If Romney lied during the debate, how come Obama didn't catch him?

[Stephanie]

Yeah something was up with Obama, he's not used to being Challenged...Look how he treated Hillary in their debates. Yet you people elected him

 

[xsited1]

If Romney lied during the debate, how come Obama didn't catch him?

Obama didn't have his teleprompter. Do you really expect him to think without it?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached.

No.

 

[Sallow]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

Obama did catch it. And he did call Mitt on them. Mitt used the "I'm rubber your glue" defense and even wound up calling him "boy".

Most of the media thought that was "effective", initially..but it's beginning to sink in the depth of Mitt's lying.

Or "evolving" as the rubber/glue folks are now adopting..

 

[Inthemiddle]

A lot of people are asking that same question and don't have an answer. The President was given a lot of opportunities that he didn't take.

I actually have a hypothesis. I think that Obama might be taking a deliberate strategy with all of this. He may have wanted to set a line for how forward he wanted to be, and stick to a reserved image to kick the debates off. Like he's trying to set himself up to look like the bigger person in the long run, and also set Romney up to hang himself with too many "creative truths." If these two go into the final debate, and Obama is able to severely attack Romney on a great many creative truths, but Romney has relatively few with which to hit Obama, then it could work very well in Obama's favor.

Meantime, it's not that difficult to come back the next day after a debate and start firing again. But at least he'll maintain that kind of dignified image that people are looking for in a President. I don't know, that all could be completely wrong. But it's one possible answer.

 

[driveby]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

Obama did catch it. And he did call Mitt on them. Mitt used the "I'm rubber your glue" defense and even wound up calling him "boy".

Most of the media thought that was "effective", initially..but it's beginning to sink in the depth of Mitt's lying.

Or "evolving" as the rubber/glue folks are now adopting..

You guys are slipping waiting until page 2 to play the race card.....

 

[squeeze berry]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

he was waiting for his factcheckers to make things up.

Factcheckers"
truthmatters
Lakota
rdean
franco
lugnut
lilolddouchebag
and a host of others

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

The debate was 4 days ago. If it took you 4 days to come up with this crackpot spin,

doesn't that make you a dimwit?

 

[Sallow]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

Obama did catch it. And he did call Mitt on them. Mitt used the "I'm rubber your glue" defense and even wound up calling him "boy".

Most of the media thought that was "effective", initially..but it's beginning to sink in the depth of Mitt's lying.

Or "evolving" as the rubber/glue folks are now adopting..

You guys are slipping waiting until page 2 to play the race card.....

Sorry?

That's exactly what happened.

Obama pointed out that Romney was reversing course on his "tax cut" and Romney told a story about his "boys" lying over and over again.

Just what do you think that meant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In order to make this insane argument,

the OP has had to acknowledge that Romney repeatedly lied. Is everyone here willing to accept his premise,

that the Republican candidate for President lies, over and over and over and over again?

 

[Stephanie]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

Obama did catch it. And he did call Mitt on them. Mitt used the "I'm rubber your glue" defense and even wound up calling him "boy".

Most of the media thought that was "effective", initially..but it's beginning to sink in the depth of Mitt's lying.

Or "evolving" as the rubber/glue folks are now adopting..

sallow, please don't insult us with this made up bull..You are better than that

 

[Seawytch]

A lot of people are asking that same question and don't have an answer. The President was given a lot of opportunities that he didn't take.

I actually have a hypothesis. I think that Obama might be taking a deliberate strategy with all of this. He may have wanted to set a line for how forward he wanted to be, and stick to a reserved image to kick the debates off. Like he's trying to set himself up to look like the bigger person in the long run, and also set Romney up to hang himself with too many "creative truths." If these two go into the final debate, and Obama is able to severely attack Romney on a great many creative truths, but Romney has relatively few with which to hit Obama, then it could work very well in Obama's favor.

Meantime, it's not that difficult to come back the next day after a debate and start firing again. But at least he'll maintain that kind of dignified image that people are looking for in a President. I don't know, that all could be completely wrong. But it's one possible answer.

You're not the first person I've heard say that. I do know that the President has two favorite games...basketball and poker.

 

[Sallow]

I have read more than a few comments from Obama supporters who claimed that Romney won the debate only because he told a bunch of lies. But if that's true, then all it proves is that Obama is a tad dimwitted and detached. Look, guys and gals, if the lies were so obvious that everyone else could see it, how is it that Barack Obama, purportedly the most intelligent president in history, failed to grasp it? Was he still on that old college high? Was his brain still on the golf course?

An alert and intelligent person would have seen each lie and would have responded to it, but apparently everything went way over Obama's head. Actually, it's kinda scary. I mean, if Romney can lie and Obama doesn't realize it, how can the big O be trusted to engage in international relations. If Romney can con Obama, then so can the leaders of other countries.

What Obama's defenders do not realize is that by calling Romney a liar, they inadvertently accused their cherished leader of being clueless and out of touch.

Every political candidate lies, and Obama is certainly no exception. Therefore, given a choice between two liars, I would select the man who was at least smart enough to know when the other fella wasn't telling the truth.

Obama did catch it. And he did call Mitt on them. Mitt used the "I'm rubber your glue" defense and even wound up calling him "boy".

