Excellent conclusions, Josh. I was disappointed in the president's performance, and irritated at Governor Romney's interruptions and blatant disregard for the moderator. Other than that, all I can say is that I look forward to the next two debates.

Right Susan -- the fraud currently in charge never interrupted Romney, never ignored Lehrers' time stops, never tried to change Lehrers' clearly called out subject matter focus. Obama was an embarassment.

Al, I don't see where I said Obama didn't interrupt, but we know who the clear winner was on the interruption scale. Look, I concede Obama lost and simply pointed out an irritation. "an embarassment" is nothing more than an opinion....which we have a lot of today. Enjoy your win, Al, Romney did well.

Josh, good interpretation...took me by surprise also.

Well put Mark. I felt the moderator was lacking in control of the situation. They should consider adding a microphone cutoff switch so the interruptions and overtime would be silenced. I just wish people could see that all Romney is is a snake oil salesman, charmer totally lacking in substance. Still no real details on what he is going to do and how he will do it. I do have to give this one to Romney though. Not on substance but on the ability to sell ice cubes to Eskimos.

Hilarious; "you always voted for Rep" Why does every lib use this to try and show they are a moderate or former Rep. If you thought that Obama won this debate then you are the perfect democratic vote; head in the sand with no clue as to which way the country is going.

Win for Obama? You are 100% wrong and even the people on MSNBC even conceded victory to Romeny. Mitt had every right to rebute Obama's lies. During the entire debate Obama had more speaking time. If Mitt didn't interupt to get his point accross the moderator would have let Obama keep spewing lies, umms, and exaggerated truths.

It is funny that you beleive that it was Romney that did not follow the rules. If you were listening you would see it was the President that got 4 minutes of extra time even in light of Romney trying to hold his time. So if you are questioning ethics and rule following I guess you should vote for Romney! Even with an axta 4 minute Obama could not come across as the winner in most peoples eyes!

At least you got the Bin Ladin thing, because that's about all you got. Well, I stand corrected - 6 trillion in new debt, high unemployment, record foodstamps, open welfare check book, dead embassy personel, so fast, not so serious, and I could go on and and on.

Spew that line somewhere else. Obama has skewed the job numbers two days after the debate ... that even the news outlets that always support him are questioning the calculations. Lerner didn't do his job...as a trained and veteran moderator it was his job to keep the debate on track. Obama got more time on some of the questions than Romney. But do you hear complaining?? Also like how Obama's camp keeps harping on Romney's money. Did you see HOW much Obama gathered in September....wish that money was being used to pay down our debt instead. Obama is a race and class warfare promoter and that is not going to change. I also love how Bill Clinton is now "backing" Obama but when he was backing his wife Hillary when she was running against Obama...his tune was totally different.

Yes, the moderator was terrible. Lehrer is just another member of the state controlled media that drools all over himself at the prospect of another four years under The Regime of Barack Hussein Kardashian. But Lehrer did not do Romney any favors.

Romney performed better because he performed better. It's easy to see how lost The Messiah is without his teleprompter to tell him what to say.

Nevertheless, these are not debates in the real sense. They are just a sort of joint press conference where some old hack from the state controlled media tosses softball questions at the Democrat and asks the Republican things like, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Romney is so inconsistent it's hard to know who the real Romney is.

Some examples of his 180 degree turns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&hd=1

Yeah and there's video's like that for Obama flip flopping on Gay Marriage, Gitmo, Spending, even his college basket ball picks... we all know politicians tell us what we want to hear.

Reagan had been a democrat when he Governed Cali and he had a even bigger list of contradictory quotes... yet when he got elected he was the most fiscal conservative president in the last 100 years.

I'd rather take my chances with Mitt than go with the epic failure of 4 more years with Obama.

Matt -- give us a link to that video.

