...une/index.html
I don't want to tax people to death but 1) Bush Tax Cuts did not spur total tax income, 2) Corporations got it easy with the tax burden.
The two most common are tax rates and regulations. Let me know when you find a graph that takes those into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
The past decade has served as a monument for how horrible the GOP party platform is on tax rates and regulations.
Are you insinuating there is not a middle class? Or are you asking for which specific middle class?Quote:
What middle class?
Really? Because if you look at nothing but the revenue generated on Doc's graphs, it looks pretty good until the crash that had a pile of contributors. Maybe we should ignore outside influences and look at the last four years as a monument of Obama's "success".Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
edit: It may also be useful to keep in mind that Congress controls the purse strings. Anyone want to overlay who controlled Congress when on that graph?
Someone tell Romney there is another variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
He talked at length about regulations later in the debate.
Well, it's more of a point of red lines are tax cuts of 2001 & 3 taking place, and the blue line is the stimulus act of 2009 taking place. It's those actions, not who is in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah but not in relation to how regulations would increase revenue. Regulations just prevent volatile fluctuations cause by pure capitalism. Republicans only say high taxes lower growth, and low taxes increase growth. The numbers from the IRS cannot prove that. If anything, it may prove the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Lack of regulation destroyed a quarter of the world's wealth, during a 10 year period of near record tax lows which didn't create any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'm glad you're here to completely oversimplify things for us. Now let us know which party passed that lack of regulation through Congress.
Who was in power to pass those actions through Congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Clinton had a republican controlled congress when Glass Steagal was repealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Is it not obvious and have we all forgot? In 2001 and 2003 Republicans held both houses of the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. In 2009, Democrats held all three. Then 2010 happened and Republicans got the House of Reps and ever since no serious legislation has passed and our inaction has lowered our credit rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Ah, yes, and good old Slick Willy said, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant" at the time. I wonder why Obama spews bullshit about the last decade when the first one you go to is prior to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
It went from 50/49/1 for the Democrats to a 50/50 during that term in the Senate. Before some dumbass feels the need to play civics teacher, yes, I know the VP's role in that scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
It's actually quite relevant here because Deadeye Dick cast the winning vote for the tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
So, umm... when bad stuff happens in the 1990's, it's because of the Democratic President as opposed to the Republican Congress. When bad stuff in 2006, it's because of the Democratic Congress as opposed to the Republican President. And obviously 2001-2006 was just a barrel of hugs. Keep on fighting the good fight dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
No, my point was that it's been both sides playing both roles, which is not at all implied by all the bullshit over the last page of this thread.
Yeah, if you ignore the big dip at the beginning and end, it almost matches the growth rate that we had with higher taxes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
In any event, I don't think anyone is blaming low taxes for creating a bubble, but it does put us in a weaker position to deal with it now. Much in the same way overextending ourselves with unnecessary wars weakens our ability to deal with things like Iran if we wanted to.
I don't know why I have to explain to someone who has been financially successful in life why buying everything on a credit card for 8 years was dumb. It's baffling to me how these people claimed to be "fiscal conservatives."
It wasn't dumb for them, though! That's the point. Bush got his agenda. He wanted his wars, he got them. He wanted his tax cuts, he got them. If he had to balance the budget while doing it, he wouldn't have gotten it done. If balancing the budget was a priority, he would've balanced the budget.
They claim to be fiscal conservatives and they are LIARS. That's it.
I said it upthread - nobody cares about the deficit. Really! It's only used by the opposition party to try to blunt an agenda. The Republicans happen to be better at concern trolling about it, that's why Democratic Presidents actually try to clean up the fiscal mess the GOP creates. Problem is, the GOP just wrecks it all over again. It's happened before. If Obama gets re-elected and passes some "grand bargain" to fix the budget, Jeb Bush will blow it up again in 2016 with the same shit that his bro blew it up with. I guarantee it.
Future Congresses are not beholden to the decisions of past ones. This fact alone should stick a knife in all this deficit fixing talk. It won't, because the Republicans are very good at messaging this stuff when they want to. It doesn't make them fiscal conservatives, it makes them hypocrites and liars. They don't care about being hypocrites and liars, though, if it means their real agenda (advancement of the plutocracy and its hold on power) is enacted.
