The 2012 Presidential Debates: Debate 2

[SV Fan]

The number one value the left is interested in is equality. I do not share their feeling.

8% difference can be covered by almost anything. Maybe the man making 8% more has more experience, is more versatile, is a better team player and therefore is more valuable to the team, doesn't take as much time off so is more reliable? Maybe she literally can't do the same job a man can. I worked warehousing for years an dwomen got paid the same wage I did, yet did NONE of the real hard work. Was that "equality"?

All these tings should be considered. Yet some think it should simply be equal pay no matter what. You work in the same job title as a man, you should make just as much.

I haven't looked into the issue much but I would love to see the stats how much pay per every normal hour WORKED. I am not sure if it is or isn't counted but guys are more likely to work overtime, do they factor in that when they comparing a male and female working the same job?

It's unfair say if both get the same hourly rate, but the male on average works 4 hours of OT at double the rate a week, to compare how much each makes over the coarse of a year, simple fact is if they have the same base rate then it's equal. As I said I am not sure if this is taken into account or not(although you think if it was the Republicans would point that out)

 

[bell110]

ON the Benghazi/Act of terror issue, IF Obama was referring to teh Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism during his rose garden speech on 9/12, then WHY did Rice, multiple other administration spokesmen and even Obama himself continue to say it was random violence errupting from protestors for 2 weeks. They intentionally REFUSED to use the word terrorism in regards to the attack, be in on Letterman, the View, and everywhere else for 14 days.

So you really expect me to believe that Obama's official stance was to come out on 9/12 and call Benghazi a terrorist attack, but then hide it and do everything in his power to place blame on a movie and credit the attack to protestors before going back to admitting it was terrorism 14 days later? You Obama sycophants really think that is correct?

Obama may have spoken the words act of terror in the rose garden, but he never explicitly said Benghazi was a terrorist attack until 2 weeks later. He clearly didn't want the link made because he knew the effect that would have on his foreign policy. He couldn't come out and say "yeah we just had a clear terrorist attack on a US embassy under my watch, but my foreign policy is awesome so don't worry about it". He refused to call it terrorism so he could maintain the illusion he knows what he is doing in the eyes of those who only mildly pay attention. Thos eof us who do pay attention knew he was a fool from the beginning.

1) It's not an issue of "IF". He actually did say it. 2) "Random violence" and "terrorist attack" are not exclusive. You can have radom violence be terroristic in nature. 3) Who cares if they didn't use the word "terrorism". You're putting way too much emphasis on that word.

Remember, there were also actual protests over this movie going on all over the middle east. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be alarmist and wait until you get all the fact before you commit to an offical position. I guess that is a distinction between Obama and Bush. Bush used the word "terrorism" for his advantage, to make the public terrified of the terrorists and keep them in his pocket.

I find it sad that when an ambassador dies, in stead of saying "this is a tragedy and we stand with America and it's President", they think, "How can we stick this to Obama".

And finally, Republicans really have no room to talk when it comes to terrorism and faulty intelligence.

 

[Fading]

Yeah. I still remember all the mushroom cloud stuff. I remember a South Park episode where Stan's mom was emotionless, laying in front of the TV listening to news about terrorists. All of the color coded alert scare tactics. "Today's magenta, don't go out unless you have to Ohio!". A lot of ppl started to believe they genuinely wouldn't be safe had Kerry been elected instead of Bush. I mean Kerry would have been a terrible president, but we wouldn't have been staring down a mushroom cloud if he had been elected like the inuendo suggested.

It's also case sensitive. If a stance enflames a situation making it worse, sometimes it's better to air on the side of caution, and wait until all facts are present before jumping towards a conclusion. Note though that I'm not saying that's the case here, I think Obama handled this situation poorly. Just as I think Romney politicizing it so early on was in poor taste.

 

[Nitehawk013]

1) It's not an issue of "IF". He actually did say it. 2) "Random violence" and "terrorist attack" are not exclusive. You can have radom violence be terroristic in nature. 3) Who cares if they didn't use the word "terrorism". You're putting way too much emphasis on that word.

Remember, there were also actual protests over this movie going on all over the middle east. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be alarmist and wait until you get all the fact before you commit to an offical position. I guess that is a distinction between Obama and Bush. Bush used the word "terrorism" for his advantage, to make the public terrified of the terrorists and keep them in his pocket.

I find it sad that when an ambassador dies, in stead of saying "this is a tragedy and we stand with America and it's President", they think, "How can we stick this to Obama".
And finally, Republicans really have no room to talk when it comes to terrorism and faulty intelligence.

You know, if Obama had come out immediately and made it very clear, instead of vague, that this attack in Benghazi was an utright terrorist attck on our embassy, and therefore our soil, and that it would not be tolerated. That we were treating it as an act of terror, not some justifiable reaction to a stupid movie, then I would have been far more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When a supposedly intelligent man cannot see that an attack on a US embassy, on the anniversary of 9/11, is an act of terrorism and should be met as such, but instead says "well...we want to get the facts together. We think this could be about a movie" that man no longer deserves my support. He has shown his hand: he thinks he is playing Go Fish during the World Series of Poker.