Here's 7 minutes of examples of just his 08 flip flops lol: The Iraq surge,Gay Marriage, NAFTA trade agreement, abortion, and using nuclear weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_Mb-4nXJk

Here's a more recent video of obama flip flopping on: Raising income Taxes, raising capital gains taxes, kicking lobbiests out of the whitehouse, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHhWeKrizKE

Here's a 22 video series of Obama contradicting himself on: no bid contracts, capturing Osama or not, obama vs himself on export and imports, TANF work requirements, deficit spending, government transparency, recess appointments, requirement to purchase health care, morgage crisis, legalizing Pot, wire tapping, closing Gitmo, and more. It's two hours!
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL54880C4FC7DE8ACC

Yes I watched them all just so I could list all the Contradictions out for you and whether or not it was actually verifiable footage of him saying these things. Need anymore?

What's so hard to admit about Obama being a complete failure and not deserving a second term?

Creating 5 million jobs since the bottom of the depression is a "complete failure"?

Unemployment ticked down again this month, now it's below 8%. That's "complete failure"? Seems like we are on an upward trend.

Anyway, if that's complete failure I'd like to see your definition of success. Maybe it's writing off 47% of the population by calling them victims?

That one statement, at a time when he thought he was safe to reveal his real self, spoke volumes about who the real Romney is. Out of touch with mainstream America, and he's totally bought into the noble-serf system. Medieval "Mtt".

Those jobs numbers are so skewed that even Bloomberg is questioning them. You have to look at the substance and the calculations then you cannot say 5 MILLION jobs?? WOW. Where are they??? Part-time, limited and GOVERNMENT jobs programs? 120,000 people were employed this last month according to this report...THAT number doesn't scratch or help the MILLIONS that are still unemployed, or those that have gone off the rolls to even be counted.

I wish there was a "Like" button for your comments Tim! I think you hit the nail right on the head. Romney completely dominated this debate. I saw a tweet that said, President Obama was "like a tourist trying to read a map" during the debate. I think that pretty much sums up his past four years in office. He is in over his head and has no plan for where to go.

I'm with Greg...I also with there was a "like" button. Great comment! :)

Obama gave facts? I must have missed something. I thought the only thing he said was $5 trillion dollar tax cut. . . Silly me.

I got the same impression....no details from Romney...just his famous "word salads"....I hope that Obama was just letting him go on so that the fact checkers can take him out....as I have said, I don't want this hyper-word man anywhere near the "button"!

I agree Colleen and thankfully this morning ALL(including the conservative) media are taking the time to talk up the many lies which passed through Romney's lips. That being said I cannot give the debate to Obama 8( He needs to work on attacking not trying to reason.

The Obama camp's main fault with Gov. Romney is that he lacks "specifics". But this is a bogus issue.

Romney in fact gave many specifics about his plans.

No matter what Romney says or now specific, the opposition will say, "short on specifics." Par for the course to say that.

What about Obama's specifics? One of the most telling flaws of the President is that he makes a huge number of specific promises but actually does the opposite. At this point I usually insert a long list of lies and broken promises. This time I will leave that to the reader, as most readers here probably know the list be heart now.

So what good are "Obama specifics" anyways? They don't mean anything. In fact, you are hard pressed to come up with an example of any Obama specific that he delivered. One specific he may deliver on is that "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition!"

I trust Romney's track record of delivering on his goals.

So, what is your choice? Romney's specifics, or Obama's lies?

You don't understand how Congress works. The Republicans held the filibuster card in the Senate.

And yeah, if Romney gets elected and has control of both houses he can pull a "Walker" and shove an extreme agenda down everyone's throat. That's not Obama's style because he's a centrist. He seeks bipartisan solutions and cooperation. He didn't get it because the Republicans decided to obstruct because their priority was making him a one term president.

Romney destroyed many companies and offshored jobs (and his own money to the Caymans, Switzerland, etc) to make his own success. If that's your definition of success and a patriot, then yeah, he's great.

Edward, I think it may be you who doesn;t understand how congress works. For the first two years Obama had both houses of congress with a 60 seat filibuster proof majority. Repubs may get control of congress this election, but they will not get 60 seats in the senate.

Obama's a centrist who works across the aisle and doesn't shove his agenda down people's throats?!? Yeah, sure Edward. What color is the sky in your world? How many Republican votes did he have on his signature legislation, "Obama-care"?