The thing is, the federal government does not use money in the same way we do. Presenting it as if does or should is dishonest.
I'm watching Hardball and former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, Jr., says Obama lost the debate on purpose:
"He had anticipated being perceived as arrogant, being perceived as a genius, being perceived as taking advantage of a lesser. And he decided to back off of all of that."
I wouldn't say it like that, but I do think he was consciously avoiding being too "professorial" as he is often accused of, and was instead being very matter-of-fact and plain spoken. Which I didn't find unbecoming, but it is a contrast to his grandiose public speaking persona.
He was back to the usual Obama today, now that he doesn't have to ad lib. I don't know what he was doing yesterday, but Romney gave him that accountant line on a silver platter. Imagine what Bill Clinton would do with that. Imagine what Obama with a teleprompter would do with that.
If you read the transcript, I think Obama's responses were direct, articulate, and largely factual. Yeah, figures like "5 trillion dollar defecit" are massaged, but we ARE talking about a half-trillion a year that has to be made up somewhere. Romney denies supporting an upper class tax cut, but his tax proposal DOES indeed support lowering the tax rate on the upper class by 20%. He claims he's going to make up for that by "closing loopholes" but we all know that's just a way of saying making some people pay more and some people pay less. Obama hammered him with it over and over because Romney was lying.
Obama spelled this all out pretty bluntly. I think too many people are evaluating this debate on body language and not content.
I liked Romney's "I don't have a tax cut... ... ... of that scale."
Also, what's the deal with clean coal? Sounds like an oxymoron.
He also mentioned Alaska oil and the Canadian pipeline. The documentary Collapse told me that the oil in Alaska doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Was that true or not?
I also liked how Obama was asked about trickle down government, then spent his time talking about everything but.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
So he failed at not being professorial? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Anyway - and I remember telling you this before on something wholly unrelated - what matters is not what matters to you but what matters overall. If Obama's preppers let him repeat yesterday's performance next time, because the transcripts look good, he will detract from his message more. He obviously wants an energized base. And I don't think he likes being the butt of jokes, especially at this point.
Is the red tie/blue tie thing a tradition? Because if not, it's cheesy as hell.
(Even if it is tradition, it's still cheesy.)
That's probably true, although I don't really see this debate moving the needle much, because Romney's attacks seemed largely trivial. He doesn't just have to show Obama's failures, he ultimately does have to establish that he has a decisively different and better idea, and he hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Sixty-seven million people watched last night's debate. (That's more than watched when Obama was running against McCain.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The New York Times has the number above 70 million, which puts it in Biden-Palin territory.
Like I said, most people already have their minds made up. Hell early voting is going on in some swing states like Ohio. The amount of people that will make a decision based on debates is miniscule. It's not 1960 anymore. People watch it because it's on every channel and it's what they think they "should" be watching.
Every time somebody compares the federal budget to either a business or a family budget, a smart person dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
A friend of mine, who is a huge Republican, listened to the debate on the radio, and he said he thought Obama was being kind of a bully and that Romney was being a bit cowardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I don't even know why so many adults thinks it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I mean, we all know that money changes based on the person or body that has it. Like, money to a person who makes 50k a year is completely different from someone who makes a billion. They most likely approach every facet of money differently.
And we all know that a sole proprietorship doesn't work like a corporation or even an LLC.
So why, WHY, would ANYONE believe that something like the US government would work just like average joe bob American, making between 25k-50k a year?
Why? Seriously.
It seems we do have a Nixon v Kennedy all over again. I heard most of the debate on the radio and Obama did ok, not stellar but ok. Same for Romney. I then watched a few clips and Obama looked like he rolled outta bed after an all night bender, suited up and went on stage. Not at all a good showing even though his words and audible delivery were fine for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
Romney on the other hand looked like he just finished Rocky IV training montage and was ready to fuck some one over. He came with his ducks in one hell of a row presentation wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
This is hillarious. Bill Maher analyzed it better than that. The man is absolutely awful when he has to think for himself in real-time. That's been a very consistent trait since he's been in the public eye. My guess is that he was one of those kids who studied eight hours to memorize bullshit for a test because he couldn't actually understand the material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I still remember Obama's first press conference as President. He spent 5-10 minutes answering every question in detail and completely, and the pundits all mocked him for answering only 6 questions in an hour.