 

[bell110]

The number one value the left is interested in is equality. I do not share their feeling.

8% difference can be covered by almost anything. Maybe the man making 8% more has more experience, is more versatile, is a better team player and therefore is more valuable to the team, doesn't take as much time off so is more reliable? Maybe she literally can't do the same job a man can. I worked warehousing for years an dwomen got paid the same wage I did, yet did NONE of the real hard work. Was that "equality"?

All these tings should be considered. Yet some think it should simply be equal pay no matter what. You work in the same job title as a man, you should make just as much.

Exactly. It's really impossible to say what is really inequality just by how averages work.

Let's take a hypothetical factory where everybody on the floor does the same thing. You have five men and one woman who have been there 10 years making $20 p/h; two men and three woman for 5 years at $15; and three men and four women for 1 year at $11. The men would average $16.30 p/h while the women would average $13.63 p/h, yet everyone is making fair money based on how long they worked there. Should everyone in their first year on the job be making as much as someone who has been there 10 years?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You know, if Obama had come out immediately and made it very clear, instead of vague, that this attack in Benghazi was an utright terrorist attck on our embassy, and therefore our soil, and that it would not be tolerated. That we were treating it as an act of terror, not some justifiable reaction to a stupid movie, then I would have been far more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When a supposedly intelligent man cannot see that an attack on a US embassy, on the anniversary of 9/11, is an act of terrorism and should be met as such, but instead says "well...we want to get the facts together. We think this could be about a movie" that man no longer deserves my support. He has shown his hand: he thinks he is playing Go Fish during the World Series of Poker.

That's just world class idiocy at its finest. God forbid we get all our facts straight before we jump to conclusions and make rash decisions.

 

[bell110]

You know, if Obama had come out immediately and made it very clear, instead of vague, that this attack in Benghazi was an utright terrorist attck on our embassy, and therefore our soil, and that it would not be tolerated. That we were treating it as an act of terror, not some justifiable reaction to a stupid movie, then I would have been far more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

When a supposedly intelligent man cannot see that an attack on a US embassy, on the anniversary of 9/11, is an act of terrorism and should be met as such, but instead says "well...we want to get the facts together. We think this could be about a movie" that man no longer deserves my support. He has shown his hand: he thinks he is playing Go Fish during the World Series of Poker.

He did say it was a terrorist attack, He did say it would not be tolerated, and at no point did he say it was justifiable. It's the right's hatred of Obama that is blinding them to the facts. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get to the facts. Does Romney deserve your support by turning a tragedy into a political gotcha game? That's a lot worse than what Obama did.

Do you have a link that has Obama himself saying "the Benghazi attack was caused by the Youtube video"?

 

[SuperT]

I think the people that are crowing over his use of "Act of terror" vs. "terrorist act" are being absolutely beyond ridiculous.

It's the same damn thing! Sheesh!

 

[Nitehawk013]

Good grief. Everyone linked to Obama's adminsitration came out and said the attacks were in protest to the stupid video and not terrorist attacks.

You can't say "the right is just blind" when the left is ignoring the fact that everyone in Obama's world said it was about the video and wasn't an organized terrorist attack.

Does Romney "deserve" my support? I don't know that any of them deserve support. Romney is getting my support because I am sickened by the ideology of the current POTUS and his plans for this country are disgusting. Letist/liberalism is the worst -ism of all and this POTUS fully embraces it.

 

[bell110]

Good grief. Everyone linked to Obama's adminsitration came out and said the attacks were in protest to the stupid video and not terrorist attacks.

You can't say "the right is just blind" when the left is ignoring the fact that everyone in Obama's world said it was about the video and wasn't an organized terrorist attack.

Does Romney "deserve" my support? I don't know that any of them deserve support. Romney is getting my support because I am sickened by the ideology of the current POTUS and his plans for this country are disgusting. Letist/liberalism is the worst -ism of all and this POTUS fully embraces it.

So Obama didn't actually say "the Benghazi attacks were caused by a Youtube video" just like he didn't literally say "Benghazi was a terrorist attack". Why is one non-quote more indicative of what Obama thinks than the other?

Again, it's not either it was in response to a Youtube video or a terrorist attack. You're arguing motive versus action.

I have not seen anything that leads me to believe Obama tried to cover something up. I've only heard pundits tell me he did, and exclusively from Fox. It just seems like the right is trying desperately to stick something to Obama, and when I see their top guy right now, Romney, say something blatently untrue about the matter, and now people scrabbling to reenforce what he said, I'm even more convinced that they are completely wrong.

 

[chaseter]

I believe Jay Carney said it was the video.