Presiding should not be about dominating the other side as Obama has tried to do. It is about building consensus and coming to the table to work with everyone to come up with the best solution. Obama basically told us Republicans that he won and now we should shut up and go away. Give me a break! Obama has shown time and again that he is incapable of that kind of leadership while Mitt Romney has quite literally made a career out of it.

Hey Tim you might want to check out what the media, including the conservatives, are saying about Mitt and just how honest he was. I still give the debate to Mitt only because he was the better debater not because he is the better candidate.

Hey Deb. I have checked out what everyone is saying and it looks like the emperor (Obama) has no clothes. Sure the typical sources are trying to spin it that Romney's all filled with lies. And people like you will see that and follow along like little lemming-folk, but much like our Commander-In-Chief, once you cut through that first oh-so-thin layer, the truth is quickly revealed. The claims about Romney not telling the truth are mostly spin from Obama's surrogates and the claims about Obama being a god among mortals is apparently not true. Who'd have thunk it?!

Spot on Roscoe! Obama failed because he did not call Romney out. He needs to get some cajones or he could well lose this election.

Fact check: "Massachusetts Improved From Last In The Nation In Job Growth At The Start Of Governor Romney’s Term (50th in 2002, 51st in 2003) To 30th By The End." You are technically correct, they were 47th at one point in his tenure but you're assertion/conclusion is dead wrong as I could simply say, "no, they were 30th" and also be correct. Gotta look deeper than Jon Stewart or Daily Kos guys.

Come on...are you really naive enough to believe that people just automatically "do the right thing"...?!!!! There are those who would let the disabled and poor elderly starve to death...they already are. Money is not the problem, it is how it is spread out over the entire world....we need to keep some of the money at home, and take care of our own. And yes, the wealthy could do more!!!! I would think that a million a year would be plenty for someone to live on....yet look at those who have piled up billions...(Oprah) etc.....let them give and do more....I would if I had it.

So Sharon calls Cindy naive for thinking people would never "just automatically do the right thing" but then concludes her comment by saying she would give the extra money away if she had it?!? You see it, right Sharon? But we're getting off topic here so I'll digress.

Well no less authority than Michael Moore said that is what you get when you ask Sen. John F. Kerry (D-France) to be your debate coach. LOL

That may be just the stupidest comment I have ever read. Pre-tax income creates job so taxes don't matter. I own a couple small businesses and believe me taxes are a huge burden and does determine who I hire and what I do with my money. Obama decided to get his butt kicked so they could pick apart his plan later. Why wouldn't he just do it himself during the debate? You should leave the thinking to people with an IQ in the double digits.

Third parties do a better (and perceived to be more credible) job of fact checking. It always works that way. Nobody believes the candidates because, well, they have a self-interest thing going.

Politics 101. Watch for more proxies to come out of the woodwork on both sides.

I don't think Obama "decided to get his butt kicked". Instead he might have decided to expose as much of Romney's plan as possible, and let the fact checking and analysis begin. Did it work? I don't know, because Romney (once again) changed up his song and dance. The biggest problem with Romney is his etch-a-sketchiness. His inconsistency. You never know what he really believes or stands for, and of course Obama gave him space to show that as well.

Let's see if Obama tightens it up in the next debate . . . should be interesting.

Edward, I think that you might have something about the strategy....and as a small business owner, I agree that it is the pre-tax income, and not the after-tax income that creates the jobs. Furthermore, I would ask if tax breaks are truly what is needed, why didn't it work with the Bush tax cuts....? Where are all the jobs that can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts? Why has no one addressed this?

Sharon, you are either completely full of it or completely lost. In the post below you say you own a small business and that only pre tax dollars matter and then in another post you state you are part of the 47% that doesn't pay any taxes. Jeez, you liberals can't even get facts straight in the same thread.

OK, this insanity about this all being part of Obama's master strategy needs to stop! He's REALLY not as smart as you all think he is. Only the most fact-blind, hyper-partisan, party hack can't see this for what it was. A drubbing by Mitt Romney which was certainly teed up by years of coddelling a president who literally has no business being president. His entire life he's been told he was awesome when he wan't, he was made to believe he excelled at a job that he didn't, he's surrounded himself with yes-men, and now as president he's had interference run for him by a pliant media who wouldn't confront him with hard facts if their careers depended on it. This is simply everything now coming to fruition and it's Mitt Romney who gets to reap the rewards of Obama's inneptitude and the pedestal Liberals have mistakenly put him on.

