Up for Debate: Obama strikes back

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:52am

For the second of three presidential debates, Obama seemed livelier than the first, but was it enough to "win" over Romney? What points do you think each candidate scored on, and what were the weaker moments for each?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

121 Comments on this post:

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 4:33

Say goodnight, Willard.

By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 4:38

Obama was "livelier" so he told more lies. He couldn't give an answer to one achievement he has accomplished in the past 4 years.

His lies on his actions on the Benghazi incident was worse than what caused Richard Nixon to quit his job as President in 1974 .

By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 4:44

You mean say goodby Barry don't you, Ummm? If you didn't see the "get together" after the "discussions", more people said they would vote for Romney and most of the ones that said they had voted for Obama in 2008 said they was reversing their vote but cause he hasn't made any achievement in the last four years..

By: Ask01 on 10/17/12 at 5:07

I missed the debates as I was checking my eyelids for cracks after a long day at work, falling fast asleep in front of the television.

However what I have read leads me to believe Willard might need to seek another way to sucker the people and abuse the working class.

Despite the tripe propogated by Willards stooges, most citizens realize President Obama was unable to accomplish much as Republicans worked to undermine the duly elected president, even if Americans were hurt.

Middle Class America has seen through the Willard smoke and mirrors and is very, very, angry.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 5:09

[click] ..!.

The concensus (other than the retards at Fox) seems to indicate Obama bounced back. I watched a few minutes of it in the beginning. Obama's power of self-restraint is magnificent. I would have knocked mittens teeth out a couple of times.

Now that would have been a debate...

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 5:26

And now, the fact-checkers...



By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 5:31

Did everyone see the video of the guy at the Romney rally wearing a "Put the White Back in the White House" tee shirt? I guess you can at least say he's honest about his racism. I wonder if Yogi has his shirt yet?

By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 5:34


Your argument the Republican Party held Obama back is ludicrous. May I ask what Obama achieved in his first 2 years in office when the Democrats had the majority power?

To refresh your memory; his first Executive Order was to put his personal papers under lock and key. Have you ever wondered why? Following that, he has ignored Congress and the Constitution.

He has brought known communist czars in to replace Congress. He listens to them, not Congress. To vote for him as a Democrat is ignorance on your part. He is a Democrat in name only, just as he's a Christian in name only.

Study the mode of communism a little more.

By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 5:42


If you had a brain you could take it out and play with it also. You and your fellow posters have accused me as a racist from day one and you don't even know me. Your argument is because a black man was voted into office.

Your "intellect" should tell you you're a racist because your support for him can only be because of his race, because you sure as hell don't know who he is.

If you do, the rest of we Americans would sure like to know also.

By: Loner on 10/17/12 at 5:48


By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 5:56

And should I add there isn't a bigger racist in DC today than Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama and he has proven that from day 1 also, Ummm?

Remember the reason for the "beer party" he invited that officer to because of his racist comments on the officer's actions? You know, because of the black man who refused to tell the officer it was his own home he couldn't get in when the officer came to check it out.

And remember when he made the remark if he had a son he would look like the young black man that was shot? Didn't think so.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 5:57

[click] ..!.

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 6:13

multiple (clicks)

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 6:13

Ask01, your point about Obama's progress on the economy being stymied by the Teapublicans is quite sound. Even though they love to say that he had a "super majority" in the Senate (60 votes), between Byrd dying, Franken not being seated and Lieberman being counted as one of the sixty, there were never enough votes to overcome the Teapublican threat of filibuster, which they used more than any party ever has before. Their desperate attempts to make Obama fail worked to the great detriment of the economy and the US citizenry, but they will never own up to it. What they are counting on is the electorate not paying attention to the details, and just blaming Obama for the lack of progress- which, unfortunately, many weak-minded souls (witness Yogi) have done. We can only hope that there are enough intelligent people left among the voters to make the right decision in November- I'm betting there are.

By: parnell3rd on 10/17/12 at 6:15

Obama stikes back or the "Empire stikes back?"
Ask 01, it seams to me that President Obama had a demoNcratic congress and senate for 2 years. How did the republicans block anything that hurt the American people?
Ummm, President Obama is half white.
Yogi, "They can't handle the truth!"
Yall have a good day, remember a vote for Obama is a vote to destroy America.