 

[bell110]

I believe Jay Carney said it was the video.

Ok, but did he say it wasn't a terrorist attack?

 

[chaseter]

Ok, but did he say it wasn't a terrorist attack?

Who?

 

[Pink Ranger]

I think the people that are crowing over his use of "Act of terror" vs. "terrorist act" are being absolutely beyond ridiculous.

It's the same damn thing! Sheesh!

No it ain't: unnecessary use of prepositions is a clear sign of being a secretly gay baby-killing communist Muslim.

 

[bell110]

Who?

Obama or Carney. I thought what you posted was in regard to what me and Nighthawk were talking about.

 

[chaseter]

Obama or Carney. I thought what you posted was in regard to what me and Nighthawk were talking about.

Obama said terror the day after then said video on Letterman and at the UN then back to terror. Carney said it was a video then a terror attack.

For whatever reason, I think Obama knew it was a terror attack like everyone in the world but they then tried to cover it up by blaming the video.

It's all really not that big of an issue. Romney messed up in how he approached that attack last night and got beat down for it.

 

[samsnee]

Obama said it was an act of terror on 9/12. Romney's assertion, based on his own words last night, was that Obama did not. If Romney had said Obama didn't say it was "terrorist act", then I could see more wiggle room for interpretation. But because Obama said "act of terror" and Romney accused of him not saying it, then objectively, Romney was wrong.

Now, if Romney meant to make the charge that they were blaming it solely on the youtube video, then he should have made that more clear. Actually, Candy's follow-up comment after clarifying Romney on the transcript did do that for him, but he didn't pick up on that.

I believe that the administration did believe it was an "act of terror" but wasn't sure if it was pre-planned attack like 9/11, which is why they didn't want to say it was a "terrorist act" until they knew the complete facts. Granted I haven't seen every video out there, but I do recall ones where the White House press room asks Carney if the cause was the video and he wouldn't confirm or deny either way.

 

[Mad Ones]

I haven't looked into the issue much but I would love to see the stats how much pay per every normal hour WORKED. I am not sure if it is or isn't counted but guys are more likely to work overtime, do they factor in that when they comparing a male and female working the same job?

It's unfair say if both get the same hourly rate, but the male on average works 4 hours of OT at double the rate a week, to compare how much each makes over the coarse of a year, simple fact is if they have the same base rate then it's equal. As I said I am not sure if this is taken into account or not(although you think if it was the Republicans would point that out)

You clearly don't understand the issue so I woundnt comment on it. But way to imply that women are lazy and unwilling to work. Yeah, the "double shift" and the fact that women are punished for their reproduction has nothing to do with inequality in pay...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Didnt see the "debate". But this sounds interesting:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/e...fb4e494-17fa-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Whats the deal? Honestly actual debates would be miles better than whatever you call what they do now.

 

[Destructus86]

Why is equality even an issue worth bringing up when there are MUCH much larger topics to bring up?

The more I listen to Obama talk...the more am thinking that perhaps the only reason he became president to begin with was because everyone wanted Bush out.

 

[Mad Ones]

Maybe it's because inequality, whether social or economic, have wide ranging and concrete effects on the lives of individuals ever day. Why isn't inequality important?

 

[Destructus86]

Maybe it's because inequality, whether social or economic, have wide ranging and concrete effects on the lives of individuals ever day. Why isn't inequality important?

Never said it wasn't. But there are much more devestating issues currently. How about a crumbling school system? An over-spending government (largely in part thanks to the Obama admin)? Mass poverty? Lack of healthcare for eldery over 70? Outsourcing (which is still an issue despite what some think) and continued jobless rate?

Inquality is a lot like racism...we claim it's been handled...but it still exists. If we STILL haven't fixed racism despite all the things put in place to prevent it...then get ready for an equally difficult fight for womens equality.

I'm saying, yes...handle that situation...but it's no where near the biggest issue.

 

[SuperT]

Why is equality even an issue worth bringing up when there are MUCH much larger topics to bring up?

Ugh this really fires me up when people talk lie this. Because it's inequality, and inequality shouldn't exist in any form in this type of society.

It's like back in the 60's when people told African-Americans to worry about something else, that there were more pressing issues. Same thing for womens suffrage then and now.

Gay rights may not be a big issue to you, but it most certainly is a gigantic issue for me and my boyfriend, as an example.

 

[Destructus86]

Ugh this really fires me up when people talk lie this. Because it's inequality, and inequality shouldn't exist in any form in this type of society.

It's like back in the 60's when people told African-Americans to worry about something else, that there were more pressing issues. Same thing for womens suffrage then and now, and now for gay rights.

It's a big issues because it shouldn't be an issue at all.

And we are STILL trying to solve racism even now.

 

[SuperT]

We haven't solved racism because people have the same view as you - there are more important issues. Nobody wants to talk about it, or refuses to talk about it because they don't want too or don't think we should.

They're wrong.