I would like some of Obama's tax cuts for the middle class!

Check your bank account. The $3600 is from payroll tax cuts.

Checking bank account ..... scanning ..... scanning ..... nope. I guess mine was a clerical error. Stupid ineffectual government!

Well, Tim, the payroll tax rate for incomes $110,000 and less have paid a 4.2% payroll tax rate, as opposed to a 6.2% payroll tax rate, since Feruary 2012. Either you earn above $110,000 or you need to "scan" further.

Mike: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/10/04/how-the-payroll-tax-cut-is-costing-low-income-borrowers/2/

Yeah Mike I'm guessing it's buried somewhere in there under all the increased gas and energy bills I'm paying. Or maybe it's been washed out by the paycut everyone in our company needed to take in order to stay viable in this wonderfully booming economy Obama's given us. No, even your own numbers don't add up. If I make, say, $75K than a 2% drop in the federal income tax gives me $1,500 back in my check, not even half the $3,600. Where is the rest coming from? Besides, if Liberals are going to use the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012" as a feather in their cap wouldn't that then give lie to the idea that Obama has been saddled with an obstructionist congress? Unless he somehow passed that bill without Congress!

@Mike...honestly now...did you notice an impact from that tax cut that he was bragging about?

Obama cut payroll taxes.

The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 provides a two percentage point payroll tax cut for employees, reducing their Social Security tax withholding rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of wages paid.

in addition, the economic stimulus package contained $287 Billion in tax cuts.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Payroll-Tax-Cut-to-Boost-Take-Home-Pay-for-Most-Workers%3B-New-Withholding-Details-Now-Available-on-IRS.gov

lol, in 2010 republican regained control of the house, Democrats were running scared to do something to reach across the isle so congress passed the "Job Creation Act of 2010" better known as: The Bush tax cuts! Obama was completely against passing the bill demanding no tax cuts for "rich people" making more than $250K hitting 90% of small business owners hard... he reluctantly extended the Republican's Bush tax cuts extension.

As far as the $287 billion in tax cuts in the stimulus plan... What good does it do a blue collar worker like me who makes less than 60k combined income? They oppressively tax my income and oppressively tax me nearly every time I spend what's left and then they take that money and give some of it back? I never got a check ROFL!

You don't think anyone won? Yeah, you're being objective. Romney's a "hyper nut job" who "does not follow the rules", he bullies with meaningless "word salads" (us reasonable people call those "facts" but I understand after years of reading talking points how they could come off as confusing to you), is "rude", and "doesn't really care about you anyway". You shout out to a ridiculous video with an admittedly stupid statement that has been grossly taken out of context by a partisan media and YOU still have the temerity to tell people they should view this as a draw?! If you can't even see it for what it is, you are a lost and hopeless cause. But then, I'm the Conservative living in Minnesota so I can hardly go on about lost and hopeless causes ;)

Sharon, you must have seen a different debate than the rest of the world. 66% of people thought Romney won hands down. This is the first time since they started the poll in 1984 one person has gotten over 60% of the vote. People like you are the reason democrats get elected. No facts, no critical thinking, close minded, and living in a cloud.

I will say I don't mind being intelligent but it is frustrating reading posts like yours who have fooled themselves into believing they know what's best and will use any convoluted theory to try and prove that. Just a quick question for you; how much money has Obama donated, how much time has he donated to govt or non profits? If you are voting based on a person's willingness to help other people then Romney is your man. He has donated more money in one year than Obama has in his life; he has also worked for govt and non profits for no money for approx 8 years I believe. It is also a proven fact that Republicans across the country donate at almost a 2 to 1 level compared to Democrats. You see the fact is that liberals want to take other peoples money and help people to make themselves feel better. Republicans are willing to donate their own time and money and don't feel the govt should choose who it goes to. If you ever want to compare facts I will have fun destroying your arguements whenever I get a chance.( I actually do pay taxes so I do have to work)