By: Rasputin72 on 10/17/12 at 6:17

Yesterday, there were 192 comments. 128 of those comments were by the "Simple Six" There were 32 attempts by GDIAFANTE,LONER,ASK01 and MOONGLOW to hold an intelligent debate. There were 26 comments by YOGIMAN.

I have no idea how long this forum has been in existence but it would seem to me that based on the small number of participants that the NCP must be wondering if the column is worthy of the subject matter.

As best I can tell the forum is supported by no more than 16 to 19 people of which 8 people can be counted on to comment in prolific style their thoughts about anything which could include the evolution of spots on a frogs butt before the dinosaurs died out. One might add that having knowledge of the subject evades but does not stop the comments by the "Simple Six"

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 6:22

Ah, the morally bankrupt bigot (Rasputin) weighs in with his usual troll-like garbage. It seems we can all count on three things: death, taxes and Rasputin displaying his idiocy.

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 6:27

From "parnell"- "Ask 01, it seams to me that President Obama had a demoNcratic congress and senate for 2 years. How did the republicans block anything that hurt the American people?"

Please see my comment from 7:13, doofus. And since you pointed out that the president is "half white," I guess your tee shirt says, "Put Completely White Back in the White House."

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 6:27

Ummm - Raspy still comments with his tail tucked between his legs! Amazing!

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 6:28

And btw, "parnell," "seams" are what hold your clothes together.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 6:35

Parnell is right. The Dems had control for two years, didn't get much done. That really is indisputable. Super majority aside (which was NOT the intent of the founders, by the way), I've said for years that the Dems are incompetent.

Republicans are much more prolific. They know exactly what policies they want, and they get them. The unfortunate part is that the policies are a disaster, so I'm not sure what's worse - doing nothing or doing something that ends up being a catastrophe.

Just remember, a central tenet of supply-side policy is to balloon the deficit. I repeat, the purpose is to borrow and spend.

I would have more respect for the Dems had they worked to reverse the damage Bush did, rather than continue most of his policies. That's why I don't really see that much of a difference between the two, and why the hysterical rantings of if so-and-so gets elected we'll be doomed just doesn't ring true at all.

And another thing, the key to this election is not who is President, but the Congress. I suggest that Romney and many of the people who post here actually read the Constitution and understand the separation of powers. They seem to think the President has more power than he actually does.

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 6:39

P3 Something for you to read:


By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 6:42

gd, your premise is faulty. Without a "super majority" in the Senate (60 votes), each and every bill proposed by the executive branch can be stopped by the minority threat of filibuster- that may not represent the founders' intent, but it is a fact. And the Teapublicans used that fact to block almost every bill designed to help the economy during that period of so-called "Democratic control." Now, that is what's indisputable.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 6:48

Ummm, you're wrong. The Tea Party didn't even get people in Congress until the 2010 election. We're talking about when the Dems had control of both sides, from 2008 to 2010.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 6:58

I take that back, maybe the did get something done after all, in addition to Obamacare, they seemed to be able to pass:

-The Fair Pay Act of 2009
-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
-Dodd Frank

I stand corrected. By the way, Dodd-Frank has been squandered...a complete lack of oversight and follow-through. That bill could have made a difference.

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 6:59

gd, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The period I've been describing beginning with my 7:13 post is that very period- I now use the term Teapublicans to refer to that political party regardless of historical timing, because that is what they've become.

By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 7:00


Did you mean to tell parnell "seams" are what hold your clothes together; or did you mean "seams" are what HOLDS you clothes together?

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 7:05


By: yogiman on 10/17/12 at 7:06

You know, Ummm, to refresh your memory (if you have one), all I have ever asked about Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama is his identity proving he is in that office legally. Bur lo and behold, none of you have offered it. Why? Simply because you don't have any, or because you don't think anyone should know?

Just a dumb question but may I ask: Doesn't any of you Obama admirers want to know who in the hell he is?

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 7:06

They were not the obstructionists they currently are until 2010.