He's a smart guy and he tries to present facts with all their ugly details and nuances. Obviously that doesn't fly in today's media environment. I appreciate that about him, though. It's easy to sound good when you zip off a few focus-tested lies that RNC HQ sent down to you.
So the problem isn't a shitty debate performance, but that he's just too darn smart for the average rube to appreciate. Got it.
That sounds more like he had an inability to summarize, because he had memorized a list of "if this question is asked, say this" nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
If I were Romney preparing for the next debate, I'd be thinking of ways to come at issues from an unexpected direction, because then all Obama's pre-canned bullshit will sound like he's confused... because he is. And it's not like he has a clue on foreign policy to begin with. He can't just get up and apologize in a debate.
Well, yea, he is too smart for the average rube to appreciate. A lot of people are, though. It's why Congress tends to be full of stupid and evil liars.
The debate performance sucked, but that's a different issue.
Yea, okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'd love to see a poll asking how many people think Obama is too smart for them. The closest he comes to that is his typical condescending tone when anyone opposes his warped views.
90% of Americans think they are smarter than average. I wonder what the poll results would be there.
Dubya got elected President twice. I'm not sure the GOP has earned the right to talk about a President's intelligence...
I knew that was coming. The irony is that it's a perfect example of what you're claiming is happening with Obama.
You knew it was coming because you know it's true. :lol:
I know that you drawing a line between Bush's off the cuff skills and Obama's is a joke.
My fiance's mom said she was scared to vote to Newt Gingrich because she considered him a genius and it was impossible for her to comprehend his motivations
Also: Yoshi, you're too smart for that "Obama would be a moron without his teleprompter" shit. Come on, man.
I thought the difference between Mitt and Obama was that Obama would reflect on a question before answering it. It's easy to say something immediately when all you're going to say is "716 billion". Romney had a couple good points. I didn't think this was some "lack of teleprompting" issue. There were a couple of times when Obama was really trying to dodge, though.
You can argue that it's a great quality to always be really confident in your answer and say something immediately, but I disagree. I think that's a big issue in life in general. Content is more important.
That oversimplifies it, but the thought it real. Here's a guy who went from liberal arts academia to politics. He's never taken a single step in the real world. Everything he "knows" he read in a text book or heard from some professor who probably read it in a textbook. I'm sure he has some good advisers, which is why the teleprompter works. I could not have any less respect for Obama or frankly anyone else with that background, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
This may our may not be the press conference Diff was referring to (he didn't provide a link), but it is Obama's first press conference as president-elect. He starts taking questions just after six minutes in.
I'd be interested in someone going to the six-minute mark and watching Obama's responses. Tell me honestly if you feel like you are watching someone head and shoulders above Romney, or even if you feel his responses sound any more intelligent than the average politician's.
It's a presidential debate. It shouldn't be a choice. We should be demanding that both candidates can do both. I did Lincoln-Douglas and team policy debate and foreign and domestic extemporanious speaking in school. I would have been embarrassed at 14 to come across that weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Funny how your completely unique opinion seems to line up perfectly with the talking points of the of Republican partyQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Honestly, I do feel that way. Romney can barely act human while answering a question.Quote:
Tell me honestly if you feel like you are watching someone head and shoulders above Romney, or even if you feel his responses sound any more intelligent than the average politician's.
You were done watching twelve minutes of that video nine minutes after I posted it? Or do you just "know what you know"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
It's pretty easy to know what Dave knows in nine minutes.
You mean that breaking news video you posted of a press conference from 4 years ago that we've all seen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
You could do better than that one if you want a video trying to prove Obama isn't smart. How about "57 States of America" or "corpsman"? He's clearly a smart guy - I don't know why the right wing media doesn't just give him that one, it's like they're butthurt over how the international media treated Bush still.