Sharon, I think this thread is about the debate last night and not who knows whom better. You've made it abundantly clear where you stand and that gives the rest of us a right to comment on your judgement (and vice versa). If you want to believe it was a draw, no one is stopping you. You simply disagree with the vast, vast majority of the country today. Minnesota Conservatives, like me, are used to being disagreed with by the majority so you can certainly handle it, but at least try to be intellectually honest with your assessment. It's obvious you are a partisan hack who couldn't give the W (btw that means "win" not "George W. Bush") to Romney if Obama ran screaming and crying from the stage. But guess what, it doesn't matter! Winners / losers, come November we'll all get to decide who has failed America and who we think has the experience to fix this overwhelming mess Obama is creating for our country.

I take care of disabled, poor, elderly and children. I have continuly paid dollars to my "kids" biological ones or ones that have been left on their own by their parents. We help my mother in law and a few other people that are disabled. BUT guess what I DID IT voluntarily, not order or my money taken by the government. Oh and I am a REPUBLICAN. I did all of this without being told that I had to do it. It was just right. And THIS country DOES take care of it's disabled, and elderly poor and children. And then some, illegals immigrants, other country's poor, disabled, children, elderly, etc.

Translation: Chadwick has confronted Sharon with hard facts (that's the "looking for a fight bit") and doesn't want to concede that she has dominated him with her snarky, rude, talking-point riddled "arguments?"

Sharon. Go ask Sara or Bristol Palin or Michelle Malkin how "intelligent, and polite" you Liberals are! You live in a bubble, dear.

I have been attacked as cold, classless, stupid and ignorant, racist, homophobe and other crap all because I am a Republican. I have a bachelors degree, I have a mixed race child that I foster because his mom abandoned him for drugs and prostitution. I take care of kids (18 years old, college students, that parents have abandoned because they are 18 -- adults) we help them out financially..buy some groceries...feed them, have them over for holidays or just because. I have two gay cousins of both sexes...and I am proud of them. So take you righties attack the lefties crap somewhere else. Leftists, liberals, DFLers love to attack the righties.

Sharon, there is a difference between paying no federal income taxes and not paying into the system. When I first started my business (which is a side business, as I have worked full time the entire time and still do) I didn't pay federal income taxes on any business income because there was no profit but I sure paid into the system. I still had to pay for unemployment, ss and every other tax for my employees. I guess if you have no employees and you operate on negative cash flow every year so you don't have to pay yourself then it's possible you don't pay any taxes. Where are all your funds coming from to keep you going?

Well I'm sorry Sharon. I didn't realize we had to have the same opinion in order to post here. Well it's been nice while it lasted, you seemed like a decent, albeit cloistered person. Have a nice .... secluded .... life.

Josh respectful?? You Sharon and Susan...called the rest of us stupid and ignorant. We have differing opinions and yet the left side can't be respectful of others opinions because it differs from yours.

That 47% include a very large group of seniors on Social Security. Yes, they are dependent on government. Are they victims?

1. The projection you are referring to here, I believe, comes from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's specious projections which unfortunately (and rather conveniently) leave out the most critical component behind the tax reform in the first place - the economic growth it would stimulate. Studies such as this are generally used to asses minor tweaks and small changes to tax policy where the economic impact cannot even begin to be determined. In fact, it's been fairly thoroughly debunked owing to the fact that it completely ignores any economic growth which experts agree would almost necessarily occur as a result of reducing income tax rates and would shift these numbers radically. At the very least the TPC report is merely one among a series of contrary studies but certainly NOT accepted fact. The American Enterprise Institute has some good reading that might help clear up some of the myths from the Liberal talking points: http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

2. See point number one because it is sourced from the same report.

3. 23 million is the number who are unemployed, have stopped looking for work, or are "underemployed". It's stretching it a little to include underemployed but I think the point is, it really sucks and it's not getting better! <cont>

4. Witnesses testified the following before a House Ways and Means panel March 6: "The Independent Payment Advisory Board, created under the health care law to help control Medicare costs, lacks flexibility to do much more than cut provider payments that would lead to a reduction in access to care". http://www.bna.com/ipab-reduce-access-n12884908195/