Most of the media thought that was "effective", initially..but it's beginning to sink in the depth of Mitt's lying.

Or "evolving" as the rubber/glue folks are now adopting..

sallow, please don't insult us with this made up bull..You are better than that

I'll help ya out here Steph..

OBAMA: And that's why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit or -- or -- or not adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.
Now, that's not my analysis. That's the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And -- and that kind of top -- top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well, so the average person making $3 million is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further, that's not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.
21:16:37: LEHRER: All right. What is the difference? Let's just stay on taxes.
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: Just -- let's just stay on taxes for (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: What is the difference...
21:16:42: ROMNEY: Well, but -- but virtually -- virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.
21:16:43: LEHRER: All right.
21:16:44: ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.
Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it.

Transcript of Wednesday's presidential debate - CNN.com

 

[driveby]

That would be a reach even for Sharpton or Farrakhan....

 

[Stephanie]

Obama did catch it. And he did call Mitt on them. Mitt used the "I'm rubber your glue" defense and even wound up calling him "boy".

Most of the media thought that was "effective", initially..but it's beginning to sink in the depth of Mitt's lying.

Or "evolving" as the rubber/glue folks are now adopting..

sallow, please don't insult us with this made up bull..You are better than that

I'll help ya out here Steph..

OBAMA: And that's why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit or -- or -- or not adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.
Now, that's not my analysis. That's the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And -- and that kind of top -- top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well, so the average person making $3 million is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further, that's not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.
21:16:37: LEHRER: All right. What is the difference? Let's just stay on taxes.
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: Just -- let's just stay on taxes for (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: What is the difference...
21:16:42: ROMNEY: Well, but -- but virtually -- virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.
21:16:43: LEHRER: All right.
21:16:44: ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.
Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it.

Transcript of Wednesday's presidential debate - CNN.com

you really are Reaching with that one, my gawd stop it...Just like you people blamed Palins speaking on the Giffords shooting..You people have no shame politics is SO important to you have to make shit up

 

[Caroljo]

Because Romney talked about his "boys" that meant he was calling Obama a boy???
That's a pretty far stretch there!!! Lol!

 

[Sallow]

sallow, please don't insult us with this made up bull..You are better than that

I'll help ya out here Steph..

OBAMA: And that's why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit or -- or -- or not adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.
Now, that's not my analysis. That's the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And -- and that kind of top -- top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well, so the average person making $3 million is getting a $250,000 tax break, while middle-class families are burdened further, that's not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.
21:16:37: LEHRER: All right. What is the difference? Let's just stay on taxes.
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: Just -- let's just stay on taxes for (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: What is the difference...
21:16:42: ROMNEY: Well, but -- but virtually -- virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.
21:16:43: LEHRER: All right.
21:16:44: ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.
Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it.

Transcript of Wednesday's presidential debate - CNN.com

you really are Reaching with that one, my gawd stop it...Just like you people blamed Palins speaking on the Giffords shooting..You people have no shame politics is SO important to you have to make shit up

Not "reaching" at all.

This was a well rehearsed..and throroughly vetted line.

And this is what is meant by code talking. You embed racial stereotypes within a innocuous message.

Romney called Obama a "lying boy".

It's not "cute" or "clever" anymore.

It's disgusting.

 

[Sallow]

Because Romney talked about his "boys" that meant he was calling Obama a boy???
That's a pretty far stretch there!!! Lol!

Yeah..that's exactly what happened.

He could have said something like:

"I've been in business for many years, and I've dealt with many people who try to leverage what they are selling me by misrepresenting their products. And it doesn't help that they repeat that same message."

That's not what he said..

He basically said "Boy..you are lying.." or "Son..you are lying.."

Your pick.

 

[Stephanie]

I'll help ya out here Steph..




Transcript of Wednesday's presidential debate - CNN.com

you really are Reaching with that one, my gawd stop it...Just like you people blamed Palins speaking on the Giffords shooting..You people have no shame politics is SO important to you have to make shit up

Not "reaching" at all.

This was a well rehearsed..and throroughly vetted line.

And this is what is meant by code talking. You embed racial stereotypes within a innocuous message.

Romney called Obama a "lying boy".

It's not "cute" or "clever" anymore.

It's disgusting.

ok you are going to stick with that..if it was true it would of been all over the news, but hey if you need this to feel better, have at it...too stupid to argue with..Just like you and the Palin thing...way sorry sallow, way sorry

 

[Sallow]

you really are Reaching with that one, my gawd stop it...Just like you people blamed Palins speaking on the Giffords shooting..You people have no shame politics is SO important to you have to make shit up

Not "reaching" at all.

This was a well rehearsed..and throroughly vetted line.

And this is what is meant by code talking. You embed racial stereotypes within a innocuous message.

Romney called Obama a "lying boy".

It's not "cute" or "clever" anymore.

It's disgusting.

ok you are going to stick with that..if it was true it would of been all over the news, but hey if you need this to feel better, have at it...too stupid to argue with..Just like you and the Palin thing...way sorry sallow, way sorry

Romney's lies were fast and furious.

There was alot to unpack.

When I first heard that line..I knew exactly what it meant..so did a "few" in the media.

Give it time.