Obamacare, the GM bailout, TARP, Dodd-Frank...this legislation is what spurred that movement to take off. Most of the teabag rallies began occurring in 2009 and resulted in the GOP taking back the house in 2010, which is ground zero for Congress becoming the worst in modern history.

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 7:07


By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 7:07

[click] ..!.

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 7:09

gdiafante = SSSh! Don't mention TARP, you'll have Ben on his repeated rants.

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 7:09

Here's your grammar lesson Yogi-

"In this lesson, you'll learn how to make the predicate (verb) of a sentence agree with the subject (noun).

Subject-Predicate Agreement in a Sentence

A predicate must agree with the subject of the sentence in number and person. That is, in any particular sentence, a singular predicate must express the action or being of a singular subject, while a plural predicate must express the action or being of a plural subject. Similarly, a first-person predicate must express the action or being of a first-person subject (and the same holds true for the other two persons):

The ducks swim expertly in the pond.
(The subject "ducks," which is plural and third person, needs a plural, third-person form of the verb "to swim"; so, the predicate is "swim.")"

I don't for a minute expect you to either understand or to subsequently begin to utilize this information, nevertheless, you poor ignorant soul, there it is.

By: bfra on 10/17/12 at 7:12

Ummm - He doesn't have room in his pea brain for even that much information.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 7:13

No kidding, bfra...

I can admit, I was wrong. They accomplished alot. Can you imagine the depression we would be in had the teabaggers been in Congress in 2008? Seriously.

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 7:13

I don't question your Tea Party history at all, gd, but you need to acknowledge the part that Republicans (I don't like to use that word, because they no longer exist) played in stopping economic progress during that period (2008-2010) by using the threat of filibuster to block the administration's legislative agenda.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/17/12 at 7:16

I saw Romney stumble a lot last night. He “seems” to have a hard time when someone gets in his face. He is not use to have someone stand up to him.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/17/12 at 7:18

Thanks for the fact check, gdia.

bfar- Jr. Collier kept his tail between his legs when confronted fourty years ago. It "seems" he still does. LOL

Ummm, p3 “seems” come unraveled when his bigotry is exposed.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/17/12 at 7:19


The picture pretty much says it all.

By: gdiafante on 10/17/12 at 7:23

I don't doubt that the GOP didn't rubber stamp everything, Ummm, but you cannot argue on one hand that what Obama did the first two years prevented a depression yet state that nothing got done because of teabaggers.

Obviously something got done. Maybe it wasn't to the extent we would have liked and maybe they didn't repeal certain Bush policies, but that's the argument.

I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/17/12 at 7:24

Ummm, what have I have said before about yogi? He has “HOLDS” (sic) in his head.

Now just (Flush) him down the toliet (sic). LOL

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 7:27

I never said that "nothing got done," gd. What I'm saying is that so much more could have been done but wasn't because of GOP obstruction. I'm sure you remember the GOP Senate leader (McConnell) saying that defeating Obama was his first priority. (Too bad that helping the country rebound from Bush's Great Recession wasn't.)

By: Captain Nemo on 10/17/12 at 7:37

It is another beautiful in 615. The morning sun is filtering through the leaves and turning them into a fiery sight for people to enjoy. Even Republicans can enjoy this time of year.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/17/12 at 7:45

Raspy's Guide to the Good Life


By: govskeptic on 10/17/12 at 7:46

Crowley's interjected statement "He did, in fact sir" on the President's
Rose Garden address the next morning concerning the Libya killings
was incorrect and she said so only after the rebate was over, but of
course, that wasn't heard by the millions of viewers. Bob Schieffer
is the moderator for next Monday's debate on foreign policy. It will be
interesting to see how or if he also attempts to run interferometer or
a blocking move to protect his candidate, the President, as well.

By: Ummm... on 10/17/12 at 7:51

Here's an excerpt from that Rose garden address in question, gov. You're absolutely 100% (not just 47%) wrong. (but why am I not surprised?)

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/17/12 at 7:51

Geez, gov is going to worry about semantics? Seriously, is that the best you've got?

By: Captain Nemo on 10/17/12 at 8:03

I couldn’t get the like Blanket. It says not available.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/17/12 at 8:06

shb link