“The only alternative, and the IPAB’s true end game, is harsher and more arbitrary price controls and eventually limits on the care patients are allowed to receive. The New England Journalists (of Medicine) deny this reality because ObamaCare has a clause that prohibits ‘rationing,’ even as the law leaves that term undefined. But reducing treatment options will be inevitable as government costs explode.” (Editorial, “Independent Payment Advisory Revolt,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/9/12)

5. I'll give you this one. It's definitely something that should get solved, but then as a market based solutions guy, I tend to think it isn't government's role to fix all our woes.

<cont>

Look, I'm all for keeping politicians honest but I'm pretty sure this entire "break out the fact checkers" bit we're seeing today is really just a planned response to what they knew would be an abysmal performance by the president. Fact checkers have been with us for decades but the degree to which they are suddenly being employed against a single candidate and with such weak results tells me they are nothing more then a tactic to continue running interference for Obama. This election is about a big choice - do we want government to call the shots or do we want us to call the shots. I tend to think private industry has better solutions and that appointing a series of "really smart people" to rule over us is a bad way to go but I guess we'll settle this one at the poles in November.

Yes Bob, thank you for copying and pasting the HuffPo talking points. They were truly enlightening and helped spread the word about that evil, evil Mr Romney. And welcome back Sharon, thank YOU for learning me on what money is. Us kinda simple Republican-folk are blessed to have someone like you to learn us somethin'

Tim, I saw Romney's lies posted on a lot of sites (and there are plenty more than the five I mentioned), but they are not cut and pasted from HuffPo. They didn't become tallking points until after they were pointed out by multiple media outlets.

The point I'm making is that there's a clear pattern with Republicans going back to Bush and Cheney (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?) to be vague, misleading and to state pure lies as if they were facts.

Paul Ryan picked up the mantle during his keynote address at the convention with a speech so full of lies that it was even ridiculed by Fox news. And Romney is continuing to play fast and loose with the facts.

If the Conservative Republican ideals they represent are clearly the better choice for the country, why can't Romney just lay out his vision without making sh*t up? His blatant disregard for the truth was summed up by his pollster who said, "“We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

It’s pretty hard to imagine a situation in which this extensive pattern of lying isn’t a relevant political issue.

A message board is a pretty awful place to change someone's mind but for the benefit of anyone watching who actually does have an open mind or isn't so bogged down in party rhetoric as to actually believe the other side to be the awful people Bob describes here; what he is claiming is simply not the truth. There have most certainly been lies told on both sides (and factually speaking, none moresoe than Obama) but more often than not what people are looking at are different predictions which include or exclude certain factors to come to their own conclusions. Look at the rebuttal points I made in my original response to Bob for a link showing a completely different viewpoint than what his talking points claimed. You can't go around calling everything a lie. I understand that's the tactic Obama and his surrogates are trying to use right now in order to desperately keep us from looking at his atrocious record, but try to cut through the distractions and consider that we have two individuals here, both of which have done a very good job representing their particular worldviews. Romney finally stepped up Wed night and did a terrific job presenting the alternative to a State run society. Mistakes were made by both sides (and will continue to be made) but try not to get too distracted by the posturing and the attempts to mischaracterize the other guy.

<cont>

Do you want a few elected bureacrats (Democrats call those "the smart people") to take the money, waste a ton of it, and then make a feeble attempt to redistribute it according to whatever the politicians decide will get them the most votes (that would be the Chicago . . . I mean Obama way)? Or are you more comfortable with Mitt Romney's way - that is free market solutions whereby innovators and private citizens (these are who Republicans believe are the "smart people") come up with solutions that succeed or fail (only impacting those who willingly committed their own resources) based on their merit and and not which politician's funding list you're on. Obviously these are idealized descriptions and the men themselves fall somewhere short of perfect adherence however these are the 2 world-views they represent and effectively what we are voting on.

btw WMD's - what do you think everyone is so concerned about popping up in Syria right now? Could it be that all that activity across the border filmed from satellites in the run up the the Iraq war was the transporting of the very WMDs everyone was so hot on? ( http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/ ) Who knows yet, but you are so quick to call the other guy a liar that you stop looking for the truth. It's a pretty common rhetorical trick that the Left employs so often that it's become a joke.

Debt is never good and should be avoided if at all possible. Theft is worse. The alterrnative is a surplus, not theft.

I agree, JAZ. I just checked in here after work and read the entire comment stream. It seems most of the personal insults and attacks are from one side (and only a few people), and trying to read people's opinions and ignore the stupid insults directed at other commenters is almost impossible.

Debate 101: Keep it about the topic, not about the person you are debating...didn't we learn this in grade school?

Thanks to those who actually gave us some facts and insight about the candidates' performances and what they had to say. Romney was the winner of the actual debate, but it seems the truth test is yet to be fully scored.

@Susan - thanks for your comments. The "one side" you mention (the libs) have long ago been forced to abandon most reasonable discussion and have only ad hominem attacks left.

Cute, Jeff, but I suggest you read the comments again if this is your conclusion.

I've not seen a lot of personal insults tossed around here. I've seen disagreement and a little snark but nothing truly insulting. Sharon basically called me dumb and closed-minded for being a Conservative but I've got a pretty thick skin and certainly don't take it personally. It all seems pretty civil compared to most boards.

I was going to copy and paste a few but decided it would only give them more importance. I started out on Patch this way and have learned that insulting people and using general sweeping statements about one group or side only works against you and your argument. Kudos to those who can stay on topic and resist the urge to insult or be condescending. You have learned how to persuade and offer true insight and information.

Tim, I didn't give a sermon. I made one comment agreeing with another comment. A couple people responded and so therefore I elaborated. This thread is not so bad, but there are one or two people who do ruin it for those who want to read through and participate. When you see others getting attacked for their opinions, it reduces the likelihood that someone else may express their opinion. I never said you were a name caller or doing this. I have been involved in a great, ongoing debate here with a few people that really have respected each other. It's been a rewarding experience, so yes I was a little disappointed when I thought I would check in on another thread about the debate. My apologies if I offended you.

Tim, I have found these Conservatives in the other debate I spoke of, their comments are always thoughtful and infomative, and I have learned a lot. I actually think you would find it interesting, and it seems you could make some important contributions, if you care to check it out. We've been going for more than a month. In fact, it got so long that we had to switch to a new thread because the first one got so long that the loading time became frustrating. No one is really allowed to make general sweeping statements (or talking points) because they are immediately called out (not in a negative way) by some very smart people. This particular debate has changed the way I view all the other exchanges on Patch. I really did not intend to be preachy, I just wanted to point out that people, who may be a little more timid, might be less inclined to participate and/or add an interesting point when they read others being personally attacked for their opinion.

In response to Tony...although I wonder why you have the obsessive need to know, as this blog is supposed to be about the debate, not personal attacks and questions:

"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it," Romney said.
-------

I would say that someone who has become a quadreplegic through no fault of his/her own, and who has owned a business, but is no longer able to operate that business, and who, without government help would die, would fit into this description....it is downright scary that Romney/Republicans villifies, and shows disdain, and calousness towards the disabled, and the poor...Republicans tend to hold up a poster child of a lazy, drug addicted, bum, as those who truly need and deserve to be helped......less than 2% of those needing government help are drug addicts...and even drug addicts are human beings, and deserve help and protection. I am voting for Obama, because Republicans have become too mean, and they lie too much...what has happened to the Republican party?

Tony, please go sit with Chadwick, and Tim....I think that you will enjoy your converstations more there...as you all "agree" with each other.

Susan, thankyou! We are all Americans, but if we allow polititians to focus on issues that divide us, we will loose. We must quit allowing the vilification of the poor, disabled, and elderly because they receive government help. I, like you, really want the facts....this is why the debate was such a disappointment to me.

Good points.

By the way, I would like to have all politicians that take taxpayer money for the salaries and benefits be forced to submit to drug testing every 6 months in order to continue getting their paychecks.

"Do we really want to test the elderly and disabled for drug use?" For WELFARE - YES! I am not talking about Medicare or social security benefits. Just welfare. I personally know of 4 people that are classified as "disabled" and collecting welfare benefits because they are "unable" to work. 2 of them work for cash so their benefits are not taken away. These are the people that I am talking about. As for your "only 9% are not disabled or elderly", this is false. By your statistics 91% are classified as disabled or elderly. It is too easy in this country to get a "disabled" note from the doctor!

"As of March, 195,760 households were receiving an average monthly food grant of $262.60"

This means just from the SNAP program (food stamps) there is $51,406,576 going out and by your 2% of fraud comment (which I can guarantee is low), there is $1,028,131.52 worth of FRAUD being doled out. Save over 1 MILLION DOLLARS on food stamps alone? I'M IN!!! Cut the wasted spending and force those that can to get a job!

Sorry for the "misquote" of 2%. Let's safely use 1% and call the fraud $500,000. I still want it back into the states hands! I am not wrong about getting the disabled note from the doctor! Remember, there are MANY forms of assistance in this state and we are speaking of 2 different ones. You clearly went back to SSDI and SSI (you stated that). Not sure of the "welfare queens" comment? $262.20 is the AVERAGE. You are quick to judge but guess what, some do live on that for a FOOD EXPENSE. It is an AVERAGE. Not all households are families. We are probably better off to agree to disagree. Thanks for the healthy banter!

Let me explain the SSDI fraud that was committed by my foster son's mother. She has been claiming that her son was disabled since his was 4. He was given a medication back then that exhibited signs of Tourettes and ODD. She was given a piece of paper that said he was disabled. She filed for SSDI for him and she took these payments up until he came under our care because she was arrested for crack use and prostitution. She gloated telling him that "we" were now receiving those SSDI payments and he didn't know that was how she was supporting the household. She was trying to paint us in a bad light..we don't not get his SSDI payments. Those were stopped upon him being placed in the county's system. He went off of it because he doesn't have ODD or Tourettes' just mild ADHD and he is employed, just graduated high school and is enrolled in college. She used the system that doesn't have an checks or balances. She is capable of working but chooses not to. She chooses to use the system, criminal courts, and homeless shelters because she refuses to work. She had SSDI (on her son), she had reduce rent housing (which was forfeited because of her drug use and prostitution charges -- she did that stuff in the townhome) and she had food stamps and medical assistance. For 13 years she abused the system, lied about her son to get the assistance. He went off of the SSDI once he became aware of it.

lol, yet they don't list those lies... I'm sure they counted him rounding the numbers on the debt, spending, or taxes to the nearest whole number as a "lie"... Both of those sites are no better than CNN, MSNBC, and the other liberal media outlets providing accurate information.

Who really lied is Obama:
-he promised to close Gitmo (it's still open)
-end the war in Afghanistan (he's escalated it)
-Keep unemployment below 8% with his trillion dollar surplus (it was above 8% nearly his entire term)
-bring down the debt (he doubled it)
-stop chroney capitalism and bailing out wallstreet... (he's forked over more tax dollars to GE, GM, Solendra, banks and other companies than any other president)
-he said he'd give the middle class tax cuts (we all pay more!)
-he promised to lower the price of gas (it's nearly double)
-he swore the middle east would be more peaceful (completely wrong)
-he was going to kick the lobbyists out of Washington (there's even more now)
-he said he'd reform healthcare, failing public schools, high college tuition (lie, lie, lie)

America has been completely let down by all of Obama's 2008 failed promises.... Other than our Navy Seals finding and killing Osama with Bush's advanced interrogation techniques in place... there's nothing he can brag about. Democrats should have been outraged he was the 2012 candidate for pres with such an utter failure his term has been.

Have some more kool-aid.

True dat! And, sadly, most will never know how true your statement is.

A couple of points.

1) Almost every incumbent President has lost the first debate since they have been televised, the only exception was Bill Clinton.

2) I remember in 2008 watching folks talk about how Obama lost debates to Hillary Clinton and how he lost debates to John McCain and yet he was the guy who took the oath of office at the end.

I don't know if he will be re-elected, but, so far there really isn't anything new.

I think that the next two debates will be telling however, one way or the other.